1.20 Poll

That would be helpful.

Can I just clarify that the whole dynamic is messed right now. Guilds with land are suppose to be the attackers AND defenders, a tug of war. Because there is a mega alliance, we have made attackers synonymous with guilds with no land, which this system is not intended for.
The whole defender and attacker titles are scuffed.

The mechanics are fairly balanced if both parties had land to begin. It would be a mix of advantages and disadvantages and both would end up playing equal positions.
what happened is that ALL attackers are defined by the fact they have zero land.

In the end, the system was conceptualized for empires of land attacking each other. Salted's vision was to kill mega alliances with 1.20, but one took root and now the design is used against what it was conceptualized for. It needs adjustments because clearly that is not the case and did not turn out that way.

 

Yes it should

 

Well I am glad we agree on that. I am not trying to remove pity. It SHOULD exists.

I originally suggested the concept of pity back when wars costed personal emeralds because warring out of your own le was extremely scuffed and there had to be more repercussions to consistent use of it. .

Given hotfix #6, it completely shuts off a guild's ability to war anymore with nothing they can do about it though. It takes priority over cushioned costs, so even in the defending guild's reclaim effort and you dropping to 1 territory the next war would still be ridiculously high.

I am not even suggesting that cushioned prices take priority over pity lmao

I think defenders should have protection. I think cushioned costs should STILL be affected by pity just at MUCH less rates and still be affordable in any case.

 

I just realized i said smth stupid, for some reason on my mind the cushioned cost showed up as the first 4 wars, not the under x terrs thing. In that sense i agree with you instead of making cushioned costs overrule it should have a multiplier. For example: if the cost when you have only 1 terr is 4 times lower than the normal cost, then make it be 4 times lowr than the current cost not a set 16eb that gets overruled by pity costs

edit: maybe would be better if it just capped the cost at 10k or a bit lower like 8k for guilds under 4 territories

 

At the end of the day, prices just should be affordable. Pity also stays on a guild for a considerable time, so once its up, it stays up no matter how territory changes switch. A guild could get wiped and still have pity.

What typically happens is that the pity cost goes into effect, grows exponentially, and then the attacking guild is not able to afford it. The defending guild then reclaims, and even then the price stays the same so they can only watch furthermore. Even after the defending guild is back on their feet the price point stays ridiculously high. The attacker can't do anything even after below 4 territories.

The mechanic was meant to slow down attackers, not completely freeze them in place with no options. I also don't think pity can be perfect when they just recently applied it and had never seen it in life action before. As with anything, and much of this udpate, a lot of balancing is required after seeing how it works live.

 

Y'all are trying to speak for ERN when they are actively fighting this in guild leader & staff discord right now. .

 

This is false i never tried to speak for ern, all i did on that quoted message was doubt the claim you made about their costs going up bc logically it makes no sense.

 

You are trying to say I cannot have an opinion about pity cost when in reality I still have more than you by any standard. Most defenders don't even know what pity is or the full extent of it.

 

So, people who have never experienced starvation should keep their nose out of solving world hunger?

Got it

 

I've seen on countless occasions defending parties express that they wish they had more opposition, which really is a hypocrisy in itself because you ally yourself to every other landholder. But that's the mentality mega alliances develop. Opposition from within is out of question, and you look at guilds without land or map presence to challenge you.

At the same time, the moment nerfing some of the severe limitations on attackers is mentioned, it is taboo.

________________________________

Artemis was able to exist in a period where there were zero protections for the defender. Even then when Goose was targeting Hestia guilds, during the whole period ANO had only been wiped for a combined 28 minutes, much of which from Christmas day, because of the efforts of our allies and us.

If Goose is all so powerful, what is the problem with nerfing pity when it has been shown to severely limit attackers in the short and longer term. By any standard, defenders still retain more protection than they have ever had. So, it is actual opposition you desire or do you want to continue getting pitied?

________________________________

Also, if I am not worthy to talk about pity cost what makes you think you are?

 

Idk bro im pretty sure i did more attacking wars than the entirety of ano since the pity cost came with hotfix #6. Also as ERN said they were the defenders on that case on cotl contrary to what you said and ye the pity cost didnt even proc. Also izz said it was the thing that prevented a full wipe but that wasnt even prevented since IBT DID get fully wiped.

________________________________

Lol 1.19 guilds were attacker sided and that was wrong and i complained about it. 1.20 is balanced, the pity cost helps with it also idk why you continued the discussion since i agree with your suggestion on the pity costs and even made it more specific. Also goose, specially eden, got considerably stronger after 1.20 came out. Another thing that gave goose an advantage on 1.20 is that now you need strategy and builds and artemis chose a wrong strategy and we chose the correct one.

