Guild wars should there be limitations and if so what kinds?

Curious what peoples thoughts are on this if there should be limits to how guild war declarations and if so what kinds of limits would people suggest and why?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

No limits, only varying costs. You're a lvl10 uber guild with 300 people who defeated several dragons and have a castle? The cost of you deccing a super small super new guild should be astronomical. You can still do it, but you should go almost bankrupt from doing so.

And have the opposite effect for the other side. The cost to dec a much stronger guild is way lower than the "standard" price.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

And have the opposite effect for the other side. The cost to dec a much stronger guild is way lower than the "standard" price.

[Flippant response removed].

This is a bad idea and will be gamed in multiple unpleasant ways, each of which would then require consideration for its own 'method of making sure people won't do it', leading down a whole chain of 'how to get past this system to inconvenience large guilds for being large/strong'.

While this might seem like the idea, the amount of time spent balancing that would probably be quite meaningful.

Dygz

I'd say that Guild Wars have conditions that must be met. I'm not sure that's necessarily the same thing as limitations.

"My objective...is to include greater risk for the sides 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."
---Steven

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

No limits, only varying costs. You're a lvl10 uber guild with 300 people who defeated several dragons and have a castle? The cost of you deccing a super small super new guild should be astronomical. You can still do it, but you should go almost bankrupt from doing so.

And have the opposite effect for the other side. The cost to dec a much stronger guild is way lower than the "standard" price.

I'm fine with some cost aspect, though I don't think it should relate to guild level as people will make twink guilds to harass (granted you can do that for anything).

I think BDO had a interesting way to approach things in you can't dec a guild freely that is lower than you based on the node level you control. You could dec a lower guild still but you have to remove all your decs, making it so you cna't dec multiple "weak" guilds at the same time.

This would also allow for people that want to avoid some pvp from high end powerful guilds to be apart of a lower level node regardless of perks they might lose or some things being more difficult.

also you shouldn't be able to dec every guild that should be a given. The number should be based on the population and amount of guilds they expect. Which will also reduce griefing , else you will have people like me dec 20 guilds.

Asgerr

The only limitations I can picture is maybe a limitations on number of active war per a certain period.

For instance, you can only be in 3 wars at a time. And once you've completed 3 wars, you can't be in one for a month. Or something like that.

Gives an option to restock on materials, gold etc, lost during the wars, and also makes it a strategic move to maybe keep one option for a war open, as to declare it should critical overworld objective require you to be able to fight a guild without the usual repercussions.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

This is a bad idea and will be gamed in multiple unpleasant ways, each of which would then require consideration for its own 'method of making sure people won't do it', leading down a whole chain of 'how to get past this system to inconvenience large guilds for being large/strong'.

While this might seem like the idea, the amount of time spent balancing that would probably be quite meaningful.

This is how I saw the "balancing" be implemented. I get what you're saying and definitely agree that people will look for holes and exploits in design, but unless you make at least some form of balancing of powers, I don't see how else you'd stop big guilds from just overpowering everyone.

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr, Now I ask you....how should a guilds power level be determined? Simply being a max level guild likely wouldnt accurately reflect the guilds true power

That's up to Intrepid to decide. I saw it as a collection of several metrics like gear scores of members, levels of members, amount of members, previous achievements, social org positions of members. Shit like that. And combination of all of those things would indicate how much "score" a guild has, cause all those things combined show how much time the guild as a whole has put into the game.

Mag7spy

Asgerr wrote: »

The only limitations I can picture is maybe a limitations on number of active war per a certain period.

For instance, you can only be in 3 wars at a time. And once you've completed 3 wars, you can't be in one for a month. Or something like that.

Gives an option to restock on materials, gold etc, lost during the wars, and also makes it a strategic move to maybe keep one option for a war open, as to declare it should critical overworld objective require you to be able to fight a guild without the usual repercussions.

a month O.O that would be insane. It feel like pve at that point lol

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

I'm fine with some cost aspect, though I don't think it should relate to guild level as people will make twink guilds to harass (granted you can do that for anything).

I think BDO had a interesting way to approach things in you can't dec a guild freely that is lower than you based on the node level you control. You could dec a lower guild still but you have to remove all your decs, making it so you cna't dec multiple "weak" guilds at the same time.

This would also allow for people that want to avoid some pvp from high end powerful guilds to be apart of a lower level node regardless of perks they might lose or some things being more difficult.

Addressed this in my previous comment.

Mag7spy wrote: »

also you shouldn't be able to dec every guild that should be a given. The number should be based on the population and amount of guilds they expect. Which will also reduce griefing , else you will have people like me dec 20 guilds.

And I was the GL of a guild named "WarToAll". No matter how many members we had, we'd always declare war on literally every guild on the server. And anyone who wanted the challenge of playing in that kind of environment would join us.

To us that was super fun and exciting. I'd like to do smth similar in Ashes once I get an alt leveled up high enough (main will be more chill).

But I also want to prevent big guilds from abusing the ability to dec everyone, which is why I suggested the high costs of doing so.

