Metropolis Ranks and Guild Ranks

A friend of mine and I are planning on posting a thread (in the next few days) in the Guild recruitment tab, about a Guild that we want to create. We have a very solid idea of what we want to accomplish, but we don't know if the in-game systems are going to allow it. I'll break down what we want, and then break down why we're unsure if it will be conceivable.

What we want:

We'd like to have a guild/metropolis, that has separate ranks, departments, and titles. For example: We'd have the actual guild itself, and within that guild, we'd have a PVP department, a Gathering department, Crafting Department, Economic Department, Recon Department, and a Governmental department. Each player would have a title or rank as a guild member, and then also have a sub-rank within the guild/metropolis that limits what they can do. For example: Gathering department members would be able to place crafting materials in the guild bank/vault, and only certain people in certain departments (i.e, crafting, economic, governmental) would be able to withdraw the resources and use them to either make gear for other members, or sell them for profit. 

Another example: Gatherers collect resources, (maybe smelts or processes them for experience) and then puts them in the vault for other guild members to use. A crafter then takes out the processed materials and creates potions, gear, or some other items with them (for experience) and then puts the items back into the vault. At that point, a PvP member can take out the consumable, and use it during a siege, or caravan attack; or an economic member can take them out to sell them for profit. But at the end of the day, certain departments have certain responsibilities and certain permissions. So how are we going to be able to organize all of that?

The main question behind all this is, what will be the difference in 'ranking' systems be, between guilds and metropolis's (metropoli?)? Personally, I don't think you shouldn't be FORCED to be in the same guild as those who run the city. If you want to have a small guild with some RL friends, you should be able to do that and be a citizen of a city at the same time. So where's the divide? If it's necessary to have a guild to achieve an organized city, but isn't necessary to be part of that guild to be part of, or help form the city, then where do the city ranks/titles/departments fit with/around the guild ranks/titles/departments? 

Would breaking members up into different departments be a metropolis setting, or a guild one? Or maybe both? The issue that I'm seeing is the communications.. If the departments aren't able to talk to each other (i.e, different guilds in W.o.W to achieve this same type of department system, that have different guild chats), then there will most certainly be issues within the Metropolis, and guild. Which can ultimately cause turmoil, unrest, and revolt. And if different guilds within a single city aren't able to effectively communicate to others, then there will be issues arising from that as well. 

What if a small guild of PvP dedicated players wanted to join our city? Awesome. Though, I'd like them to be part of my PvP department, but they don't want to disband their Guild, and I don't want to have to force them. Is there going to be a way for them to be part of my PvP department chat, without joining the guild? This goes back to the question of will these settings be in the metropolis or guild.

I'm not really sure how to solve this concept, or if it's even going to be an issue, it's just mainly a concept that my friend and I were tossing around, and we ran into this issue. So I decided to throw it up here and see what everyone else thinks as I know there are other guilds thinking along the same lines.

** I understand it's in development, and I understand only so much can be answered, but I'm too excited for this game not to ask questions hahaha **

Comments

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited January 2018
    I think there is some confusion on how metropolis will work. They aren't dependent on guilds. Just because your guild helped the node become a metropolis does not mean your guild or anyone in it will be in charge of the city. Depending on the kind of node it is (military, economic, religious, scientific) leadership of it will be determined differently. What we have been told is: Military node leadership will be decided by trial by combat; economic node leadership will be decided by who has the deepest pockets; religious node leadership will be determined by who has contributed most to their religion; and scientific node leadership will be voted on by the citizens of the node. Other than the leader of the node, we do not really know what other political positions there are or how they will be obtained. But we do know that nodes are not "owned" by a guild. There can and probably will be people of differing guilds all working and participating in the politics of one metropolis.
    I would say that all those departments would probably fall more under a guild hierarchy, but we also don't really know anything about guild ranks either.
  • I don't know much but I do know this; Kyle's mom is a big fat b----.

    --Kid Rock and Joe C.



