Guilds Rural Player Discrimination Aka How To Fix Sniping

@oinuk Oh goodness please, don't make a built-in alliance system into the game. That's pretty much gonna force feed every guild to have to do it to succeed in the game (there have been independent guilds in the past who spent significant time with terrs alongside the main alliance on map) and would open the door for tons of quickfire loopholes. They are a community construct and should be kept that way, and it would create more issues than it would solve. Also the queue system would be a train wreck, I actually agree with Cath's response on that.

Though personally for me I don't see feeder sniping as a big enough issue to warrant *any* of the systems changes im seeing proposed in this thread. 0mob feeds been a tactic used for years by nearly all alliances who've been in power, and there was never a real uproar about this until just yesterday after, go figure; the first organized map raid in awhile. I think we're all over complicating this in general. Some players are gonna have different connection strengths than others, but that can be made up for by other competitive factors that several people here, including some of my opponents like hora, have pointed out (such as playercount, guildcount, and organization.) That's how prior allianes have risen and toppled is it not? It wasn't lost due to difference in internet pings!

Difference in internet connections is just a fact of the online gaming life, and if this was such a intolerable, dramatic issue for so long, suggestions to make some sort of compensation should have been made years ago, when Wynn did not have ap roxy system but only 2 access points, a time when lag and ping was even worse for many people than now! But even then, there are much bigger factors than internet ping and it shouldn't be the trump-all catalyst for inciting guild war changes. Resources and strategy are the trump-all factors at the end of the day, and there's plenty of both to go around rn.

 

To be honest, besides the fact that it gives the defending alliance or guild quite an advantage against attackers, in all honesty it would probably clean up some issues in guild warring rn and provide strategy if anything.

TLDR: it’s a step in the right direction however minor and favourable to one side it is

 

Yeah Hyper, and also do nothing against the sniper issue whatsoever except for the defending guild no longer having to spamattack the banner. We attackers would still be having to spam-click the banner to 'snipe' the territory that's about to be /gu ceded before the defender can get to it. If we even beat them to the punch at all. This is something that benefits the defenders only, a benefit that defenders do not need nor have ever needed in guildgame history. Wheras issues Cath raised such as Void Valley being OP territory was a fundamental problem and fantastically balanced a broken part of the guild system. It benefitted everyone and that's why nearly everyone in the guild community supported it.

 

Bruh out of seriousness, why are you ranting about having to spam click the banner? don't Frank Edward guilds like, have spies everywhere able to tell you when one does happen? also stop repeating that it benefits only the defender side since that can be known as spam k thnx for coming to my TedTalk.

 

Aight 2 new ideas:

When a guild types in /gu cede it sets the cooldown to 10 seconds and announces it to all guilds in the territory (to make it fair for both sides to be aware and have a chance to take the territory)

Put a limit on the amount of times you can attempt to attack a territory within a certain time frame.

Both of these ideas gives both sides of a raid or engagement equal chances to compete for a territory while also fixing the issue of sniping as it stands right now.

 

I'm not ranting about having the spam click the banner. im pretty sure the original poster of this thread was the one doing it. I'm just saying that implementing that suggestion would only eliminate it for the defender, and the attackers would still have to deal with it. Definition of a one-sided benefit; making defenders life easier and keeping the original problem for the attackers to be burdened with. Also there's no way to tell how close a terr is to being off cooldown with this idea because the feeding guild could /gu cede whenever they like, unless we literally had a spy in your voicechats. Espionage shouldn't be a requirement to keep up with the one-sided buff this would cause.

Certain midground measures like thetwo Hyper pointed out would help the issue partially without screwing over the attacking force as much, and is something we could tolerate and help against sniping habits for both sides

 

Bro what do spies even do at this point? Give me ur guild bank oh no its not like a spy is going to be on 24/7 to tell us if yall cede a territory it makes no sense why you think everything we are saying is ranting. and its not spam if it is replying to someone who keeps trying to defend the fact that you think its ok for attackers to be screwed while making defending so much easier.

By our point of view this screws us majorly to you it works to us no. problem solved we don't agree with you on this suggestion. We see issues with it that you don't because you aren't the attacker we are. You guys only defend so you think waiting is such a bad thing.

I rather a solution that benefits both sides then one that benefits one and refuses to accept the fact the other side is saying this doesn't work. The community isn't made up by only you guys so please try and understand our concerns. Yes I hate RNG and the ping issue. Is this a solution for it? Absolutely not by our views and understanding of how this is going to work if added.

 

Bruh I said out of all seriousness pls ;-;

 

I think what this really shows is that people from opposing guilds/alliances have a really fucking hard time sitting down and having a discussion properly. Everyone seems so uptight and defensive about their point of view (with the exception of some people like Alex, who actually did what he's supposed to..), no wonder people have a negative outlook on guilds people. Also the useless messages circlejerking, being completely off topic, rants about how this alliance bad, that alliance good. If you guys ever want to have yourselves taken seriously, then you need to do what literally everyone else does in suggestions threads and discuss what's being suggested.

With that out of the way, I don't really like the original suggestion, BUT

This serves as a pretty good way to balance it imo. The first part is a little fiddly, since all guilds in the territory would mean that a bunch of people who don't do wars getting messages, but if this was something you could toggle [ and was off by default ], I think it'd work very well

Second bit would work if it was for the player, rather than the guild since you could have a plethora of people at a banner, limiting it to to like 10 attacks/minute would pretty much remove numpad spamming for everyone, may not be the wisest thing since ping is still a big factor here though.

I THINK what oinuk means is that once a certain guild takes a territory, whoever attacks it first, even if there's 180 seconds left, gets put into a queue. If the guild remains in the territory, they get teleported into war, or if they aren't anymore, the second guild that attacks it, thus second in the queue, gets teleported. To me this seems a little too advantageous to the defender, since you can easily communicate when a territory you're taking is low on mobs

 

Okay but neither of those fix anything. With 10s left you'll still try to spam and just cause you can't do it 400x a second doesn't mean it's not ping dependent, it'd actually be even worse.

 

That can also be applied to the original suggestion, but with spam clicking over 180 seconds...

The system itself is flawed. If /gu cede is to be implemented as a bugfix, it has to just be a direct handover of territory to a specified guild. /gu cede <guild tag>.

 

goodness no.

 

I'm sure someone has suggested it here already but I'm not going to go read the whole thread.

Just in case someone hasn't, would a better alternative be for the command to be /guild cede <guild tag> so you could just directly give the territory to the guild with the tag you specified? That way you don't need to do any coordination or have any chance of sniping still and just directly give the territory to your ally or mother guild.

 

While that does eliminate sniping it also takes away the ability to intercept territory feeding attacking guilds previously had

 

Hi I'm back to give my 2 cents. Also thats a lot of paragraphs that I dont feel like reading so im sorry if its repeated. As mentioned it clearly gives the defending an advantage and in my last block of text I mentioned a few advantages the attackers have over the defenders. Yes this suggestion favors the defenders, but it is NOT the end of the world for the attackers and here is why:

- If the two guilds are not communicating, or even communicating properly then the advantage is not there. If a guild reclaims for PUN lets say, and they saw me online waiting in Corkus City and they assume I'm ready to take it back they could Cede the ter. But I could br AFK, or be not fully attent to the game meaning I'm not paying enough attention to take the territory back. In another situation I could not be in the territory at all. I could die while trying to attack or something. (Which happens a lot okay :c)

- If the attacking guilds REALLY wanted to, they could still snipe!!!!! It just takes a BIT more work. Instead of waiting 170 seconds or so and then spamming, they would have to spam the banner for the entire time. So you could realistically spam it from 180-0 and either
A.) Get the territory in less than 180 seconds. Cool! You got a head start!
Or
B.) You just attack it regularly and just wasted 180 seconds of your time, or you just attacked it for 180 seconds and won it and its the same as before

So thats how its a possible advantage for the attacking side.

And before you guys say we always communicate during big raids, we try to but a lot of people remain muted or dont join because they dislike big calls so our communication is NOT perfect even when we are trying our best. But when our communication is at our peak ots usually when you guys are warring at your peak and have a lot of numbers

 

But other guilds can still attack that territory after it changed hands so I don’t get what the big deal is if it’s after versus before.

 

Here's a different suggestion that might be more everyone's speed.

Let's say multiple guilds want to attack Ragni. Any guild wanting to attempt an attack on Ragni will have a captain, chief, or owner do /guild attack command as normal. Whoever is first to complete the command will start a 2 minute timer. Any member from the attacking guilds will then register to attack using a command . (something like /g join war) , but must be in the territory to do so and leaving it voids you registration. Once the 2 minute timer is up, the guild with the highest amount of members to register for war will be the ones who fight for control over the territory and will be immediately dragged into the war if a defense was placed. The other guilds can then go and try attacking someplace else. (if there would be a tie, it will be decided by the guild who's last member joined the earliest)


This concept does multiple things to balance out the war system:
- limits the stress the server must endure as attacks are "dealt out" rather then a dozen or so guilds just spamming flags or commands to start a war that will break the server.
- gives all guilds a fair shot over controlling the territory as attackers can attempt to recapture during instances where defending guilds are attempting to reclaim from an ally or sub guild.
-people with higher ping will still be able to assist well with wars as it's not about who has the fastest connection or special gear. it's who has the most people on hand.
-it keeps the strategy of communication intact, still requiring others guilds to converse with each other so, as an example, multiple allied guilds aren't wasting their time over a single territory.
-It helps limit the amount of sub guilds in play as it would sometimes require more then 3 people in a single sub guild to be the most effective.
-People that wish to not participate in wars can still be in the area without the fear of being dragged into a battle that might inconvenience or otherwise result in their death in game.

The only issue with my proposed solution I can see is that FFA's can become more of an issue with newer guilds that want exp/emeralds from those areas, but i can't really think of a way to include them. Either way, feel free to expand over this idea.

 

Thats a very interesting new idea that I'm not entirely for or against.... Only issue is attacking guilds may not stand a chance since they can just be outnumbered to the point where they cant even take a territory. But then again, during a raid there would be no point in allied guilds taking their own allies territory from them??? But at the same time its better an ally holds it than an enemy guild? Also I agree newer guilds would actually stand no chance. Plus another issue I see is if you get your entire tablist of a guild to join in despite them being low levels and as soon as the war starts they can all just leave and that could be abused. But interesting idea nonetheless

 

That is true. There really isn't any level restriction to joining guild wars or any penalty for leaving them. Perhaps it should count as a death if you dc since you willing asked for it to limit that? But then what would happen if war rooms continue to glitch out... Still, not everyone in a guild is interesting in warring or be available for warring at that time because time zones exist, And if you had upwards of 30 some people that can war and is willing to go for it, you should be able to control some map territory or at least do well.

 

I don't see removing sniping as a bad thing. To each their own I suppose.