1.20 Poll

I really don't get the 10 min grace, I actually don't really get why there needs to be a grace at all. When two guilds are going hard at it, I feel like coordination should be as important as how fast you can win the wars but with this 10 min timer, you basically have all the time in the world to figure out what you should be doing. Not that it was great before, but I kind of feel like good leadership is becoming less and less important in warring which is kind of sad.

You're totally right about the attacker advantage too, not sure if the update did anything to that since it was clearly a problem. My first thought was to make wars exponentially expensive to make attacking in mass a bad idea but I realized that doing that would only give more power to big guilds so that's kind of out, as it turns out, balance is actually hard :(

I'm not totally sure how this would factor into warring dynamics, but maybe the cost to attack any single guild should go up after each war is declared with something like a 12 or 24 hour reset timer from the last attack could help make wars more strategic. For example, if I attack HAX, it costs some amount, but if I keep attacking the cost would keep going up but only when attacking HAX territories ,so if you attack a PUN territory it only costs the unmodified amount. With a system like that, attacking multiple different guilds wouldn't cost much but if you want to wipe a single medium/large guild off the map it would be extremely expensive to do in one sitting or alone.

Again, not totally sure how this would affect the grand scheme of things, but I feel like it would give guilds a better chance to defend their land while also allowing smaller guilds to grow and get a couple territories for cheap by being a little strategic and choosing an intersection between two guilds to attack.

 

I think there is huge confusion about the system and a lot of people think it is extremely attacker sided at the moment. I can assure you that is not completely the case. .

A guild with no land can set its HQ anywhere it wants, yes. It can only exclusively war from its headquarters, which means it has to generate resources and emeralds. That is what the ten minute delay provides, otherwise the attacker would be crushed instantly with no emeralds to start a war or resources to minimally defend. After ten minutes, that balance is gone.

NOW, this is where it gets more complicated. The developers said themselves they wanted to help alleviate defenders from 24/7 warring, and they were not lying. There are mechanics that protect the defender. If a guild is getting attacked and losing territories, the price to attack them scales. This means that the longer the fight rages on, especially if the defender is retaliating, it comes to a point where it becomes too expensive for the attacker to continue (if you have ever wondered why guilds all of a sudden stop warring). Any territory the defender gets, the price also takes effect. They basically become untouchable for sometime.

Its even more than that. This price shield applies to ALL guilds, NOT just the attacker guild.

Even better, the new system that allows a guild to war for reduced prices if they are below 4 territories does not function like that half of the time. You see, the system gives priority so the defender's price shield - aka if a guild attacked them and it raised the price, that price takes effect instead.



This is why yesterday when I decided to poke Nia and attack one jungle territory for free, my next war against them costed 22k. This was purely because some rando poked them earlier, not even us. But it applies to ALL guilds, not just the attacker, so the price shield was still up.

There are mechanisms protecting the defender. Not to mention that defending guilds have resources and emeralds stockpiled overtime versus the attacker which is only gaining at the time of battle. They also just lowered the price of defenses making defenders able to afford much heavier buffs.

Not a lot of people are knowledgeable about the above, probably only something attackers have picked up on from experience.

 

Honest question, is there anything stopping a guild from attacking itself (with a subguild) to keep the defender shield up?

 

the emerald cost limitations for starting wars as an attacker in the early stages of attack seem barely noticeable from the defenders side, sure attackers cannot launch multiple attacks until they get a decent foothold but that's not the major issue i'm complaining about(though definitely one that i'm open to discuss later).

"they wanted to help alleviate defenders from 24/7 warring"
This failed miserably from the defenders perspective, as is very evident by the 18 hour onslaught we had to endure yesterday(from 1 guild mind you).
Keep in mind the defenders have to constantly manage their claims whilst an attack is ongoing, in a 1vs1 situation, defending requires more effort than attacking.
Regardless of the emerald limitations attacking guilds have early on (which is cushioned by the cheaper attack costs + the 10 minute timer) is that even if we do manage to beat them out of our current claims, nothing prevents them from starting over as if nothing happend at a 0 emerald cost. Attackers aren't penalized for getting wiped and starting over again, leading to these attrition style wars where the attacker is actively encouraged by the system to continue doing bully/annoyance attacks.

