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

Mag7spy

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?

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

Mag7spy

Wanted to bring this back up snice I've had some discussions before with guild wars and mentioned how they won't have the negative effects from death(xp loss, loot drops). Something I was right about which is a good thing. Effectively it wouldn't make sense to have those kinds of losses for the amount of times you would die in guild war events and such.

Arya_Yeshe

I wonder the costs for starting a war, I will give the number of people in a guild, attacker vs defender:

• 10 vs 10
• 300 vs 10
• 100 vs 300
• 300 vs 100
• 300 vs 300
• (30 guids of 10 people) vs 300
• 300 vs (30 guids of 10 people)
• starting wars should have costs based on guild size, but also consider your total cost when opening multiple wars against many different guild sizes...

Those two questions are big, mathematics matter a lot in opening multiple wars:

1. How much thirty guilds of 10 people will have to spend to declare war against a 300 people guild?
2. How much will the 300 people guild spend to open a war against those thirty guilds of 10 people later on?

I wonder if the accounting in this situation will be the same or if it will be broken by design. Being broken could be a design choice.

Also these diplomacy questions:

1. Can the defender opt to extend the war?
2. Can defenders ask aid and other guilds join their side as defenders?
3. Can any of both sides decide to pay a ramsom and end the war immediately?
4. Later in the future, will the defender have a discount to declare a war against it's previous attacker?

Veeshan

just a cost, larger clans cost to war dec clans smaller of them scales up to be more expensive (to help with bullying) Meanwhile smaller clans war decing larger clans should be cheaper to make zergs more vunerable to a bunch of smaller clans teaming up agaist them

Mag7spy

I've mentioned this before i don't really believe in paying more to dec. BDO has soem good elements based on the tier guild you are you can't easily freely dec anyone. If you have a dec going against another guild you can't dec a lower tier guild unless to remove all other decs.

There is a way around it by re-decing after you dec the small guild. But you can simply adjust the idea and have other limitations on it like amount of people you can dec per day or a longer wait time.

Arya_Yeshe

It is super boring wardecing smaller groups, sometimes you won't see any of your targets for days, then the war ends. If you like wars, you will fight as many big groups as possible and multiple groups at the same time.

In EVE the best war corp is a mid sized alliance, they wardec alliances with thousnds of people and dunk on them, they even wardec multiple alliances at the same time

What if Alliances come to play?
https://pt.ashesofcreation.wiki/Alliances

What if there's alliance wars? What will happen? Can an alliance with three guilds of 300 people wardec, total of 900 people, wardec a 10 people alliance?

I think it should!
The 900 people alliance probably won't even see their 10 targets, should they spend a ridiculous amount of gold?

To me, it should cost the same:

• 300 people guild wardec 30 guilds of 10 people
• 30 guilds of 10 people wardec that 300 people guild

Believe me, the small guy is not weak, not a victimm he will have more fun punching up than punching down!!

There's too many considerations to think of, I did guild wars in every game I played since the 90s in UO, I've seen it all by now lol

There's going to be some mechanics at play that could have even Alliance Wars so to speak: A war between guilds and a war between alliances maybe. When we delve into the blog about Guild Wars we're going to talk about alliances.[8] – Steven Sharif

Who knows what will happen!

Arya_Yeshe

Intrepid's job is giving diplomacy tools to the players

If I am checking out my enemy guild, I should be able to see all his active wars... I want to see the entire list, even his past wars.
So, I will start emailing people, working on coalitions, bringing people together

Should at least have:

• ramsom
• should be able to view other guilds/alliances active and past wars and check the warscore, also see who aided who as defenders
• officialy join the war inl aiding the defenders: any defender should be able to receive guilds and alliances as aid for the duration of the war

Even if you have a small 20 people guild, if you want to aid a 300 people guild who is defending themselves, you should be able to, for whatever your reasons are.

This is just the basic

Nerror

As long as the system doesn't include obvious loopholes like a guild having their alt guilds declaring war on them to protect from other declarations from real guilds and such, I am happy.

Guild wars should also be quite limited in length of time before a winner is declared (a few days), and I think it appropriate to have a cool off period before those two guilds can declare on each other again.

Arya_Yeshe

I think the defender should have the option to extend the war, just to piss the attackers

If the defender extends the war, then the attacker would also gain the right to call aid from other guilds/alliances. Then both sides can have aid and have a major war