Forwarded: GvG Defenders Need "Replace Armies?" Pop-Up

[DeletedUser1081]

Proposal: In GvG, defense armies can't be added or replaced during a siege. The moment a siege is successfully destroyed, the defenders need to have at least a tiny window of opportunity to quickly replace at least one or two battered defense armies.

Have you checked the Ideas Section for the same idea posted by someone else? Yes.

Reason: The way it is now, the besieging side has an unreasonable advantage because they're notified that their siege has been eliminated and can replace it instantly, while the defense side needs to go through a number of extra clicks to replace or add an army. It doesn't matter how well organized and valiant the defense is - the set-up makes it simply impossible to squeak even one fresh defense army in if the besieging side is poised to set a new siege. It shouldn't be impossible.

Details: There should be a brief "ceasefire" period between sieges - I suggest 30 seconds to give the defenders a chance to do what they can to bolster their armies (either adding or replacing armies). A dialog window allowing the defense player to quickly replace defense armies that are worn out would be a nice touch, but the main thing would be the brief window of time.

Balance/Abuse Prevention: The idea is to improve the balance so that defenders have a chance to replace at least one defense army between sieges.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I don't know about a pop up, but I definitely agree with some sort of message and time (somewhere between 2min - 20min?) after defeating the siege

 

[DeletedUser15432]

I agree with this suggestion also +1, but I am not sure how it would best be implemented

 

[DeletedUser97349]

From experience, it is not impossible to add extra defensive armies during repeated sieges; my own guild has successfully defended in this situation multiple times.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

From experience, it is not impossible to add extra defensive armies during repeated sieges; my own guild has successfully defended in this situation multiple times.

With all due respect, that's only because your opponents weren't as on-the-ball as they could have been. My guild has done it too, when the opponent is sleepy, distracted, unsure or simply slow, but the fact remains that the besieging side needs just one click to set a new siege army, while the defenders need to click through a series of dialogs to replace a worn-out defense army. In any situation where everyone is poised to act immediately, the besieging side will be faster simply because the interface doesn't demand as much from them.

 

[DeletedUser97349]

With all due respect, that's only because your opponents weren't as on-the-ball as they could have been. My guild has done it too, when the opponent is sleepy, distracted, unsure or simply slow, but the fact remains that the besieging side needs just one click to set a new siege army, while the defenders need to click through a series of dialogs to replace a worn-out defense army. In any situation where everyone is poised to act immediately, the besieging side will be faster simply because the interface doesn't demand as much from them.

Trust me, they were on the ball . For eg. 8 back to back sieges, each siege army replaced within seconds of being defeated. Nothing sleepy or disorganised about it. It's certainly not easy to replace the defending armies in time, but it is possible. When a guild is locked in and has to fight their way through enemy guilds with 8 armies in defence and up to 50% defence bonus it has to be possible for them to do that. Making it too easy to replace defending armies would make it nearly impossible to defeat a guild with maxed out defence who are defending en mass.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Trust me, they were on the ball . For eg. 8 back to back sieges, each siege army replaced within seconds of being defeated. Nothing sleepy or disorganised about it. It's certainly not easy to replace the defending armies in time, but it is possible. When a guild is locked in and has to fight their way through enemy guilds with 8 armies in defence and up to 50% defence bonus it has to be possible for them to do that. Making it too easy to replace defending armies would make it nearly impossible to defeat a guild with maxed out defence who are defending en mass.

Smile: if it took them more than a second they were hesitant/slow.
I'm not suggesting "making it too easy". I'm suggesting making it fair.

 

[DeletedUser96867]

I don't know about a pop up, but I definitely agree with some sort of message and time (somewhere between 2min - 20min?) after defeating the siege

I disagree. As it is gvg will quickly stagnate as the goods costs of placing sieges compared to the rate of success provide no reason for a guild to even attempt to attack another guild. If a guild is actively defending a sector there is no way an attacking guild will ever be able to win if the defenders are given times to replace/add defense armies after every siege is done. Why spend 1k, or 2k, or 3k or more goods laying a siege if all the damaged you do can be repaired when the first siege is taken out. Unless you like gambling a lot of goods that the other guild will be asleep for the time it will take you to do the 80 battles, there would be absolutely no reason to even make an attempt.

A pop up message may be nice, but on the other hand in many cases it would actually delay me trying to add/replace an army after i see the siege disappear from the view sector window. One more click i'd have to do. If you aren't ready to replace/add defenses when the siege is wiped out, and need a pop-up menu, then you are likely already too late unless the attackers are also sleeping.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

All right, not a pop-up - a brief ceasefire before the next siege can be set.
30 seconds would be my suggestion. Both sides would need to be alert and both would have a chance.