  • I understand what you're getting at, but my question wasn't so much of how to be leader, but how to organize your metropolis once you are. There are going to be certain players that just want to do PvP, some who just want to craft, and so on and so forth. Will there be a system that allows for these citizens to fall into a certain department of the city (for example: Playername, Gatherer of Metropolis 1, guildname. or Playertwo, Defender of Metropolis 1, guildname), or will it be more of a free-for-all system??
  • Zastro said:
    I think there is some confusion on how metropolis will work. They aren't dependent on guilds. Just because your guild helped the node become a metropolis does not mean your guild or anyone in it will be in charge of the city. Depending on the kind of node it is (military, economic, religious, scientific) leadership of it will be determined differently. What we have been told is: Military node leadership will be decided by trial by combat; economic node leadership will be decided by who has the deepest pockets; religious node leadership will be determined by who has contributed most to their religion; and scientific node leadership will be voted on by the citizens of the node. Other than the leader of the node, we do not really know what other political positions there are or how they will be obtained. But we do know that nodes are not "owned" by a guild. There can and probably will be people of differing guilds all working and participating in the politics of one metropolis.
    I would say that all those departments would probably fall more under a guild hierarchy, but we also don't really know anything about guild ranks either.
    Check out my latest comment. It's not so much about being leader, but the organization of citizens after the fact.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited January 2018
    The simple answer is we don't know if there will be any in game system that allows us to formally establish that. It may be that we will just have to communicate with other people and just talk. But we don't know.
  • Yes, the sad part is no one knows and what really bugs me is how they are going to implement the system. I find it silly that the very guilds that are going to assist bringing  these metropolises up is going to sit idly for a non guild member to take control of their hard work. I feel like what has been described so far is kind of childish in my opinion and that they are going to create  barriers that is going to try to force their vision on how the game should be played.
  • If your guild had such an overarching impact on the development of a metropolis, then it will have most of them being citizens of that node. Which means they will have a say in who is leader, depending on the node type of election. Guilds are going to be capped at 250-300 for the guilds that decide to invest in population cap vs benefits, so one guild would only account for around a third of a metropolis maintenance from what we know. Since metros will need an active base of around 1k players to maintain status, the citizens of that node will out number that particular guild 2 to 1 under what we know of population requirements to maintain node size. They may make it so that if you are a guild leader you are ineligible for mayor status (unconfirmed). That doesn't stop you from promoting your #2 guy and running him for election. Until more is released and we get an actual look at the base system in testing, it is all just hyperbole and speculation, so rage away.
  • The metropolis is not something that belongs to a guild exclusively what's more only 5 metropolises can exist at the same time at any give server (unless this has been changed). The elections are done by citizens of a metropolis so obviously major guilds might be able to get votes for their own members but they don't have any overwhelming advantage. 

    Also just my tought but I don't think the metros will have any social system (like clear rankings between people or any distinct roles) like in all mmo's there is nothing binding you down, the nodes make up the entire (or most of) the world we play on so even if you are a citizen of a node that doesn't mean that you have to participate in the workings of that node (unless you are under a siege or other big events) correct me if I'm wrong though.
  • @AutumnLeaf Nope, you are correct. You could place a freehold in the zoi of a large city or metro. Travel outside the zoi and find greener pastures miles away. All your activities would then benefit that node, and not your "home" one. As a citizen of that node you will probably be bound to war declarations and such, and in the case of a siege you are automatically part of the garrison. So you will be flagged for other nodes that your home node declares as enemies. Could make for some interesting situations out in the big, wide world.
  • @UnknownSystemError Well I am still waiting for information, but so far the system is already set up for fail. Luckily I don't have to rage as I didn't drop a single dollar, so if this game fails (which it will with these half baked ideas) I can laugh and move on to Crowfall or Pantheon. The things Steven said, as I pointed out in the other thread just shows he is clueless about the meta gaming parts of player run content.

    @AutumnLeaf Well it should be run by a collection of guilds and decided by them. Currently some of the systems they have in place aren't going to be used in most cases. It just comes down to the fact that feudalism is what is most likely to occur with what they are describing and the artificial barriers they are putting to prevent that.

    They have stated that all citizens are going to participate in the election process if they want to, so this makes meta gaming easier for other factions. The only thing I am tracking that is binding any citizen down is the properties you have in said city. You being an auxiliary to the guild defenses is still a choice for you.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited January 2018
    Tomoyuki said:
    @UnknownSystemError Well I am still waiting for information, but so far the system is already set up for fail. Luckily I don't have to rage as I didn't drop a single dollar, so if this game fails (which it will with these half baked ideas) I can laugh and move on to Crowfall or Pantheon. The things Steven said, as I pointed out in the other thread just shows he is clueless about the meta gaming parts of player run content.

    @AutumnLeaf Well it should be run by a collection of guilds and decided by them. Currently some of the systems they have in place aren't going to be used in most cases. It just comes down to the fact that feudalism is what is most likely to occur with what they are describing and the artificial barriers they are putting to prevent that.

    They have stated that all citizens are going to participate in the election process if they want to, so this makes meta gaming easier for other factions. The only thing I am tracking that is binding any citizen down is the properties you have in said city. You being an auxiliary to the guild defenses is still a choice for you.
    While the system isn't set up to make node leaders and guild leaders be the same people, all common sense and past MMO experience points to the fact that they probably will be. 

    Voting, fighting, finance, questing...all things 2-3 coordinated guilds of 300 will easily be able to accomplish. A single larger guild that is split into 2 guilds 200-300 in size will likely be able to control an entire metro themselves once they crack the min/max secrets to leveling and sustaining a node.

    Anyone who thinks large guilds won't be ruling these metros is being willfully naive. It's what they do...it's all these people do with their lives. The only hope more casual gamers have is that the game mechanics force these large guilds to "play nice" with the rest of the server...the likelihood of that happening is certainly questionable. For example, there is nothing stopping a 1000 member mega guild split into 3-4 in-game guilds from simply controlling their own node. There is nothing stopping that guild from sieging every single node that hits the village stage just to cut all potential competition off at the sapling state. 

    As for the systems that will be around to coordinate logistics...who knows. I assume those systems will be open for suggestions and tweaking during late Alpha.
  • Tomoyuki said:
    @UnknownSystemError Well I am still waiting for information, but so far the system is already set up for fail. Luckily I don't have to rage as I didn't drop a single dollar, so if this game fails (which it will with these half baked ideas) I can laugh and move on to Crowfall or Pantheon. The things Steven said, as I pointed out in the other thread just shows he is clueless about the meta gaming parts of player run content.

    @AutumnLeaf Well it should be run by a collection of guilds and decided by them. Currently some of the systems they have in place aren't going to be used in most cases. It just comes down to the fact that feudalism is what is most likely to occur with what they are describing and the artificial barriers they are putting to prevent that.

    They have stated that all citizens are going to participate in the election process if they want to, so this makes meta gaming easier for other factions. The only thing I am tracking that is binding any citizen down is the properties you have in said city. You being an auxiliary to the guild defenses is still a choice for you.
    This is what I mean, the guilds are only taking residence in the nodes, they are not the owners of them, sure they can have the a huge amount of people in the node but they don't run it, all of the people in the node that are citizens (own a freehold or residence in the node) get to participate in voting and any other events, the only things that are forced onto the people are sieges and probably other world events.
  • @nscheffel & @AutumnLeaf Well all I can say is touche.I didn't properly think this through and so would redact some of the claims. My concern that ties to all my criticism's, that it is mainly the concern of artificial barriers. Game goes wishy washy with the adding organic elements and artificial. Since you made well thought posts I would like to go into details that I would like to see.

    More like a feudal structure where yes people are required to build up the encampments to settlements and etc. But it is the guilds, that own the surrounding land from their castles that the cities has to bribe, finesse, or out right kill to insure their compliance. This might also be some buildings and etc that guilds can have in the city or homes etc to give them some skin in the city.  So it makes it more like Game of Thrones where it is social relationships that might get one guild to work with or against you.
    This opens up the possibilities that your average citizens might cause riots and work against the city or even a coup by guild located in a castle few miles away.

