Forwarded: We Need Separate GvG Rights PLEASE

[DeletedUser15432]

My idea would be as follows: -

Delete army function for guild founder and generals in charge of specific eras
Generals and founders will have the rights to place sieges and unlock army slots
Replace army function to be available to all members with the where withal to replace troops
This is a two tier system and would make the GvG much simpler
Minimum siege cost to be 50 goods per siege but increase to be only 10% per additional siege instead of the current increase rates
So first siege would be 50, 2nd 55, third 61, fourth 67 and so on so the fourteenth siege would cost 172 of each goods on this scale and 304 of each goods for the 20th siege (sieges being the total number of sieges laid by a guild in a given map sector as opposed to the number of sectors held) So if this system was opted for a demolition or ghost guild would be penalised for the number of sieges laid
This would make the GvG map a lot fairer and probably eliminate the need for ghost guilds and definitely stop demolition guilds

 

[DeletedUser99588]

So first siege would be 50, 2nd 55, third 61, fourth 67 and so on so the fourteenth siege would cost 172 of each goods on this scale and 304 of each goods for the 20th siege (sieges being the total number of sieges laid by a guild in a given map sector as opposed to the number of sectors held) So if this system was opted for a demolition or ghost guild would be penalised for the number of sieges laid

-1 for this. Not because I'm against changing siege costs just don't think it should be based on number of sieges rather than number of sectors. Small guilds tend to have to place more sieges to win a sector and it would be penalising them.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Don't even see why that's here. The siege cost are totally unrelated to separate GvG rights.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

I was re-reading the OP and must update my comments on this idea. This would create 4 levels (no rights, GvG Aide de Camp, GvG captain, and both rights) which for now seems appropriate, however I do have some questions about the details.
1) Considering the new replace feature from the 1.36 update what place does it hold in your GvG rights
2) Do you still want the delete function to exist? (and restricted to GvG Captain)

I've reworded the original post to reflect how I now think it should work.
It's not four levels of rights - it's three: no rights, aide de camp and captain.
The captain has all the aide's rights plus a few more.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

Ah thanks for clarifying that . Given the revision of the idea I still support a separation of rights from the current rights system, however I'd prefer a slightly different set up of rights.

 

[DeletedUser653]

+1 and to add this has been requested hundred of times but it is always ignored and we get mods like a new cursor !! Please Please INNO do the important things first, ie GVG trusted status as here, army management sorting of attached/unattached. I cannot remember 1 post asking for a new cursor (but i may have missed that one post!!)

 

[DeletedUser653]

Ah thanks for clarifying that . Given the revision of the idea I still support a separation of rights from the current rights system, however I'd prefer a slightly different set up of rights.

and those are.......

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Yes please suggest finetuning of the original post.
Please keep the suggestions clear and simple, though,
and on the topic of GvG rights system, not "GvG issues in general".
If suggestions are clearly popular and viable we can modify the original post.

 

[DeletedUser15432]

Apologies, did not read the thread correctly first time, I quite like the revised proposal and give this a +1

 

[DeletedUser2989]

and those are.......

My preference would be to have the actions/abilities groups as following:

No Rights: Donate Goods, Place Armies, Replace Armies and Fight in Battles (fight off siege armies near or on your sectors and fight defending armies under your guilds sieges)
GvG Aide de Camp: Open Defense Slot, Lay Siege
GvG Captain: Relocate HQ and Grant Freedom

(I've left out delete armies and trade treasury goods simply as they aren't active features right now)

My reasons behind these groupings is so that you need first level rights if you are going to do anything that spends the guilds goods and then the next level to do anything that "costs" the guild and impacts the sector defense buffs. I personally am not too worried about troop replacement being open to all (and all other no right abilities are the same as current), I acknowledge the whole "spies can replace armies with worse ones like 8 rogues" argument but to me that is a reasonable cost for that spy to pay to weaken the target guild (not to mention there are other things that can be done if spies get to be a big problem).

 

[DeletedUser653]

My preference would be to have the actions/abilities groups as following:

No Rights: Donate Goods, Place Armies, Replace Armies and Fight in Battles (fight off siege armies near or on your sectors and fight defending armies under your guilds sieges)
GvG Aide de Camp: Open Defense Slot, Lay Siege
GvG Captain: Relocate HQ and Grant Freedom
.......

