So we had this discussion on discord.

ArchivedUser

First of all some information.

There will be 5 guild castles in the world that a guild can capture and defend.





Questions of the poll is: Do you think the guild castle should be sharable with your alliances?



IMO Yes. Why? Well I am all in for the community and have a bunch of guilds that are friends with each other share a castle with each other thats limited in the world. Is just great.


There are some + and - with this but I think its awesome, cause you will fight and defend it with your guild and your allianced guilds.

ArchivedUser

There is already going to be a lot of cooperation between guilds in the game. Alliances have the node system to play with.

Castles give guilds a singular objective that will be difficult to maintain. It'll separate good and bad guilds. 

ArchivedUser

tugowar said:

There is already going to be a lot of cooperation between guilds in the game. Alliances have the node system to play with.

Castles give guild a singular objective that will be difficult to maintain. It'll separate good and bad guilds. 

Thats true, but from this video those castles looks sick. If this is correct.

But you are right.

ArchivedUser

I wouldn't want them to be shareable. I'd like them to be an incentive for Guild vs Guild content.

ArchivedUser

TheCouchNerd said:

I wouldn't want them to be shareable. I'd like them to be an incentive for Guild vs Guild content.

I have to agree.  Guilds also need some sort of competition between each other.   

ArchivedUser

Castles are a game mode for PvP guilds, nodes are for Alliances. 

ArchivedUser

^ for the same reasons mentioned above

ArchivedUser

Not once, not twice, but thrice!

If a server only has 3 castles, and those castles are protected by entire alliances, they start to sound less like a source of pvp interest and more like a stagnant fixture.

ArchivedUser

Castles are going to be status symbols in game. That status is not how many friends you have, but rather how well you have your shit together as a guild in all facets of the game.

If a castle can be managed, maintained and defended via Zerg, then that status is gone in my opinion. That's what nodes are for as mentioned by @tugowar

Castles are going to need good PvP, along with good management and organization skills. Sure numbers will help, but guilds who just Zerg everything are easily beaten because they have one strength, which appears to be minimized in the system above by the guild only perimeter.

I for one am glad to see this in Ashes.

ArchivedUser

The thing that bothers me is that the 3 nodes will be military only.  Is this perhaps because these are designated areas to build siege weapons?  What if your guild focus isn't military? does that preclude your guild from obtaining a castle?

ArchivedUser

Maybe if your guild is not military/conflict oriented they would rather you spend time in the cities?

Otherwise, non-military/pvp guilds are likely going to want to open a PvP branch to defend them during sieges. If it's an economic guild perhaps they can pay neighboring nodes/cities to help defend.

ArchivedUser

They are military and can only go to stage 4 because they are going to be contested constantly. The next guild to attack has to take out the 3 nodes in preparation for the castle siege. So military nodes to resist attacks would be preferred. The cycle would be guild gets castle. Has one month to build up those 3 nodes and reinforce the castle. Next guild incoming. First week, they have to take out node one, second week, node two, third week, node 3, and 4th week the castle itself. Difficulty of the castle siege based off of how well they did in the connected node sieges to eliminate defenses.
I am more worried about guild alliances doing stuff similar to emperor swapping that occurred in ESO. An alliance of a few guilds will be able to hold a swath of nodes and a castle fairly easily. Depending on how open the siege mechanic for a guild to attack a castle is, they could just swap the castle among themselves, keeping the mechanic locked from others. 

ArchivedUser

@UnknownSystemError
That sounds like a bad deal but let me get this straight:
The castle holding guild is about to go down in a siege, so they let one of the guilds from the alliance nodes take the castle in order to keep other guilds from getting the castle? Then keep swapping back and forth?

ArchivedUser

Yep. We don't know yet what restrictions there are on siege mechanics, but separate guilds in an alliance could easily coordinate castle swapping in an area, locking out other from a chance. If, for example, once PownStars holds the castle, their buddies Nubsmackers declare for the next seige. PownStars do minimal effort to build defenses, knowing that Nubsmackers have locked in as the guild sieging. Then Nubsmackers become the castle holders for the next cycle and so on. Anyone coming into their node ZOI from other guilds is met and repelled by  the full alliance, keeping them from getting near the castle to declare siege.
ESO had a system where that cycles Emperor (which came with its own skill line you kept as long as you held the title, similar to only 0.001 percent being able to fly in Ashes) came from leaderboard rankings. Two large guilds would have groups in opposing factions, decide on who was going to be emperor for that cycle, have the opposing team meet up to slaughtered by the person getting the title to inflate that persons status to unchallenged on the leaderboards.

