Changes to Siphoning Mages impact on GvG based on community feedback (Lancelot Update)

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Changes to Siphoning Mages impact on GvG based on community feedback (Lancelot Update)

    Based on feedback received from the community regarding Season 2 Siphoning Mage changes published with the Lancelot patchlog, we are adjusting the GvG bonuses granted through siphoning mages as follows:
    • The period that determines the bonus are the 60 minutes prior to peak time start (down from 240 minutes)
    • The maximum bonus is now 2.4% (down from 4.8%)
    • The bonus is calculated pro rata. 1 mage being alive for 8 minute grants you a 0.08% bonus - effectively 0.01% per minute. As there are 4 mages in total, and 60 minutes are counted, the maximum bonus hence is 4*60*0.01% = 2.4%
    • Placing a mage / rogue mage will cost the same amount of energy as killing a mage would drop. This means that “flipping” mages is possible without having to bring extra energy, and this means that if an attacker snipes your mages and replaces them with his own, you can easily flip them back at no extra cost. Hence, guarding your mages for the full 60 minutes is not that critical, it’s enough to react in time once and if your mages are actually flipped.
    The design logic behind is feature is to allow more players to contribute to their guilds GvG efforts, while making sure that this is soft enough to not pre-determine the outcome of the fight. Hence the total bonus that can be gotten is quite small, such that guilids to not feel that it is mandatory to take part in this for every single GvG fight.

    In the original configuration on the test server, the total period that was counted was 4 hours prior to the start of peak time. A lot of you told us that this would make the feature too much of a chore, in particular for the defenders. We agree with that assessment. In theory, we could shorten the period even more, say to just 10 minutes prior to peak time, but we are concerned that this might encourage “on point zerging” a bit too much. Having said that, we will evaluate how the feature plays out once it is on the live server and take it from there.

    Also note that mages now drop all of their energy directly, and now also give some fame when killed. These changes were made such that killing mages is individually more rewarding.

    All of these changes combined such make the gameplay around mages much more interesting, and allow all guilds members to at least play a small part in supporting their core GvG teams while also providing a trigger for additional prime time open world GvG action.
  • You're adding too much mandatory content to the game.

    Basically now a guild has to camp a territory once an attack is launched, because it will now be so easy to flip the mages at any time, so the attackers can show up at any point and flip the mages.

    On top of that there is almost no notice that your mages are being attacked, and it takes 5 minutes for an attacker to kill and replace your mage. Wasting dozens of player's time trying to defend the mages.

    I have to wonder if you want people to quit the game?
  • Every time you force guildmasters, to force their members to do daily forced and boring gameplay - you push players towards burning out.

    you just removed the main chore part on castles, but introduce it somewhere else times 5 - makes no sense.

    I know you beleive that people might not really do it, but if they dont its a effective 2.4% buff to defenders, and in any war that matters a lot.

    Life is a game of inches after all :).
  • angrad wrote:

    You're adding too much mandatory content to the game.

    Basically now a guild has to camp a territory once an attack is launched, because it will now be so easy to flip the mages at any time, so the attackers can show up at any point and flip the mages.

    On top of that there is almost no notice that your mages are being attacked, and it takes 5 minutes for an attacker to kill and replace your mage. Wasting dozens of player's time trying to defend the mages.

    I have to wonder if you want people to quit the game?
    We'll closely observe how this plays out.

    Note that they way the feature is set up means that it's not much of a loss if your mages get killed and flipped. The reason for this is that placing a mage costs the same as what he drops when killed.

    Hence, you don't really have to camp your mages. It's fine if you can react within a reasonable time frame once they have been killed. You can then kill the enemy mages, take the energy they drop and use that very same energy to place your own mages again.

    The bonus in itself is pro-rated over-time. So losing your mages for a certain amount of time does not matter that much. A single mage ticks every 8 minutes, and each tick is worth just 0.08% GvG bonus - which is less than 1 IP. Even the full bonus - now around 24 IP - will in most cases not be enough to outweigh the already existing skill and gear gaps between two GvG teams.

    To get the full 2.4% bonus as an attacker, while at the same time keeping the enemy at 0% bonus, you'd have to control all 4 mage spawns continuously for the hour prior to the fight.

    That won't be easy, and might in the context of risk etc not be worth it - if you camp the enemy mages too much, it would give the other guild ample time to organize a counterplay. I highly doubt that defensively camping your own mages is the right strategy in this context and I don't think that entire guilds passively camping their own territories for 60 minutes prior to each fight is how it will play out - if it does, that would of course be awful, we can all agree on that. On the other hand, this feature could be a trigger for varied and exciting pre-GvG skirmishes, upgrade the value of mages and allow the entire to guild to at least indirectly support GvGs. Or it could be something in between.

