• Announcements

    • IMPORTANT - REACH US IN THE NEW FORUM   05/04/2017

      Ladies and gentlemen ATTENTION please:
      It's time to move into a new house!
        As previously announced, from now on IT WON'T BE POSSIBLE TO CREATE THREADS OR REPLY in the old forums. From now on the old forums will be readable only. If you need to move/copy/migrate any post/material from here, feel free to contact the staff in the new home. We’ll be waiting for you in the NEW Forums!

      https://community.blackdesertonline.com/index.php

      *New features and amazing tools are waiting for you, even more is yet to come in the future.. just like world exploration in BDO leads to new possibilities.
      So don't be afraid about changes, click the link above and follow us!
      Enjoy and see you on the other side!  
    • WICHTIG: Das Forum ist umgezogen!   05/04/2017

      Damen und Herren, wir bitten um Eure Aufmerksamkeit, es ist an der Zeit umzuziehen!
        Wie wir bereits angekündigt hatten, ist es ab sofort nicht mehr möglich, neue Diskussionen in diesem Forum zu starten. Um Euch Zeit zu geben, laufende Diskussionen abzuschließen, könnt Ihr noch für zwei Wochen in offenen Diskussionen antworten. Danach geht dieses Forum hier in den Ruhestand und das NEUE FORUM übernimmt vollständig.
      Das Forum hier bleibt allerdings erhalten und lesbar.   Neue und verbesserte Funktionen warten auf Euch im neuen Forum und wir arbeiten bereits an weiteren Erweiterungen.
      Wir sehen uns auf der anderen Seite!

      https://community.blackdesertonline.com/index.php Update:
      Wie angekündigt könen ab sofort in diesem Forum auch keine neuen Beiträge mehr veröffentlicht werden.
    • IMPORTANT: Le nouveau forum   05/04/2017

      Aventurières, aventuriers, votre attention s'il vous plaît, il est grand temps de déménager!
      Comme nous vous l'avons déjà annoncé précédemment, il n'est désormais plus possible de créer de nouveau sujet ni de répondre aux anciens sur ce bon vieux forum.
      Venez visiter le nouveau forum!
      https://community.blackdesertonline.com
      De nouvelles fonctionnalités ainsi que de nouveaux outils vous attendent dès à présent et d'autres arriveront prochainement! N'ayez pas peur du changement et rejoignez-nous! Amusez-vous bien et a bientôt dans notre nouveau chez nous

Let guilds attack while having territory

Should guilds with territory be able to attack another territory?   119 votes

  1. 1. Should guilds with territory be able to attack another territory?

    • Yes
      81
    • No
      27
    • Neutral
      11

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

35 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Guilds who own territory should be able to attack other territories just like before.
The change instead of helping just made competetive siege even worse.
Guilds are staying in their territories because noone dares to attack them and all they can do is either sit or give it to someone so they can go and fight for something else. 
Discuss if you think it should be back or not.

some Cm taging like always:
@CM_Aethon @CM_Oli @CM_Praballo @CM_Serenity @CM_Yukimura

en6mn7ln0c_ztxwo2.png
edit: Additional Ideas or different approaches from comments
@BANiSH Capping max territories at 2
@WeaselPaw Letting guild declare to abadon territory and enable them to build on other one.

 

Edited by Matys
11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Mytoko approves this post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

put diminishing returns on territories each week.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, please revert this. Guilds with territories are essentially trapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Dont let server to decide, where they will lock you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Please let this happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, please. This freaking lock does nothing but kill the PvP scene slowly. There's literally no upside to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I just want to see territory guilds be allowed to participate in node wars say in their own territory so they don't ahve to drop guilds for some pvp action for a week

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I just want to see territory guilds be allowed to participate in node wars say in their own territory so they don't ahve to drop guilds for some pvp action for a week

Supporting this too, 1 territory + 1-2 nodes to keep up pvp fun 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Looking back at the time before this change was implimented, we had on EU Jordine <Harmony> guild that was able to sit on 4 regions. Due to being far supperior to the rest of the guilds, and instead of getting together and create combined attacks dodging just started happening. That is in the past now.

But what this change did, was to make sure that not one guild can control several regions. Now that we have gotten the server merge, more of the top-guilds from each of the servers within a region (EU/NA) are now fighting for the 5 territories and on both EU and NA, there should in theory be enough guilds to have active fights in all 5 ingame regions. However with the juicy silver-price linked to holding a castle-region, and silver = progression. I would argue that PvP is killed just as much by guilds going for the silverreward over the "endgame" pvp fights duering saturday siegewarfare.

