Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
GbG is a lot of fun for Winners.
You spelled "weiners" wrong.GbG is a lot of fun for Winners.
I could see that causing quite a few issues if it's within the current structures. Guild cohesion goes well beyond just battlegrounds. It effects Guild Treasury, ability to trade goods and your ability to swap FPs (I'm including 1.x in that). That's not even getting into player hierachy structures or people having entirely different ideas on how they wish to play the battlegrounds.1. First and foremost would be to limit the number of "high prestige point" members in the Guild. The prestige points are a surrogate for the kind of player with 1000+ attacking boosts. Presently, these folks congregate in a few Guilds, and they dominate the server World that they are in.
While on the surface that sounds like it might stop checkers, in practice that'll just make checkers much *much* easier to maintain. There's only one reason in checkers to ever capture a province: to reset the advances. Your idea achieves that with no cost involved2. Limit the time that a Banner can exist on a sector without taking the sector. This tactic creates the checkerboards and collusion that are rife in the game today.
New buildings could potentially spice things up, but it would require the playerbase to want competition more than they want rewards3. Introduce new buildings that can break up a block of sectors quickly. Sappers could reduce the advances needed to take a sector that is contiguous to other enemy sectors.
These players did not suddenly decide congregate in a few guilds because GBG was added to the game. Many have played together since the game first started. They have build up friendships and loyalties because of shared experiences in learning the game over the years. That is why they can run successful guilds. To arbitrarily say that they can no longer play together would make nonsense of the whole concept of the game. Plus many people have different ideas of how to play the game. So a motley group of players just thrown together on a seasonal basis would spend more time arguing between themselves over how things should be done than they would actually playing the game.. First and foremost would be to limit the number of "high prestige point" members in the Guild. The prestige points are a surrogate for the kind of player with 1000+ attacking boosts. Presently, these folks congregate in a few Guilds, and they dominate the server World that they are in.
What Emberguard said above is exactly how this would end up.2. Limit the time that a Banner can exist on a sector without taking the sector. This tactic creates the checkerboards and collusion that are rife in the game today.
A Sapper is a soldier therefor a military unit, so would need to be included as part your army. I could see new types of buildings working in some instances. But I think that, just like present buildings, there would be some that were seldom if ever used. Like traps for instance. There is an unspoken agreement in my main world (Even between the worst of enemies) that they are just not used at all by anyone.3. Introduce new buildings that can break up a block of sectors quickly. Sappers could reduce the advances needed to take a sector that is contiguous to other enemy sectors.
That may be the case at the very start of a season, but timer lockouts are 4 hrs and siege camps 2 hrs to build. So if a guild is “heavy” into GBG there’s something wrong if they’re using that many diamonds each time. It should only be a once off cost for a heavy GBG guild, after that they shouldn’t need to keep consuming diamonds as placing Siege Camps immediately after a swap ensures no diamonds are needed50 diamonds/rush times 10 times 5 = 2500 diamonds per day per guild, or approximately 5000 diamonds per day per map assuming 2 guilds are participating in the checkerboard
Mostly correct. Ring 1 and ring 2 get capped and SCs built where needed. Ring 3 remains open because it is supported by neighboring ring 3 tiles, sometimes ring 4 tiles and the newly closed ring 2 tiles. Newly built SCs on ring 2 tiles supporting ring 3 tiles being attacked need to be rushed. First attack of the season has everything rushed. After that, some number of SCs built on ring 2 tiles get rushed every swap.That may be the case at the very start of a season, but timer lockouts are 4 hrs and siege camps 2 hrs to build. So if a guild is “heavy” into GBG there’s something wrong if they’re using that many diamonds each time. It should only be a once off cost for a heavy GBG guild, after that they shouldn’t need to keep consuming diamonds as placing Siege Camps immediately after a swap ensures no diamonds are needed
I'm wondering about any need to modify GBG. My question is this: is there anything inherent in the structure of FOE that prevents a weaker guild from growing stronger? I mean, this ain't MLB where teams like the Yankees are destined to dominate (because they have deep pockets and there is no salary cap in MLB) small market teams. I'm not aware of anything that prevents a small guild from recruiting to 80 players; from requiring ARC/OBS/ATOM/SOH to build the treasury; from requiring x-number of encounters per season, etc., etc. A new season started yesterday. Two of the guilds on our current map didn't attack a single tile at the opening which is not unusual. I can't get excited about changing GBG to help guilds that aren't engaged now.
Another good idea that has been mentioned is no attrition in any sectors touching home base.
So what. all those sectors now usually are often used by those Guilds. who cares? part of GbG is Guilds making pacts. Great. I suppose you think it would affect who? the bigGuilds? they might miss out? no because the big Guilds can afford to take them back. so what if it is trading back and forth with the little Guild. no problem I can see. Except maybe the litlte Guild might gain a few Fps for it's members doing it.This would be wide open to abuse , 2-3 member guilds form a pact with adjacent homebases where they take each other sectors touching home bases and do this for the whole season. This would guarantee a 2 member guild 3 sectors X 2 times per day attrition free and would vastly increase the number of tiny guilds that would see this as a twice monthly windfall of rewards.
So what. all those sectors now usually are often used by those Guilds. who cares? part of GbG is Guilds making pacts. Great. I suppose you think it would affect who? the bigGuilds? they might miss out? no because the big Guilds can afford to take them back. so what if it is trading back and forth with the little Guild. no problem I can see. Except maybe the litlte Guild might gain a few Fps for it's members doing it.
That used to be true, but with the effect of the Arc and various other GBs on the game (not to mention an incredible acceleration in power creep over the last couple of years) it isn't any longer. And that's not even considering that a few strong players can form a new guild and immediately be a "big strong guild".Big strong Guilds got big ad strong over a very long time.
Yeah and that’s down to free will + the length of each season being so long but the competition result already being pretty clear without any collusion or cooperation in the first day, often within the first hr(s).The real problem with GBG isn't that there are "big strong guilds", but that guilds conspire to turn an intended battleground into a checkerboard farm. Until that's fixed, GBG is nothing but heavy RQ looping on a guild scale.
Might not be a bad idea. And why not divide each sector a number of sub-sectors that need to be conquered. A bit like the Cmap. Only once a guild has fought off other guilds and won the whole sector do the get to keep it for a given length of time. HHMMMM now what does that remind me of?Daily competition GBG without even the four day break? No Thank You! LOL