What's new
By:
Filters

Poll: 4 Day Cooldown Guild Rejoin Change.

Do you want this change?

  • Yes

    Votes: 66 41.0%

  • No

    Votes: 95 59.0%
  • Total voters
    161
  • Poll closed .
I agree with that this changes ruins a large fun part of the game. I've done a few sieges and that PvP ranks at the top of good PvP fights. But that doesn't make me wanna stay in the guild that I joined for the fun stuff.. My own guild where I have friends and there's a community that suits me, that's where I'd want to go back to.

I'm very disappointed this change got added.
 
Okay guys!​
​
We implemented this 4 days guilds cooldown rule, so there wouldn’t be the rerolling between the guilds after the bidding end when everyone knows who will attack and who will be defending. As that results into the defending and attacking guilds moving other players to their guilds for 1 day under the guise of profit, that is more like the way to go around the sieges mechanics and main idea where castle should be owned by the guild who actually can defend it, so deserves having it and all its benefits.​
​
So, the main thing that needs to stay – after bidding results are available, nobody except of already formed defending and attacking guilds with members they have by the moment of bidding ending would affect the sieges.​
​
So, if you don’t like the current guilds cooldowns, to keep (follow) the main idea provided above, as an alternative, we can do the following:​
We can return the guilds cooldown back to 1 day but will, in such a case, instead do the following – players who joined the guild, will not be able to participate in sieges within the next 3 days (72 hours) after joining, so is they joined after the bidding results available, will not be counted as active guild members during the sieges.​
​
In addition, no matter if we stick to the current change or players would prefer us to change to the described above suggestion, we can add a Mercenary System.​
How that system will work: During the bidding time, players with the help of special scrolls (1 per account) will be able to apply for sieges as an assistant in defending or attacking. There will be no limit in the number of participants on each side. Why the players will be able to apply only during the bidding time – so the players wouldn’t know who exactly will attack/defend and would not be able to prepare beforehand.​
 
I don’t understand any of this. You guys are doing all this work for no reason lol. You are limiting ONLY defenders help from other guilds and on the other hand you want to allow them to hire mercenaries? What’s the point of all this ? @Sparkle
 
Frontbutt said:
I don’t understand any of this. You guys are doing all this work for no reason lol. You are limiting ONLY defenders help from other guilds and on the other hand you want to allow them to hire mercenaries? What’s the point of all this ? @Sparkle
Click to expand...
Looks like you didn't read what I wrote above. Please read before commenting. Thank you.
 
Sparkle said:
Looks like you didn't read what I wrote above. Please read before commenting. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Sparkle, I think you're missing the point that myself and several others have raised previously. Let's say that I own a guild that can siege. That guild is called <Banana Hammocks>. Let's say that I have 200k to bid on a castle. I can recruit a ton of people into my guild on Wednesday before the sieges and have a very strong attacking force of 100 players who originally came from as many guilds as I want. I can stack ALL those players in one guild to siege, and I know I'm getting the scroll I bid on if I max-bid. Meanwhile, the guild we're sieging has 40-50 players who can defend from any other normal guilds on the server, but can't defend against a 100-man super-guild that I've just created temporarily for the siege. The defending guild has no way to react and recruit more help. We declare, we win, we get the castle, and all players I recruited drop guild to go back to their respective guilds.

You're giving a massive advantage to players who are attacking.
 
Sparkle said:
Okay guys!​

We implemented this 4 days guilds cooldown rule, so there wouldn’t be the rerolling between the guilds after the bidding end when everyone knows who will attack and who will be defending. As that results into the defending and attacking guilds moving other players to their guilds for 1 day under the guise of profit, that is more like the way to go around the sieges mechanics and main idea where castle should be owned by the guild who actually can defend it, so deserves having it and all its benefits.​

So, the main thing that needs to stay – after bidding results are available, nobody except of already formed defending and attacking guilds with members they have by the moment of bidding ending would affect the sieges.​