Solution suggestions to how this revert could work to prevent 1-2 guilds owning the whole map:

-1) A guild that already owns a territory can build on an other region but silver reward will be 50% from the region they already own

-2) A guild who already owns a territory can only build on a castle-region (strong guilds going for castleregions, weaker guilds for Bal/Serendia)

-3a) Sieges will take place both Saturday & Sunday. both days will be linked to the results of the previous weekend and will be two diffrent sieges (if a guild claimed Mediah on saturday week1, they will hold it as defenders week2. But sundays run with a different set of owners. Guilds can join both saturday and sunday)

- 3b --||-- same as 3a. but with guilds not able to join both saturday and sunday. (not sure there is enough guilds for this setup)

Thats just a few ideas from the top of my head, ofc there would be flaws to them but when ever we disagree with something implimented i think we should also come up with alternatives.

Edited by Wonshot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just cap it at 2. That's enough to make sure you get a fight each week.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No. It does nothing to up pvp for a majority of players. All you will have is the same guilds fighting over them like they do now but able to win more then one. How is that going to help pvp overall? This just helps the current territory guilds not anyone else. 

The pvp scene is dying because of the restrictions on it and the current karma system. It's been discussed and beat into the ground already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Karma? I thought this post was to revive siege PvP...

We had sovereign and addicted owning a castle for 5 weeks without a fight or hardly a decent one (except that time when an alliance went to median to siege us) both guilds became rusty due to unable to fight because of lack of opponents.  

I agree with crossbuilding and agree with the other who posted... The merge revived this game but the restriction of guilds being locked on their territory is killing siege feature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Karma? I thought this post was to revive siege PvP...

We had sovereign and addicted owning a castle for 5 weeks without a fight or hardly a decent one (except that time when an alliance went to median to siege us) both guilds became rusty due to unable to fight because of lack of opponents.  

I agree with crossbuilding and agree with the other who posted... The merge revived this game but the restriction of guilds being locked on their territory is killing siege feature. 

We have 4 guilds dodging each other (well, one is kinda trying to get fights though). They could fight between themselves and the problem of being locked in a territory won't arise since they can't all win. No one has gone for ember, no one has gone for harmony when they had calpheon, etc (could have made alliances, like dishonoured + enemy for example since they both lacked numbers, or whatever else required to make the fight "fair" idk).

While cross building seems great for allowing guilds to have fights each week, it also brings the possibility for an alliance to hold a territory and protect each other. Which is just not fun at all.

So no to cross building, unless it implies that the guild is giving up its territory (but other problems would probably arise with guilds getting free territory or something) or something else making the prospect of cross building not a safe bet.

Edited by WeaselPaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like the idea of capping it at 2. Makes it less possible to get stuck because if you ever take 2, one of those will be definitely attacked if not both. And makes it impossible to take too much if one guild overpowers all guilds on the server by great margin.

The thing about guilds not attacking each other by @WeaselPaw, perfect example for that is what happend with sovereign and addicted, they just swaped castle becaues one of the guild escaped to have castle and a fight instead of fight alone. This could be prevented as addicted could just attack sovereign while still holding their own territory.

 

No. It does nothing to up pvp for a majority of players. All you will have is the same guilds fighting over them like they do now but able to win more then one. How is that going to help pvp overall? This just helps the current territory guilds not anyone else. 

Guild with territory splitting forces to try and take more than one territory means guilds would be more happy to attack them. Instead of 3 territories being unattacked you can have those 3 guilds on random places actually doing somethnig and changing the map instead of just getting incentive from territory every few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But alliance is fine... What's wrong with an alliance, there are friendly guilds everywhere in this game, there was an alliance in mediah vs addicted and we fought them and they fought well... They had a great control of the game and was able to do well... Of course we beat them but it was a 4 guild alliance which was pretty amazing... There are alliance everywhere already... Why not allow guild alliance, let guilds cooperate with each other to reach a common goal?

Alliance doesn't need to be looked on negatively, it can be positive as well... 

 

Its an MMO, let's boost the reason why its called an MMO

Edited by Nanaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe I'm missing something so correct me if I'm wrong.

So because your guild is so powerful nobody wants to fight you? I don't understand why that should mean you can take another node. That would just leave two areas that aren't being fought over.

It also lets your powerful guild force certain nodes to go to guilds don't deserve them via alliances.

