how to stop the stalemate in gvg

[DeletedUser101862]

Other than defence of armies differing, there is no difference. You enter a battle with 8 units, you fight against 8 units, you win or you lose, you move on to the next battle. End of.


Also, back on topic (kind of) desy, didn't you hit 15m PvP points in modern era tower last week? Could you have achieved that without GvG? erm, I think not. You are using GvG to benefit yourself and then complaining about it's very existence... Isn't that a bit contradictory?

I am not trolling either. I am giving valid reasons of why these ideas would be bad and would not work (and also throwing in a few other ideas at the same time with minimal detail).

 

[DeletedUser13805]

Other than defence of armies differing, there is no difference. You enter a battle with 8 units, you fight against 8 units, you win or you lose, you move on to the next battle. End of.


Also, back on topic (kind of) esy, didn't you hit 15m PvP points in modern era tower last week? Could you have achieved that without GvG? erm, I think not. You are using GvG to benefit yourself and then complaining about it's very existence... Isn't that a bit contradictory?

I am not trolling either. I am giving valid reasons of why these ideas would be bad and would not work (and also throwing in a few other ideas at the same time with minimal detail).

i wondered where you had got to mr ouron, its been a bit quiet around here without your posts good to see you back
i did a quick scout around and the only sergent mason i could find is on 7000 points and not even in a guild so i was thinking this was just a wind up.

now back to the topic
yes i made 15 million almost 9 million from pvp hood fights and the rest from gvg battles, the gvg fights are far easier than pvp hood fights no argument. i dont play in a guild anymore but have a one man guild just so i can pick any fights that might be going on in the maps but like i said its hardly happening hence i know the game is slowly dying to a death there will be nothing anyone will be able to do at the rate its going

i am not complaing about gvg existance i am complaining that the whole game is stood still both pvp and gvg for many players
the pvp side is down because of the unfair nerfing that took place to make way for the gvg that many players dont like and those that do like it are now bored with hardly anything to do
so my complaint is about the state the game is in,
the other week when it came out i tried it out and i actually enjoyed it for a few days and then it soon became clear to me the game is in an explosion mode and will soon hit a stop and thats what is happening all around.
so my idea of a guild going about freeing up sectors was to see if it would work to get some life going again. also i have thrown it open for anyone to come up with any ideas and i really think the reset idea is a pretty good one
as you said i didnt 15 million points last week thats a lot of work and time i put in and its been wiped out now and scores back to nil, so if i want to win this week i have to do it all over again
would you expect man utd or liverpool football clubs to keep hold on there trophys as they worked hard all year for them ? or do you accept that they all have to start again when the season is over ? its the same thing with the reset

 

[DeletedUser96867]

i really think the reset idea is a pretty good one

You know if desypete and i agree on something it either has to be a very good idea, or a very bad one.

 

[DeletedUser101862]

now back to the topic
yes i made 15 million almost 9 million from pvp hood fights and the rest from gvg battles, the gvg fights are far easier than pvp hood fights no argument. i dont play in a guild anymore but have a one man guild just so i can pick any fights that might be going on in the maps but like i said its hardly happening hence i know the game is slowly dying to a death there will be nothing anyone will be able to do at the rate its going

i am not complaing about gvg existance i am complaining that the whole game is stood still both pvp and gvg for many players
the pvp side is down because of the unfair nerfing that took place to make way for the gvg that many players dont like and those that do like it are now bored with hardly anything to do
so my complaint is about the state the game is in,
the other week when it came out i tried it out and i actually enjoyed it for a few days and then it soon became clear to me the game is in an explosion mode and will soon hit a stop and thats what is happening all around.
so my idea of a guild going about freeing up sectors was to see if it would work to get some life going again. also i have thrown it open for anyone to come up with any ideas and i really think the reset idea is a pretty good one
as you said i didnt 15 million points last week thats a lot of work and time i put in and its been wiped out now and scores back to nil, so if i want to win this week i have to do it all over again
would you expect man utd or liverpool football clubs to keep hold on there trophys as they worked hard all year for them ? or do you accept that they all have to start again when the season is over ? its the same thing with the reset

