Quark Games forums

Another negative you could have as lart of the "Sister" diplomacy option is to force all sisters to share the same exact guild name. Thats a big negative because lots of people are strangely attached to their names and dont want to give them up.

By making a shared name, forums, announcement, profile(?) requirements you would cut down on poser sisters

My bad on 319 i guess. I didnt jump in time. Guess I heard about it too late

As for the cut off point, dont have one. We are talking "Legacy" here. We dont need a cut off. I also dont agree that there would be an imbalance as superconglomerates will form regardless of the win conditions. That seems to be SOP for lots of guilds. Join up with a sort-of-enemy, clear the world of all opposition, then face off at the end of the world. You wont and probably cant stop that with any form of win conditions.

As I said, creating a cut off for how many guilds can win a world completely destroys the diplomacy. You cant bluff when everyone knows the rules of the game. Diplomacy was a. Huge part of Legacy and anything that limits or makes worthless the use of diplomacy shouldnt be implemented or encouraged

You guys need to shake clear those TBS cobwebs. Win conditions dont have to be last x guilds standing. The world should end when the fighting is over, when there isnt any opposition left.

Like I said, create a new "sister" option to diplomacy. Dont limit the amount of people who can be part of said sisterhood because you then are limiting the amount of friends you can play with as well as making diplomacy useless. Make a negative to sisterhood, like making the forums shared among all the sisters, so there is no privacy (because sisters shouldnt really be hiding things from each other). Shared chat. That way people cant sister to win a world without disclosing things they may not want to disclose. It would make sisterhood not so desirable.

Win conditions are from TBS. While I am not opposed to win conditions for legacy, they cannot interfere with the spirit of legacy, ie, massive engagements, meaningful diplomacy, making unlimited friends and "family." Accomplish that with win conditions, and Im with you 100%. Make diplomacy useless or somehow neuter what Legacy was...and I'll ask you.not to call it legacy...perhaps "Not TBS."

Aethlstan wrote:319 filled up in less than a week. It filled past capacity....i dont see where the issue is. Firefly, you remember how quickly 60ks filled up...they were closed to new people by the end of the first week. 60ks are what a lot of people loved about this game. Winning a 60k was bragging rights everyone wanted to have.

Actually, it took over a week for 319 to fill and it cutoff at approximately 18.5k, due to the map issue. I think the current legacy world is the third. 319 was hyped a lot, and the fill rate lagged substantially behind pre-100 rates. I had the exact figures somewhere comparing W95 fill rate to W319, but I can't remember where I stashed it. IIRC, W95 had approximately 1.5 times the fill rate of W319 and W100 was 3-4 times as fast. That's where I came up with the 4-6 week estimate to fill a 60k right now.

Aethlstan wrote:Firefly, as for your fear of massive groups of mediocre players, any good collection of 4-6 guilds can take on 10-15 mediocre guilds no problem. I have heard stories of W26, which I know you were in, where LOP/BOA (mediocre super conglomerate) got pretty chewed up before a bunch of people on the opposing team had to leave due to unexpected issues in real life. Hell, apparently LOP/BOA was eating their active sisters left and right. Thats usually the cycle with those mediocre guilds. Theyre just used by the main 2-3 guilds as cannon fodder to be eaten for more cities when necessary. Like having your own private buffet line.

I mean, come on...mediocre superconglomerates rarely won in the old days why would they win today?

I'm not saying they're not beatable, but I just think its a better fight. The 1k and 5k worlds are fine with last guild standing, as the worlds are small. Allowing coalitions would imbalance them and discourage new players from playing (most of the better guilds are invite only at this point and not inviting newbies). Last three guilds standing is a good win condition for the larger worlds and allows for coalitions.

What would be your suggested cutoff point?

319 filled up in less than a week. It filled past capacity....i dont see where the issue is. Firefly, you remember how quickly 60ks filled up...they were closed to new people by the end of the first week. 60ks are what a lot of people loved about this game. Winning a 60k was bragging rights everyone wanted to have.