If you're "locked" into it, just contact some random guild and tell them to kill your node tower unopposed. Ta-da! You've lost your territory and can now fight daily in node wars!

End of the day you can just leave your territory if you're having problems. Instead you want the silver from the territory and nodes.

I don't see why I should support the developer changing the balance in the game to solve the problem you created yourself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe I'm missing something so correct me if I'm wrong.

So because your guild is so powerful nobody wants to fight you? I don't understand why that should mean you can take another node. That would just leave two areas that aren't being fought over.

It also lets your powerful guild force certain nodes to go to guilds don't deserve them via alliances.

If you're "locked" into it, just contact some random guild and tell them to kill your node tower unopposed. Ta-da! You've lost your territory and can now fight daily in node wars!

End of the day you can just leave your territory if you're having problems. Instead you want the silver from the territory and nodes.

I don't see why I should support the developer changing the balance in the game to solve the problem you created yourself.

On Eu we have 4 Top guilds and each of those guilds has territory, No1 attacks 2/3 of them because they will be stuck there and if they do your trick, which some did they will just get stuck after taking that territory again. Giving them possibility to attack (which they will probably use to attack each other) enables possibilietes and will spread fight over the map instead of 15+ guilds sitting in serendia because they dont want to go for stronger enemy. And believe me those guilds are not strong enough to keep few middle class guilds, they are just not attacking because why would they if they can trap them inside their territory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The thing about guilds not attacking each other by @WeaselPaw, perfect example for that is what happend with sovereign and addicted, they just swaped castle becaues one of the guild escaped to have castle and a fight instead of fight alone. This could be prevented as addicted could just attack sovereign while still holding their own territory

Why would you need to keep your old territory ? You already had one week of income, if you want to go fight, forget about that income, I thought the objective was to have fun. Most of the "problem" (it isn't really one to me but I understand the issue) exists because you all spread out instead of fighting each other.

But alliance is fine... What's wrong with an alliance, there are friendly guilds everywhere in this game, there was an alliance in mediah vs addicted and we fought them and they fought well... They had a great control of the game and was able to do well... Of course we beat them but it was a 4 guild alliance which was pretty amazing... There are alliance everywhere already... Why not allow guild alliance, let guilds cooperate with each other to reach a common goal?

Alliance doesn't need to be looked on negatively, it can be positive as well... 

Alliances are fine. But having an alliance holding multiples territories and being able to cross build in each other's territory to help each other is just not good. As I said before, one guild shouldn't be able to hold its territory and fight somewhere else.

On Eu we have 4 Top guilds and each of those guilds has territory, No1 attacks 2/3 of them because they will be stuck there and if they do your trick, which some did they will just get stuck after taking that territory again. Giving them possibility to attack (which they will probably use to attack each other) enables possibilietes and will spread fight over the map instead of 15+ guilds sitting in serendia because they dont want to go for stronger enemy. And believe me those guilds are not strong enough to keep few middle class guilds, they are just not attacking because why would they if they can trap them inside their territory.

These 4 guilds barely fought each other since merge but would like to if they would be able to keep the territory they already have. You could also directly go to the fights you were looking for. That proposition is a way to secure income and still fight while everyone else have to take the risk of not get anything back from these fights. And no it won't help spreading the guilds. If they think they can't fight you now, they will still think they can't fight you after that hypothetical change and as such won't build on a castle territory since you will be able to abandon the fort you've build and go defend your territory. It's basically taking no risk and be rewarded for it. 

Maybe we should be able to announce to the server during Sunday NW that our territory will be liberated for the next siege (while still getting the income for that week of course) and thus be able to build somewhere else (and not being able to build on the territory you just decided to abandon at the end of the week). Thus it would push some guilds to build on that liberated territory and fight for it, while you would have to fight like everyone else and not just be able to chose the fight that you prefer (aka : most probably the easiest one). It would actually be more coherent with the rules in place (to me at least), as either you would get a "one shot" without having to break into a castle or you would have to try to keep the castle against whatever is coming the next week and get the increased income if you win.

Edited by WeaselPaw
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Karma? I thought this post was to revive siege PvP..

I was addressing BANiSH as to why PvP is dying.

Maybe I'm missing something so correct me if I'm wrong.

So because your guild is so powerful nobody wants to fight you? I don't understand why that should mean you can take another node. That would just leave two areas that aren't being fought over.

It also lets your powerful guild force certain nodes to go to guilds don't deserve them via alliances.

