If multiple guilds attack a castle, who takes ownership?

ArchivedUser

I promised myself I wouldn't come back to the forums till a little before launch to try and ease the agony of waiting, but alas, here I am.

My question is: If an alliance consisting of more than one guild has successfully sieged an enemy castle, which guild takes ownership? What metrics will be used to decide which guild the castle goes to when multiple attacking guilds are involved?

ArchivedUser

Hopefully the metrics are more complex than "who had more bodies?" If ownership is transferred immediately after the siege, it is likely there will be a participation score of some sort that takes into account all actions that benefited the siege. 

Alternatively, ownership may not be immediately gained. Maybe you have to perform some quest or task as a guild to rebuild it. It's definitely a system that will need some love. :-)

ArchivedUser

I like the idea of a participation metric, but I don't want ownership to be in favor of the larger size mega guilds. I feel like I'd be okay with ownership being a matter of conditions set between the leaders of the various guild coalitions prior to the siege event.

Hopefully the system allows for the medium sized guilds to have just as much of a shot at getting a castle than these huge guilds.

ArchivedUser

They have released almost nothing about how it is to be determined, especially in the case of guild alliances. You can be sure that there will only be one guild in charge of the castle. So the idea of swapping who gets to control the dragon for that month is not going to be a shared thing. We do know that whichever guild controls the castle then has their members automatically flagged as garrison for the castle and can develop the surrounding 3 connected military nodes to level 4. Whether efforts by alliance members will allow for support of this buildup is also not known. Just like node sieges there is probably a quest mechanic to become eligible to siege the castle, whether it is first come, first serve lockout, or some other mechanic will need to be clarified in the future. They have stated multiple times that a max population cap guild will not have any real advantage over smaller and medium sized guilds due to mechanics they plan to put in place.

@Efroc you can bet that there will be no player agency to determine who gets control after the initial declaration mechanic. This will be to stop people from just swapping ownership among a coalition of guilds, thus locking out anyone else from getting a chance. Just like people trying to feed pvp kills in the military node arena to ensure their candidate becomes leader, workarounds and exploits to the intended system will be reported and most likely will result in the standard warnings working up to a ban for repeat offenders. (example: ESO emperor swapping)

ArchivedUser

I would most likely see something where the guild declaring / paying for declaration of war would be the one obtaining the land/castle. In ArcheAge the ticket to declare war on a region was put up for bid, then whoever got the bid had the ticket and were responsible to do what they wanted with it or sell it in game to another bidder outside the initial.

In AoC I could easily see something like a requisite amount of gold in the guild bank allowing for the declaration of the war/siege. After this the alliance would automatically be allowed in, and it would be up to the members to appear. It would be left to players to determine what happens. Does Guild Y in the Alliance not show up for Guild X's declaration? Well guess who is not going to have help from Guild X when Guild Y declares a siege.

The interplay of politics would be a great spot for this.