It's very important that the important events will only take place during prime time, but I believe we already knew that.
I like the Guild Wars free PKing (outside of prime time objectives if there even are any), but I dislike the Node war free PKing (outside of the prime time siege/objectives).
I'm not sure how Node Wars/Sieges will work, but I think it's worrisome if tryhard zerg Node X can declare a war on a not as tryhard zergless Node Y at 6 AM and have 10 to 1 players camping each gate of Node Y for 5 days straight making it even harder for them to defend their Node.
Of course that's realistic if you think about how real city sieges worked a thousand years ago, armies would simply lock down cities until they ran out of supplies. However, I'm not sure if that's such a good idea for a video game.
Hopefully Alpha 2 will be enough to test all of these things.
I assume under those circumstance, the Node NPC Guards will see the sieging citizens flagged as enemies and attack them. Much like how NPC Guards will attack Corrupted players.
Thus, short of them being able to kill elite NPC Guards, I don't expect that camping outside the Node will be that effective.
But of course if you move further away from the Node, it's fair game.
What I'm unclear about is the number of players enlisted on each side. We know that some 200 players can participate in battles of 200 vs 200. Does that apply to overworld PvP during a declared siege? Do only certain players flag as combattants for the duration? Or does everyone in a Node flag as fair game?
What I'm unclear about is the number of players enlisted on each side. We know that some 200 players can participate in battles of 200 vs 200. Does that apply to overworld PvP during a declared siege? Do only certain players flag as combattants for the duration? Or does everyone in a Node flag as fair game?
I'd assume that for the node wars the citizens of either side are just autoflagged against each other (probably through an icon above their heads or smth like that). And for sieges, I think the node's ZOI would become an autoflag zone for anyone who registered. And in theory Intrepid could limit non-registered people from entering the zone until the siege is over.
It's very important that the important events will only take place during prime time, but I believe we already knew that.
I like the Guild Wars free PKing (outside of prime time objectives if there even are any), but I dislike the Node war free PKing (outside of the prime time siege/objectives).
I'm not sure how Node Wars/Sieges will work, but I think it's worrisome if tryhard zerg Node X can declare a war on a not as tryhard zergless Node Y at 6 AM and have 10 to 1 players camping each gate of Node Y for 5 days straight making it even harder for them to defend their Node.
Of course that's realistic if you think about how real city sieges worked a thousand years ago, armies would simply lock down cities until they ran out of supplies. However, I'm not sure if that's such a good idea for a video game.
Hopefully Alpha 2 will be enough to test all of these things.
What I'm unclear about is the number of players enlisted on each side. We know that some 200 players can participate in battles of 200 vs 200. Does that apply to overworld PvP during a declared siege? Do only certain players flag as combattants for the duration? Or does everyone in a Node flag as fair game?
You are mixing up 3 concepts. That's where your problem lies:
Node Sieges
Castle Sieges
Node Wars
Those are all different systems within the game.
The 250 v. 250 is proposed to castle sieges. In Alpha 1 these were instanced. Its unclear whether they will be instanced in the final game. Purely from an hardware perspective we assume it will be, as battles in such a scale eat server resources en mass. Usually you want it instanced so you can run a seperate "server"/shard/whatever for the siege. This prevents the siege from affecting the server performance as a whole. This allows to provide dedicated server calculation resources for the siege, which hopefully will help performance.
Node Sieges in itself do not have a set maximum player cap from what we know so far.
Neither do Node Sieges cause a war between citizens of each Node. So a person of your Node A might have declared a War on Node B. That does not mean that you are in a war with Node B. You could even join B as a defender rather than as an attacker if you want to do that.
Node Sieges is not a Node vs Node concept.
The two questions I would then want to know is - how long do these wars last - and are they by mutual consent or not.
Its kinda mutual consent for people tbh, if ur node gets delcared war on or what not if you dont wanna get pvped you can always spend a bit of time away from the node away from where the people who war dec you roam which would greatly reduce the chance of running into the people warring you. So i think thats fine you have the option to leave an area and reduice the chance of being bothered by these people or you can stay and help you node with chance of being attacked.