It is the Sisyphean traits from 1.19 warring all over again where it's just a marathon of endurance, I'd rather leave the singleworst trait of the old war system behind us rather than introduce it again.

 

"Regardless of the emerald limitations attacking guilds have early on (which is cushioned by the cheaper attack costs + the 10 minute timer) is that even if we do manage to beat them out of our current claims, nothing prevents them from starting over as if nothing happend at a 0 emerald cost."

This is not accurate. The system gives priority to the defensive mechanic price.

Take today for example, since you mentioned the 18 hour+ raid. AVO got down to 7-8 territories, and that is when the defensive price kicked in. The price to attack became 22k, and just right after it shot up to 44k+ for the next war before tax.

This disabled every single attacker. AVO was able to reclaim without opposition. We could not even retaliate and even after we got below 4 territories the price stayed in effect, even at one territory. For guild that took and used up their free war to place an HQ after, or if we decided to take another terr for free after wipe, the cost was still through the roof for the 2nd war.

Also that is simply not true. Guilds cannot war with cushioned cost. The only war that truly stays the same is the first, since it is free because you need an HQ to war from. After that, if there is a price shield, or a "pity" price as people like to call it, in effect, the next war even if you only have 1 territory will be that price. You could get your first war for free, and the next one could be 22k. The system doesn't work like that always.

The system shields the defender. As soon as the attacker/s is doing well, the system prevents them from achieving further progress.

The system kicks in whenever the attacker is making gains and effectively doing well. If you have ever wondered why guilds have suddenly stopped, they were probably forced to by the system.

Then we back at exactly where we started, our efforts invalidated because defender pity.

 

that's all very fair to state but that's just not what i'm invested in right now. you are attacking, we are defending. and we are both sitting on an issue bothering us.
I can't back your claim up because a lot of factors are going on with it that prevent me from fully believing all the claims made (i'm also tired right now), and it's already hard enough to get 1 thing changed and i'd rather invest my time in the issue that there is no penalty for attackers. If both of us end up being in the right about our concerns then that's all the better, if both of these issues get fixed then a major step forward would be taken to make wars great.

PS: one more thing, I would urge you not to base your conclusion on just the events of raiding debatably the most powerful guild in the game right now, who are also extremely on edge and bloodthirsty due to it being double xp weekend in one our of stronger timezones to top it off.

 

Well yeah, maybe raiding EDN isn’t the best thing to go off of alone but there are a lot of different circumstances and situations that have supported such conclusions. Salted has already acknowledged the issue, so it’s just a matter of when the changes come.

 

You know what I don't like the sound of this at all so here is my personal opinion..

The pity limit as a lot of people would know goes up based on failed attacks and territories lost, but removing this would allow the same situation which happened on AVO with multiple guilds but allowing 4-5 guilds at once to attack as much as they wanted no matter what they go for, with the price it usually is with whenever attack. So in my opinion, the "pity limit" is much more of a safeguard to prevent persistent, nonstrategic attacks to either cut off all their resource flow or be an annoyance in general doing it so long (with multiple guilds) until you force defences on home territories to have to lose their defences in a stalemate forcing the attacking guilds to then make their push against pissy, Very low/low defences even HQ and their "heart of production and survival".

Well to be fair it'd assume that there would be one singular guild capable of attacking AVO to such low extremities, not be pounced on left, right and centre that they would be able to sustain enough emeralds to then prepare another attack. As before, encouraging much more strategic attacks which they can use to gain an advantage on the defender and not like EDN and go absolute berserk monkey mode and attack whatever you like making yourself fall into a hole which you can't get out of.