 

[DeletedUser96867]

@mink

Would you waste time, units, and thousands of goods to attack another guilds sector knowing full well they will have 30 seconds to replace every damaged army in their defense every time they managed to defeat your siege? I certainly wouldn't, but perhaps that's just me. The last thing we need is another reason for guilds not to attempt to fight other guilds. I highly expect that in just a few weeks Guild Wars will be largely missing one important element: any guilds at war.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

But then why would anyone waste time, units, and thousands of goods to take and hold a sector at all, when it can be taken away so easily by anyone with an attack boost, an Alcatraz and a little persistence?
I agree that GvG is fatally flawed, but that doesn't mean the defense shouldn't have a chance.

 

[DeletedUser96867]

@Mink
1)Personally i would love to see a time delay put into place for using autobattle. There is no way for a player who doesn't have a high attack boost to compete with a player who can autobattle much quicker through many battles. A 2-3 minute delay between gvg autobattles would at least even out the difference in time it takes a player to manually fight. Clearly for most players they take more than 2-3 minutes to manually fight so the autobattle player would still have the advantage.

2)The gvg defense boosts are a mess. Up to 2 weeks ago when 1.20 was introduced with the DB reductions the majority of large guilds on the test server had a very large number of their sectors with the max 50% defense boost. After 1.20 was introduced that was cut in half. Now with the corrections to the defense pool calculations most defense pools have been cut by another 4/5ths. FoE has taken us from one extreme to another. Most guilds in the higher gvg ages don't have a defense boost that extends beyond the HQ. Would make far more sense to me that the defense pools be greatly increased but the max defense of a sector continue to decrease with increasing distance from the HQ. This means most guilds would have a core area of sectors with a good defense which would be hard to attack, but the out laying sector would be easier and more likely to be attacked. Currently my guild in CA and IndA doesn't have a defense pool that extends beyond the HQ. We were about the 33rd ranked guild in the previous ranking. If we don't have a core area of sectors with defense boosts neither will most guilds. 1 sector with a 50-75% boost while all other sectors are 0% is of absolutely no value.

As far as i've seen it's not defense that doesn't have a chance it's usually the attacker who has very little chance(however most of my experience is with the higher defense pools on the test server before 1.20). I have very little faith that our guild will be able to attack another guild held sector. However i'm fairly confident we can can fight off an attack quickly enough that it will soon become clear that attempting to take one of our sectors is too costly. Unless a guild isn't defending, the attacker will likely go through multiple sieges attacking a sector. If a guild already holds about 15 sectors each siege will cost as many goods as were needed for the defender to unlock all 8 defense slots. So it's the attacker who is often making the greater goods commitment, and shouldn't have the balanced pushed even further into the favor of the defender.

The problem with making it highly difficult for highly boosted player with an alcatraz to take a sector, is if it's really hard for them to take a sector, then it'll be nearly impossible for anyone else to take a sector. As it is i honestly have no interest in taking part in attack on another guilds sectors, as i don't see the return.

Totally agree with your comment that gvg is fatally flawed. Almost not worth talking about these little things as it really should be taken back to the drawing board for a complete rework.

 

[Surge]

With all due respect, that's only because your opponents weren't as on-the-ball as they could have been. My guild has done it too, when the opponent is sleepy, distracted, unsure or simply slow, but the fact remains that the besieging side needs just one click to set a new siege army, while the defenders need to click through a series of dialogs to replace a worn-out defense army. In any situation where everyone is poised to act immediately, the besieging side will be faster simply because the interface doesn't demand as much from them.

I'm fighting against some guild that's on the top 3 in my world and they're darn well on the ball with the things they pull off, attacking tiny guild empires that just put their own HQ without giving them a chance. Anywhoo, I was snooping around making an army to fight against the NPC and then just clicking with great anger for five minutes straight because the game doesn't bother giving you the option of selecting which army you want to fight. And then, a tiny flicker on my screen, the pointer changes for one second and reverts back, and I notice my siege is broken. So I just dump my attacking army right into the siege slot.

There is a notification if you can call it that way, but it's so small, blink and you'll miss it. So yes, give some leeway for replacing armies and give a notification.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

This idea has in effect been forwarded as a part of the GvG feedback thread.

 

[Shad23]

-1 you just need to be fast enough or have one of your warriors only there to place defending armys when siege is defeated i believe it would become practically impossible to take a sector if other guild is watching if you place a "ceasefire" after siege has been defeated