How do you defeat a mega-alliance that's controlling a fifth of the map? You grab 30 other alliances, and you beat the sandals out of them. It's a necessary evil.
To add to this conversation, do you guys who played EVE remember alliance called BOB (Band of Brothers)?
They were holding like half the galaxy, nobody could contest them.
But what happened? They imploded. They became so big that people started searching for content by infighting and all other alliances had a desire to kick ass of the biggest alliance there is.
Why would you think this wont happen in AOC too? It will.
It's a self-correcting system, because nobody likes snobby authority figures.
4
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
To add to this conversation, do you guys who played EVE remember alliance called BOB (Band of Brothers)?
They were holding like half the galaxy, nobody could contest them.
But what happened? They imploded. They became so big that people started searching for content by infighting and all other alliances had a desire to kick ass of the biggest alliance there is.
Why would you think this wont happen in AOC too? It will.
It's a self-correcting system, because nobody likes snobby authority figures.
This happened in darkfall a few times but something i noticed was more common was some members in zerg guilds would get better at the game over time, get bored of zerging, and leave.
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.
If you have the highest end game city and people don't want to support you, nor have a guild of equal size to the node to back you. You need to rethink your position as a leader. That fault is on you for not being strong enough with politics. If you can't handle having such a large city stick to a smaller one.
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.
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.
Was one of the most fun siege experiences having a place to defend and having it being a balanced shift as far as player numbers were concerned and at a proper time. I spent many hours getting people together, the right people and forming a plan. Was apart of the first siege on the server on defending side as well.
*Though like the rest of new world it was plagued with issues and bugs which also ruined it.
To add to this conversation, do you guys who played EVE remember alliance called BOB (Band of Brothers)?
They were holding like half the galaxy, nobody could contest them.
But what happened? They imploded. They became so big that people started searching for content by infighting and all other alliances had a desire to kick ass of the biggest alliance there is.
Why would you think this wont happen in AOC too? It will.
It's a self-correcting system, because nobody likes snobby authority figures.
In Albion Online territories were mainly conquared and controlled by top guilds and alliances why the whole system was eventually revamped and especially seasoned. Therefore, it can go either way in Ashes and at least there is the risk that the system will not balance itself.
We played the test siege in alpha 1 event and it was a tad underwhelming personally. I would of liked to see the actual node be sieged and maybe incorporate the vassal areas creating larger pvp areas to move around in. It saddened me that it was instanced and really broke my emersion (Not sure if this was just a temporary way to test sieges or they will always be instanced). That said there will be a time delay before a siege is actually initiated like you said to prepare. I think the amount of skill and experience will matter. If a node owned by a top tier server pvp guild is fighting a guild thats just casuals obviously it probably won't end well for the casuals. As was the siege you had a fixed number that could partake in the actual event. If i remember correctly they were saying like 250-500 and go from there. However i do not see how you could fit 500 people on that siege map let alone 250 happily. Maybe i am missing something, it does feel funny. Think in all it should be pretty even as planned i wouldnt expect non-top-guilds to be besieging much maybe as a vassal at best as a filler.
AoC should not provide tools for guild leaders to run a guild better. AoC should make it challenging for a leader.
Are you a guild leader / plan to be one?
anyone wanting it to be more difficult is a solo player that is worried about groups and knowing they cant beat them. Literally the opposite of what AoC wants with it being a social mmorpg.
AoC should not provide tools for guild leaders to run a guild better. AoC should make it challenging for a leader.
Are you a guild leader / plan to be one?
anyone wanting it to be more difficult is a solo player that is worried about groups and knowing they cant beat them. Literally the opposite of what AoC wants with it being a social mmorpg.
Ah yes. The inability to read and comprehent. That's ok. Ima not waste my time writting again what I will alrdy have. I guess Ill claim the title of solo player for myself.
Free sieges would be terrible design and takes away any sign of competitive element away.
I hope they clarify how sieges will work in the game. If there are no balancing mechanics in place, large guilds should be able to squash nodes that can't field a competitive number of defenders. (This is both good and bad IMO.)
Of course, politics might turn the tide. If you can attract enough allies to help defend, then you might discourage the attack from proceeding at all. That's not necessarily a good thing for gameplay since no exciting fight would occur.
Free sieges would be terrible design and takes away any sign of competitive element away.
I hope they clarify how sieges will work in the game. If there are no balancing mechanics in place, large guilds should be able to squash nodes that can't field a competitive number of defenders. (This is both good and bad IMO.)
Of course, politics might turn the tide. If you can attract enough allies to help defend, then you might discourage the attack from proceeding at all. That's not necessarily a good thing for gameplay since no exciting fight would occur.
They already have said based on the size you will need a certain number of players. If its a town / city that could just be a 50v50 fight. Also remember there can be multiple guilds as residents doesn't mean only one guild lives there.
So balanced is pretty easy based on the size of the node you need more or less players from 50-250.
AoC should not provide tools for guild leaders to run a guild better. AoC should make it challenging for a leader.
Are you a guild leader / plan to be one?
anyone wanting it to be more difficult is a solo player that is worried about groups and knowing they cant beat them. Literally the opposite of what AoC wants with it being a social mmorpg.
Ah yes. The inability to read and comprehent. That's ok. Ima not waste my time writting again what I will alrdy have. I guess Ill claim the title of solo player for myself.
I can read just find, I'm 100% fine with making things more difficult for solo players IN the form of tons of group content in the game where life is easier if you are in a group. When you play league and Dota you are playing 5v5 matches you can't que solo in a 1v5 .
Seeing groups form small 10 man guilds or super guilds is all better and more fun content for me, running solo unless you are god tier (which i hope some of those pop up that are also very social) doesn't add overall content to a mmorpg.
I hear BDO is a good single player mmorpg where you don't need to talk to anyone and run around circles for 1000's of hours killing mobs alone forever.
I believe this will somewhat be balanced by forcing guilds to choose between buffs and having more people through guild perks. While I am sure people will find ways to exploit this system, it seems like they at least want to attempt to maintain a balance between small guilds fighting larger ones.
AoC should not provide tools for guild leaders to run a guild better. AoC should make it challenging for a leader.
Are you a guild leader / plan to be one?
anyone wanting it to be more difficult is a solo player that is worried about groups and knowing they cant beat them. Literally the opposite of what AoC wants with it being a social mmorpg.
Ah yes. The inability to read and comprehent. That's ok. Ima not waste my time writting again what I will alrdy have. I guess Ill claim the title of solo player for myself.
I can read just find, I'm 100% fine with making things more difficult for solo players IN the form of tons of group content in the game where life is easier if you are in a group. When you play league and Dota you are playing 5v5 matches you can't que solo in a 1v5 .
Seeing groups form small 10 man guilds or super guilds is all better and more fun content for me, running solo unless you are god tier (which i hope some of those pop up that are also very social) doesn't add overall content to a mmorpg.
I hear BDO is a good single player mmorpg where you don't need to talk to anyone and run around circles for 1000's of hours killing mobs alone forever.
Comments
They were holding like half the galaxy, nobody could contest them.
But what happened? They imploded. They became so big that people started searching for content by infighting and all other alliances had a desire to kick ass of the biggest alliance there is.
Why would you think this wont happen in AOC too? It will.
It's a self-correcting system, because nobody likes snobby authority figures.
This happened in darkfall a few times but something i noticed was more common was some members in zerg guilds would get better at the game over time, get bored of zerging, and leave.
If you have the highest end game city and people don't want to support you, nor have a guild of equal size to the node to back you. You need to rethink your position as a leader. That fault is on you for not being strong enough with politics. If you can't handle having such a large city stick to a smaller one.
Please god no.
Was one of the most fun siege experiences having a place to defend and having it being a balanced shift as far as player numbers were concerned and at a proper time. I spent many hours getting people together, the right people and forming a plan. Was apart of the first siege on the server on defending side as well.
*Though like the rest of new world it was plagued with issues and bugs which also ruined it.
Are you a guild leader / plan to be one?
In Albion Online territories were mainly conquared and controlled by top guilds and alliances why the whole system was eventually revamped and especially seasoned. Therefore, it can go either way in Ashes and at least there is the risk that the system will not balance itself.
anyone wanting it to be more difficult is a solo player that is worried about groups and knowing they cant beat them. Literally the opposite of what AoC wants with it being a social mmorpg.
Ah yes. The inability to read and comprehent. That's ok. Ima not waste my time writting again what I will alrdy have. I guess Ill claim the title of solo player for myself.
I hope they clarify how sieges will work in the game. If there are no balancing mechanics in place, large guilds should be able to squash nodes that can't field a competitive number of defenders. (This is both good and bad IMO.)
Of course, politics might turn the tide. If you can attract enough allies to help defend, then you might discourage the attack from proceeding at all. That's not necessarily a good thing for gameplay since no exciting fight would occur.
They already have said based on the size you will need a certain number of players. If its a town / city that could just be a 50v50 fight. Also remember there can be multiple guilds as residents doesn't mean only one guild lives there.
So balanced is pretty easy based on the size of the node you need more or less players from 50-250.
I can read just find, I'm 100% fine with making things more difficult for solo players IN the form of tons of group content in the game where life is easier if you are in a group. When you play league and Dota you are playing 5v5 matches you can't que solo in a 1v5
Seeing groups form small 10 man guilds or super guilds is all better and more fun content for me, running solo unless you are god tier (which i hope some of those pop up that are also very social) doesn't add overall content to a mmorpg.
I hear BDO is a good single player mmorpg where you don't need to talk to anyone and run around circles for 1000's of hours killing mobs alone forever.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvP
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
NOTE
Theses 2 information down below is in the "Castle Sieges" link I would imagine its for all sieges though tbh don't quote me on it....
Sieges occur once a month within a server prime-time window.[3][4][5] (Video referring to this with time stamp down below)
The minimum goal is for 250x250 players to be on a single battlefield. It is hoped that this can be increased to 500x500 over time.
Am I still the solo player?