What's new

Anything 3.5 related

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

...

This is much better.
 
Fishing currently gets no changes.

Can you explain why? Just because theres 30 pages of people crying over Eranor gear doesnt mean fishing is not important. It's an entire profession lost to inflation, making it literally a waste of time to level up / do for money.

What about fishing currently makes it not require change?

A fishing trip of an hour or so will yield around 110-160g for around 800 labor at MAX proficiency, with the risk of dying, having your boat destroyed, and losing all of the fish you catch. I can farm jester crates for 1 hour, make 300 gold with 70k larceny, with no risk at all. I can do 4 trade runs to Villanelle from Sunbite in 1 hour and make 360 gold (fertilizer packs, more with larders), no risk at all. Fishing is not worth the time or risk in its current state.

Please i'd love to hear your ideas about this.
 
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.
Castle siege reasons aside. I'm the GM of Privateers, I understand how alt guilds and siege bids function. We've already established (as @Sparkle mentioned) that the motivation for these changes isn't solely motivated by siege mechanics, so I'm curious to see what that motivation is.
 
I honestly dont care about alt guilds being in the top 20. If you want to make alt guild not be able to siege, you can just add a requirement saying that you need 8000 xp the previous week to bid and include a tracker in the guild tab.
 
If you actually played the game and knew anything about the game and its players you would know why there are guilds like that. Pikazoo, the leader of Fun Police, is currently pirate and so hes holding the guild on side characters until he comes back to East because he doesn't want to lose all the progress he put into the guild (the progress that you and the rest of the admins think the players are undeserving of) and so he has a place he and his friends can go when they come back east. The guild is doing no harm whatsoever by existing.

Naw Fun Police have been a dead guild for the majority of the servers time at this point, they are exactly the type of guild that needs this.
 
I honestly dont care about alt guilds being in the top 20. If you want to make alt guild not be able to siege, you can just add a requirement saying that you need 8000 xp the previous week to bid and include a tracker in the guild tab.
So you agree with the third method then? because that's exactly what the third method is doing, only because rank = siege.

Castle siege reasons aside. I'm the GM of Privateers, I understand how alt guilds and siege bids function. We've already established (as @Sparkle mentioned) that the motivation for these changes isn't solely motivated by siege mechanics, so I'm curious to see what that motivation is.
Even if the intention of the change wasn't just for siege, it still fixes the problems revolved around siege.
An example that reflects the current situation is a a murderer trying to kill a person, and so he does, but then it turns out that the murderer killed hitler. So even if the intention was bad, the end result turns out to be good.
 
I personally like the second option the best. I am in a top 20 guild though that wont ever siege. So as long as we dont lose xp for no reason I personally don't care. That being said I think the second option is better as it deranks completely dead guilds.
 
An example that reflects the current situation is a a murderer trying to kill a person, and so he does, but then it turns out that the murderer killed hitler. So even if the intention was bad, the end result turns out to be good.

More like a person bombed a building, killing a dozen people and one of them being Hitler. But did we really need to go into Godwin's Law?
 
More like a person bombed a building, killing a dozen people and one of them being Hitler. But did we really need to go into Godwin's Law?
I see where you are going with this and you make a good point. The thing is that I feel like you are using the dozen people as an analogy for active guilds. The problem with that is that Hitler does not = alt/dead guilds, Hitler = Problems regarding siege, and the dozen people would = creating a bunch of other problems while trying to fix the siege problem. If you did not misinterpret my analogy, then I would ask what the problems are there with the third method.
Btw if it makes you feel any better I can replace Hitler with Stalin, but you get my point though, the intention does not have to correlate with the outcome.
 
I want to preference what I say by saying I dont care about alt guild or sieges. I think the third option is too limiting and makes it so smaller guild will never be able to siege. The second option to me is a good balance of not completely fucking over small guilds and removing dead guilds from the top 20. If the xp was lowered a bit on the third on it would be fine as well. I threw out 8k because that is what they had mentioned, but I think that amount is a little high.
 
I want to preference what I say by saying I dont care about alt guild or sieges. I think the third option is too limiting and makes it so smaller guild will never be able to siege. The second option to me is a good balance of not completely fucking over small guilds and removing dead guilds from the top 20. If the xp was lowered a bit on the third on it would be fine as well. I threw out 8k because that is what they had mentioned, but I think that amount is a little high.
This isn't one of my strongest rebuttals, but I'm going to say that small guilds don't siege. I do agree though, 3rd method prevents small guilds from being able to siege, but I think this problem factor is outweighed by the problem with the 2nd method where you end up making people treat the game more like a job when talking about guild quests (and experia). So which do you prefer: all guilds have potential to lose work put into them and you treat the game more like a job? or small guilds can't siege? For the server, I think the latter is a lesser negative impact.
 
