If you haven't done any simulation or calculations, then you cannot say that
You may think it will work, the math shows otherwise (barring the 2 blockading guilds screwing up). If I am missing a variable (other than negotiating which would be applied equally to all guilds and therefore would be irrelevent), please let me know what it or they are.
I also noticed you cut out the section in the quote of my post regarding "attrition points" which is key to how many attacks a guild can do per day. I used 8 equal guilds, only three of which really matter in the region where one is pinned into the HQ. The ability to plant SCs has a large effect on the rate at which attrition is increased (either per player or for the guild as a whole). It does not matter what the lock time is for the sectors. if each tier has the same lock time.
Here's the 2 layer SL sequence of events.
-Guilds 2 and 3 have formed a to layer softlock around guild 1 at A4-A, having taken and softlocked (guild 2 takes A3V and guild 3 takes A2S)
-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks
-Guild 1 begins to attack A2S
-Guild 3 closes the softlock on A2S before Guild 1 takes it and before A3V unlocks.
-Guild 1 is now hemmed in. Nothing to attack.
-A3V opens, Guild 3 takes it. Guild 1 loses the flag on A2S and is back to their HQ
-A2S opens, Guild 2 establishes a soft lock
Rinse, repeat (just swap guild 2 and 3), and continue for 11 days.
NOTICE there is no time mentioned in the above sequence. The two layer softlock blockade is independent of time. The blockading guilds have the advantage of SCs which increases and enables them to maintain the blockade. Since the total amount of attrition available per guild does not change based on the lock time, then there is no help to the guild under seige by shortening the lock time. Guild 1 burns attrition 1:1 whereas guilds 2 and 3 burn attrition at no more than 0.76:1 (24% more attacks possible per day for guild 2 and 3). These examples are done with even strength guilds. Chances are the pinned guild is not equally as stronger (ie., able to accumulate the same number of attrition points per day), which now puts a larger differential between guild 1 and guild 2 and 3. If guild 1 can accumulate only 90% of that of guild 2 or 3, then guilds 2 and 3 have at least 34% more hits per day over guild 1.
I'm sorry to say that shortening the lock time will have no effect on GBG other than to require players to be online in GBG more. But it only takes 1 player to close a soft lock.
Thanks for the idea it was interesting to work through and try to make it have an advantage.
If you have any details on
and what is the "correct way". Please provide the details, I am especially curious as to how it differs from above.
OK just to shorten this up and for the fun of debate.
You've stated in your simulations:
"I'm sorry to say that shortening the lock time will have no effect on GBG other than to require players to be online in GBG more" and that You "used 8 equal guilds, only three of which really matter in the region where one is pinned into the HQ" and that the pinned Guild being Guild 1 has done this:
-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks
-Guild 1 begins to attack A2S
And your question "If I am missing a variable (other than negotiating which would be applied equally to all guilds and therefore would be irrelevent), please let me know what it or they are.
1. If there are 8 "equal Guilds then why do only 3 matter? your simulating it's only 2 against 1.
>> missing variable 1 it's now 2 against 6, your simulation is not considering the power of all alliances not just 2 Guilds.
2. Currently Guilds can't even get out of their home base due to the current 4 hour synchronized "Fort Knox" however in your simulation you stated "-Guild 1 takes A3V when it unlocks---Guild 1 begins to attack A2S" , So how could 1 Guild against 2 make it to the 2nd ring if lock times did not have an effect as you stated, so your simulation has proved shortening lock times would have an effect.
>>missing variable 2 there are 5 other Guilds now not being accounted for penetrating the 2nd Ring, at the same time (power of alliances), 2 Guilds can not possibly defend all 6 areas at once.
3. I'm not going to get into the attrition factors per player but will regarding SC's.
>>Missing variable 3 SC's are random on each map, so in the checker board it is noticed that Guilds may need SC's in ring 3 to support attrition in Ring 2, So since ring 3 sectors will be taken as proven in your simulation you drastically effect Guild 2-3 (your Super Guilds) attrition rates and not just in one region.
I'll agree to disagree with there will be "no effect" and due to the power of alliances and not being able to be in 6 places at once there can and likely will be multiple Ring 2 sector loses to these Super Guilds which will further effect their attrition rates to be able to maintain grid lock on all sectors. So yes if done correctly coordinated by alliances the current system can and likely will get broken down.
>>Missing variable 4, since my example more than likely proves 2nd ring sector loses your simulation has not taken into account the power of traps against attrition.
4.Requirement of players to be online more
>>Missing variable 5, are they going to be online more to be able to consistently defend this? as they will not really know when a coordinated 6 alliance attack could occur against them. 6 against 2, not 2 against 1.
I'm certain there are multiple players who would love to give it a whirl with change in sector times I've proposed. Only a live demo would be able to account for the many variables available.
I also did mention it is not entirely non defendable , but the coordination of setting different lock times to each sector and regions would be too challenging to maintain consistently.