as all you need to do is disrupt one of the sectors a guild needs for SC support as a Guild needs X amount of support for 0% attrition, since you can not defend or retake a sector you own then A the competition takes it , B yes your alliance can take it but it would disrupt your checkerboard pattern of supports on other sectors and due to the timing patterns could further disrupt the inner patterns depending on the competitors success or penetration inward. You could now increase the rate of fighting and attrition rate of your competitors (finally) and would slow the reward process somewhat. Imagine the other 6 guilds actually now have a chance to participate and do this. However in my initial statement there may be a few outboard sectors that would provide the ability for a constant 30 minute flip (depending on SC supports) without any sacrifice or disruption to a 2 guild surrounding alliance. These "Jackpot" sectors could simply still be disrupted with the loss of a holding position. Would definitely be an interesting test to see how it's disruptive or manipulated but the 4 hour synchronization of all sectors is what is allowing for total map lockdown with ease.
In the simulations I have performed, I am not seeing any difference in the amount of ground to be gained by the allied guilds or the pinned guild. Even when I enter a random alliance screw up and allow the 'pinned guild' to gain an extra sector, nothing changes. While that is actually correct (nothing changes with the sectors), something does change with the fighting and sector changing hands when going from 4 hours to 1/2 hour. In the 1/2 hour simulation the fighting of the "weaker" guild dies off by the 3rd sector swap. In short, there is no difference because attrition and lock time are mutually exclusive. All guilds and players are limited by attrition, not by the time the sectors are locked.
An example to clarify (these are not the exact numbers from the simulation, but simplified for the sake of discussion)
Setup:
- diamond league (160 hits per sector)
- three equal guilds (one pinned, two allied)
- each with 60 members
- two members max out at attrition 1-30 (two players fight to attrition 1, two players to attrition 2, ... two player fight to attrition 30; as I said simplified).
This gives 930 "attrition points" to each guild. But that is not the number of attacks, just the total maximum attrition of each guild.
If guild A is pinned against the two-layer SLs blockade they have no SC support, and therefore can only take 5 sectors (5.8 to be exact) sectors per day (930/160).
Guild B and C have the same number of "attrition points" but with SC support. With a single SC they can take 7.2 sectors, 2 SC=8.6, 3 SC=9.99, and 4 SC = 11.39 sectors per day.
First: timing, there is no way to beat the two-layer SL blockade unless one of the allied guilds drops the ball.
Second: hits per guild or sectors per day, there is no way to out swap a guild that can produce more hits per day.
I have left out the effect of negotiating, but I did some simulations with it. If used equally per guild, it has a linear increase in the number of hits for all guilds (ie., there is no benefit, advantage, or disadvantage).
In the end, shortening the lock time increased the number of rewards for the players in the alliance and did nothing (help or hurt) the pinned guild.
Thank you for the idea. All the ideas are fun to play with and see what effect they have on the outcome of a season or on a guild.
the 4 hour synchronization of all sectors is what is allowing for total map lockdown with ease.
The lockdown is a product of two layer checkboard softlock pattern enabled by alliances. Time is irrelevent.
The only effect of going cross-world would be an increase in cities in those worlds in order to enable communication within the alliance. Cross-world GBG would have no effect on the game play, only on the number of cities in each world (talk about server loading LOL).
Possible, but if I were the developer, then I would want that rather than watching the worlds die down. The expectation of new cities logically would bring more income to support those "new" server upgrades LOL. I'd only be interested in working the best deal for my group with the Guilds you are matched with, I don't see myself opening another city. The hardcore gamers here who are on every 4 hours 24/7 may feel they need to do that.
I do not see any new income being generated. Point in fact, if that was implemented I see myself having a bronze age city in every world with just enough tech researched to make friends and chat. The cities would not even need to be part of a guild. But since I have the cities, perhaps I turn them all into diamond mines, which further fails to provide any income to Inno but requires them to provide the server capacity to support it.