Forwarded: Fixing a lot of GvG issues with a single solution.

[DeletedUser]

The idea of this thread is to discuss the OP's suggestion, which is concerned with seige costs. It is not a more general suggestion encompassing all of GvG and other ideas from other threads. As such it would be helpful if people could rate the idea suggested in the OP and present reasons for or against that.

 

[Amy Steele]

This is the ideas forum...it's all brainstorming, speculation, discussion of currently non-existant features! How can discussing an idea that's speculation cause upset and annoyance any more than discussing an "idea" that not everyone agrees with could?

This thread never went off topic until we were told we weren't allowed to discuss any further. Makes zero sense.

On that note, i'm going back to my forum boycott. Have fun peeps.

This thread is in the Ideas forum. The purpose of these threads is to rate the idea in the OP, not so much to discuss it. If counter suggestions or additions to the suggestion in the OP are made, then it is for the thread poster to edit those into the OP. Only the idea in the OP will be taken into consideration by Inno so any ideas not edited in will not be considered anyway.

The original idea was regarding siege costs, so anything outside of that is off-topic anyway. All other ideas/suggestions should be posted in a new ideas thread. As this thread has wandered so far off-topic I am now closing it. If anyone wishes to rate the idea in the OP, please PM me and I will re-open the thread.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I have edited the OP to include reasons why I feel the idea I have suggested will be a far better solution than some others which have been mentioned here. If you have already read the OP then please head back and check out the new section at the bottom

 

[DeletedUser13082]

To strike "on topic" conversation back up here, I'm looking for some numbers which people think would be the most logical for siege costs in the format suggested in the OP. There's a lot of things to consider such as different age maps, costs per siege related to sector power etc. My personal opinion is that a siege shouldn't cost more than 500 goods to avoid stalemate situations and keep GvG active so I'll start with 500 as the top siege cost for what I think would work well.

Working from modern era power ratings of sectors a top power sector (96) would cost 500 of each good. A minimum power sector (32) would require 3 sectors to be taken to make the equivalent of a top power sector however this would obviously cost more units for the attacking guild and also more time and effort. To balance that I think that taking 3 minimum power sectors should cost less to siege than a single maximum power sector. So possibly 100 of each good for a minimum power sector (or somewhere in that range).

There are then the 2nd lowest power sectors (46) which would require 2 sectors in order to be equivalent to a maximum power sector. Again, costing more units, time and effort to take these sectors than it would to take a maximum power sector would mean, in my opinion, cheaper goods costs to create balance. However it would be cheaper on units, time and effort to take 2 of these sectors than it would be to take 3 minimum power sectors so the cost must be higher. A goods cost of around 200 per siege seems like a fair amount costing 400 goods to gain the same amount of power as a single maximum power sector (500 of each good) and 3 minimum power sectors (300 of each good).

Then there are the second highest power sectors (64). To take 2 of these sectors offers more than a maximum power sector which would mean a higher goods cost required, however it would also require a small amount more units, time and effort. That being said, a cost of 300 per siege seems fair in my opinion. With two sectors costing 600 of each goods being 100 more than a maximum power sector, that would take into account the extra power gained. However not being too much more would also take into account the extra units, time and effort required to take two sectors rather than just one.

Costs per siege would be:
32 Power = 100 of each good
48 power = 200 of each good
64 power = 300 of each good
96 power = 500 of each good

Again these are just example numbers that would make sense in my opinion. Possibly need tweaking to reach more exact and balanced costs and possibly a wider range. Up the maximum power sector to 600 or 700 to create a wider range of costs however anything more than 700 definitely becomes too costly.

Also something to consider would be costs being dependant on other factors such as how high or low the defence on the specific sector is. There are a lot of different things that could be taken into account but personally I'd rather keep it simple. If you have other ideas then feel free to share them .

Let me know what you think of the numbers and when we can reach a widely agreed upon range of costs I will add it into the OP

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I think I can agree with these values for the ME.

 

[DeletedUser17143]

100 of each would be low enough for someone to think Ghost Attacking would be ok still as its wont seem as much a loss. I think it should go up from 200, 300, 400 and 500. Maybe from PE. Industrial age and lower could start at 100 - 400?

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Why would you want to Ghost Attack though?

