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

[DeletedUser]

I still fear that 100 per siege is too low. I can produce far more than 500 goods per day just by myself. Imagine how many a guild could produce when working together.

Do you have 17 ME goods buildings in you city? :p

8 hour production = 10 goods.
3 * 8 hours = 24 hours = 3 * 10 goods = 30 goods per day.
500 / 30 = ~17 buildings.

I absolutely agree that it should be too expensive to place +10 sieges per day, but what I fear with siege costs of 500 is that it will take forever for guilds that are not as populated as most guild on .EN. I play on a smaller server and there the most active guilds have only 30-40 players (less players that actually play active). The problem here is that most of the those guilds have an output of 500-1000 ME goods per day. This means that if the costs are 200-500, they can only siege 1-5 times per day, and it's impossible to take a fully defended sector from an active guild with that few sieges. So this will basicly mean that most smart guilds will do all their attacks during night just to avoid their sieges being whiped.

This is a very difficult question, because one value will make it too easy on one server and at the same time too difficult on another server

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I fully support this suggestion, I'm just discussing the values

It's simply not feasible for a guild to be able to keep a close watch on their sectors 24/7.

I totally agree with you on this. Maybe the best solution would be to add some sort of cease-time during night, for maybe 7 hours? Or even better, the 24h-battle-countdown I mentioned earlier, but that would of course require a total revamp of GvG

Remember how many worlds there really are out there. And it would need to meet just a few demands:
a) True super guild of all the best players in that place with ofc good leadership.
b) Not a very competative/active world with too many such players to begin with.
c) Enough prolonged success for the Mono-guild to really demoralize normal player base about GvG

Yeah, but if there really is one or a few servers where there is just one dominating guild, shouldn't that guild be able to take it all then? I mean, if there's just enough players to form 1 powerfull guild, isn't it better that this guild can take it all, and have fun with it, instead of looking at a map where the agressive NPC controls 60% of the map?

 

[DeletedUser13082]

Do you have 17 ME goods buildings in you city? :p

8 hour production = 10 goods.
3 * 8 hours = 24 hours = 3 * 10 goods = 30 goods per day.
500 / 30 = ~17 buildings.

Currently my city houses 20 progressive era goods buildings and 3 modern era goods buildings. I have multiple city plans for multiple different goods production including my newest city plan which houses a total of 19 post-modern era goods buildings and will be up and running within 24 hours of the post-modern era release. As I say, producing 500+ goods each day of any age is more than possible for a single player.

I absolutely agree that it should be too expensive to place +10 sieges per day, but what I fear with siege costs of 500 is that it will take forever for guilds that are not as populated as most guild on .EN. I play on a smaller server and there the most active guilds have only 30-40 players (less players that actually play active). The problem here is that most of the those guilds have an output of 500-1000 ME goods per day. This means that if the costs are 200-500, they can only siege 1-5 times per day, and it's impossible to take a fully defended sector from an active guild with that few sieges. So this will basicly mean that most smart guilds will do all their attacks during night just to avoid their sieges being whiped.

This is a very difficult question, because one value will make it too easy on one server and at the same time too difficult on another server

With better planning and strong enough fighting team you can take a fully defended sector from an active guild in a single siege (not often it will happen but more than possible). I've been in an attacking party in the past against a 75% boosted sector with 64 battles required to take control of it. That sector was taken in just 3 sieges.

Currently Titans on E world has around 70 members however only around 25-30 are GvG active (GvG active meaning fighting and/or goods production), around 10-15 at most of those players are active fighters, possibly less. I've never been in an attack party of more than 10 fighters at a single time and I've never known a sector to take more than 5 sieges. My honest opinion, if a siege is spotted and destroyed before 50% of the battles required at the beginning of the siege are complete then simply give up and try again another day. You'll spend far too many goods to continue.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I fully support this suggestion, I'm just discussing the values

Don't worry I know, I'm always up for some good debate to reach a better all round solution

I totally agree with you on this. Maybe the best solution would be to add some sort of cease-time during night, for maybe 7 hours? Or even better, the 24h-battle-countdown I mentioned earlier, but that would of course require a total revamp of GvG

Not sure that this would work. Although this is the .EN server we do still see players from a wide variety of time zones. To block a single time zone from being able to attack during their active times would cause a lot of issues. Also it would remove the strategic side of finding your opponents lowest activity times and hitting them at those times.

