They could make the guild fortress have vendors that offer the same goods as other vendors 10% - 20% off.
I don't think fighting over the guild fortress would be a good idea. It would kind of ruin the voting system if a guild could lose the vanarch position over a GvG fight, since that would probably happen much more often than every three weeks. They could always do a tournament kind of thing where any guild with an adequate number of max level characters could compete, in a series of matches with limited numbers of players (5-10) and the guild that wins the tourney then faces the guild who currently has the vanarch position. If your guild wins your guild gets some sort of benefit from having defeated the ruling guild.
They could even do the tournament thing instead of voting, so that the winning guild becomes the vanarchy guild, but if the incumbent guild wins it goes to a vote like normal.
The vanarchy guilds could also host challenges. A guild could take a shot at them in a GvG arena sort of thing, if the challenging guild wins, they get certain benefits, or just a heap of gold from the vanarchy guild, and if they lose, that guild is unable to run for vanarch or some other penalty.
I'm sure there are a lot of cool things they could do with the system, its just up to the imagination to figure them out.
I like Arrei's idea of fortresses that could be captured by guilds for benefits, I think they need to give them a timer though on how often they can be captured. Imagine them changing hands every 30 minutes or so, it would be kind of ridiculous. They should be on at least a 12 hour timer to be captured again. So every 12 hours they reset to being open for capture by any guild that wants to take it, the problem here is designing an actual system to determine who would win it. Is it going to be a tourney, a straight up GvG death match where the last man standing wins it, or the guild leaders have to compete for it? That will be the challenge I think.
I don't think fighting over the guild fortress would be a good idea. It would kind of ruin the voting system if a guild could lose the vanarch position over a GvG fight, since that would probably happen much more often than every three weeks. They could always do a tournament kind of thing where any guild with an adequate number of max level characters could compete, in a series of matches with limited numbers of players (5-10) and the guild that wins the tourney then faces the guild who currently has the vanarch position. If your guild wins your guild gets some sort of benefit from having defeated the ruling guild.
They could even do the tournament thing instead of voting, so that the winning guild becomes the vanarchy guild, but if the incumbent guild wins it goes to a vote like normal.
The vanarchy guilds could also host challenges. A guild could take a shot at them in a GvG arena sort of thing, if the challenging guild wins, they get certain benefits, or just a heap of gold from the vanarchy guild, and if they lose, that guild is unable to run for vanarch or some other penalty.
I'm sure there are a lot of cool things they could do with the system, its just up to the imagination to figure them out.
I like Arrei's idea of fortresses that could be captured by guilds for benefits, I think they need to give them a timer though on how often they can be captured. Imagine them changing hands every 30 minutes or so, it would be kind of ridiculous. They should be on at least a 12 hour timer to be captured again. So every 12 hours they reset to being open for capture by any guild that wants to take it, the problem here is designing an actual system to determine who would win it. Is it going to be a tourney, a straight up GvG death match where the last man standing wins it, or the guild leaders have to compete for it? That will be the challenge I think.
Edited by: JesterXL7
about 1 year ago