Can't really have PvE Nodes.
It's possible to have unofficial PvE servers that have a relatively low amount of PvP combat.
you can use diplomancy to reduce pvp in your area with neighbours though and increase bounty hunter activity in your area though.
Politic maps and diplomacy was some of the best part of Darkfall, for a pretty much FFA openworld PvP game there was large potions of the maps where neighbouring guild allied up or when into no attack packs in area's which made a large fairly safe area, especialy when other guild come in the area and PK these citys will contact eachother and let them know there roamers around where they group up to chase them out of retreat from farmspots back to cities to bank there items of they didnt have the players to coutner attack.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Any Node can use diplomacy. And diplomacy does not stop someone from initiating a Node Siege.
The most useful part of this to me is that declaring Guild war on certain guilds means that their players themselves can automatically become 'objectives'.
I absolutely assume that players still drop materials and processed goods while killed for Guild War reasons.
A profitable gatherer guild (I don't expect these to exist but some people may try it at first) can now just be literally farmed if you know your own guild is stronger. It doesn't have to be that, either. Simply 'declaring war' if you are confident and can normally beat them but keep getting Corruption for doing so, means you can take over the gathering spot and it turn into an objective 'Corruption Free' combat zone for those two groups.
Which in turn, most importantly, protects you from Bounty Hunters and Green players.
If you declare over 'resource territory', it's already spawned an 'objective'. Wherever the competitor target guild's gatherers/tamers or whatever do their gathering. Then they'll bring in their fighters, etc.
What I'm saying is, the objective already exists, and there's quite a large incentive to dec on any economic competitor guild, particularly a 'weaker' one. Therefore I expect it will be the defending guild that 'has to clear the primetime objective' to stop the war and make the aggressor pay any 'cost' of redeclaring or similar.
For this reason I also prefer they preserve any 'free Node War PK' that exists because this is exactly how to defend resource territory and gathering spots for your node against specific types of semi-organized actors.
The most useful part of this to me is that declaring Guild war on certain guilds means that their players themselves can automatically become 'objectives'.
I absolutely assume that players still drop materials and processed goods while killed for Guild War reasons.
A profitable gatherer guild (I don't expect these to exist but some people may try it at first) can now just be literally farmed if you know your own guild is stronger. It doesn't have to be that, either. Simply 'declaring war' if you are confident and can normally beat them but keep getting Corruption for doing so, means you can take over the gathering spot and it turn into an objective 'Corruption Free' combat zone for those two groups.
Which in turn, most importantly, protects you from Bounty Hunters and Green players.
If you declare over 'resource territory', it's already spawned an 'objective'. Wherever the competitor target guild's gatherers/tamers or whatever do their gathering. Then they'll bring in their fighters, etc.
What I'm saying is, the objective already exists, and there's quite a large incentive to dec on any economic competitor guild, particularly a 'weaker' one. Therefore I expect it will be the defending guild that 'has to clear the primetime objective' to stop the war and make the aggressor pay any 'cost' of redeclaring or similar.
For this reason I also prefer they preserve any 'free Node War PK' that exists because this is exactly how to defend resource territory and gathering spots for your node against specific types of semi-organized actors.
I always knew we would be friends
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Objectives are conditions that need to be met in order to end the Guild war.
Players are not objectives. Players can be targets or goals. Sure.
Death penalties are not supposed to be active during Battlegrounds.
Corruption is not a factor of Guild Wars.
Objectives are conditions that need to be met in order to end the Guild war.
Players are not objectives. Players can be targets or goals. Sure.
Death penalties are not supposed to be active during Battlegrounds.
Corruption is not a factor of Guild Wars.
While I understand the need to stick to clear definitions, I have a counter... point?
If I declared war because I want to farm your guild for materials, I don't want the end of the Guild War. Does that mean that my side has no Objectives by the definition you gave?
Or can we count 'Conditions that need to be met in order to prevent the end of the Guild War' as Objectives too?
If I declared war because I want to farm your guild for materials, I don't want the end of the Guild War. Does that mean that my side has no Objectives by the definition you gave?