________________________________

Also, answering the last question, i want opposition, but a fair one, that is why i SUPPORTED your suggestion on the pity costs.

________________________________

No you should as ice did and made a good suggestion, i was just showing how and why it shoudnt be generalized and showing how limited the view was and giving my experience on the ern attack which would be the more standard application of the pity cost.

Just a side note, maybe mods should investigate that, it was so weird how the cost wasnt going up.

 

You misread. ERN said they were the technical defenders, but were not receiving any benefits from the pity.

Also naturally, a guild with land will be more invested and warring more. I mainly hop onto opportunities or the occasional raid. I have roughly 80 successful wars in just MH alone, idk how many wars you need to have any experience warring in a specific area as people were suggesting earlier.

 

1.19 was attacker biased, the only "advantage" defenders had was the use of subguilds, which attackers had access to as well.

I'd like you to find me one example of how defenders were at an advantage ONLY in 1.19, and then reply back to me with it.

Also, on the note of 1.20 guilds, if a wipe is stopped by pity cost of all things, then the system is unbalanced, its that simple, sorry we had to break it to you.

Guild politics and alliances don't matter at this point, if Artemis held the map in the way Goose does currently, you'd be in the same situation we are currently. The only reason you're arguing with Ice here about it and attempting to point out that ANO hasn't warred much is purely because you want this system to stay biased to the defender, to give you an advantage.

Not to mention, EDN has never had to deal with pity cost in the same way attackers do, the only time EDN has been off the map in 1.20 was at the brief point when ERN had attacked you guys and held llevi and swamp, when you guys took it back, personal LE warring was still in the game.

So, AHEM.

I'd like to say that EDN has no data on understanding just how detrimental pity cost is to attackers.

 

Costs weren't going up for guilds attacking ERN because the mechanic doesn't work like that. This is why Goose doesn't have much knowledge about the pity cost, you rarely if ever experience it or get it applied to you.

So you do agree with nerfing pity?

 

you misread i said it was attacker sided.

The pity isnt there to stop wipes and it didnt stop wipes by itself, it just slows them down.

Eden has attacker data from attacking guilds that were attacking allies and that in some cases like ern even had a large chunk of the map and that data was that the pity cost didnt even proc unless it was at 4k still.

 

That is false. . Most coordinated wipe attempts got shut down purely because of the pity cost.

________________________________

I am confused if you actually support pity cost being nerfed or changed to some degree because of the above statement. You have also stated in discord that you no longer think as such as you once did about pity needing nerf.

 

Can you explain to me how it works then? I though i had it figured. One guild attacks another a lot in a short span of time, or if other guilds attack that same guild aswell, the defender terrs receive additional cost. The situation of ERN being attacked is just like the situation of any other raid and the pity cost should have worked normally.

Also yes i already said i agree on nerfing pity on that suggestion you made, in which the guilds with less than 4 terrs should be way less impacted by it.

________________________________

Because the new 1.20 guilds arent supposed tobe ganging all in one guild, its supposed to eb a more spread out battle.

Also ye i rly said that in discord but i was wrong i misunderstood the situation.

 

ERN did not reap the benefits because the system still identified it as the attacker. This is evident because on several occasions attacking guilds that ends up with a mass of territories did not get the benefit of pity applied to them when they were being eaten by several guilds.

Not to mention that even if a guild gets wiped, the pity is STILL in effect if it comes back. A guild can get completely wiped and still have pity - its still seen as the defender and having owned the territories, the attacker who is now technically defending still the intruder.

A system that cannot properly identify who the attacker is would be a useless protection for defender. It is smarter than that.

 

Wanna move to guild politics btw? So that the discussion can flow better?

________________________________

Wdym? Imo it should have worked. ERN should get the benefits of the pity cost at that time, that is only fair since they were on the condition of defenders. DO you know how or why werent they classified as such? Or was it just too low amount of wars?

 

IBT got wiped because they had 0 people on that entire time and we had an 8 million emerald bank so uh 16k pity doesn't really matter then

The wars were too spaced out on ERN for pity to gain any high levels.
ERN was also not being ceded territories and having those lost/losing territories rapidly because all of our stuff was highly defended

Even if pity did start it does not affect already established guilds with millions of emeralds in their banks and does not do anything to stop them from attacking

Pity seems to only start under very harsh circumstances. I don't think that this would make sense for a 10 territory claim

16k pity is waiting sitting around doing nothing for two hours before being able to even start an attack if you have one territory