As for any "excuses" I'm making, I see none. STFU, im not even going to grace that garbage with a rebuttal.


Firefly, as for your fear of massive groups of mediocre players, any good collection of 4-6 guilds can take on 10-15 mediocre guilds no problem. I have heard stories of W26, which I know you were in, where LOP/BOA (mediocre super conglomerate) got pretty chewed up before a bunch of people on the opposing team had to leave due to unexpected issues in real life. Hell, apparently LOP/BOA was eating their active sisters left and right. Thats usually the cycle with those mediocre guilds. Theyre just used by the main 2-3 guilds as cannon fodder to be eaten for more cities when necessary. Like having your own private buffet line.

In an android world im in, we are tearing apart a superconglomerate. We are only 2 guilds taking on what used to be around 10, a few of which have gone inactive rather than fight a losing battle.


I remember having 6-10 really active guilds in old legacy and winning worlds, not due to size, but due to skill, dedication and awesome teamwork. As your valor family grows you get larger, so you jump in with more guilds and meet new people to add to your family that requires more guilds. That was one of my favorite parts of Valor. Winning with a great team that was with each other through fire and brimstone till the end. Then jumping into the next world and doing it again. Limiting the number of guilds that can win destroys the ability to have such camaraderie.


Either way, id like to reiterate that mediocre super conglomerates (15ish guilds) are not that hard to take out. Theyre mediocre for a reason. If you have a group of 4-6 great guilds you can eat a mediocre guild a day. The main thing they got going for them is intimidation and numbers. Their attacks suck, their defense isnt the greatest, communication and teamwork is shoddy, etc, otherwise they wouldnt be mediocre. Newer guilds ends to bow and grovel to them because they usually are super agressive and they dont have the spine to pick a fight with them right away. Experienced guilds have seen it all before and taking them out is an old hat.

I mean, come on...mediocre superconglomerates rarely won in the old days why would they win today?

KingEvo wrote:well i still think that having only 3 guilds win in legacy 1 is still pretty tough. that is 150 players out of what 20k players?

tired of hearing excuses as to why people cant win worlds. just get in the game and play to win.

Couldn't agree with you more Evo

well i still think that having only 3 guilds win in legacy 1 is still pretty tough. that is 150 players out of what 20k players?

tired of hearing excuses as to why people cant win worlds. just get in the game and play to win.

Aethlstan wrote:Firefly, Im 90% sure you agree with me on the diplo issue. I know you were a top notch diplomat in the old days

Who says I'm not still a top notch diplomat? LOL

As far as world size goes, I don't see the 60k worlds coming back, as they would take way too long to fill (I'd say 4-6 weeks at this point). And remember, around the high 80's, worlds got smaller. W95 was a 30k, for instance.

I'm torn on letting coalitions win worlds. On one hand, its nice not to have to turn on an ally, but on the other, huge coalitions encourage mediocre guilds to form packs. I'm cool with fighting 5-6 mediocre guilds with one good guild, but having to take on 10-15 mediocre guilds isn't my idea of fun.

Firefly, Im 90% sure you agree with me on the diplo issue. I know you were a top notch diplomat in the old days

You guys do realize that this isnt even a legacy world...its a freaking android world. With a bit of lace to make it seem fancier.

60k is legacy. Legacy "blank" means a return to what was before Like legacy NFL uniforms....These new "legacy" worlds look nothing like the originals...therefore they arent legacy.

Id be willing to concede on the win conditions...I guess thats fine. But increase the population. Create a new "sister" option to diplomacy and allow conglomerates to win worlds. Diplomacy was an important part of legacy and when the game creators make diplomacy useless because everyone knows it wont last...thats stupid. I want the old game back and that includes the old way of diplomacy.

When only one 50 man guild can win that defeats the purpose of close allies...every other guild besides your own is a potential enemy and therefore must be treated as such.

Therefore, alliances today are what NAPs used to be, and NAPs are today what used to be a temporary cease fire in the old days.

I agreed fire fall. We shall see after all that talk going around who's the best in legacy 1. No excuses guys let the best guilds wins