Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Starting a New Guild After Launch
Maezriel
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
The Dev Discussion on recruitment and retention has brought out some great ideas but has me wondering...
The way AoC is currently set up it seems that it'll naturally transfer the most influence to long lasting and well established guilds. If you plan on starting a brand new guild in AoC you're going to be at an extreme disadvantage as existing guilds would already have leveled up their perks, established nodes, and/or be allied w/ other guilds in the world.
I remember when WoW first introduced guild perks it empowered existing guilds and encouraged mega sized ones that people would join purely for gameplay reasons, this made growing a fresh guild near impossible and a miserable grind.
I'm curious if anyone else shares the same thoughts and if there are any suggestions that could balance this out and help encourage players to build new guilds so that we can ensure a consistent cycle of growth.
The way AoC is currently set up it seems that it'll naturally transfer the most influence to long lasting and well established guilds. If you plan on starting a brand new guild in AoC you're going to be at an extreme disadvantage as existing guilds would already have leveled up their perks, established nodes, and/or be allied w/ other guilds in the world.
I remember when WoW first introduced guild perks it empowered existing guilds and encouraged mega sized ones that people would join purely for gameplay reasons, this made growing a fresh guild near impossible and a miserable grind.
I'm curious if anyone else shares the same thoughts and if there are any suggestions that could balance this out and help encourage players to build new guilds so that we can ensure a consistent cycle of growth.
If I said something that you disagree w/ feel free to say so here.
0
Comments
It is not to say that is will be impossible to start a guild after launch, just more difficult. "Extreme disadvantage" might be the correct analysis of the situation for a random guy wanting to start up a guild to make friends. It might just be a slight disadvantage for someone in a guild looking to defect over a dispute.
It is not common for any guild to be eternal. A guild that was dominating a node for the first six months might split over a dispute, and become a number of smaller guilds that now need to grow.
I don't want to see any catch up mechanics or discounts offered to new guilds. To me having a guild should be more than just a neat name under your head, and a chat room. It should be something that takes time and energy to earn. Something that not everyone is going to be capable of doing well. I want it to be difficult so that when someone tells me their guild is X-level. I can give it the respect it deserves.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Nodes and alliances aren't an issue. Nodes are not tied to guilds, and guilds are not tied to nodes. Most guilds will want members that are citizens of multiple different nodes - even if they have one node as their base of operations.
Alliances are something that most guilds will either have worked out before forming, or will form fairly quickly.
This leaves guild perks - Ashes isn't the first game to have perks tied to guild level, there is no reason to think it would hinder people in Ashes when the same system doesn't hinder people in other games.
As with basically every single feature that is possible to have in an MMO, WoW did this completely wrong, and so should be looked at as an example of how not to do it, not as an example of what it will be like. A simple illustration of this is that if you are a mega-guild in Ashes, you do not have powerful perks, as there is a choice between perks and increased guild size.
I don't think this will be as big of a balancing act as some might think. Many large guilds are already planning on seeing whether or not they'll just be a conglomerate of smaller guilds run in a big discord
And whereas I'm perfectly fine w/ being rewarded w/ a time investment...one should ask at what point it becomes a bit degenerate for players trying to build a new guild.
How long do you think it should take for a guild to build up those perks so that they could have a chance at scratching established guilds?
They are effectively the same as any other guild alliance. Eventually, some of the guilds will have a membership base that have different priorities to the whole, and so will go off in their own direction.
I'm not saying people won't be able to create guilds, but that if grinding it's perks takes too long then it might dissuade others from joining smaller guilds which'll stunt growth and only serve to benefit larger guilds.
so if I understand what you're getting at,
guilds gets benefits for being established prior to the launch for launch, and those members of said guilds were backers and paid supporters of the games development, then how is that not some hybridized prepaid pay to win mechanic if it gives an advantage to said guild and quite possibly its members?