I'll give you one thing, your football analogy is decent, however, incorrect. We aren't fighting for a reward, we are fighting for status. Would you agree that all teams of all leagues should be reset every season and start again from the bottom, or does the current aspect of leagues work better in which they work their way into higher leagues and then the following season they play in that league, they don't get reset back to nothing. They keep their status which they earn. This reset would remove a guilds status in my opinion, also, as already said, the amount of effort required in GvG wouldn't be worth it if there was a reset feature added in. People wouldn't bother to compete unless the rewards were extremely beneficial at the time of the reset. Personally I can't imagine any reward offered being beneficial enough.

There are a lot of simple ideas going around which will fix the issue of a stand still, the simplest being a cap on the goods costs (in my opinion). No major change is needed to the GvG feature, it is fine the way it is and very enjoyable if you participate along side a good active guild with good communication between members. There was always going to be an explosion of activity when GvG was first released, it is a time for guilds to make their mark and gain their first sectors, all the battles are easy, the defence armies are easy and taking a sector is only 20 battles, goods costs are also low. This however is not what GvG is intended to be like, this is just the initial jump of GvG when it's released. It will happen again when new ages are released, there will be a sudden jump. In the grand scheme of GvG though it is intended to be an active feature for a very long time, guilds are supposed to compete to be the best and prove they are the top guild. The extremely fast paced way that you enjoyed doesn't prove that, in my opinion. All that proves is that the top guild has players who are more active and online more often. What about the strategy? The tactics? The planning? the war? It is after all "Guild Wars" not "guild battles".

The reason that your idea has received such negative feedback is simply due to the fact that it is not a fair game strategy. It is a mistake in the game mechanics which is being exploited by players. It is now known that this is soon going to be fixed (to some extent or another). Therefore, your idea is actually not even worth mentioning simply because it cannot happen once the fix has been made.

 

[DeletedUser98682]

The rules are quite clear about one person only having one account on the forum.
Also this thread is about stalemate in gvg - so please stay on topic and only discuss this - thank you

 

[DeletedUser96867]

People wouldn't bother to compete unless the rewards were extremely beneficial at the time of the reset. Personally I can't imagine any reward offered being beneficial enough.

It will happen again when new ages are released, there will be a sudden jump.

In the grand scheme of GvG though it is intended to be an active feature for a very long time, guilds are supposed to compete to be the best and prove they are the top guild.

What about the strategy? The tactics? The planning? the war? It is after all "Guild Wars" not "guild battles".

1)I can't imagine guilds doing much more with the current reward/cost ratio. Gotten to the point it's not even worth taking any more npc's, never mind trying to attack another guild which would likely take multiple sieges.

2)New gvg ages will only be participated in by the handful of players and guilds at the end of the tree, the majority of players won't be able to take part until long after the map is filled.

3)The top few guild have already been determined, guilds have little hope of advancing far in the gvg standings, especially as the gvg defense pool rewards further fortify the current top guilds. Taking a sector here or there will make little difference in a guilds standings.

4)Where is the strategy, tactics, planning, and the war in the current gvg setup? Once all the npc's are all gone there will basically be none of those things you speak of.

 

[DeletedUser8813]

PvP towers have far more competition now than they every did before. How is there less competition now? players are competing for their guilds and earning PvP points in multiple towers, more PvP points than they could have earned previously. The competition has gone up, not down. PvP itself has gone down as most players main focus is now on GvG battles rather than neighbourhood battles.

i find this to be untrue..there is now 2 out of our hood that are really competing for the modern era...and it only takes a few fights to place in the rest of the towers ..but i have stopped doing most ..although i have never been worried about winning the towers i was always second or 3rd(couple of players can get more attacks in )but now i can take a day or two off and still finish 2nd or 3rd..and do it easily pvp has definitely suffered.

also we have not had more than 2 sieges against us in the last couple of weeks..gvg is mind numbing ..it is so boring it is beyond belief..12 months we wait since we found out it was coming...what a let down

 

[DeletedUser2989]

A couple problems with that. The decrease in goods costs for attacking another guild put no system in place which would keep a few guilds from taking most of the map. Small guilds which took a few npc sectors would then be highly targeted by the top guilds as the top guilds could attack then at low cost compared to attacking NPC. It also creates a whole new loophole to exploit. Use ghost guilds or something similar to attack the NPC sectors at low cost and then attack the ghost guilds sector with the main guild. You just have your ghost guild advance into the npc sectors ahead of your main guild. Presuming the cost of taking NPC sectors is increased similar to now the ghost guild will be paying in the 5x10 range for a siege while the main guild will pay the reduced cost.

