Guild Warfare

Currently when a guild with a territory is attacked by a guild without a territory they have no option but defend or lose the territory. My suggestion is to allow the attacked a way to strike back. Let them Counter-attack the guild without territory and if enough damage is done, "destroy" that guild. The destroyed guild's members are put in the 3 day penalty box, the name rendered unusable, and ALL items/resources in their vault destroyed. They can't join or start a guild to continue their attack for at least 3 days, their upgrades are lost and anything in the vault with it. This would allow a recourse other than defending to those attacked guilds, and provide a penalty to the attacker for their failure to successfully attack a territory. Consequences for the "free" guild which chooses to attack an "owned" territory.

I agree with there being some kind of recourse against guilds that are 'region-less'.
Currently they have far too much freedom, and there is absolutely no way to return any damage done.

I feel your suggestion is possibly a little on the 'harsh' side, but there definitely should be a way to 'counter' a 'region-less' guild. There is currently ZERO risk for a 'region-less' guild.

Maybe force a 'region-less' guild to setup 'Camp' in order to attack a guild controlled hex. (akin to 'Sieging'). This 'Camp' costs resources to construct. This camp can also be destroyed in some manner by the defending guild. War is never free, but it is for guilds that don't control regions. This needs to change.

That is not Harsh, its REALISTIC and would be MUCH APPRECIATED to deal players who just can't seem to decide not to be @$$H0LES!

I understand that the Dev's want Guild Wars to be a part of the game, but COME ON, give us a tool we can effectively use to deal with this situation.

Remember, these are people attacking our regions, not a means of attacking them.

Xviper, i can see the logic, BUT if you choose to attack a stronger opponent and lose, the consequences should be drastic. we can all see a guild's fame and CP output, so the attacking guild should know what it is getting into, i advance this ONLY for guilds that are attacking other guilds, if an un-territoried guild chooses not to attack a territoried guild this function should not be available. If you lose a war the enemy has the right to decimate your bases, if a guild doesn't have a territory it's "base" is its vault, therefore it's vault should be decimated, i.e. destroyed.

I agree that there is too much freedom for such guilds but destroying their vault would accomplish absolutely nothing. Besides being able to distribute all their items and resources between the members at any given time there are other ways of how to spend those resources (aka market and other guilds that wouldn't mind dealing with rogue guilds as long as the deal is good). Also people can create subguilds that would only have the purpose of holding all the resources if things go south etc.

As XViper suggested some kind of camp scenario would be a great thing. If a guild without a region decides to do smth on a region they should have to set up a camp and then proceed with sabotaging supporting or whatever just like normal guilds do (meaning their targets should be connected). There should be a guild message that would announce that some guild has constructed a camp on your region. (maybe there could be a way to cloak your presence for a while and the controlling guilds should invest in scouts to patrol their own regions). This sword business needs to be changed. Guilds can literally sabotage hexes that are further than 10 regions from each other at lvl 2. It's absurd.

As far as penalties go for the guild that get their camp destroyed I think the end of cycle system would be enough (guild selects target where to construct camp..then when cycle ends their camp is constructed for like 10k of each res and once it is destroyed they would have to wait for the next cycle to rebuild it) maybe some kind of production penalty on all their members but if they keep failing the penalty keeps stacking up to like -65% or whatever the devs decide is a reasonable cap. And by production I mean not only their res buildings but building and research times as well. Every time the camp gets destroyed the guild members could get a penalty of -10% to 15% and would require 24h to go back to normal which obviously is enough time for a guild to reach the cap in a few days if they insist on waging war but keep failing.

Then again, regionless guilds forego on the benefits of region bonusses. That already counts for a lot.
If we're talking "realism".. this is banditry , guerilla warfare.
I do agree on that there should be some cost factor, but the "they attack us and it's not fair" emotion as expressed in a previous post can just as easily be countered with argument "hey, being at the top has its downsides".

This is a game after all and realism has its boundaries. Let's not get into that because I don't see orcs or dwarves walking around if you want to talk realism. It's a game and it is a clear flaw that guilds without regions have this extreme freedom. Just because they don't have bonuses doesn't mean anything. A guild can have bonus regions but not have enough resources to use them so would that also enable them to do whatever they want on the map because they don't exactly benefit from the bonuses?

Let's not get into semantics please. You said you agree that there should be some cost factor so please suggest something to improve the game instead of going into frivolous debates on "realism" in a fantasy game setting.

Piktas wrote:

This is a game after all and realism has its boundaries. Let's not get into that because I don't see orcs or dwarves walking around if you want to talk realism. It's a game and it is a clear flaw that guilds without regions have this extreme freedom. Just because they don't have bonuses doesn't mean anything. A guild can have bonus regions but not have enough resources to use them so would that also enable them to do whatever they want on the map because they don't exactly benefit from the bonuses?

Let's not get into semantics please. You said you agree that there should be some cost factor so please suggest something to improve the game instead of going into frivolous debates on "realism" in a fantasy game setting.

ehm, than0s uses the word realism, i only counter with another take on what could be viewed as a 'realistic' take on things.
i really appreciate you handing me the job of coming up with a solution, but don't you think that should be the devs' job? I only said there should be some costfactor. nothing more.
Your "guild having a bonusregion but not being able to upgrade it" is, as you will surely agree, a non-argument. A guild having a bonusregion but not being able to upgrade has no functional 'right' to own it.
While i agree with the point that regionless guilds have a perhaps too strong advantage in this situation, having the devs interfere too much would remove a layer of diplomacy from this game which, i think, adds a lot to this game, making it such fun to play.

You can see that we're throwing ideas around and of course it's up to the devs to decide what's best... I mean do I really have to spell things out for you like you're a noob? Or are you so completely self indulged that you have resort to saying things like "i really appreciate you handing me the job of coming up with a solution"?

You yourself agree that guilds without regions have too much freedom and then turn around and dismiss anything anyone is saying as a non arguement. That's why I said that you should at least present an actual suggestion that you think would fix the problem. Either you're against changing the current situation or you're for it - make up your mind. Please enlighten us mortals on your thought process as well rather than saying "yes, things are bad but lol you guys are talking in non arguements". How ironic that you keep saying that yet your posts have no value in them whatsoever. I have yet to see you address the actual issue and the what balancing should occur. I just see you pretending to be in a debate club. Also way to completely miss the point about guilds controlling regions and not investing in them. But hey that's probably my problem. So carry on as I'm sure you will.

I thought about Xviper's suggestion a little bit and came up with an Idea. The attacking guild creates a "camp" which function as a "Ghost" hex connected only to the hex they are attacking. this camp would function like any regular hex except in can only be defended byt the attacking guild and attacked only be the defending guild, the other faction and any allies of the involved guilds can not interfere. the camp could cost a nominal fee, say 20k of each resource. could be walled and upgraded just like a regular hex and have a CP pot just like a regular hex, if it is counquored by the defenders they earn half the resoiurces the attackers used to build it and the attackers must wait 4 cycles while they recover from their defeat.

"ghost hex"? how much more a mechanistic way out do you want?

on the subject: perhaps the best way would be to have a threshold for regionless guilds, say, you can't sabotage with a guild under level 3. That would take care of the costfactor. Bigger guilds who sabotage will have to be taken care of via actual diplomacy.