I'd assume you just gotta not do the goals set by the game and prevent your target guild from doing them against you.
If I declared war because I want to farm your guild for materials, I don't want the end of the Guild War. Does that mean that my side has no Objectives by the definition you gave?
I'd assume you just gotta not do the goals set by the game and prevent your target guild from doing them against you.
Yes but at the moment I'm doing a specific communication thing. My speech type is 'Abstractor', so far in fact that the 'joke' in my sig is not really a joke.
Dygz's speech type is 'Concrete', and in this case, I rather adapt than argue, since the specific words are not important to me, but they are important to Concrete speech. I'll edit the post, possibly, based on it, up to a point, for compromise, and do my best to switching to the chosen Concrete term in the future.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
In order to initiate a formal Guild War you have to set the Objectives for ending the war.
And it's not going to just be open-ended farming opponents for mats/resources.
I recognize that "objectives" was in quotes, so that's basically the same thing as targets and goals, I think.
But...Objectives, in this context, functions as an Ashes term.
I just wanted to toss out the reminder of that.
In order to initiate a formal Guild War you have to set the Objectives for ending the war.
Do you mean the "different kind of guild wars" Steven mentioned in one of the interviews or do you have some other quote for this? Cause the only thing that was mentioned there is the potential level of stakes a guild can set the war to, but not necessarily objectives.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
https://youtu.be/IXIpLC__7fA?t=6927
mark 1:55:27 There's levels of Guild Wars:
The lower level Guild that's available...and depending on what assests that Guild has available, whether that be a Guild Hall or Guild Fortress...there are objectives that spawn in the world, based on the level of the Guild War and the assests available.
So... if you have Guild Hall, and a certain type of Guild War is declared that is maybe a higher stakes kind of Guild War, some of those objectives will be centralized either at your Guild Hall, at the opponents Guild Hall, it could be a progression step-point towards the Guild Hall, it might be a specific period of time that culminates into a central battle at the Guild Hall for an objective.
In every MMO(RPG) I've ever played, Guild Wars are very binary: "OK, you've declared, you have a number of kills to deaths, and the Guild War's over. Thank you."
That's generally how they've been done in the past.
My objective to change that dynamic is to include greater risk for the ides to initiate the war, and also to make it more objective-based than just a binary kill/death ratio. And, the (Guild) Fortresses and Guild Halls facilitate that change."
---Steve
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars Guild wars will not be permanent. Definitive victory conditions exist that are based on the level of the warring guilds and the assets that those guilds have.
---Steven
https://youtu.be/QwbYREEtKAQ?t=4371
mark 1:12:51 "The objective-based Guild Wars really revolve around what type of actions that one of the Guilds has participated in. There'll be default objectives and then there will be objectives that relate to activities that Guild has had.
Let's say, for example, that a Guild recently became owners of a Guild Hall on a Freehold somewhere. The objective might be related to proximity of that Guild Hall. It might be related to capturing a quest item only visible to the warring Guild within the Guild Hall or around the Guild Hall that requires some type of channeling time. Or if the Guild has participated recently in a Raid, there might be objective to achieve one of the quest items that the Guild may have received from the Raid and steal that thing or to kill a particular member.
There might be a Bounty objective on a particular member and that member might have increased damage mitigation or Health against the warring Guild and can call for help in that regard to kind of stimulate the fight, PvP action that might exist between guilds.
There's really a lot of ideas.
---Steven
So yeah, literally what I said. Nowhere did it say that we can "set" the objectives. It's just default stuff and then some additional potential objectives based on whatever activity the guild had, which will probably depend on the stakes lvl. And we got no idea how those stakes will be determined either.
What if I choose the highest stakes against a super small super new guild? Will I just have to kill their leader, because they haven't done shit? While they might have to get to my guild fortress and still some super relic, because my guild goes hard like that
But at that point I can just avoid killing their leader, while killing everyone else. And if the fortress has some form of doors/gates, all I gotta do is to not let the leader inside and we'll have ourselves a never-ending war. Well, unless the objectives change daily.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
You want me to rephrase to, "Objectives have to be set in order to initiate a Guild War." ??
