Poll: 4 Day Cooldown Guild Rejoin Change.
- Thread starter Drunkenhero
- Start date
yeah this is input but they are going through with this tomorrow anyways. We are just trying to show them that this is not a change we want and that it is actually bad for the server. They did not put out the poll we did.
Draeoni
Member
A better change would have been to make it so when you join a guild, you can't participate in sieges for 4 days. That way you can still get into the guilds you want relatively quickly, but keeps people from bouncing guilds for defense and offense. This is the problem AA has had since castles were a thing.
Joey
Active Member
I don't think the current guild system could support a change like this.
HNIC_Steamroller
Active Member
^ that. They decided to push this change without talking to anyone about it first. This thread is a reaction to that decision.
Draeoni
Member
I don't think it could either, but it's something that is needed. If they are able to make a full on custom guild bank, then they may have the capability to make this happen. And regarding the player aspect, I think players would prefer my suggested path rather than what they are forcing on us. At least that way we can still get our prestige for gems/misagons.
Joey
Active Member
I think there is a difference between reworking an entire system and adding another storage option imo
Draeoni
Member
I don't think so. They only have to rework a component. They might have to re-write it completely, but in that case, it still wouldn't be that different than making a storage system. You are just storing data values of when a person joins and comparing it to next siege availability. Then if it's within 4 days of the next siege, you just flag that they can't join. Then on Sundays after the sieges are over, just clear all flagged players of that flag. The basic framework of the coding wouldn't be that hard, it's just implementing it into the mess that XL/Trion left us.
Drunkenhero
Active Member
Increased guild rejoining time to 4 days. Characters that left, disbanded or been kicked from the guild for the first time will be able to join another guild right away.
The point is people want to siege from small guilds to medium sized ones. They want to have some fun and this makes it harder to get BACK into the guild you left. This doesn't actually hurt a guild defending or attacking. It hurts the guilds wanting to come hang out and have some fun. Which is the biggest loss here. If anything no 24 hour cool down is INSTANT support to attackers or defenders at the cost of going back to your own main friends. If I need bodies, bam I can get 100 people off the jump 10 mins before a siege. This change is completely stupid. If you do not want castles, remove them. Has nothing to do with this change making it to where the strongest can take and hold at all.
Joey
Active Member
Which is my argument the game is made poorly, and cheaply.
DrRageQuit
Well-Known Member
I dont understand why a change like this was not discussed first. Was it discussed on RU and just implemented here too because why the hell not? Cant begin to understand the reasoning or benefits behind the change.
Eyrien
Member
I agree with the 4-day change made.
1) This change bothers the Pn, which is positive since it is the faction that is dominating, everything that weakens it in some sense to try not to dominate everything is great.
2) It also bothers West / East, but only the toxic part of these factions. I explain myself with the most obvious example. If with the current changes HCIC asks for help to defend his castle, it is likely that not enough people come, because, why are you going to help keep a castle that generates a guild benefit that in addition to toxic, constantly kills his own faction? We saw it with Trickster and Marcala ... the same
This takes us to the next step. If you do not want to lose 1 whole week of prestige when there are sieges, guilds will be created / modified and will become more numerous and stronger. The guilds that have adequate policies and have the support of the faction will be those that have possibilities of sieges.
Maybe some will learn how to create a strong faction that can face the Pn-East, instead of deliberately weakening it and then crying when they lose. In West there is potential, we have seen it many times appear timidly, but it is the same old West guilds that are dedicated to sow discord between the faction and end up trampling each other.
Enough of so much drama and so much toxicity, you only get more people to leave the game unmotivated to see the faction like that shit. Do it right for once, and make the faction come together in a couple of guilds to cope with the PN.
1) This change bothers the Pn, which is positive since it is the faction that is dominating, everything that weakens it in some sense to try not to dominate everything is great.
2) It also bothers West / East, but only the toxic part of these factions. I explain myself with the most obvious example. If with the current changes HCIC asks for help to defend his castle, it is likely that not enough people come, because, why are you going to help keep a castle that generates a guild benefit that in addition to toxic, constantly kills his own faction? We saw it with Trickster and Marcala ... the same
This takes us to the next step. If you do not want to lose 1 whole week of prestige when there are sieges, guilds will be created / modified and will become more numerous and stronger. The guilds that have adequate policies and have the support of the faction will be those that have possibilities of sieges.
Maybe some will learn how to create a strong faction that can face the Pn-East, instead of deliberately weakening it and then crying when they lose. In West there is potential, we have seen it many times appear timidly, but it is the same old West guilds that are dedicated to sow discord between the faction and end up trampling each other.
Enough of so much drama and so much toxicity, you only get more people to leave the game unmotivated to see the faction like that shit. Do it right for once, and make the faction come together in a couple of guilds to cope with the PN.
why dont you ask winter how that worked out for them and the countless guilds before them. The real question here @Sparkle why wasnt this change discussed ?
"I support this change on the grounds that people I don't like don't support this change" is the most infantile and senseless basis for a decision I've ever heard of.
Bombermang
New Member
The only thing from this change I can see is the most fun I had on this server for me is now gone.
Joey
Active Member
Hi PN opinion here this barely if at all impacts me and my players, it might be rather annoying but me and my guild have the economic capability to never be on the defending side of a siege. Like it's been explained before the attacking side should the change be kept heavily benefits the attacking side of a siege. Also the ideology of nerfing one group while severely impacting the rest of the population is a very toxic thought process.
This example is funny to me, not that I see any of the west guilds individually as any kinda competition but id appreciate of you could find me a west guild capable of organizing/holding a castle outside of the current/previous owners. Purpling is a mechanic core to the sandbox element making changes that aren't nearly related to the thing you are complaining about is also a toxic behavior as once again it impact the ENTIRE server not just the parties you are unhappy with.
Id also like to argue your closing statement the west as a whole has the opportunity currently and has in the past been able to compete both gear wise and number wise with PN. It isn't a matter of drama/purpling etc it's a matter of lack of motivation/leader's in the western faction. Oh and if you think this change will encourage more friendly players it will do quite the opposite as the castle holding guilds that you seem to hate so much will just recruit and grow in numbers to compensate.
(Sorry for poor formatting mobile)
sociopathix
Active Member
Are you kidding? Changing a cooldown timer is changing an integer from 24 (current) to 96 (future). It doesn't get any easier than that.
Joey
Active Member
You seem to have not read the entire thread/conversation between me and that person. His recommendation was to add a new timer only specific to siege participation so that people could join guilds but wouldn't be able to participate in sieges in said guild till the 4 day timer within the guild expired. To which my rebuttal was what you quoted.
sociopathix
Active Member
Ah, you're right. An additional if/else statement is probably beyond them to implement.
I found some tutorials in case they need help.
If/else in Lua:
If/else in C#:
If they are forced to use C++ for this (which I doubt, but it's possible), If/else in C++:
Last edited:
