Hear me on this idea about the guild fortress content!

ArchivedUser

@FliP said "Only one guild can claim a castle at a time, but that doesn't mean that guilds will fight solo/alone against other guilds. There certainly will be (if there won't, I'll take the opportunity and make one) alliances that will share castle ownership."

My first thought was "cheap." You would want to intentionally prevent other guilds from having a fair chance to guarantee you a spot for a month. If you're talking 5 guilds you are preventing others from having a fair fight so you can be the guild in the castle for 2 months out of the year. Wow, I don't even know why you wouldn't just try and guild hop to the guild that has the castle every month at that point. This, to me, is similar to going to a public park and "claiming" a basketball court so nobody but your friends can play on it. Wow.

@Fleelix, by "leveling" I meant the different trees guilds can choose from, some being more members others being from a list we are not sure about. Since I don't think guilds will be given all of the points possible when the guild is formed, some form of "leveling" will have to occur to gain more points for the various trees.

Your idea seems to regulate who gets to play where, I don't think IS wants that mentality but I could be wrong. I understand the merits of saying smaller guilds have to fight over here and bigger ones have to fight over there, I just don't think it's fair. Imo this type of order will naturally establish itself as the bigger guilds want bigger challenges and that almighty biggest castle/fortress (I've lost perspective on which one we are talking about).

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

-snip-

My assumption was based on weekly sieges. Since that theory has been debunked and sieges are monthly, there is not much point for such an alliance. I'd rather take my chances instead of waiting 4 months.
This doens't deny the fact that there might be such alliances preventing castle ownership for anyone else. The only way to combat them is with another alliance, and eventually we will end up with AvA instead of GvG.

ArchivedUser

I know it would be naive to assume such things wouldn't happen, but you seemed so focused on assembling one there for a few moments. Hopefully others will see it the same way and not be willing to hope their guild is up and still running by time it's "their turn."

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

I know it would be naive to assume such things wouldn't happen, but you seemed so focused on assembling one there for a few moments. Hopefully others will see it the same way and not be willing to hope their guild is up and still running by time it's "their turn."

I think, like the guild has 3 other nodes with thier fortress, so lets say other guilds compete for those and in the end the guild that destroyed or conquered the most of them is to be challanged vs the guild thats in the fortress.

ArchivedUser

Most likely the mechanic will be similar to caravans. When you approach to ZOI of the castle and its nodes you will have to declare as a guild aggressor or ignore. Declaring aggressor will most likely be limited to the guild leader, and will take a substantial fee in either gold or resources, after which the guild will be able to attack the defenders and objectives on that weeks node. Whether you will be able to join in the middle of the process or have to declare in a window at the beginning are details none of us know yet. But there will be some guild declaration mechanic to it, since they have stated that castles are "guild content", while regular node sieges have different rules and are not.