Having said that, remember that we are reaching the point where there are few npc sectors left, so the cost difference to attack between NPC and guild held will soon be irrelevant.

I'm not sure if you read through my idea, or maybe you missunderstood.

1) The goods cost to siege another guild is based on difference in rank. High ranked guilds would find it expensive to wipe out low ranked guilds until they drop in rank or the low rank guild gains rank.
2) You can't use fake guilds to reduce costs as that "new and fake" guild would be low ranked, thus a high ranked guild would find it too expensive to take those sectors owned by the low ranked fake guild.
3) Currently there is very little difference in attacking NPC's and other guilds, not all NPC spaces are gone but I do agree that one day they may well all be gone. However there are still ages to come out and more GvG provinces to come, NPC's will be present then and that's were seperate costs will have the greatest impact.
4) The major element of my idea was to focus on the difference in rank, it would be cheap to siege guilds 5 ranks above and below you giving you some more appealing targets than others. So when the maps are all guild owned oppertunities arrise for you to place cheap sieges even now and again as gulids rise and fall in rank.

As for later posts, it seems like people are certain that the feature has failed. Personally it seems a bit early to say that, people are using it, stuff is still happening. My idea is up in the ideas forum as I agreed with this thread title, there seems to be a significant slow down, but unlike some here I'm not certain it's just my view.

As for proposals to stop the stalemate that I didn't address ie goods cost cap, I like a cap, especially at 500-1000. It seems a bit much to have an ever increasing cost.

 

[DeletedUser96867]

@Tankovy

1) When you say a cap of 500-1000 is that a total of 500-1000 per sector or 500-1000 of each good per sector(meaning 2500-5000 total per siege per sector)? Are you talking about that as being the cap for attacking NPC's or guild held sectors or both?

2) Can you provide examples of how the goods costs would change from what we have now for:
a)low ranking guild attacking high ranking guild
b)high ranking guild attacking low ranking guild
c)guilds of the similar ranks attacking each other

With drastic differences in siege costs depending on the ranks of the guilds this could help some. Having troubles getting my head around all the factors, it would be hard to predict what would really happen without it actually being tested. I suspect the smaller guilds would gain some ground, the larger guilds might lose some ground but after a little while after that a balance might be again reached where the map becomes very stagnant. As the larger guild become more entrenched with larger and larger defense pool rewards the question will be if the change in siege costs would overcome the huge defense boost advantage they will soon have. We'll have to see how the change in sector defense boosts effect things in the next update. I suspect they will help some on the lower age maps by reducing the huge defense advantage some of the top guilds now have.

 

[DeletedUser2653]

I like the game the way it is now...I hated PvP, actually got sick of it so stopped playing that months ago which actually gave others in my hood the opportunity to win the towers.

I like GvG, love the fact I get my butt kicked every now and then and that I now have to think about how to hold what I worked hard to gain, you want me now to accept an idea to reset the game and give away everything I gained with hard work and have me start again...bugger that, I have what I have through hard work working alongside 4 other blokes and I'd actually quit if I had to give it all up and restart again, its mine till someone else makes what I have theirs...end of story.

Cheers, Cas

 

[DeletedUser2989]

@ fischh

1) The cap was sergeant mason's idea I'm not sure which one he intended but I'd support the idea to cap it at 500-1000 of each good (5000 total).

