Increase siege costs on the All Ages map

[DeletedUser16126]

So if I understand you right you want to make the cost for guilds that want to wants to siege after your change most costly than the cost that the current guilds had to pay. Looks unfair to me...
The source of the problem is not the medal cost, but the stupidity that INNO made with the arc. For most players on a server the medals are still a very valuable resource, because they need to gain it to get that extra expansion.
The source of the problem that you are explaining is mainly about the 50 players with an arc level 80. that are pushing all kind of GBs so they get thousands of medals. So I don't like to tune a game towards the way those 50 people play, I prefer to keep the 99,9% other players as a reference, and for those this change is not fair. So my advise: INNO shall take action to the rootcause of a problem, not to a sideeffect of the problem.

 

[DeletedUser108688]

So if I understand you right you want to make the cost for guilds that want to wants to siege after your change most costly than the cost that the current guilds had to pay. Looks unfair to me...
The source of the problem is not the medal cost, but the stupidity that INNO made with the arc. For most players on a server the medals are still a very valuable resource, because they need to gain it to get that extra expansion.
The source of the problem that you are explaining is mainly about the 50 players with an arc level 80. that are pushing all kind of GBs so they get thousands of medals. So I don't like to tune a game towards the way those 50 people play, I prefer to keep the 99,9% other players as a reference, and for those this change is not fair. So my advise: INNO shall take action to the rootcause of a problem, not to a sideeffect of the problem.

I can see your point, however I did say my proposal was variable. The values I proposed could be tweaked higher or lower or even made to leave siege costs untouched up to 15 - 20 sectors for example, and then for the costs to rise sharply.
The point of my proposal is to stop the farce that makes it possible for some guilds to hold so many sectors in AA (60 - 70). Something that would be preposterous on other maps.

Also, plenty of things have been changed that would fall into your category of what seems unfair, e.g. siege armies cost troops now but didn't always. So if a guild took sectors with the old rules it cost no troops to lay sieges but with the new rules any guild coming in after, now needs more troops. Seems unfair but we just get on with it and tweaks are needed to keep things balanced.

A little off topic here, but it sounds like you want to see Arcs being nerfed. I do agree that Inno made them too powerful, but wouldn't nerfing them also be unfair to the people that are only building up theirs now if the players that are more advanced reaped bigger benefits from theirs.

 

[DeletedUser653]

So if I understand you right you want to make the cost for guilds that want to wants to siege after your change most costly than the cost that the current guilds had to pay. Looks unfair to me...
The source of the problem is not the medal cost, but the stupidity that INNO made with the arc. For most players on a server the medals are still a very valuable resource, because they need to gain it to get that extra expansion.
The source of the problem that you are explaining is mainly about the 50 players with an arc level 80. that are pushing all kind of GBs so they get thousands of medals. So I don't like to tune a game towards the way those 50 people play, I prefer to keep the 99,9% other players as a reference, and for those this change is not fair. So my advise: INNO shall take action to the root cause of a problem, not to a side effect of the problem.

I agree 100% and we have had to take this into account and as a guild we now have about 20 players with 80% plus bonus and of those at least 10 with 90% plus.
Its a strategy we have been following for 9 months and we do lots and lots to boast ARCS, so we would normally expect to see about 10-20 levels go up on guild arcs a day. So yes we can afford to take 70 sectors in AA but its only because of our long term planning. Most sectors we now take in AA we give to guilds around us, and its similar in other ages too.
None AA levels are harder but even here we have mandatory donations of goods every week from IA to FE, so again it makes us better able to fight on all other maps. Our main 4 enemies (2 previous #1 guilds) have now dropped to page 3 of the global list so our goods spending is decreasing and hence stocks are increasing.
Any guild can copy what we have done, we understand the long term nature of the game and we plan for the long term.

 

[DeletedUser16126]

Any guild can copy what we have done, we understand the long term nature of the game and we plan for the long term.

You take as a goal for this game to get the Nr 1 position... fair enough...
But the goal for most payers is the have fun. And the idiotic part of this game is that to get a high ranking you need to spend all your time for FP farming, which is extremely boring, compared to fighting that offers more fun.
So as indicated before INNO shall not focus on the FP farmers for improvements, but rather to the 95% other players, and the other type of guilds.
The problem is that All ages, basicly means that all players from the last 2 XXL ages, have to fight the same map.
To me the problem is not that a guild can hold 70+ sectors, the main issue is that a guild can hold 70+ sectors without the possibility for most other guilds to attack them, and those who could attack them have a NAP. so if you introduce this proposal, it wouldn't influence the situation, because you won't be able to attack them to gain a sector. It will only prevent them to further expand.