 

[DeletedUser]

Why would you want to Ghost Attack though?

That would be for another discussion thread.

This one's supposed to be about fixed siege costs and whether they are a good idea.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

That would be for another discussion thread.

This one's supposed to be about fixed siege costs and whether they are a good idea.

Sorry, I'm a bit busy right now so this may come off as harsh:
How is this suppose to be for another discussion thread? The point of this idea is to try and get rid of ghost guilds and bring more activity to GvG. Lord Baz says that part of the idea that describes that 100 goods for a siege would be low enough for a ghost to form and try to attack. My counter would be why would you want to form a ghost guild in the first place if the siege would be 100 goods regardless of how many sectors you own?

 

[DeletedUser99588]

I'm getting a bit fed up with the over zealous on topic interruptions from moderators. Am I the only one that thinks the only off topic posts are the ones requesting to stay on topic.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

100 of each would be low enough for someone to think Ghost Attacking would be ok still as its wont seem as much a loss. I think it should go up from 200, 300, 400 and 500. Maybe from PE. Industrial age and lower could start at 100 - 400?

I understand what you mean here Baz and there is always the obvious issue that landing zones are usually lower power sectors than inland sectors. However, given that it would cost a guild the same amount of goods to take a sector from their own guild as it would to take a sector of the same power from a ghost guild I don't see how anybody would find a use for ghosting any more. If you were to take a sector using a ghost then you damage a guild and your own guild gains nothing, yet if you take a sector from your own guild then the cost of the siege would be the same and not only do you damage an enemy guild but you also further advance your own guild. This is why ghosting would become useless if this idea was implemented. Hope that helps

I think I can agree with these values for the ME.

What are your view concerning other ages? Should costs stay the same or be higher or lower? All opinions are useful and currently I'm unsure whether costs should differ between ages so any outside thoughts about that would be useful

I'm getting a bit fed up with the over zealous on topic interruptions from moderators. Am I the only one that thinks the only off topic posts are the ones requesting to stay on topic.

I agree that on occasions moderators can be a bit forceful with the off-topic rule however given past issues with threads turning into all out war between players it is fully understandable. That being said, this is not the correct place to voice those opinions. If you wish to open a discussion thread concerning this issue I would be more than happy to offer my opinion there but please try to keep this thread on topic. Thanks

 

[DeletedUser7719]

What are your view concerning other ages? Should costs stay the same or be higher or lower? All opinions are useful and currently I'm unsure whether costs should differ between ages so any outside thoughts about that would be useful

Lower because I don't remember stockpiling past 100 goods in the Iron Age because of the goods cost for getting through the tech tree, and plus most of the newer guilds do not hold anywhere close to the 80 person limit (though I understand it's debatable how much of the 80 people do contribute to GvG)

I can't be sure if this is the perfect amount or not, but I would say that the cost of the lowest siege should almost be proportional to the average power of the province.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

Lower because I don't remember stockpiling past 100 goods in the Iron Age because of the goods cost for getting through the tech tree, and plus most of the newer guilds do not hold anywhere close to the 80 person limit (though I understand it's debatable how much of the 80 people do contribute to GvG)

I can't be sure if this is the perfect amount or not, but I would say that the cost of the lowest siege should almost be proportional to the average power of the province.

I understand the reasoning behind the comment fully but one issue still remains, as a late stage player I can produce thousands of iron age goods per day easily. Would that not make it easier for larger, more established guilds to dominate the younger maps with the newer/younger guilds not having a chance at all? How can that issue be countered? Currently I haven't been able to think of much other than an age restriction for certain guilds/players but I'm not sure how that would work or whether it would even be possible to find a working solution for it.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I understand the reasoning behind the comment fully but one issue still remains, as a late stage player I can produce thousands of iron age goods per day easily. Would that not make it easier for larger, more established guilds to dominate the younger maps with the newer/younger guilds not having a chance at all? How can that issue be countered? Currently I haven't been able to think of much other than an age restriction for certain guilds/players but I'm not sure how that would work or whether it would even be possible to find a working solution for it.

