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.
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.
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.
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.