I'm sorry but I don't want to have to deal 4 guilds continuously attacking us for free on our production lines, setting up hq, attack 2 territories before being completely wiped to do it YET AGAIN no matter what considering they can regenerate it quick enough for it to loop and loop and loop until the defender caves in due to either issues internally, demoralisation, inactive hours or defences being unable to sustain because of the stalemate. Removing the "pity limit" would be detrimental to the defending side and promote, persistent, 24/7 raids forcing the defender to cave in eventually..

But finally, it should be capped and if it is already then it should be lowered slightly BUT NOT REMOVED ENTIRELY and I'm certain people are sick of crying and babyish tantrums to people like Salted about how you couldn't get your way but after all it's feedback i guess...
play fair.

 

Isn't like half of this what you guys were asking for in the first place

 

I’m not for it being removed entirely, it’s just very scuffed right now. Even Salted admitted it is very steep atm

________________________________

Also Salted said he will buff guild slots again :crab:

 

Still awaiting another hotfix haha-

________________________________

Still awaiting another hotfix haha-

 

About the 10 mins cooldown: Eden was wiped by ern for the second time when fox was still on the map. It was still before the hotfix 6 and the cooldown was still 3 minutes. I decided to test how strong chokepoints were by solo attacking Fox. The 3 mins were enough to set a very hugh hq and i ended up getting like 6 terr advantage while solo against fox warteam, they even had on of their important pings, before they gave up because they dont like the system and wanted to go community. All those 6 terrs were either medium or high and it was most of the time killing the Fox warteam and i was even gaining resources on my hq!! Artemis except ern barely tried out the new system and only complains and complains but if yall tried you would know that the only thing that made it defender sided was the 2le personal cost to war and that was already fixed. Some days before I thought the pity cost was too op but after wiping ern from cotl and the attack costs not even going up idk anymore.


Eden, as a guild that already experienced a tom of defending and more attacking than many of artemis guilds, thinks that the system is already fairly balanced. Also, if after more changes it makes it heavily attacker sided and gets artemis on map i really hope yall dont switch sides and start complaining about how defending is hard.

 

The system is smart enough to identify who the defender is.. otherwise it would be a useless protection - involving pity cost

The ten minute cool down is also there for a reason. It isn't just for the attacker but also for the defender, and when you take it back there is also 10 minutes, for good reason.

Typically your outskirt territories are attacked first because the system prioritizes territories near your HQ first. All resources flow to your HQ and THEN get sent out for distribution.

When you reclaim, that ten minutes is giving your territories time for your HQ to send the resources to it so that it can be properly defended, otherwise it would just be attacked again and resources would not be applied to sustain those defenses.

________________________________

Artemis also existed in a system where defenders had no protection, we weren't privileged with mechanics to protect us to begin. I don't think that would be an issue. I'm not anti-pity because defenders should have protection, but how it currently functions is whack.

 

As i explained on discord, i wasnt defending, i was attacking. ERN got themselves a huge ass terr mass on cotl and i was attacking them there and they were reclaiming. Even so, the cost didnt go up which leads me to doubt that pity cost is op.


Yes artemis existed in a period when the attacker had the advantage that came from being able to organize raids and chose to attack at any time making the defender needs way more warpower and 24/7 coverage. However, if you were wiped on 1.19 its no problem since you can easily get on the map again as nothing had happened. On 1.20, without pity cost, the attackers time chosing advantage would be even bigger because if your guild failed to have 24/7 coverage and lost just one single terr in a chokepoint that already gives your enemy a huge res and emerald bank and the possibility to wipe you if your coverage isnt good, and being wiped on 1.20 is way worse since you lose your banked res and have to remanage the economy if you manage to get back on the map. The pity cost is here because on salteds mind demanding 24/7 coverage from a guild with claims like it was in 1.20 isnt a good thing, its here to offset a bit the attacker advantage they gain from picking the time. The system rn should privilege guilds with good strategies and with better warpower more than before (if you disregard subs) since with several attacks at a same time one stronger guild can overwelm other very easily. Also about the cede command it was something that artemis wanted in 1.19 and it offsets a bit the disadvantage mega alliances have rn of bigger timers and taxes, but overall in 1.20 it feels harder to keep a mega alliance with the whole map.