So, if you don’t like the current guilds cooldowns, to keep (follow) the main idea provided above, as an alternative, we can do the following:​
We can return the guilds cooldown back to 1 day but will, in such a case, instead do the following – players who joined the guild, will not be able to participate in sieges within the next 3 days (72 hours) after joining, so is they joined after the bidding results available, will not be counted as active guild members during the sieges.​

In addition, no matter if we stick to the current change or players would prefer us to change to the described above suggestion, we can add a Mercenary System.​
How that system will work: During the bidding time, players with the help of special scrolls (1 per account) will be able to apply for sieges as an assistant in defending or attacking. There will be no limit in the number of participants on each side. Why the players will be able to apply only during the bidding time – so the players wouldn’t know who exactly will attack/defend and would not be able to prepare beforehand.​
Click to expand...

It really seems like you're trying to take the sandbox element out of archeage. Changing the guild cooldown back to 1 day would be pointless if you make people not siege eligible as that's the only reason people care about the length of the cooldown. The mercenary system seems pointless and contradictory to what you're trying to address in the first place. I don't understand why you would go through all of this effort to implement a change that nobody wants. Just leave the guild cooldown at 1 day like how it's supposed to be lol.
 
HNIC_Steamroller said:
Sparkle, I think you're missing the point that myself and several others have raised previously. Let's say that I own a guild that can siege. That guild is called <Banana Hammocks>. Let's say that I have 200k to bid on a castle. I can recruit a ton of people into my guild on Wednesday before the sieges and have a very strong attacking force of 100 players who originally came from as many guilds as I want. I can stack ALL those players in one guild to siege, and I know I'm getting the scroll I bid on if I max-bid. Meanwhile, the guild we're sieging has 40-50 players who can defend from any other normal guilds on the server, but can't defend against a 100-man super-guild that I've just created temporarily for the siege. The defending guild has no way to react and recruit more help. We declare, we win, we get the castle, and all players I recruited drop guild to go back to their respective guilds.

You're giving a massive advantage to players who are attacking.
Click to expand...
First of all, even if you bid 200k, it doesn't mean that you win that bidding. 200k is the max for 1 bid, but you can increase your bid as many times as you want. Meaning even if you bid 200k, someone can bid more ans win bidding.​
Then, to another situation we saw many times, when half-dead guilds with even less than 50 active guild members keep holding a castle leaving no chance for more active guilds. So, let's call these guilds Guild1 and Guild2. Guild1 holds the castle with less than 50 active members. Guild2 with almost 100 active members decides to bid and attack. Guild2 wins a bid and seeing it Guild1 starts recruiting players from other guilds on their side to protect the castle they own. Do you thing such situation is fair?​
And if we add a Mercenary aspect, then all sides will be able to recruit and will not be limited in numbers.​
 
Sparkle said:
So, let's call these guilds Guild1 and Guild2. Guild1 holds the castle with less than 50 active members. Guild2 with almost 100 active members decides to bid and attack. Guild2 wins a bid and seeing it Guild1 starts recruiting players from other guilds on their side to protect the castle they own. Do you thing such situation is fair?​
Click to expand...


Yes, that situation is 100% fair. This is a sandbox game. Forming relationships with other players and guilds is definitely part of it. You understand that defenders only get 60 players to start with, too, right? Now they're double-nerfed.

Also, where are these 100-active-player guilds that don't have castles? Do you think there are 600 viable pvpers on the server to fill all of the castle-holding guilds simultaneously? There aren't.

This is a bad change. The fact that even the players who argue with each other over all sorts of things all the time agree on this one demonstrates that.
 
@Sparkle If you don't want dead guilds holding a castle, then maybe think of something else like you've done it with the guild ranking ?
Try to find a way to create a system that checks if a castle-holding guild fulfills certain activity-thresholds and if they fail, there's gonna be consequences.
But as Dahmer said, this server isn't extreme in terms of population. There's 6(?) castles, but surely not at least 300 active pvp oriented players. So there will always be one castle or another in the hands of players that aren't as active as you maybe would like them to be, unless we get a spike in population.
 
