Guilds Rural Player Discrimination Aka How To Fix Sniping

One thing I have to say is the idea that newer guilds should be able to beat old guilds with large amounts of people and a strong community is one of the strangest ideas I've seen and though there is much room for improvement but a method to cede territory can be used along with the same 180sec timer and still reduce a lot of rng. Again 3 people shouldn't be able to stop 70 it's like saying that small rebellions should be able to stop large governments even when completely outnumbered several thousand to one. r/place is a good example of initial chaos turning into groups working together. Alliances are kind of the same through limitations guilds are forced to strategise and cooperate to beat others and if anything if this gets implemented with certian limitaitons of cede; guilds would be able to use their power more effectively and as long as limitaitons properly balance it it can make it so guilds who can properly organise and strategise will be able to hold areas better with less RNG. r/place had many groups those with more people and those who formed groups and alliances were the ones who dominated thorough numerical force and planning not through RNG, and another thing nobody spams banners for 180 secs they only start in the last 3 or 5.

 

i'm not saying that small guilds should be able to beat large guilds, i'm saying that while they are already unable to, implementations should not directly make it almost impossible for them to
while statistically smaller groups have lower chances against larger groups, this chance is not a 0% chance, and i personally do not believe wynncraft should attempt to make it 0%

a bit off topic, why not just formally suggest a guild alliance supporting feature, because this thread is practically already a part of it

 

because FFAs exist and also its too complicated zzz

 

+0.5 ? Theoretically as attacking guild you would see the incoming attack message and you would be able to get someone to that territory and instead of spamming the territory for only 10 seconds, they could start spamming it for 3 minutes..

Honestly as attacking guilds if you coordinate good you will still be able to snipe it back with the same RNG as when there was with having a 180 seconds cooldown so I don't really think it's going to solve that much..

 

Not gonna read 6 pages but here ya go!

You said its favoring attackers but the solution you just gave is favoring defenders and by a giant amount. Another point is, Cath herself has said she can supposedly reach 200+ CPS so if thats not broken then maybe everyone should stop warring and leave you guys have the whole map with 0 wars until the game reaches its dead point. Maybe instead of bringing 50 people that are in Artemis and even if you said the most stupidest thing, they would still support you because you think the CT will hear you, try and think of a system that both favors the attackers and the defenders and if you can't find it then just don't write a stupid thread like this that basically turns the favor of attackers (which as you can see it doesn't since it doesn't matter how many people are trying. 200+ CPS is like 5 normal people with 38CPS using numpad) into a favor of defenders.

If you really wanna keep your territories then just write a thread of saying that instead of hiding behind "suggestions"

I disagree with this idea since it basically does no good to the smaller guilds.

 

I usually do not reply to someone who starts off by declaring that they won't read replies clarifying the very thing they are complaining about but seeing just how much you purposefully got wrong here, I'll make an exception.

I said that the game inherently favours attackers. One guild will inevitably always lose against two, even if they have their members combined warring. Without subguilds it would be straight up impossible to maintain any kind of land and feeding territories therefore is a necessary mechanic. Even the attacking side should acknowledge that, cause without it literally any raid would wipe a guild within hours not because they have more people or a better strategy but because guilds are limited to 1 war at a time. One main defender, unlimited amount of attackers, see the issue?
Not to mention that as the attacker you get to pick time and duration of attacks, while in a defending position you have to cover close to all time zones or at least have someone capable of coordinating with allies for a reclaim present 24/7.
I know yall love to deny it cause then you'd actually be responsible for your mistakes but not a long time ago your alliance' predecessors were against subguilds, so it's only natura you'd leech onto the next thing to explain your side not being in power.

I am pretty sure 200+ CPS would make me the fastest person to click by a long shot, so thanks for that compliment. The fact that this statement was a joke making fun of banner CPS seems to have eluded you.