    Most of the battles are going to be taking place around castles as that helps you from getting people running out from spawning killing your guys and ambushing you as you march on the cities with your massive coalition army.
  • I am glad that its not just for guild masters and any one could ideally get into leadership of the metropolis
  • Tomoyuki said:
    @nscheffel & @AutumnLeaf Well all I can say is touche.I didn't properly think this through and so would redact some of the claims. My concern that ties to all my criticism's, that it is mainly the concern of artificial barriers. Game goes wishy washy with the adding organic elements and artificial. Since you made well thought posts I would like to go into details that I would like to see.

    More like a feudal structure where yes people are required to build up the encampments to settlements and etc. But it is the guilds, that own the surrounding land from their castles that the cities has to bribe, finesse, or out right kill to insure their compliance. This might also be some buildings and etc that guilds can have in the city or homes etc to give them some skin in the city.  So it makes it more like Game of Thrones where it is social relationships that might get one guild to work with or against you.
    This opens up the possibilities that your average citizens might cause riots and work against the city or even a coup by guild located in a castle few miles away.

    Most of the battles are going to be taking place around castles as that helps you from getting people running out from spawning killing your guys and ambushing you as you march on the cities with your massive coalition army.
    You're going to have a hard time selling enough subs to maintain AoC if the game basically says to casual players, "come be a peasant and serve pro gamers". 

    While that is almost certainly going to be the case, at least the game mechanics won't make it the only possible scenario. 

    There is going to be plenty of drama between guilds simply because they that's how MMOs always work out. 
  • Tomoyuki said:
    @nscheffel & @AutumnLeaf Well all I can say is touche.I didn't properly think this through and so would redact some of the claims. My concern that ties to all my criticism's, that it is mainly the concern of artificial barriers. Game goes wishy washy with the adding organic elements and artificial. Since you made well thought posts I would like to go into details that I would like to see.

    More like a feudal structure where yes people are required to build up the encampments to settlements and etc. But it is the guilds, that own the surrounding land from their castles that the cities has to bribe, finesse, or out right kill to insure their compliance. This might also be some buildings and etc that guilds can have in the city or homes etc to give them some skin in the city.  So it makes it more like Game of Thrones where it is social relationships that might get one guild to work with or against you.
    This opens up the possibilities that your average citizens might cause riots and work against the city or even a coup by guild located in a castle few miles away.

    Most of the battles are going to be taking place around castles as that helps you from getting people running out from spawning killing your guys and ambushing you as you march on the cities with your massive coalition army.
    Well while I'm not completly against something like this, it would be absolutely the worst thing to do for players who want to casually enjoy the game, I for one couldn't be bothered by other people contantly going into some 'political' scheming where guilds do things like bribing or killing to get compliance from players.

    Some people tend to forget that this is a game, not a medieval simulator :3
  • @nscheffel Well to be honest lets take a in depth look. Casual guilds just won't be taking advantage of the metropolis or castle system that often. It just comes down to hardcore guilds will actually build themselves in a way that is going to wipe the floor of casual players. As for players serving "pro gamers" I actually see the opposite, so let me explain.

    There is an alliance called Curatores Veritatis Alliance (CVA) actually patrols space for pirates (PKer's). The reasoning is so that any neutral players can take advantage of the null sec rich space and do as they please. The reasoning for this alliance to do it is purely RP reasons as no other alliance does it in Eve and there is no in game mechanics to enforce alliances to let neutrals into null sec. Surprisingly most alliances run a not blue shoot it (NBSI) which means anyone that isn't an ally must die.

    So why do I bring this up? Well here in Ashes they are implementing in game mechanics that actually behooves a coalition of guilds to insure safety for the city denizens. Citizens of city A thinks guilds in control of said city are douche bags and fascists so they leave > triggers less revenue for expansion > which leads to weakness > easier picking for another city/faction (simplified). The issue is fundamentally it is going to take guilds input to insure that these cities are safe and pkers are hunted down to continue the growth of said city.

    @AutumnLeaf Well to be honest casual players aren't going to be affected at all just like the casual Eve players in high sec. Just comes down to if you have no skin aka mansions/free holds and etc it really is irrelevant of the politics and war that goes on around you. Nothing is going to prevent you from doing your quests and carrying on minus your home being burnt down.

    Regardless if you think it is a game and not a medieval simulator there is always people like me that will treat it as such. You would be surprised how many people enjoying running organizations in a game world and so far I think this is what Intrepid is going in their direction with player managed cities. People seem to not know or forget that stories are created from such content and is basically free marketing. Just look at CCP, people has been saying that Eve was going to die and 15 years still has a stable population of 35-40k and this is after 15 years?
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited January 2018
    Tomoyuki said:
    @nscheffel Well to be honest lets take a in depth look. Casual guilds just won't be taking advantage of the metropolis or castle system that often. It just comes down to hardcore guilds will actually build themselves in a way that is going to wipe the floor of casual players. As for players serving "pro gamers" I actually see the opposite, so let me explain.

    There is an alliance called Curatores Veritatis Alliance (CVA) actually patrols space for pirates (PKer's). The reasoning is so that any neutral players can take advantage of the null sec rich space and do as they please. The reasoning for this alliance to do it is purely RP reasons as no other alliance does it in Eve and there is no in game mechanics to enforce alliances to let neutrals into null sec. Surprisingly most alliances run a not blue shoot it (NBSI) which means anyone that isn't an ally must die.

    So why do I bring this up? Well here in Ashes they are implementing in game mechanics that actually behooves a coalition of guilds to insure safety for the city denizens. Citizens of city A thinks guilds in control of said city are douche bags and fascists so they leave > triggers less revenue for expansion > which leads to weakness > easier picking for another city/faction (simplified). The issue is fundamentally it is going to take guilds input to insure that these cities are safe and pkers are hunted down to continue the growth of said city.

    @AutumnLeaf Well to be honest casual players aren't going to be affected at all just like the casual Eve players in high sec. Just comes down to if you have no skin aka mansions/free holds and etc it really is irrelevant of the politics and war that goes on around you. Nothing is going to prevent you from doing your quests and carrying on minus your home being burnt down.

    Regardless if you think it is a game and not a medieval simulator there is always people like me that will treat it as such. You would be surprised how many people enjoying running organizations in a game world and so far I think this is what Intrepid is going in their direction with player managed cities. People seem to not know or forget that stories are created from such content and is basically free marketing. Just look at CCP, people has been saying that Eve was going to die and 15 years still has a stable population of 35-40k and this is after 15 years?
    By the time the game is 1 month old the mega guilds (or coalitions of several large guilds) will have so many people from their guild(s) on a server they won't need any casual players to help them. They will have 1000+ members split over 4-5 in-game guilds, and they will completely run a node. They will do all the quests, kill all the competition, and farm all the resources to grow and maintain the node. They will be organized and efficient in doing so. 

    There will be nothing casual players and small guilds can do to stop it. They simply won't have the organization or play time required to do so...because they are casual players. Even 3k casual players won't be enough to topple a node run by 1000 no-lifers. Any node that starts to grow close to becoming a threat will simply be wiped away with a siege. At some point there will be a "rule" that no node can be leveled past village, or else it is wiped. 

    This is simply a fact, and is how these huge guilds operate (not even mentioning the fact they will discover and abuse every bug/exploit possible). The only hope casual players have is that there won't be enough mega guilds/coalitions on a server to completely lock down the entire game world.
  • Tomoyuki said:
    @nscheffel Well to be honest lets take a in depth look. Casual guilds just won't be taking advantage of the metropolis or castle system that often. It just comes down to hardcore guilds will actually build themselves in a way that is going to wipe the floor of casual players. As for players serving "pro gamers" I actually see the opposite, so let me explain.

    There is an alliance called Curatores Veritatis Alliance (CVA) actually patrols space for pirates (PKer's). The reasoning is so that any neutral players can take advantage of the null sec rich space and do as they please. The reasoning for this alliance to do it is purely RP reasons as no other alliance does it in Eve and there is no in game mechanics to enforce alliances to let neutrals into null sec. Surprisingly most alliances run a not blue shoot it (NBSI) which means anyone that isn't an ally must die.