@Sparkle, I'm speaking here with the total objectivity from a EU player who aren't involved at all in the castle siege game, mainly due to TZ issue

Everybody got the point of denying "unworthy" guild to keep their castle if they aren't "good" enough. Fair enough and in a perfect world, why not! Except, as mentioned above, no mechanics or limitation can be put in place to prevent any attack bandwagon to team-up prior to biding to create that virtual 100 active stronk guild...

and since that "fair" game (aka an original guild VS) for both Attacker & Defender ISN'T enforceable, the only other solution left is to keep the current mechanics in place, even with addition of mercenary for quality of life purpose.

To push it a bit further, one could actually argue that vanilla mechanics allowed to indeed close to gap for the Defender to somewhat limit/prevent any bandwagon Attacker to form. With the change, we are now back to the original flaw that guild swap somewhat tap-fixed!

Timeline:
-> Originally thought flawed mechanics biased toward Attacker
-> Guild-swap idea made it EVEN (with the sacrifice of not having original guild battling each other)
-> Current change close the loop and bring us back to a flawed toward bandwagon Attacker

To sum-up you tried to fix a noble proposition where you wanna see fair guild vs guild append, but you literally did the opposite by biasing it in the total opposite direction by forcing Bandwagon Attacker VS Fair Guild to happen.

"Sorry for repeating myself, but apparently, its deeply needed" WB
 
Why are you trying to make such a simple thing so complicated? Where do you even come up with these ideas? And they are completely pointless. There will continue to be zero sieges if bid blocking is allowed. S T O P B I D B L O C K I N G. Sjinderson already pointed out it's illegal. Why isn't it being enforced? Will you enforce it now? I've asked this numerous times and you refuse to give us a solid answer. Take away the 4 day cooldown.. period. And stop bid blocking. Literally not financially supporting this game until this garbage is fixed
 
Sparkle said:
First of all, even if you bid 200k, it doesn't mean that you win that bidding. 200k is the max for 1 bid, but you can increase your bid as many times as you want. Meaning even if you bid 200k, someone can bid more ans win bidding.​
Then, to another situation we saw many times, when half-dead guilds with even less than 50 active guild members keep holding a castle leaving no chance for more active guilds. So, let's call these guilds Guild1 and Guild2. Guild1 holds the castle with less than 50 active members. Guild2 with almost 100 active members decides to bid and attack. Guild2 wins a bid and seeing it Guild1 starts recruiting players from other guilds on their side to protect the castle they own. Do you thing such situation is fair?​
And if we add a Mercenary aspect, then all sides will be able to recruit and will not be limited in numbers.​
Click to expand...

You saying "guild 1 doesn't deserve a castle because they don't have the people originally to defend" is completely ignoring the fact that there are alliances in this game. You are destroying part of the sandbox element by denying alliances to be made for a guild to defend or attack a castle. It should be the players that decide on how to obtain members to defend/attack a castle, not the admins.
 
Sparkle said:
Okay guys!​

We implemented this 4 days guilds cooldown rule, so there wouldn’t be the rerolling between the guilds after the bidding end when everyone knows who will attack and who will be defending. As that results into the defending and attacking guilds moving other players to their guilds for 1 day under the guise of profit, that is more like the way to go around the sieges mechanics and main idea where castle should be owned by the guild who actually can defend it, so deserves having it and all its benefits.​

So, the main thing that needs to stay – after bidding results are available, nobody except of already formed defending and attacking guilds with members they have by the moment of bidding ending would affect the sieges.​

So, if you don’t like the current guilds cooldowns, to keep (follow) the main idea provided above, as an alternative, we can do the following:​
We can return the guilds cooldown back to 1 day but will, in such a case, instead do the following – players who joined the guild, will not be able to participate in sieges within the next 3 days (72 hours) after joining, so is they joined after the bidding results available, will not be counted as active guild members during the sieges.​

In addition, no matter if we stick to the current change or players would prefer us to change to the described above suggestion, we can add a Mercenary System.​
How that system will work: During the bidding time, players with the help of special scrolls (1 per account) will be able to apply for sieges as an assistant in defending or attacking. There will be no limit in the number of participants on each side. Why the players will be able to apply only during the bidding time – so the players wouldn’t know who exactly will attack/defend and would not be able to prepare beforehand.​
Click to expand...