Also, your final quote was quoted from me but it was actually hint who said that bit :p

 

[DeletedUser]

Currently my city houses 20 progressive era goods buildings and 3 modern era goods buildings. I have multiple city plans for multiple different goods production including my newest city plan which houses a total of 19 post-modern era goods buildings and will be up and running within 24 hours of the post-modern era release. As I say, producing 500+ goods each day of any age is more than possible for a single player.

That is very much I currently have 10 ME goods buildings and that is above average where I play :p

Currently Titans on E world has around 70 members however only around 25-30 are GvG active (GvG active meaning fighting and/or goods production), around 10-15 at most of those players are active fighters, possibly less. I've never been in an attack party of more than 10 fighters at a single time and I've never known a sector to take more than 5 sieges.

Yeah, but it looks a bit different where I'm playing. My guild have had the lead since start (currently 83 days) and we are only 32 members Can't go into details as some of our enemies may read these forums aswell, but it's no surprise that the numbers are lower for us Judging from other guilds on our server, it seems like they take about 1 sector per day and they have about 4-8 sectors (we keep them "trimmed" haha), we currently have 16 sectors. There is 1 group of hostile players that has started a rebellion against us. No success after 6 weeks but they are still trying, and when they do attack, it usually takes about 20-30 sieges before they give up. They usually need about 10-15 sieges before they take a sector from us

With better planning and strong enough fighting team you can take a fully defended sector from an active guild in a single siege (not often it will happen but more than possible). I've been in an attacking party in the past against a 75% boosted sector with 64 battles required to take control of it. That sector was taken in just 3 sieges.

Yes, exactly the same here, we usually need 1-3 sieges to take a defended sector. The only difference is that I think that goods production (and other values in general) are much smaller on smaller servers compared to .EN, and therefore it will take very long to reach 1500 goods (3 sieges) on a small server compared to .EN.

Not sure that this would work. Although this is the .EN server we do still see players from a wide variety of time zones. To block a single time zone from being able to attack during their active times would cause a lot of issues. Also it would remove the strategic side of finding your opponents lowest activity times and hitting them at those times.

Yes, I didn't thought about that, putting up a cease-time on .EN wont work.

Ok, so 100 of each good maybe be too little for .EN. So the things I curently can come up with is:

- Maybe a value of 200 of each good per siege?
- Base the goods cost depending on the amount of active players on the server?

Also, your final quote was quoted from me but it was actually hint who said that bit :p

Ooopsie, I've fixed that :p

 

[DeletedUser3157]

Yeah, but if there really is one or a few servers where there is just one dominating guild, shouldn't that guild be able to take it all then? I mean, if there's just enough players to form 1 powerfull guild, isn't it better that this guild can take it all, and have fun with it, instead of looking at a map where the agressive NPC controls 60% of the map?

I guess you are right, I don't really know anything about aggressive NPCs and how annoying they are. I thought NPCs were a complete non issue in GvG. I know I actually proposed static costs myself when GvG came out, it's just now that I got little in between here, thinking starting up higher with a slighter curve instead would be safer. Mostly just to have sort of mechanical detterent (besides the natural player jealousy) for the most dominant guilds as they get bigger. But if you are telling me that aggressive NPCs are actually a big noticeable threat and enough of a detterent for very powerful guilds owning large land masses, then I guess you could even do those siege costs without any curve and go all static, I wouldn't know.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

The NPC attacks now aren't too much of an issue seeing as the internal rocks and lakes no longer make attacks. I know much of my guild was taking a lot of NPC hits but now damage is minimal (and very little defense work is needed).

As for the OP, I have said before (somewhere else) that the idea is interesting because I can't be sure it won't work. But like hint I have concerns about natural balances and I also have concerns about finding a cost that works. Finding an agreeable amount is difficult amongst 2 people let alone the majority of the player base

So personally I abstain from saying Yes or No to this idea. Interesting to read the posts

 

[. ICE .]

