Anything 3.5 related

[Sparkle]

The problem around sieges was created by their own custom changes. If those changes were never made the server would've had much more fun pvp and sieges, more castles would be passed around, et cetera. There are many active guilds in the top that could siege, but they decide not to, and so because of their own changes nobody else on the server who are lower level guilds could.
They are trying to do a bandaid fix for the problem rather then removing the problem they created themselves.

If those changes were never made, guilds would keep holding 2-3 castles in one hands and we would have almost no sieges at all. But now we have them quite often and other guilds have their fair chance as well.

 

[plamp]

Interested. Can you link me to my words as looks like I said it not even once but "keep saying"?
The only think I kept saying is that main goal is to remove dead, alt or inactive guilds from the top. This alternative offered will help to do it.
You will be surprised seeing how many active guilds we have and will remain in the Ranking list even if inactive guilds are removed from it.
What you are asking for right now is to let alt guilds keep staying in the ranking list. What is the purpose of it?

Please answer my question of what harm having those guilds on the ranking is doing. There is no reason to remove any guild from the ranking. Why are you trying to erase server history and the remove guilds presence from the ranking? I look through the guild list and see guilds I recognize and have fond memories of that are now inactive because of guild mergers and the like.

You explicitly state it has nothing to do with siege:

This change isn't done for the sieges only. Sieges received changes in 3.0b.

 

[plamp]

If those changes were never made, guilds would keep holding 2-3 castles in one hands and we would have almost no sieges at all. But now we have them quite often and other guilds have their fair chance as well.

No, you've limited it to a small subsection of guilds not all of which even want to siege. Wider siege eligibility = more sieges that can happen. I will be back in one to two hours after my work meeting to continue this discussion.

 

[Hazelnut]

The problem around sieges was created by their own custom changes. If those changes were never made the server would've had much more fun pvp and sieges, more castles would be passed around, et cetera. There are many active guilds in the top that could siege, but they decide not to, and so because of their own changes nobody else on the server who are lower level guilds could.

They are trying to do a bandaid fix for the problem rather then removing the problem they created themselves.

The thing was, there was a problem, and I think it was reasonable to take action towards it, the problem being that 1 guild held multiple castles (Ten boys with spatulas), they fixed the problem, but now a secondary problem has risen out of that fix, but I think they made a good change to counter that secondary problem as well. I won't go over whether people addressed one guild owning multiple castles as a problem, but personally, it does seem unfair to be able to own more than one castle.

 

[plamp]

Actually I just noticed you changed your post.

Spoiler: screenshot

Good thing I screenshotted it beforehand because I know how you work.

Glad I caught that.

 

[Kozumii]

Ok, what about this? But we'll do it for all guilds then, starting from level 1 till level 8:

Guild doesn't loose EXP at all, but, if guild doesn't obtain required amount within 1 week (from Mon till Sun), guild is going to be removed from the Ranking list for the next week. If guild gains needed amount next week - it returns back to the Ranking list.

Guild needs to gain the following amount of EXP within a week if they want to stay in the Ranking list next week:
level 1 - 1000 EXP
level 2 - 2000 EXP
level 3 - 3000 EXP
level 4 - 4000 EXP
level 5 - 5000 EXP
level 6 - 6000 EXP
level 7 - 7000 EXP
level 8 - 8000 EXP

Of course, we are removing all offered free bonuses (extra buff and Guild Bank) as well.

BUT, later we'll implement a system that will allow ANY level guild to be able to obtain extra buff and access to the Guild Bank.
Access can be provided for 1 week and buff as well as access to the Guild Bank can be prolonged each week. Guilds will need to pay with the certain amount of EXP and gold if they want to have access to that extra buff and Guild Bank or prolong it.
Buff and Guild Bank will also have several levels, depending on the guild level.​

So the changes on Ranking are happening but the buffs/bonus are not coming yet?

 

[Noname_Shiro]

Actually I just noticed you changed your post.
View attachment 6319
Good thing I screenshotted it beforehand because I know how you work.

Glad I caught that.

Wow, she correct a spelling fault.

You guys gonna keep the paranoia in ?
We're talking about change on a Archeage Private Server, not about a zombie hiding in our group.


The most there's page on this thread, the most you guys acting like childs.

 

[Noname_Shiro]

So the changes on Ranking are happening but the buffs/bonus are not coming yet?

They need to implement a new system to make buff unlockable in some way

 

[Hazelnut]

They need to implement a new system to make buff unlockable in some way

From the looks of it they said they will eventually implement it, if we could get more info on when that is that'd be cool, but she said it wasn't out of the picture, so we can expect it to exist.

 

[Picklerick]

@Forty @Beck @Xith @goodmorning
The alternative requirements are 1200EXP/1400EXP/1600 EXP within last 7 days. It means you don't need to gain 12000 EXP daily, but you can gain 0 EXP today, 600 EXP tomorrow and 600 EXP a day after for example. Or you can gain like 172 EXP daily ithin 7 days. 172EXP is a very small account for a guild of lvl 6 or am I wrong?

So, system will check your previous 7 days (let's say March, 1st-7th) and if the total of previous 7 days is less than 1200 EXP, guild will loose 20.oooEXP the next day. Then, next day system checks again previous 7 days (so it's now March 2nd-8th), if you don't have 1200 EXP for that 7 days in total, you loose 20.000EXP again.

@HNIC_Steamroller If we are still speaking about the banks, change happened in the banks of many countries of the world. For example, Denmark, Japan, Hungary, Sweden, Switzerland. That's why your example is not good.
But I can give you another example. You have a house and stop maintaining it. What will happen with the house? It will start loosing it's value. Same with a guild.

@plamp Screenshots you provided are not from our NA server. I can't speak for any other server. If you are playing on RU, you need to contact them.