Again, we can't really talk about CPS for banners at all cause that's not clicks, that's smashing buttons. I wrote it that way in my initial thread to give a comparison of just how broken it is, but even if you meant 38 as a banner statistic then that'd be off, seeing how the very image I included shows up to 70 "CPS" while lazily clicking just 2 buttons.

Now, I know you won't believe me, but we actually did think about this!! If you can come up with a perfectly even solution for sniping then I'd love to hear it, but till then I think a tiny bias that only works with a lot of coordination is more than fair. If you wanted to balance it out further you could even subtract fixed values instead of just carrying over, e.g. setting a territory ceded at 150s to 100s grace period afterwards.

See it sadly has become typical for your people to instantly assume some evil self-preserving interest behind everything someone not in your alliance does. Truth is, if I wanted to keep my territories I'd not have to do a thing, I wrote those threads cause I genuinely care about the state of guilds. Obviously there'll be better solutions to some issues, I am not omnipotent, but the very fact that you feel the need to attack me, my guild and our alliance instead of giving actual feedback goes to show that maybe you don't care about the small guilds as much as you'd like to admit.

 

You guys call Coalition a fake alliance that doesn't even appear in the map and since we are the people attacking it still doesn't seem that it helps us, does it? When was the last time that the opposing side has won?

We accept smaller guilds more often than you guys. You literally have enemies of like 5 people guilds or guilds that never war, like owo....

 

Maybe the opposition hasn't won bc they are BAD and uncoordinated?

 

Thank you so much for your kind words. Saying something favors attackers is something that basically makes it impossible for defenders to win against. As you see even if it's BAD and uncoordinated we still don't win. Are you maybe scared of a GOOD and coordinated raid?

 

No, saying X favors Y does, in fact, not mean it's impossible to win against expectation.

If yall wanna talk shit then hmu on discord instead of derailing this thread into "haha alliance good/bad"

 

The current state of the "act" sniping is utterly broken. I'm not here for the guild politics drama, this thread is not about that. Cath took the initiative to propose something, that could work better, in her opinion. While you did not give a reason for why you hate it so much, I'll just accept the fact you do not wish to comply with it. However, I'd love you to tell me how could we fix sniping, how could it be more fair, or if you think the current state of sniping is perfectly okay, please reason for it, instead of just bullshitting on the thread and our alliance. Peace

 

Extremely awful balance-wise, tipping the scale heavily towards defenders. (And don't give me the timezone/quantity of attackers excuse, you know it's not an issue)

It's pretty fine as a catch-all bugfix though. And that's what's being requested right now. Also, defenders are favored anyway so it's not like anything will change lmao

The thread itself is a mess... It really didn't need the 5 pages of alliance circlejerking and the 2 pages of arguing with newer guilds.
Can't we just discuss the suggestion instead of automatically praising or bashing it because of who made it? It's far from the best solution (don't treat it like it is), but it's something that can definitely work.

 

It's not an issue cause the defending side learned to just adapt to it and complied with the insane requirements that come with being in this position for an extended period of time.
That does not mean it should be a requirement to begin with, the whole reason it happened is due to there not being a better way to compete. It also means that only a few guilds can ever effectively build a mega alliance cause the vast majority does not have the members necessary to pull it off.
Obviously that is unfair in its own right, but I wouldn't claim anything is tipped in our favour just cause we spent 4+ years on building a guild infrastructure strong enough to support it.

 

THIS^^^


I'll give an example
The raid on ESI yesterday, if it had the system that Cath suggested

About 10 guilds are attacking ESI
At first it's going well for the attackers, because Artemis didn't expect a raid
Then, more and more guilds from Artemis come in to feed ESI territories
A lot of subs appear as well
Now, these Artemis guilds and sub guilds are attacking the Coalition territories and defend with 0 mobs, while ESI has one captain+ in each of those territories
When the feeder is done warring, the Captain of ESI types /gu attack in chat, while the feeder will announce in voice chat (or in game) that they will execute /gu cede .. NOW
ESI instantly gets control over the territory as soon as the /gu cede command got executed
Meanwhile the Coalition had 0 chance of knowing when exactly the command will be executed, and the territory always goes to ESI
ESI doesn't even have to wait 3 minutes to get the territory, they can now get territories back even faster and with 100% success rate!