+1
Agree ..initial siege costs way too low.. later siege costs way too high , leading to stagnation and disadvantage to larger territory guilds
i like the idea about different cost values based on the power of a sector also .,but not sure if that is workable across ages.
i also think it would help prevent ghosting , if the starting value was a good deal higher .
the exact values , or whether there should still be retained a "progressive curve", albeit much shallower ...are debatable., but what we have now isnt right , imo, and needs adjusting.
perhaps a starting value of 150 per siege , rising to 500 per siege (capped) .low enough initially for smaller guilds to have a go , and not so high later that the larger more active gvg guilds , reach stagnation point...thereby frustrating the hell out of the very players who want to participate in gvg the most.

 

[DeletedUser]

perhaps a starting value of 150 per siege , rising to 500 per siege (capped).

There must be a fixed value, otherways ghostguilding will be worth it again, just for a higher price

The NPC attacks now aren't too much of an issue seeing as the internal rocks and lakes no longer make attacks. I know much guild was taking a lot of NPC hits but now damage is minimal (and very little defense work is needed).

Yeah, true, the NPCs aren't too much of a problem for a guild with 10-20 sectors, but imagine a guild which controls 80-90% of the province, that is about 70-80 sectors. That is a lot of defense that needs to be changed regulary And then we still have the other guilds that also causes damage

 

[. ICE .]

There must be a fixed value, otherways ghostguilding will be worth it again, just for a higher price

yes maybe...but as long as there is general concensus , that what we have now isnt right / isnt working ..then they may change it ..
the actual values can be argued over , but the principal of need to change is initially what should be agreed upon.

 

[DeletedUser]

the actual values can be argued over , but the principal of need to change is initially what should be agreed upon.

I absolutely agree with you As I said earlier:

Don't get me wrong, I fully support this suggestion, I'm just discussing the values

Could we please get some input from a "higher-up"?

 

[DeletedUser7719]

When was the last time we heard from a higher-up in the Ideas forum? :p

 

[DeletedUser]

When was the last time we heard from a higher-up in the Ideas forum? :p

Yeah you're right, but I hoped that they finally could :p

 

[DeletedUser98465]

I'm on the fence about this. I would like it for the established guilds that i am in to prevent us been constantly ghosted, however just getting on the map in a 'young guild' (say iron age) i think 200 would be far too extreme, though what you have said are of course examples. With thought and development i suppose it could work and prevent the whole GvG issue or for a while until a way around it is found.

I am with you on this, although if it was a balanced "fixed" amount which was aligned in some way to guild size/points it could work. so I don't know

Guild A, with 767,344 is in the 0.5m>2m Points, commands one set of siege costs because they fall into the "small guild scope"
Guild B, with 5,111,222 is in the 5.1>10m Points range, so commands another set of siege costs because they fall into the "medium guild scope"
Guild C, with 23,123,233 is in the 20m> Points range ,so commands another set of siege costs because they fall into the "large guild scope"

and so on and so forth, to get the general idea (although numbers are just plucked out of thin air to give an example)

If done properly it may mitigate some of the ghosting, but I'm not entirely sure. Would need to be thought through in detail. It may even promote competition among higher guilds.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah you're right, but I hoped that they finally could :p

Well, I had a look and the last post from Remorce was this one:

http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/...Stone-Age-Great-Buildings&p=132550#post132550

And the last post from The Countess was this one:

http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/...ached-vs-Unattached-Units&p=132645#post132645

Any higher up is probably outside my ability to search for, but as discussed in this thread, we would like to get to a position where the Ideas section is working better.

However, as this is not on-topic for fixing GvG issues, has anyone else got any comments on the OP's idea?

 

[joesoap]

I know this is also off topic but Remorce no longer appears in the site leaders list, has he gone?

 

[Amy Steele]

Yes - Remorce is no longer part of the team. Now let's get this thread back on topic please folks, and just discuss/rate the idea in the OP.

I have to say I rather like the idea of fixed cost sieges, but the amount would have to be fairly carefully considered so as not to disadvantage lower age/'younger' guilds, which tend to have fewer members than long established guilds - these longer established guilds also tend to have many more higher age members, whose members have had the opportunity to build up goods over many months. which gives them an advantage even in the lower ages.

 

[DeletedUser98465]

I have to say I rather like the idea of fixed cost sieges, but the amount would have to be fairly carefully considered so as not to disadvantage lower age/'younger' guilds, which tend to have fewer members than long established guilds - these longer established guilds also tend to have many more higher age members, whose members have had the opportunity to build up goods over many months. which gives them an advantage even in the lower ages.

