So lets say that every player in every guild plays the game the way you want it played and goods costs are levelled out at which ever level you want.
The map sectors are conquered by the guilds and everyone has what they have.
Once a week or a fortnight someone audaciously attacks someone else's sector and the result is whatever it is.
What do we all do then? ZZZzzzzzzz
Every member in your guild is active in GvG but it takes you a week or 2 to gather 200-500 goods of a certain age? My guild gains more than 200 PME goods per day just from collections from atomium and observatory. I don't really see how you can say that lowering costs from 1000+ of each good of an age is going to slow the activity down. All guilds have the exact same opportunity with the exact same costs. Small guilds with less sectors aren't the only activity in GvG. From what you're saying, you effectively mean that only small guilds should be able to have any activity, the large guilds with lots of sectors and high costs shouldn't be able to be active cause they have enough already, that's hardly fair is it? It's also pretty pointless meaning any guild who aspire to be high ranked might as well just drop the idea cause as soon as they get there they will have nothing left to do in the game.
Now I only need to log on once a day to collect my goods, coin and supplies. Polish/Motivate my guildies and that's it.
Oh yeah, I can sit in the forum writing out long winded mails about how the developers have made another mistake somewhere.
Also I can go and do the same mundane things in 7 other worlds.
Is that not how the game is currently for anybody who isn't some form of ghost guild? You may have high activity levels yourself, but what about those who choose to play for guild rank? They reach higher ranks and should therefore be penalised by not being able to do anything for weeks at a time? I'm still unable to see any sort of point you are making. You seem to say a lot that these sort of ideas are just to benefit the way that "we" want to play. Is what you're saying not just a way to benefit the way that you want to play? You don't what a fair goods cost system because it will slow down your activity while speeding up the activity of others? Levelling out the activity across all guilds, despite their play style, is unfair in your eyes? and your play style should be the one that is gifted with better activity possibilities?
I almost wish that you get your way and then we can all look to you guys and thank you for pushing the developers to change things until You were happy and the game "Fully Stagnated".
I support this statement. I hope this idea does go forward, I'm so confident that this idea will increase activity and not lower it that if this is implemented and activity levels in GvG drop then I will shovel £1,000 into this game myself, not even for diamonds, just a donation. We all know how inno like their money, write up a contract, I'll sign it and then they can implement this idea and we'll see how it goes. I 100% guarantee that GvG activity levels will be higher if this is implemented. The reason being, it will no longer be one or 2 ghost guilds who are actively doing anything, instead it will be ALL guilds who are active, despite how many sectors they already own, they can still attack on a daily basis with these goods costs rather than having to save up for weeks at a time.
I would prefer to see the following:
1/. Sectors per map "Doubled" giving more room for everyone to play within.
2/. Max Seige costs "Capped" somewhere at around 1,000 of each goods.
3/. Each NPC owned sector is Fully Loaded with Troops allowing for the fighters to get lots of action without the need to attack fully loaded guild owned sectors.
4/. All Sectors are able to be attacked anywhere on the map (all as landing zones)
5/ Conquered sectors have "NO" Goods cost to unlock slots. You should only need armies to fill the slots.
1. Sectors in maps being doubled has been mentioned before, personally I think more sectors per map is a good idea, but not while the goods costs are in their current form. It would simply lower activity cause the guilds taking sectors would have even higher goods costs once the maps are under full guild control. There would be an even worse stagnation once the NPC sectors were all gone, again, it would come down to the only activity being from ghost guilds with a genuine guild making a move once per fortnight.
2. This has been suggested multiple times. Although this idea would help promote higher activity levels (by a very very small amount), it wouldn't fix issues such as ghost guilds. Why should one guild have any form of advantage over another if they haven't earned it. Guild A takes 20 sectors, Guild B takes none. Guild A cannot do anything for weeks at a time cause they can't afford too. Guild B can attack hundreds of times per day despite not actually doing anything. Why does guild A have to suffer for their success while guild B gets to do what they want without any effort?
3. Fully loaded NPC's wouldn't really make much difference. Yes there are more fights, therefore the siege lasts longer. Once all of the NPC's are gone, nothing is different. This is Guild vs Guild, not Guild vs NPC. The idea is that you should be attacking fully loaded guild sectors, why would that be changed?
4. Has been mentioned a few times before. This takes away from the tactical side of the game. Guilds working their way into safer areas of the map in order to be better defended would become pointless. Although currently this has mainly been done by HQ dropping as soon as the map is released, there are still guilds who play tactically without exploits and we do well for ourselves. Also, although many of us want to see GvG become more active, we don't want to see GvG become too active. If this were to happen, maps would require constant watch, this is a slower based game than other inno games, requiring less game time. That was intentional for the game. If activity levels reach rates which are too high, things fall into chaos and people stop playing because they don't have the time to be able to optimise their game. There's a fine line between not enough activity and too much activity, that fine line is what is needed in GvG.
5. I'm on the fence with that. For realism sake, opening slots with goods is sort of like using resources to build new outposts/watchtowers on the sector, things like that. Second is that the tactical side of GvG would be lowered a little further. Currently guilds have to work to get the right amount of goods to take a few sectors and give them a decent amount of defence so they are not lost immediately after the calculation. It's not much of a tactical side but it's still something. Then from the opposite side of the fence, it costs 360 of each good from that age to open all defence slots, that's a lot of goods. 30 of each for all slots would probably be more beneficial. If you go and attack a settlement (sector), destroy all of it's defences and over run it, claiming it for yourself, there are going to be costs of rebuilding what was damaged during the battle. That is how I see things where goods for defence slots are concerned, again though, the costs are pretty steep.