If you're "locked" into it, just contact some random guild and tell them to kill your node tower unopposed. Ta-da! You've lost your territory and can now fight daily in node wars!

End of the day you can just leave your territory if you're having problems. Instead you want the silver from the territory and nodes.

I don't see why I should support the developer changing the balance in the game to solve the problem you created yourself.

This ----^    

How many people in support of this are in these seige guilds I wonder? It won't change anything for 95% of the guilds out there. If your big enough to even be remotely a threat someone from the siege guilds has allied with you. That's fine don't get me wrong. It's a wise move. I may be not remembering correctly but before the change on Orwen we had all the siege guilds allied to keep their territories. They would build on each others and ally against the guilds trying to take it...hence the change. One alliance owned everything. I will not name and shame but this did happen. It would happen again.

With silver = progression allowing this would further widen the gear gap and lead to much less population I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why would you need to keep your old territory ? You already had one week of income, if you want to go fight, forget about that income, I thought the objective was to have fun. Most of the "problem" (it isn't really one to me but I understand the issue) exists because you all spread out instead of fighting each other.

Alliances are fine. But having an alliance holding multiples territories and being able to cross build in each other's territory to help each other is just not good. As I said before, one guild shouldn't be able to hold its territory and fight somewhere else.

These 4 guilds barely fought each other since merge but would like to if they would be able to keep the territory they already have. You could also directly go to the fights you were looking for. That proposition is a way to secure income and still fight while everyone else have to take the risk of not get anything back from these fights. And no it won't help spreading the guilds. If they think they can't fight you now, they will still think they can't fight you after that hypothetical change and as such won't build on a castle territory since you will be able to abandon the fort you've build and go defend your territory. It's basically taking no risk and be rewarded for it. 

Maybe we should be able to announce to the server during Sunday NW that our territory will be liberated for the next siege (while still getting the income for that week of course) and thus be able to build somewhere else (and not being able to build on the territory you just decided to abandon at the end of the week). Thus it would push some guilds to build on that liberated territory and fight for it, while you would have to fight like everyone else and not just be able to chose the fight that you prefer (aka : most probably the easiest one). It would actually be more coherent with the rules in place (to me at least), as either you would get a "one shot" without having to break into a castle or you would have to try to keep the castle against whatever is coming the next week and get the increased income if you win.

Problem with "give territory to other guild" is that you need to skip one week just to be able to play again.

The thing with liberating territory and being able to go somewhere else is good idea too.
Just make it possible to destroy fort in your territory and go somewhere else instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why cap it tho? If a guild holds 3 territories they'll be attacked in all of them at the same time each saturday, who could possibly hold more than one territory and defend multiple castles at the same time? Harmony kept 4 castles and also lost all of them the same day because people attacked them. If top guilds are forced to split their forces they'll eventually ally up or lose everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why cap it tho? If a guild holds 3 territories they'll be attacked in all of them at the same time each saturday, who could possibly hold more than one territory and defend multiple castles at the same time? Harmony kept 4 castles and also lost all of them the same day because people attacked them. If top guilds are forced to split their forces they'll eventually ally up or lose everything.

 

Because when you have a territory + fort, you can choose which one you will defend and pick up the easiest fight (same with multiple territories obviously)

Problem with "give territory to other guild" is that you need to skip one week just to be able to play again.

I never talked about that as the issue with sitting on your thumb for 2 weeks is very clear.

 

Also, I would like to point out the obvious, if the problem is not enough fights, you can keep to nw and fight every single day of the week if you like to.

Edited by WeaselPaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because when you have a territory + fort, you can choose which one you will defend and pick up the easiest fight (same with multiple territories obviously)

But then you lose one, what's the problem? If someone is strong enough to split their members and defend 2 sieges simoultaneusly then all I can say is bravo! But they'll mostly pick one castle to defend and lose the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But then you lose one, what's the problem? If someone is strong enough to split their members and defend 2 sieges simoultaneusly then all I can say is bravo! But they'll mostly pick one castle to defend and lose the other.

Because they become harder to take down as they have multiple choices and they are guaranteed each week (admitting they won the "easiest fight") to pick the fight they prefer and be rewarded for that instead of what the game as planned aka : having to defend your territory no matter what and reap the rewards. It's not a capture the flag or whatever.

We are kinda supposed to bring what ever is necessary to take out someone in a castle (alliances). If other guilds don't do it now, making the life of territories owner easier won't help.

Edited by WeaselPaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites