i think it would be cool, to have option if guild that declares war would need to pit gd and or mats to declare war, and the other guild if they win they get that, if they are loosing and want to surrender they need to pay ransom.
Yep, something to fight over besides bragging rights is a fun idea. Just have to make sure guilds have options in case they don't have the gold or resources to pay. I suggested the debuff, which still provides the winning guild with some gold.
Dont really understand your last sentence, debuff which provides winning guild with some gold? Please explain. Or do you mean, surrendering guild could chose a payment type to surrender? Like either pay gold, pay materials or debuff? I think this could be interesting idea to guilds being able to negotiate terms of surrender. If there would be system for loosing guild to send offer to winning guild, so if they accept, guild war ends.
Just something I had thought of when I made this thread. Basically it's a way for the losing side to pay their debt if they don't have enough gold to pay the "wager" the declaring guild made.
>>Win/Lose/Tie: The burden of choosing the punishment or reward will fall on the guild leader of the guild that the war was declared on. If they won the war, He can choose to accept the wager (the deposit) OR place a debuff on all enemy guild members. This debuff will result in a 1% “tax” on all earned gold for 24 hours. If they lose the war, they can choose to pay the wager to the enemy guild OR place the debuff on all his guild members. If debuff is chosen, the deposit is returned to the declaring guild. The guild leader has one hour to make a decision. If the guild doesn’t have enough gold to pay the wager or the one hour time limit to choose is reached, then the debuff option is automatically chosen. Ties can be disappointing but could also fuel future wars.
And I should clarify... The gold from the debuff goes to the winning guild for the duration. So let's say over the course of 24 hours, the cumulative amount of gold made from all guild members totals 5000 gold... If the debuff "tax" is 1%, 50 of that gold would go to the winning guild. Its kinda like the node taxation system except it is placed on an entire guild and is paid to the guild wars victor.
This is all from my vision of guild wars though. This isn't anything that Intrepid has said they would do. The only real info we know is found in the Wiki which is in the original post.
Ok I get now what you mean by debuff, but I think 24 hours is not long enough, some players might not even log in during that time. I would probably say at least a week. Because as I've seen somewhere mobs dont drop gold, they drop some items, that you trade later for that gold. So that means, even if this debuff is for a week, they could still just hold those items and turn them in for gold after debuff ends. I would probably say it might be better if loosing side gets a debt and debuff for hindering combat a bit and a 1% tax debuff, so both debuff and tax lasts until the debt is fully payed. So loosing side can either pay the debt in whole straight away or wait till debt is payed by the tax.
i think it would be cool, to have option if guild that declares war would need to pit gd and or mats to declare war, and the other guild if they win they get that, if they are loosing and want to surrender they need to pay ransom.
Yep, something to fight over besides bragging rights is a fun idea. Just have to make sure guilds have options in case they don't have the gold or resources to pay. I suggested the debuff, which still provides the winning guild with some gold.
Dont really understand your last sentence, debuff which provides winning guild with some gold? Please explain. Or do you mean, surrendering guild could chose a payment type to surrender? Like either pay gold, pay materials or debuff? I think this could be interesting idea to guilds being able to negotiate terms of surrender. If there would be system for loosing guild to send offer to winning guild, so if they accept, guild war ends.
Just something I had thought of when I made this thread. Basically it's a way for the losing side to pay their debt if they don't have enough gold to pay the "wager" the declaring guild made.
>>Win/Lose/Tie: The burden of choosing the punishment or reward will fall on the guild leader of the guild that the war was declared on. If they won the war, He can choose to accept the wager (the deposit) OR place a debuff on all enemy guild members. This debuff will result in a 1% “tax” on all earned gold for 24 hours. If they lose the war, they can choose to pay the wager to the enemy guild OR place the debuff on all his guild members. If debuff is chosen, the deposit is returned to the declaring guild. The guild leader has one hour to make a decision. If the guild doesn’t have enough gold to pay the wager or the one hour time limit to choose is reached, then the debuff option is automatically chosen. Ties can be disappointing but could also fuel future wars.
And I should clarify... The gold from the debuff goes to the winning guild for the duration. So let's say over the course of 24 hours, the cumulative amount of gold made from all guild members totals 5000 gold... If the debuff "tax" is 1%, 50 of that gold would go to the winning guild. Its kinda like the node taxation system except it is placed on an entire guild and is paid to the guild wars victor.
This is all from my vision of guild wars though. This isn't anything that Intrepid has said they would do. The only real info we know is found in the Wiki which is in the original post.
Ok I get now what you mean by debuff, but I think 24 hours is not long enough, some players might not even log in during that time. I would probably say at least a week. Because as I've seen somewhere mobs dont drop gold, they drop some items, that you trade later for that gold. So that means, even if this debuff is for a week, they could still just hold those items and turn them in for gold after debuff ends. I would probably say it might be better if loosing side gets a debt and debuff for hindering combat a bit and a 1% tax debuff, so both debuff and tax lasts until the debt is fully payed. So loosing side can either pay the debt in whole straight away or wait till debt is payed by the tax.
Yeah so all the values would have to be determined by Intrepid through testing... it would have to be balanced with the economy so it isn't too punishing or too light. I also see it as a way to send an F U to the guild who beat you. Instead of choosing to pay the wager, you could choose to take this debuff... then just hold off on selling things so that the gold the other guild gets from it is very low... of course that also limits you for the duration. Of course if they went that route, I think a shorter duration possibly with a bigger "tax" percentage would work better.
i think it would be cool, to have option if guild that declares war would need to pit gd and or mats to declare war, and the other guild if they win they get that, if they are loosing and want to surrender they need to pay ransom.
Yep, something to fight over besides bragging rights is a fun idea. Just have to make sure guilds have options in case they don't have the gold or resources to pay. I suggested the debuff, which still provides the winning guild with some gold.
Dont really understand your last sentence, debuff which provides winning guild with some gold? Please explain. Or do you mean, surrendering guild could chose a payment type to surrender? Like either pay gold, pay materials or debuff? I think this could be interesting idea to guilds being able to negotiate terms of surrender. If there would be system for loosing guild to send offer to winning guild, so if they accept, guild war ends.
Just something I had thought of when I made this thread. Basically it's a way for the losing side to pay their debt if they don't have enough gold to pay the "wager" the declaring guild made.
>>Win/Lose/Tie: The burden of choosing the punishment or reward will fall on the guild leader of the guild that the war was declared on. If they won the war, He can choose to accept the wager (the deposit) OR place a debuff on all enemy guild members. This debuff will result in a 1% “tax” on all earned gold for 24 hours. If they lose the war, they can choose to pay the wager to the enemy guild OR place the debuff on all his guild members. If debuff is chosen, the deposit is returned to the declaring guild. The guild leader has one hour to make a decision. If the guild doesn’t have enough gold to pay the wager or the one hour time limit to choose is reached, then the debuff option is automatically chosen. Ties can be disappointing but could also fuel future wars.
And I should clarify... The gold from the debuff goes to the winning guild for the duration. So let's say over the course of 24 hours, the cumulative amount of gold made from all guild members totals 5000 gold... If the debuff "tax" is 1%, 50 of that gold would go to the winning guild. Its kinda like the node taxation system except it is placed on an entire guild and is paid to the guild wars victor.
This is all from my vision of guild wars though. This isn't anything that Intrepid has said they would do. The only real info we know is found in the Wiki which is in the original post.
Ok I get now what you mean by debuff, but I think 24 hours is not long enough, some players might not even log in during that time. I would probably say at least a week. Because as I've seen somewhere mobs dont drop gold, they drop some items, that you trade later for that gold. So that means, even if this debuff is for a week, they could still just hold those items and turn them in for gold after debuff ends. I would probably say it might be better if loosing side gets a debt and debuff for hindering combat a bit and a 1% tax debuff, so both debuff and tax lasts until the debt is fully payed. So loosing side can either pay the debt in whole straight away or wait till debt is payed by the tax.
Yeah so all the values would have to be determined by Intrepid through testing... it would have to be balanced with the economy so it isn't too punishing or too light. I also see it as a way to send an F U to the guild who beat you. Instead of choosing to pay the wager, you could choose to take this debuff... then just hold off on selling things so that the gold the other guild gets from it is very low... of course that also limits you for the duration. Of course if they went that route, I think a shorter duration possibly with a bigger "tax" percentage would work better.
True, but i think defeated guild shouldnt be able to jus weasel out of conciqeunces
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
With that said, I would be okay with a limit on the number of wars... but it wouldn't be low. I'd say around 10. I don't know what Eve is like... but AoC will have risk and reward tied into the guild war system. In my suggestion in OP, a guild is putting their gold on the line to declare guild wars. If guilds want to take on the whole server, that is their choice... but if they lose a bunch of those wars, they could cripple their guild gold wise for a long time.
I would really like to see more at risk than what ever gold deposit a guild wants to escrow,
i think it would be cool, to have option if guild that declares war would need to pit gd and or mats to declare war, and the other guild if they win they get that, if they are loosing and want to surrender they need to pay ransom.
Yep, something to fight over besides bragging rights is a fun idea. Just have to make sure guilds have options in case they don't have the gold or resources to pay. I suggested the debuff, which still provides the winning guild with some gold.
Dont really understand your last sentence, debuff which provides winning guild with some gold? Please explain. Or do you mean, surrendering guild could chose a payment type to surrender? Like either pay gold, pay materials or debuff? I think this could be interesting idea to guilds being able to negotiate terms of surrender. If there would be system for loosing guild to send offer to winning guild, so if they accept, guild war ends.
Just something I had thought of when I made this thread. Basically it's a way for the losing side to pay their debt if they don't have enough gold to pay the "wager" the declaring guild made.
>>Win/Lose/Tie: The burden of choosing the punishment or reward will fall on the guild leader of the guild that the war was declared on. If they won the war, He can choose to accept the wager (the deposit) OR place a debuff on all enemy guild members. This debuff will result in a 1% “tax” on all earned gold for 24 hours. If they lose the war, they can choose to pay the wager to the enemy guild OR place the debuff on all his guild members. If debuff is chosen, the deposit is returned to the declaring guild. The guild leader has one hour to make a decision. If the guild doesn’t have enough gold to pay the wager or the one hour time limit to choose is reached, then the debuff option is automatically chosen. Ties can be disappointing but could also fuel future wars.
And I should clarify... The gold from the debuff goes to the winning guild for the duration. So let's say over the course of 24 hours, the cumulative amount of gold made from all guild members totals 5000 gold... If the debuff "tax" is 1%, 50 of that gold would go to the winning guild. Its kinda like the node taxation system except it is placed on an entire guild and is paid to the guild wars victor.
This is all from my vision of guild wars though. This isn't anything that Intrepid has said they would do. The only real info we know is found in the Wiki which is in the original post.
Ok I get now what you mean by debuff, but I think 24 hours is not long enough, some players might not even log in during that time. I would probably say at least a week. Because as I've seen somewhere mobs dont drop gold, they drop some items, that you trade later for that gold. So that means, even if this debuff is for a week, they could still just hold those items and turn them in for gold after debuff ends. I would probably say it might be better if loosing side gets a debt and debuff for hindering combat a bit and a 1% tax debuff, so both debuff and tax lasts until the debt is fully payed. So loosing side can either pay the debt in whole straight away or wait till debt is payed by the tax.
Yeah so all the values would have to be determined by Intrepid through testing... it would have to be balanced with the economy so it isn't too punishing or too light. I also see it as a way to send an F U to the guild who beat you. Instead of choosing to pay the wager, you could choose to take this debuff... then just hold off on selling things so that the gold the other guild gets from it is very low... of course that also limits you for the duration. Of course if they went that route, I think a shorter duration possibly with a bigger "tax" percentage would work better.
Actually the time frame may be solvable simply if the tax% is not infinite in theory. For example if there is a cap or limit required to remove the debuff instead. Then each player would have the debuff for as long as it took each of them to work it off individually. Since the guild size would be determined at that moment (I.E Debuff would apply to 132 of 132 guild members) then if the variable tax amount was known each player would then have to work off their portion of that. I would make the math equation for this but I don't care that much lol.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
With that said, I would be okay with a limit on the number of wars... but it wouldn't be low. I'd say around 10. I don't know what Eve is like... but AoC will have risk and reward tied into the guild war system. In my suggestion in OP, a guild is putting their gold on the line to declare guild wars. If guilds want to take on the whole server, that is their choice... but if they lose a bunch of those wars, they could cripple their guild gold wise for a long time.
I would really like to see more at risk than what ever gold deposit a guild wants to escrow,
i think it would be cool, to have option if guild that declares war would need to pit gd and or mats to declare war, and the other guild if they win they get that, if they are loosing and want to surrender they need to pay ransom.
Yep, something to fight over besides bragging rights is a fun idea. Just have to make sure guilds have options in case they don't have the gold or resources to pay. I suggested the debuff, which still provides the winning guild with some gold.
Dont really understand your last sentence, debuff which provides winning guild with some gold? Please explain. Or do you mean, surrendering guild could chose a payment type to surrender? Like either pay gold, pay materials or debuff? I think this could be interesting idea to guilds being able to negotiate terms of surrender. If there would be system for loosing guild to send offer to winning guild, so if they accept, guild war ends.
Just something I had thought of when I made this thread. Basically it's a way for the losing side to pay their debt if they don't have enough gold to pay the "wager" the declaring guild made.
>>Win/Lose/Tie: The burden of choosing the punishment or reward will fall on the guild leader of the guild that the war was declared on. If they won the war, He can choose to accept the wager (the deposit) OR place a debuff on all enemy guild members. This debuff will result in a 1% “tax” on all earned gold for 24 hours. If they lose the war, they can choose to pay the wager to the enemy guild OR place the debuff on all his guild members. If debuff is chosen, the deposit is returned to the declaring guild. The guild leader has one hour to make a decision. If the guild doesn’t have enough gold to pay the wager or the one hour time limit to choose is reached, then the debuff option is automatically chosen. Ties can be disappointing but could also fuel future wars.
And I should clarify... The gold from the debuff goes to the winning guild for the duration. So let's say over the course of 24 hours, the cumulative amount of gold made from all guild members totals 5000 gold... If the debuff "tax" is 1%, 50 of that gold would go to the winning guild. Its kinda like the node taxation system except it is placed on an entire guild and is paid to the guild wars victor.
This is all from my vision of guild wars though. This isn't anything that Intrepid has said they would do. The only real info we know is found in the Wiki which is in the original post.
Ok I get now what you mean by debuff, but I think 24 hours is not long enough, some players might not even log in during that time. I would probably say at least a week. Because as I've seen somewhere mobs dont drop gold, they drop some items, that you trade later for that gold. So that means, even if this debuff is for a week, they could still just hold those items and turn them in for gold after debuff ends. I would probably say it might be better if loosing side gets a debt and debuff for hindering combat a bit and a 1% tax debuff, so both debuff and tax lasts until the debt is fully payed. So loosing side can either pay the debt in whole straight away or wait till debt is payed by the tax.
Yeah so all the values would have to be determined by Intrepid through testing... it would have to be balanced with the economy so it isn't too punishing or too light. I also see it as a way to send an F U to the guild who beat you. Instead of choosing to pay the wager, you could choose to take this debuff... then just hold off on selling things so that the gold the other guild gets from it is very low... of course that also limits you for the duration. Of course if they went that route, I think a shorter duration possibly with a bigger "tax" percentage would work better.
Actually the time frame may be solvable simply if the tax% is not infinite in theory. For example if there is a cap or limit required to remove the debuff instead. Then each player would have the debuff for as long as it took each of them to work it off individually. Since the guild size would be determined at that moment (I.E Debuff would apply to 132 of 132 guild members) then if the variable tax amount was known each player would then have to work off their portion of that. I would make the math equation for this but I don't care that much lol.
It's a balance thing with risk vs reward. You want it to be as risky as possible without discouraging people from not using the feature. If that can be achieved with more than just gold, then absolutely yes.
That would work very well too I think. Cap it at like 1% and you pay it until your debt is paid. Imagine losing 5 guild wars within weeks of eachother... you might be paying off the debts for months lol.
Some really good ideas here. You guys are good! I really can't add anything, except for my concerns.
I can see Guild Wars as exploitable to grief tactics, unfortunately. As it's a means to a possibility circumvent the Corruption System.
Unless there is a cost and loss involved, I can see guilds flagging, just because they can. "What guild are those gatherers in?"
There needs to be a cost and cooldown, imho.
And, what about consentual wars? 2 guilds willingly participating? Do they have to "declair" every six hours? That doesn't sound right, especially if there is a cooldown.
I am Foreign to Guild Wars, so I really can't offer much, and my opinion is all speculation. But, I'm trying to understand, so I can give valid arguments. ☺️
What's wrong with guild wars being a way to bypass the corruption system?
In my mind that's exactly the point.
This sort of thing should merely require an upkeep cost that increases over in game time. So if a real life weak ends up being a season then every season that cost increases.
I'm not entirely convinced this should be something that's a prime time limited event either.
Since guild Halls will actually be a thing and perhaps having an objective inside guild Hall that's achievable for the recipient of said war?
Basically you got to break into the place and steal their ledger or something along those lines.
@Hurf Derfman
Ooh, interesting idea with the increased cost over time.
Especially if a portion of the costs went to the winning guild, that would be cleaner than a 1% tax on the losing guild. It would also provide incentive to surrender a drawn out war. Furthermore, it would be easier for multiple smaller guilds to break up a massive guild if all the small guilds declared guild wars on the big one - but this would probably turn everything into oligarchies.
You could have incrementing war costs - but the cost to each side of the war is determined by their success in the guild war objectives - so instead of a 50/50 split on war funding, if one guild has been getting more objectives, the costs could shift to 70/30 the following day.
AND THEN
top it off with the spoils of victory being delivered on a bunch of CARAVANS!!
hahahahaha
If there's ever a huge war - everyone will be keeping tabs
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
With that said, I would be okay with a limit on the number of wars... but it wouldn't be low. I'd say around 10. I don't know what Eve is like... but AoC will have risk and reward tied into the guild war system. In my suggestion in OP, a guild is putting their gold on the line to declare guild wars. If guilds want to take on the whole server, that is their choice... but if they lose a bunch of those wars, they could cripple their guild gold wise for a long time.
I would really like to see more at risk than what ever gold deposit a guild wants to escrow,
i think it would be cool, to have option if guild that declares war would need to pit gd and or mats to declare war, and the other guild if they win they get that, if they are loosing and want to surrender they need to pay ransom.
Yep, something to fight over besides bragging rights is a fun idea. Just have to make sure guilds have options in case they don't have the gold or resources to pay. I suggested the debuff, which still provides the winning guild with some gold.
Dont really understand your last sentence, debuff which provides winning guild with some gold? Please explain. Or do you mean, surrendering guild could chose a payment type to surrender? Like either pay gold, pay materials or debuff? I think this could be interesting idea to guilds being able to negotiate terms of surrender. If there would be system for loosing guild to send offer to winning guild, so if they accept, guild war ends.
Just something I had thought of when I made this thread. Basically it's a way for the losing side to pay their debt if they don't have enough gold to pay the "wager" the declaring guild made.
>>Win/Lose/Tie: The burden of choosing the punishment or reward will fall on the guild leader of the guild that the war was declared on. If they won the war, He can choose to accept the wager (the deposit) OR place a debuff on all enemy guild members. This debuff will result in a 1% “tax” on all earned gold for 24 hours. If they lose the war, they can choose to pay the wager to the enemy guild OR place the debuff on all his guild members. If debuff is chosen, the deposit is returned to the declaring guild. The guild leader has one hour to make a decision. If the guild doesn’t have enough gold to pay the wager or the one hour time limit to choose is reached, then the debuff option is automatically chosen. Ties can be disappointing but could also fuel future wars.
And I should clarify... The gold from the debuff goes to the winning guild for the duration. So let's say over the course of 24 hours, the cumulative amount of gold made from all guild members totals 5000 gold... If the debuff "tax" is 1%, 50 of that gold would go to the winning guild. Its kinda like the node taxation system except it is placed on an entire guild and is paid to the guild wars victor.
This is all from my vision of guild wars though. This isn't anything that Intrepid has said they would do. The only real info we know is found in the Wiki which is in the original post.
Ok I get now what you mean by debuff, but I think 24 hours is not long enough, some players might not even log in during that time. I would probably say at least a week. Because as I've seen somewhere mobs dont drop gold, they drop some items, that you trade later for that gold. So that means, even if this debuff is for a week, they could still just hold those items and turn them in for gold after debuff ends. I would probably say it might be better if loosing side gets a debt and debuff for hindering combat a bit and a 1% tax debuff, so both debuff and tax lasts until the debt is fully payed. So loosing side can either pay the debt in whole straight away or wait till debt is payed by the tax.
Yeah so all the values would have to be determined by Intrepid through testing... it would have to be balanced with the economy so it isn't too punishing or too light. I also see it as a way to send an F U to the guild who beat you. Instead of choosing to pay the wager, you could choose to take this debuff... then just hold off on selling things so that the gold the other guild gets from it is very low... of course that also limits you for the duration. Of course if they went that route, I think a shorter duration possibly with a bigger "tax" percentage would work better.
Actually the time frame may be solvable simply if the tax% is not infinite in theory. For example if there is a cap or limit required to remove the debuff instead. Then each player would have the debuff for as long as it took each of them to work it off individually. Since the guild size would be determined at that moment (I.E Debuff would apply to 132 of 132 guild members) then if the variable tax amount was known each player would then have to work off their portion of that. I would make the math equation for this but I don't care that much lol.
It's a balance thing with risk vs reward. You want it to be as risky as possible without discouraging people from not using the feature. If that can be achieved with more than just gold, then absolutely yes.
That would work very well too I think. Cap it at like 1% and you pay it until your debt is paid. Imagine losing 5 guild wars within weeks of eachother... you might be paying off the debts for months lol.
Well, that could work, if you would escape debt by leaving the guild and you would have cooldown to join a new one or same only after a week, also if by leaving your debt would be recalculated for other members. This way, destroying the guild by guild war could be viable option, so guild leaders would have to carefully consider guild wars and not just fight whole server, as it might need to dismantle the guild. Even if they dismantle and create new guild, they would loose assets.
if think whole guild war thing would bring more meaning, politics would become even more important aspect of the game.
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
you are against the main feature of the game, though, and that attracted people to this.
With that said, I would be okay with a limit on the number of wars... but it wouldn't be low. I'd say around 10. I don't know what Eve is like... but AoC will have risk and reward tied into the guild war system. In my suggestion in OP, a guild is putting their gold on the line to declare guild wars. If guilds want to take on the whole server, that is their choice... but if they lose a bunch of those wars, they could cripple their guild gold wise for a long time.
I would really like to see more at risk than what ever gold deposit a guild wants to escrow,
i think it would be cool, to have option if guild that declares war would need to pit gd and or mats to declare war, and the other guild if they win they get that, if they are loosing and want to surrender they need to pay ransom.
Yep, something to fight over besides bragging rights is a fun idea. Just have to make sure guilds have options in case they don't have the gold or resources to pay. I suggested the debuff, which still provides the winning guild with some gold.
Dont really understand your last sentence, debuff which provides winning guild with some gold? Please explain. Or do you mean, surrendering guild could chose a payment type to surrender? Like either pay gold, pay materials or debuff? I think this could be interesting idea to guilds being able to negotiate terms of surrender. If there would be system for loosing guild to send offer to winning guild, so if they accept, guild war ends.
Just something I had thought of when I made this thread. Basically it's a way for the losing side to pay their debt if they don't have enough gold to pay the "wager" the declaring guild made.
>>Win/Lose/Tie: The burden of choosing the punishment or reward will fall on the guild leader of the guild that the war was declared on. If they won the war, He can choose to accept the wager (the deposit) OR place a debuff on all enemy guild members. This debuff will result in a 1% “tax” on all earned gold for 24 hours. If they lose the war, they can choose to pay the wager to the enemy guild OR place the debuff on all his guild members. If debuff is chosen, the deposit is returned to the declaring guild. The guild leader has one hour to make a decision. If the guild doesn’t have enough gold to pay the wager or the one hour time limit to choose is reached, then the debuff option is automatically chosen. Ties can be disappointing but could also fuel future wars.
And I should clarify... The gold from the debuff goes to the winning guild for the duration. So let's say over the course of 24 hours, the cumulative amount of gold made from all guild members totals 5000 gold... If the debuff "tax" is 1%, 50 of that gold would go to the winning guild. Its kinda like the node taxation system except it is placed on an entire guild and is paid to the guild wars victor.
This is all from my vision of guild wars though. This isn't anything that Intrepid has said they would do. The only real info we know is found in the Wiki which is in the original post.
Ok I get now what you mean by debuff, but I think 24 hours is not long enough, some players might not even log in during that time. I would probably say at least a week. Because as I've seen somewhere mobs dont drop gold, they drop some items, that you trade later for that gold. So that means, even if this debuff is for a week, they could still just hold those items and turn them in for gold after debuff ends. I would probably say it might be better if loosing side gets a debt and debuff for hindering combat a bit and a 1% tax debuff, so both debuff and tax lasts until the debt is fully payed. So loosing side can either pay the debt in whole straight away or wait till debt is payed by the tax.
Yeah so all the values would have to be determined by Intrepid through testing... it would have to be balanced with the economy so it isn't too punishing or too light. I also see it as a way to send an F U to the guild who beat you. Instead of choosing to pay the wager, you could choose to take this debuff... then just hold off on selling things so that the gold the other guild gets from it is very low... of course that also limits you for the duration. Of course if they went that route, I think a shorter duration possibly with a bigger "tax" percentage would work better.
Actually the time frame may be solvable simply if the tax% is not infinite in theory. For example if there is a cap or limit required to remove the debuff instead. Then each player would have the debuff for as long as it took each of them to work it off individually. Since the guild size would be determined at that moment (I.E Debuff would apply to 132 of 132 guild members) then if the variable tax amount was known each player would then have to work off their portion of that. I would make the math equation for this but I don't care that much lol.
It's a balance thing with risk vs reward. You want it to be as risky as possible without discouraging people from not using the feature. If that can be achieved with more than just gold, then absolutely yes.
That would work very well too I think. Cap it at like 1% and you pay it until your debt is paid. Imagine losing 5 guild wars within weeks of eachother... you might be paying off the debts for months lol.
Well, that could work, if you would escape debt by leaving the guild and you would have cooldown to join a new one or same only after a week, also if by leaving your debt would be recalculated for other members. This way, destroying the guild by guild war could be viable option, so guild leaders would have to carefully consider guild wars and not just fight whole server, as it might need to dismantle the guild. Even if they dismantle and create new guild, they would loose assets.
if think whole guild war thing would bring more meaning, politics would become even more important aspect of the game.
I just want to expand on this some, if the tax is capped at 1% as an example, then it would be an incentive to be a smaller guild as the less members = less total tax. Which may be a good thing as it would discourage zergs from waring with small guilds as a risk/reward scenario and vice versa if a small guild wants to war with a larger guild - more reward for it but obviously more risk based on numbers.
Another alternative to this could be a sliding scale based on guild size. For example: A guild of 50 players is 1% tax, 100 players 2% tax, 150 players 3% etc etc. This would add an interesting dynamic to guild size decisions in addition to what ever boon system they're designing. To prevent some sort of sub guild system where a guild puts their best PvP players in a smaller guild to use for war and exclude their other non-primary pvp members it would likely need to be total war including alliances when these get cast and in that scenario the tax to player ratio would need to increase the total players on the same multiple as a single guild.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
With that said, I would be okay with a limit on the number of wars... but it wouldn't be low. I'd say around 10. I don't know what Eve is like... but AoC will have risk and reward tied into the guild war system. In my suggestion in OP, a guild is putting their gold on the line to declare guild wars. If guilds want to take on the whole server, that is their choice... but if they lose a bunch of those wars, they could cripple their guild gold wise for a long time.
I would really like to see more at risk than what ever gold deposit a guild wants to escrow,
i think it would be cool, to have option if guild that declares war would need to pit gd and or mats to declare war, and the other guild if they win they get that, if they are loosing and want to surrender they need to pay ransom.
Yep, something to fight over besides bragging rights is a fun idea. Just have to make sure guilds have options in case they don't have the gold or resources to pay. I suggested the debuff, which still provides the winning guild with some gold.
Dont really understand your last sentence, debuff which provides winning guild with some gold? Please explain. Or do you mean, surrendering guild could chose a payment type to surrender? Like either pay gold, pay materials or debuff? I think this could be interesting idea to guilds being able to negotiate terms of surrender. If there would be system for loosing guild to send offer to winning guild, so if they accept, guild war ends.
Just something I had thought of when I made this thread. Basically it's a way for the losing side to pay their debt if they don't have enough gold to pay the "wager" the declaring guild made.
>>Win/Lose/Tie: The burden of choosing the punishment or reward will fall on the guild leader of the guild that the war was declared on. If they won the war, He can choose to accept the wager (the deposit) OR place a debuff on all enemy guild members. This debuff will result in a 1% “tax” on all earned gold for 24 hours. If they lose the war, they can choose to pay the wager to the enemy guild OR place the debuff on all his guild members. If debuff is chosen, the deposit is returned to the declaring guild. The guild leader has one hour to make a decision. If the guild doesn’t have enough gold to pay the wager or the one hour time limit to choose is reached, then the debuff option is automatically chosen. Ties can be disappointing but could also fuel future wars.
And I should clarify... The gold from the debuff goes to the winning guild for the duration. So let's say over the course of 24 hours, the cumulative amount of gold made from all guild members totals 5000 gold... If the debuff "tax" is 1%, 50 of that gold would go to the winning guild. Its kinda like the node taxation system except it is placed on an entire guild and is paid to the guild wars victor.
This is all from my vision of guild wars though. This isn't anything that Intrepid has said they would do. The only real info we know is found in the Wiki which is in the original post.
Ok I get now what you mean by debuff, but I think 24 hours is not long enough, some players might not even log in during that time. I would probably say at least a week. Because as I've seen somewhere mobs dont drop gold, they drop some items, that you trade later for that gold. So that means, even if this debuff is for a week, they could still just hold those items and turn them in for gold after debuff ends. I would probably say it might be better if loosing side gets a debt and debuff for hindering combat a bit and a 1% tax debuff, so both debuff and tax lasts until the debt is fully payed. So loosing side can either pay the debt in whole straight away or wait till debt is payed by the tax.
Yeah so all the values would have to be determined by Intrepid through testing... it would have to be balanced with the economy so it isn't too punishing or too light. I also see it as a way to send an F U to the guild who beat you. Instead of choosing to pay the wager, you could choose to take this debuff... then just hold off on selling things so that the gold the other guild gets from it is very low... of course that also limits you for the duration. Of course if they went that route, I think a shorter duration possibly with a bigger "tax" percentage would work better.
Actually the time frame may be solvable simply if the tax% is not infinite in theory. For example if there is a cap or limit required to remove the debuff instead. Then each player would have the debuff for as long as it took each of them to work it off individually. Since the guild size would be determined at that moment (I.E Debuff would apply to 132 of 132 guild members) then if the variable tax amount was known each player would then have to work off their portion of that. I would make the math equation for this but I don't care that much lol.
It's a balance thing with risk vs reward. You want it to be as risky as possible without discouraging people from not using the feature. If that can be achieved with more than just gold, then absolutely yes.
That would work very well too I think. Cap it at like 1% and you pay it until your debt is paid. Imagine losing 5 guild wars within weeks of eachother... you might be paying off the debts for months lol.
Well, that could work, if you would escape debt by leaving the guild and you would have cooldown to join a new one or same only after a week, also if by leaving your debt would be recalculated for other members. This way, destroying the guild by guild war could be viable option, so guild leaders would have to carefully consider guild wars and not just fight whole server, as it might need to dismantle the guild. Even if they dismantle and create new guild, they would loose assets.
if think whole guild war thing would bring more meaning, politics would become even more important aspect of the game.
I just want to point out that if the tax is capped at 1% as an example, then it would be an incentive to be a smaller guild as the less members = less total tax.
not exactly, because what i have suggested is that 1% tax is applied while the guild pays off the debt. maybe it should actually be more, like 10%, so that winning guild shouldn't wait for 4 months to get their prize back.
But again, thinking about it, it would probably be better if the debt is divided by the each member in the guild, and if someone leaves, their debt is distributed among remaining people in guild. if someone new joins, again it should be redistributed. So most active players would pay off their part of debt, and would move on. I know, theres issue of inactive people in the guild. Maybe combat debuf would last until everyone has payed the debt.
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
See right there you say "true life simulation", yet you don't want players to have choices because you are afraid they will abuse the mechanics... just like real life. Every feature I see you talk about goes against the major vision of the game... that is being an open world PvX game where you have to PvE to PvP and PvP in order to PvE, where player choices drive the evolution of the world. They would have to completely change the focus of the game to make you happy... and that isn't gonna happen.
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
you are against the main feature of the game, though, and that attracted people to this.
Exactly. And this is my concern. Because of this one feature people are attracted to this game, what a shame all these other innovative features and mechanics are meaningless to them they just want to kill people.
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
See right there you say "true life simulation", yet you don't want players to have choices because you are afraid they will abuse the mechanics... just like real life. Every feature I see you talk about goes against the major vision of the game... that is being an open world PvX game where you have to PvE to PvP and PvP in order to PvE, where player choices drive the evolution of the world. They would have to completely change the focus of the game to make you happy... and that isn't gonna happen.
You are completely wrong. Civil society only works because of the threat of real consequences for breaking the law. I said there are innovations in this game but they have yet to figure out how to detour people from acting badly. When a game is designed that can do that then we can offer open world/non-consensual pvp. But until killing somebody in a game will cost you real money, a jail term, or the possibility that the victim knocking on your door and punch you in the face. Without this it is just a vehicle for people who may act badly in society to do so in a game that allows them to do so.
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
See right there you say "true life simulation", yet you don't want players to have choices because you are afraid they will abuse the mechanics... just like real life. Every feature I see you talk about goes against the major vision of the game... that is being an open world PvX game where you have to PvE to PvP and PvP in order to PvE, where player choices drive the evolution of the world. They would have to completely change the focus of the game to make you happy... and that isn't gonna happen.
But until killing somebody in a game will cost you real money, a jail term, or the possibility that the victim knocking on your door and punch you in the face.
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
See right there you say "true life simulation", yet you don't want players to have choices because you are afraid they will abuse the mechanics... just like real life. Every feature I see you talk about goes against the major vision of the game... that is being an open world PvX game where you have to PvE to PvP and PvP in order to PvE, where player choices drive the evolution of the world. They would have to completely change the focus of the game to make you happy... and that isn't gonna happen.
But until killing somebody in a game will cost you real money, a jail term, or the possibility that the victim knocking on your door and punch you in the face.
Just no words. You must be trolling.
You would be wrong. Guess my argument wins the day.
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
you are against the main feature of the game, though, and that attracted people to this.
Exactly. And this is my concern. Because of this one feature people are attracted to this game, what a shame all these other innovative features and mechanics are meaningless to them they just want to kill people.
Dude, its because there haven't been MMO like this in a long long time, as most are aimed hello kitty people, who just want to stay safe and kill mobs every day, all day.
In any case, if dying in video game has this much meaning to you, you should really seek professional help and not play these games...not trying to be a dick, but honestly, its not normal not being able differentiate game from real life..
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made. Particularly with the idea of some kind of objective to end the war.
I do however have some major concerns with the mechanic of guild wars. I do not want to see anything like the mess Eve online war dec system has become.
Their needs to be a limit on the number of war dec's one corp can have active at one time. I would suggest less than 3. In Eve their is no limit and there are corporations that simply declare war on every corporation they find simply for a target rich environment, I have seen these corps with hundreds of active war dec's. These corp's use war dec's simply as a way around the high security space penalties for killing someone. In AoC case it will be abused as a way around the corruption and flagging mechanics.
And as usual in my advocacy against open world/non-consensual pvp their needs to be some way for guilds to possibly opt out either thru a religious guild quest line where they can earn a one time exemption that once used will have to be earned again. This should be a difficult quest line that a large percentage of the guild must participate and would take several weeks to complete. Another idea is for guilds to have a corruption meter that is an aggregate of all members corruption level. If this meter is say less than 1% the guild is declared neutral and cannot be war dec'ed.
There also needs to be an opt out for individual guild members who do not want to participate in two guild leaders having a who has the biggest Epeen contest. A guild member can leave the guild between war dec and when the fighting starts, without any penalty or waiting period and will not be a war target. If he remains in the guild then he has consented to the pvp. No one should be forced to not log in or sit in his freehold for a week or two because his guild is at war. Which I have seen happen in Eve on numerous occasions, including myself when I was a young player and before I learned other ways to avoid unwanted corp wars.
Dont think its in game like Aoc should be guild war limit, as one big guild might piss off whole server, so everyone should be allowed to declare war.
For guild members to opt out, again kind of makes the guild war pointless, as whole idea of guild war is to kill oposing guild as much as possible, so that they either surrender, or people leave that guild.
I think guild wars should have meaning, not just be an aditional pvp activity.
I think, guild leaders should have something to thing about before declaring or accepting guild war.
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
you are against the main feature of the game, though, and that attracted people to this.
Exactly. And this is my concern. Because of this one feature people are attracted to this game, what a shame all these other innovative features and mechanics are meaningless to them they just want to kill people.
no. people came for the mash up of other games, and we dont want anything changed. People dont come for PVP, they come for everything else. suck it up, or dont play. Its your choice.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Guild wars are going to be some of the most fun PvP content in the game. I really think it should be free from (or limited) objectives. So far, all PvP content (outside of the flagging/corruption system) is really about objectives. I'd like to have something where it's more about team deathmatch then anything else.
I'd actually like to see Node sieges and Castle sieges open up the attakcing/Defending sides to open PvP with less death penalty (combat flagging) or no corruption penalty pre-siege.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Comments
Ok I get now what you mean by debuff, but I think 24 hours is not long enough, some players might not even log in during that time. I would probably say at least a week. Because as I've seen somewhere mobs dont drop gold, they drop some items, that you trade later for that gold. So that means, even if this debuff is for a week, they could still just hold those items and turn them in for gold after debuff ends. I would probably say it might be better if loosing side gets a debt and debuff for hindering combat a bit and a 1% tax debuff, so both debuff and tax lasts until the debt is fully payed. So loosing side can either pay the debt in whole straight away or wait till debt is payed by the tax.
Yeah so all the values would have to be determined by Intrepid through testing... it would have to be balanced with the economy so it isn't too punishing or too light. I also see it as a way to send an F U to the guild who beat you. Instead of choosing to pay the wager, you could choose to take this debuff... then just hold off on selling things so that the gold the other guild gets from it is very low... of course that also limits you for the duration. Of course if they went that route, I think a shorter duration possibly with a bigger "tax" percentage would work better.
We are recruiting PvPers!
True, but i think defeated guild shouldnt be able to jus weasel out of conciqeunces
There seems to be a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing in these forums. I also wish that guild wars were declared for a legit reason, that open world pvp could be a thing without having players abuse it just for giggles and tears. But the reality is human nature will not allow this especially in an online video game. Players are going to abuse the mechanics and look for and find ways around the intended purpose, welcome to the real world of online gaming. Developers can have all the confidence in the world that their players will be the ones that play the game as they intended in development, but will realize that this won't happen as the dev's of New World recently discovered.
I would really like to see more at risk than what ever gold deposit a guild wants to escrow,
Actually the time frame may be solvable simply if the tax% is not infinite in theory. For example if there is a cap or limit required to remove the debuff instead. Then each player would have the debuff for as long as it took each of them to work it off individually. Since the guild size would be determined at that moment (I.E Debuff would apply to 132 of 132 guild members) then if the variable tax amount was known each player would then have to work off their portion of that. I would make the math equation for this but I don't care that much lol.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
The more i read what you write in these forums the more I believe you are wasting your time with this game... It is pretty clearly not the game for you. This isn't a themepark game where every feature has a "correct" way to play as determined by the devs. This game is going to have a lot of sandbox elements to it where the devs create something and it is up to the players to decide how they will play it.
We are recruiting PvPers!
It's a balance thing with risk vs reward. You want it to be as risky as possible without discouraging people from not using the feature. If that can be achieved with more than just gold, then absolutely yes.
That would work very well too I think. Cap it at like 1% and you pay it until your debt is paid. Imagine losing 5 guild wars within weeks of eachother... you might be paying off the debts for months lol.
We are recruiting PvPers!
What's wrong with guild wars being a way to bypass the corruption system?
In my mind that's exactly the point.
This sort of thing should merely require an upkeep cost that increases over in game time. So if a real life weak ends up being a season then every season that cost increases.
I'm not entirely convinced this should be something that's a prime time limited event either.
Since guild Halls will actually be a thing and perhaps having an objective inside guild Hall that's achievable for the recipient of said war?
Basically you got to break into the place and steal their ledger or something along those lines.
Ooh, interesting idea with the increased cost over time.
Especially if a portion of the costs went to the winning guild, that would be cleaner than a 1% tax on the losing guild. It would also provide incentive to surrender a drawn out war. Furthermore, it would be easier for multiple smaller guilds to break up a massive guild if all the small guilds declared guild wars on the big one - but this would probably turn everything into oligarchies.
You could have incrementing war costs - but the cost to each side of the war is determined by their success in the guild war objectives - so instead of a 50/50 split on war funding, if one guild has been getting more objectives, the costs could shift to 70/30 the following day.
AND THEN
top it off with the spoils of victory being delivered on a bunch of CARAVANS!!
hahahahaha
If there's ever a huge war - everyone will be keeping tabs
I'm not sure why you say this, AoC and IS is ticking alot of boxes that normal mmo players have been dreaming about for years technology is getting us closer to a true life simulation every year I have heard Steven mention a stock market, investing, a creative crafting system, an actual economy, war for a real reason and goal, why wouldn't a true mmo player be excited about this kind of advancement in an online game look at the games from 10-15 years ago they have nothing like that. You were put an a path without many options, you had to play the meta to be successful without much deviation. AoC is offering a huge change to the mmo blueprint.
With that said I'm am on the fence whether to play this game or not for one reason only and my group of 12 gaming friends that have been playing games together for 10-12 years are in the same boat. i don't want this game to fail, but because of the type of players that have started to appear in this forum, only interested in the only feature we a staunchly against. I am starting to hope that IS starts to announce that some of the big check marks that originally drew me to this game are not going to be possible, this would make jumping off the not playing side of the fence much easier.
Well, that could work, if you would escape debt by leaving the guild and you would have cooldown to join a new one or same only after a week, also if by leaving your debt would be recalculated for other members. This way, destroying the guild by guild war could be viable option, so guild leaders would have to carefully consider guild wars and not just fight whole server, as it might need to dismantle the guild. Even if they dismantle and create new guild, they would loose assets.
if think whole guild war thing would bring more meaning, politics would become even more important aspect of the game.
you are against the main feature of the game, though, and that attracted people to this.
https://knightsofember.com/forums/members/winner909098.54
I just want to expand on this some, if the tax is capped at 1% as an example, then it would be an incentive to be a smaller guild as the less members = less total tax. Which may be a good thing as it would discourage zergs from waring with small guilds as a risk/reward scenario and vice versa if a small guild wants to war with a larger guild - more reward for it but obviously more risk based on numbers.
Another alternative to this could be a sliding scale based on guild size. For example: A guild of 50 players is 1% tax, 100 players 2% tax, 150 players 3% etc etc. This would add an interesting dynamic to guild size decisions in addition to what ever boon system they're designing. To prevent some sort of sub guild system where a guild puts their best PvP players in a smaller guild to use for war and exclude their other non-primary pvp members it would likely need to be total war including alliances when these get cast and in that scenario the tax to player ratio would need to increase the total players on the same multiple as a single guild.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
not exactly, because what i have suggested is that 1% tax is applied while the guild pays off the debt. maybe it should actually be more, like 10%, so that winning guild shouldn't wait for 4 months to get their prize back.
But again, thinking about it, it would probably be better if the debt is divided by the each member in the guild, and if someone leaves, their debt is distributed among remaining people in guild. if someone new joins, again it should be redistributed. So most active players would pay off their part of debt, and would move on. I know, theres issue of inactive people in the guild. Maybe combat debuf would last until everyone has payed the debt.
See right there you say "true life simulation", yet you don't want players to have choices because you are afraid they will abuse the mechanics... just like real life. Every feature I see you talk about goes against the major vision of the game... that is being an open world PvX game where you have to PvE to PvP and PvP in order to PvE, where player choices drive the evolution of the world. They would have to completely change the focus of the game to make you happy... and that isn't gonna happen.
We are recruiting PvPers!
Some really neat ideas here. And I am clueless.
Exactly. And this is my concern. Because of this one feature people are attracted to this game, what a shame all these other innovative features and mechanics are meaningless to them they just want to kill people.
You are completely wrong. Civil society only works because of the threat of real consequences for breaking the law. I said there are innovations in this game but they have yet to figure out how to detour people from acting badly. When a game is designed that can do that then we can offer open world/non-consensual pvp. But until killing somebody in a game will cost you real money, a jail term, or the possibility that the victim knocking on your door and punch you in the face. Without this it is just a vehicle for people who may act badly in society to do so in a game that allows them to do so.
Just no words. You must be trolling.
We are recruiting PvPers!
You would be wrong. Guess my argument wins the day.
Dude, its because there haven't been MMO like this in a long long time, as most are aimed hello kitty people, who just want to stay safe and kill mobs every day, all day.
In any case, if dying in video game has this much meaning to you, you should really seek professional help and not play these games...not trying to be a dick, but honestly, its not normal not being able differentiate game from real life..
no. people came for the mash up of other games, and we dont want anything changed. People dont come for PVP, they come for everything else. suck it up, or dont play. Its your choice.
https://knightsofember.com/forums/members/winner909098.54
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
We are recruiting PvPers!
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
This appears to be a somewhat hypocritical position to take up.
He's suggesting more opportunity for PvP to happen in a PvP game, what's the problem?