So what if you can do /gu cede only after like a minute after the territory was taken by the feeder?
Then Coalition still wouldn't know when the command gets executed and ESI gets the territory

And what if it gets announced in chat or something that the command gets executed?
Then it's already too late, since you have to write /gu attack or at least paste and send the command, while ESI only has to press enter, and gets to know when /gu cede gets executed beforehand


I hope you see the issue
The only way to counter it would be if Coalition spams the banner for 3 minutes straight
I'm pretty sure nobody would even want to do that and even Artemis has to agree that that's ridiculous



A different (and imo better) suggestion would be Zye's "after a certain time, the territory gets automatically defended with one bob the zombie (lvl 1) for free"
So for EVERY war you have to wait the 1.5 minute countdown, plus the 30 seconds preperation
Then the defender could still use subs to feed and take out the attacker's territories
The main guild can still maintain territories, since 1 mob territories are faster to take than 1k mob territories that the attacker would place
Banner spam wouldn't be a thing anymore, because if you click the attack button, the attack cancel button is on that same slot, the confirmation button is on a different slot
It wouldn't be about ping or click/key spam anymore, but whoever is fastest with attacking
Sniping will always be a thing no matter what, and I think this is the fairest solution


Also about that "newer" guilds thing
It doesn't even have to be new guilds, could also just be a guild that is already 5.5 years old like TNA
I do agree that less active guilds shouldn't be able to just take out a very active guild on the fly
but together with a lot of other guilds, they at least should have a CHANCE

 

With your suggestion the landholding guild would have to do 1-mob wars and reclaim everything. The big downside with this is the fact that the attacking guilds can do multiple wars at once while the defending guild can only do 1 war at a time to reclaim a territory. The defending guild would have no way to keep up with the attackers and there could be 2 outcomes:
- The subs/allies will start defending 1k's aswell. The landholding guild would have to take all those back afterwards
- The subs/allies don't defend (thus leading in a 1-mob defense) and there will be a really long and boring game of attackers claiming 1-mob territories and subs/allies taking them back until the landholding has catched up.

This would - in my opinion - in no way make the system better.

There should indeed be some kind of cooldown on ./gu cede to give the attackers time to get there. And indeed, like you said, the attackers will have to spam the banner for 1-2 minutes if they want to have the same RNG as before to get the territory. So in some scenario's you would end up with the same RNG but in others you could coordinate the ./gu cede command and I think that is MUCH better than having to war 1-mob territories. (And no I do not think it's ridiculous that you'd have to spam the banner for 1-2minutes)

 

If only wynn would let the same guild attack more than once(except for DDT those like 5 times because yes)

 

all right guys i'm back more disagreement time

but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we maybe NOT make this a "ha ha fuck artemis fuck fuck fuck i hate artemis ha ha" thread. OP suggested a change, and while i personally do not agree with the proposed change, the initiative to suggest a change is definitely a positive. so can we please stop turning the comments into either an artemis/alliance/older guilds bashing sessions or guild circlejerking, and instead actual discuss problems and solutions? thanks guys.

ok now that obligatory "don't be toxic" is out of the way i'll start with this:
i do not believe that suggestions for guilds should use the basis or any part of a guild "owning" a certain piece of land (beyond just owning on the map, having an actual "claim" to it)
i understand that alliances are an integral part of guilds, which i will come back to in this post, and that it is fully in an alliance's right to "gift" different territories to different guilds. that isn't the part i have a problem with. the part i have a problem with is making suggestions (or replies to suggestions) that use this "landholding" concept.
yes, this suggestion i do not believe used any words to say that directly, but the proposed command would be a far stronger help tool to the "landholder" than a no-name guild, which is a major reason why i didn't like this idea.