    So why do I bring this up? Well here in Ashes they are implementing in game mechanics that actually behooves a coalition of guilds to insure safety for the city denizens. Citizens of city A thinks guilds in control of said city are douche bags and fascists so they leave > triggers less revenue for expansion > which leads to weakness > easier picking for another city/faction (simplified). The issue is fundamentally it is going to take guilds input to insure that these cities are safe and pkers are hunted down to continue the growth of said city.

    @AutumnLeaf Well to be honest casual players aren't going to be affected at all just like the casual Eve players in high sec. Just comes down to if you have no skin aka mansions/free holds and etc it really is irrelevant of the politics and war that goes on around you. Nothing is going to prevent you from doing your quests and carrying on minus your home being burnt down.

    Regardless if you think it is a game and not a medieval simulator there is always people like me that will treat it as such. You would be surprised how many people enjoying running organizations in a game world and so far I think this is what Intrepid is going in their direction with player managed cities. People seem to not know or forget that stories are created from such content and is basically free marketing. Just look at CCP, people has been saying that Eve was going to die and 15 years still has a stable population of 35-40k and this is after 15 years?
    That's what I'm saying this game is NOT a medieval simulator, people can do what they want but I don't want to play an MMORPG where the purpose is to level your character and crafting levels etc. just for some guild to come to me and start 'coercing' me into co-operation by burning my freehold down cause they want to roleplay an organization if they do want to do that then let them do it among themselves or people who enjoy that stuff but not those that have no interest in it and are playing the game as an MMO not a simulator. I'll just say this one last time guilds have no say in the run of the node, these nodes don't belong to them, they are run by votes or any other system that will be in place depending on node types.
  • @AutumnLeaf Well we will see how the game turns out in regards to city management. As for free hold being burnt down, well this is what makes pvp so great, you might not like it, but it will be forced upon you without your consent  ;).
  • If I remember correctly guilds will be limited to like 300 or less so maybe 200 cannot remember excact number still pretty big but there will be no  megaguilds.
  • If I remember correctly guilds will be limited to like 300 or less so maybe 200 cannot remember excact number still pretty big but there will be no  megaguilds.
    Again, just because they aren't the same guild in-game does not mean they aren't the same mega guild.

    If this guild size cap is how Intrepid intends to limit the influence of mega guilds...well...they have already failed.
  • nscheffel said:
    If I remember correctly guilds will be limited to like 300 or less so maybe 200 cannot remember excact number still pretty big but there will be no  megaguilds.
    Again, just because they aren't the same guild in-game does not mean they aren't the same mega guild.

    If this guild size cap is how Intrepid intends to limit the influence of mega guilds...well...they have already failed.
    I don't think they're really going to attempt to stop "mega Guilds". The way i've heard it explained, this game is all about making these kind of games social again. thats why there's no fast travel, group finder, or things like that. so I think something like a "mega guild" wouldn't exactly be frowned upon. The main issue for me, is when those "mega guilds" start reaching over multiple servers. then its an issue for me. You wanna dominate your own server? That's fine. just stay there. 
  • nscheffel said:
    If I remember correctly guilds will be limited to like 300 or less so maybe 200 cannot remember excact number still pretty big but there will be no  megaguilds.
    Again, just because they aren't the same guild in-game does not mean they aren't the same mega guild.

    If this guild size cap is how Intrepid intends to limit the influence of mega guilds...well...they have already failed.
    I don't think they're really going to attempt to stop "mega Guilds". The way i've heard it explained, this game is all about making these kind of games social again. thats why there's no fast travel, group finder, or things like that. so I think something like a "mega guild" wouldn't exactly be frowned upon. The main issue for me, is when those "mega guilds" start reaching over multiple servers. then its an issue for me. You wanna dominate your own server? That's fine. just stay there. 
    This is a perfectly logical answer, and pretty much the stance I expect them to take. Basically saying, "if 1000 people want to coordinate together, great, this is an MMO and we support that". Coming from large scale PvP games, and seeing how this movie always plays out, they won't be getting my $500 with such an answer.

    Problem is in a PvP game, these tribes can ruin an entire server. How many servers will there be at launch? If they want to target a typical ~5k players online at once, and assuming a 25% play rate that's ~20k players per server, probably more. How many games sold? A few hundred thousand? Meaning they need ~15ish servers? 

