I did read what you wrote. That is not what ownership means in the context of what foghladha wrote. In the context of foghladha's post where a guild can only own one node - that has to be mechanically enforced - not just in the minds of the players.
I see, I didn't know we were restricted to what OP had said here in this discussion. Never mind!
Well here we have a interesting quandary.
If the mechanic allows only one node "ownership" by one Guild then if a Mega-guild owns it, there is no monopoly.
If however the Mega-guild is actually an alliance, then a sub-guild/alt guild can gain ownership and there is multi-ownership of nodes by one master guild.
There will always be workarounds, but perhaps any node ownership (be that a mechanic) might need to be extended to alliance cross check.
Seems like we must be talking about castle nodes? And holding a monopoly on castles? I don't think it matters because all the other guilds on the server can ally to oust whomever is occupying the castle.
But, we first have to know the mechanism for "ownership" of a castle. Can an alliance hold the castle? Can multiple guilds hold one castle?
Seems like a good question to ask tomorrow. I think I have something about that already in the Q&A thread.
How can a community that has been playing with each other for 16 years but are larger than the maximum guild size enjoy Ashes of Creation and be a participating part of the community?
It's easy to point out faults. Let's point out a solution. So far the ONLY answer is that we don't. That finally the game we've looked for for years is finally here yet due to it's restrictions we wouldn't be able to play together as we have for the better part of two decades. What would your solution be if you were in my shoes. Knowing we've poured our hearts into this game, grown attached and until the news broke of 300 person guild limits we had invested in this game, supported it, promoted it, and had our heart set on it. What solution is there other than to break the community. Because in all honesty that has not fared well among the community in the past and it's not something we want to do in the future.
The only option presented is to create an alliance full of guilds and divide ourselves among the guilds using alliance chat.
But in all honesty. What's the difference if 500 people play in 1 guild or if 500 people play in 2 guilds in an alliance? Their still 500 people in the same community, they just have to work harder to manage rosters.
that's why I suggested/proposed an exponential upkeep mechanic per membership threshold and inclusive to alliances as well for that matter.
You are welcome to manage as many members as you can sustain....
Understand that when you declare your mega guild on a server you are acting also as a massive deterrent to any non conformity and are breaking the game before you play it to some extent , whether you accept it or not.
Seems like we must be talking about castle nodes? And holding a monopoly on castles? I don't think it matters because all the other guilds on the server can ally to oust whomever is occupying the castle.
But, we first have to know the mechanism for "ownership" of a castle. Can an alliance hold the castle? Can multiple guilds hold one castle?
Wild speculation here, but since there are 3 defensive nodes around a castle, that the primary attacking guild gets the castle and its allies get to own each of the three nodes. So yeah, there would be a limit of three allies in an attack. Even wilder speculation... need more alcohol
How can a community that has been playing with each other for 16 years but are larger than the maximum guild size enjoy Ashes of Creation and be a participating part of the community?
It's easy to point out faults. Let's point out a solution. So far the ONLY answer is that we don't. That finally the game we've looked for for years is finally here yet due to it's restrictions we wouldn't be able to play together as we have for the better part of two decades. What would your solution be if you were in my shoes. Knowing we've poured our hearts into this game, grown attached and until the news broke of 300 person guild limits we had invested in this game, supported it, promoted it, and had our heart set on it. What solution is there other than to break the community. Because in all honesty that has not fared well among the community in the past and it's not something we want to do in the future.
The only option presented is to create an alliance full of guilds and divide ourselves among the guilds using alliance chat.
But in all honesty. What's the difference if 500 people play in 1 guild or if 500 people play in 2 guilds in an alliance? Their still 500 people in the same community, they just have to work harder to manage rosters.
You have to play the specific game to figure that out. And we aren't anywhere close to having enough details on the mechanics to have any kind of meaningful speculation. You don't even know if there really is a problem that requires a solution.
Lots of people think that Ashes is is the game they've been looking for - except for certain restrictions. PvE folk have said that. RP folk have said that.
So, yeah, it's easy to point out faults when you haven't even played the game yet - and we have, like 7% of the info on the game design.
My solution if I were in your shoes would be to wait to see how it feels. And realize that it is likely the case that the devs want the in-game guilds to be smaller in order to boost PvP conflict - since PvP conflict is the driving mechanic of the game. Find opportunities to discuss the devs' game design philosophy with the devs and see if it appears to clash too strongly with how the members of your community like to play. And then play the game when you get the chance and see how well it it matches your needs.
Alliances break. Again, if 200 members get purged from a mega-guild because they are casual, they lose guild perks, including guild augments, and then they have to look for a new guild or create a new guild and start progressing that guild from scratch. If those 200 members are a guild that is part of an alliance, when the alliance is broken, when the alliance is broken, that guild retains all of their guild perks. And they can still be part of the same community.
Meaningful Conflict (PvP conflict) is one of the 4 Pillars of the game design. You will need to examine how that will affect the cohesiveness of your community. Smaller guild size means that the sub-groups of a mega-guild are pushed towards more diversity: Some can focus on the horizontal perk progression of small guilds while others focus on the vertical perk progression for large guilds. Each of the sub-guilds will have a choice to spread out among the different types of nodes or remain together in one node. Each of the sub-guilds will be able to choose whether they wish to focus more on Religious progression or Social progression or Naval progression. And then will have to see in-game how those different decisions impact the unity of any in-game alliance. Playing together as a community may mean that in-game the characters are in opposition - much like playing Battleship or Bridge or Poker. And - if everyone just want to be able to communicate with each other even while their characters are at war with each other - that's what twitch and discord and skype and youtube are for. All kinds of ways for thousands of players to chat together without being part of the same alliance. Alliance chat is not the only option.
Seems like we must be talking about castle nodes? And holding a monopoly on castles? I don't think it matters because all the other guilds on the server can ally to oust whomever is occupying the castle.
But, we first have to know the mechanism for "ownership" of a castle. Can an alliance hold the castle? Can multiple guilds hold one castle?
Wild speculation here, but since there are 3 defensive nodes around a castle, that the primary attacking guild gets the castle and its allies get to own each of the three nodes. So yeah, there would be a limit of three allies in an attack. Even wilder speculation... need more alcohol
Sounds cool to me!!
Let's see if we can get the devs to confirm!
Seems like we must be talking about castle nodes? And holding a monopoly on castles? I don't think it matters because all the other guilds on the server can ally to oust whomever is occupying the castle.
But, we first have to know the mechanism for "ownership" of a castle. Can an alliance hold the castle? Can multiple guilds hold one castle?
Wild speculation here, but since there are 3 defensive nodes around a castle, that the primary attacking guild gets the castle and its allies get to own each of the three nodes. So yeah, there would be a limit of three allies in an attack. Even wilder speculation... need more alcohol
Sounds cool to me!!
Let's see if we can get the devs to confirm!
* Quotes not quite working, and can't reset.
Anyhow..
They suggested that there would be objectives to fulfill in order to take over a castle.
For L2, this was also objective based to take over the castles. Whilst there was general agreement prior to the siege which clan or the warring clans would undertake the objectives to become in-power... it did not prevent rouge players from taking control and becoming the new seat of power.
Now, I have no idea what they are going to implement for this game, but will be interested to know!
As suggested alliance chat would help a lot in any issues. I personally would suggest Intrepid to let the guild cap be as high as their systems can allow it. Alliances can make it work but seems like an extra step that is not needed if a big guild just wants to add more members. But at the end of the day there seem to always be work arounds for any limits that are put up. Gamers will find a way to game the systems.
It's not really gaming the system though. That's just playing the game according to expected parameters.
Was only referring to it being a work around from what might be a particular guilds ideal situation of having everyone in one guild. I did not mean it in a negative light if that is how it came off. You are correct that it is just using the parameters put in place.
Be honest, the reason conglomerates aka large guilds exists is not because of a family friendly lets all be friends all the time mentality. It's is a mob mentality to more or less abuse/exploit game mechanics or lack thereof by overwhelming design without consequence.
So what would you guys think if (step out of what you know and imagine what if)
Guilds Can Be Up to 500 Accounts - Cool the rage a moment and listen to the rest.
