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

[DeletedUser7719]

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

That actually would factor into another idea I had for this issue: increase defense slot costs for the more sectors (or every unlocked slot) you have. This would also need a bit more tweaking on how defending and being sieged worked, but you should be able work this into any previously suggested idea as well.

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.

If Falcon were here, I think he would of said that the bigger guild deserved the prize. My opinion on the issue is that there is that there is not very fine line between a ghost guild or normal guild trying to enter into the map, so you can't solve one issue without causing problems for the other. (Except, maybe, my first idea which I mentioned on my first reply on this idea)

 

[DeletedUser98465]

That actually would factor into another idea I had for this issue: increase defense slot costs for the more sectors (or every unlocked slot) you have. This would also need a bit more tweaking on how defending and being sieged worked, but you should be able work this into any previously suggested idea as well.


If Falcon were here, I think he would of said that the bigger guild deserved the prize. My opinion on the issue is that there is that there is not very fine line between a ghost guild or normal guild trying to enter into the map, so you can't solve one issue without causing problems for the other. (Except, maybe, my first idea which I mentioned on my first reply on this topic)

Part of me agrees, because I'm not in a "small guild", but wasn't the premise of GvG from Inno supposed to be so it was for everyone? Does it not create a divide then between the player base?

 

[DeletedUser13082]

@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?

As byeordie has mentioned, with this idea in place, larger guilds would no longer need to make attempts at lower age maps as they would be more capable of continuing their campaigns in the higher age maps. With that being said, lower age guilds and less established guilds would have more areas where they could compete against guilds of their own level rather than playing iron age map and competing against some of the longest running and most established guilds.

Also however, your view point here seems to claim that a long established guild who have worked for there advantage should have this taken away from them so a smaller guild can get to play the game with far less effort required. I've said before in a post somewhere (can't remember where) that if players make the decision to be in a smaller guild then they also make the decision to put themselves at a disadvantage in a lot of different ways. A player who makes this decision can't then expect the design of the game to be altered to benefit them because they are at a disadvantage. If you choose to put yourself in that position then the consequences are your own to deal with, others shouldn't suffer because somebody else made a bad choice.

 

[DeletedUser98465]

As byeordie has mentioned, with this idea in place, larger guilds would no longer need to make attempts at lower age maps as they would be more capable of continuing their campaigns in the higher age maps. With that being said, lower age guilds and less established guilds would have more areas where they could compete against guilds of their own level rather than playing iron age map and competing against some of the longest running and most established guilds.

Also however, your view point here seems to claim that a long established guild who have worked for there advantage should have this taken away from them so a smaller guild can get to play the game with far less effort required. I've said before in a post somewhere (can't remember where) that if players make the decision to be in a smaller guild then they also make the decision to put themselves at a disadvantage in a lot of different ways. A player who makes this decision can't then expect the design of the game to be altered to benefit them because they are at a disadvantage. If you choose to put yourself in that position then the consequences are your own to deal with, others shouldn't suffer because somebody else made a bad choice.

I understand, but I think the suggestion is working against what (i think) Inno intended, although I'm speculating as I think we would all need a crystal ball when it comes to that.

I'm not saying what is in place now or indeed the 1.27 update is any better, just that it's about balance, not about giving weight to guilds that are already sitting at the top of GvG holding sectors. Also lets face it here, some long established guilds are actually not that long established and simply recruit people based on a minimum point count, I've seen guilds formed in the space of days where ever member is over 500k. This strikes a game balance, not a player targeted balance.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

I understand, but I think the suggestion is working against what (i think) Inno intended, although I'm speculating as I think we would all need a crystal ball when it comes to that.

Going against what was originally intended by devs, I think, is probably the best and only solution. What was intended to begin with clearly isn't working and hasn't been working from day one. To date, I don't think I've seen a single post saying "Well done, GvG is really good and works well.". All we ever see are complaints that it's boring, stagnant, stale, dead, dying and so on. The GvG concept itself I'm not a fan of, but it can work to a good standard. This can't happen however while the more active and dedicated players get punished for their dedication and activity. Until that is stopped GvG is, and always will be, a bad feature.

I'm not saying what is in place now or indeed the 1.27 update is any better, just that it's about balance, not about giving weight to guilds that are already sitting at the top of GvG holding sectors. Also lets face it here, some long established guilds are actually not that long established and simply recruit people based on a minimum point count, I've seen guilds formed in the space of days where ever member is over 500k. This strikes a game balance, not a player targeted balance.

