DeletedUser8152
There is far less point farming now than there used to be, as far as I can tell.
Perhaps but I mean on the individuals points. If one can still gain the same benefit even with one method closed then I fail to see the point of the change. Unless of course you're saying they just wanted less people doing it which again tells me they see it as a negative. Really all this has done has given the advantage to non land holders to gain points for towers as it would be cost prohibitive for land holders to do the same. So basically land holders are not allowed to gain points for towers through GvG but non land holders are. Perhaps this is innos way of giving non land holders something, land holders get guild power, non land holders get tower points. Of course they never stated as much but if this is the way of it perhaps they should have.There is far less point farming now than there used to be, as far as I can tell.
I think it is considerably harder now to gain the same benefit. Like I pointed out, you either have to sacrifice your own troops, or else deal with fighting another guild. It used to be that you could easily farm NPC sectors for no troop cost.Perhaps but I mean on the individuals points. If one can still gain the same benefit even with one method closed then I fail to see the point of the change.
I'm not talking about if it's harder, it very well may be, I'm wondering for any given individual, not a land holder, attacking AA numerous times a day, if that kind of player has lost anything point wise with the change.I think it is considerably harder now to gain the same benefit. Like I pointed out, you either have to sacrifice your own troops, or else deal with fighting another guild. It used to be that you could easily farm NPC sectors for no troop cost.
I should think so. Before they could repeatedly attack 8 unboosted champions, leading to maximum points for little loss of troops. Now they have to attack an occupied sector with a boost, a mix of various lower-value troops, and the hassle of having their siege killed. I can't imagine they can earn the same amount of points in the same amount of time.I'm not talking about if it's harder, it very well may be, I'm wondering for any given individual, not a land holder, attacking AA numerous times a day, if that kind of player has lost anything point wise with the change.
I thought you could only release sectors so many times a day so I thought maybe a max of 40 battles a day?Before they could repeatedly attack 8 unboosted champions
Not always.Now they have to attack an occupied sector with a boost
Sure sometimes, depends.a mix of various lower-value troops
You can kill of other peoples sieges before and after the change couldn't you?hassle of having their siege killed
4 releases per person, but it's easy enough to get someone else to help.I thought you could only release sectors so many times a day so I thought maybe a max of 40 battles a day?
Yes but it was not hard before to find a sector to farm where there were either no neighbors or only friendly neighbors. That is much harder now.You can kill of other peoples sieges before and after the change couldn't you?
In practice, there's no limit on sieges per day, so the difference between endless champ sieges and endless mixed troop sieges is pretty significant in terms of points.As it is now there is no limit on sieges per day in AA, the sector may or may not have any boost which won't matter much anyway if the persons boost is high enough to deal with it, there's a potential of 80 AF battles per siege. 5 Sieges a day = 400 battles for the cost of 25 medals and 8 Spearfighters per siege. AA first place is 4500 medals. Seems like a rather lucrative enterprise still for the battle point towers.
Seems impossible with 4 releases per person even with friends. We have to think what's practical. Of course without any real data we're just spitballin. It wouldn't really be endless mixed troop sieges either because the cost of medals would eventually exceed the reward. As it is now the reality is 400 battles with mixed troops is easy, cheap, can be done by only one person everyday.endless champ sieges
Seems impossible with 4 releases per person even with friends. We have to think what's practical. Of course without any real data we're just spitballin. It wouldn't really be endless mixed troop sieges either because the cost of medals would eventually exceed the reward. As it is now the reality is 400 battles with mixed troops is easy, cheap, can be done by only one person everyday.
I think the point is though that the siege unit cost is still negligible on the AA map (where you can use 8 spears).The siege unit cost definitely has reduced the ease of farming points.
Can it still be done? Yes, but it isn't sustainable unless you level your Alcatraz considerably.
true. and an iron age player in the defending guild can autobattle to kill the siege with no losses, too!I think the point is though that the siege unit cost is still negligible on the AA map (where you can use 8 spears).
To address your question then, I don't think there was ever the intention that point farming was unacceptable per se. The loophole they wanted to close was that point farming was too easy and inexpensive.
Is a level 25 traz considered considerable by you for this?it isn't sustainable unless you level your Alcatraz considerably.
Well, that's double the level I have, so I suppose so, yes.Is a level 25 traz considered considerable by you for this?
I don't mind when people disagree as it's sometimes good in that it offers an opportunity to flesh out the matter however your disagreement here seems misplaced to me in that I'm not arguing that somebody is saying that a guild must hold large areas of land, I'm simply addressing what Inno was in part trying to fix last June and has avoided fixing completely since then. Just read their words not mine:
"...patch some of the loopholes that were reported by you and were making it possible to 'farm' lots of ranking points..."
"...fix some loopholes that were abused by players..."
Clearly Inno, players and myself see this point farming in AA as an exploit, a loophole, something some players choose to abuse, again Inno's words not mine. So if you disagree in that you believe it is not that then it's not just me you're disagreeing with but the intentions of Inno in it's design for GvG. AA/GvG was never intended on being a farming area for points.
Well, that's double the level I have, so I suppose so, yes.
It's just that I've seen much higher and wasn't sure what "considerable" meant in this context. So 23 troops a day.Taken into consideration, considerably so.
It is/was, it's just not as effective as it used to be because inno made changes to make it not as attractive to do. And that's the crux of the matter here. They made it so the incentive for gaining points with that method was not as profitable or as easy as it once was.I thought that "farming" was where a guild would take a sector, wait for recalc, drop it and then retake it. Over and over and over again.
Attacking another guilds' sectors isn't "farming points" in my opinion.
I't ambiguous at best. Inno does not define it. All we have that I can find I listed above.I think that your definition of "farm" just might be different from Inno's definition.
Is also ambiguous. Was it an unintended weakness of the design of GvG to farm points? Clearly they thought so.unintended weakness
If I had to define it I suppose off hand it would be something to the effect of, farming; using any aspect of the game other than it's intended purpose to gain in another area not intended for. but again this isn't about me, it's about inno's position. I respect your opinion on the matter but I think when looked at as a whole I believe my position is better supported. We seem to be at this impasse where you believe it's okay to do to some degree and I don't believe it was ever meant to do at all based on what I posted above.What is your definition?