You're asking about choosing the highest stakes allowed/possible against a super-small guild?
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars Guild wars will not be permanent. Definitive victory conditions exist that are based on the level of the warring guilds and the assets that those guilds have.
---Steven
There are also surrender conditions. So, it's not going to be as simple as the war continuing until every objective is met. And, you can expect one of the conditions to be a time limit.
There are also surrender conditions. So, it's not going to be as simple as the war continuing until every objective is met. And, you can expect one of the conditions to be a time limit.
Don't think we've heard anything about time limits so far, though, yes, they are a possibility.
And we've yet to see what kind of consequences the surrender option has, if any. I remember Jahlon saying that there's some monetary ones, but I don't think I've seen a source for that.
And again, from everything I've seen so far - it doesn't seem that we can set objectives. It seems that we can set "stakes", which probably dictates the cost for your declaration and probably the cost of surrender for your target. But the objectives themselves seem to be chosen by the system.
Theoretically, people will extrapolate the value of different guild actions and will then track them in other guilds to figure out what kind of objective they'll get if they set particular stakes for the war.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Expect players on both sides to be involved in choosing some of the objectives and/or conditions of the War.
It's not just going to be that a Guild declares a Guild War and then the AI/game chooses all the objectives, with no imput from the Guilds involved.
You shouldn't need a dev quote to know that, but you can ask the devs that specific question if you really want to generate a dev quote.
Expect players on both sides to be involved in choosing some of the objectives and/or conditions of the War.
It's not just going to be that a Guild declares a Guild War and then the AI/game chooses all the objectives, with no imput from the Guilds involved.
You shouldn't need a dev quote to know that, but you can ask the devs that specific question if you really want to generate a dev quote.
Well, remember that you have more direct(?) contact with members of the team than we do, so the 'underlying philosophy' is clearer to you sometimes.
My group will handle the question for Q&A this month if it doesn't get clarified otherwise on Discord or something before that. I'll probably ask it myself since I have none yet.
Expect players on both sides to be involved in choosing some of the objectives and/or conditions of the War.
Expecting anything is kinda pointless though. I can expect all kinds of shit, and has done so in the past to my own detriment. So until said otherwise, I'd prefer to see it as it has been stated in the past. There's levels of stakes when declaring a war and there's default and stake-based objectives in said wars. There has been no indication to either guild choosing the objective.
That'll be my current take on the system, until Intrepid/Steven says otherwise.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My point was:
Initiating a Guild War includes objectives that are more meaningful than just "I'm going to farm the rival guild for mats indefinitely."
You can expect to be able to extend a Guild War by not killing the leader or whatever if you want.
No skin off my back. And it's always, of course, fine to remain skeptical until you are provided evidence that convinces you of something.
Sure.
My point was:
Initiating a Guild War includes objectives that are more meaningful than just "I'm going to farm the rival guild for mats indefinitely."
You can expect to be able to extend a Guild War by not killing the leader or whatever if you want.
No skin off my back. And it's always, of course, fine to remain skeptical until you are provided evidence that convinces you of something.
Sure.
Honestly don't think there should be any consequence for dying in a guild war xp and mat loss. Based on the amount of deaths it have a pretty big effect, unless that is what they are going for to stop people from considering it. Though strong guild will be able to use that hugely to their advantage.
The war should be about controlling a are not looting mats off people, else people will war as much as possible which pushes this nito more of a pvp game than pvx.
My point was:
Initiating a Guild War includes objectives that are more meaningful than just "I'm going to farm the rival guild for mats indefinitely."
You can expect to be able to extend a Guild War by not killing the leader or whatever if you want.
No skin off my back. And it's always, of course, fine to remain skeptical until you are provided evidence that convinces you of something.
Sure.
Honestly don't think there should be any consequence for dying in a guild war xp and mat loss. Based on the amount of deaths it have a pretty big effect, unless that is what they are going for to stop people from considering it. Though strong guild will be able to use that hugely to their advantage.
The war should be about controlling a are not looting mats off people, else people will war as much as possible which pushes this nito more of a pvp game than pvx.