    Tech-wise, the feature was little effort for us to set up, it's a side effect of your mage rework. Hence, we feel it is worth giving it a try. If it does not work out well - which could well be the case - we have no problems to adapt or remove it.
  • I just want to bring two points to the table about this @Korn. First I agree that camping the mages isn't the most efficient and effective way to defend them, however, that isn't how the scenario will go down.

    I'll use last night as an example:

    Blue Army hit our castles, so we had to go defend them, then they left the castles unfinished to roam territories. Imagine the logistics of having to wait for a castle to reset and then deal with them hitting the territories. You have to disrupt dozens of people's play times to sit around and wait for a castle to reset. If you do not do that then then would just run behind us to back cap the castle. This meant hours of people sitting around in the game doing nothing.

    One more point: 2.4% is massive. Think about the potential of an A team showing up to the territory, because you have no idea who is coming. The guild master is going to require everyone to move to defend these mages, and people will just hit and run them over and over again. There won't be any content generated because most of this scenario is people running to and from fame locations. This is because, like you said, no one is going to want to wait around for the attackers. Ultimately though they will just be wasting time running back and forth from one location to another, or just concede to camping the territory.

    Just take this from my post: They will be mandatory, and they will just stack on top of the burden of War Camps, and Castles. The game is becoming too much sit around and wait for something to happen. Also, please go and read this: Some Suggestions For Season 2 I believe those changes would make the game a lot more entertaining, and feel less like a job.
  • Eltharyon wrote:


    The design logic behind is feature is to allow more players to contribute to their guilds GvG efforts, while making sure that this is soft enough to not pre-determine the outcome of the fight. Hence the total bonus that can be gotten is quite small, such that guilids to not feel that it is mandatory to take part in this for every single GvG fight.

    Korn wrote:

    The bonus in itself is pro-rated over-time. So losing your mages for a certain amount of time does not matter that much.

    A bonus is a bonus, this is now a mandatory chore.

    The above 2 assumptions are why this is a poor decision.
  • I love that new systeme that will show that not only a 5 man group is need to take a territory but the rest of your guild that can help you have a small bonus. More rewarding when you know that not only the 5 man in the gvg contribute to take the territory, but everybody that went there and kill/defend mage.

    This also help smaller guild that doesnt have a lot of territory. It is easier to defend their terrritory than other guild that got too much territory.
  • Elevorn wrote:

    I love that new systeme that will show that not only a 5 man group is need to take a territory but the rest of your guild that can help you have a small bonus. More rewarding when you know that not only the 5 man in the gvg contribute to take the territory, but everybody that went there and kill/defend mage.

    This also help smaller guild that doesnt have a lot of territory. It is easier to defend their terrritory than other guild that got too much territory.
    You are so wrong
  • Elevorn wrote:

    That some top notch argument there. Telling me that i am wrong with out any explanation. I can be wrong, i know that i dont have the absolute truth, but at least i try to have a discussion and argument about my point and not only telling the other side that they are wrong and stop there.
    I'll explain:

    If there is even a moment of doubt that we could not 150-0 you, you would have your territory camped by 130 people.

    To you this may not be a big deal, because you'd just give up. However, to guilds that want to compete this is a serious problem.

    For us it is the opposite. People would not want to fight us, so they would hit and run. In both scenarios you have people waiting around doing nothing but watching grass (mages) grow.
  • Different take - what if the buff duration is smaller, over a longer period of time? e.g. Pro-rated starting from territory ownership up until the GvG start (could be any duration). Buff is something low like 0.2% per day, caps at 2.0%

    - Buff can go to -2.0% if enemy mages are there over X days.
    - Buff can climb back up to +2.0% if the territory mages are there

    Now you've got a pretty long window for guilds to organize/raid over a week/weekend. It takes 5 days to hit 1%. Adjust % per day and cap as necessary.
  • Forcing distinctly different content to have an effect over each other is a very bad system, especially this way. Creating more content in the same line of already established 'mandatory' activity will only do more to hurting the joy of "non-gvg" guild members.

    In essence there is a good idea here; allowing guild members to have an impact on an instanced five-man GvG is great. There are already many ways that this happens: gatherers, crafters, open-world players, etc. all doing their job to enable a GvG team. But this content idea isn't the same as the others I've mentioned, where as players do the latter out of their own enjoyment the "Mage" content and this new idea enforces more content that will be mandatory for players who already do not enjoy it.

    A different approach (given the fact that in betas there were multiple territories per zone, although I didn't play so I don't know how it played out) could be to add in a new ZvZ hotspot into zones, that when controlled, gives a small bonus ~2% to the owning alliance in that territory. Of course I just came up with this on the spot so it might not be smart at all, but the idea here to change mages to affect GvG's like this is not a very good one.
    i stream and post videos on the internet
    twitch.tv/Tazzik
    youtube.com/SeanTazzik

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Tazzik ().