Our Purpose and Future of Wynn

Our Purpose and Future of Wynn
To the Administration team of WynnCraft -
As thoughtful as your path to equality is, we at Ordo Malleus have realized the major problems with this system and have come up with a different path that the server should take. We fully understand the situation and your idealistic views; however, the face of reality is that idealism is far from what we need. We must tell you however, that you have not thought far enough, both in the long term and short term effects of this system. Yes, there are many people in the Wynn community who dislike how all the alliances have been doing things. The reason these alliances haven't tried to manually distribute territories themselves is because throughout guild history there have always been one or more guilds who keep a stranglehold, and no matter how big or small of an FFA area you propose, there will still be new alliances made to do so.


You are idealists; we’re not. We're rationalists and/or philosophists at the core, who like to apply common sense and have an understanding of reality to our perspectives. We do not appreciate bias and this doesn’t mean wanting to benefit our own alliance.


The common notion of an ideal world is one where everyone has equal power. Many people brand that as equality, but full equality is not any good. The equality we have in the real world is beneficial for everybody: everyone living in the same, civilized areas has the same opportunity. Equal opportunity, not equal power, and that is why opportunity is more important than just equality in general. Equality contradicts opportunity very much, for if everyone is to be assigned things to make everything equal, there is no opportunity for anyone to prove his or her worth So why is opportunity more important? It gives life, hope, purpose, and all the things that we as humans look for. Maybe you are thinking that this is just a game, but do you not view players as people? Real people who have feelings and emotions, desire and ambitions, belonging and entity.


Now enough about why we shouldn't implement said system. We’d like to put a scenario of what will happen if it is implemented. 


Let's say no guilds created alliances. 


First of all, your plan seems to be giving different tiers of territory to differently leveled guilds. The dilemma is that maybe many guilds will grab this opportunity very firmly in the beginning, but as time moves on, many, many guilds will be put in the highest tier of territory assignment. With that, there will be a stalemate. No guild will be able to hold enough land to level up, and many guilds will not even be able to hold any land. They will surely give up, seeing all these numerous guilds fighting over land and wanting to just give up. 


That was our first point: guilds will not be able to progress in the higher levels. That is not the same as now; any guild can obtain Troms for a few hours and reach the level ranges of 20+, and if they keep at it for a few days, the 30+ range and further. Our second point, building on this Troms system, is that guilds have an opportunity to get even further than what your system's stalemate will induce. They will need quite a bit of dedication. They will perhaps even create an alliance to do so, and this is a good way for people to test out how they will fare in the real world in similar conditions. 


Secondly, guilds will be a very, very dull ordeal. Humans love power, fame, glory, and all the rest; we cannot change that. That is what defines us as humans: we strive for more. With your system implemented, there will be nothing, progress would be unreasonably limited. If all goes according to your plan, guilds will be equal. No one can stand out. How will a leader and his or her members earn fame for themselves and their guild? Do they have to resort to the forums and become popular by drawing a lot of good stuff, helping the community out with guides, or by just being active and providing a fun environment? If they must, that would be a mistake; that is no longer part of the actual game. Wynncraft will be transformed into a community situated on a mere website. The server of Wynncraft may be rendered obsolete in terms of content. There might be a better flow of players into the server, but have you not seen any very good servers with very little players? Good servers don’t need heaps of players, and many even get worse in content and community due to an inflation in players.


We know a lot of people in the Wynn community don’t like what the alliances are doing, but we also know many who disagree with your system and don’t mind us. Don't get us wrong in thinking we haven't thought about your system on our own. Every leader of these type of alliances undoubtedly has thought of that, so it is not right to justify your system by saying and believing that we are just "power-hungry dogs that do not care for others, only think about ourselves, and want dominion over everyone”. To some extent that is true, but we are not a bunch of 13 year olds sitting around a computer yelling insults about bacon and cat pictures, the leader we have both have their flaws and weaknesses, but we still have humanity, and when you discriminate these big alliances for getting together and working together, it should only remind you that some people are planning to do something to achieve their goals.


It doesn’t seem like this took months to think about and discuss, in fact it feels as if you had a few weeks and you finished discussing it. That’s not right. What you need an admin to do is to give players a better enticement for getting involved in guilds. Currently, the only objective in guilds is to become #1. It also doesn't help that you are throwing away many months of people's lives. The admins need to give a better objective than something that, instead of contributing to the guild as a whole, will benefit the individual player. Before we get into what the admins could do, let's have a talk, shall we?