Works the same the other way. If you can avoid losing mats by being in Guild War, and you also like PvP even if you lose, being at war basically all the time is massively to your benefit.
High level crafter guilds being at war all the time would be cool.
My point was:
Initiating a Guild War includes objectives that are more meaningful than just "I'm going to farm the rival guild for mats indefinitely."
You can expect to be able to extend a Guild War by not killing the leader or whatever if you want.
Yeah, and I think Azherae's point was that you can just farm the enemy guild w/o doing the objective or letting them do it. Now if you're correct and we'll have a time limit on the war - that will not be the case, but w/o a limit I definitely see some guilds just farming their enemy until the enemy surrenders (which might bring them even deeper into despair, if the cost is somewhat high).
My point was:
Initiating a Guild War includes objectives that are more meaningful than just "I'm going to farm the rival guild for mats indefinitely."
You can expect to be able to extend a Guild War by not killing the leader or whatever if you want.
No skin off my back. And it's always, of course, fine to remain skeptical until you are provided evidence that convinces you of something.
Sure.
Honestly don't think there should be any consequence for dying in a guild war xp and mat loss. Based on the amount of deaths it have a pretty big effect, unless that is what they are going for to stop people from considering it. Though strong guild will be able to use that hugely to their advantage.
The war should be about controlling a are not looting mats off people, else people will war as much as possible which pushes this nito more of a pvp game than pvx.
Works the same the other way. If you can avoid losing mats by being in Guild War, and you also like PvP even if you lose, being at war basically all the time is massively to your benefit.
High level crafter guilds being at war all the time would be cool.
Not really as its only the warring guild and plenty of other people are still up to attack them. Its not really normal for people to be ganked either like that as not everyone is going to take a corruption hit. In fact you are removing corruption risk and only really getting the benefit of the reward.
If you are decing a guild that should be known that you aren't going to farm mats off killing people as the reason for a guild war should have more purpose like controlling a area or a dungeon. The purpose shouldn't be im going to kill them for mats, else you create a environment people will always be trying to dec as much as possible in to bypass the corruption system.
My point was:
Initiating a Guild War includes objectives that are more meaningful than just "I'm going to farm the rival guild for mats indefinitely."
You can expect to be able to extend a Guild War by not killing the leader or whatever if you want.
No skin off my back. And it's always, of course, fine to remain skeptical until you are provided evidence that convinces you of something.
Sure.
Honestly don't think there should be any consequence for dying in a guild war xp and mat loss. Based on the amount of deaths it have a pretty big effect, unless that is what they are going for to stop people from considering it. Though strong guild will be able to use that hugely to their advantage.
The war should be about controlling a are not looting mats off people, else people will war as much as possible which pushes this nito more of a pvp game than pvx.
Works the same the other way. If you can avoid losing mats by being in Guild War, and you also like PvP even if you lose, being at war basically all the time is massively to your benefit.
High level crafter guilds being at war all the time would be cool.
Not really as its only the warring guild and plenty of other people are still up to attack them. Its not really normal for people to be ganked either like that as not everyone is going to take a corruption hit. In fact you are removing corruption risk and only really getting the benefit of the reward.
If you are decing a guild that should be known that you aren't going to farm mats off killing people as the reason for a guild war should have more purpose like controlling a area or a dungeon. The purpose shouldn't be im going to kill them for mats, else you create a environment people will always be trying to dec as much as possible in to bypass the corruption system.
Ah, sad but unsurprised to hear that your experiences don't line up.
I'm gonna dec to kill people for mats if there is a 6% margin on it, moreso if it's an unbalanced skill comp, for that I'll go all the way down to 4% returns depending on what level my group's Armorsmith is at in their Artisanship.
You do whatever you do.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah, and I think Azherae's point was that you can just farm the enemy guild w/o doing the objective or letting them do it. Now if you're correct and we'll have a time limit on the war - that will not be the case, but w/o a limit I definitely see some guilds just farming their enemy until the enemy surrenders (which might bring them even deeper into despair, if the cost is somewhat high).