About the 10 min timer i agree there is the problem of res needing to reach the terr but it its way better having the ability to quickly reclaim and running on the risk of the terr not getting defended quick enough than having guilds gain a 9 terr advantage like it happened yesterday with Taq on Aeq before you can can take even a single terr back.

 

Pity cost doesn’t effect defenders like it does attackers. It punishes the guild that attacked.

 

I wasnt defending my claims, i was attacking ern that at the time had like 30 terrs on cotl and they kept reclaiming. In the end we took so many terrs and the cost didnt go up at all. So established guilds dont have pity cost? Above X+ terrs? Bc on my understandment the cost should have gone up bc we were attacking ern and taking several terrs but it never did. On that situatione den was the attacker NOT the defender!

 

But ERN doesn't have the protection a defender has because they were the attackers. ERN gets stunned by the pity. How it functions is whack.

Nonetheless, EDN would have been able to eat the costs. The pity costs raises price, but they are virtually still affordable for guilds that have land. For attackers with no land who are waiting between wars for their bank to grow, and also having to up resource production due to not having anything stockpiled, we don't have that much to play around with. When a war suddenly costs 44k BEFORE tax, it basically ruins us, especially when your getting attacked in a reclaim effort and losing your sources.

 

I dont understand how you say that ern was the attacker when they were literally defending claims. This happened 2 days ago, right after they wiped ibt. They essentially had a claim on the map and the system should have counted them as defenders. Despite that the cost didnt go up so maybe its a bug or its because it takes too much for the pity cost to activate.

I agree partially, in a normal context ye it benefits the defender bc that is what its supposed to do but if you attack chokes you can get so much money that it wont matter the cost. For example, only a few mins after HICH hqed on road to lf on eden claims they already had 100k emeralds because our strategist didnt know how to deal with it. What i mean with this is that its possible if not easy to adapt to this new system like Goose instead of trying to shape the system around you.

 

Well, it depends. On your end, they were attacking. On the other end, they were already sitting there for quite some time and had built up their economy well. So, in this case, ERN is the defender, since they are defending their claims. How the pity system came into play for EDN, I can't say, simply because I'm not in EDN. But, yes, in this case, ERN was the defending party. ERN benefitted from the defender's benefit quite a bit actually, they had a decent advantage. Their downfall was almost certainly not because of the pity system, as it was mostly working for them.

 

If EDN wasn't getting increased cost even tho ERN was being eaten by several guilds then idk how ERN benefitted from it lmao

You said yourself that defenders have protection - the only way to give protection to a defender is to limit the attacker. No other way around it. That in itself makes evident attackers are being limited. I think defenders should have protection, but I think its ridiculous the current extent of which pity applies and the way it functions.

I take one territory and my next war is over 5k. Sometimes the pity cost is so high that you take a single territory and you will virtually never be able to pay it off even if you sat there because of the fact the cost is more than the single territory can even hold, if it is not a wood territory.

This is also extremely abusable because allies can just queue up attacks on allies to up the cost if they wanted too, since the system takes into account queued up attacks.

Pity cost makes coordinated attacks not viable for the attackers.

The map situation is also futile given the fact that coordinated attacks are basically suicidal in activating the pity cost, then disabling all attacking guilds. This isn't balanced. A mega alliance can work together to mutually stomp out outsiders, but attacking guilds are unable to coordinate and work together themselves? It is not a fair playing field.

I'm not against protection for defenders, however, you can only protect a defender by limiting the attacking guild and hence it needs to be balanced to some degree. An attacking guild's capabilities should not be outright blocked by these prices in which end up being impossible to afford. It brings the question that if a defending guild needs such pity to begin with, should they even be in possession of the territories?