Guild Monopolies In 1.20

Yeah, you're pretty much right about how guild wars are now--since a guild can only attack one territory at a time, the mega alliance with twenty guilds in it and two subguilds per main guild inevitably dominates the map. Obviously there will never be enough room on the Wynncraft map for every single guild, but I'm probably going to guess 10-15 active guilds will be able to maintain their territory? I'm also hoping there will be more strategy involved with this new system, and it's not just whoever can kill mobs the fastest.

I'm also wondering how starving a guild works. Probably they need a specific income to maintain their HQ?

 

I assume excess resources in territories that are cut off from the HQ will be lost worst case, or will have to follow a highly taxed route to reach the HQ.

 

Yeah from what I've seen from the pictures salted shared, you need a certain amount of resource income to maintain your HQ, so I'm sure if a trade route were cut off that the HQ would revert to a much less fortified version, which would then be in danger of being taken over.

 

That makes sense. It seems like it'd be hard to hold onto your territories and HQ, though? All a guild/alliance needs to do is capture the territories between your HQ and main resources and close the borders on them. I wonder if you could put a HQ on a territory that generates a lot of resources.

 

You can probably put the HQ on any territory, because that way you could have a max of 400 guilds with HQs (or however many territories there are). I doubt there are any territories that have substantially more resources than others, probably just different ratios of the four types. Honestly though I couldn't tell you how hard it'll be to hold on to territories or if there'll be specific strategies to do so. That'll all get balanced in the beta though.

 

I guess this is a bump but there’re 5 posts on this forum so it’s not even needed lol

 

Edited post about the difficulty of HQs and giving small guilds more power. Be interested to hear more thoughts about that before the update drops and we find out specifics.

 

A big concern for me is that while a system designed around the ability to place down a fortified HQ territory if you have no other territories would be a decent way to give small guilds a first-strike advantage. It absolutely should not encourage them to use that advantage to bully established guilds on the map by repeatedly plopping down an HQ at inconvenient times. There are more small guilds out there than big ones, and having to deal with frequent small guerrilla-style raids can already be annoying without any advantages being utilized.

If they have decided to use HQ's to give small guilds an advantage I hope it has reasonable limitations that it can't simply be spammed, be it that it requires some sort of fee, or have a sizable cooldown.

 

It would be better than now. I fully support the change

 

Yeah I’d hope that the HQs cost an upfront emerald and/or resource amount to make, because that way you have to make a real decision about where to place it. It would prevent small guilds from spamming it but still give them a first strike advantage in obtaining and maintaining a foothold in a larger guilds territory.

 

Also note: the way the new system is structured may lead to an unbreakable mega-alliance going into the future. Sure it wont happen soon but even with taxes as a feature guilds are eventually going to form tax free mega-alliances or agreements with other alliances to completely eliminate taxes on their terrs and possibly form coalitions quite literally set on forcing out guilds who try to tax their land. The way mega-alliances work rn is balanced by a system of how these alliances work. A mega-alliance can't have too many members or it will be disadvantageous starting form a certain point, they can't have too little or they will fall. The longer a mega-alliance lives the greater the opposition grows until either side collapses. If the mega-alliance has no opposition it will in itself collapse from boredom or mismanagement eventually. Guilds have found ways to break wynn in different ways, heck Hax took over every map terr using unkillable defences back in the day. This system is good sure, however I believe it is flawed to assume guilds, especially established ones will avoid making agreements like no taxation to prevent issues that may limit them(Terra and Luna already agreed by 2019 to make SE an FFA and to not recognize any claim on it) But yea it could just be me being very pessimistic

________________________________

On my actual feelings on this update: I'd really like it if it could be handled well, as someone who has been in 2 mega alliances and has been sympathetic to the current one it would be a lot more interesting to see more wars happening, mega-alliances are the most boring times ever for someone who prefers the offensive. I do not however believe most guilds particularly young or new ones are capable or surviving without the management skills and lack of willpower that has been keeping them off the map for years now. From what I saw in Terra a mega alliance which consisted of many small guilds(and also was one of the worst toxic cesspools on wynn which all of it's former members will agree upon) none of em could keep their own guilds alive, let alone hold cliams against the many peopel who'd come for them. Those who can't navigate either their own guild or the guild political scene tend to quit after a few weeks even if they have territories. MYC, MWL, XHT and others proved this quite well. MWL having had half of corkus and never defending a 1k filler with a leader who could not keep his own guild interested in defending their terrs was overexended, unprepared and incapable. This shouldn't however turn away people who are actually capable at runnig a guild, many guilds have emerged some quite new and have managed to establish themselves well if they have the ability to. But I see this new update as a possible return of many old guilds who were wiped purely for the war mechanic's stupidity.

________________________________

More notes: i may be too large of a pessimist regarding anything

 

I hope you can transfer resources directly to your HQ

 

I agree with this, I am very excited with the beginning of this update, and the chaos resulting. But eventually I think mega-blocs will form, and I atleast hope they will be confined to regional provinces (East/West Gavel... etc). Maybe the content will be amazing, and small guild alliances can hold a corner of land, or maybe it turns into the same jerk it is now. Will scarcity breed war or complacency, aggression or neutrality.

 

Even with limited space in each individual alliance there is little doubt in my mind that the map will still be utterly dominated by 2-3 rivaling groups at best who'll duke it out among themselves. Though compared to the current situation where 1 group owns the entire map, this is 100% a huge improvement and should at least keep things interesting.

comparable in todays war climate, a group consisting of just 5 powerhouse guilds would already be able to wreak enough havoc for there to be only enough room left for 1 other group. Think how dominant a Fox,Hax,PUN,AVO,ERN alliance still would be today with just those 5, definitely beatable, but i'tll take a lot of the remaining guilds

 

2-3 alliances would be amazing, and I think many of non-artemis leaders would agree with me there. But the communities eyes will turn to the hero beta, to see if this actually is a reality. Will the map turn into a mess of guilds fighting tooth and nail for resources and protecting heavily what they own, or will it be the same filler mess we have now

 

There just needs to be enough players playing on the beta to test properly. Also why the beta might last for several months.

 

would be nice imo if opposing alliances could actually coexist, rn the whole map goes to whichever single alliance happens to be reigning even if turnovers are frequent

im not saying that enemies should be nice to each other but it'd be cool if guilds territories could stay a bit more consistent, this way we see gradual results rather than consecutive map wipes

 

Limiting the maximum size of each alliance should by design allow for AT LEAST 1 other alliance to exist on the map simultaneously, so simply doing that will create that desired effect.

The biggest reason behind the longest living mega-alliances we have seen is that they end up overcompensating in strength either on purpose or because of accepting more and more guilds through nepotism, every member technically gets less then they could be having since the map has to be shared by more guilds but nobody is going to risk leaving the alliance for the off-chance they succeed in overthrowing it just to get 20% more. (A socio-political thesis is just begging to be written about this)

That still leaves the challenge of designing the system so that 2 alliances are properly discouraged from cooperating with each other (effectively forming a duopoly instead of a monopoly). Which i'm looking forward to seeing how this will be tackled.

PS: you better be asleep by now ;)