As you said, you've seen guilds spring up out of nowhere, top ranking and high performance guilds at that. Those people made a good decision. They chose to be a strong guild of active players who aspired to reach the top. Other make the bad decision, they choose to join a low level guild which, unfortunately, has no hope.

Now that GvG is here, in it's current format, point requirements to join a guild are completely pointless (<--- See what I did there ;p). With GvG in it's current format guilds need to compete in as many maps as they can if they want to reach the top. This is because attempting to compete in just 1 or 2 of the higher age maps, you will eventually run out of goods and be able to continue any further other than 1 sector every couple of weeks. So guilds now need players of all ages so they can conquer all maps and dominate to be #1. This change would remove that requirement. Guilds would no longer need to have a strong presence in all maps. High age guilds would battle it out on high age maps, and vice versa for low age guilds.

 

[DeletedUser98465]

Going against what was originally intended by devs, I think, is probably the best and only solution. What was intended to begin with clearly isn't working and hasn't been working from day one. To date, I don't think I've seen a single post saying "Well done, GvG is really good and works well.". All we ever see are complaints that it's boring, stagnant, stale, dead, dying and so on. The GvG concept itself I'm not a fan of, but it can work to a good standard. This can't happen however while the more active and dedicated players get punished for their dedication and activity. Until that is stopped GvG is, and always will be, a bad feature.

I was actually referring to the premise of GvG in that it was for everyone as opposed to the implemented game content.

As you said, you've seen guilds spring up out of nowhere, top ranking and high performance guilds at that. Those people made a good decision. They chose to be a strong guild of active players who aspired to reach the top. Other make the bad decision, they choose to join a low level guild which, unfortunately, has no hope.

Now that GvG is here, in it's current format, point requirements to join a guild are completely pointless (<--- See what I did there ;p). With GvG in it's current format guilds need to compete in as many maps as they can if they want to reach the top. This is because attempting to compete in just 1 or 2 of the higher age maps, you will eventually run out of goods and be able to continue any further other than 1 sector every couple of weeks. So guilds now need players of all ages so they can conquer all maps and dominate to be #1. This change would remove that requirement. Guilds would no longer need to have a strong presence in all maps. High age guilds would battle it out on high age maps, and vice versa for low age guilds.

It's a very one sided view. People make choices yes, they choose to play with real life friends, they choose to join a smaller family guild, some are just an effect of circumstance, and a few, are quite happy staying in their small guild because either it gives them the time to play or they want to be without imposed rules as many of the higher guilds (like yours I'm guessing and mine) have. Others want more from the game because they can either afford the time, or like me are very much into gaming and understand the concepts of most styles of play.

The point being here is there is a small part of it about deciding to be in Uber Guild Alpha, but EQUALLY every person should be able to participate in GvG.

What if it's approached from another way? So I'm in a relatively large top 15 ranked guild, we play across EVERY age, and in fact play more so in HMA/LMA and IA than we do in PE/ME, although we have quite a few higher level players. Now all of a sudden there are guilds, who's players probably haven't got out of those ages and are trying to take some initial sectors, and here are people in ME/PME building 15-20 IA barracks........ Now fair enough there may, possibly, speculatively, be a small shift back to PE/ME with those guilds, but why should they? where is the incentive? isn't that a something that is nothing more than a gamble in it happening?

We (and other large guilds) blast through every IA sector now because guess what, our siege cost is 500 IA goods and we can afford to simply siege until our hearts content...... What happens to those guilds, or players or better still players that have paid, that want to take part in GvG? You've just completely alienated them from the game or GvG even more, because they say "Whats' the point"

Unbalanced, which refers me back to the point i was making, in that GvG was for everyone, regardless of how they play. This favors higher up players/guilds. I couldn't find the quote, mainly as I'm tired but it was mentioned about points not being used any more, well it is, it's the only measure, it's just not used as a rank. But that coupled with other factors such as

*Number of guild members
*Tech Tree Progress
*Total number of guild points
*Individual member points
*Capability of larger guilds to field bigger attacking forces with less players

All contribute to the point.

I'm not saying indeed I have the answer, I'm saying I agree with you partly, because frankly I think Inno Devs have lost the plot, but it needs compromise to ensure a level playing field, but for some of it i think we may have to agree to disagree

--------------------------------------
EDIT: Just wanted to add some context to my reasoning.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this, but if there is a gradual incline in cost of a siege from the size of the smaller guild, to the size of the larger guild, it creates balance, it's not about favoring one over the other.

EXAMPLE:

Guild A - 28m Points, 73 Players, highest player in ME, 29 Observatory's, 2 Atomium's, 25 active players in GvG, all of which are playing across ALL ages and have a good player based including a large percentage between 500k and 3m points in size.