Guild can only own 1 node. - Each guild could back a node and support it's growth.
Guilds would be based on Accounts not Characters. This would prevent 1 guild from creating 10 sub guilds and linking them through an alliance to be able to claim more territory. It would require 10 different people running those sub guilds which I can tell you from first hand experience is a nightmare to try to manage and usually ends up with guilds under your lead breaking off on their own.
As to what someone gets out of a larger guild and community. You can not speak for others. I stay in my gaming community because I like the atmosphere and freinds.
As to guild size, for communities it is easier to manage one guild than several smaller guilds.
As to guild cap: what is the difference if you have 500 members in one guild vs 5 guilds of 100 in an alliance? Also to the point claiming nodes, multiple guilds could claim more than one node. and would give you more influence than just one guild / node. Let the guilds choose how they'd rather play.
Steven has said that guilds will be character based, to be alt freindly and to allow for intrigue and espionage
I think should balance not prevail over time, there will be "acts of gods" mechanics that occur under the premise of upsetting the balance with world bosses or other to keep things in check.. either openly by IS or behind the scenes.
Seriously though, if the guild size is not capped, or capped there will be will always be someone that finds a work around to get a result!
It's not really gaming the system though. That's just playing the game according to expected parameters.
Was only referring to it being a work around from what might be a particular guilds ideal situation of having everyone in one guild. I did not mean it in a negative light if that is how it came off. You are correct that it is just using the parameters put in place.
Didn't seem negative to me. I was just clarifying. Work around from the view of a mega-guild - that makes sense. Yeah.
There is literally no way to make everyone happy. I think it would be neat to identify perks that would be beneficial to each type of guild, and base the perk system off of guild style. Or like was mentioned before, just make guilds have no perks whatsoever. I have to say that I personally am for capping guilds and forming alliances. The cap size could be dependent on base player style, perhaps? I'd hate to see 1000 hardcores taking over everything. It would ruin the game. 300 seems reasonable for semi hardcore, 100 for hardcore, and 1000 for casual. Maybe measured by per capita game hours logged to keep it honest? Idk.
Soreal, the devs can counter a 1000 hard core guild with game mechanics. They just increase the risk vs reward based on the power of a guild. Even the roman empire fell by stretching too thin. Real life follows the same premises. The bigger your territory the harder it is to keep your empire.
But that said one thing they need to separate is 1000 roster slots vs 1000 online characters. Those are 2 entirely different things. Their system would need to identify how many people are online recently (to prevent logoff to lower risk copout) in the guild.
I doubt any guild ever that's over 100 people has seen 100% of their population online at the same time. If so they deserve a cookie. Because that is something I've never seen. Usually 20%-25% online at primetime is a good day.
Large guilds (if population allows) allow for bigger community and thus more socialization.
However if total population is not as high this may backfire. Game is built around guild PvP, and if everybody would just join a few large guilds there would be much less conflict around the world, reducing amount of PvP, and thus working against game mechanics.
I am all for bigger guild caps, but only as long as it doesn't end up in everyone joining one big guild and thus this results in no PvP, no guild wars, no node wars etc.
300 people is plenty in my opinion. I don't even think I know 300 people, and there's only one person I actually care anything about.
If you want to let a guy who logs in for 10 min once a week to hold a slot in your guild, that's a sacrifice you need to decide wether you really want.
Karthos, your motivations are clear. I choose to allow people to have families and real lives. I care about a lot more people than myself. Your attitude highlights EXACTLY why I created Gaiscioch in the first place. Perhaps once you have a member of your community pass on and you realize it isn't pixels you're interacting with its people maybe your heart will change. I choose not to follow that path.
You can judge and assume all you want, until you've been a Gaiscioch you will never know the lengths I go for my members. Each and every one of them is important to me. You can assume just because we're big means that I don't care, or that people are just numbers, but that's simply not the case. Every person who walks through that door is considered family to me. Whether its advice they need, help finding a job, a couch to crash on during their travels, or to share a pint at a local pub. They are all people, and I do my very best to get to know all of them. I could not choose 300 players to allow to come with me to Ashes. I would rather not play at all then have to chose.
