• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Feedback for the GvG shutdown and the Guild Raids

Mor-Rioghain

Well-Known Member
I don't know why you're wrestling with this. There is nothing to explain. You're misremembering. The official Wiki has not been updated so here is what it says on the unofficial wiki:
Because I merely mistated only one part of the scenario. I've brought visual aids.Volcano map example of max advance increases.png
  • Green guild attacks Orange guild next to HQ (D3V). HQ has the largest fort & D2S, D3X, and D3X all have max slots, max builds affording a total of 264 increased advances + 220 base advances for a total of 484 advances.
  • Blue guild attacks Red guild, target is A2T. A1, A2S, A3Y, A3Z, and B2S all have max slots, max builds affording a total of 330 increased advances + 220 base advances for a total of 550 advances.waterfall map maximum advances sample.png
  • Max build slots in green (attacking blue). 6*60=360, 200 base advances + 360 increased advances = 560.
There is not any way where it would take more than 418 advances to take a sector in GbG no matter what camps you put on which sectors that touch each other or any other thing that could happen.
I want to make sure you are in on this one since you doused me, too.
(Y'all will notice that in all of these possibilites they are clearly not only over but waaay over 418 excepting the least number of surrounding sectors (green/orange guilds on the Volcano map). Way.

Okay - Yes, I was incorrect on my totals and it's because, yes, @Pericles the Lion , I made an error on the owned/non-owned sectors. I got it backwards. Here's the proof. Read it and weep. Maybe it's not probably but it sure is possible!!

**
I'd like to point something out to you gents. I didn't get mad (okay, I was mad) but your assertions that I was wrong only made me go and really look at the maps and figure it out. Why couldn't you bother to do the same? I've seen many, many times where each of you (in your own ways) stand on your position or if you do concede still blandish the "accuser." There's no accusation! I was merely pointing out that you were incorrect, @jaymoney23456 . @Pericles the Lion , your correcting me was fine - and you showed me a pic - but you completely side-stepped the math (the salient point and what was the topic originally brought up by jay saying 'you can't do more than 418 in the first place!).

Why am I saying all of this? Because all you did was make me mad enough to go out and want to prove you wrong. (Not a great state of mind, I'll grant you, but it did make me rethink everything). You both threw smoke and mirrors and yelled even louder (figuratively speaking, of course) but you didn't prove a thing! Now maybe I'm just too mad and my judgement (and math skills) might still be incorrect but at least I tried to figure out my mistake and represent! You want to correct me again? This time you use a visual aid that's more than a cute little pic of a victory tower and prove your point!
Face, meet egg.

You seem to be confusing the attrition cap with the number of possible advances allowable per battlegrounds buildings. They are two separate things. The highest possible number of possible advances is only limited by two factors: one, number of build slots in adjacent sectors and two, whether or not the sieging guild owns those sectors. If the sieging guild advances on a sector and owns all 6 of the surrounding sectors (highest possible number of adjacent sectors on both maps, if I'm not mistaken) with all 6 having 3 building slots, the maximum possible number of advances could equal 560 on the Volcano Archipelago map (200 base advances per sector) and 616 on the Waterfall Archipelago map (220 base advances per sector).

30% of 200 = 60, 60x6=240, 240+200=440 advances
30% of 220=66, 66x6=396, 220+396=616 advances


Once again you've confused "it's not probable so that makes it impossible" with "it's not probable so it's highly unlikely."

Nope, you were pretty clear:


**Passing over the napkin dispenser**

BEFORE we get into the "WHY would anyone do that with attrition caps in place!?!?-argument, let me say that when you are busting Heck Bent for Leather on Opening Day, yeah, you build and you build big. Why? VICTORY POINTS. If you've swarmed the island, you are gonna bank the VPs so, yeah, you build big. Why bank VPs? Well, they are the proverbial tie-breaker -- BUT -- all of that is really a totally different topic, isn't it?

Please feel free to use as many napkins as you like to wipe the egg off of your face.
because I wasn't wrong, I just counted the wrong number of sectors! My math was sound!

