Talk:Alliance Faction

From GuildWiki

The phrase "their faction's territory" is possesive. The apostrophe belongs there. --Crasher 01:45, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Faction transfer..

I have ben in more FF runs than I'd like to admit, yet, I have not seen a single alliance member (Komalis Protectors, HzH owners) stop at 5K to go deposit. We always go for the big 10 and if you lose a few faction points here or there, big deal. An FF run takes 2-3 minutes. This is not to say that no one deposits at 5k, this is to say, it's not worth putting as a directive in the article. Let people deposit at 5 or 10 or 7.3. --Karlos 04:31, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Well when you're in an alliance battle and you're at 9.5k faction, the people I usually do it with will save 750 faction by making a quick stop at the guild hall and putting in 5k. Perhaps I should have worded it better or something, oh well. :) Also I am not quite sure what you mean by one-to-one? Do you mean any faction transferred gets put straight into the alliance's pool, or something else? --Talonz 04:42, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

It didn't used to be one to one. It used to be that 5000 faction would transfer to a smaller number for you alliance (back when it was called Alliance Standing). So, this is why this note is relevant. It means if you put in 5000 faction, you will raise the alliance faction by 5000.

For AB it would make sense, but there is a whole world of faction farmers out there who do not go through AB. The notes on transferin faction before hitting the 10k limit should go into Kurzick Faction and Luxon Faction anyway. --Karlos 04:52, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

So that explains it. For someone who isn't familiar with the history of it, it sounds irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up! The phrase "one-to-one" still doesn't seem to fit based on what it means though but not a big deal. Off to sleep, goodnight. ^^ --Talonz 12:57, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Use any wording you find more suitable. --Karlos 18:31, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Okay I did, hope that isn't too bad. --Talonz 02:45, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Kurziks in Cavalon?

This article implies that it is possible for the Kurziks to take Cavalon or vice-versa. I thought that the battle lines and therefore the outposts could only swing 5 deep either way? --Crasher 16:21, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

there was a time when the battle lines were pushed so far back that Unwaking Waters was the only luxon controlled outpost in the southern sea. it was really interesting to see that one circle of red surrounded by blue as far back as Gyala. as for kurzicks in cavalon. it would seem posible, since Anet went to the trouble to put kurzick soldiers outside cavalon. hold Ctrl and look for them while scraping the edge of the outpost. --Honorable Sarah

17:42, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Does anyone know how deep control has been confirmed to go on each side? -- Gordon Ecker 00:24, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

if we go by the presense of kurzick/luxon soldiers, then Saint Anjeka's Shrine at the far edge of the kurzick territory, and Eredon Terrace at the far edge of luxon territory. --Honorable Sarah

10:24, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

from Talk:Kurzick-Luxon_border: In theory it is possible, but do to the fact that the deeper into a territory, say the Kurzick territory, the battlefield maps change, giving the Kurzicks a greater advantage to win in this example. -Gares 10:36, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

I think we should keep track of how far faction control has been confirmed to extend. -- Gordon Ecker 02:01, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

I can confirm that the Kurzicks can go at least as far as Eredon Terrace. -- Gordon Ecker 01:45, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

And that the Luxons can get at least as far as Vasburg Armory. -- Gordon Ecker 00:32, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Luxons have made it all the way to Brauer Academy. --Rainith 01:13, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

The Kurzicks have made it all the way to Breaker Hollow twice (the second time is after the Kaanai Canyon bug fix). Sometime between these two takeovers, the luxons pushed to Lutgardis Conservatory. Dark Luke 00:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

how r the outposts distributed among the running up guilds if a new outposts gets available due to border movement? HJT 07:58, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

The outpost at the bottom of your alliance's list goes to the alliance with the most faction points, the next outpost up goes to the alliance with the second highest faction total, this trend continues all the way up your faction's list and then, if your faction controls enemy territory, down the other faction's list. So, for example, if the Kurzicks captured Breaker Hollow, it would go to the number 15 Kurzick alliance. -- Gordon Ecker 01:48, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Territory

What's the meaning of territory here? Is it the real world Territory or just the Kurzick / Luxon territory? I'm living in Europe and I've never seen any Korean, Chinese, and Japanese guilds controlling an outpost yet. Are The Lost Saracens controlling HzH in America, too? The border is global anyway, isn't it?

