Large Alliances Could Monopolize Everything

ArchivedUser

One thing that is recurrent in all player driven MMOs is how larger guilds can easily come together and take control over large resource pools and ensure monopoly over them. For example, there was this mmo, released july 7th last year, and it had a system that allowed three guilds to ally up, and join forces. Moreover, it also had open world PvP zones where players can attack each other in an open manor much like AoC. What three guilds did in the EU server was that they came together, and took control over this entire map. (3 guilds =650 ppl). In this map, there was an item called "Demonic Tier Ore", which was a vital resource that was required for crafting high tier PvP gear. So, no one other than that alliance, in the whole server, had access to high tier PvP gear. This resulted in only their alliance gaining that resource, giving their players a huge advantage in PvP, and furthering their dominance. This wasn't fun for the players monopolizing as well. I know that because i was an officer in one of those three guilds. We kept winning because no one came close to being as strong as we were, which made the game less fun due to loss of conflict. This is just a simple example, but the idea is that strong guilds with large number of players can ally up for economic monopoly over some resource, or some system. In AoC terms, These player can siege competing metropolises to ensure theirs is the only one running. They can run smaller metropolises out of business since they can attack every Caravan coming out of it, or even siege them. I know it sounds far fetched, but this can happen, and i am certain some of you have even experienced this to some degree in one game or another. This is a huge concern for me simply because competition is a good thing. You should never have the ability to expel competition in a game. It just removes purpose, and without purpose, there is no reason to do anything. As Steven said in the kickstarter video, AOC is about " meaningful conflict" and meaningful conflict can't be achieved with monopoly.  I hope someone is listening, and i also hope that something like this is prevented by interpid studios. 

ArchivedUser

Wasn't there some mention about the limitations of citizenship in a node? The larger the population the harder it will be to maintain etc? 

If it were in the game, that would force people to move to other nodes and naturally end up being the competition. 

ArchivedUser

AutumnWillow said:

Wasn't there some mention about the limitations of citizenship in a node? The larger the population the harder it will be to maintain etc? 

If it were in the game, that would force people to move to other nodes and naturally end up being the competition. 

As AutumnWillow said above. This was already addressed in one of the latest Q&A videos. We need someone with too much time on their hands to summarize the info in written post form from the videos to stop rage posts and just plain misinformation from being spread. While they could change their mind based on whatever they feel that day, so far they have been fairly consistent in vision. You can already see that the devs are going to be customers and playing in their own worlds as opposed to large software coding mills ala Blizzard that make world changes without thinking of game impact. The Q&A vids are only going to be twice monthly now instead of twice weekly, so maybe people will have the time to watch them fully rather than rage posting "I wanna my cookie now, and it better be chocolate chip!" when the devs have already gone on video to describe when the cookie is being baked and the flavors available.

ArchivedUser

I agree with the above comments. I just want to add aswell in my personal opinion - alliances are half the fun. We don't know what the guild member cap is yet but even if it spilt into small guilds and made an alliance  to monopolise the game then it's up to the community to make a conflicting alliance to make a change- whether it successful or not. As for caravans - passing players can opt to help caravan traders and I imagine many players will enjoy just doing that for fun and will want to be hired to support as like a policing community. So I hope that will add some pressure to those that choose to force raid a caravan for monopoly purposes. 
I've seen big alliances come and go in games and that's half the fun. Choose your friends wisely and just have fun! 

ArchivedUser

So in one of the interviews with Intrepid they pointed out that there will be an ore vein that will last for days/weeks but will be depleted and not be back for weeks/months/year. and that same vein will reappear halfway across the world. This should be a minor fix to the issue of guilds banding together to control an ore spot. They may get to control it for awhile but eventually it will dry up and they wont have anything. 

ArchivedUser

I think with the gaming experience that Steven and the others have along with what I have heard in  their live streams that they will be staying on top of this type situation.  As far as resources, if your talking mines and such they stated that they won't be static with static one spawn nodes.  After a period of time the mines go dry and respawn  elsewhere. 

ArchivedUser

Like @Repkar said, once they empty the ore mine they would have to find the new spot somewhere in the WHOLE world all over again. If they found it, they'd have to move everyone over there, monopolize it, and manage their inventory as well, If they planned on monopolizing a certain ore, they would most likely need a caravan for themselves anyway, which people can band together to raid if they aren't getting the resources the alliance is hogging.The fact that it can spawn anywhere means they'd have to split up, and once one person in the alliance has found it, you could also assume someone else looking for it has found it or is near it. It would take too long and be too risky to get everyone exactly where the mine is without it being found by others and defended from this alliance. Also, if people really got the hang of who is hogging all the resources, then they will probably create their own group/alliance to combat them for the solo people's sake. Not likely, but a possibility lol

ArchivedUser

One thing the devs answered in a Q&A had to do with "Zerg Guilds" as well. They are intimately aware about the negative repercussions of these, and will be putting a cap on how big a Guild can be depending on it's own level.

ArchivedUser

Large alliances? Would be a shame if someone destroyed them. 

ArchivedUser

AeonAuron said:

Large alliances? Would be a shame if someone destroyed them. 

Stealthy rogues do have their place...................


CylverRayne

(SilverRain)

ArchivedUser

I think despite their best intentions the devs are about to make the biggest gank & grief ever made.

ArchivedUser

Keep them honest @Stabby, it's people like who are going to keep Intrepid honest.

ArchivedUser

Stabby said:

I think despite their best intentions the devs are about to make the biggest gank & grief ever made.

I think with the Devs collective experience they will do their best to prove you wrong.   Much will also rely on the players.   Players also have a role to play in combating others who like to ruin games and other people's enjoyment. 

ArchivedUser

Although I think alliances will inevitably exist, probably even between some large guilds, the scope of the capability of those guilds being able to dominate in the way you're describing will be next to impossible.

There's going to be too much randomness in the world.  Having control over one area won't really allow a monopoly, because whatever resource is in that area that someone is trying to control will exist somewhere else in the world.

Regarding sieges, a guild, or even an alliance of guilds, will not be able to endlessly siege anyone else trying to get powerful.  One, you will have to have a continual influx of resources in order to maintain your own node, and at the metropolis level, I'm guessing that isn't going to be cheap.  Plus, in order to siege a node, it costs just as much as it takes to build a node up.  And the sieges will also have cool down timers, which specifically prohibits endless sieging.

As far as the ganking thing goes, the devs have repeatedly stated they do not want a murderbox game, and I would like to think they aren't going to create and release a game they don't think is fun themselves.  Moreover, we don't even know the extent of the corruption system.  How punishing will the first kill be?  Will corruption only apply to that character, or to the account?  How quickly will the attackers gear break or be lost?  I don't know if the corruption system will work or not, but until more details are released, I'm not going to worry about it either.

ArchivedUser

Stabby said:

I think despite their best intentions the devs are about to make the biggest gank & grief ever made.

Because you feel that way? It's a ridiculous assertion and I think you're just trying to derail the op for your crusade for pve only servers.

ArchivedUser

AeonAuron said:

Large alliances? Would be a shame if someone destroyed them. 

That's one the key points of the game I think. Large alliances could dominate and run a server. It could be peaceful and glorious and everyone loves it. Or people could hate it and subvert and undermine that empire. That's the beauty of choice and the node system.