there needs to be a time penalty to re enter a map or increased siege costs

[urine luck]

at the moment you kick a guild off a map 10 times and they can just re enter it immediately at a cost of 5 of each good. i think the initial siege on a map should cost more, increasing with era up to 1k maybe? and there should be a 1 week time penalty for a guild to re enter a map

 

[DeletedUser]

one month
5k goods costs for the first siege
and Arc doesn't produce guild goods anymore

that would be enough to kill GvG totally

 

[urine luck]

can you think anything constructive to add? do you think anything needs to be done at all? or do you think its fine as it is?

 

[DeletedUser]

actually it must be done something to get more action

it is boring to sit on many sectors and nothing happens here

can you think anything constructive to add?

btw: where is your constructive part in the idea ?

it is only destructive
reduce action by increasing costs and adding time penalty

I don't see any constructive in the idea. so why should I be constructive ?

 

[urine luck]

the constructive part was posing the thought in the first place. it opened discussion. that is intrinsically constructive.

ok, im open to your ideas for making people participate more in gvg. what are they? first of all i think a wipe/restart of all maps would be a good idea.

 

[Lionhead]

I totally agree on the time penalty for getting kicked off a map.
Not sure about the goods suggestion though.

First of all, I think IG needs to be very clear about their basic philosophy regarding GvG.
Are we supposed to conquer and try to hold as many sectors as possible?
Or is it supposed to be havoc and mayhem on the maps all the time every day.

I´m a supporter of the 1st philosophy, and measures should be taken, so what a guild have spend time and resources to build can´t be destroyed in a heartbeat. It´s demoralizing and will eventually make players leave the GvG aspect of the game.
Maybe there should be a minimum requirement of how many members should have before being able to participate in GvG. Perhaps the cost per siege should be lowered, but at the cost of somehow being better equipped to defend sectors.
Should the maps be reset every 3 months? Maybe.
Should each map be divided into like 10-12 seperate areas, so if you hold all sectors in an area, you´ll get a further bonus? If so, should those areas change every now and again to encourage action?

I have in no way the perfect solution, but I believe that nothing good will happen to GvG untill IG announces what GvG should be about, and install measures that will encourage the desired behaviour.

 

[Miepie]

at the moment you kick a guild off a map 10 times and they can just re enter it immediately at a cost of 5 of each good. i think the initial siege on a map should cost more, increasing with era up to 1k maybe? and there should be a 1 week time penalty for a guild to re enter a map

Totally against. You know there is a risk a guild will bounce right back when you kick them off the map. So anticipate and deal with it. A penalty of a week? Is your guild in such a shape they'll need to recover a week from an attack? Sounds like you've more sectors than you can afford then, that's part of the strategic decisions that go with the territory.

I think IG needs to be very clear about their basic philosophy regarding GvG.
Are we supposed to conquer and try to hold as many sectors as possible?
Or is it supposed to be havoc and mayhem on the maps all the time every day.

One doesn't exclude the other. Althoug conquering as many sectors as possible isn't the best tactical approach imaginable. Doing that means no room to maneuver when under attack. And therefore to unneccesary frustrations when losing a sector.

I´m a supporter of the 1st philosophy, and measures should be taken, so what a guild have spend time and resources to build can´t be destroyed in a heartbeat. It´s demoralizing and will eventually make players leave the GvG aspect of the game.

It can't. Since a guild can only move HQ once a day, the amount of losses a guild can suffer in a single day is already restricted. But why should being big give you the right to special protection other guilds don't get?

Maybe there should be a minimum requirement of how many members should have before being able to participate in GvG.

Yeah, former number one guild on my main world tried that suggestion when my guild was just established. I understand it can be very embarrasing not to be able to defend against a small guild but this would effectively condemn any newly established guild to a marginal existance. Bad idea.

Perhaps the cost per siege should be lowered, but at the cost of somehow being better equipped to defend sectors.

I guess you mean lowered for guilds with a large area on the map? Wouldn't solve the problem, guilds would just try to become bigger till they'd bump into the same problem.

Should the maps be reset every 3 months? Maybe.

That might be nice, forces guilds to stay active in all era's they want territory in.

Should each map be divided into like 10-12 seperate areas, so if you hold all sectors in an area, you´ll get a further bonus? If so, should those areas change every now and again to encourage action

The GvG map is already divided in areas, based on eras. Every era has a bonus for number 1,2 and 3, how would adding more improve activity?

I have in no way the perfect solution, but I believe that nothing good will happen to GvG untill IG announces what GvG should be about, and install measures that will encourage the desired behaviour.

What GvG should not be is the points farm it now is for many players.

 

[urine luck]

no guild can afford to keep sectors if another guild decides to attack them endlessly. its got nothing to do with planning or strategy and theres nothing to anticipate. these days with the lvls of traz and the tiny cost of sieges, guilds can literally attack constantly, indefinitely.

 

[Miepie]

no guild can afford to keep sectors if another guild decides to attack them endlessly. its got nothing to do with planning or strategy and theres nothing to anticipate. these days with the lvls of traz and the tiny cost of sieges, guilds can literally attack constantly, indefinitely.