Yes, the Lost Saracens control HzH on the American realms (at the time of writing), so it looks like Alliances and faction levels are rated on a global standing. Which makes sense, since there's nothing stopping a guild leader from Europe and another from America (for example) meeting up in an International District to negotiate their new alliance. Mujaki 01:47, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

[edit] Aiding the Enemy?

I've heard tell that if you are in an alliance, and just simply EARN faction for the enemy nation, it will penalize your alliance's faction, beyond the standard automatic daily draining. Can anyone confirm this? Also, is it possible for an alliance leader to redeclare allegiance to the other nation? Or undeclare and return to neutral status? Mujaki 02:00, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Personal faction will not affect the alliance unless donated. I do not think it is possible to change a guild's alliance without disbanding it, but I could be wrong. (Wonder what would happen to the faction accumulated? Reset? Interesting.) --BlueNovember 11:06, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Faction Decay?

The Alliance Faction decays by 10% every 24 hours at midnight GMT if the Alliance is in control of one of the outposts or close to controlling one. It will never decay beyond 1.

My guild isnt in an alliance, we dont own a town, and infact, are nowhere near owning one (100k kurz or so). Yet, we still experience some form of decay? Does this need updating, or can someone provide an explanation of sorts? Thanks. ~Nahka~ 02:36, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Every alliance (guild, rather) gets Faction decay. It's just more noticeable for those who control towns as the number gets updated in the town description. --Kale Ironfist 03:59, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Question about town ownership

Has anyone ever seen cavlon or HzH controlled by the enemies of that town? or just doesnt that happen, cos if it doesnt, then it shouldnt be on that list should it?--Clouddyl 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The list is about how much faction you need to control that, and you need top faction for those, so sure they should be on it. --◄mendel► 15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers for town list is messed up.

Not sure how to code it properly, or I would fix it myself. The numbers should count down the list with HzH and Cavalon being #1 on each list. Bad soles 22:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does say they're sorted "lowest to highest", and that's the order in which a PvE player will usually reach them, no? --◄mendel► 22:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're correct on that, but all the numbers are 1. which definately isn't right. Bad soles 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The faction value does not match the standard exploration order, no. HzH and Cavalon have the highest faction values, but they are neither the first nor last outposts a player will encounter. The Challenge Missions come next, and then the "standard" outposts, and even then they're not entirely "in order".

I agree with Bad soles, though, that the lists should be reversed to make more sense. —Dr Ishmael

23:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the numbers also all the same? to me it displays with 1. next to each town, rather than the number that it is in the list. Bad soles 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's displaying fine for me, 1-9. What browser are you using? —Dr Ishmael

23:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Internet explorer =p theres your problem I think Bad soles 23:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Which version? The generated HTML code looks correct to me, I don't see anything obvious that would cause an error. Maybe because it's a list inside a table, IE[your version] can't handle it for some reason? Still seems odd, though... —Dr Ishmael

00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbered lists is completely messed up in IE7. I'm not sure why. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 00:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Numbered list are fine in IE 7 for me... -Balistic Pve (T/C/E) 00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IE7, everything is #1, FF3, it is 1-9. Cress Arvein

00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Further testing seems to indicate a combination of IE7 with either Monaco/Quartz skins. Monobook is not affected. I do not spot anything in the CSS that ought to lead to this, so I suspect this might be some DOM issue in the Quartz/Monaco skins' outer wrapper stuff that IE7 cannot handle, affecting stuff inside. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikia say the issue is known; on other wikis it even affects monobook. :-P --◄mendel► 01:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IE7, looks fine to me.

(T/C) 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, monaco or monobook? -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 01:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't use ugly skins. :\

(T/C) 01:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Beauty is only skin deep. Learn your lessons from the Scriptures of Lyssa. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

.../facepalm... Monobook. I guess that would be "Wikia monobook" or am I confused?

(T/C) 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. Our monobook is not Wikia monobook, or you'd see a column for ads and spotlights on the right side. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 02:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I walked next door and checked out WoWWiki, their wowwiki skin (modified from basic monobook) is not broken, whereas their Wikia monobook is indeed messed up in IE7. Anyone with IE6 or IE8 RC1 wanna check the issue? -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 01:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Their Monaco skin also seems to be broken] -Balistic Pve (T/C/E) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bullet points are broken in IE7 too.

01:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)