There were only three reasons why you would fight in a lower age:
1) The rest of your guild is young, and you would like to help them out
2) You just do it for fun
3) Because the siege costs were too high on the other maps and wanted some sort of activity

Your solution should be able to knock #3 out, but #1 and #2 are still considerable. I know have lower costs compared to the ME shouldn't really encourage people to fight in the lower ages because the amount of space your using to gain little points will not be worth it

 

[DeletedUser17143]

In a number of the worlds I play in, high level players (top 20) Ghost attack daily for pvp points or to stop us over taking them in Guild rankings. Not all Ghost attacks are used to open a sector for their own guild. If Inno do scrap this extremely stupid idea of 7 days not joining a guild and used this good idea instead, then Ghost attacks would still happen if the siege cost to low. 200 of each good from PE for lowest power sectors would make ghost attackers think 1000 goods is to much for a few pvp points, and would rather use the goods for their own guild sieges.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

In a number of the worlds I play in, high level players (top 20) Ghost attack daily for pvp points or to stop us over taking them in Guild rankings. Not all Ghost attacks are used to open a sector for their own guild. If Inno do scrap this extremely stupid idea of 7 days not joining a guild and used this good idea instead, then Ghost attacks would still happen if the siege cost to low. 200 of each good from PE for lowest power sectors would make ghost attackers think 1000 goods is to much for a few pvp points, and would rather use the goods for their own guild sieges.

To help clarify the varying costs here, which should help you understand how it tackles ghost guilding. The costs are set to sectors of certain power levels, so if you're looking at a sector of power 32 no matter what guild you're in it will cost you the same amount to seige it. Thus using a ghost guild to "open" a sector really doubles the number of goods being used (one guild spends 100 to open it, the other spends 100 to take it).

As for byeordie's posts, I can understand where he is coming from "making the cost dependent on the power gained". It makes sense if you want to open up lower age provinces to guild with lots of lower age players who have tight space restrictions. I'd also agree that if reduced costs in the higher ages mean more activity up there you don't have to worry about "top" players dominating the lower age provinces.

Costs per siege would be:
32 Power = 100 of each good
48 power = 200 of each good
64 power = 300 of each good
96 power = 500 of each good

I think these costs are reasonable to start with (testing on beta or something to see the effects), possibly 100, 150, 200, 300 just so that the siege cost is exactly proportional to the power gained. On that note it could be worth considering something like what byeordie suggests, something even along the lines of this:

For the all ages it'd look like:
IA 5/10/15/20 of each good
EMA 8/16/24/30 of each good
HMA 16/24/32/48 of each good
LMA 20/30/40/60 of each good
CA 24/36/48/72 of each good
IndA 32/48/64/96 of each good
PE 48/72/96/144 of each good
ME 64/96/128/192 of each good

Personally my opinion on the adjusted OP (with costs somewhere around what death ouron has suggested) is that I would be interested in at least trying it out. Seige costs based on the value of the sector sounds like it would be fair and encourage activity without loopholes.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

There were only three reasons why you would fight in a lower age:
1) The rest of your guild is young, and you would like to help them out
2) You just do it for fun
3) Because the siege costs were too high on the other maps and wanted some sort of activity

Your solution should be able to knock #3 out, but #1 and #2 are still considerable. I know have lower costs compared to the ME shouldn't really encourage people to fight in the lower ages because the amount of space your using to gain little points will not be worth it

I hadn't thought of that myself to be honest. However, a presence on other GvG maps and being in the top 3 of those maps does offer a substantial difference in overall guild ranking so there would still be reason for guild to hit there. Like you say though, with the higher age maps being more active following the update there would definitely be less reason for bigger guilds to hit the lower age maps. We would have to wait and see what the effects are on that if the idea was used in beta or even live though. A lot of different scenarios could play out and until it actually happens I don't think we can ever know for sure.

In a number of the worlds I play in, high level players (top 20) Ghost attack daily for pvp points or to stop us over taking them in Guild rankings. Not all Ghost attacks are used to open a sector for their own guild. If Inno do scrap this extremely stupid idea of 7 days not joining a guild and used this good idea instead, then Ghost attacks would still happen if the siege cost to low. 200 of each good from PE for lowest power sectors would make ghost attackers think 1000 goods is to much for a few pvp points, and would rather use the goods for their own guild sieges.

