Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Good Design or Massive Failure?

Last weekend, my alliance suffered a major defeat. Our long-time base was ransacked by invaders. I'm talking about Eve Online, but I think the discussion has relevance for any territory-control MMO.

The fight was not close. A large Alliance brought overwhelming numbers. So my question to the AoC forums is: Do one-sided fights reflect good or bad game design? I expect many node sieges in Ashes of Creation will be one-sided as well.

Pros

-The event was highly immersive! Eve's universe truly feels like a scary place full of cold-blooded killers.
-It rewarded cooperation and planning. The attackers won decisively and got to haul away loot.
-It helped keep the in-game economy active. Lots of value was destroyed.

Cons

-The fight was over before it started. All decisions that mattered (scheduling, coordination, etc) were made off the battlefield and probably outside of the game entirely.
-Individual combatants and their skills were not important.

What do you think? Are there benefits/downsides that I haven't considered? Are you looking forward to similar battles in Ashes of Creation, or are you dreading them?


Eve Killboard Link for Reference: https://zkillboard.com/kill/101257746/




«1

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Things like this are good design, but only for niche games.

    EVE would not be EVE without it, and would probably have long since shut down without these kinds of events.

    However, that doesn't mean other game would or should follow suit, as there are a very limited pool of players that are in to this kind of thing.
  • CraikenCraiken Member
    edited June 11
    Noaani wrote: »
    Things like this are good design, but only for niche games.

    I recall hearing Steven say it's not the developers' job to balance the number of players involved in node sieges. I took that to mean he thought the pros of allowing one-sided fights outweighed the cons. Do you think that will make Ashes of Creation a niche game?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Craiken wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Things like this are good design, but only for niche games.

    I recall hearing Steven say it's not the developers' job to balance the number of players involved in node sieges. I took that to mean he thought the pros of allowing one-sided fights outweighed the cons. Do you think that will make Ashes of Creation a niche game?

    Ashes is indeed a niche game.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    That link doesn't really tell me anything cause I'm not familiar with EVE's economy/items, but value-wise how much did that big alliance win considering their troop investment. Also, how much resources did they spend to achieve the win?

    As I see it, so long as the bigger force spends more resources to siege and win a smaller node than the resources they get out of that node - the system is "balanced". And with defenders, allegedly, having advantages over the attackers, the force sizes might balance out somewhat too.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member
    edited June 11
    I’m a fan of rewarding initiative, planning, and coordinated execution. With open world pvp, raids are going to require a plan to get everyone to the raid, conduct the raid, and safely extract everyone back to the guild house. I’d like for those guilds to be rewarded over those groups that are unable to do so.

    Of course, I also want those groups capable of attacking and defeating such a guild to be proportionately rewarded.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Large number of players in megaguilds, (Avengers+Avengers2,+Avengers3+ Avengers4= 150000000000 members) is bad for mmorpgs, I was disappointed by IS sometime back when they asked "what tools do you think guild leaders need to run guilds better?"
    It's bad for mmorpgs when one person and their close friends run faceless zergfests. But people have got used to joining a guild in order to find instanced gameplay groups, and guild leaders have got used to having endless number of healers, tanks, dds for instanced gameplay runs.

    It will be better for AoC, which isn't based in instanced content to make it more difficult for megaguilds to form and allow real guilds, independent guilds to form true alliances. In such alliances the alliance leader won't have control over all the members. In such alliances there is room for real human interaction. Leaders and members may argue with each other and if there isn't a sense of unity in the alliance it may stop existing, bringing fresh air to a server. In most mmos the unity is forced upon the faceless members, under one leader and his/her circle.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited June 11
    AoC should not provide tools for guild leaders to run a guild better. AoC should make it challenging for a leader.

    Guilds Lvs should be fairly hard to achieve. The max capacity of total guild members should not exceed 150. I dont think the plan of giving guilds the option to choose between passive skills and extra member slots is healthy. I think leveling a guild should be done by awesome guild quests with 2-3 full groups, gold and mats.
    Guild passive skills should be earned by in the open world, raiding in the instanced content, or helping members reach milestones, such as players reaching the stage where they can combine their main class with the secondary, reaching a high lv in a gathering/crafting profession etc etc.

