Guilds Rural Player Discrimination Aka How To Fix Sniping

Yeah I would agree with Alex in that I think youre misinterpreting the suggestion, but I do understand your perspective much better. I agree, in how you seem to be misinterpreting it would be way too op.
The cooldown would still exist, hell, you could evenn have a flat cooldown of it has to be at least 1 minute or something, it but can be up to three minutes. I agree if a cooldown never existed, it would be unbelievably way too advantageous to the defender.
When you give this defender the ability to manipulate a cooldown within a restricted amount of time, it forces the defender and attacker to predict the others moves.

If there are any other misunderstandings with my point please ask so I can try and clarify.

 

I think you're correct in saying that this suggestion would make it harder for tiny raids to make any progress. However, I truly don't think it would hinder a legitimate effort to wipe an alliance and take back the map -- if you had more players than the defending side.

The guild scene has always been unfair towards small guilds that aren't in an alliance, and it always will be. However, in my opinion, small guilds that last a week or two, and have a maximum of 3 online players or warrers at a time don't have a place being on the map permanently. If they try to go up on their own against a much larger guild/alliance, they shouldn't have a chance. They can certainly annoy the larger guild, maybe drain their resources, whatever, but larger guilds and larger alliances have always dominated in this game, and they always will.

Additionally, in the current state of wars, there is the option to do exactly what I'm suggesting. If a guild doesn't care if they temporarily lose control of their territories, they can simply just have their allies place 1k, and reclaim them later. The same exact situation occurs -- the progress that that attacking guild was instantly lost to the bigger alliance.

I will admit, this suggestion being added will make it harder to get individual guilds to 0, but that has never meant anything in the grand scheme of the war between alliances on the map and alliances off the map. Wiping guilds to 0 doesn't matter to anybody, and if this makes it harder to do so, so be it.

However, it does not make taking back the map / userping an alliance any more difficult, and I think that's the way it should be.

 

Exactly, exactly exactly what I'm trying to get across. Also REDUCTION of the cooldown could be acceptable if done right. It would at least allow the attackers to have some reaction time, while still adding a layer of strategy and urgency for the attackers to get their quik. The motobot and the maps would actaully have time to show us that one of our terrs got took and we have a small amount of time to get it back, as opposed to no time at all. A reduction is something i could possible get behind

 

Though one blatant problem with how I am interpreting this suggestion now the guild trying to counter-snipe would be doing tens of clicks a second every second in preparation of the cooldown to be reduced to 0, which I do see as a flaw to this.

________________________________

Mhm, I think we've gotten to the point where we are on the same page. Thank you for staying respectful in this, I have been trying as well.

 

Sounds like a good quick fix for the issue, I support it.

 

Honestly I think another way we can look at this is in a perspective of guild history. Before Artemis there was Terra, an alliance that didn't rely on sniping. When a guild got their territories taken, allies would come in and place down high defenses, usually even 1ks.

This meant that any attacking guild had their progress instantly stopped. Once a territory was taken back by a Terra guild, there was no sniping, that territory was already back to its status as a fully defended Terra territory. It meant that, while it was easy to get individual guilds to 0, it was impossible to have Terra hit 0 territories in a certain area. It would be the exact same with this suggestion, except instead of an alliance guild holding the territory, it would be the guild that actually claimed it.

I'll give an example of what I mean.

Back in Terra, ASh owned light forest, and Imperial would attack it every day. ASh didn't rely on feeders from allies, because they didn't care if they lost their territories temporarily -- they could just reclaim it later. Therefore, Imperial had no chance of sniping back territories from the Terra guilds that came to help ASh. The only different was, instead of, let's say Cinfras Entrace, being owned by ASh, it was owned by AVO or something -- an ally of ASh, but ASh would have to go and reclaim it later.

This means that it was easy to have ASh hit 0, but it meant nothing. Getting a guild to 0 while their allies hold all of those territories is only an accomplishment until you realize that you did nothing -- the alliance still has full power there, you didn't even make a dent.

However, when Artemis userped Terra off the map (which we were able to do, even with Terra not caring which terra guild owned the territories), it was solely because we had more people. The battle was about equal when both sides had the same amount of players (near the start/middle), but once guilds started to leave Terra, the side with more players -- Artemis, won.