2) Gladly
a) Lets say a guild ranked 31 attacks the guild ranked 1 the cost to siege is 860 per good (4300 total)
b) Lets say a guild ranked 1 attacks the guild ranked 31 the cost to siege is 860 per good (4300 total)
c) Lets say a guild ranked 1 attacks the guild ranked 2 the cost to siege is 12 per good (60 total)

As you can see the expensive cost works both ways, the ranks used are the global rank so it considers your power from all ages and the boost you get from guild level. Because my method relies on the difference in guild rank which can change daily it is hard to say if things would go stale or not and I'd agree with you it would need testing to work out all the effects.

I'm also not sure how the most recent changes would affect my idea.

It looks like the most recent changes will make people more bold to attack other guilds in the early ages but probably only those guilds either landing or with a small number of sectors. Not sure it'll do anything to energise the upper age provinces, or energise the larger guilds to do anything other than defend what they own.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

The idea sounded good at first, but after thinking about it. If one guild takes over another guild's sectors, the siege cost will get higher because their ranks will separate, but this will also make it harder for the other guild to take back its sectors. After a few weeks, we will only see small guilds a few sectors surrounded by big guilds

 

[DeletedUser13805]

here is another idea that might help
what about making the whole of the sectors landing zones ? would this not help to make sure there are no safe zones on the map ?
its supposed to be guild wars and guild v guild yet none of the guilds are attacking each other its like there all scared of each other so will just pick on the weaker guilds and to my mind that is not what real winners are about, guilds should want to be the best and the only way there going to do that is to face the best head on and stop running away to safe zones.

so i dont know if making all the sectors landing zones would help to force the action or not ?

 

[DeletedUser]

here is another idea that might help
what about making the whole of the sectors landing zones ? would this not help to make sure there are no safe zones on the map ?
its supposed to be guild wars and guild v guild yet none of the guilds are attacking each other its like there all scared of each other so will just pick on the weaker guilds and to my mind that is not what real winners are about, guilds should want to be the best and the only way there going to do that is to face the best head on and stop running away to safe zones.

so i dont know if making all the sectors landing zones would help to force the action or not ?

This would be a disaster if they don't fix fake guild problem

 

[DeletedUser96867]

I agree that some changes should be made to the landing zones, so that some regions of the map are not so far from LZ where guilds who used the leapfrog are now safely tucked away, but i can't argue with Leeroyj's argument that the ghost guild problem needs to be addressed before adding a lot more LZ. Another issues of some concern is where entire river landingzones have been cut off by a guild or 2 who will not approach the LZ's and unlock them to be landed in. While i admit this is a great strategy and i can't blame them for not wanting to release a horde of new guilds onto the map to attack their flank, in some cases it has greatly reduce the number of LZ's which are actually possible to be landing on by guilds trying to enter the gvg age. On maps where this is happening it is very difficult for more guilds to get a foothold in the age, and all the small guilds get stuck attacking each other around the LZ as the larger guilds sit further from the few LZ sectors.

@tankovy
"2) Gladly
a) Lets say a guild ranked 31 attacks the guild ranked 1 the cost to siege is 860 per good (4300 total)
b) Lets say a guild ranked 1 attacks the guild ranked 31 the cost to siege is 860 per good (4300 total)
c) Lets say a guild ranked 1 attacks the guild ranked 2 the cost to siege is 12 per good (60 total) "

Shouldn't a low ranking guild be given an advantage when attacking a high ranking guild? I would have thought a low ranking guild attacking a high ranking guild would have had even lower siege costs than guilds of similar rank attacking each other. I would have thought it would be better to do something like this:
a) Lets say a guild ranked 31 attacks the guild ranked 1 the cost to siege (75% reduction on their NPC siege rate)
b) Lets say a guild ranked 1 attacks the guild ranked 31 the cost to siege is 860 per good (0% reduction on their NPC siege rate)
c) Lets say a guild ranked 1 attacks the guild ranked 2 the cost to siege is 12 per good (50% reduction on their NPC siege rate)
or something along those lines.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

@ byeordie, Yes I had that concern too, however the costs should work out so that 5 guilds close in rank to that power guild could team up and smash them together, lowering the target guilds rank and enabling guilds who lost their sectors to take them back again. It is a lot harder to say it will work or not if you don't factor in all the different ages, ranks going up faster if you take higher power over lower power, possible alliances forming and breaking. I'll admit I'm not sure it will work 100% but it sounds more dynamic and less daunting. Small guilds are one of the main concerns with my idea, I'd hope that the teaming up possibility would help but I'm not sure how well team work would go in this game...