Castle siege reasons aside. I'm the GM of Privateers, I understand how alt guilds and siege bids function. We've already established (as @Sparkle mentioned) that the motivation for these changes isn't solely motivated by siege mechanics, so I'm curious to see what that motivation is.

But what would be a reason for inactive or dead guild to actually stay in Ranking list except of a chance to participate in sieges?
These guilds add nothing to the game but players check that Ranking list and what they see - a bunch of inactive guids in the top? Or, very often, player opens a Ranking list to check on the guilds available, sends the request to join the guild and gets no reply. He tries luck with another guild... and gets no reply as well.
 
I want to preference what I say by saying I dont care about alt guild or sieges. I think the third option is too limiting and makes it so smaller guild will never be able to siege. The second option to me is a good balance of not completely fucking over small guilds and removing dead guilds from the top 20. If the xp was lowered a bit on the third on it would be fine as well. I threw out 8k because that is what they had mentioned, but I think that amount is a little high.

If provided weekly EXP amount (3rd option) is a bit high, what, in your opinion, would be the good amounts that would still prove guilds active but will not be too much for a guild?
 
What’s the cap EXP for a guild rank 8?
A guild rank 7, needs 660k to reach rank 8.
7k EXP weekly doesn’t sound impossible to reach for an active guild, altho by Forty’s previous calculations this could be a bit of a problem for PN guilds, since they mostly get EXP with Experias, WB and Idols, while Other factions also have Ds archeum packs.

Witht the third option maybe during the first week we can test if it’s possible to keep up or not. Since there won’t be any penalties besides the ranking system, it could be done in a week that doesn’t have siege, just to test.
 
If provided weekly EXP amount (3rd option) is a bit high, what, in your opinion, would be the good amounts that would still prove guilds active but will not be too much for a guild?
I think the proposed (3rd) option amounts were good, but this isn't something that can be debated. You should create a poll listing what the appropriate amount should be.
I think every other aspect of the 3rd method is fine, it seems that people only have problems with the amount as far as I see.
 
But what would be a reason for inactive or dead guild to actually stay in Ranking list except of a chance to participate in sieges?
These guilds add nothing to the game but players check that Ranking list and what they see - a bunch of inactive guids in the top? Or, very often, player opens a Ranking list to check on the guilds available, sends the request to join the guild and gets no reply. He tries luck with another guild... and gets no reply as well.
The reason for the guild to stay in the ranking is the same reason why inactive players are still visible here
Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 4.06.31 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 4.06.38 PM.png
They earned their spot on these leaderboards. Now if we're talking about siege eligibility, I don't understand why guild XP has anything to do with siege eligibility.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 4.06.31 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 4.06.31 PM.png
    101.4 KB · Views: 240
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason for the guild to stay in the ranking is the same reason why inactive players are still visible here
View attachment 6325 View attachment 6326
They earned their spot on these leaderboards. Now if we're talking about siege eligibility, I don't understand why guild XP has anything to do with siege eligibility.
I can help you understand: Guild xp require work/dedication towards guild quests. Big guilds that want to own more than one castle will use alt guilds to do so. The requirement makes it to where it's much harder to make that alt guild eligible for sieges. To siege you must be on the leaderboard.

In arena leaderboards, you gain a reward based on your ranking, if you were to give a so called reward to people that have the highest gearscore (referring to leaderboard you posted), would it be fair for those inactive people that never play anymore to keep receiving those benefits? (Rhetorical question)
 
Last edited:
The reason for the guild to stay in the ranking is the same reason why inactive players are still visible here
View attachment 6325 View attachment 6326
They earned their spot on these leaderboards. Now if we're talking about siege eligibility, I don't understand why guild XP has anything to do with siege eligibility.

Why do you think they are inactive? All players from top 10 are constantly login the game, so your example is not good.
 
What’s the cap EXP for a guild rank 8?
A guild rank 7, needs 660k to reach rank 8.
7k EXP weekly doesn’t sound impossible to reach for an active guild, altho by Forty’s previous calculations this could be a bit of a problem for PN guilds, since they mostly get EXP with Experias, WB and Idols, while Other factions also have Ds archeum packs.

Witht the third option maybe during the first week we can test if it’s possible to keep up or not. Since there won’t be any penalties besides the ranking system, it could be done in a week that doesn’t have siege, just to test.

As lvl 8 is the last, currently they can't get any EXP at all, but with 3.5 release, they will be able to go up to +500.000 EXP.
PN guilds EXP quests is something we are looking into.
We are getting pts prior the actual release, so players will have a chance to test the changes cvoming with 3.5.
 
Back
Top