Siege Allying

In all honesty--and people might get pissed but little do I care--I don't see the point why guild allying even exists. It's a child's play. I'm not a good sieger, truth be told, but I sieged sometimes, and I really don't see the point. Bullying other guild? Come on. And siege is like every 2 hours. Your 'crown' is only worth for 2 hours. Why risk it all for that little amount of time? I mean, I can understand if siege here is like once a day. Players will do anything just for the crown. But 2 hours, come on guys. We're better than that.

And I think guild allying is somewhat a violation. As stated on new rule number 8 or 9 I think, point fixing is prohibited. I mean, this is not actually feeding or making deals with another player for x amount of points in exchange for x amount of bla bla bla, but this is like the big picture. This is an all-out point fixing. Because you are making a deal with other guild to go up against another guild, which is like saying that "we will kill them for x amount of times then after that we'll deal with each other". Something like that. I really believe that guild allying should be a serious offense. I'm even surprised that it is not ban-able, to be honest.

I don't see your point about the question for the staff though. Do you mean that Mazey and staffs prioritize a single donor and disregarding the potential donors? I don't think Mazey works that way though. I know that you didn't actually said that they prioritize a single donor in lieu of potential donors, but reading between the lines, I assumed that you know some cases regarding that scenario or else you will not bring that up considering that it is not related to your suggestion at all. But before you say such things, be sure to get your facts straight because this is a business and 1 word can destroy it if others believe. I hope you get what I mean. And I really think that your questions is somewhat irrelevant to this suggestion. I could be wrong though.

But nonetheless, I'm with you here. I'm also against guild bullying(though I never experienced or actually saw one yet) and I think it should have a serious sanction.

This is a very tough subject. I agree with Shai. You can not put a blame on 1 donor, that's right there being a bully and hateful. This Guild Alliance goes far beyond just one donor, but entire guild members who took apart of the guild siege in the form of Guild Siege Alliance. I am talking about 10 players in GS taking part in an GS Alliance.

I have played in GS before, in different private servers. Lot of players do get the mix up of tag-teaming with Guild Siege Alliance. There is no rules states that two people from two different guilds are able to go after the same target. It is about the Race of Getting the Points. It is like 2 vs 1, the one who gets last shot gets the point not the one who first started the 1 vs 1. In battle, there is no 1 vs 1. You can not win an All Out War in the 1 vs 1 mode, there is no such thing as that. It is ALL OUT WAR that puts everyone against everyone. It is you vs 24 other players (5 team GS)

Acacia wrote:So if point fixing is bannable, why isn't allying in siege?

The entire purpose to this suggestion or whatever you decide to call it, is to take charge in enforcing the rules and actually banning and punishing the people who violate the rules instead of just standing around and not doing anything at all. If nothings being done, it shows us that we can basically walk over all the rules and nothing will happen.

The punishment of point fixing is actually a ban, but the duration of the ban is maximum 3 days, I believe. Maybe you saw those people online whom were banned for violating the game rules in the Guild Siege AFTER their ban punishments were over?

And yes, I think allying is also not allowed. Should be a topic somewhere about how to report teaming in GS.

Tell me if I misunderstood what you wrote, Acacia.

Dang look how much player is commenting on this , and look at my topices its empty hmmm . . . So we're talking not beatting siege in guild siege why not use Remove 35% Debuff

Acacia wrote:As we all know ( well those of us who do siege ) people do ally with their friends and at the end of sieges they are left. Knights maybe there at times as well, but what's really annoying is when they still ally against knights then 1v1 at end. That is basically point fixing, you're allied with someone to retrieve points and they retrieve points as well. So if point fixing is bannable, why isn't allying in siege?

Another point to look at in this suggestion is for the staff. I have a question for the community, for the staff, Mazey himself. What's 1 donor, compared to maybe 10 who would become donor if drama by thus donor wasn't being made? It's either that 1 donor, or the community. Your choice.

The entire purpose to this suggestion or whatever you decide to call it, is to take charge in enforcing the rules and actually banning and punishing the people who violate the rules instead of just standing around and not doing anything at all. If nothings being done, it shows us that we can basically walk over all the rules and nothing will happen. I've observed from past sieges, people who ally 'til the end, do end up with crown or mvp and some times both, and it's really annoying when people do ally.
.

I'd like to point out that you're being hypocritical on your first point where you mention how people ally against knights and then 1v1 at the end. I've witnessed you do that a few times, so you personally don't have the right to be bothered by that when you did it yourself. Do you not think it's frustrating for people who witness you do that?

Secondly, I don't know where you want to go exactly with banning people because they ally in siege and what not.   Unless they're at the end, people don't make it blatantly obvious that their teaming. Many people individual ally with each other and they don't make it till the end. Does this mean that they should be banned for allying? I highly doubt it. In this perspective, it's unfair to ban people who last til the end compared to people who don't.

Also, could you elaborate on your point with the 1 donor compared to the community thing? I don't understand what your point is and how it relates back to teaming.
Thanks.

Walnut wrote:

I'd like to point out that you're being hypocritical on your first point where you mention how people ally against knights and then 1v1 at the end. I've witnessed you do that a few times, so you personally don't have the right to be bothered by that when you did it yourself. Do you not think it's frustrating for people who witness you do that?

Thanks.

You have a point! The salt is real.

Wait i didnt read the topic but is she crying about knights that should be not in siege ?

No, Read the topic...

Acica,

You can not put a blame on an individual, just because you did not like the outcome of a guild war. With that, it seems that you want to have the control of points that are earned within the Guild War. Also another thing, there are not many players who are playing in the Guild Wars are coming here to make a statement about this topic. If it is serious as you are claiming it to be, then it would have tons of supporting comments.