Just for the record - I didn't go out of my way to prove you wrong just for the satisfaction of being right but more to illustrate that I think what the major problem here is that people continue to base their assertions on their opinions which are largely based on their own experiences and I am no exception to that. I knew you couldn't be right because I have fought on maps with a greater number of fights than 418. (And even though this wasn't a part of this side topic, it was still addresses by you both - I have also consistently fought in top-10 guilds (especially the top 5) where I was hardly the only one who made 1K in battles on Day 1 and averaged more than 7K in a season. PLENTY more. I don't have proof - yet. I promised a shot of a leaderboard to @Pericles the Lion and oh, yes, I'm going to make a point of attaching it.

My guild bounces between 4th and 8th place on the server since the tournament-style and we still very consistently have over 35 (usually more like 45) on at opening, 60-ish% at 1K fights or higher per season, and with rare exception no one below our guild's minimum of 500 advances per season. Those top 4 guilds think of us as "casual" and that's not at all uncommon on any server I know anyone on. (Also for the record - I have never played with advanced-era units in battlegrounds. I'm in SAV and I use SAV units even when I'm facing SAAB units, thereby negating my crit hit from an L94 AO. (This begs the question - when y'all make these kinds of assertions do you ever consider the level of the GBs of the folks who are "accused" of botting? Or what their attk/attk-d might be? My lowest military gb is my kraken and it's a 90 and my Trio + TA are 101. My attk/attk-d is Base: 3189/3302 BG: 3820/4014. I struggle to keep up with these folks! Most of them are now moving upwards of 130-140 on Krakens (if the bother to have one)/AO's and 120-130 on Trio/TA. They're maxing out their numbers with event and specialty items to the tune of 5K on the low end and 7K on the high end of attk/attk-d (combined total of GBs/other). If you/guildies aren't meeting at least my numbers, then it's no wonder you can't compete with those guilds to be honest. (I really mean no disrespect on that last part especially. It's very eye-opening to realize just how monstrous their attack power is when they literally don't even break a sweat until their attrition is over 300. I play regularly into 125 to 140 attrition daily, so @Pericles the Lion , that may be why you don't believe that I can hit 1K on opening day, idk). Most of these types of numbers are meaningless mumbo-jumbo unless you consider all of the factors.
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
Because I merely mistated only one part of the scenario. I've brought visual aids.View attachment 21444
  • Green guild attacks Orange guild next to HQ (D3V). HQ has the largest fort & D2S, D3X, and D3X all have max slots, max builds affording a total of 264 increased advances + 220 base advances for a total of 484 advances.
  • Blue guild attacks Red guild, target is A2T. A1, A2S, A3Y, A3Z, and B2S all have max slots, max builds affording a total of 330 increased advances + 220 base advances for a total of 550 advances.View attachment 21445
  • Max build slots in green (attacking blue). 6*60=360, 200 base advances + 360 increased advances = 560.

I want to make sure you are in on this one since you doused me, too.
(Y'all will notice that in all of these possibilites they are clearly not only over but waaay over 418 excepting the least number of surrounding sectors (green/orange guilds on the Volcano map). Way.

Okay - Yes, I was incorrect on my totals and it's because, yes, @Pericles the Lion , I made an error on the owned/non-owned sectors. I got it backwards. Here's the proof. Read it and weep. Maybe it's not probably but it sure is possible!!

**
I'd like to point something out to you gents. I didn't get mad (okay, I was mad) but your assertions that I was wrong only made me go and really look at the maps and figure it out. Why couldn't you bother to do the same? I've seen many, many times where each of you (in your own ways) stand on your position or if you do concede still blandish the "accuser." There's no accusation! I was merely pointing out that you were incorrect, @jaymoney23456 . @Pericles the Lion , your correcting me was fine - and you showed me a pic - but you completely side-stepped the math (the salient point and what was the topic originally brought up by jay saying 'you can't do more than 418 in the first place!).

Why am I saying all of this? Because all you did was make me mad enough to go out and want to prove you wrong. (Not a great state of mind, I'll grant you, but it did make me rethink everything). You both threw smoke and mirrors and yelled even louder (figuratively speaking, of course) but you didn't prove a thing! Now maybe I'm just too mad and my judgement (and math skills) might still be incorrect but at least I tried to figure out my mistake and represent! You want to correct me again? This time you use a visual aid that's more than a cute little pic of a victory tower and prove your point!

because I wasn't wrong, I just counted the wrong number of sectors! My math was sound!