    I think this will help guilds in AoC be full of members that are friends with each other, help each other, play with each other. I think this will create healthy guilds and healthy alliances that won't turn the server into two sides dominating everything for an eternety.

    If there is a leader out there, that under the above circumstances manages to create a megaguild of 1500-2000 members, and that megaguild dominates then good on them. They spend time leveling up Avengers, Avengers2, Avengers3, Avengers4 in order to be able to have a total number of 2000 members, and in the process THE MEMBERS OF THIS MEGAGUILD BECAME FRIENDS WITH EACH OTHER, AND PLAYED TOGETHER.


  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited June 11
    If the max battle size is 250vs250 for sieges in Ashes, I'm not sure how nodes would be zerged down by numbers like in Eve. The whole server of tens of thousands of players could decide it's your nodes time to go. All you need is 250 players out of the tens of thousands to defend.

    If Intrepid gets to 500 vs 500 like they want to then there's a bit more runway there for it though. I dunno, I don't completely understand how the siege system is going to work yet.

    Edit: My understanding is that castle sieges are intended to be 250vs250, if not 500vs500. And node sieges are meant to be open or something, like anyone can sign up to attack or defend? Well what happens when 1500 attackers show up and crash the server. Is it instanced, is it sectioned off or something, I dunno.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    I dont think that if AoC manages to have 500 or 1000 players running around a castle without lag that automatically means that other players can't be present and participate. Was there ever a mention of locking out players from the 250v250/500v500 ?
    There are no such rules as to who can declare attack or defence in a siege castle and how many people can be present. The more people will be there, the more lag will be. AoC just wants to manage a large number of players in a location, without lag.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    If the max battle size is 250vs250 for sieges in Ashes, I'm not sure how nodes would be zerged down by numbers like in Eve. The whole server of tens of thousands of players could decide it's your nodes time to go. All you need is 250 players out of the tens of thousands to defend.

    If Intrepid gets to 500 vs 500 like they want to then there's a bit more runway there for it though. I dunno, I don't completely understand how the siege system is going to work yet.

    Edit: My understanding is that castle sieges are intended to be 250vs250, if not 500vs500. And node sieges are meant to be open or something, like anyone can sign up to attack or defend? Well what happens when 1500 attackers show up and crash the server. Is it instanced, is it sectioned off or something, I dunno.

    A key thing to keep in mind here is that the 500v500 (which I think we should all just assume will happen) is only the limit for the actual siege.

    This leaves the lead up to that siege - collecting materials, running caravans etc - to be interrupted by many thousands of players, if that many players are against you.

    This isn't exactly the same as it is in EVE, where thousands of players can attack you at the same time, but Ashes does still have systems where more people against you and your node makes it much harder for you to successfully defend it.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    56th reference here says non-registered dudes won't be let into the siege field.
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    If the max battle size is 250vs250 for sieges in Ashes, I'm not sure how nodes would be zerged down by numbers like in Eve. The whole server of tens of thousands of players could decide it's your nodes time to go. All you need is 250 players out of the tens of thousands to defend.
    If you have a lvl3 node with lvl 25-30 dudes and a lvl6 node with lvl 50 top gear dudes and the lvl6 node, for whatever reason, decides to siege lvl3 - lvl3 is fucked. Which is why I said that there should be a higher cost for that kind of siege on the stronger side.

    Also, we don't know how the defenders will be picked if Intrepid decides to have sieges as instanced battles. Every citizen is registered as the defender, but who knows who exactly will get to fight.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Noaani wrote: »
    This leaves the lead up to that siege - collecting materials, running caravans etc - to be interrupted by many thousands of players, if that many players are against you.

    Yeah the entire server could declare total war on this node. Full blockade, corruption killing everyone at all times 24/7. Even inside their city too lol. They can definitely make life there hell and basically force them to go broke and give up. Much like a real life siege...

    But ultimately the actual battle would be at whatever numbers the server can handle I guess. And I don't really understand how they would stop ungodly amounts of players showing up and making it unplayable or crashing it. I dunno, I just got questions heh

  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    NiKr wrote: »
    56th reference here says non-registered dudes won't be let into the siege field.

    Yeah I saw that reference. Reference 14, 15 and 28 makes it sound like a lot of people can sign up though, even people unaffiliated with the node. So how many hundreds if not thousands of people will be eligible to sign up.

    And yeah if there's limits on how many people can participate, how is it determined who gets picked.

  • CraikenCraiken Member
    I don't think there's any limit on the number of attackers... The Wiki does say that only registered attackers will be able to fight, but there aren't any limits on registration (except defenders can't register, of course).

    "The player who originally declared the siege cannot exclude anyone from joining the attack."

    The 250v250 (or 500v500) numbers sound like technical goals, not limits imposed by game mechanics.
  • CraikenCraiken Member
    edited June 11
    NiKr wrote: »
    That link doesn't really tell me anything cause I'm not familiar with EVE's economy/items, but value-wise how much did that big alliance win considering their troop investment. Also, how much resources did they spend to achieve the win?

    The battle was a relatively small affair. In AoC terms, it was a village-level siege. But the attackers probably spent less on the operation than they gained. Edit: I suspect they were motivated by the fun of blowing stuff up. The money was small potatoes.
  • edited June 11
    How many vs how many was it?
    Im kinda curious about how impactiful quantity vs quality is in EvE, is it normal to see reasonably smaller alliances winning against fairly bigger ones, or number are almost always the definitive factor in winning or losing in EvE?

    In Lineage 2 for example smaller well geared, organized and skilled groups/clans could wreak havoc against less geared, less organized and less skilled Zergs, quality was more important than quantity quite frequently, and sometimes a single Top player/party could make a crazy difference even in a fully fledged siege.

    i like to link this video as an extreme example of 9 players(1 party) messing up with 170+ people (a big clan)
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • OtrOtr Member
    Craiken wrote: »
    What do you think? Are there benefits/downsides that I haven't considered? Are you looking forward to similar battles in Ashes of Creation, or are you dreading them?
    I think Eve Online has the advantage that has one universe only, with players playing in different time zones. This increases chaos and makes alliances which control the entire server unlikely. Also it was born in the past, when players were different.

    1) If Ashes of Creation will try to attract many players at launch, will have to figure out how to merge servers.

    2) If AoC will start with a small player base, it might not get enough player generated chaos on servers. Devs might try to stir things up with various natural events.

    I am not very optimistic right now that chaos will be as high as in Eve. But the game release is a few years away and predicting things before developers had the chance to test and ballance their game with the alpha 2 is hard.
  • FerrymanFerryman Member
    This is a good question because dynamic territory control systems typically has pros and cons. These kinds of systems creates interesting events, immersive experiences and are good for the economy. However, these will cause frustration for losing side players or those who the outcome affects negatively. There is also a risk that top guilds and alliances eventually controls all the areas. These events can break guilds and lead players to quit the game. This is of course bad for the game if it loses too much players because of punishing design.

    This is something what developers needs to weight when designing the system. How to keep the core idea of dynamic control system without making it too punishing for the players. Even a player loses something the game should encourage to continue playing. Even some could argue that people should not be that soft but from the game's longevity point of view it is important to try keep players within the game and not push them away.
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • SongRuneSongRune Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I'm a bit late in, but it seems noone's gotten there quite yet.

    In Alpha 1, we experienced sieges. I can't say whether castle or node sieges are different, but I can tell you what we have actually seen:

    The siege signup period began before the siege. During this time, party leaders could register their party as either an attacker or defender. When the siege properly started, you would each individually talk to a NPC to enter the instanced siege battlefield. After a few minutes, the siege began, and you were able to leave the spawn area.

    Each side of this siege instance did fill up, and people were not able to join beyond that point. (I don't remember if it was a limit on entering, or registration, unfortunately.)

    Sieges (at least the type we experienced in Alpha 1) are instanced, and capped, and you had to register as either an attacker or defender in advance.
  • TrenkerTrenker Member
    SongRune wrote: »
    I'm a bit late in, but it seems noone's gotten there quite yet.

    Each side of this siege instance did fill up, and people were not able to join beyond that point. (I don't remember if it was a limit on entering, or registration, unfortunately.)

    Sieges (at least the type we experienced in Alpha 1) are instanced, and capped, and you had to register as either an attacker or defender in advance.

    So, rather similar to New World, it pains me to say. I hope open world becomes possible, even if there must be invisible walls once cap is reached.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Craiken wrote: »
    What do you think? Are there benefits/downsides that I haven't considered? Are you looking forward to similar battles in Ashes of Creation, or are you dreading them?

    I consider these things to be bad design IF two specific things are true.

    1. The process of reorganizing, starting a recovery, etc, doesn't depend on the losing player's status but that of the winners or neutrals
    2. The attacking winner gains a mobile form of strength or resources that can be used to generate a mobile form of strength quickly.

    Basically, the winner was trying to get a result, they got it. If the losers now 'are at their mercy' on top of losing whatever it was, and are easily scattered... If anything can hit the human psychological feeling of 'this is pointless' or 'people will mock us or tell us to just accept it/get over it', I think it's bad because this is actually what makes most people give up, apparently. Sure you can be upset about a loss for a while, and a few people never let it go, but even those people will help with the rebuilding, etc, if they don't feel like the community is going to laugh at them for trying to.

    There's no reason to 'require' that level of psychological fortitude from basically every player of your game (since everyone is subject to this).

    Similarly, #2 technically leads into #1 in a pretty real way. If the loser has to cede control and territory, and that territory can be used to push them down further instead of TAKING more effort to maintain, then it's bad. Right now it sounds like big forces will be able to crush smaller Vassal nodes and then just leave them like that. If the crushed 'come back to rebuild' without gathering allies, it will just happen again.

    If potential allies look at your situation and go 'just get over it, fighting back is pointless/stupid' even in the case where the attackers just left the Node as wilderness, I'd consider it bad design.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    As much as I'd love to have L2's free sieges where everyone can come to the siege and help out either side w/o being registered - that's the most direct path to zergs being the way to go in the game.

    I've had countless sieges where the defending small guild would partner up with a huge guild and get protection for the siege. Now that's obviously a cool social interaction for the game, but it's only cool when you're on the receiving side of the protection. Quite often you're not.

    So depending on how they go about controlling registers for node sieges (if they even will), we might get an absolute imbalanced stomping of small nodes by bigger ones or we might get smth more balanced where maybe the leaders of both sides of the siege could choose the top 250(or 500) people from the registered list. With leaders being the mayor of the defending node and the person who threw down the siege scroll. I personally hope it's the latter.
  • CraikenCraiken Member
    How many vs how many was it?
    Im kinda curious about how impactiful quantity vs quality is in EvE, is it normal to see reasonably smaller alliances winning against fairly bigger ones, or number are almost always the definitive factor in winning or losing in EvE?

    I think it was something like 40 vs 20. That's what I heard in Discord anyway. I wasn't there myself. It was early morning on a Saturday. >.<

    As to your other question, I'm not an authority on Eve PvP, but it's certainly possible to defeat a large force with a smaller one. If you know the attackers' fleet composition, you can bring specific ships that counter them. That said - numbers help. And outnumbering your enemy will probably be even more important in AoC where people can't swap out their characters for ones with different functionality.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member
    Craiken wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Things like this are good design, but only for niche games.

    I recall hearing Steven say it's not the developers' job to balance the number of players involved in node sieges. I took that to mean he thought the pros of allowing one-sided fights outweighed the cons. Do you think that will make Ashes of Creation a niche game?

    I feel you are very much misquoting him hugely , unsure why you would do that but ill just shut it down now with a simple fact. Sieges have a max amount of numbers based on the size of the town, a max they are aiming for with the largest is 250v250. Sounds balanced to me as far as numbers are concerned.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member
    Large number of players in megaguilds, (Avengers+Avengers2,+Avengers3+ Avengers4= 150000000000 members) is bad for mmorpgs, I was disappointed by IS sometime back when they asked "what tools do you think guild leaders need to run guilds better?"
    It's bad for mmorpgs when one person and their close friends run faceless zergfests. But people have got used to joining a guild in order to find instanced gameplay groups, and guild leaders have got used to having endless number of healers, tanks, dds for instanced gameplay runs.

    It will be better for AoC, which isn't based in instanced content to make it more difficult for megaguilds to form and allow real guilds, independent guilds to form true alliances. In such alliances the alliance leader won't have control over all the members. In such alliances there is room for real human interaction. Leaders and members may argue with each other and if there isn't a sense of unity in the alliance it may stop existing, bringing fresh air to a server. In most mmos the unity is forced upon the faceless members, under one leader and his/her circle.

    That is part of politics, if you have a issue with large guilds you need to use politics to create a equal force against them or break them up. End of the day there will be alliances in the game between large guilds and its up to use as a player to decide what to do. Be it joining the zerg, joining another guild, or being in a leadership position. Making a mega guild isn't either as well, you have to realize the amount of leadership work that goes into it.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member
    NiKr wrote: »
    As much as I'd love to have L2's free sieges where everyone can come to the siege and help out either side w/o being registered - that's the most direct path to zergs being the way to go in the game.

    I've had countless sieges where the defending small guild would partner up with a huge guild and get protection for the siege. Now that's obviously a cool social interaction for the game, but it's only cool when you're on the receiving side of the protection. Quite often you're not.

    So depending on how they go about controlling registers for node sieges (if they even will), we might get an absolute imbalanced stomping of small nodes by bigger ones or we might get smth more balanced where maybe the leaders of both sides of the siege could choose the top 250(or 500) people from the registered list. With leaders being the mayor of the defending node and the person who threw down the siege scroll. I personally hope it's the latter.

    Free sieges would be terrible design and takes away any sign of competitive element away. One of the best designs in new world is how they did they set up for sieges and something other modern games should look to going forward for organization.
  • CraikenCraiken Member
    edited June 11
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I feel you are very much misquoting him hugely , unsure why you would do that but ill just shut it down now with a simple fact. Sieges have a max amount of numbers based on the size of the town, a max they are aiming for with the largest is 250v250. Sounds balanced to me as far as numbers are concerned.

    It's certainly possible that I misunderstood. However, even if numbers are capped at 250, wouldn't you expect to see a lot of battles in which one side couldn't reach the cap? It could be 100 vs 250, for example.

    To be clear, I am NOT saying that one-sided battles are necessarily a bad feature. Like you say, unequal forces encourage informal alliances and social interaction.

    Edit: I found the quote! He definitely said sieges would not be balanced.

    "There might be a higher number of individuals who are part of the attacking or the defense. Those are components that we aren't necessarily going to put on railroads so-to-speak."
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges#cite_note-livestream-25-June-2021-1:10:52-11

  • ClintHardwoodClintHardwood Member
    edited June 12
    In albion online, there's a mechanic called disarray. Basically, the more allies you have nearby, the less damage each person does. This gives the smaller zerg a significant chance to win, and makes unorganized large parties prey to small groups of organized gankers, who can pick off people one by one. I'm sure ashes can implement something similar.
  • OtrOtr Member
    Defenders should have some advantage
    Trenker wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    I'm a bit late in, but it seems noone's gotten there quite yet.

    Each side of this siege instance did fill up, and people were not able to join beyond that point. (I don't remember if it was a limit on entering, or registration, unfortunately.)

    Sieges (at least the type we experienced in Alpha 1) are instanced, and capped, and you had to register as either an attacker or defender in advance.

    So, rather similar to New World, it pains me to say. I hope open world becomes possible, even if there must be invisible walls once cap is reached.

    Yes, is not like GW2 WvW or Eve Online.
    I think both these games are well designed for their audience.
    Players coming from them will have to adapt. I never seen the New World PvP style.
  • OtrOtr Member
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    NiKr wrote: »
    As much as I'd love to have L2's free sieges where everyone can come to the siege and help out either side w/o being registered - that's the most direct path to zergs being the way to go in the game.

    I've had countless sieges where the defending small guild would partner up with a huge guild and get protection for the siege. Now that's obviously a cool social interaction for the game, but it's only cool when you're on the receiving side of the protection. Quite often you're not.

    So depending on how they go about controlling registers for node sieges (if they even will), we might get an absolute imbalanced stomping of small nodes by bigger ones or we might get smth more balanced where maybe the leaders of both sides of the siege could choose the top 250(or 500) people from the registered list. With leaders being the mayor of the defending node and the person who threw down the siege scroll. I personally hope it's the latter.

    Free sieges would be terrible design and takes away any sign of competitive element away. One of the best designs in new world is how they did they set up for sieges and something other modern games should look to going forward for organization.

    I like joining zergs or observing them how they clash.
    I missed the chance to try out the NW way. :disappointed:
Sign In or Register to comment.