@foghladha you can make 2 guilds instead of just one. You name them almost the same (one letter difference or something), you put same logo, you use same website, same discord, only in game it's two guilds instead of one.
If game allows for it you can (even in game) create a custom chat channel where people from both guilds can talk together (in addition to discord, etc).
Then in one guild you put members that are more often online, and in other guild you put more social members that log in more rarely.
U all play together (with custom chat channel you can also type no problem together) you do dungeons together and everything, and you have enough room for all your members.
Your problems are thus solved like that, regardless of what guild caps we will have.
@foghladha you can make 2 guilds instead of just one. You name them almost the same (one letter difference or something), you put same logo, you use same website, same discord, only in game it's two guilds instead of one.
This is my point from way earlier in the thread. If the game allows you to bypass the guild cap by having multiple guild alliances then what is the point of the guild cap? Intrepid have stated that there will be disadvantages to having large guilds. That some augments will only be available to smaller guilds. I think this is a far more sensible approach than having a hard cap.
Another way to balance the game without hard guild caps is to limit the number of combatants from each guild in a castle siege. This is where a hard cap would make far more sense, rather than limiting overall guild membership and thus locking out guilds with a large social community, or guilds that represent artisans across the entire map.
Smart system design > simplistic numerical caps is why Ashes > other MMOs.
@lexmax I think, in Ashes, the guild caps are to help ensure that the world is dynamic and subject to more change than is possible when the leadership of a mega-guild is commanded by a handful of people.
Alliances break. Again, if 200 members get purged from a mega-guild because they are casual, they lose guild perks, including guild augments, and then they have to look for a new guild or create a new guild and start progressing that guild from scratch. If those 200 members are a guild that is part of an alliance, when the alliance is broken, when the alliance is broken, that guild retains all of their guild perks. And they can still be part of the same community.
Meaningful Conflict (PvP conflict) is one of the 4 Pillars of the game design.
Game is built around guild PvP, and if everybody would just join a few large guilds there would be much less conflict around the world, reducing amount of PvP, and thus working against game mechanics.
@foghladha you can make 2 guilds instead of just one. You name them almost the same (one letter difference or something), you put same logo, you use same website, same discord, only in game it's two guilds instead of one.
If game allows for it you can (even in game) create a custom chat channel where people from both guilds can talk together (in addition to discord, etc).
Then in one guild you put members that are more often online, and in other guild you put more social members that log in more rarely.
U all play together (with custom chat channel you can also type no problem together) you do dungeons together and everything, and you have enough room for all your members.
Your problems are thus solved like that, regardless of what guild caps we will have.
Yes, I've made note of that several times in this post as a likely solution. My bigger question was from a game design standpoint how does breaking 1 large guild into multiple smaller guilds help the game rather than building game mechanics to increase difficulty as the guild grows. It seems having 5 guilds in an alliance would lend itself more to having a single guild overrun a server rather than having 1 large guild that can be contained.
@lexmax I think, in Ashes, the guild caps are to help ensure that the world is dynamic and subject to more change than is possible when the leadership of a mega-guild is commanded by a handful of people.
There's kind of a "law of excluded middle" argument going on here. I'm just pointing out there are viable solutions to the OPs issues that won't necessarily break the game.
IS have stated that large guilds will not be eligible for certain buffs/augments.
Guilds who are in-game for mainly social reasons will rarely be bothered by this penalty. Hardcore PvX guilds on the other hand,will necessarily focus on min/maxing their combat potential.
My point is, smart systems designs such as augments that only apply to small guilds can enforce soft caps that min/maxers will never want to exceed, thus keeping the game balance, while allowing large social guilds to exist without breaking game balance.
Right. But, you asked "If the game allows you to bypass the guild cap by having multiple guild alliances then what is the point of the guild cap?" Which is different than solutions. I just was answering your question.
Augments aren't an alternative to guild caps. Guild caps are not really about keeping the game in balance - it's more about keeping the game dynamic and nudging people towards player vs player conflict. More guilds means more chance for conflicting objectives between the various guilds.
Right. But, you asked "If the game allows you to bypass the guild cap by having multiple guild alliances then what is the point of the guild cap?" Which is different than solutions. I just was answering your question.
