New Content Guild versus Guild

[DeletedUser]

Do not know if it has been suggested, but could it be made possible to withdraw goods from the treasury to trade up or down as 1000s of goods are lying around unused because Guilds are not active in all of the ages.

Maybe post somewhere in the ideas thread of a guild market...Guild founders leaders etc can set trades for other guilds gaining what they need etc...Could be good with some thought and discussion.

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe post somewhere in the ideas thread of a guild market...Guild founders leaders etc can set trades for other guilds gaining what they need etc...Could be good with some thought and discussion.

There are several threads in the Ideas section regarding this issue. If you look they aren't too hard to find.

 

[DeletedUser]

There's a one man guild plowing through the ME map it's so funny.

 

[DeletedUser]

There's a one man guild plowing through the ME map it's so funny.

Good on him if he's managing to get somewhere and having fun doing it. He's obviously got a strategy that works.

 

[DeletedUser]

Good on him if he's managing to get somewhere and having fun doing it. He's obviously got a strategy that works.

Yeah, lots of people are frustrated at the huge costs for goods it costs to siege. A lot of us just gave up.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah, lots of people are frustrated at the huge costs for goods it costs to siege. A lot of us just gave up.

I'm still slightly wondering why people thought war would not cost a lot? According to Sun Tzu, who wrote the original Art of War, besieging a place is the most expensive and resource-draining option. He advises to be very well-prepared if you want to do it and that it is not guaranteed to work.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm still slightly wondering why people thought war would not cost a lot? According to Sun Tzu, who wrote the original Art of War, besieging a place is the most expensive and resource-draining option. He advises to be very well-prepared if you want to do it and that it is not guaranteed to work.

The costs are not the same here. The cost of a big guild besieging a sector is much higher than the cost of this one man guild who takes two sectors each day and just grants freedom to the old ones.

 

[DeletedUser4089]

The costs are not the same here. The cost of a big guild besieging a sector is much higher than the cost of this one man guild who takes two sectors each day and just grants freedom to the old ones.

Which makes sense, the more land you have, the more expensive it becomes to expand.

And the reasoning why it's been set up this way was explained by Anwar in an InnogameTV Episode.
Also, GvG was introduced as a long term feature. I can't understand why people seem to expect to have huge rewards in days and the ability to siege everywhere within hours with no real costs.
Instead of thinking what you can do in 5 days, think more about building your stockpile to gain a decent chunk of the map over 5 years.

And if a one man guild can successfully beat an 80 man guild, then good for him and maybe the 80 man guild should pull their socks up. It may be cheaper t lay the siege, but the battles work exactly the same.

 

[DeletedUser]

Which makes sense, the more land you have, the more expensive it becomes to expand.

In which part of history is this true? When Napoleon invaded italy, the cost of taking over the country is the same regardless of how much land he actually had. It's the same piece of land, with the same amount of defences.

And if a one man guild can successfully beat an 80 man guild, then good for him and maybe the 80 man guild should pull their socks up. It may be cheaper t lay the siege, but the battles work exactly the same.

The battles are trivial, that's the problem. It takes 10mins for a fully defended sector to be taken.

 

[DeletedUser4089]

In which part of history is this true? When Napoleon invaded italy, the cost of taking over the country is the same regardless of how much land he actually had. It's the same piece of land, with the same amount of defences.

In the common sense part of history, though I understand it's not well known.

If you own a large area of land, it will cost more to get resources from one part of it to another. Sieges take a lot of resources, like, a really big lot of them. The more land you have, the more resources you need

Lets look at it like this. Your siege needs 100 food every day, and your army needs 10 food a day to deliver the food to the siege.
-If you have a small area of land, you can get the food to your siege in 1 day. You need only send 120 food. (100 for siege, 20 for delivery men.)
-If you have a large area of land, it takes a week to get the food to your siege. You need to send 840 food. (700 for siege, as it needs to last a week before the next delivery, and 140 for the delivery men)

The battles are trivial, that's the problem. It takes 10mins for a fully defended sector to be taken.

Ah, so if my maths is right, it only takes 1.25 minutes for a siege to be broken.
10 minutes to defeat 8 armies, 1/8th of that to defeat 1 army.

 

[DeletedUser15432]

Pembar, your analogy with regards to Napoleons conquest if Italy has one major flaw, the French Napoleonic armies of the time lived off the land and acquired the food and forage from the area they were operating in, the only thing that needed to be supplied was ammunition, and as there were plenty of victories against the Austrian Forces and the Italians were more inclined to support the French, even this was available locally. The serious difficulties were experienced in Spain - hostile population were the term Guerrilla (meaning little war) was invented and Russia, where the Russian Imperial Army used the vast distances and a scorched earth policy to good effect

 

[DeletedUser96901]

Ah, so if my maths is right, it only takes 1.25 minutes for a siege to be broken.
10 minutes to defeat 8 armies, 1/8th of that to defeat 1 army.

so you have to control every 8 minutes if someone put a siege army in your territory
because if you are away 9 minutes you where too late to break the siege

 

[DeletedUser2989]

Honestly Pembar raises some good concerns, It can take forever for a guild with lots of land to aquire all of it and any guild that isn't interested in holding land can just run through taking and dropping. Really annoying for a guild that is actually working hard to take large numbers of sectors to be number 1.