This suggestion would make it the same, but instead of allies holding the territories it would just be the guild that got attacked in the first place. What's the difference? Wiping a guild would be harder -- yes, just like it was impossible for Imperial to wipe Terra out of light forest back in those days, but it WOULDN'T make wiping the alliance off the map any different.

This keeps the competitive spirit between the two sides the same, but instead of having the guild that owns a certain claim war against their allies for hours on end after a raid, that step is gone. However, if you're not able to hold an area even with your whole alliance there, you are doomed to fall. It was the same in terra, and it will be the same with this suggestion.

 

I thought of the same thing. I believe there might be a better solution to this although this is a quick fix that would hopefully get changed with a guild rework later on.

 

Yea you also made deals with guilds in Terra for them to leave in return to be let on the map and attacked only like half of those guilds is what screwed a alliance with that mindset but I get your point I guess

 

With your current strat of terr reclaiming, and its not a bad strat; the landholding guild doesnt even do the wars. allies/subs feed them the terrs back. If we had 0 time to react to such a thing, and no time for motobot or the warmaps to tell us it's happening, how would we know it's happening and therefore how would we be able to counter it? the answers is; we couldn't. I'm not denying the factors in past wars that lead to certain outcomes, ik why Terra fell but i guarantee that if this suggestion went thru and the countdown was made 0, that it would be extravangantly advantageous to any mapholding alliance.

Anyways, I've had enough. I'm sorry if I struck any nerves in my posts, but i have a hard time sitting quiet when I see a suggestion that would invalidate the operation of entire external tools like moto and maps to respond to defender guilds' feeding. It's not even just limited to subs. Any kind of ally feeding-reclaiming strats would be absurdly buffed by this suggestion, and y'all are the ones that happen to be on the map and reap the benefit.

Again, sorry if i struck any nerves. Feel free to msg or DM me if I affected someone in a negative way and we can rectify it personally. adios

 

Most players don't play on high ping, yet a minority of players do... so should we balance gu wars for high ping or low ping players

you tell me, alliance with more players than we do, therefore most likely having more players with low ping than we do
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also if this is implemented, I can't wait to

/gu cede TNA
/gu cede TNI
/gu cede TNA
/gu cede TNI
/gu cede TNA
/gu cede TNI
/gu cede TNA
/gu cede TNI
and so on and so on untill wars break because we are switching the territory 10 times a seconds

 

Yeah my interpretation is that when a guild does the command it would only then make it 0. So if I get out of a war, wait 155 seconds, then do the command, the cooldown would be active during those 155 seconds, but dropped once the command is done. Maybe put a minimum cap to give the attacker time to react, and a maximum just so a guild cant constantly sit on cooldown.

________________________________

This is a misinterpretation. The command wouldnt allow you to just give a territory to a guild. It would just end the cooldown once the command is output.
I completely disagree with the ability to just place a territory into another guilds hands, that takes away any competition.

 

False. You would know exactly as much information as the defenders would
Scenario: MRO captures Cinfras Entrance from Imp. IBT comes to reclaim (<3 btk) for us, let's say they're in voice chat with Imperial. The moment they take the territory, MRO gets a message in chat that IBT took cinfras entrance from them! It's literally false that you have to use motobot or a map to see that, just communicate with MRO. In fact, if Imp isn't in voice chat with IBT, MRO knows instantly while IMP has to wait for the motobot/warmap to update. Therefore, you guys know even before we do that the territory is up for grabs.

If IBT wants to instantly set the cooldown to 0, they can do that, but the people in MRO can tell their allies that the territory got taken, and to watch out for it being claimed. If IBT decides to wait a while and then cede the territory, then the cooldown will carry over to Imp (or whoever claims it), and MRO can quickly start attacking the territory again.

Once again, it's comes down to coordination

________________________________

1) It's about making the game less dependent on certain players, but if you don't agree with that and think it's fine for players' usefulness to be determined on where they live, I just think you're wrong

2) For one, you can't choose the guild you cede it to. It can still be outsniped. Second, when you cede a territory, the cooldown the territory was in before it got ceded carries over. Therefore, if TNA takes a territory and waits 30 seconds, cedes it, TNI picks it up, then there's a 150 territory cooldown.

However, you're right, that a territory that was just ceded shouldn't be able to be ceded again for like 3 minutes or something, my mistake for not including that.