Just for the record - I didn't go out of my way to prove you wrong just for the satisfaction of being right but more to illustrate that I think what the major problem here is that people continue to base their assertions on their opinions which are largely based on their own experiences and I am no exception to that. I knew you couldn't be right because I have fought on maps with a greater number of fights than 418. (And even though this wasn't a part of this side topic, it was still addresses by you both - I have also consistently fought in top-10 guilds (especially the top 5) where I was hardly the only one who made 1K in battles on Day 1 and averaged more than 7K in a season. PLENTY more. I don't have proof - yet. I promised a shot of a leaderboard to @Pericles the Lion and oh, yes, I'm going to make a point of attaching it.

My guild bounces between 4th and 8th place on the server since the tournament-style and we still very consistently have over 35 (usually more like 45) on at opening, 60-ish% at 1K fights or higher per season, and with rare exception no one below our guild's minimum of 500 advances per season. Those top 4 guilds think of us as "casual" and that's not at all uncommon on any server I know anyone on. (Also for the record - I have never played with advanced-era units in battlegrounds. I'm in SAV and I use SAV units even when I'm facing SAAB units, thereby negating my crit hit from an L94 AO. (This begs the question - when y'all make these kinds of assertions do you ever consider the level of the GBs of the folks who are "accused" of botting? Or what their attk/attk-d might be? My lowest military gb is my kraken and it's a 90 and my Trio + TA are 101. My attk/attk-d is Base: 3189/3302 BG: 3820/4014. I struggle to keep up with these folks! Most of them are now moving upwards of 130-140 on Krakens (if the bother to have one)/AO's and 120-130 on Trio/TA. They're maxing out their numbers with event and specialty items to the tune of 5K on the low end and 7K on the high end of attk/attk-d (combined total of GBs/other). If you/guildies aren't meeting at least my numbers, then it's no wonder you can't compete with those guilds to be honest. (I really mean no disrespect on that last part especially. It's very eye-opening to realize just how monstrous their attack power is when they literally don't even break a sweat until their attrition is over 300. I play regularly into 125 to 140 attrition daily, so @Pericles the Lion , that may be why you don't believe that I can hit 1K on opening day, idk). Most of these types of numbers are meaningless mumbo-jumbo unless you consider all of the factors.
There is nothing wrong with your math. It is your logic that is causing the problem. Here is a screenshot of the battlefield on my main world. FYI, there are 3 Fortified Guild Command Posts (FGCP) built on sector X1X, 3 FGCP built on D2A, 3 FGCP built on B2A, and 2 FGCP built on F2A. Despite there being a total of 8 FGCPs built on sectors adjacent to X1X, an attacker hitting X1X need only do 380 encounters (fewer if we destroy any of our buildings on X1X) to capture the sector. The buildings on the adjacent sectors have no impact on the number of encounters needed to take X1X. It's been said several times, on the Waterfall map, the maximum number of encounters needed to take a sector is 380.

1712186073863.png
 
Last edited:

Mor-Rioghain

Well-Known Member
There is nothing wrong with your math. It is your logic that is causing the problem. Here is a screenshot of the battlefield on my main world. FYI, there are 3 Fortified Guild Command Posts (FGCP) built on sector X1X, 3 FGCP built on D2A, 3 FGCP built on B2A, and 2 FGCP built on F2A. Despite there being a total of 8 FGCPs built on sectors adjacent to X1X, an attacker hitting X1X need only do 380 encounters (fewer if we destroy any of our buildings on X1X) to capture the sector. The buildings on the adjacent sectors have no impact on the number of encounters needed to take X1X. It's been said several times, on the Waterfall map, the maximum number of encounters needed to take a sector is 380.

View attachment 21447
Thank you for the visual. I concur; I was mistaken. I couldn't reference anything on our map this season as we are (and have been for the most part) confined to sectors adjacent to HQ due to being on the map during a duke-fest of 3 of the top 4 guilds on our server.

Do you know what happened to that napkin dispenser I nudged into the center of the table? I can't seem to find it and it seems I have some egg to wipe off of my own face. ;)
 

Mor-Rioghain

Well-Known Member
And on to the actual intent of this feedback thread: Feedback. QI is a joke. It's group PvP. Bragging rights aside, what's the point? My biggest beef on it has to do with QI Officers. What is the point of having them?

Putting aside my own personal opinion of how boring it is and a sad and watered-down version of PvP Arena, Battlegrounds, and yes, even GvG, I'll stick to the most salient point necessary is that a player can be stymied in personal growth due to lack of an officer to open nodes after one has been completed. For a feature that has a growth meter (?? What the heck is that thing even called? LOL), that's ridiculous!