That's not going to be a thing. Which is why you can expect time limit will be one of the win/lose conditions.
I don't know why you think there will be a loophole for the dev statement: "Guild Wars will not be permanent."
My point was:
Initiating a Guild War includes objectives that are more meaningful than just "I'm going to farm the rival guild for mats indefinitely."
You can expect to be able to extend a Guild War by not killing the leader or whatever if you want.
No skin off my back. And it's always, of course, fine to remain skeptical until you are provided evidence that convinces you of something.
Sure.
Honestly don't think there should be any consequence for dying in a guild war xp and mat loss. Based on the amount of deaths it have a pretty big effect, unless that is what they are going for to stop people from considering it. Though strong guild will be able to use that hugely to their advantage.
The war should be about controlling a are not looting mats off people, else people will war as much as possible which pushes this nito more of a pvp game than pvx.
Works the same the other way. If you can avoid losing mats by being in Guild War, and you also like PvP even if you lose, being at war basically all the time is massively to your benefit.
High level crafter guilds being at war all the time would be cool.
Not really as its only the warring guild and plenty of other people are still up to attack them. Its not really normal for people to be ganked either like that as not everyone is going to take a corruption hit. In fact you are removing corruption risk and only really getting the benefit of the reward.
If you are decing a guild that should be known that you aren't going to farm mats off killing people as the reason for a guild war should have more purpose like controlling a area or a dungeon. The purpose shouldn't be im going to kill them for mats, else you create a environment people will always be trying to dec as much as possible in to bypass the corruption system.
Ah, sad but unsurprised to hear that your experiences don't line up.
I'm gonna dec to kill people for mats if there is a 6% margin on it, moreso if it's an unbalanced skill comp, for that I'll go all the way down to 4% returns depending on what level my group's Armorsmith is at in their Artisanship.
Comments
I assume under those circumstance, the Node NPC Guards will see the sieging citizens flagged as enemies and attack them. Much like how NPC Guards will attack Corrupted players.
Thus, short of them being able to kill elite NPC Guards, I don't expect that camping outside the Node will be that effective.
But of course if you move further away from the Node, it's fair game.
What I'm unclear about is the number of players enlisted on each side. We know that some 200 players can participate in battles of 200 vs 200. Does that apply to overworld PvP during a declared siege? Do only certain players flag as combattants for the duration? Or does everyone in a Node flag as fair game?
You are mixing up 3 concepts. That's where your problem lies:
Those are all different systems within the game.
The 250 v. 250 is proposed to castle sieges. In Alpha 1 these were instanced. Its unclear whether they will be instanced in the final game. Purely from an hardware perspective we assume it will be, as battles in such a scale eat server resources en mass. Usually you want it instanced so you can run a seperate "server"/shard/whatever for the siege. This prevents the siege from affecting the server performance as a whole. This allows to provide dedicated server calculation resources for the siege, which hopefully will help performance.
Node Sieges in itself do not have a set maximum player cap from what we know so far.
Neither do Node Sieges cause a war between citizens of each Node. So a person of your Node A might have declared a War on Node B. That does not mean that you are in a war with Node B. You could even join B as a defender rather than as an attacker if you want to do that.
Node Sieges is not a Node vs Node concept.
Nodewars are Node vs. Node. Node Sieges are not.
Its kinda mutual consent for people tbh, if ur node gets delcared war on or what not if you dont wanna get pvped you can always spend a bit of time away from the node away from where the people who war dec you roam which would greatly reduce the chance of running into the people warring you. So i think thats fine you have the option to leave an area and reduice the chance of being bothered by these people or you can stay and help you node with chance of being attacked.
you can use diplomancy to reduce pvp in your area with neighbours though and increase bounty hunter activity in your area though.
Politic maps and diplomacy was some of the best part of Darkfall, for a pretty much FFA openworld PvP game there was large potions of the maps where neighbouring guild allied up or when into no attack packs in area's which made a large fairly safe area, especialy when other guild come in the area and PK these citys will contact eachother and let them know there roamers around where they group up to chase them out of retreat from farmspots back to cities to bank there items of they didnt have the players to coutner attack.
I absolutely assume that players still drop materials and processed goods while killed for Guild War reasons.
A profitable gatherer guild (I don't expect these to exist but some people may try it at first) can now just be literally farmed if you know your own guild is stronger. It doesn't have to be that, either. Simply 'declaring war' if you are confident and can normally beat them but keep getting Corruption for doing so, means you can take over the gathering spot and it turn into an objective 'Corruption Free' combat zone for those two groups.
Which in turn, most importantly, protects you from Bounty Hunters and Green players.
If you declare over 'resource territory', it's already spawned an 'objective'. Wherever the competitor target guild's gatherers/tamers or whatever do their gathering. Then they'll bring in their fighters, etc.
What I'm saying is, the objective already exists, and there's quite a large incentive to dec on any economic competitor guild, particularly a 'weaker' one. Therefore I expect it will be the defending guild that 'has to clear the primetime objective' to stop the war and make the aggressor pay any 'cost' of redeclaring or similar.
For this reason I also prefer they preserve any 'free Node War PK' that exists because this is exactly how to defend resource territory and gathering spots for your node against specific types of semi-organized actors.
I always knew we would be friends
Players are not objectives. Players can be targets or goals. Sure.
Death penalties are not supposed to be active during Battlegrounds.
Corruption is not a factor of Guild Wars.
While I understand the need to stick to clear definitions, I have a counter... point?
If I declared war because I want to farm your guild for materials, I don't want the end of the Guild War. Does that mean that my side has no Objectives by the definition you gave?
Or can we count 'Conditions that need to be met in order to prevent the end of the Guild War' as Objectives too?
Yes but at the moment I'm doing a specific communication thing. My speech type is 'Abstractor', so far in fact that the 'joke' in my sig is not really a joke.
Dygz's speech type is 'Concrete', and in this case, I rather adapt than argue, since the specific words are not important to me, but they are important to Concrete speech. I'll edit the post, possibly, based on it, up to a point, for compromise, and do my best to switching to the chosen Concrete term in the future.
And it's not going to just be open-ended farming opponents for mats/resources.
I recognize that "objectives" was in quotes, so that's basically the same thing as targets and goals, I think.
But...Objectives, in this context, functions as an Ashes term.
I just wanted to toss out the reminder of that.
But, it could be a minor quibble. Yes.
mark 1:55:27
There's levels of Guild Wars:
The lower level Guild that's available...and depending on what assests that Guild has available, whether that be a Guild Hall or Guild Fortress...there are objectives that spawn in the world, based on the level of the Guild War and the assests available.
So... if you have Guild Hall, and a certain type of Guild War is declared that is maybe a higher stakes kind of Guild War, some of those objectives will be centralized either at your Guild Hall, at the opponents Guild Hall, it could be a progression step-point towards the Guild Hall, it might be a specific period of time that culminates into a central battle at the Guild Hall for an objective.
In every MMO(RPG) I've ever played, Guild Wars are very binary: "OK, you've declared, you have a number of kills to deaths, and the Guild War's over. Thank you."
That's generally how they've been done in the past.
My objective to change that dynamic is to include greater risk for the ides to initiate the war, and also to make it more objective-based than just a binary kill/death ratio. And, the (Guild) Fortresses and Guild Halls facilitate that change."
---Steve
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars
Guild wars will not be permanent. Definitive victory conditions exist that are based on the level of the warring guilds and the assets that those guilds have.
---Steven
mark 1:12:51
"The objective-based Guild Wars really revolve around what type of actions that one of the Guilds has participated in. There'll be default objectives and then there will be objectives that relate to activities that Guild has had.
Let's say, for example, that a Guild recently became owners of a Guild Hall on a Freehold somewhere. The objective might be related to proximity of that Guild Hall. It might be related to capturing a quest item only visible to the warring Guild within the Guild Hall or around the Guild Hall that requires some type of channeling time. Or if the Guild has participated recently in a Raid, there might be objective to achieve one of the quest items that the Guild may have received from the Raid and steal that thing or to kill a particular member.