While I understand their high seige costs and the arguements for it remaining so we need to keep in mind that this is a game and not real life. Just because it makes sense in real life doesn't mean that putting that in a game is fun. It is not fun waiting a week to lay your next seige (or waiting 2 or 3 weeks in some cases). You aren't entertained by defending what you have because battles are over quickly, your just fustrated because you still have to work up 1655 (as an example) of each good to take back what you lost. So your reward for trying to be number 1 is you get to sit on your hands and watch your hard earned empire get chipped away. In saying that top guilds can retaliate with "temporary" guilds which I think is detering most attacks against them.

Overall there are several things that need fixing to make GvG fair and fun. At the moment I'm getting bored waiting for goods to build up and I'm fustrated by the fact that if my guild tries to take on others that are high ranked we'll get "temp guild" retaliation.

A note on the speed of seiges, while what Bartimaeus46 is correct "Ah, so if my maths is right, it only takes 1.25 minutes for a siege to be broken." you can only break a seige that quick if you have 10 people online and able to react in under 10 min (for that specific case). Personally I have issues with auto or speed battling in GvG as the time you take during your attack actually impacts other people in terms of their defense. Auto and speed battles are harmless in PvP, the defender looses nothing (other than plundering which has it's limitations) and it saves the attacker time. But in GvG auto/speed battling can change the outcome entrely, forcing attackers to auto/speed battle before their seige is broken (costing them troops possibly diamonds). Personally I feel it would be fair to have GvG battles restricted to 1 game speed and non autobattle but that's just my opinion of fair, I can't say it would work or improve anything.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Personally I feel it would be fair to have GvG battles restricted to 1 game speed and non autobattle but that's just my opinion of fair, I can't say it would work or improve anything.

If the 1 game speed is below the fastest, I would prefer to use the fastest and then have a wait time before the next attack.
As mentioned above the problem I have is that if you're a big guild It takes forever to start a new siege, but minutes to take/loose your next sector. The game should make the waiting time between sieges proportional to the attack time of the siege (so lesser amount of goods, or longer wait times after a successful attack on defense or siege)

 

[DeletedUser2989]

If it is the slowest speed then you don't need to wait time between attacks unless your intending a "longer" wait time between attacks. I guess a wait time would be fairer as it makes the time between attacks dependent on the server and not the players "machine" performance. The timer between attacks would have to start from the beginning of your attack though otherwise it'd still penalise those who don't enjoy the battles where troops are darting everywhere (can't tell I'm a person who likes the slow paced battles ).

 

[DeletedUser97293]

Since GvG began, the open market for goods is drying up. It is hard to acquire what is needed for research or negotiating territories on the map. I have chosen not to play GvG; it seems like I am being penalized for that choice.

bojo54

 

[DeletedUser]

Since GvG began, the open market for goods is drying up. It is hard to acquire what is needed for research or negotiating territories on the map. I have chosen not to play GvG; it seems like I am being penalized for that choice.

bojo54

I do not play GvG, but know that it can also be difficult for people in guilds to obtain goods for research or negotiating territories on the map because goods are going into the Guild Treasury instead. However, my personal experience is that I am still able to obtain goods in trading with my guild and I see people completing trades via chat. Some solutions to this may be:

1. Join a guild that is based around trading or is not participating in GvG.
2. Ask for trades in chat.
3. Friend people who do have spare goods and are not busy donating them into their Guild Treasury.
4. GvG is a long-term feature and people will also need to trade goods for research and negotiations, etc. Therefore the open market may be reduced, but it is unlikely to vanish.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Is there an up-to-date GvG guide somewhere? I've located this one:
http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?24371-Guild-Vs-Guild-Full-Guide
but it isn't up to date (the calculations for the distribution of the "support pool" are obsolete).

Meanwhile, maybe someone can help with what I was specifically looking for a guide for: What do the "daily top 3 power rewards" do? If a guild gets "5%" in that, what is it 5% of - power? prestige? support? level?

And: What is "prestige", anyway - does it increase our level, boost our defense, put food on the table, pay the bills, or do anything at all?

Thanks for any available clarity.

 

[DeletedUser11899]

Meanwhile, maybe someone can help with what I was specifically looking for a guide for: What do the "daily top 3 power rewards" do? If a guild gets "5%" in that, what is it 5% of - power? prestige? support? level?

And: What is "prestige", anyway - does it increase our level, boost our defense, put food on the table, pay the bills, or do anything at all?

Thanks for any available clarity.

The top 3 power rewards is added to you daily power, so your guild will reach the next level a bit faster, nothing else.
Prestige doesn't give you something useful, its only a simple ranking, a kind of Hall of Fame.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

So the 5% reward is an increase in the very thing it's a reward for? That makes sense!
Thanks for the clarifications. It certainly would be nice if these things were clarified in tooltips or something.