(If you are not familiar with the topics of communism and capitalism research its history)


This talk is about communism and capitalism. Basically, your system is communist/socialist at its finest, and we regret that we have to conclude that your system is one that the USSR used. That doesn't give very good connotations now, does it? One could argue that the USSR became corrupt, or that it was just unsalvageable, but that's the problem. If everything is controlled by a single entity, then if that single entity becomes corrupt, no one can rise up against it. In capitalism, there are multiple entities that are all privately owned, so if one of these entities becomes corrupt, all the other entities can team up to dissolve that corrupted entity. If Fuq or Validus or any other guild became guardian angel of Wynncraft territories, they'd probably be taking territories from guilds that try to start a revolution. If this "overseer guild" started becoming bored and ruining everything, the whole system would be brought down. There being an overseer guild won’t be the case, but introducing a new territory and attack system gives the same results: as explained in our third paragraph, unhappy people. We saw with the USSR that communism never worked because people weren’t happy with it. The struggle with guilds gaining land would not change, in fact in this context your plan has         basically produced the EXACT SAME RESULT as the current system! This didn’t fix the problem you just added ANOTHER problem. If this system actually worked in the real world, we would probably be using it in today’s world at a large scale. 


So back to what the admins can do. Simple: they can introduce the ability to take money out of guild banks. Players need something that benefits them. Honor and loyalty are all well and good, but many also want fame and fortune, and in a game like this, fortune is probably the most dominant of them all. Of course, this will have to be regulated by leaders alone so that random members cannot just take all the money. We know what you might be thinking, but to prevent inflation, the admins must first set a limit to the amount of money that is allowed to be taken out of the bank per day OR reduce the amount of emeralds that guilds gain from territories OR remove gaining emeralds from territories entirely. 


The second idea could be very good because guilds would then be the main benefactor to Wynncraft's economy. Unlike the duplication era, it will also be the only legal way to bring in more money into the Wynn system even if it is a very slow increase of total Wynncraft capital.


This second idea will also increase donations into guilds because, depending on the amount you can take out of the bank per day, players will have a real need to donate, and this will also help to stabilize the economy so that there is no inflation. 


A third idea is that the territories are made smaller so that there would be enough to compensate for the some 3000 guilds (still growing!). With hopefully more territories coming along with or after Gavel, there still won’t be enough land for all these guilds, meaning that competition would not be totally excluded. 


A fourth idea is to have an upgraded auto-kick system, something that seems to be not working at all. There are 3000 guilds; however, it barely matches up with the normal player count. In US and EU EST times, the player count barely hits the limit. Some of this may be due to boredom and a lack of gameplay, but these guilds are mostly dead. It’s not that the bigger guilds are being unfair; rather, the guilds are not even giving a pint of effort to fight. Just because there’s a big guy hoarding the land, doesn’t mean that your guilds cannot attack your territories. It’s good that there are some guilds that actually put up a fight with these large alliances, and it gives some of the most intense battles ever, clashing forces with each other desperately trying to outmatch the other; however, the extra problem lies with the fact that even with courage and determination, it makes up quite a large minority. The Ordo alliance has about eight(?) guilds in its ranks. That is eight out of 3000. That’s about ONE, ONE out of every 375 guilds. The balance looks to be insanely off, but ONE out of every 375 guilds, that means 375 guilds could attack different areas that this ONE guild has. Since you can only attack one piece of territory, the guild would have lost grip on their monopoly on the territories. 


These are our proposals. In the end, our joint unbiased contention is that your system won't work; there are even more flaws than the current system that render it inept. It is not right that you and the admins play God. Though you want fairness, it is not fair if the admins take more than half of a year of our lives. I’ve heard they want to give us back our LE (though they know they can’t), but choosing a refund for us is just playing God.


The real advantage to Wynncraft is that admins can change the rules. What we need is for the admins to work with us to figure out how to better the guild dilemma, which our proposal tries to do. After all, we are the players, and we decide what we want (No, we have no right to say what the admins shall do, but if they want to keep us in the game, then they should. Also, if the admins say they don’t care about us, it will be a stain on their rep.) We can’t fix it, per se, because having both competitiveness and fairness is impossible, but we can definitely try to make the situation better, and repair the damages before it cracks.




Signage