ArchivedUser

Well, that certainly doesn't sound ideal, but hopefully they'll consider ways to avoid that sort of thing..

ArchivedUser

Yeah jeez that's kinda crazy. The dev team seems like they have an ear to the community here though. If it does happen in Alpha, I'm sure it'll get squashed by the time Beta rolls out.

ArchivedUser

This will force every guild to be a part of an alliance. This is against the Intrepid's idea, they want to give a chance to smaller guilds to survive. 

ArchivedUser

It would help organize the guilds a bit. Having a wing just for the lesser guilds would give them incentive to do more for the node.

ArchivedUser

@Theosis Regular nodes and Castles with their 3 dedicated/limited nodes are two different systems. Regular nodes will not be controlled by guilds, Castles will be a guild only mechanic. So while there may be a city node adjacent to a castle ZOI, actions taken in the castle zoi will do nothing for node development beyond those 3 military nodes tied to the castle.

ArchivedUser

Thanks for that info, I was not aware of it.. I take breaks from my rabid interest in AoC so I do miss out on new information for periods of time.

ArchivedUser

Would be nice if guild castles could be shared with alliances However I think its unlikely that they will be.

ArchivedUser

I voted no because I just don't think it would work not because I don't like the idea.  Guilds can be aligned with whoever they like so there would be a constant conflict of interests.  Guild A is aligned with guild B  Guild C is also aligned with guild B  Guild C isn't aligned with guild A and want the castle.   Oh what a muddle.  

ArchivedUser

Don't have enough information on the node and node types yet to decide if this would be a good idea or not.

If you cant flag against allies etc and such would not be able to siege you, I don't know how allies could siege there own node. So in this case you aren't competing with allies, your cooperating with them.

Don't forget this isn't the typical my group vs their group game. Your game will depends on teamwork with other groups who can never be flagged.

ArchivedUser

Rune_Relic said:

Don't have enough information on the node and node types yet to decide if this would be a good idea or not.

If you cant flag against allies etc and such would not be able to siege you, I don't know how allies could siege there own node. So in this case you aren't competing with allies, your cooperating with them.

Don't forget this isn't the typical my group vs their group game. Your game will depends on teamwork with other groups who can never be flagged.

This question is for castles, not for nodes. Guilds do NOT own nodes. 1 mayor governs them.

ArchivedUser

AeonAuron said:

Rune_Relic said:

Don't have enough information on the node and node types yet to decide if this would be a good idea or not.

If you cant flag against allies etc and such would not be able to siege you, I don't know how allies could siege there own node. So in this case you aren't competing with allies, your cooperating with them.

Don't forget this isn't the typical my group vs their group game. Your game will depends on teamwork with other groups who can never be flagged.

This question is for castles, not for nodes. Guilds do NOT own nodes. 1 mayor governs them.

and ?......

Still dont know the full depth of which groups are and are not considered enemies and thus are open to flagging. I have no doubt there will be guild you cant fight because they would be in conflict with other systems.

ArchivedUser

It's Part of GvG content. There needs to be something that separates each guild from each other guild. This is, and should be one of those things.

Competition between guilds on guild per guild basis must exist.

ArchivedUser

I voted for it being shared, after reading the comments I can see why it might be better if it's not shared, however, I do feel like the alliances should not fight together in the war for the castle if it isn't shared - they will need to fight each other or things could get weird/cause drama if they have to decide who will get the castle.

ArchivedUser

Anything that closest resembles what happens in reality.  During medieval times, would sharing occur?  If multiple rulers came together to take down a castle, who would get ownership?  Would you allow allies to come in, yes.  Deciding ownership is what can lead to alliances splitting or stabbing another in the back, which would keep things interesting.

ArchivedUser

To the winners go the spoils!!!.

ArchivedUser

anyone PM me the link to the discord please

ArchivedUser

Sintu said:

To the winners go the spoils!!!.

^^ THIS!

Is there a limit to guild size? (still new and digging up as much knowledge from you guys as I can!)

Train, recruit, train, repeat... until you are as good and coordinated as you need to be to beat the castle holders on your own.

Pass on all those little hints and tips, skilled players take people under their wings and show them how to improve

Or in other words act as a guild should