@fischh and desypete, More landing zones so that the opposite end isn't "safe" makes sense and might encourage more GvG and less large guild stalemate. Really no where should be safe other than the center of your empire (unless it's built on a beach). As it is if you can get to the other end you really only have to protect one or two front lines, unfair really.

@fischh directly, I wanted to do that but I havn't worked out how to make an equation do that. My solution to that (if we want it easier to attack up than down) is to produce a static chart that determines the cost to siege based off only the targets current rank (not the difference). So the cost of sieges against the top 5 cost "x", 6-10 are cost "x+50", 11-20 are cost "x+100" or something along those lines. It makes the powerful vulnerable to constant sieges and the weak expensive to remove.

Your idea of % reductions is interesting I'll have a look at modifying the equation see if I can get it to do something along those lines. It's just tricky to produce an equation like this that works in one direction and not the other. (I'm not that well educated in mathematics)

 

[DeletedUser96867]

@ tankovy
If in your idea the number of sectors a guild currently holds in an age has some effect on siege costs than i expect a % reduction would be the easiest solution, otherwise in your example the value of "x" itself would have to somehow be calculated based on a guilds sector holdings, and would be different for each guild.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Yes I had that concern too, however the costs should work out so that 5 guilds close in rank to that power guild could team up and smash them together, lowering the target guilds rank and enabling guilds who lost their sectors to take them back again. It is a lot harder to say it will work or not if you don't factor in all the different ages, ranks going up faster if you take higher power over lower power, possible alliances forming and breaking. I'll admit I'm not sure it will work 100% but it sounds more dynamic and less daunting. Small guilds are one of the main concerns with my idea, I'd hope that the teaming up possibility would help but I'm not sure how well team work would go in this game...

I've been doing a bit thinking on this idea as well and though how to separate ghost guilds and normal guilds, and my answer is: time

If guild ranked 1 attacks the guild ranked 11 the cost to siege is 860 per good
If guild ranked 1 attacks the guild ranked 2 the cost to siege is 10 per good
If guild ranked 11 attacks the guild ranked 1 the cost to siege is 860 per good BUT this cost will decrease 20% (compounded) every day, so this guild will have to be active 2 weeks for this cost to drop to about 40 per good. Every attack will do the reverse on the siege, and siege costs will be separate between different guilds, so guild ranked 11 attacking the guild ranked 2 will still have its 2-weeks discount no matter how many times guild ranked 1 has been attacked (by the 11th)
*The decrease only occurs for the lower ranked guild

EDIT: the minimum a sector can cost is 5 per good (once it hits this number, the discount will pause)

 

[DeletedUser96867]

@byeordie
Great that isn't complicated at all
By active 2 weeks do you mean the guild has held a sector in that age of gvg for that period of time, or do mean something else when you say active?

 

[DeletedUser]

This may sound crazy, but I think that the best solution would be to either set a fixed good cost, completely remove the good costs for siege armies or to apply good production to each sector, meaning that it will give X amount of 1 kind of good to the guild that controls it. I think that GvG would be much more fun if guilds woudn't be slowed down so much by the good costs.

To be really honest, I think that the best solution would be to have a fixed good cost regardless of how many sectors a guild has. I see no reason why a guild should be punished by higher costs just because they are doing a good job in a province by controling many sectors. Nor do I see any reason why a larger guild should have penalties against a smaller guild - stronger beats the weaker - thats how it should work, shouldn't it? And more members does not necessarily mean stronger So my suggestion is:

Set a fixed siege cost of 10 of each good regardless of the amount of sectors that the guild currently controls. This will allow for more fights and less waiting Also, if something more, allow members to donate units to the guild treasury, this will also increase the phase of GvG