 

[DeletedUser108151]

-1. Siege costs are not cheap on AA. Some guilds just have more skilled fighters with surplus medals to spare.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Some guilds just have more skilled fighters with surplus medals to spare.

I'm a little baffled that you would post this, as you came in to vote the idea down, surely you know anything about GvG and should thus have knowledge about the entire game, including, that you get medals from GB contribution and that the amount you get is increased by the Arc, so end game players, who most certainly have a high level Arc, are getting the lion's share of their medals from GB contribution, not fighting.

 

[DeletedUser108151]

I'm a little baffled that you would post this, as you came in to vote the idea down, surely you know anything about GvG and should thus have knowledge about the entire game, including, that you get medals from GB contribution and that the amount you get is increased by the Arc, so end game players, who most certainly have a high level Arc, are getting the lion's share of their medals from GB contribution, not fighting.

Increasing siege costs will solve nothing. If anything, increasing siege costs will make AA even more unattainable for smaller guilds.

 

[DeletedUser108688]

Yannick's guild hold 70+ sectors in AA so no surprises there really.
My proposal would not greatly affect smaller guilds. It is a suggestion to review / re-balance the costs and could be implemented in such a way that the costs for the first 20 sectors (for example) are not affected at all. Only with 20+ sectors would the big increases happen.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Increasing siege costs will solve nothing. If anything, increasing siege costs will make AA even more unattainable for smaller guilds.

Increasing siege costs for guilds that can only manage to hold on to a handful of sectors now won't hurt them at all, it will give them a chance to take more when guilds controlling a huge number of sectors balk at the costs of holding more than a couple dozen, which small guilds won't.

 

[DeletedUser103370]

I have to agree, on the contrary, we should instead think about reducing the costs. Just as an example, our guild only starts a campaign after possibly months when we have the resources to do it, less cost = more participants. After all that is the goal isn't it?

 

[DeletedUser110195]

I have to agree, on the contrary, we should instead think about reducing the costs. Just as an example, our guild only starts a campaign after possibly months when we have the resources to do it, less cost = more participants. After all that is the goal isn't it?

The idea being proposed is an increasing rate of climb of medal costs to make one or two guilds owning the entire All Ages map unthinkable. Lowering costs won't change anything, but if the guilds owning most of the AA map have to cut it back, from 70 sectors to 50, that leaves open a lot more sectors for other guilds to take.

 

[DeletedUser103370]

The idea being proposed is an increasing rate of climb of medal costs to make one or two guilds owning the entire All Ages map unthinkable. Lowering costs won't change anything, but if the guilds owning most of the AA map have to cut it back, from 70 sectors to 50, that leaves open a lot more sectors for other guilds to take.

I understand, that's why I said resources, I think in overall they should be reduced to make it more accessible to more guilds.
Imo the problem of a handful of guilds dominating whole maps should be addressed in some other way. It's inevitable with the current rules, that the strongest ones squeeze out nearly everyone else, reducing or increasing costs will not change that in the slightest.

To address that I reckon we should rethink fundamentally, how deployment and the whole siege works, right now participation is limited by basically nothing more than the resources a guild has, let that be medals or goods, or any map really.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

I understand, that's why I said resources, I think in overall they should be reduced to make it more accessible to more guilds.
Imo the problem of a handful of guilds dominating whole maps should be addressed in some other way. It's inevitable with the current rules, that the strongest ones squeeze out nearly everyone else, reducing or increasing costs will not change that in the slightest.

I think it will, considering the extreme increase in cost at the high end of sector numbers owned being proposed....rjs's reaction to it was telling, a guild that owns 70+ sectors now could never hold on to that many later, while guilds at the other end of sector ownership would see at most a marginal increase, barely noticeable. I know from the chart the OP posted that my guild could afford 20 sectors under the proposed cost increase, and while we're not a 30 member rank 150 guild, we're hardly in the top 10, so I think this idea would open a lot of doors.

 

[DeletedUser103370]

I think it will, considering the extreme increase in cost at the high end of sector numbers owned being proposed....rjs's reaction to it was telling, a guild that owns 70+ sectors now could never hold on to that many later, while guilds at the other end of sector ownership would see at most a marginal increase, barely noticeable. I know from the chart the OP posted that my guild could afford 20 sectors under the proposed cost increase, and while we're not a 30 member rank 150 guild, we're hardly in the top 10, so I think this idea would open a lot of doors.