    What happens when the server you picked at launch is suddenly overrun by one of these guilds after the first 2-3 months? Are you going to pack up and start over on another server hoping the same thing won't happen there? Guess what? It will.

    All servers in all PvP games will have an "alpha" guild. The success of AoC relies on how well Intrepid manages the amount of influence each alpha guild has on its home server. 
  • nscheffel said:
    nscheffel said:
    If I remember correctly guilds will be limited to like 300 or less so maybe 200 cannot remember excact number still pretty big but there will be no  megaguilds.
    Again, just because they aren't the same guild in-game does not mean they aren't the same mega guild.

    If this guild size cap is how Intrepid intends to limit the influence of mega guilds...well...they have already failed.
    I don't think they're really going to attempt to stop "mega Guilds". The way i've heard it explained, this game is all about making these kind of games social again. thats why there's no fast travel, group finder, or things like that. so I think something like a "mega guild" wouldn't exactly be frowned upon. The main issue for me, is when those "mega guilds" start reaching over multiple servers. then its an issue for me. You wanna dominate your own server? That's fine. just stay there. 
    This is a perfectly logical answer, and pretty much the stance I expect them to take. Basically saying, "if 1000 people want to coordinate together, great, this is an MMO and we support that". Coming from large scale PvP games, and seeing how this movie always plays out, they won't be getting my $500 with such an answer.

    Problem is in a PvP game, these tribes can ruin an entire server. How many servers will there be at launch? If they want to target a typical ~5k players online at once, and assuming a 25% play rate that's ~20k players per server, probably more. How many games sold? A few hundred thousand? Meaning they need ~15ish servers? 

    What happens when the server you picked at launch is suddenly overrun by one of these guilds after the first 2-3 months? Are you going to pack up and start over on another server hoping the same thing won't happen there? Guess what? It will.

    All servers in all PvP games will have an "alpha" guild. The success of AoC relies on how well Intrepid manages the amount of influence each alpha guild has on its home server. 
    Very good points. So what would you propose? Something along the lines of faction metros? Where anyone belonging to another metro is automatically an enemy? That might cause an issue where a "mega guild" holds access to one metro, and the rest of the server teams up on another. At the end of the day, you cannot eliminate people using outside sources (discord, etc.) to work together, but making it incredibly difficult to work together in game is really the most you can achieve.

    One idea would be to have "casual" servers. Where these servers get all civilization wiped clean every year or two years, or that have certain things in place that would allow casual players to enjoy the game more. I'm not exactly sure what they could be, but it's a vague idea.

    Maybe they will monitor how big guilds get, or the influence they have, and try to limit them to a single metro or server. Or, maybe intrepid will monitor all of the "mega guilds" and say "hey, we applaud you all and your hard work, and we think you need a challenge. So we're making an "extreme PvP" server, and ONLY the "mega guilds" are allowed in. And if you choose not to be a part of it, then you must leave your current "mega guild" to stay on your server. Otherwise, everything you've collected and built will be transferred to the new server. 

    I understand what you're saying, and yes, it is a worry to me too. I just kind of took it as a fact of MMO life. That's why I'm trying to recruit for my own guild now and get ahead of the curve. It is what it is.
  • This was my response on Discord to one of the guild leaders saying they are bringing 3000 people to one server at launch.

    Unknown-Yesterday at 3:50 AM

    It all comes down to a gameplay style. Sure they can take the time and effort to dominate a server. But unlike EVE and others, there is no real world cash incentive to control a server. You are not going to get money out of Intrepid beyond the referral process, and if you make the server no fun for people to play, even your own people, by eliminating competition from outside groups, people are going to unsub and you will lose that referral revenue stream. "Oh, yeah, stay away from West Coast server 8, that is where Vis hangs out." will spread over time. Then basically you can have your 3000 people and direct what goes where, but people will get bored with it fast.

    Unknown-Yesterday at 2:46 AM

    The game map will be huge, no fast travel, even mega guilds are going to have problems trying to control large swathes of land and coordinate. We have been promised anti-zerging mechanics and benefits of tactics over size. Guess we just wait and see what they have planned.

Sign In or Register to comment.