1.20 Poll

We DID a coordinated attack on that ern context. Eden, GsW, IBT, AVo and some others in lower extend were all ganging on ern north canyon and i agree it should be a probkem for us to pay for pity cost but it didnt even raise.

Also coordinated attacks dont need to be all alliance on one guild that is just a small part of what a coordinated attack can mean.

The queue thing raising costs is indeed a gamebreaking thing and should be fixed because of how abusable and strong it is.

Attacking guild capabilities arent blocked, if ANO cant successfully raid then yall are doing smth wrong bc ERN is doing raid after raid, wipe after wipe. Taq also wiped Aeq one night without seemingly difficulty. So please stop exagerating the situation saying it blocks you from doing something if others ARE doing something.

Goose is in possetion of terrs rn because artemis did the wrong move and we did the corrct one. We kept the advantage by teamwork, effort and good resource management, combined with poor teamwork from artemis and low effort. Where pity costs a thing added in a hotfix or since the start of 1.20? I never ever saw a terr beign more expensive to attack other than in hb, despite wiping ern starting from 0 terrs, twice. ERN, EDN, Taq and others had successfull attacks and again i wanna emphasize that eden has more attacker experience than many guilds in artemis, and we never had trouble with it.

 

I have several questions about your argument. First of all, it's already been explained why ERN was the defending party, so, in your eyes, what makes them the attacker? It would be easier to discuss this issue if you could provide clear justification for your argument. Also, if you want cost details, ask the people who were directly involved, not me. On top of that, are you implying that attackers should not be restricted, which would remove the defensive advantage that you support?

Claiming that the system punishes coordination is actually quite the opposite, intelligent coordination is key to making progress. If anything, it's why Goose has been able to keep the map. From my observation, I have seen barely any cooperation on the attacking side, which greatly limits your success rate, and in the chance you do succeed, prevents you from meaningfully sustaining yourself.

I've been watching for quite some time now, and I keep seeing the attackers make pretty poor decisions on who to attack. You're aware of the pity system, be it good or bad, and yet you appear to be knowingly triggering it. Whenever there's an attack, it always fails, because lessons aren't learned. Before suggesting changes in hotfixes, I suggest that you adapt and learn the system so you can accurately know the problem. It isn't perfect, but the last thing we need is a flawed view of the system that defines the entire system over its true flaws.

 

Pity cost was not in effect as it is now. Wars are free now and Salted said given hotfix #6 pity cost is a bit steep atm.

All these guilds you name have also all complained about pity cost. You cannot invalidate the problem just because you don't experience it. You speak from a place of privilege and owning territories. You can eat these costs lmao

EDN spent over a million emeralds taking two territories bc of taxes, but they have the means to pay for it. You have never taken one territory for free and then your next war be more than your bank can ever even hold lmao

________________________________

You claim that ERN was the defender from your standpoint, but the system identifies them as the attacker.

We owned Molten Heights, 10 territories, had it all locked down. We were maintaining great defenses and AVO kept losing wars to our claim and us only having to push the occasional reclaim of a territory. That said, the occasional reclaim ended up becoming more and more expensive. Even though AVO was attacking us, even after several hours of us holding MH without opposition since they were busy, we were just chilling and purely reclaiming territories as AVO took them. We were forced to stop tho since the pity cost was effecting US. AVO on the other hand, even tho they were pushing us since it had been their claim prior, reported zero different in cost and their wars stayed 4k.

The system isn't stupid. Defender protection would be absolutely useless if it applied to the attacking guild as well lul

It has already been acknowledged as steep, its really just a matter of change at this pont and when it comes.

 

That happened because ANO was late to the party. ERN was already attacking avo for hours so naturally the cost was already high. Also im saying that i should have experienced the problem since i was the attacker just yesterday when ern had cotl and it didnt even go up meaning that the pity cost only procs after many many wars.

Also you said they have also complained about pity costs but it didnt seem to have ever stopped an ern raid and also i coudnt see scrolling through the comments ern higherups giving their opinion on it. You say you have experienced it but how many wars have you done as the attacker? After pity cost i did at least 40 and i never saw the cost go up.


Also wanted to point out that the pool is biased in the sense that myself and im sure that a lot of other ppl are in a middle ground between satisfied and dissatisfied, not rly one or another.

Edit: also wanted to point out that i never saw the one artemis guild that is actually doing smth complaining about stuff but the 2 posts complaining about stuff come from 2 of the most inexperienced guilds.

Edit2: also i woudnt call it privileged when you gain an advantage by preparing to the update, actually warring on the update and keeping 24/7 coverage to control your claims.

