• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Increase siege costs on the All Ages map

  • Thread starter DeletedUser108688
  • Start date

DeletedUser108688

Proposal: Increase siege costs on the All Ages map.

Reason: Siege costs are far too low on the All Ages map due to the availability of cheap medals via high Arcs.
Under the current system the siege cost rises exponentially as on all maps. This system works well on other maps as holding/taking too many sectors becomes unsustainable due to the large amount of goods required. Not so on the All Ages map where guilds can comfortably hold 50 sectors and still manage to wage wars with multiple sieges. Unthinkable on any other map.

Players with high level arcs are falling over each other to take 1st spot in high level GBs because there is FP profit to be made and lots of medals with them. Players are effectively getting paid FPs to collect huge amounts of medals. This has rendered the siege costs in AA as almost pointless. If a guild holds 60+ sectors in AA and can drop sectors to retake for points when they are bored, it is easy to see the system is broken. Try do that on any other map where the goods cost would be 15,000+ of each good (75,000).
A quick look at a few of my worlds recently showed there are guilds at no.1 in AA holding 48, 57, 67, 68, and 72 sectors in AA maps. Theoretically possible on other maps but extremely unlikely. I do not believe this is how the designers envisaged this map.

Siege costs on the All Ages map needs to be revised to a much steeper exponential curve.
This revision would not have a major effect on smaller guilds but would make holding so many sectors prohibitive. Which is how it should be.

Details: Below is a sample from an excel file I prepared but cannot upload due to site restrictions, but willing to share if requested. The file is more complete showing costs for sectors 1-100. This a variable proposal using an incremental multiplier of 1.05 to current siege costs with values rounded to nearest 5. The 1.05 value is my proposal but could be lower or higher. At the low end of the proposed new costs there is not much difference but costs increase more rapidly as sector ownership increases.

AAsiegecosts.jpg




Balance/Abuse Prevention
Does your proposal open up possible exploits or make it possible for players to cheat? If so, then how can this be addressed?.
Not that I can see.
 

DeletedUser653

massive -1
you would stop top guilds from having lots of sectors, surely if a top guild fights and gains those sectors they deserve them, making medal costs even higher is madness. I am already paying over 100k per siege now, 3.5 million would mean we could never siege again.
-1​
 

DeletedUser108688

HRC said:
you would stop top guilds from having lots of sectors
Click to expand...
Well spotted, that's exactly the idea. You can still be the top guild, holding the most sectors, but would need to drop to a reasonable number. On how many other maps do you hold circa 70 sectors? None, I would say.
You have that many on the AA map due to the costs being too low.
 

rjs66

Lieutenant
-1

just more of the same old - they're doing better than us , punish them

everybody has the same opportunities and tools available to achieve their goals in the game

the big difference is some people worked out a better strategy and worked hard to achieve it
others want the benefits without putting in the effort and try to change things to suit themselves rather than have to actually work for something
 

DeletedUser108688

rjs66 said:
just more of the same old - they're doing better than us , punish them

everybody has the same opportunities and tools available to achieve their goals in the game

the big difference is some people worked out a better strategy and worked hard to achieve it
others want the benefits without putting in the effort and try to change things to suit themselves rather than have to actually work for something
Click to expand...

Being familiar with your strategy on EN5, I agree it is a great one, and would not be affected if this proposal was implemented. I have no doubt you would still dominate the AA map as you do with others. Just not with so many sectors.
With free medals and siege costs being so low, strategy has been eliminated to an extent on this map. Siege costs aren't really an issue like on other maps.
 

rjs66

Lieutenant
i don't think i'm missing the point at all
it is the usual change this / change that from people who don't or won't put the same effort in as the guilds who have earned the benefits they are getting
given the time frame that the All Ages Map has been available why wasn't this brought up ages ago if it is such a problem rather than now when you are struggling against better strategy and organisation

you have exactly the same possibility as everyone else to raise resources, it all comes down to how much effort you put in
 

DeletedUser108688

rjs, you are definitely missing the point.
Your defensive stance is understandable given your guild has so many AA sectors.
On all other maps, siege costs (with goods) were devised to prevent guilds from dominating the maps. It's a system that works well and it's not unusual to see top guilds holding 20-40 sectors on many maps across worlds. If they need to siege they would normally have to do some heavy dropping. But guilds on some worlds being able to hold 70+ sectors in AA demonstrates that the medals based costs are too low.
 

rjs66

Lieutenant
your desire to increase siege costs on a map you are struggling with is a blatant attempt to make things easier for yourselves whilst claiming that it is in some way an improvement
a well organised guild can provide huge amounts of goods and medals and the fighters to use them

like i said - why has it now suddenly become a problem when it has been like this for months ?
 