@Hazelnut Guilds are already rewarded with multiple things. Why do they need more rewards to stay active?! And as I said before, change is not just sieges related, but main goal is to remove inactive, dead and alt guilds from the top. Your idea will not work with it.

@Furyan9x Fishing currently gets no changes.

@vulgrr saw it but didn't have a chance to look into it yet.

Many other replies from the players made me think my previous post with the alternative to the announced method was missed by them, as players continued saying they are losing everything if they are missing 1 days. The alternative offered gives a chance to miss a few days by the whole guild + if you will not miss, you can just earn less EXP daily.
Will link my previous post as well, in case it was missed:

@Sparkle - Please add a poll for the 3 offered suggestions. I think people will not have a problem with this second method, if one of the methods absolutely must be implemented... the amount of exp required in a week is entirely do-able in this method. However one suggestion, please add some sort of tracking in the guild management tab so it's not a chore wondering if we did enough. I don't need a second job where I have to monitor people/tasks.

 

[Hazelnut]

@Sparkle - Please add a poll for the 3 offered suggestions. I think people will not have a problem with this second method, if one of the methods absolutely must be implemented... the amount of exp required in a week is entirely do-able in this method. However one suggestion, please add some sort of tracking in the guild management tab so it's not a chore wondering if we did enough. I don't need a second job where I have to monitor people/tasks.

As far as I see, all 3 methods involve 'second job where you need to monitor people/tasks', The only difference between the methods is the form of punishment and the frequency and amount of the requirment.

 

[Sparkle]

Actually I just noticed you changed your post.
View attachment 6319
Good thing I screenshotted it beforehand because I know how you work.

Glad I caught that.

You said I "keep saying" that "has nothing to do with Siege" and attach one screenshot where I said that it's not for sieges but mainly for removing inactive guilds. So, can you show me that words where I say that it "has nothing to do" or when I constantly repeat it?

 

[Sparkle]

From the looks of it they said they will eventually implement it, if we could get more info on when that is that'd be cool, but she said it wasn't out of the picture, so we can expect it to exist.

We'll need some time to implement it, but it's possible.

 

[Epic]

Actually I just noticed you changed your post.
View attachment 6319
Good thing I screenshotted it beforehand because I know how you work.
Glad I caught that.

This is pretty fucked up @Sparkle

Just because a change wasn't implemented specifically for sieges doesn't mean it can't help. What it sounds like she is saying is that they didn't implement it specifically for sieges as specific siege changes already happened in 3.0b, but it's mainly for inactive guilds.

If you don't like the way they're doing things or "how they work" then don't play Wouldn't be surprised if this thread got locked cause of you guys

 

[Picklerick]

As far as I see, all 3 methods involve 'second job where you need to monitor people/tasks', The only difference between the methods is the form of punishment and the frequency and amount of the requirment.

The second method offered (if a tracker is added to the management tab for guild) would be VERY LITTLE effort to obtain. One person could keep up with the xp requirement if they played daily. Especially if your guild leader already made the standard for the next guild rank they get a quest to kill a WB daily that is worth 200xp that is EAAAAASY to obtain the 1200xp per week from sparkles second suggestion.

 

[Hazelnut]

The second method offered (if a tracker is added to the management tab for guild) would be VERY LITTLE effort to obtain. One person could keep up with the xp requirement if they played daily. Especially if your guild leader already made the standard for the next guild rank they get a quest to kill a WB daily that is worth 200xp that is EAAAAASY to obtain the 1200xp per week from sparkles second suggestion.

The only issues with it that I saw was the harshness of the punishment, but also that the requirement would be incredibly easy for the alt guilds too that want to siege castles. Leading to guilds owning multiple castles.
It's important to find that middleground where we can have a requirement that's not too hard, at the same time that we can prevent alt guilds from sieging. We just need to find the perfect balance to solve both ends of the problem. It's not reasonable to go to either one of the extremes.

 

[goodmourning]

@Sparkle I think the weekly amount of xp is fine. If a guild cant hit 1200 xp in a week people arent playing. This method allows small guilds of 3 to 10 people to easily keep up the xp if active.

 

[Hazelnut]

@Sparkle I think the weekly amount of xp is fine. If a guild cant hit 1200 xp in a week people arent playing. This method allows small guilds of 3 to 10 people to easily keep up the xp if active.

Well the third method should not affect small guilds theoretically, they don't have to suffer the harsh guild xp punishment if they don't meet the requirement, note that they will not be able to siege if they are under the third method, but ideally small guilds of 3-10 don't ever siege. So only guilds that want to siege really have to deal with the guild xp requirement.

 

[Beck]

Can someone elaborate on the issues they have with "Alt guilds" or "Dead guilds" being in the top rankings, castle siege reasons aside?

 

[Hazelnut]

Can someone elaborate on the issues they have with "Alt guilds" or "Dead guilds" being in the top rankings, castle siege reasons aside?

When alt/dead guilds are in the top rankings, they are vessels that can be used for another guild to capture an additional castle, which allows for a guild to own more than one castle. Say for instance, Annihilation and Kinda Relevant (two alt guilds) could be used by Privateers, or FTW (current nuian castle owners) to capture additional castles, nobody is saying that any guild will do this, but it's a confirmed possibility since it was a problem on the actual Russian servers. We saw Ten boys with Spatulas own more than one castle before 3.0b, but what would have stopped them from taking more castles when they got their alt guilds to the top 20 (after 3.0b update). Devs are just redefining the change from 3.ob where you have to be in the top 20 -> you have to reach a certain guild xp requirement : In order to siege. She combined aspects of both 3.0b and 3.5 changes which is clever since it works together as a full circle and it seems like a reasonable expectation to be able to siege.