Asgerr

Mag7spy wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

The only limitations I can picture is maybe a limitations on number of active war per a certain period.

For instance, you can only be in 3 wars at a time. And once you've completed 3 wars, you can't be in one for a month. Or something like that.

Gives an option to restock on materials, gold etc, lost during the wars, and also makes it a strategic move to maybe keep one option for a war open, as to declare it should critical overworld objective require you to be able to fight a guild without the usual repercussions.

a month O.O that would be insane. It feel like pve at that point lol

Yeah but maybe your guild is out of money and potions etc. And the way to rebuild IS to PvE.

At the same time, there should be some consequences both for winning or losing a war. Plus your guild can still participate in Castle Sieges and if they're citizens of a Node, in Node wars/sieges.

You just can't declare war on a guild for a month. Maybe others could declare war on you? But that month-long cooldown also avoids the total curbstomping of your guild, kicking it whilst it's down.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

No limits, only varying costs. You're a lvl10 uber guild with 300 people who defeated several dragons and have a castle? The cost of you deccing a super small super new guild should be astronomical. You can still do it, but you should go almost bankrupt from doing so.

And have the opposite effect for the other side. The cost to dec a much stronger guild is way lower than the "standard" price.

I support any mechanics that can allow smaller groups to bring down mega guilds if they play smart enough.

tautau

@Mag7spy Guilds don't control nodes. While a node may have up to three patron guilds, depending on the node level, there is no guild control of nodes.

Guild wars and Node wars are separate things.

Mag7spy

tautau wrote: »

@Mag7spy Guilds don't control nodes. While a node may have up to three patron guilds, depending on the node level, there is no guild control of nodes.

Guild wars and Node wars are separate things.

What are you talking about this feels like a different disccusion?

I'll humor you though, if you are in a guild and you are the mayor of the node, what do you think happens? The guild controls the node as their member is the mayor, or the guild works together to vote their member to be a mayor or anything else.

tautau

Ahhh, my bad. I misread something you wrote, I should have been more careful. Sorry.

BaSkA_9x2

Honestly, we don't know enough about Guild Wars yet. I, for instance, still have so many questions:

Will guild wars be consensual or can you declare a war against anyone? Ashes wants to add risk to guild wars, but what is that risk? If your guild loses the war, do you lose guild points/exp? Do your guild buffs get frozen for a week? Do you become unable to recruit more players for a week? What's the goal of a guild war? Hurt the losing guild, directly award the winning guild or both?

I'm also still curious to understand how Guild Halls will be handled in Ashes. If they're a scarce resource in the world, if they are instanced lobbies (like in most games, I think) or if there even will be Guild Halls.

Like Steven has said, guild wars in every game I've played meant pretty much nothing. It was always a consensual riskless PvP event, 30 minutes of "fun" and then it was over, let's go back to our normal lives. For that reason, I'm not sure what to expect from guild wars in Ashes, I just hope that they won't be a tiresome mechanic used to grief guilds in other activities such as World Bosses, Raids, Castle Siege, etc.

I used to play a game called Silkroad which had Castle Sieges (Fortress War), they happened every weekend and it was the climax of that game. Silkroad also had guild wars, but they were pointless so nobody actually cared, but I don't think anyone missed them because you could always try to win the FW on Sunday.

akabear

What if a Guild had to pay to declare war for higher tier/war with stakes.. ie war tax at local node..

Okeydoke

I'm expecting limitations of some sort. Just a theory, but I think it will at least partly depend on how harsh or lenient the corruption system ends up being. With the two having an inverse relationship.

I think wars should be something you can kind of declare on the fly but there should be some kind of cost, whether real cost, like gold, opportunity cost like limited amount of wars active at a time, or both. Or other stuff.

I dunno, it's a tough nut to crack. Intrepid's got it though lol. I'm sure absolutely nothing on it is final at the moment until it's tested in A2.

Arya_Yeshe

NiKr wrote: »

No limits, only varying costs. You're a lvl10 uber guild with 300 people who defeated several dragons and have a castle? The cost of you deccing a super small super new guild should be astronomical. You can still do it, but you should go almost bankrupt from doing so.

And have the opposite effect for the other side. The cost to dec a much stronger guild is way lower than the "standard" price.

That's not good, this has no logic.

If a big guild declares a war against a tiny guild then probably the tiny guild will only travel to somwhere else and the big guild will just waste resources.

Prices should be the same, but the price should be higher if the guild level is higher... this will make big guilds use their resources rationally.

Also the tiny guild will have nearly nothing to loot.

Arya_Yeshe

akabear wrote: »

What if a Guild had to pay to declare war for higher tier/war with stakes.. ie war tax at local node..

That's more sensible, a war would have bureaucracy costs... if the guild is bigger and higher then the costs should be bigger.

Arya_Yeshe

Dolyem wrote: »

I support any mechanics that can allow smaller groups to bring down mega guilds if they play smart enough.

This is good!

A small gang of competent pvpers could hunt the rich whales in the server, this would be absolutely awesome!

Arya_Yeshe

edit: opinions changed

Child Item