ok ok ok!!! discussion time!
"fk u oinuk stupid dummy why are you complaining without suggesting something better idiot"
honestly it's because i'm really stupid and it's easier to complain than actually make a suggestion, which is why OP definitely deserves credit for making this thread, and should not be insulted by replies completely unrelated to the idea.
i'll give a counter-suggestion a go though, just to promote discussion about thread topic in the stead of circlejerking or unnecessary toxicity.

first: an in-game guild alliance system. since that probably deserves its own thread that i am 100% not willing to make, i'll just highlight a part of it that i think has a fair chance of being in said thread, but is relevant to the topic here: a guild would be able to "donate" a territory they own at the time to another guild in their alliance.
this pretty much would remove the need for /gu cede, which would lead to more and more sniping, right? actually idk i'm kind of stupid so i'm probably wrong, but that's where the next parts of the suggestion comes in!!!

second: reduce cooldown from 180 seconds to 45 (or some far smaller number) of seconds
yeah this should make sense for the next part

third: attack queue system
pretty much any guild that /gu attacks a territory will be placed on a queue to war for the territory in the order that they attacked. if they leave the territory, they are removed from the queue.
sure, this still is ping-based, because you'll be put in a later spot in the queue for higher ping, but you are still in line to war, with a guaranteed war, instead of the almost impossibility or claiming a wanted territory in high ping. also i'm pretty sure the proxy servers would help ping a little but idk man i'm really stupid.
this still allows sub guilds and alliances to "gift" back a territory, as they will easily be able to get the territory and donate it to the "rightful" (haha) owner of the territory.
however, this also allows lesser guilds an opportunity to contend. the queue will automatically begin the war for the next guild on the queue after the 45 second grace period happens. after the non-allied guild eventually gets their turn, they can fight for the (likely? maybe? probably not? idk the logistics of this man) undefended territory, and after the easily beat it due to the nature of wars (again, a topic for its own thread), they can defend the territory. this would give the lesser guilds a nearly-guaranteed hold on a territory, at least until the next guild on queue.

ok what does this fix? formal gifting of territories to just make that more streamlined yep. lesser cooldowns to make it more obnoxious for the majority of the guild players, aka alliances. (see how i'm actually kind of not hating alliances? they are the majority of the guild community, and changes should at least attempt to take that into consideration. not taking it into consideration would be like making all changes to professions only below level 20 or something stupid). and finally, does an ok fix to sniping, which still supports "raids" on a territory, but also allows the sub guilds and allied guilds to defend the territory.

yep

 

Alliance yes, but since that's a rather big change we figured it was out of the scope of a "quick fix".
As for queue, I am afraid I do not understand, at all. If I am not first in queue then do I attack my ally? The person that took it 1st? It'd just be chaotic beyond reason.

 

Don't play wynn much anymore but the clear next step is to make everyone have (at least) 1k ping. Its unlikely that anyone would have worse ping than this so it would put everyone at an equal playing field.

 

ok so I've been reading through most of this replies and I would like to ask a mod if adding a new rule to guilds could be done. This new rule being "Guild toxicity will not be tolerated and will result in a ban", or something similar since each time I see a forum thread regarding a fix to a guild mechanic we can always see people from "opposing alliances" or "opposing guilds" react with pure hatred and toxicity while not acknowledging or even reading what the thread is about, which in the end makes guilds and their communities just look and be stereotyped as toxic and hideous communities. Randoms that don't even own or participate in guilds reading this, this goes for you too, if you do not comprehend the guild system, stay out of guild discussions.

-Also yes, sorry for going out off topic but I just couldn't stay silent about this.

-And on a final note, I agree that newer guilds want to have chances at owning territories, but at the same time, a "newly made", "casual", "or "not active" guild shouldn't be able of owning land or even defeating someone that is active, has history, and actually has knowledge about how things work. You are a newly made guild and want to own something, sure go ahead, but don't go ranting about how "actual hard working guilds" don't let you own anything later. In my belief, only the hard working are rightful of owning things, as for the ignorant, only shame is to be owned.