+1 sounds very sensible

 

[DeletedUser1081]

My preference would be to have the actions/abilities groups as following:

No Rights: Donate Goods, Place Armies, Replace Armies and Fight in Battles (fight off siege armies near or on your sectors and fight defending armies under your guilds sieges)
GvG Aide de Camp: Open Defense Slot, Lay Siege
GvG Captain: Relocate HQ and Grant Freedom

(I've left out delete armies and trade treasury goods simply as they aren't active features right now)

My reasons behind these groupings is so that you need first level rights if you are going to do anything that spends the guilds goods and then the next level to do anything that "costs" the guild and impacts the sector defense buffs. I personally am not too worried about troop replacement being open to all (and all other no right abilities are the same as current), I acknowledge the whole "spies can replace armies with worse ones like 8 rogues" argument but to me that is a reasonable cost for that spy to pay to weaken the target guild (not to mention there are other things that can be done if spies get to be a big problem).

I understand the tree you're barking up, but since replacing armies can impact defense (either deliberately or through ignorance) it needs to be up to guild leaders to decide who has the right to do that. Any guild who wants to give those rights to all members could still do so.

And we do still need some people in the guild to be able to delete armies, so there's no reason not to let Inno know that. It's not like they'd need to invent the coding for that from scratch, so why not reinstate it.

I will amend the bit about trading treasury goods, since that's further in the distance.

I don't understand what you mean by "but to me that is a reasonable cost for that spy to pay to weaken the target guild".

 

[DeletedUser2989]

I don't understand what you mean by "but to me that is a reasonable cost for that spy to pay to weaken the target guild".

Sorry I could have been more specific about that.

By cost that the spy pays I mean: In order for a spy to weaken a sector they need to use 8 rogues to replace a legit army, to have a major impact they need to use many groups of 8 on a large scale. So given it is little effort for a spy to simply enter a guild and start replacing armies it's still a cost that'd take months for that spy to be able to repeat (not to mention they have to have at least 1 rogue hideout and a decent level alcatraz to do this kind of damage as well). The spy would be much more useful feeding back information, climbing the rights ranks to be able to do more significant damage and what not.

This is all wandering away from rights and I apologize for that, but hopefully that helps.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Okay, I see what you mean now, and disagree. There are miles of players who have hundreds of rogues, having owned multiple rogue camps and high-level Alcatrazes for months by now. But anyway! To me the important thing is to let guild leaders decide who to give what rights to, including "replace army".

But since I see your point about stuff that uses treasury goods needing more restriction than just replacing armies ... how about three levels (each of which also has the abilities of the lower status):

~ an aide de camp can replace armies;
~ a captain can open defense slots, delete armies, set sieges, move the HQ;
~ a field marshall can release hexes (and someday trade treasury goods).

and everyone in the guild can fight in GvG battles, contribute goods to the treasury, place armies in open defense slots.

Something like that?

 

[DeletedUser2989]

I think I'd vote for that, not 100% sure on the delete armies. I'd have to see exactly how it works if they were to bring it back to say where I'd want it placed. I'd also prefer the field marshall having the move HQ ability but hey it's acceptable with captain.

So yeah +1 to this latest revision.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

All right - I'll put it in the original.
My thinking is that the captains would be the ones in charge of particular campaigns and might need to act quickly. Up until now those people have had "trusted" rights and the ability to delete armies (including wrongly set siege armies) and I think they're accustomed to it and should still have it.

 

[DeletedUser97349]

Forwarded: FOE-19953

I have forwarded this idea in the following form:

Proposal: We need distinct GvG rights that guild leaders can grant at their own discretion, to allow selected members to set sieges, change defence armies, use the treasury, etc.

Reason: It's impractical that GvG rights (setting sieges, etc) have been linked to pre-existing "trusted" rights that guilds use for something else entirely. Guild leaders need to be able to keep privy forums private without crippling our active GvGers, and to empower our active GvGers without compromising guild leaders' privacy. There are also some actions which could be more damaging to a guild than others, so splitting these across multiple levels would be more practical than an 'all or nothing' type of right.

Details: It would be best to have 3 levels of GvG rights:
~ a "GvG Aide de Camp" who can replace armies;
~ a "GvG Captain" who can replace armies and also unlock defense slots, set sieges, delete siege armies and move the HQ;
~ a "GvG Field Marshall" who can do everything a Captain can do and also release hexes

None of these roles would have any relation to or effect on any existing guild rights.

Guildmembers who have no special GvG rights can contribute to the guild treasury, fight in GvG battles and fill empty defense slots.

Balance/Abuse Prevention: Guild leaders would be able to grant/revoke these rights as they see fit, so abuse prevention would be an internal guild matter.

For more feedback on this idea see this link: http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?24306-We-Need-Separate-GvG-Rights-PLEASE

Thank you

I have removed the reference to trading with the treasury, as this would be a separate proposal, and to deleting armies, which is not planned for reinstatement.

 

[DeletedUser1081]

Deleting siege armies is still possible, isn't it?
That needs to be included in "captain's rights".

 

[DeletedUser99445]

Separate Rights -1 from me.
Total overkill as usual.

 

[DeletedUser17067]

+1 from me