Tony 85 the Generous
Well-Known Member
Your suggestions remove the incentive but will not prevent nor stop farming nor pinning. As neither are the root cause of the symptons/effect you describe.My suggestions reduce the incentive and hinder the mechanism for endlessly trading sectors. And that's the main problem with GBG.
My suggestions reduce the incentive and hinder the mechanism for endlessly trading sectors. And that's the main problem with GBG. Sure, there will still be alliances, but part of the incentive for forming them will be gone, so maybe they won't be as prevalent. In any case, players getting thousands of battles and the resulting pile of personal rewards from them would be cut down to size.
And common sense, and better yet math, says it won't matter to the stronger guild. You completely skip over the point that diamond guilds don't use traps. Sure get rid of them. They don't use them anyway. Why? Because the top diamond guilds are strong enough to muscle past them. If they are strong enough to muscle past a sector with traps, then they are strong enough to muscle past a sector with no trap support by no SCs.Sure it would. It would cut way down on the farming of endlessly trading sectors. Common sense is your friend.
Let's apply some numbers to your plan: (These are simple numbers, not exactly realistic. It is about the method, not the exact number)
Assume a sector need 100 hits to capture.
Sector with trap has 45% chance of double attrition, you get 145 attrition
Sector supported by 1 SC has 24% chance of no attrition, you get 76 attrition
Sector with neither trap or SC, you get 100 attrition
If the guild can muscle past a sector with a trap with 145 attrition, what would they do to a sector with no SC and no trap where they only get 100 attrition? Yeah, blow right through. Getting rid of SCs (which are used heavily) and traps (which aren't used at all), will have little effect on the top guilds.
So go ahead and get rid of SCs and traps. It won't matter to the top diamond guilds.
Sorry, but how does the gap shrink when the "haves" get in thousands of battles with the resultant rewards and the "have nots" are pinned in their home sector without any chance at battles or rewards? Your theory just doesn't pass the smell test. Of course the gap widens. The same way the gap in Treasury size would widen between a guild with level 80 Arcs and a guild with few low level Arcs. That's just common sense. Saying the gap shrinks is not borne out by the facts of reality.
Sorry to say, it is the expectation of the effect of your suggestion that is not passing the smell test. You are not factoring in the full effect of your suggestion. If you apply an decreasing chance of rewards to retaking a sector, you must also take into account this applies to the weaker guilds. So you are taking away from guilds than can do 1000s of hit and from guilds that do 100s of hits. Taking into account Algona's point the stronger guilds require more fp per gb level than weaker, a 10 or 20% reduction in fp (from 1000fp to 900fp and 100 to 90fp) won't change the situation. It won't help the weaker catch the stronger. Furthermore as I recently noted on Algona's theory, We are not talking silver league guilds at 100fp and diamond guilds at 1000fp per day. We are working with platinum-diamond guilds capable of 800fp per day competing against (or try to catch or become as strong as) guilds capable of 1000fp per day.Wrong again. How would it affect them the same when the "stronger" guilds get tons of personal rewards from endlessly trading sectors and getting in thousands of battles through farming that the "weaker" guilds never get that chance? It would definitely affect the farming guilds more. The rewards would only be reduced on repeated attacks on the same sectors that have been taken multiple times by the same guild. That mechanism wouldn't affect the weaker guilds at all.
As someone else said, you would need to hobble the stronger guild without effecting the weaker in order for your plan to have a positive and discrete effect on the weaker guild. Based on that, you are left to determine which guild should be hobbled and which should not. If you go through that effort, then why not just apply that same selection criteria and fix the problem at its root. Use this criteria to select the guilds to be on the map which addresses the root cause by having balanaced and more closely competitive guilds on a map in a given season. Poof! equally matched guilds, no can get pinned, farming can still happen but you admitted that would still happen anyway just producing less rewards.
The fact is your suggestions address a symptom and/or an effect and not the root cause. The symptom of the problem is weaker guilds get pinned, and an effect of the problem is farming (though farming is more of an effect of alliances instead of strength). Removing SCs/Trap and the progressive reduction in rewards are applied to the guilds on the map after they are on the map. Keyword; after. If there is an after, there must be a before. What comes before the season starts? Selecting the guilds. Selecting guilds of unequal or unmatched strength to be place on a map is the root cause.
Last edited: