Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
How possible would this be...
Dimitraeos
Member
Imagine an alliance that spanned the entire server which held control of each of the 5 metropolises that can exist at a given time on a given server. Imagine also they coordinate internally to develop at least 1 of each node type (scientific, militaristic, economic, religious etc). The purpose being to bring the maximum benefit to the server as a whole.
Hypothetically speaking, from what I can understand in terms of the game/node mechanics, would this be possible? And if so, without a doubt it would be a pretty titanic effort to maintain but just thought it would be an interesting take.
Hypothetically speaking, from what I can understand in terms of the game/node mechanics, would this be possible? And if so, without a doubt it would be a pretty titanic effort to maintain but just thought it would be an interesting take.
1
Comments
You would need about 7000 people who get along and agree on a leader to do that...if you think that will happen just turn on any news channel for about 5 min.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
And one they have everything from that associated raid they will want to open a different raid and not everyone will reach that point at the same time
Exactly. This game is designed to create disparity. There will always be somebody that wants something somebody else has. It will make progression more rewarding. Still it will be interesting to see different guilds create alliances and to fight each other.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Additionally, there would always be pressure from groups who weren't a part of the alliance that would create antagonism and drive more cooperation within the alliance to defend their project of a "world alliance".
Basically the difficulty I see is 1: creating a cohesive enough alliance that could coordinate something like this and 2: defending the project from outside antagonists (while simultaneously managing the internal politics)
Well one question will be will be guilds be raid groups x5 or will it be 200 of 1 class. The reason I bring this up is different classes are going to want a differnt type of node and you can only be a citizen of 1 node. And then there will also never be agreement on which think to build 1st in the node. And there will never be full agreement on who should be leader with the flying mount for that node.
You are absolutely correct that different classes will want different nodes, and this is the main reason that guilds won't want to restrict themselves to one node. It is in their members best interests - and thus the guilds best interests - if they spread themselves out over a cluster of nodes built up to city level around a metropolis.
This is also a part of the reason guilds won't attempt to claim ownership of a single node - the guild needs a whole cluster to prosper. Attempting to claim ownership can't really be a thing until you can control and maintain a full cluster of nodes around a metropolis, which will onvolve thousands of players.
---
Back to the OP's question, yeah, it would be possible.
The thing is, as a metropolis ages, the rewards for taking it down go up. Combined with the fact that a change in node state means a change in content, any such alliance on a server wide scale will still want to siege nodes on occasion to facilitate both of the above.
What you would then end up with is a server that functions basically the same as all other servers, just with a little less anamosity.
So really, while this is theoretically possible, I don't see it being likely due to the need for 7000+ players cooperating, and even if it does happen, I don't see it being much of a detriment.
One interesting thing, if a guild like them did come, they wouldn't last long.
EVE is kind of designed around large alliances having no real reason to break up. Ashes gives these alliances all the reason in the world.
They tried to do similar things in other games I've played, and we pretty effortlessly tore them apart. Different games, different ways to play.
that would fall apart quickly.
https://knightsofember.com/forums/members/winner909098.54
You can murder innocent players and gain corruption. I don't see why someone being in an allied guild will prevent you from doing the same. You will certainly be able to target them, because otherwise helping them would be very difficult.
Humans are greedy and flawed. The bigger a group, the more chance for betrayal or division. Trust me, in games like this, Goonsquad fails miserably. I have beaten them time and time again, and my friends and I usually only muster together smaller tight-knit clans.
They've said they want mechanics to allow betrayal and sabotage, we just don't know what those will be yet. Will have to wait and find out.
I mean, this may be the case, but I'm not seeing a down side to it.
They have a full servers population playing a way they are all happy with.
Okay.
I mean, this may be the case, but I'm not seeing a down side to it.
They have a full servers population playing a way they are all happy with.[/quote]
oh i have no problem with it at all I've even consider something similar to get around IS insistence of open world/non-consensual pvp. I have actually gone as far as putting a plan in writing on how this would work. It would take all the like minded players and guilds to come together and commit to such a utopia but it is possible.
oh i have no problem with it at all I've even consider something similar to get around IS insistence of open world/non-consensual pvp. I have actually gone as far as putting a plan in writing on how this would work. It would take all the like minded players and guilds to come together and commit to such a utopia but it is possible.[/quote]
I doubt that 30,000 people will agree with anything.
https://knightsofember.com/forums/members/winner909098.54
So that wasn't really an alliance based on guilds/player agreeing to be nice to each other, as much as it was a militaristic style alliance entirely built on power earned. Because to be honest everybody hated him with a passion, but we let him lead us for I think years.
I don't think a "Let's be friendly and take over the world" thing is going to work, here. People are going to argue either between or within guilds and it'll fall apart from normal drama.
Not to mention all the betrayal mechanics that are likely to be put into the game, because the devs want to support intrigue and combat zerginess.
If an alliance like this is set up and democratic decision making is properly implemented so that all of the alliances members can impart their will onto the process, I don't see why this couldn't work.
Especially given the fact that external antagonists like this will exist, hence driving the need to more cohesion to maintain the project:
I think if anything, the biggest threat to this kind of collaboration is what I just quoted, external forces. (And thats why this game has so much fucking emergent gameplay potential