Region 77?

Can someone explain to me how my guild The Tavern has 11.4% influence on a territory we never targeted to take over. And then explain to me how 23 Conquest Points gave us 11.4%. Am I missing something here? How did we take control of a region with 23 CP???

I doubt this is a bug:



The logical explanation is that since Irishelf & Asag have 34.2 & 23.3 influence; but thier guild, Nequam, have no influence; it that Nequam put a support order for The Tavern on #77.

See also: Invisible Assassin Guilds

Basically more abuse of a broken game mechanic that desperately needs the attention of the Devs to rectify.

pearl is correct, it looks like while north was being overran, those two from nequam put you guys on south at same time. Either these two are working with dark side, or have dark side accounts for timing. If not, they were exceedingly accurate with timing, considering thats alot of hits for their very low cp output per battle.
I see three possibilities.
First is most likely, they either have accounts on dark side and using this account to work with them, to get people out of north, or are working with them.
Second, these are people you ticked off in everos before transferring over here, and they wanted to get revenge. Doubtful because dobraine is far too nice than he should be.
Third, these two have the intellect matching a two year old girl that believes she will marry michael jackson when she grows up. Their guild size cannot take a region, so kicking you out of one is a moot point. They have nearly no cp output, and it had to have taken them most all of a single cycle to have put you guys there on that territory. They have 0 ability.. none.. to do anything with what they have done. Furthermore you and diamond are allies and next to each other, you can just say hey, please lower us on this territory and boom its over with. I do doubt these two in nequam guild have put any effort of thought into what they have done, nor the consequences. They are.. not even stupid to the point of brilliantly stupid they have gone far beyond that.

But yes, they are the reason you are on 77. will see if diamond can take you guys off of it so you can go back where ya was.

Mechanism of supportig guild should be changed, allowing guilds only with Alliance to support each other.

Uh, what happened there exactly? A huge guild got sabotaged and moved by 2 people? Seriously... Lighties... Aww, they got an iron mine and complains about it?

How is this a bug dammit. Bugs these days...

kuba_ wrote:

Mechanism of supportig guild should be changed, allowing guilds only with Alliance to support each other.

One of many solutions I've already provided to the Devs.
Support action should not be used negatively.

Pearl wrote:

See also: Invisible Assassin Guilds

kuba_ wrote:

Mechanism of supportig guild should be changed, allowing guilds only with Alliance to support each other.

XViper wrote:

Support action should not be used negatively.

I'll quote from my earlier post (with two spelling errors fixed):

Pearl wrote:

I'd like to add some suggestions on ideas to improve the game:

• Level 1 guild can only build influence - not sabotage or support;
  
• You can only support or sabotage a guild you are at war or an ally with;
  
• Upon peace, or an alliance is canceled, no more support or sabotage command may be issued [to the guild peace was made with, or the allliance was canceled with] ... and the current support or sabotage commands [towards that guild] expire at the end of the cycle;
  
• A landless guild, can only use commands in contiguous areas. Even if commands are canceled; the new commands may only be issues in contiguous areas until the new cycle;
  
• Commands from a landless guild are not "invisible" but show up on the map, like command from a guild that controls a region (or regions).
  
• A support or sabotage on the map, when hovered over, shows which guild is being supported or sabotaged (like when using military commands you can see this for your own guild)
  
• A guild can sabotage its own influence; including in a territory it controls (And the guild doesn't need to be allied or at war with itself to do this [see previous suggestion] *giggles*).
  
• A guild can also build influence or sabotage an ally or a guild it is at war with, within a region it controls (i.e.: rather than just the current defense command).
  

I think adding one or more of these features [with changes of course] would improve the game strategically.

The question of whether to be allowed to build influence for a guild you at war with is an odd one. However, its happened in the real world (a conquering country forcibly moving the people to another area of the world), so it seems to me to be appropriate for battle conquest also (and is certainly allowed under the current implementation whether at war, peace, or allied).

This is a war game. Its appropriate at war you can forcibly move a guild to another area.

This would also have interesting interactions with: A guild can abandon a region.

Two points:

1. Solve this in a way that enhances the strategy¹ of the game; not diminishes it;
   
2. The developer have clearly indicated they will listen if the High Council asks as a group ... I suggest using this mechanism ... (as coming to consensus, can also help produce creative solutions that enhance the game)
   

---

¹Yes war is annoying, frustrating, irritating, etc... Its supposed to be that way & guilds are supposed to be able to damage each other at war. Relocating a guild away from its favorite region seems like an appropriate war stategy.

Some elf wrote:

The developer have clearly indicated they will listen if the High Council asks as a group ... I suggest using this mechanism ...

uh, in what way exactly? I personally hardly see anything to be changed. Except, yea, we can ask adding the abandoning option/sabotaging itself/more commands.

Guilds are supposed to build up their influence and not be movable by one person. Now sorry but I just find it funny.

I will have to disagree with Pearl on this and agree with Fyrr and XViper.

Clearly, one Guild should not be able to transfer the Capital of another to another Region and it shouldn't "add" Regions to a Guild like that.

I also have to agree that this is something that should have been changed a long time ago.

What we will implement on Tuesday:

1. A Guild can abandon a Region with a new Guild Command. By doing so, the people residing in that Region become angry to that Guild and the Guild loses all its influence at that specific Region.

2. A Guild can transfer its Capital from one Region to the other. That will require a certain amount of resources and the Guild won't be able to issue any Guild Commands for a certain period of Conquest Cycles. While the Capital is being relocated, the Guild lacks the organization infrastructure to give commands to its armies.

3. Support command can only be used for Guilds which are part of an Alliance.

RuneSlayer wrote:

What we will implement on Tuesday:

1. A Guild can abandon a Region with a new Guild Command. By doing so, the people residing in that Region become angry to that Guild and the Guild loses all its influence at that specific Region.

2. A Guild can transfer its Capital from one Region to the other. That will require a certain amount of resources and the Guild won't be able to issue any Guild Commands for a certain period of Conquest Cycles. While the Capital is being relocated, the Guild lacks the organization infrastructure to give commands to its armies.

3. Support command can only be used for Guilds which are part of an Alliance.

Thanks for these great upcoming changes

A minor suggestion to go along with "Support command can only be used for Guilds which are part of an Alliance." ... please consider doing this at the same time:

• Sabotage commands can only be used by Guilds which are part of an Alliance, or at war with each other.

Also, for later:

• Breaking the alliance, or making peace, removes all support & sabotage commands between the two guilds.
  

---

XViper wrote:

ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC!

Welcome to cloud 9, XViper

Since you are in such a good mood & vulnerable ... I'll ask for a promise to post pictures with bug reports in 2014   

I agree that a support command should only be for those with either non-aggression pacts or allies, but sabotage should be open at any time. It kinda takes the element of surprise out if you have to openly declare war...not exactly the meaning of sabotage....

irishimc wrote:

I agree that a support command should only be for those with either non-aggression pacts or allies, but sabotage should be open at any time.  It kinda takes the element of surprise out if you have to openly declare war...not exactly the meaning of sabotage....

Sounds reasonable to me.

We are currently working on the mechanics. We should be able to proceed with the update tomorrow Wednesday.