rjs66

Lieutenant
when we focused on maps in the lower eras , we held large amounts of sectors on those maps, we built the resources to support it

the GBs weren't so much nerfed as changed , you lost some attack power but gained defence power and vice versa on the defence gbs- they are actually better balanced if you learn how to fight (having the ability to take more damage easily makes up for a small loss of attack in certain circumstances)

the devs saw that railguns were the only unit being used in most fights when people researched them and spotted an imbalance, especially when the arctic future units they designed were no match for them

they certainly didn't respond to people saying change things because we can't compete with those that actually get on with things and earn what they have

it still takes a huge amount of resources to take and hold sectors in any map, get your guild working as a team to produce those resources
the guilds that get to the top and stay there don't get there by crying about how difficult it is, they just get on with it
 

DeletedUser108688

rjs66 said:
when we focused on maps in the lower eras , we held large amounts of sectors on those maps, we built the resources to support it
Click to expand...
But did you hold 50 - 60+ sectors on those maps?
 

rjs66

Lieutenant
we have held at least 40-50 sectors each across 3 or 4 ages simultaneously , if we had concentrated all that into a single age or 2 then it is entirely possible to do that

all it takes is proper organisation and a guild willing and able to do the work necessary
if people put as much effort into the game as they do trying to get things made easier for themselves and prevent the hard workers from getting ahead then they might get somewhere themselves
 

rjs66

Lieutenant
it actually takes more resources to fight across several maps at once
which you would know if you're guild actually tried fighting instead of wanting to change the rules to support people who want the benefits without the work
 

Nilopertiso

Corporal
May I suggest an alternate proposal to the aforementioned medal hike.

Whilst it's true that AA seige costs are not really seige costs at all, hiking the medal cost will probably make it even *easier* for absolute top guilds to fight and maintain these sectors, as they are the ones most capable of farming medals in that quantity. Your moderately sized guilds (those with high fighting players, but not at the top of the game) would be most affected no doubt, although I wouldn't imagine detrimentally so, given the initial seige costs in your proposal aren't particularly different to the current arrangement.

Instead, why not look to a system whereby AA seige costs take a very small amount of goods from every era, or eras based around those that the guild's players are up to? We have a GvG unlock system that requires X amount of each good to unlock levels based upon what era the respective players are in, so why can't we have a similar, but appropriately adapted system for AA map? This may be something that comes into effect after say 10 seiges, rather than seige 1 to ensure low-level guilds do not need to concern themselves with a potentially difficult goods quandry.

I would still suggest the inclusion of a medal contribution to seiges too, but having a minimal amount of goods from previous eras, based on those that the guild's players are in, may make it just that little more challenging. I accept that high level arcs generate alot of goods already, but the medal return from those getting the high positions on arcs far surpasses the goods contribution a high level arc benefits a guild.

It's something worth considering perhaps, instead of simply hiking the existing seige cost arrangement without suggesting a different approach altogether.
 

DeletedUser108688

Nilotiso said:
May I suggest an alternate proposal to the aforementioned medal hike.

Whilst it's true that AA seige costs are not really seige costs at all, hiking the medal cost will probably make it even *easier* for absolute top guilds to fight and maintain these sectors, as they are the ones most capable of farming medals in that quantity. Your moderately sized guilds (those with high fighting players, but not at the top of the game) would be most affected no doubt, although I wouldn't imagine detrimentally so, given the initial seige costs in your proposal aren't particularly different to the current arrangement.

Instead, why not look to a system whereby AA seige costs take a very small amount of goods from every era, or eras based around those that the guild's players are up to? We have a GvG unlock system that requires X amount of each good to unlock levels based upon what era the respective players are in, so why can't we have a similar, but appropriately adapted system for AA map? This may be something that comes into effect after say 10 seiges, rather than seige 1 to ensure low-level guilds do not need to concern themselves with a potentially difficult goods quandry.

I would still suggest the inclusion of a medal contribution to seiges too, but having a minimal amount of goods from previous eras, based on those that the guild's players are in, may make it just that little more challenging. I accept that high level arcs generate alot of goods already, but the medal return from those getting the high positions on arcs far surpasses the goods contribution a high level arc benefits a guild.

It's something worth considering perhaps, instead of simply hiking the existing seige cost arrangement without suggesting a different approach altogether.
Click to expand...

I assume you refer to the "GE unlock system". I think it's a good idea in principle. It certainly encompasses the "All Ages" concept by costing goods from "all the ages" a guild has members in, and it would address the issue of the mounting AF/OF goods going to waste in everyone's treasury, but dare I say it might just over-complicate things.

My gut feeling would be to keep things as simple as possible and go with a straight medal price hike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top