 

In all seriousness, this would even out the field for higher ping players. As someone who plays Wynn at an average of 4-6ms, this is great for me but, I members in my guild who play Wynn at an average of 500ms. I understand the pain high ping players go through and the disadvantage they experience when it comes to the warring scene.

 

I have to say disagreements about a fictional video game world are a lot more good humoured than political arguments in real life; but no less heated :O

 

This would literally not fix the problem at all, since all it would accomplish is force us to snipe territories in the same fashion we do currently, but instead of a hard cooldown being used we snipe until the guild that took the territory types in the command to set the cooldown to zero.

 

I have the world's biggest brain idea make it so that when a guild who takes a territory fails to add mobs [insert acceptable time that doesn't glitch out a territory here] seconds before the timer runs out fill the territory with 1 bob the zombie. This would stop everyone from spamming guild attack with numpad method since if you can't use this method to reliably attack a territory and it also makes sniping virtually non-existent, while also giving neither defending or attacking side a benefit.

Also why is bob the zombie a high level unlock boss make it available at level 1 it's already crying.

 

You are correct when it comes to extremely small attacks. If there's maybe 3 guilds in total involved, then yeah this probably wouldn't change a thing, however when it comes to raids with 20/30+ guilds involved, it would. It would be possible for someone to just spam the banner for 180 seconds straight, but the defending guild could see that with playerghosts, and say something like "someone's here, don't take off the cooldown yet".

I'll provide a scenario. Let's say Artemis reclaims 2 claims for Imp at around the same time, we'll say Cinfras Entrance [CE] and Path to Cinfras [PTC], but Shy is around trying to snipe those terrs back, as well as me.

I can look on playerghosts and see that there are shy members spamming a banner, waiting for the command to go through to make it claimable. Then I can simply go to the other banner, see if there are people there, etc. Let's say shy has 2 members online and both are spamming each banner. Then, I could either go for the snipe against them (current system), or, I could have made it to the territory before those shy members did in the first place, and had my allies instantly get rid of the cooldown.

This suggestion isn't going to remove sniping all together, but any way to reduce the impact of it will help on the way to an even better solution, if one is possible.

This works when a guild is under attack by maybe 1 or 2 enemies, but once you have 12-20 guilds all fighting over one area this literally doesn't work.
The fact that it takes 90 seconds to start a war server + 30 seconds to start spawning the mobs means that this is impossible, especially considering 4 players can do a 1k war in a total of ~4.5 minutes.
If a guild was able to attack any number of territories at once, this would work, but that's a whole different issue
(not to mention then that anyone with a touchscreen automatically wins all the snipes)

 

If I remember correctly I saw multiple screenshots of Luna caring greatly when they got a Terra guild to zero.

I agree with Zye on this as this would be heavily broken and would any strong alliance have near-zero competition. Though if you have us the map for a few months and we had time to experience it we might actually agree with Artemis on the original post. But as it is right now I'd say we would need to experience it first hand for us to see if it's actually an issue or just y'all.

 

LMFAO I remember this one guild attacking Raider Base Lower non stop and thinking they did big boi things

 

ok so one thing i am NOT interested in doing is reading through 6 pages of the guild community stroking their egos, but i'll put my thoughts here anyways. if it was already said, great.

sniping is a problem, sure, but is the way to fix that just helping alliances directly? yeah, didn't think so.

the suggested command would allow sub-guilds and alliances to continue to dominate the guild scene, and further gatekeeping of said guild scene.
since if one alliance's precious territory is taken, they can easily get multiple warring groups, each with members to spam guild attack, and they will likely take the territory. if said command comes to pass, they can practically hand it off to the "rightful" owner with no fear of sniping.

since, the non-allied guilds would have no alert of when the territory would be ceded, but the "rightful" owner would, it would literally just be giving away the territory, since the non-allied guild would have no idea when to spam attack the territory, or if they spammed it for the entire 180 seconds, you're just destroying opposition through carpal tunnel.

since newer guilds won't have the luxury of multiple guilds helping them obtain the same territory, it would become nigh impossible for any up-and-coming guild to own any valuable territory for a meaningful amount of time.

i'd hope that all of this has been said by someone, but in the case that it hasn't i now have.