Launch should be a clean slate for everything and everyone
(minus the cosmetics, embers etc from backer support)
unless I am missing something from your intent behind this thread, am I correct in your concern?
the increased benefit of influence would give those said guilds a benefit in progression of the nodes development and players participation opposed to a guild that is new at launch.
sounds like a prepaid to win mechanic that rewards backers over new players at launch by giving them boosts.
Anyone right now can say they are starting a guild and attract players without contributing to Intrepid in any way. The advantage they would have is starting numbers, but theoretically no one in this imaginary guild has to pay anything until launch. Launch is still a clean slate, as all of the prep work of creating a guild and organizing it is happing out of game. They still have to from a in-game guild and level it up after launch.
What OP is talking about is after all of the establish guilds get going, it will be harder for newer guilds to compete. I agree with OPs assessment of the situation, but I don't think anything should be done about it.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
oh!
establishing guilds ahead of time is common in any game prior to launch as many communities/guilds play different games.
but rewarding those for early access to guild establishment could still cause an imbalance to influence. If they give pre-determined boosts versus giving everyone the same build, it would negate any issues and reduce concerns of balance for influence and complaints in the community post launch.
I believe the intent behind the siege and warring mechanics is to establish dominance in a node and it's zone of influence without needing to add additional mechanics.
From my understanding, anyone has the potential to lose everything and start over after a siege ( as the node is turned to ashes and debris, regardless of stage). So to give a benefit like this seems redundant and unnecessary as it will cause turmoil. Even if there is a dominant node, they could lose everything one day and the vassals around it would have the potential to rise and take it's place.
Additionally, what's stopping guilds from going around node to node and just being used as influence boosters? even if they added in a condition for this..
currently as is, I'm against it.
that's fair, still against it. but that's just my opinion
EDIT:
so in theory, guilds could become a economic reason to be a paid service as being part of joining a node/vassal?
additionally, guilds could extort nodes with in-game and/or real life currency by capitalizing on this boost by threatening to leave and or joining by the highest bidder?
hmm.. sounds like a bad idea to me lol
No, RMT is strictly forbidden and more than one game has practiced banning an entire guild even if it was only one or two members actually involved in the transaction...I wouldn't be surprised if Intrepid did the same.
All I'm saying is if it takes to long for a new guild to grind up perks that it'll discourage people from starting/joining newer/smaller guilds as people will gravitate towards guilds that already have halls, enhancements, patron quest, etc.
Joining a guild is an investment. New guilds getting into the market should have to work harder to get to where more established guilds are.
Also even after the game launches all of the same out of game platforms are available to prospective guild leaders for recruiting.
Grinding up perks is part of the investment in building a guild. I don't want to see it become discounted. After all do you really want to be a part of a guild that needs hand outs to keep up?
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
whether it's in the game or in real life, reported or unreported, there is potential for some sort of extortion to this favoured mechanic.
Companies that claim to have standards and privacy may legally have to abide by the rules, that doesn't mean their staff is trustworthy or wont break the rules necessarily.
I still think it's a bad idea to play favourites for these kind of mechanics for a game like this. I understand the
"good" intent behind it, but I can see many problems stemming from the toxicity it could encourage of "unfairness" to newer guilds. This would discourage new guilds from being formed and progressing nodes.
Additionally, players will just flock to the nodes that have these favoured guilds in them based on influence bonuses.
I'm against it
Either give the benefit to all guilds, or get rid of it for all guilds. that's where I stand.
Not discounted, I'm just curious what people think the speed for getting them should be.
As far as the second half of your comment it's not about handouts but about giving smaller guilds a chance to grow.
Not even having to touch the dozen or so guild perks Intrepid has planned, just on the fact that AoC is a PvX game gives established guilds a huge advantage b/c of there being strength in numbers.
There's wanting to work towards something meaningful and then there's an exercise in futility...if the grind to open guild halls and similar perks takes too long then I feel starting a new guild would be in the latter.
multiple guilds can be part of the same node and so on in their vassals correct? try to use resources like the internet to aid in your guilds development and success.
if speeding up the way the game is meant to be played is your goal, then your aiming for short cuts and boosts.