Guild B - 3m points, 69 Players, highest player in Industrial, 8 Observatory's, 13 active players in GvG, all of which are playing between IA and LMA.

Guild B is laying a siege in LMA, it takes 7 of there best sub 300k players to even attempt to make a dent.....but they have to siege 4 times and don't succeed.
Guild A is defending one of those sectors, they only field 3 of their top GvG players, all over 1m points, all have at least 3-4 barracks for that age. It's like swatting flies.

Guild B, because they at an earlier stage in the GvG/guild lifecycle, it costs them less to siege, but ultimately may actually cost them more because of the attempts they need to make.

Now lets reverse that.

Guild A is laying a siege in LMA, they only field 3 of their top GvG players, all over 1m points, all have at least 3-4 barracks for that age. Defending armies don't really stand a chance, because they can go for some time, they either only need to siege once, or maybe twice to take the sector.

Guild B is defending one of those sectors, it takes 7 of there best sub 500k players to even attempt to make a dent on the siege........they lose.

 

[DeletedUser17143]

500 goods would be for the lowest power sector. Based on Death's idea It would range from 500 - 2500 goods per siege, based on power of the sectors. As the power of each sector is random, I don't think a guild could siege and take sectors until their hearts are content. If a guild was to siege 10 sectors in a day, nearly half of the sectors would be mid - high sectors, so you would probably need close to 10,000 goods. And that's if none of the sieges are broken. Not many guilds have that amount of goods sitting in their treasury.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

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

Honestly I hadn't worked too hard on those numbers, you could probably do the "5-4x power = cost" for it. I think it is a bit easier on the players who are early on with less space. It's always going to be easy for top ranked players to walk all over the beginners but with more activity higher up their attention for the most part will be drawn up the ages.

500 goods would be for the lowest power sector. Based on Death's idea It would range from 500 - 2500 goods per siege, based on power of the sectors. As the power of each sector is random, I don't think a guild could siege and take sectors until their hearts are content. If a guild was to siege 10 sectors in a day, nearly half of the sectors would be mid - high sectors, so you would probably need close to 10,000 goods. And that's if none of the sieges are broken. Not many guilds have that amount of goods sitting in their treasury.

Yes if you considered total goods cost that is what it looks like. For a guild with 50+ people it isn't too hard to get 500-1500 goods in 1 day so for reasonably "large" guilds it would mean they can seige fairly often. The power of a sector isn't random, it's preset and never changes (unless Inno decide to change it which is rare). Now I'm guess your coming from a position where 10,000 goods sounds like a lot which is partly why some people have suggested a "stricter" goods cost to power ratio so rather than needing 500 IA goods to siege a 2 power sector you'd need 25-50 (price not certain but somewhere there). Thus if your guild is small and can't mass produce goods like the larger guilds you can still be active you just have to pick a lower age. The hope also being that the large guilds would need to focus on the higher ages as the activity will have picked up and their borders will need defending.

Just so that my post returns to the topic/purpose, I support at least a trial of numbers along what is being suggested by death ouron, personally I think it could be adjusted as both byeordie/myself have suggested but I can see why the OP owner would want to first trial the new siege cost system.

 

[DeletedUser]

+1 vote from me

I like the proposal, I vote YES on this solution!

-BudaNight
Warlords of Fel
EN6 Fel Drag server

 

[DeletedUser7396]

That is stupidest idea till now,
stop ruining this game with stupid rules!!!!!!!
There has to be villains in every game, why dont you ask them to cancel plundering also!!!!!
Im sick of you guys that think of you self like you are "angels" and think that you know the best.

The best part of GvG is that i can start siege and attack for a low price, i dont care about GvG rating. Why protect people that want to be in guild that own huge amount of sectors, they are just arrogant snobs, well if they want their reputation let them pay. I am free spirit and want to make their lives miserable just for fun, that is the point of the game to have fun, all of us, not just for "nice guys" but for us villains too.
Our diamonds are not worse than their!!!!!
Sean

 

[DeletedUser13082]

That is stupidest idea till now,
stop ruining this game with stupid rules!!!!!!!
There has to be villains in every game, why dont you ask them to cancel plundering also!!!!!
Im sick of you guys that think of you self like you are "angels" and think that you know the best.