 

Going off of what you said, how do you know that the system labelled ERN as an attacker when it should impact both parties, as you had previously discussed? I understand that they might have had costs go up due to the pity system, but they were taking a defensive stance in an effort to protect themselves from a well-coordinated strike. Perhaps, then, we can arrive at the root of the problem. I'm here to improve the situation just like you, and yes, I agree that the pity increase is a bit much. I just want to make sure that we're considering the real problem, and not just something we don't like.

 

We know because y'all didn't experience any pity cost when you went up against ERN. ERN was the one getting higher costs.

 

How did ern get higher costs if they weren even attacking the same guild? They were taking terrs from different guilds and subs so it makes no sense the claim that they got hit by the pity cost at that stage. Also my point is: by all means ERN was the defender and even tho thye were losing a considerable amount of terrs the cost didnt go up what means that the pity cost needs many many terrs to be taken to even start acting up above 4k costs.

Edit: i would also like to add that ANO has insanely low amount of data, only from like a couple situations, to complain about pity cost. The cost was immense on those cases because ANO arrived at the end of the raid.

 

I'm not anti-pity costs, but it has to be affordable to some degree.

I shouldn't take one territory and my next war be more than what my bank could ever realistically hold.

 

Uhm... No? The only person you shouldn't be mentioning is the alliance and yourself, you contributed nothing/very little to that - only ERN did and even they were struggling at the end resulting in them gradually subsiding but if they did keep their most crucial terr for defences, they could've even pushed at us offensively and maybe instead of blowing hot air and your pronouns of "We" and "Us" considering you were barely a part of it could've made your shine rather than making it nothing but an ERN job to do then you could've actually got some traction going alongside even other guilds then it could've been an "We", and "Us".

The only people who should have a proper say is ERN, not someone in the likes of you not because I am against you or hate you because you are the 'only one for change', but you contribute very little to warring to even be this type of a sirenhead in the first place and don't properly and fully know what its like to be attacking us in Molten Heights.

And you barely did/not at all?

 

Yes that should be fixed. BUT that specific situation doesn’t represent the normal pity cost progression and to an unsuspecting staff it may seem like that is the general case with pity costs.

 

I have personally warred nearly everyday in the past few weeks. I poke at the system, and I have experienced the pity cost a lot. ERN also has complained about pity a lot.

Are you saying that I should be able to attack and do stuff with ERN?

 

You are literally allies... You were ceded territories multiple times yet failed to do anything with them resulting in us taking them back with ease.

Uh-Huh.. You got given a lot, you certainly got the HQ plonked down enough times... So why didnt you attack, theres literally terrs and opportunities to open up

 

Ngl don't have an opinion on much of the pity costs but I noticed this come up in Goose again, so i'm going to point out there are other issues to this update rather than the pity costs.

There's still issues that effect all of us & maybe we should focus on going over things like dislike of cooldowns & wait times for attacking, rather than reiterating the same points over & over again about the goddamn fucking pity cost.

 

It currently takes priority over the cushioned costs, and I'm not saying it shouldn't. If you have less than four territories, the pity should not apply to the fullest extent.

Fun fact: Even if a guild hits zero territories, if they had pity on them it STILL applies. The problem with pity is mainly that instead of slowing down attackers as it was designed to do, it physically stops them from warring any further from making the cost far too high. It becomes exponentially more expensive very quick and remains in effect not allowing the attacker to do anything but watch as their effort gets wiped away.

I am for defender protection, but it should rather slow down the attacker than outright stop them.

 

He is saying ano should help ern raiding instead of just taking one terr after hours of raid and dipping and them using plural pronouns appropriating of erns experience which ano didnt have (valid to mention that helping doesnt mean attacking the same guild, you could attack a goose helping guild for example)

 

As much as people hate the 10 minute wait-times, they are necessary. Everything flows to your HQ first and then gets sent out for redistribution. When you reclaim, you ALSO receive the 10 minute cooldown in which allows your HQ to send the resources to that territory in which you defended, otherwise it would not be defended and taken back instantly.

________________________________

Can't really help ERN raid if it will just insta activate the pity cost :shrug:
As I said, its not an even battlefield. Mega alliances can 13v1 outsiders but outsiders cannot coordinate an attack on a defending guild. Its suicidal, basically asking to activate the pity cost. Even in 1v1s the pity cost takes effect if the attacker is doing decently.

 

Then again you generalize a situation that isnt general. The pity cost never stops the attacker on a normal position, just when it overrules the cushioned cost, which should be fixed.

 

The pity cost should be honestly discussed with the involved problems for it to be solved. At the end of the day, there has been notable success with the pity costs right now, be they good or bad. I think there are far more problems we should be vocal about such as war glitches.

 

So you think that the cushioned costs should be taking priority over the pity costs?

 

Lmao i just said you can help by attacking other goose guilds, or by starting the raid together that way you bank up emeralds b4 the costs get high instead of showing up late. Do i need to rly teach artemis how to war in 1.20 bro