There is no incentive in the siege system to build a castle. All zones will stay parking lots and no place for people to work to make Lord's Coin. This makes it even worse, a randomized mercenary system as well as people that get put on the defending side can just not do anything to help.
 
Sparkle said:
And if we add a Mercenary aspect, then all sides will be able to recruit and will not be limited in numbers.​
Click to expand...

This is literally so contradictory to what you're promoting. You're saying you don't want guilds to have castles that can't hold them on their own, yet here you are promoting a system that would do exactly that? What's the point?
 
Castles should be an "everything goes" type of situation. If you're strong enough or clever enough to hold a castle then that should be the only measure with which you determine who holds them. Use whatever means you have at your disposal... alliances, bid guilds, pulling a whole faction into your guild to defend / attack, stealing packs, etc etc.

Stop fucking around with a system that you don't understand. Until you play this game at the highest competitive level you don't understand the true inner workings of it and only when you do then can you begin to balance things that need balancing. Listen to the ones that actually know what they're talking about.
 
Make reliable mechanics for castle owning guilds that rewards both the controlling guild for the work put into building a castle and provide additional bonuses to the workers of that zone for the effort put in. If a guild becomes dead, truly dead, castle workforce can be a deciding factor on making the area siege eligible. Take away peace funds in place of biweekly rewards to WORKERS of the zone that complete the daily quests in the form of Lord's Pence, say you do 7 days of questing per week, one character per account gets a bonus of x amount of peace fund pence mailed to them on login. This will balance the lack of castles we have here and the LC market itself. Make guild members eligible to work, remove the 180 lord's coins per two weeks mailed to the castle lord in exchange for something not related to greed, say reward prestige to all members of the guild per cycle of 200 (This can be anything helpful, not game breaking or FREE GOLD). Change Basic - Advanced - Luxury Pack bench proc prices to 100g - 500g - 1000g for 30 basic packs, 10 advanced packs, 2 luxury packs. Same Lord's coin quest for workers. (Free Lord's Coin). This will allow newly taken castles to rebuilt within the time frame.

Limit all pack types from being able to be placed in SILOS or if placed on farms limit their timers to 30m to prevent hoarding of packs to repair defenses. Make the timer 30 min standard once removed from the bench and also expire on character backs if logged out. This will make it actually possible to both snuff repairs and prevent abuse of newer easier to acquire packs.

Remove protection bids. Change siege bid minimum to a flat 250 Lords coins for the attacking guild. That makes sieges require planning and work, not memes.
Attackers and defenders limited to 50 man raids. 100 maximum for defenders and attackers of the respective guilds. Mercenary system you talked about in effect for attackers not hostile to main attacking guild raid random selection 50 cap, all zone work permit holders can come defend as a separate raid or raids based upon faction, not hostile to defending force. This makes your happy workforce your reserves or your unhappy with you workforce not show up. More incentive to build a functional castle.

Change 50 pence quests to 1LC to make all quests pay the same. Completed quests for that cycle go into peace fund on an as done basis as purely pence, a total people can see once a week as it is applied normally. REWARD peace and proper setup.

Attacking force and mercenaries upon victory all gain a flat 10 LCS. That is a possible 1000 for the atttackers, mercenaries get an additional 20 bonus on that 50 mercenary cap.

Defending guild Victory is 5 LCS per guild member, 20 per worker with unlimited amount based upon workers entering zone to help marshal a defense. This is provided by workers interacting with the declaration bench for a buff that lasts two hours to enter the zone and being in the zone for at least half the duration of the siege.

Defense will be more chaotic this way, more coordination on attacking side. Possibly more bodies on the defending side if all the workers are happy.

Attacking force can be 150 people | Defenders can be 100 and unlimited based upon workers. To show if there is a dead guild or a large group of people that like the place fine as it is.

Just an idea. But if anyhting I think some of these changes would actually help the system and not hurt it so bad.
 
Last edited:
As an additional change, change the keep rank 3 to only require 25 advanced packs or three bench procs with a small margin of loss possible based upon pvp. You dont get it built, well you got to rebuilt it from scratch again. Another fun pvp minigame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top