The best part of GvG is that i can start siege and attack for a low price, i dont care about GvG rating. Why protect people that want to be in guild that own huge amount of sectors, they are just arrogant snobs, well if they want their reputation let them pay. I am free spirit and want to make their lives miserable just for fun, that is the point of the game to have fun, all of us, not just for "nice guys" but for us villains too.
Our diamonds are not worse than their!!!!!
Sean

Let me get this straight. You don't play GUILD vs GUILD for GUILD rank. You play GUILD vs GUILD for PLAYER rank, correct? Well I believe you found the problem all by yourself! Well done! Player rank is for personal play such as PvP (Player vs Player). GvG is for Guild rank, Guild vs Guild, starting to see the pattern here?
I suggest that in future before jumping into a thread being abusive, you should possibly think about what you are saying prior to doing so. Also, try offering constructive criticism rather than abusive, people may actually care what you have to say if you did.

@Doubledecker, if this idea were implemented then no large guilds would have any need to enter lower maps as the activity would be in higher maps (meaning they need more time there defending their sectors) and the sieges are more affordable too. The reason large guilds enter lower ages currently is because they can't do anything in the higher ages cause it costs too much. With this idea, that stops, and majority would stick to the higher ages that they can fight in rather than going to the lower ones.

@Lord Baz, as already said, the power of sectors isn't random. You can tell the power of a sector by how many trees are on it. The more trees, the higher the power.

 

[DeletedUser96844]

On original post..

I believe there should be a cap on the amount of goods needed to be paid to siege sectors..
It keep going up with the amount of sectors a guild controls and it is now getting to the stage where guilds cannot produce enough goods to do more sieges...no matter the guild size.
If there was a finite cap of 500 of each goods then there would be more activity on the GvG maps

On the other point of ages and the goods costs...
A goods building from ME cost more to build than a goods building from iron age.
The costs to produce 20 goods from a ME building costs more than a iron age building.
They produce goods at the same rate.
Why should guilds pay more goods to siege in ME rather than Iron Age?.. they already pay more coin and supplies to produce the goods in the first place.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

On original post..

On the other point of ages and the goods costs...
A goods building from ME cost more to build than a goods building from iron age.
The costs to produce 20 goods from a ME building costs more than a iron age building.
They produce goods at the same rate.
Why should guilds pay more goods to siege in ME rather than Iron Age?.. they already pay more coin and supplies to produce the goods in the first place.

That suggested modification to the OP was taking into consideration that if your in the higher ages you can have a lot more space avaliable to you than in the lower ages (considering each age has slightly different amounts of different types of unlocks for expansions). So thinking along the lines of higher age players being able to fit more goods buildings into their towns (along with the extra GB's they would have by that time too) having higher costs in the higher ages would "balance" out the speed of people acquireing enough goods to siege. Also considering that higher age players get more efficent production of coins and supplies adding to the amount of space they have to produce higher age goods it seemed reasonable (for at least some players) to suggest this modification.

It was part that and part this: The cost of 100-500 of each goods seems really high when your taking sectors worth 6 or less power. When you look at the prices at the extreme ends it 500 for 96 power (ME) and 500 for 6 power (IA), to me at least it looks weird.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Why should guilds pay more goods to siege in ME rather than Iron Age?.. they already pay more coin and supplies to produce the goods in the first place.

Yea, but cities get bigger, and goods' building sizes don't increase as much, so you can fit more PME goods in a PME city than IA goods in an Iron Age city
That and Iron Age players will get bored of trying to stock up on enough goods to siege since they aren't as determined to have a city almost filled with goods buildings in the first place

 

[DeletedUser96844]

Yea, but cities get bigger, and goods' building sizes don't increase as much, so you can fit more PME goods in a PME city than IA goods in an Iron Age city
That and Iron Age players will get bored of trying to stock up on enough goods to siege since they aren't as determined to have a city almost filled with goods buildings in the first place

So what you are saying is that it is ok to force the players with larger cities and play higher age GvG to make more goods?
Is this because they are not new to the game, understand it takes a while to progress their cities, and want to play at the highest levels they can? Don't you think they get bored trying to stock up goods?
Higher age players don't want to have to fill their cities with goods buildings just to play GvG. They build them to accommodate their needs and not always exactly how they want them.
If some players want to fill their cities with iron age troops and goods buildings that is their choice.. but to penalise players who don't want to drop back in ages and want to fight GvG in the higher ages is wrong in my view.

Yes the city will be bigger, so are the buildings, costs and time taken to build them.

 

[DeletedUser96844]

That suggested modification to the OP was taking into consideration that if your in the higher ages you can have a lot more space avaliable to you than in the lower ages (considering each age has slightly different amounts of different types of unlocks for expansions). So thinking along the lines of higher age players being able to fit more goods buildings into their towns (along with the extra GB's they would have by that time too) having higher costs in the higher ages would "balance" out the speed of people acquireing enough goods to siege. Also considering that higher age players get more efficent production of coins and supplies adding to the amount of space they have to produce higher age goods it seemed reasonable (for at least some players) to suggest this modification.