Augments aren't an alternative to guild caps. Guild caps are not really about keeping the game in balance - it's more about keeping the game dynamic and nudging people towards player vs player conflict. More guilds means more chance for conflicting objectives between the various guilds.
YES!
Anyone ever been on a server dominated by a mega guild? One whose just so bloated they win my just showing up?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Give me a bunch of smaller guilds duking it out any day.
Comments
If the mechanic allows only one node "ownership" by one Guild then if a Mega-guild owns it, there is no monopoly.
If however the Mega-guild is actually an alliance, then a sub-guild/alt guild can gain ownership and there is multi-ownership of nodes by one master guild.
There will always be workarounds, but perhaps any node ownership (be that a mechanic) might need to be extended to alliance cross check.
Thoughts on this one?
And holding a monopoly on castles?
I don't think it matters because all the other guilds on the server can ally to oust whomever is occupying the castle.
But, we first have to know the mechanism for "ownership" of a castle.
Can an alliance hold the castle? Can multiple guilds hold one castle?
Seems like a good question to ask tomorrow.
I think I have something about that already in the Q&A thread.
How can a community that has been playing with each other for 16 years but are larger than the maximum guild size enjoy Ashes of Creation and be a participating part of the community?
It's easy to point out faults. Let's point out a solution. So far the ONLY answer is that we don't. That finally the game we've looked for for years is finally here yet due to it's restrictions we wouldn't be able to play together as we have for the better part of two decades. What would your solution be if you were in my shoes. Knowing we've poured our hearts into this game, grown attached and until the news broke of 300 person guild limits we had invested in this game, supported it, promoted it, and had our heart set on it. What solution is there other than to break the community. Because in all honesty that has not fared well among the community in the past and it's not something we want to do in the future.
The only option presented is to create an alliance full of guilds and divide ourselves among the guilds using alliance chat.
But in all honesty. What's the difference if 500 people play in 1 guild or if 500 people play in 2 guilds in an alliance? Their still 500 people in the same community, they just have to work harder to manage rosters.
You are welcome to manage as many members as you can sustain....
Understand that when you declare your mega guild on a server you are acting also as a massive deterrent to any non conformity and are breaking the game before you play it to some extent , whether you accept it or not.
And we aren't anywhere close to having enough details on the mechanics to have any kind of meaningful speculation.
You don't even know if there really is a problem that requires a solution.
Lots of people think that Ashes is is the game they've been looking for - except for certain restrictions. PvE folk have said that. RP folk have said that.
So, yeah, it's easy to point out faults when you haven't even played the game yet - and we have, like 7% of the info on the game design.
My solution if I were in your shoes would be to wait to see how it feels.
And realize that it is likely the case that the devs want the in-game guilds to be smaller in order to boost PvP conflict - since PvP conflict is the driving mechanic of the game.
Find opportunities to discuss the devs' game design philosophy with the devs and see if it appears to clash too strongly with how the members of your community like to play. And then play the game when you get the chance and see how well it it matches your needs.
Alliances break.
Again, if 200 members get purged from a mega-guild because they are casual, they lose guild perks, including guild augments, and then they have to look for a new guild or create a new guild and start progressing that guild from scratch.
If those 200 members are a guild that is part of an alliance, when the alliance is broken, when the alliance is broken, that guild retains all of their guild perks.
And they can still be part of the same community.
Meaningful Conflict (PvP conflict) is one of the 4 Pillars of the game design.
You will need to examine how that will affect the cohesiveness of your community.
Smaller guild size means that the sub-groups of a mega-guild are pushed towards more diversity:
Some can focus on the horizontal perk progression of small guilds while others focus on the vertical perk progression for large guilds.
Each of the sub-guilds will have a choice to spread out among the different types of nodes or remain together in one node.
Each of the sub-guilds will be able to choose whether they wish to focus more on Religious progression or Social progression or Naval progression.
And then will have to see in-game how those different decisions impact the unity of any in-game alliance.
Playing together as a community may mean that in-game the characters are in opposition - much like playing Battleship or Bridge or Poker.
And - if everyone just want to be able to communicate with each other even while their characters are at war with each other - that's what twitch and discord and skype and youtube are for.