Ic, then again, the only change it could bring, that instead of two guilds, now 3 will dominate the map
It will still be inaccessible to the vast majority of the rest. What I'm saying is that we should somehow try to make it accessible to most of the guilds, this only looks like a slight adjustment to me.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Ic, then again, the only change it could bring, that instead of two guilds, now 3 will dominate the map
It will still be inaccessible to the vast majority of the rest. What I'm saying is that we should somehow try to make it accessible to most of the guilds, this only looks like a slight adjustment to me.

Perhaps then, lengthen the time each run of GvG goes for, and implement a delay in sieging, that once you take a sector, you must wait x number of minutes/hours before you can siege another sector, in addition to these cost increases. This would prevent large guilds from securing the entire coast quickly, allowing others to also stake a claim and then not even 5 guilds working as a team could shut everyone else out.

 

[DeletedUser103370]

Perhaps then, lengthen the time each run of GvG goes for, and implement a delay in sieging, that once you take a sector, you must wait x number of minutes/hours before you can siege another sector, in addition to these cost increases. This would prevent large guilds from securing the entire coast quickly, allowing others to also stake a claim and then not even 5 guilds working as a team could shut everyone else out.

I like this approach, perhaps not one, but several changes like this would be the solution.
Any way I have to give a big +1

 

[rjs66]

all the big guilds who manage to do well in GvG have done is to get a good team of players together, who are willing to put in the time and effort to achieve something, it is not a trivial thing to do

the main thrust of a lot of ideas seems to be "punish those who work hard and do well, whilst handing stuff to those who don't want to work hard"

the big guilds have done nothing that any other guild can't achieve
what it takes is:

get rid of the dead wood from the guild, keep those that work hard for the guild
make a plan to build up the resources you require and focus your efforts in the right place
plan your campaign rather than just attack stuff at random
make sure you keep working on producing the resources you need to hang on to what you have earned

if you don't try you won't succeed
trying to change the rules to suit those that can't be bothered to put in the effort is a sign that you are already defeated before you even start

 

[DeletedUser103370]

all the big guilds who manage to do well in GvG have done is to get a good team of players together, who are willing to put in the time and effort to achieve something, it is not a trivial thing to do

the main thrust of a lot of ideas seems to be "punish those who work hard and do well, whilst handing stuff to those who don't want to work hard"

the big guilds have done nothing that any other guild can't achieve
what it takes is:

get rid of the dead wood from the guild, keep those that work hard for the guild
make a plan to build up the resources you require and focus your efforts in the right place
plan your campaign rather than just attack stuff at random
make sure you keep working on producing the resources you need to hang on to what you have earned

if you don't try you won't succeed
trying to change the rules to suit those that can't be bothered to put in the effort is a sign that you are already defeated before you even start

I feel you, however I don't think that's the case. I mean your recipe how to create a good guild is solid, but think about it, there never can be equality. One will be always the strongest, and a few will always dominate. And there's nothing wrong with that. But unless you want to turn part of the features to a personal playground of 2-3 guilds out of hundreds, 80-150 people out of tens of thousands, you need to make sure that they can enter too!
That won't change the fact that the strongest ones will stay ahead of the rest, it'd just make it more colorful and played by many more.

 

[rjs66]

the strongest will stay ahead - yes
so work to become the strongest , start by being stronger than those next to you and move up, then work to defeat those just above you and so on

the changing of the mechanics of the game so that working hard and becoming successful gives you no real advantage is just going to kill the game. no-one will bother doing anything other than playing this as "make a pretty town" if there is nothing to gain

a good guild will just adapt to any change anyway and still stomp all over the guilds that don't even try

if every time you hit an obstacle you give up and cry unfair you will get nowhere

 

[DeletedUser103370]

the strongest will stay ahead - yes
so work to become the strongest , start by being stronger than those next to you and move up, then work to defeat those just above you and so on

the changing of the mechanics of the game so that working hard and becoming successful gives you no real advantage is just going to kill the game. no-one will bother doing anything other than playing this as "make a pretty town" if there is nothing to gain

a good guild will just adapt to any change anyway and still stomp all over the guilds that don't even try

if every time you hit an obstacle you give up and cry unfair you will get nowhere

It doesn't really matter if any guild works hard or not, if there is space for only the 2-3 biggest ones, and the rest of the 800 guilds are sqeezed out

No one cries that it's unfair, it's simply - by the design flaw - only allows 2-3 top guilds to dominate, which eventually means those are playing AA by themselves...
And I refuse to believe that only those guilds work so hard that they deserve a spot.