This is why i think the tiered approach works based on the size of the guild (it's more so associated to the old points ranking)

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I am with you on this, although if it was a balanced "fixed" amount which was aligned in some way to guild size/points it could work. so I don't know

Guild A, with 767,344 is in the 0.5m>2m Points, commands one set of siege costs because they fall into the "small guild scope"
Guild B, with 5,111,222 is in the 5.1>10m Points range, so commands another set of siege costs because they fall into the "medium guild scope"
Guild C, with 23,123,233 is in the 20m> Points range ,so commands another set of siege costs because they fall into the "large guild scope"

and so on and so forth, to get the general idea (although numbers are just plucked out of thin air to give an example)

If done properly it may mitigate some of the ghosting, but I'm not entirely sure. Would need to be thought through in detail. It may even promote competition among higher guilds.

I completely understand the reasons behind ideas such as this but again there is the issue of "why should my guild be penalised just because we have been around longer/have more players?".

My personal opinion is that GvG in it's entirety should be scrapped an re-worked. The entire concept of the current GvG we have is completely unbalanced and doesn't work at all. Loopholes and exploits everywhere. Unfair advantages to larger guilds giving smaller guilds no hope. Young age maps dominated by large guilds so nowhere for new players to enjoy the feature. The list goes on forever. Truthfully, the only good point I can actually think of concerning GvG is that it's possible to gain a lot more PvP points now than it was before. Even that brings a downfall though; It's now more than possible for a player to boost himself into the top personal ranks in a matter of days given that he has the units to support the campaign.

The idea suggested is just a way to try and improve some of the issues which exist in the current GvG feature but the feature itself can never really be balanced or fixed. It's a lost cause due to bad design. P.S, No offence intended toward the work of developers. That's just my overall opinion of the feature.

More on topic again now. A lot have mentioned the goods costs and balancing them. Does anybody have any numbers in mind? There are a few things which need to be taken into consideration such as power gain vs goods cost. It takes more effort to gain 3 minimum power sectors than it does to take a single high power sector and the power gained would be the same. Therefore, should it cost less in goods to siege 3 low power sectors than a single high power sector?

Example of above stated:
Minimum modern era sector = 32 power = 100 goods per siege
Maximum modern era sector = 96 power = 500 goods per siege

With those values (just example numbers, nothing to take too literally) it would cost almost 200 more goods to do a single siege of a maximum power sector, the reason for this is because it takes far less effort to take control of the single sector than it does to take control of the 3 minimum power sectors.

Something I've been thinking about and plan to add to the OP soon so any views on that would be helpful

 

[DeletedUser7719]

More on topic again now. A lot have mentioned the goods costs and balancing them. Does anybody have any numbers in mind? There are a few things which need to be taken into consideration such as power gain vs goods cost. It takes more effort to gain 3 minimum power sectors than it does to take a single high power sector and the power gained would be the same. Therefore, should it cost less in goods to siege 3 low power sectors than a single high power sector?

Example of above stated:
Minimum modern era sector = 32 power = 100 goods per siege
Maximum modern era sector = 96 power = 50 goods per siege

I think your numbers in your example should be switched

Since you mentioned about power costs, why not just make the siege cost the double the amount of power it gives? (unlocking slots could work in the same way, but it could be a problem in the lower ages)

 

[DeletedUser2989]

I think your numbers in your example should be switched

Since you mentioned about power costs, why not just make the siege cost the double the amount of power it gives? (unlocking slots could work in the same way, but it could be a problem in the lower ages)

That is a very interesting way to look at it. 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

Looking at this list I'm still concerned that the values are all too low for flat rates but with such low costs up at ME and PE it means players can stay active up in the higher ages and they don't have to mess about with the "beginner players" in their early age provinces.

As for unlocking defense slots I think that they should stay the same regardless of the power of the sector, more valueable things usually have the best defense right?

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I think your numbers in your example should be switched

Since you mentioned about power costs, why not just make the siege cost the double the amount of power it gives? (unlocking slots could work in the same way, but it could be a problem in the lower ages)

lol, my bad, "50" was supposed to be "500"