Guilds will grow over time and develop, merge, succeed, fail, disband. There's a cycle to that, their success or failure is up to their staffing and decision. If everything was successful then there would be no competition.
It's like only enjoying video games on the easiest difficulty because you like to feel epic instead of challenging yourself to progress into a better gamer.
The line between easy and unreasonably difficult isn't as thin as you're making it out to be. On top of that, it doesn't matter how personally determined you are to build a guild if the perks of staying in an established guild far outweigh the benefits of leaving and you can't recoup those perks unless you dump months of playtime into it.
You can't grow a guild unless you're able to recruit and you can't recruit if people don't see a greener pasture. Yes, you'll have the same access to recruitment tools but it's not really equal when all a small guild can promise is a fun family atmosphere while an established one promises a guild hall, merchants, safe travel from A to B, and more
That's why I'm curious about how long people think it should take to grind out these perks. If you can buy them w/ gold then maybe you can bankroll it through personal questing and trade; however, if it takes months of grinding quest just to start getting basic perks and you need a healthy number people then that's where I say it'd be too difficult and just serve to dissuade people from starting their own guild.
To me any effort less than the full effort a big/launch guild puts in is a discount or handout.
I am very skeptical that being a smaller/late guild will be a exercise in futility. A challenge sure, but not an impossible task.
Also keep in mind. Guilds can from alliances. Alliances can funnel members into one guild and become a big guild. It adds to the whole political dynamic of the game.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I think this is where the misunderstanding is. I'm not suggesting anything less than full effort, I'm asking what you think that effort should be.
Do you think it should take months of grinding w/ dozens of members to begin obtaining perks like a basic Guild Hall or should they be purchasable from the get go if you have a deep enough wallet?
@Maezriel "a brand new guild in AoC you're going to be at an extreme disadvantage"
Not my Tulnar-only guild The Dark Alliance.
We are monsters.
The Dark Alliance is building the Tulnar Civilization on our server!
[NA] [18+] - We need EVERYONE!
If you want in, send me a message!
So first off I think this would be great for a multi person discussion on one of your podcasts and I would love to join in on it.
Secondly, I believe the current systems that have been described by Intrepid have made it so guilds level up at the same speed, all guilds start at a small set number, for example lets use 50 members.
If you do not have 50 members you are not going to be able to compete in all the content offered in the game so I would say 50 is the minimum for a group to be considered a "small guild." Now the first few levels the guilds will be on par with each other because you can only have a max of 50 in those first levels then as it grows you have to decide between perks or guild size. Well having more people will mean more xp for your guilds but at the end of the day that is to be expected and a large guild is not guaranteed to grow any faster than a smaller guild since there is size restrictions with every level of the guild. It comes down to how hardcore your base is and the impact they will have on leveling.
I think at the end of the day Ashes will not be a difficult game to start a guild up and grow, but like any online community. Getting your first 50 members is a huge hurdle regardless of perks or grind. Recruitment and retention is about having an active base and a charismatic leader. If you do not have both of those your guild will not grow and your guild will not retain. Sure the mega guilds of 300+ will always look more enticing because they are a long term established group but sometimes people want to be part of a smaller organization or not be seen as another cog in the machine so that is where your growth comes from.
Guild perks or not, people join people. So at the end of the day people that like your group and like the person leading it will stay and push through any obstacle regardless of the grind. And anyway, your hardcore players that are sweaty are always going to try joining the "top" guilds, those players are not who you are looking to recruit, you are looking for the people who have long term loyalty.
Just my two cents @Maezriel but I would love to have a discussion on your podcast about this.
In terms of success and failure, you get out what you put in.
LOL, never played, but the imagery I had was comical.
@Maezriel
First off now that I am more awake,
I apologize as I misunderstood some information you were trying to present.
My understanding was you wanting to allow boosting specifically for the influence gain mechanic to guilds that are formed prior to launch as a bonus for their support, and then saying new guilds would not survive because of this. That's where my extortion concerns was my favouring those who signed their guilds up prior to launch.. I was like.. no......
Lol my bad, my brain is all over the place today!
There are many factors involved in guild development and node development:
1. what stage of the node are you in or trying to become established in?
2. are you trying to start your own node from stage 0 and acquire vassals?
3. there's always a bigger fish, you cant expect to jump to the apex over night
4. what guild progression path are you focusing on to contribute to your success?
5. do you have common goals or benefits to the nodes you want to become allied in
6. launch will sort lots of guilds out through node mechanics and combat
7. members will come and go
8. some established guilds will try to focus on the lesser nodes to eliminate the competition, not all empires survive, no kingdom rules forever.
9. history is written by the winners ( if you're not first, you're last - ricky bobby lol )
10. find a way to get rid of the competition. diplomacy, war, conspiring, deceit
11. could be safer staying in the mid tier of development until it's your turn at the top
I could go on, but i think you get the picture
I believe there's an issue with this, power creeping.
Finding a way to get rid of the competition sounds fairly easy and even fun, but there's always handholding with other guilds. Bigger guilds alliancing with other bigger guilds to stay the biggest. It becomes extremely difficult for a random guild to grow big enough to take any of them on.
A good example of this, would be in Albion Online; In albion you have territories in something called a black zone (Full-loot pvp zone) which can be taken over by guilds to achieve a safezone in said black zone for easy access to rare loot and resources. Now instead of fighting to get more territories, they make an alliance so they can both be safe(r) from attacks. If you're a guild trying to take over that territory, you wouldn't just be fighting that one guild, but also the guilds that guild is allied with.
As for creating a guild, people will join the guild with most alliances and territories for their own benefit, they wouldn't join a guild without any, because it doesn't give them access to high tier loot. In albion, the alliance [ARCH] has been at the top for as long as i've been invested in the game, with still no competition. Big part of the community hates them, but there's nothing they can do.
interesting!
I believe this is why they added in the node sieging mechanic with time and day mechanics.
the 250 vs 250 sieges of the node would allow anyone the potential for a relatively fair fight. if successful for sieging, they lose the entire node and have to start over. the vassals would have opportunities to becomes the next apex of the node through progression.
They added rulesets to allow opportunities to prevent one from ruling them all.
I believe it's a race to the top, so they capped out how many top tier nodes can be in the world at a time. The participants of the lesser nodes world wide could unite for sieges so they could have their time at the top.
Yes, there is potential for them to stay at the top of the food chain through alliances, trading, resources to maintain those nodes. But, those same things can be utilized to their enemies advantages if the opportunity arises.
There are lots of ways to make their experience at the top, much more difficult to sustain. Bottlenecking resources and supplies chains, open world pvp etc
for example,
nodes can only be sieged once at level 3 (village stage),
that's all I can think of at the moment from my understanding so far. lots of videos on youtube that can explain these systems and mechanics further
The only thing i fear is guilds their ego, many guilds wanted to do everything on their own and none of them would band up together to face the larger guilds/alliances. I hope that the node system (being part of the same node) fixes that issue! I have high hopes but something in me is kind of scared for it to happen.
I'll look into the mechanics of sieges and nodes a little more.
Thanks for replying ^^ love discussing these things.
no worries and you're welcome!
sounds like they needed a leader to unite them! Shape them into conquerors!
there is lots I am still learning too
I'm hoping there is enough incentive for people to want to be at the top other than just survivability. But there is always the option of joining them and being part of their vassals as well.
Check out the node, vassals, and sieging explanation videos
Ahh, I understand now.
Ideally I would want it to take quite a bit of time and energy for even a big guild to max out their perks.
Something to work towards as a guild. I know that member cap was going to be a perk. I would hope just maxing out members is not a easy way to cap. Not allowing guilds to respec perks would be important here.
In that way maybe the guilds could be organically balanced so that a good guild size is like 30-40 people. Spec-ing into member cap would make you lose out on the other specializations.
There is a lot of unknowns here. I hope we figure it out in alpha/beta.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.