As I said, it would be pointless for players to hop to a ghost guild to attack another guild, whether for PvP points or whatever else. They can siege sectors from their own guild for the exact same cost so why waste those goods in a ghost guild when you can use them in your own guild, gain all the same benefits as the ghost guild; Damage enemy, earn points and then on top of that, gain a new sector for your own guild, which is something the ghost guild wouldn't do.

IA 5/10/15/20 of each good
EMA 8/16/24/30 of each good
HMA 16/24/32/48 of each good
LMA 20/30/40/60 of each good
CA 24/36/48/72 of each good
IndA 32/48/64/96 of each good
PE 48/72/96/144 of each good
ME 64/96/128/192 of each good

The only issue I would have with these costs would be that overall they are too low. If costs are lowered too much then GvG falls the other way and becomes too active. It would become almost impossible to defend sectors and would be very tedious to constantly lose what you have gained so quickly. I won't go to far into that as I've mentioned it in other posts here before.

As example numbers though I understand what you mean about the goods costs relating directly to the power gained but maybe a multiplying the power by 4-5 rather than 2 would be more effective

 

[DeletedUser17143]

(death ouron - As I said, it would be pointless for players to hop to a ghost guild to attack another guild, whether for PvP points or whatever else. They can siege sectors from their own guild for the exact same cost so why waste those goods in a ghost guild when you can use them in your own guild, gain all the same benefits as the ghost guild; Damage enemy, earn points and then on top of that, gain a new sector for your own guild, which is something the ghost guild wouldn't do.)
.
.
.

Most of the top players that siege in Ghost Guilds, don't siege beside any sector they own. They go to the other end of the map. I guess that is so the other guild cant retaliate. And as most have hopped to the centre of the map they have no landing zones to do the same thing back. If costs in PE, ME and PME where only 100 of each for the lowest age sector, It wont stop the top players from continuing doing this.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

(death ouron - As I said, it would be pointless for players to hop to a ghost guild to attack another guild, whether for PvP points or whatever else. They can siege sectors from their own guild for the exact same cost so why waste those goods in a ghost guild when you can use them in your own guild, gain all the same benefits as the ghost guild; Damage enemy, earn points and then on top of that, gain a new sector for your own guild, which is something the ghost guild wouldn't do.)
.
.
.

Most of the top players that siege in Ghost Guilds, don't siege beside any sector they own. They go to the other end of the map. I guess that is so the other guild cant retaliate. And as most have hopped to the centre of the map they have no landing zones to do the same thing back. If costs in PE, ME and PME where only 100 of each for the lowest age sector, It wont stop the top players from continuing doing this.

The main reason for ghosting is because a guild doesn't have enough goods to siege from their own guild as they hold a lot of sectors and it costs far too much. Some people do leave their guild and ghost another simply to damage their overall power to stop them from passing their guild in rank, but 500 goods in comparison to 25 goods for a ghost attack will work as a very large deterrent. Currently it is possible for a player with an atomium to afford 4 ghost sieges just from a daily collection from their atomium alone (if atomium is level 10). However with 100 of each good required it would take 5 daily collections of a level 10 atomium just to afford a single siege. I don't think anybody would be willing to waste 500 goods to ghost a sector personally. For example, I can spend 500 goods to take 32 power away from an enemy guild, or I can spend 500 goods to gain 32 power for my own guild, achieving the exact same results. Rather than the enemy dropping by 32 power, my guild increases by 32 power. The results would be the same and ghosting would therefore be pointless.

 

[DeletedUser98465]

I'm getting a bit fed up with the over zealous on topic interruptions from moderators. Am I the only one that thinks the only off topic posts are the ones requesting to stay on topic.

No, you're not the only one and apparently, your also not supposed to be discussing on topic subjects either because it's an "ideas thread"

@Death Ouron In terms of the numbers proposed, I can't say if they are to high or low, but I still firmly believe that there needs to be an increasing siege cost based on some other factor to make it fair.

Maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture, and yes I am considering the fact that power also does increase in ages, but at the moment, having it based on sector seems to still favour more capable/established guilds and doesn't provide balance imho, just a cheaper cost for everyone across the board. I'm sorry to say but for a guild of 80 people with millions of points between them, paying the same cost as a guild with 10 people and a few thousand points' per sector is wholly unfair.

All this appears on the surface to do is allow bigger guilds to take sectors easier, or am i missing something?