All kinds of ways for thousands of players to chat together without being part of the same alliance. Alliance chat is not the only option.
That's just playing the game according to expected parameters.
As to what someone gets out of a larger guild and community. You can not speak for others. I stay in my gaming community because I like the atmosphere and freinds.
As to guild size, for communities it is easier to manage one guild than several smaller guilds.
As to guild cap: what is the difference if you have 500 members in one guild vs 5 guilds of 100 in an alliance? Also to the point claiming nodes, multiple guilds could claim more than one node. and would give you more influence than just one guild / node. Let the guilds choose how they'd rather play.
Steven has said that guilds will be character based, to be alt freindly and to allow for intrigue and espionage
I think should balance not prevail over time, there will be "acts of gods" mechanics that occur under the premise of upsetting the balance with world bosses or other to keep things in check.. either openly by IS or behind the scenes.
Seriously though, if the guild size is not capped, or capped there will be will always be someone that finds a work around to get a result!
Work around from the view of a mega-guild - that makes sense. Yeah.
But that said one thing they need to separate is 1000 roster slots vs 1000 online characters. Those are 2 entirely different things. Their system would need to identify how many people are online recently (to prevent logoff to lower risk copout) in the guild.
I doubt any guild ever that's over 100 people has seen 100% of their population online at the same time. If so they deserve a cookie. Because that is something I've never seen. Usually 20%-25% online at primetime is a good day.
However if total population is not as high this may backfire. Game is built around guild PvP, and if everybody would just join a few large guilds there would be much less conflict around the world, reducing amount of PvP, and thus working against game mechanics.
I am all for bigger guild caps, but only as long as it doesn't end up in everyone joining one big guild and thus this results in no PvP, no guild wars, no node wars etc.
If you want to let a guy who logs in for 10 min once a week to hold a slot in your guild, that's a sacrifice you need to decide wether you really want.
You can judge and assume all you want, until you've been a Gaiscioch you will never know the lengths I go for my members. Each and every one of them is important to me. You can assume just because we're big means that I don't care, or that people are just numbers, but that's simply not the case. Every person who walks through that door is considered family to me. Whether its advice they need, help finding a job, a couch to crash on during their travels, or to share a pint at a local pub. They are all people, and I do my very best to get to know all of them. I could not choose 300 players to allow to come with me to Ashes. I would rather not play at all then have to chose.
If game allows for it you can (even in game) create a custom chat channel where people from both guilds can talk together (in addition to discord, etc).
Then in one guild you put members that are more often online, and in other guild you put more social members that log in more rarely.
U all play together (with custom chat channel you can also type no problem together) you do dungeons together and everything, and you have enough room for all your members.
Your problems are thus solved like that, regardless of what guild caps we will have.
Another way to balance the game without hard guild caps is to limit the number of combatants from each guild in a castle siege. This is where a hard cap would make far more sense, rather than limiting overall guild membership and thus locking out guilds with a large social community, or guilds that represent artisans across the entire map.
Smart system design > simplistic numerical caps is why Ashes > other MMOs.
I think, in Ashes, the guild caps are to help ensure that the world is dynamic and subject to more change than is possible when the leadership of a mega-guild is commanded by a handful of people.
Alliances break.
Again, if 200 members get purged from a mega-guild because they are casual, they lose guild perks, including guild augments, and then they have to look for a new guild or create a new guild and start progressing that guild from scratch.
If those 200 members are a guild that is part of an alliance, when the alliance is broken, when the alliance is broken, that guild retains all of their guild perks.
And they can still be part of the same community.
Meaningful Conflict (PvP conflict) is one of the 4 Pillars of the game design.
Gothix said: Quoted For Truth
Which is different than solutions.
I just was answering your question.
Augments aren't an alternative to guild caps.
Guild caps are not really about keeping the game in balance - it's more about keeping the game dynamic and nudging people towards player vs player conflict.
More guilds means more chance for conflicting objectives between the various guilds.
Anyone ever been on a server dominated by a mega guild? One whose just so bloated they win my just showing up?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Give me a bunch of smaller guilds duking it out any day.