Will the guild vs guild content, like the clan castles be instanced?

ArchivedUser

It should be right?

Otherwise another guild could gank the event and help the other guilds. While this is clearly a guild vs guild content.

What are your thoughts on this?

ArchivedUser

Castles are open world AFAIK
If you want to pick a fight with multiple guilds, you better have the manpower to support that

Guild vs Guild can declare war on each other but it is structured with clearly defined goals and objectives.
What is involved I cant recall.
Guild halls are not the same as castles.

ArchivedUser

Rune_Relic said:

Castles are open world AFAIK
If you want to pick a fight with multiple guilds, you better have the manpower to support that

Guild vs Guild can declare war on each other but it is structured with clearly defined goals and objectives.
What is involved I cant recall.
Guild halls are not the same as castles.

But still,  there should be no influence of other guilds or its still a who has the most allys.

ArchivedUser

@Fleelix I think that is the point: politics. I hope they overcome technical limitations so that you could potentially have thousands vs thousands of players in a siege. 

ArchivedUser

tugowar said:

@Fleelix I think that is the point: politics. I hope they overcome technical limitations so that you could potentially have thousands vs thousands of players in a siege. 

With a siege I am fine with that idea. But the guild castles should be about guild power and not combined power.

ArchivedUser

Fleelix said:

tugowar said:

@Fleelix I think that is the point: politics. I hope they overcome technical limitations so that you could potentially have thousands vs thousands of players in a siege. 

With a siege I am fine with that idea. But the guild castles should be about guild power and not combined power.

Its meant to encourage alliance and trade agreements as one large guild with no allies could be taken over by many small guilds 

ArchivedUser

There will always be people who try and profit from war too.

I hope to run a little smuggling business to bring in resources to nodes/castles under siege. If it's instanced, I can't so that, and I so have my heart set on it. 

ArchivedUser

Siege on a node I am fine thats a world event. But what about the guild v guild event wich the guild castles are hopefully.

ArchivedUser

Castles are openworld pvp.
Week 1  - resource node A of castle is sieged.
Week 2  - resource node B of castle is sieged.
Week 3  - resource node C of castle is sieged.
Week 4 - Castle is sieged, defenses dependant on the previous 3 weeks of castle resource node sieges.

ArchivedUser

Part of the guild vs guild wars will be politics with guilds outside of that war. Calling a friendly guild to your guilds aid in these battles is what will be an integral part of the intended player driven narrative. Instancing would detract from the experience, there should be an arena for guild vs guild, but the politics surrounding castle sieges should not strictly be guild vs guild, more like guild alliance vs guild alliance.

ArchivedUser

I'm glad castles are open world, it's great to see people going crazy over castles. The fight and all would be really fun

ArchivedUser

Fleelix said:

It should be right?

Otherwise another guild could gank the event and help the other guilds. While this is clearly a guild vs guild content.

What are your thoughts on this?

Hmm.. I prefer the idea that while attacking guilds can ask or hire other guilds or mercenaries for help to siege a castle, the defending guild can also ask or hire other guilds or mercenaries to help with their defense.

ArchivedUser

Needs to be instanced? Not necessarily. It can be Open World but limited to Guild A and Guild B, who are siege participators, so if a stranger Guild C enters the area they will die instantly.

ArchivedUser

AeonAuron said:

Needs to be instanced? Not necessarily. It can be Open World but limited to Guild A and Guild B, who are siege participators, so if a stranger Guild C enters the area they will die instantly.

Agree, this should be guild v guild content and not who has the most ally's.

Spectator mode would be cool. xD I gues in a later time frame within the game those fights wil be epic, i hope.

ArchivedUser

i prefer the group up with an Alliance instead of the Biggest Guild vs Biggest Guild Castle Siege

ArchivedUser

Roxx said:

i prefer the group up with an Alliance instead of the Biggest Guild vs Biggest Guild Castle Siege

Thats what the node system is for.

ArchivedUser

Multiple guilds attacking a single guild is called a alliance. Alliance is teamwork, and teamwork should be endorsed in online games.

To be honest, a single guild that cannot handle itself has no business being in a castle siege. I am sure there will be smaller events for smaller and weaker guilds too.

Castle sieges are usually reserved for the best and strongest, and obviously alliances or agreements can occur. Through history there have been alliances in every real life war, so it shouldn't be a problem to include that in a game as well.

ArchivedUser

FliP said:

Multiple guilds attacking a single guild is called a alliance. Alliance is teamwork, and teamwork should be endorsed in online games.

To be honest, a single guild that cannot handle itself has no business being in a castle siege. I am sure there will be smaller events for smaller and weaker guilds too.

Castle sieges are usually reserved for the best and strongest, and obviously alliances or agreements can occur. Through history there have been alliances in every real life war, so it shouldn't be a problem to include that in a game as well.

But what about a hardcore guild that would beat everyguild in every situation in GvG. Maybe those or some of these guilds dont want to ally with guilds that arnt that dedicated or hardcore to thier objectives and because of that they dont have it.

Alliances vs alliances should be the nodes. Cause what if your alliance wins with the guild castle. Only 1 guild can habbit it.

ArchivedUser

This is up for guilds to decide and shouldn't be regulated by game mechanics. Even if it was, people will find a workaround.

Who knows, maybe the nature of the community will be different and we won't have alliances at all?

I understand that the downside could be a large alliances that will monopolize node ownership and taxes, but other guilds can group up as well and try to take down the leading alliance. This creates competition and an incentive to play.

ArchivedUser

All depends on how the PvP bubble works.
Open world doesn't mean everyone can do whatever they want to buildings.
Alliances are fair play in castle sieges.

ArchivedUser

If more guilds would be able to join in, then some mechanics should be implemented to incite guilds to fight each other and not group up.

So castle defending guild defends against all attacking guild, while attacking guilds attack castle but also fight each other.

Each attacking guild gets it's own objectives that include fighting other attackers, and depending on success, they get % reward from castle later on, so it is in their interest not only to attack castle but also to fight against other attacking guilds.


Like this, castle sieges would be available for all, and fun without mass grouping vs 1 opponent.

ArchivedUser

I actually hope they won't be.