It was part that and part this: The cost of 100-500 of each goods seems really high when your taking sectors worth 6 or less power. When you look at the prices at the extreme ends it 500 for 96 power (ME) and 500 for 6 power (IA), to me at least it looks weird.

Because of the increasing amounts of goods required you will see a lot more higher age players fighting in lower ages..
If they cannot fight in ages respective of their cities, they will use a lot of goods they have accumulated over time to fight in lower ages (sometimes even using city space to build lower age goods and troop buildings) so they can keep fighting GvG and gaining PvP and global points..

And before anyone thinks I am one of those high age players fighting in iron age etc... I started GvG in Industrial Age and my city has progressed to PE.. I am also fighting on the PE map..
I make these comments because I am seeing how difficult it is getting to accumulate the amount of goods required to siege the next sectors in these ages that the thought of 'dropping back' to lower ages is very tempting.

An overall cap on the costs of siege goods will keep more players fighting at their respective ages
If sieges were capped to a maximum of 500 of each goods you would see more activity on the higher age maps and would allow for Iron Age and EMA to be fought by lower age players as it was intended for

 

[DeletedUser2989]

Because of the increasing amounts of goods required you will see a lot more higher age players fighting in lower ages..
If they cannot fight in ages respective of their cities, they will use a lot of goods they have accumulated over time to fight in lower ages (sometimes even using city space to build lower age goods and troop buildings) so they can keep fighting GvG and gaining PvP and global points..

And before anyone thinks I am one of those high age players fighting in iron age etc... I started GvG in Industrial Age and my city has progressed to PE.. I am also fighting on the PE map..
I make these comments because I am seeing how difficult it is getting to accumulate the amount of goods required to siege the next sectors in these ages that the thought of 'dropping back' to lower ages is very tempting.

An overall cap on the costs of siege goods will keep more players fighting at their respective ages
If sieges were capped to a maximum of 500 of each goods you would see more activity on the higher age maps and would allow for Iron Age and EMA to be fought by lower age players as it was intended for

You have missed the part where I also suggested it go no higher than 500. Really the increase in goods needed as you go up in age would be small and never go past 500.

Earlier I posted an example list of costs:
"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"

While not a lot of effort was put into those cost values it shows the general idea of a very small increase in cost as you go up in age. It'd be easy for ME people to come up with between 64-192 of each good for their sieges and it wouldn't be a grind for goods. If you impose the same costs on IA players in the IA may find it to be a grind collecting that much. When I was in IA/EMA I had trouble fitting in 3 goods buildings and all the troops buildings, now in ME/PME I can easily fit more (6 from ME/PME at least) and I've had the time to get an Alcatraz which means less space taken by troops. Given this as an example in my later ages I could produce more goods and troops (age appropriate) than I could earlier.

Overall I was suggesting that we make the cost to siege a sector truely equivalent to the power you'd gain, thus it would mean different costs for each age. You want more power in 1 sector then you'll need to spend more goods (which is already in the OP just locked at the same price in each age). Sure this means people can take the easy way out and play in the earlier ages but they benefit less from their actions. The appeal of fighting in the higher ages (even it higher costs) are you get points towards the higher PvP towers (more medals), you get more power (faster guild leveling) and you have less competition (less people can access the very last age than IA). I would have thought that was enough.

 

[DeletedUser]

+1 Amen! I support the idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe the goods costs should depend on the power that belongs to a sector. For example if in PME sector provides 120 power, the goods costs could be 120 if ratio would be (1:1) / 240 if ratio would be (2:1) / 300 if ratio would be (2,5:1) from each of 5 goods that belong to this age/era.

 

[DeletedUser13082]

Maybe the goods costs should depend on the power that belongs to a sector. For example if in PME sector provides 120 power, the goods costs could be 120 if ratio would be (1:1) / 240 if ratio would be (2:1) / 300 if ratio would be (2,5:1) from each of 5 goods that belong to this age/era.

That is the idea stated in the OP just with different values which are still debatable and would need some balancing etc. Thanks for the support

The overall idea would change the costs of GvG entirely, rather than cost being based on the guilds current progress it should be based on the sector which the guild wishes to acquire. There are 4 different power sectors on each map. The lowest being 0 trees on hex up to the highest being a hex full of trees. Each hex should have a siege cost based on the power which it offers. Starting from the lowest power being 200 of each good and working up to the highest power sectors being 500 of each good.