Battling Ghost Guild Mentality

[DeletedUser99445]

It costs 360 of each type of goods to unlock all the slots in a captured sector
Ghosting a sector costs 5x5 of each type of goods to lay siege. When sector is captured a second sector can be seiged at a cost of 10x5 of each type of goods and when that's captured you can move to a third sector and on it goes. It's cheap on goods and cheap on troops.

*ANY guild that is serious about capturing and "HOLDING" a sector should make sure that they have enough goods to unlock all the slots and enough troops to fully enforce the sector. So the guild should have at least 365 of each type of the goods required PLUS 64 Troops.
If your are a small guild or big guild. the cost of the first sector fully enforced is always the same unless your ghosting.

IDEA/Proposal......
Make it a *Condition* that when a guild attacks a sector it must always have to fully enforce the captured sector before it can move forward to the next.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Is this only for the first sector or for any sector? If it's for any sector, this proposal would mean you cannot siege multiple sectors at once (don't know if that's a good or bad thing), and this would also make sieging multiple sectors in a day very hard on guilds since it would cause the fighters to lose a bunch of units before their next siege.
To counter this, either make it necessary for only the first sector, or only make it necessary to just unlock all slots on a sector rather than unlock and fill.

 

[DeletedUser99445]

Is this only for the first sector or for any sector? If it's for any sector, this proposal would mean you cannot siege multiple sectors at once (don't know if that's a good or bad thing), and this would also make sieging multiple sectors in a day very hard on guilds since it would cause the fighters to lose a bunch of units before their next siege.
To counter this, either make it necessary for only the first sector, or only make it necessary to just unlock all slots on a sector rather than unlock and fill.

It does say to fully enforce each captured sector before it can move forward to the next sector. I still stand by that.
You should have to complete a siege and fill a captured sector before you can move on.

 

[Estipar]

The problem I have also is that I have 2 Guilds each of only a few members.. At certain planned times during the day each of them lays a siege (one siege each next to each other) and they defeat each others siege.. (Autocomplete with no loss) .. Neither of them ever own a sector on the map and have no intentions of ever owning one and have ZERO interest in GvG. They then proceed to repeat this about 10 times a day, unless they are spotted, amassing vast amounts of points for very little goods and ZERO loss of units ;-((((
This has to be stopped !!!

 

[DeletedUser2989]

I'll start by saying that this idea should be formatted

I see the logic of this idea (enforcing the "Take and Hold" method of GvG) and while it would combat the reason for using a ghost guild (to avoid the higher costs otherwise required) it'll only do that to a point. If a guild doesn't want to spend thousands of goods to siege an aggressor it'd still be cheaper to set up a ghost even though it'd cost hundreds. It would have an effect on the ghosts but also impacts "Legitimate" guilds in a negative way. I know that a legitimate guild that doesn't fill up it's defenses is rather foolish if they want to hold their sectors long term but some do take a few sectors then fill up the defenses and end up holding them for the long term.

So while this change would hinder ghosts/false guilds it also restricts the strategies of legitimate guilds, so I'm not so keen on this change.

 

[DeletedUser99445]

I'll start by saying that this idea should be formatted

I see the logic of this idea (enforcing the "Take and Hold" method of GvG) and while it would combat the reason for using a ghost guild (to avoid the higher costs otherwise required) it'll only do that to a point. If a guild doesn't want to spend thousands of goods to siege an aggressor it'd still be cheaper to set up a ghost even though it'd cost hundreds. It would have an effect on the ghosts but also impacts "Legitimate" guilds in a negative way. I know that a legitimate guild that doesn't fill up it's defenses is rather foolish if they want to hold their sectors long term but some do take a few sectors then fill up the defenses and end up holding them for the long term.

So while this change would hinder ghosts/false guilds it also restricts the strategies of legitimate guilds, so I'm not so keen on this change.

Your reasons against this change actually make me want to see it even more.
To Hinder or make things more challenging would make the game much more enjoyable for players wanting a little more than just being patient, manipulative and persuasive.
This change would also have an impact in all the choking protective alliances that currently exist which are often far more damaging than ghost guilds.

 

[DeletedUser99588]

-1, I'm against things in general that force you down a single strategic path although I understand the reason for suggesting it. So many changes made already have reduced the limited strategies within GvG I'd rather see the pendulum swing the other way and changes made that allow a greater number of strategies to be implemented.

Unfortunately the only one the developers seem interested in promoting is brute force which is the most basic of strategies available.

 

[DeletedUser15432]

I have read through this and I think that this is a bad idea, although some aspects of it might have some merit at some future stage of the game, therefore, I also give this a score of -1

 

[DeletedUser99445]

I have read through this and I think that this is a bad idea, although some aspects of it might have some merit at some future stage of the game, therefore, I also give this a score of -1

Some aspects?
Fully securing a sector before you can move to another isn't exactly a multi aspect proposal so what other aspects are you referring to?

 

[DeletedUser16126]

I like the idea a lot, but unfortunately there is still a downside...
As a result of this proposal those ghost guilds will still battle the sectors and keep just 1 army alive, and then delete their siege or leave the siege army in so it needs to be defeated by the guild. As a result smaller guilds with less defense boost will have a full-time job replacing armies...
But still +1 since it covers some aspects that screw up the game, but without closing the door completely.

It would indeed be a benefit if sieging is only allowed if you have the goods to unlock all slots if the siege was successful, but then all slots shall immediately and automatically get unlocked.