There are very few guilds who can afford to do so for an extended period of time on multiple era's. And if they can, and are motivated to do so, good for them. The way you anticipate on such a guild is making sure you don't have too many sectors and you have enough goods/meds coming into your treasury. You don't hear me say it will give you the results you thing you should have but it will give you the space to respond without bleeding your guild dry. But without any planning / strategy or anticpating, frustration is unavoidable.

 

[DeletedUser]

no guild can afford to keep sectors if another guild decides to attack them endlessly. its got nothing to do with planning or strategy and theres nothing to anticipate. these days with the lvls of traz and the tiny cost of sieges, guilds can literally attack constantly, indefinitely.

too bad that most people don't do that

it is boring that nobody attacks here

if you get attacked too often then leave the drop zone and get rid of landing zone sectors

and the tiny cost of sieges, guilds can literally attack constantly, indefinitely

reason: level 80 Arcs in every era.

would bring back my idea from my first posting:
remove goods from Arc.

 

[urine luck]

you dont seem to be getting what im saying. no planning or strategy or anticipation or budgeting goods is relevant if the attacking guild has no goal other than to attack for the sake of it. no purpose to it. just attacking constantly because they have nothing else to do. its not frustrating, its tedious.

 

[urine luck]

too bad that most people don't do that

it is boring that nobody attacks here

if you get attacked too often then leave the drop zone and get rid of landing zone sectors


reason: level 80 Arcs in every era.

would bring back my idea from my first posting:
remove goods from Arc.

i cant remember if it was on the forums or to zarok, but i said a long while ago that something needs to change to breed new life in to gvg here and wiping the maps might be the answer to it

 

[xivarmy]

you dont seem to be getting what im saying. no planning or strategy or anticipation or budgeting goods is relevant if the attacking guild has no goal other than to attack for the sake of it. no purpose to it. just attacking constantly because they have nothing else to do. its not frustrating, its tedious.

There is some things that can be done.
1) Don't live on a landing zone - if possible have the heart of your empire far from it. This effectively gets you your 'downtime' after map removal because they have to walk all the way back to you. If you do live on or near a landing zone, don't spend goods you're going to fret about losing.

2) Use ghost guilds or bloodthirsty allies to handle the near-landing-zone combat. If you have to chase your enemies all the way back out to the landing zone from your heart that's far away, it can get painful.

3) Lower your estimate for how many sectors you can actually hold to a number that fighting back when needed falls within your means as opposed to just whatever you can afford the siege cost for - at the very least be prepared to release some of your sectors when combat is imminent before you start losing sectors.

As for your suggestions:

I don't see an issue with cooldown on map removal til reentry. A week seems a bit long though. Maybe until next recalc. Or 96 hours to line up with the guild-switching cooldown at most. It's something that guilds will adapt to.

The low cost of siege to enter a map is low for a reason and should remain so - it's to get guilds starting to play easily.

Overall I'm not impressed with GvG in its current incarnation at all - i agree it lacks much in the line of real strategy or skill but I don't see a few small changes doing much to that - a completely new system is needed. The one thing GvG does successfully do is absorb resources and that is an important function as seen in AF/OF where resources don't get absorbed very well without a GvG map.

 

[DeletedUser4379]

' . . . that would be enough to kill GvG totally

I am for any idea at all that will get rid of the loaded diaper that GVG is.

 

[Lionhead]

One doesn't exclude the other. Althoug conquering as many sectors as possible isn't the best tactical approach imaginable. Doing that means no room to maneuver when under attack. And therefore to unneccesary frustrations when losing a sector.

Actually it does. At least in terms of the feel guildmembers are left with, when they see how a 2-man guild has taken 6 sectors times 80 fights in the middle of the night, for no other reason than to destroy.
But you don´t seem to get the point. When a guild sees the purpose of GvG as working hard to coordinate goods-production to be able to conquer as many sector it will take to get into top places on a given map, and another guild sees the purpose as to destroy as much of that effort as possible, it really isn´t compatible.

It can't. Since a guild can only move HQ once a day, the amount of losses a guild can suffer in a single day is already restricted. But why should being big give you the right to special protection other guilds don't get?

It certainly can. Have you heard about a HQ-push. A push under the right circumstances and a guild can loose quite a few sectors.
And have I asked for special protection?
We´re back to my original point. If me and my guild will get any special protection or any other advantages, other guilds would have the same. It´s all about everyone GvG´ing under roughly the same conditions for the same purpose.
If the purpose is just sabotage and fighting left, right and center, then fine. Install measures, that encourages that. More guild-power for the ones that does that the best?
If the purpose is to hold as many sectors to be among the top 3 guilds for additional guild-power, then remove the possibility to destroy as easy as it is now. Lowering the cost of sieges, might mean that guilds with many sectors still dare attacking in the race for that top spot.

The GvG map is already divided in areas, based on eras. Every era has a bonus for number 1,2 and 3, how would adding more improve activity?

I´m pretty sure you didn´t understand what I was trying to say.
I´m fully aware, that GvG consists of several era maps. What I was throwing up in the air, was the idea of dividing each map into 10-12 (or more, probably more) areas consisting of 10-12 sectors. If you hold all sectors in one of the pre-determined areas, you´ll get an additional bonus for that map. Guild-power, or whatever. If the conditions for setting sieges we´re affordable on a regular basis, that might encourage guilds to either try to obtain 1 area (or more), and / or trying to prevent another guild to do the same. Those pre-determined areas then could change every 2-3 months or more often. If you after an area-change will go for holding a new area for additional bonus, then you´d have to be active.
This ofcourse only if everyone is playing GvG for the same purpose under roughly the same conditions. See above.

 

[DeletedUser7942]

I think IG needs to be very clear about their basic philosophy regarding GvG

pretty sure it's to point farm for PvP but I could be wrong.

okay, here's the real answer;

"...we constantly received feedback asking for a better way to compete with other players. Aside from that, we wanted to strengthen cooperative multiplayer as well. With Guilds vs Guilds we found a way to achieve both at the same time. Your goal as a guild will be to conquer provinces from NPC-enemies and other guilds and defending them against your foes."

https://blog.forgeofempires.com/?m=201402

 

[DeletedUser8858]

GvG stagnates way too easy at least on the world I play on, larger guilds are pretty quick to just make deals with each other. Basically carve up the map and hold areas that have little to no landing zones. Little guys cant afford to push through too the safer areas, its all about who has more fighters on at a given time and bigger supply of incoming goods/units.

From what I have seen, majority of any battles revolve only around reset only if you can manage the lag that occurs because of this. Myself, reset is right around dinner time here so can't participate much (west coast NA).

Landing zones...well just release & retake endlessly, safe for another 24 hours.

Ghost guilds are a big issue same with those just playing at off hours sieging only for battles/points and deleting siege instead of taking a sector..."Unknown Guild" did that...

Most AA maps are pretty much larger guilds holding masses of sectors to buffer/protect the sectors they fill with champs/rogues to release/retake for points at their convenience. Guild versus Self. More landing zones needed, all maps could benefit from this.

What are the options, there are probably lots of good ideas but it all depends if Inno actually wants to have GvG or let it die.

 

[DeletedUser]

More landing zones needed

in another forum I already made the suggestion that landing zones are everywhere

stop big guilds doing nothing

it is still GvG
not hide at the end of the map

 

[xivarmy]

GvG stagnates way too easy at least on the world I play on, larger guilds are pretty quick to just make deals with each other. Basically carve up the map and hold areas that have little to no landing zones. Little guys cant afford to push through too the safer areas, its all about who has more fighters on at a given time and bigger supply of incoming goods/units.

From what I have seen, majority of any battles revolve only around reset only if you can manage the lag that occurs because of this. Myself, reset is right around dinner time here so can't participate much (west coast NA).

Landing zones...well just release & retake endlessly, safe for another 24 hours.

Ghost guilds are a big issue same with those just playing at off hours sieging only for battles/points and deleting siege instead of taking a sector..."Unknown Guild" did that...

Most AA maps are pretty much larger guilds holding masses of sectors to buffer/protect the sectors they fill with champs/rogues to release/retake for points at their convenience. Guild versus Self. More landing zones needed, all maps could benefit from this.

What are the options, there are probably lots of good ideas but it all depends if Inno actually wants to have GvG or let it die.

It varies a lot from world to world and goes through phases. Early on in a world's existence you have guilds ready to fight. Then the pecking order gets settled and it stays the same for a long time (oh you don't attack THEM, they'll kill you!). Then you start getting the odd world war as guilds with enough fighting power become unhappy with the pecking order (why should X guild have the high power sectors at the end of the map while we fend off newcomers on our meager holdings on the landing zone when we could kill X guild). Then you get blood feuds and a perpetual state of war when high power guilds have double-crossed each other enough times that noone trusts anyone anymore and just can't let the other guys win. Advancing between these phases requires scarcity of land compared to the ambitions of those with the means to fight for it. The solution to stagnation is to encourage more participation to increase that scarcity (or increase means but the fact that one person can already possess the means to run a fairly costly war suggests that aspect has gone far enough).

I wouldn't be in favor of everywhere being a landing zone as that would kill one of the tenets to sustaining a reasonable sized empire for periods of time in that final phase where maps are in constant flux. It's not like areas far from landing zones are immune to war - they just require more motivation to get there (and possibly starting additional wars).

 

[Miepie]

News flash to urineluck and Lionhead, I understand you both perfectly well, I just don't agree (so tiresome, folks that seem to think anybody not agreeing with them must be lacking in comprehension). And I know it can be frustrating, my number one guild on my main server has been dealing with the petty actions of the former number one guild for months now. They seem to really enjoy being kicked off the maps just to land over and over again. Fortunately we anticipate that behavior and so it doesn't bother us too much. But hey, if you'd rather complain than plan for the expected, be my guest.