Fortunately for my ego (and my bank account) I didn't make the mistake of springing for an upper tier chest because I would have been hopping mad had I realized that after the proverbial register drawer cha-chinged it's way closed!! (Oh, yeah, I forgot, by benefit of being a leader in my guild I was automatically granted QI Officer rights, not assigned them, so my unwitting guildies had no idea that their financial fate - and potential prizes - were in my ignorant, unwitting, (and I must admit unwilling) and grubby little paws. How uncouth!)

I can't help but ask the obvious question - WHY?? Is there some mysterious reason that we're supposed to carry the fate of our guildies financial prosperity, both real and virtual, in our untrained hands? Dare I give voice to a deepening suspicion that whatever was going on behind the scenes of the GvG shutdown (hurry, hurry, scurry, scurry) created a situation by which that little "button" (Trusted Rights) had to be "filled" with something? Anything?

Okay, joking aside.

You have a pay-to-win option on what is an F2P feature. The problem is that the pay-to-win option is controlled by none other than ... other gamers.
It's annoying enough to have to wait for a leader to
  • open levels of GE and on time.
  • build on battlegrounds sectors with buildings you personally find suitable to the style of play you'd like (and know that most everyone in the guild is capable of) and, yes, built in a timely fashion so diamond rushing is never really a problem past day 1 of the season.
without adding insult to injury by placing in their hands the power to stymy their potential of game-growth (stated veeerry wryly) and dare we say, yes, I'll say it, "spending their money for them?" (Yes, I meant I - a leader can spend or unspend a guildies' money just by ignorning their requests to open nodes and hamper/completely shut down their advancement on the meter). That goes a long, long way past "annoying" to downright criminal in my humble opinion.

How in the heck could this oversight have ever gotten out of a boardroom's brain-storming session and into development? Into a testing phase? How did it go live????? You have got to be kidding me!!!

Are you going to stick to your normal response to such a situation that begins with "You can always...." and ends with "you can ...find a better guild, ...start your own guild, ...fill in the blank with anything that means it's "our" fault, never yours so that you're not at the mercy of another gamer's whims, etc." or will you admit that you made a critical mistake and fix it post-haste? (Please, please tell me this was an honest-to-goodness oversight and not some hair-brained idea of how to end that "fingle-fangled, dosh-garned GvG NOW, not LATER" thing, was it??)

Inno! Do better!!
 
Last edited:

jaymoney23456

Well-Known Member
lol , always got to be a little whiner don't you ? That was his whole point of his post ; that your play is substandard which is why it's so hard for you to understand. ;)
Perhaps it is just that you use bots/ your guild does and you are upset that you can't succeed without doing this. You needn't worry about me, my guild was slightly faster at start this morning than the top guild on our server. Thanks for trying though. Better luck next time lol
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
Perhaps it is just that you use bots/ your guild does and you are upset that you can't succeed without doing this. You needn't worry about me, my guild was slightly faster at start this morning than the top guild on our server. Thanks for trying though. Better luck next time lol
It is pointless attempting to demonstrate to you that other players/guilds are capable of performance that exceeds your own (without resorting to trickery or cheating). Keep believing that your capabilities are pushing the edge of the envelope and ignore what others are trying to show you. You are only hurting yourself.
 

Sharmon the Impaler

Well-Known Member
Perhaps it is just that you use bots/ your guild does and you are upset that you can't succeed without doing this. You needn't worry about me, my guild was slightly faster at start this morning than the top guild on our server. Thanks for trying though. Better luck next time lol
Or that your play is substandard. You should identify as special needs so you can feel better about yourself even if you don't have a clue how the game works ;)
 

Sharmon the Impaler

Well-Known Member
Aren't you so clever , go back to your sandbox and complain to someone who cares what you have to say. You just like complaining about everything like the whole world is out to get you. I will let you in on a secret , you aren't important enough to care about.
 

jaymoney23456

Well-Known Member
Aren't you so clever , go back to your sandbox and complain to someone who cares what you have to say. You just like complaining about everything like the whole world is out to get you. I will let you in on a secret , you aren't important enough to care about.
You must think I am pretty important because you reply to 90% of whatever I post on the forums lol
 
Top