There might be a Bounty objective on a particular member and that member might have increased damage mitigation or Health against the warring Guild and can call for help in that regard to kind of stimulate the fight, PvP action that might exist between guilds.
There's really a lot of ideas.
---Steven
https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/256164085366915072/1005525844980150382
Steven 😇: Guild and node wars can be declared at any time. Sieges and the objectives for those wars spawn during prime time.
Jahlon: @Steven 😇 Right but can we kill each other 24/7?
Steven 😇: During the war, yes.
What if I choose the highest stakes against a super small super new guild? Will I just have to kill their leader, because they haven't done shit? While they might have to get to my guild fortress and still some super relic, because my guild goes hard like that
But at that point I can just avoid killing their leader, while killing everyone else. And if the fortress has some form of doors/gates, all I gotta do is to not let the leader inside and we'll have ourselves a never-ending war. Well, unless the objectives change daily.
You're asking about choosing the highest stakes allowed/possible against a super-small guild?
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars
Guild wars will not be permanent. Definitive victory conditions exist that are based on the level of the warring guilds and the assets that those guilds have.
---Steven
There are also surrender conditions. So, it's not going to be as simple as the war continuing until every objective is met. And, you can expect one of the conditions to be a time limit.
And we've yet to see what kind of consequences the surrender option has, if any. I remember Jahlon saying that there's some monetary ones, but I don't think I've seen a source for that.
And again, from everything I've seen so far - it doesn't seem that we can set objectives. It seems that we can set "stakes", which probably dictates the cost for your declaration and probably the cost of surrender for your target. But the objectives themselves seem to be chosen by the system.
Theoretically, people will extrapolate the value of different guild actions and will then track them in other guilds to figure out what kind of objective they'll get if they set particular stakes for the war.
It's not just going to be that a Guild declares a Guild War and then the AI/game chooses all the objectives, with no imput from the Guilds involved.
You shouldn't need a dev quote to know that, but you can ask the devs that specific question if you really want to generate a dev quote.
Well, remember that you have more direct(?) contact with members of the team than we do, so the 'underlying philosophy' is clearer to you sometimes.
My group will handle the question for Q&A this month if it doesn't get clarified otherwise on Discord or something before that. I'll probably ask it myself since I have none yet.
That'll be my current take on the system, until Intrepid/Steven says otherwise.
Initiating a Guild War includes objectives that are more meaningful than just "I'm going to farm the rival guild for mats indefinitely."
You can expect to be able to extend a Guild War by not killing the leader or whatever if you want.
No skin off my back. And it's always, of course, fine to remain skeptical until you are provided evidence that convinces you of something.
Sure.
Honestly don't think there should be any consequence for dying in a guild war xp and mat loss. Based on the amount of deaths it have a pretty big effect, unless that is what they are going for to stop people from considering it. Though strong guild will be able to use that hugely to their advantage.
The war should be about controlling a are not looting mats off people, else people will war as much as possible which pushes this nito more of a pvp game than pvx.
Works the same the other way. If you can avoid losing mats by being in Guild War, and you also like PvP even if you lose, being at war basically all the time is massively to your benefit.
High level crafter guilds being at war all the time would be cool.
Not really as its only the warring guild and plenty of other people are still up to attack them. Its not really normal for people to be ganked either like that as not everyone is going to take a corruption hit. In fact you are removing corruption risk and only really getting the benefit of the reward.
If you are decing a guild that should be known that you aren't going to farm mats off killing people as the reason for a guild war should have more purpose like controlling a area or a dungeon. The purpose shouldn't be im going to kill them for mats, else you create a environment people will always be trying to dec as much as possible in to bypass the corruption system.
Ah, sad but unsurprised to hear that your experiences don't line up.
I'm gonna dec to kill people for mats if there is a 6% margin on it, moreso if it's an unbalanced skill comp, for that I'll go all the way down to 4% returns depending on what level my group's Armorsmith is at in their Artisanship.
You do whatever you do.
I don't know why you think there will be a loophole for the dev statement: "Guild Wars will not be permanent."
You can't do that if it isn't in the game lmao.