Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here

If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.

issues with freeholds

13»

Comments

  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Diamaht wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Diamaht wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    they cant defend every node at the same time. (:

    No they can't, so here:

    6) Large corps seek to solidify their territory so they begin talks with other like-minded large and powerful groups. Now Alliances are born.

    7) Large corps find that competing against Alliances is not possible so they begin talks of their own.

    8) Alliance warfare becomes the dominant force behind most engagement, politics and espionage become paramount.

    9) Alliance leaders become more influential than individual corp leaders. Corps are relegated to control various alliance zones of influence. Alliances begin to consider territory well beyond their node as theirs. Notice the language is singular.

    All of this starts naturally when you bottleneck the most important systems behind a small number of doors. What you do outside these systems is irrelevant, it must all go through the freehold at some point and 1 in100 to 1 in 20 is small enough to be controlled.

    yes, people will form alliances, and guess what? alliances cant still defend everything at the same time...unless you have like 5k players on one side or something .-.

    the issue isnt people forming alliances. the issue is people not forming alliances

    And you will have 5k on one side. It turns into maybe a half dozen massive groups with their politics and intrigues being the priority. The rest are navigating within other peoples territories. Is this good or bad? You be judge.

    Too many bottleneck always limit the number of significant voices.

    large alliances in these kinda game never seem to last from my experience :p take darkfall for example when ever a mega zerg alliance formed it generaly imploded on itself a month or 2 down the line or a mega alliance forms to counter it and then break appart afterwards :P

    Even if a large alliance forms and u dont form counter alliance or it implodes it rather easy to probe the weakpoints into collapse, we did this in AA agaist the zerg guild were we just hit and ran there traderoute and disapeared withing a couple minutes to hit them else where and we just had a zerg of 40 players constantly chasing us 5minutes to slow every time and it eventualy broke up the guild as the people running packs were not getting protected and were being focused they quit the guild. Also had a spy account sneaking packs off there guild housing which was causing the leader to literaly loose him mind trying to figure out where they were going :P great times, thanks for the 200-300 tradepacks nekrage from archeage :P
  • Veeshan wrote: »
    AnimusRex wrote: »
    Hi Veeshan

    I did say ORIGINAL design pillars. Economy, Nodes, Meaningful conflict and Narrative. Became the 5 you listed yes.

    You're kicking at the new goalposts (and you skipped the relevant one, No 1 Immersive Story) so I'll just repeat that it does not feel immersive for developable land ownership to be a scarcity in the game.

    its not immersive to have a billion freeholds litteraly the world look at archage housing plots for example. Also back in medeval time barely anyone "owned" the land they were on when the leader of the area can be like yeah nope cya u dont deserve it. even this day and age a large portion of the population down own land for themselfs :P so yeah rather immersive there still.

    A billion?
    I'm glad you haven't resorted to hyperbole in your argument.

    The rest of what you 'wrote' is grammatically unreadable so I'll take my leave of any discussion with you before it rubs off.
    The girl watched the last of the creatures die and murmured a soft 'Thank you' to her rescuer.

    The stranger's eyes lifted to the blood red cloud on the horizon.

    'We have to move. It's not safe here.'
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Fantmx wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    they cant defend every node at the same time. (:

    Has nobody realized most guilds invested in freeholds will have no reason to defend nodes or even be citizens of the nodes.

    You don't have to be citizens of a node to own a freehold. So the only choice you will have during a siege is whether to protect your freeholds or let them die.

    And I'm guessing it might be easier to own freeholds in multiple nodes and when one goes to siege, let it die. Don't waste the resources. If you have 11 other freeholds operating in other territories you will likely not experience much downside. And if your node doesn't change hands you get to keep the freehold anyways.

    So then you would focus your combat teams on following existing sieges and scooping up new freeholds during the time period you can after the siege ends rather than participating in the sieges themselves.

    and if you keep letting them die, you will have 0 eventually.

    also, dont you have a grace period after a node is destroyed to save your freehold? you have to get the node to level 3. so people will be doing things that will give the node exp, so save their fh..so the large guild will have to kill everybody in the node 24/7 so that they cant get exp, in multiple territories... or split their forces and get multiple territories to level 3...

    we have to look at how the systems tie together, not just one aspect of the game in isolation.

    also, a large guild will be bidding on one fh trying to outbid another large guild, meanwhile, everybody else can bid on other fh in the same node.
  • LinikerLiniker Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    There are no issues with freeholds. The issue is entitled players that want to play an MMO as a singleplayer game.

    Also, people don't understand the system before talking about it. Everyone can get access to T1, T2 and T3 processing without freeholds. You don't need to own a freehold to get one, you can join a family, so each freehold can get 8 players at the highest rank of processing.

    That makes it so that 30% to 40% of a server can be at the highest rank of processing, that's more than I expected when they said a "master" in their profession would be recognized in their server.
    img]
    Recrutamento aberto - Nosso Site: Clique aqui
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    Also one thing to take into account is player desity most player will gather around higher ranked nodes leaving the lower nodes that are out of the way will have a great deal less compition for those who want freehold tbh casual players will probaly be able to snag quite a few out of the way location imo, the world lack fast travel so people will tend to hover around there node that there guild mark as there home further you are from the higher population density area the great deal less competition will be forfreeholds
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Fantmx wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    they cant defend every node at the same time. (:

    Has nobody realized most guilds invested in freeholds will have no reason to defend nodes or even be citizens of the nodes.

    You don't have to be citizens of a node to own a freehold. So the only choice you will have during a siege is whether to protect your freeholds or let them die.

    And I'm guessing it might be easier to own freeholds in multiple nodes and when one goes to siege, let it die. Don't waste the resources. If you have 11 other freeholds operating in other territories you will likely not experience much downside. And if your node doesn't change hands you get to keep the freehold anyways.

    So then you would focus your combat teams on following existing sieges and scooping up new freeholds during the time period you can after the siege ends rather than participating in the sieges themselves.

    Might be a good idea to only be able to have a freehold at a node you are a citizen of which would keep strong guilds from trying to get them everywhere.

    Would give more people chances to get them while limiting more competitive guilds at the same time.
    This could be a bad idea though but just a thought.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Owning a freehold makes you a citizen of the accompanying node. You can bid on plots without being a citizen though.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    However, that was not the case just a few short days ago - at least not if you asked literally any poster on these forums.
    Not any B)
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Depraved wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »

    families have been the "default" of playing some other mmorpg if you want to progress, and there was no real mechanics or incentives in those games, other than it was just convenient or efficient. and guilds who recruited these "families" were usually stronger than guilds who didnt, even on equal numbers, because of the coordination of the players inside these "families" (since you play every day with the same person, you get used to each other play styles and what you will do).

    aoc is just offering extras for these types of organizations.

    Can you point me to one game that uses the family system as essentially a firm gateway to one of the four major gameplay activities in said game?

    No?

    Well then, what was your point?

    i literally just said there was no real mechanices or incentives in those games, as in not coded inside the game (maybe only in ragnarok where you could get married and had some stuff). you would group yourself with people and play with the same players everyday and do all the activitis together and help each other progress, share resources, etc.
    Yeah - as I said, it is a system designed for people that are generally friends outside of the game to have a unit in the game they can share with their friends.

    Think back to the family summons - the initial mention of families as a system in Ashes. The idea of the summons was so that your friend that can't log in until a few hours after you could be pulled in to where you are so that you can play with said friend.

    While that system in itself has it's many flaws, it is at least in line with the idea of what a family in an MMO should be. The idea is that it is a system that functions to assist friends in doing content together.

    What it shouldn't be is a system that is required for content, or a system that inherently increases access to content.

    you are claiming that the family system is required, as in players are required to use it to play. im saying since players will naturally group themselves into families (as in playing with a constant group of people), aoc will give them some perks that will benefit them.

    This unit that you speak of - groups that players naturally form themselves in to - that is what guilds are for.

    The idea has always been that guilds are about gameplay, progression etc, and families are about social interaction among friends.

    An example of this is that my brother has three young kids. He maintains an account I what ever MMO I am playing. He doesnt have the opportunity to log on more than once every few weeks, so he cant join the guilds I am in (he was a top end raider like myself for years - he understands).

    However, family systems are for this exact purpose. We could be in the same family, and him jot logging on for weeks at a time would have no negative impact at all on me - because mechanics associated with family systems only exist to facilitate play and communication within the family. There shouldnt even be any negative impact if you dont join a family.

    With this system in Ashes, the family system is essentially a second guild system. It has a gameplay function, and so needs to be maximized.
  • FantmxFantmx Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    Fantmx wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    they cant defend every node at the same time. (:

    Has nobody realized most guilds invested in freeholds will have no reason to defend nodes or even be citizens of the nodes.

    You don't have to be citizens of a node to own a freehold. So the only choice you will have during a siege is whether to protect your freeholds or let them die.

    And I'm guessing it might be easier to own freeholds in multiple nodes and when one goes to siege, let it die. Don't waste the resources. If you have 11 other freeholds operating in other territories you will likely not experience much downside. And if your node doesn't change hands you get to keep the freehold anyways.

    So then you would focus your combat teams on following existing sieges and scooping up new freeholds during the time period you can after the siege ends rather than participating in the sieges themselves.

    and if you keep letting them die, you will have 0 eventually.

    also, dont you have a grace period after a node is destroyed to save your freehold? you have to get the node to level 3. so people will be doing things that will give the node exp, so save their fh..so the large guild will have to kill everybody in the node 24/7 so that they cant get exp, in multiple territories... or split their forces and get multiple territories to level 3...

    we have to look at how the systems tie together, not just one aspect of the game in isolation.

    also, a large guild will be bidding on one fh trying to outbid another large guild, meanwhile, everybody else can bid on other fh in the same node.

    Let me try to better explain my thought process.

    As a owner/operator of a freehold guild what is your primary goal? Maximizing production and profits. From what we currently know the best path to that goal is not through defending nodes.

    Freeholds will have limited capacity for crafting and processing stations even at the highest tier permit. So if you want to be a leader in the economy you will need multiple freeholds. You are also going to want these freeholds to be in different nodes so you have easier access to multiple, different types of resources. Lets stay with 12 as your target freehold number since that is what I used before.

    You have 12 freeholds going and one of their nodes comes under siege. Now you have a choice, do you defend the node or not? Since you will keep the freehold if the siege defense is successful and you will still be able to defend your freehold if the siege dense fails, your best bet is to wait it out and see what happens. You either get to keep your freehold for nothing or you spend less resources defending your freehold instead of the whole node (smaller area and with the help of NPCs) AND against a depleted invading army that only gets two short hours to destroy your freehold in world that lacks fast travel. Your odds will be much better.

    Now, by defending a node or freehold you will still be expending money, resources and most importantly your guild members time, time that you really want them spending on securing resources and crafting items for the economy. So is there another way?

    There of course is a third path. You do not defend the node or your freehold. You could still keep your freehold if the node defense is successful and you could still keep your freehold if nobody bothers to try and destroy it, and either way without spending anything.

    Once a siege is declared that could adversely effect you, you would begin transporting items that you could away from the freehold to another freehold you run that is not under a siege. That helps you keep most of your resources and likely if a guild is preparing for a siege they will be less involved in caravan runs.

    And even better, if you don't register as a defender of the node and your node is ultimately destroyed by players or node stage reduction, you and your guild members can still loot the remains of the freehold that you had previously not been able to transport away. This further reduces your material loss.

    Your guild's primary combat focus becomes following the heels of successful sieges trying to open up freehold space that you can then bid on later. And remember you do not need to be a citizen of that node to bid, you just need a guild member to have completed the required quest to bid.

    I am also assuming that bids will not just be gold but also resources. The more freeholds you have the more experience you have bidding so at some point you would as guild leader get very good at not overbidding or underbidding. You just try to keep your target freehold number active, in this case 12, within a certain margin of productivity.

    Do I care if they are close to a metropolis or out in a stage 3 node? No, not really. What I care about are local resources and trading routes and more likely you will find resources more abundant and less pillaged outside of the top stage node. Also the freehold starting bids will be proportional to citizens in the node so it will likely not be cost effective to own a freehold in the largest stage node as it will have the largest population of citizens, unless there is a must have resource there not available anywhere else. You would want to account for the likelihood that a stage three node would de-level in the event it's parent node was sieged but again over time this would likely not be hard to predict.
    Owning a freehold makes you a citizen of the accompanying node. You can bid on plots without being a citizen though.

    I do not see this explicitly stated in the wiki. The wiki says: Player housing grants the ability to claim citizenship of a Village (stage 3) node or higher.[2][3]

    So in the end, if you plan to run a freehold guild, you would not defend your node and you would likely not defend your freehold.

    :)
    q1nu38cjgq3j.png
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Freehold is still classed as player housing at the moment...I still woukd just replace lost nodes though. Who wants to fight people from the same family or guild?
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Neurath wrote: »
    Freehold is still classed as player housing at the moment...

    In context, I am unsure as to your point.

    Freeholds do count as housing, and so owning one Grant's the ability to become a citizen.

    It grants the ability.

    It is not required.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    So that means you can have any player housing and not be a citizen...

    That also means you don't have to pay taxes lol. What a boon.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Neurath wrote: »
    So that means you can have any player housing and not be a citizen...

    That also means you don't have to pay taxes lol. What a boon.

    I would assume there are still property taxes, but yeah.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Fantmx wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    they cant defend every node at the same time. (:

    Has nobody realized most guilds invested in freeholds will have no reason to defend nodes or even be citizens of the nodes.

    You don't have to be citizens of a node to own a freehold. So the only choice you will have during a siege is whether to protect your freeholds or let them die.

    And I'm guessing it might be easier to own freeholds in multiple nodes and when one goes to siege, let it die. Don't waste the resources. If you have 11 other freeholds operating in other territories you will likely not experience much downside. And if your node doesn't change hands you get to keep the freehold anyways.

    So then you would focus your combat teams on following existing sieges and scooping up new freeholds during the time period you can after the siege ends rather than participating in the sieges themselves.

    Might be a good idea to only be able to have a freehold at a node you are a citizen of which would keep strong guilds from trying to get them everywhere.

    Would give more people chances to get them while limiting more competitive guilds at the same time.
    This could be a bad idea though but just a thought.

    I second this actually. Brings more incentive to defend your node. But at the same time it may push people out of the node once all of its freeholds are claimed...which also could be a benefit to neighboring nodes and increasing conflict.

    Yea this seems like the way to go.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »

    families have been the "default" of playing some other mmorpg if you want to progress, and there was no real mechanics or incentives in those games, other than it was just convenient or efficient. and guilds who recruited these "families" were usually stronger than guilds who didnt, even on equal numbers, because of the coordination of the players inside these "families" (since you play every day with the same person, you get used to each other play styles and what you will do).

    aoc is just offering extras for these types of organizations.

    Can you point me to one game that uses the family system as essentially a firm gateway to one of the four major gameplay activities in said game?

    No?

    Well then, what was your point?

    i literally just said there was no real mechanices or incentives in those games, as in not coded inside the game (maybe only in ragnarok where you could get married and had some stuff). you would group yourself with people and play with the same players everyday and do all the activitis together and help each other progress, share resources, etc.
    Yeah - as I said, it is a system designed for people that are generally friends outside of the game to have a unit in the game they can share with their friends.

    Think back to the family summons - the initial mention of families as a system in Ashes. The idea of the summons was so that your friend that can't log in until a few hours after you could be pulled in to where you are so that you can play with said friend.

    While that system in itself has it's many flaws, it is at least in line with the idea of what a family in an MMO should be. The idea is that it is a system that functions to assist friends in doing content together.

    What it shouldn't be is a system that is required for content, or a system that inherently increases access to content.

    you are claiming that the family system is required, as in players are required to use it to play. im saying since players will naturally group themselves into families (as in playing with a constant group of people), aoc will give them some perks that will benefit them.

    This unit that you speak of - groups that players naturally form themselves in to - that is what guilds are for.

    The idea has always been that guilds are about gameplay, progression etc, and families are about social interaction among friends.

    An example of this is that my brother has three young kids. He maintains an account I what ever MMO I am playing. He doesnt have the opportunity to log on more than once every few weeks, so he cant join the guilds I am in (he was a top end raider like myself for years - he understands).

    However, family systems are for this exact purpose. We could be in the same family, and him jot logging on for weeks at a time would have no negative impact at all on me - because mechanics associated with family systems only exist to facilitate play and communication within the family. There shouldnt even be any negative impact if you dont join a family.

    With this system in Ashes, the family system is essentially a second guild system. It has a gameplay function, and so needs to be maximized.

    the family system is simply perks on a l2's cp (constant party), it might be a surprise to you but people have been organizing themselves in cp for 2 decades now. maybe it didnt happen in eq or whatever other games you play, but something like 30-50% of the mmorpg ive played people have these cp or "families". its easier to find a few ppl to play with who share your same schedule than a clan. also, because there are party limitations, it stands to reason that people organize themselves this way.

    and there are people who go even above and beyond that. they are called 24/7 cp. the equivalent in ashes would be 16 people playing 8 each characters 12 hours each, or 24 people playing the same 8 characters taking turns. some have 15 members, etc and if you have more people than party members logged in then the extras go into an alt to farm gear for the main 8 characters. however, some people dont do the 24/7 cp and just make 2 or 3 cp if they have people.

    then you can even join clans who recruit cp's only. so no, the clan isnt and shouldnt be the smallest unit of organization, its just what you have experienced, perhaps the people youve played with werent that organized.

    so yes, ashes isnt imposing anything new, this has been going on for 2 decades now. the family system is just additional perks on top of a meta system made by players.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Fantmx wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Fantmx wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    they cant defend every node at the same time. (:

    Has nobody realized most guilds invested in freeholds will have no reason to defend nodes or even be citizens of the nodes.

    You don't have to be citizens of a node to own a freehold. So the only choice you will have during a siege is whether to protect your freeholds or let them die.

    And I'm guessing it might be easier to own freeholds in multiple nodes and when one goes to siege, let it die. Don't waste the resources. If you have 11 other freeholds operating in other territories you will likely not experience much downside. And if your node doesn't change hands you get to keep the freehold anyways.

    So then you would focus your combat teams on following existing sieges and scooping up new freeholds during the time period you can after the siege ends rather than participating in the sieges themselves.

    and if you keep letting them die, you will have 0 eventually.

    also, dont you have a grace period after a node is destroyed to save your freehold? you have to get the node to level 3. so people will be doing things that will give the node exp, so save their fh..so the large guild will have to kill everybody in the node 24/7 so that they cant get exp, in multiple territories... or split their forces and get multiple territories to level 3...

    we have to look at how the systems tie together, not just one aspect of the game in isolation.

    also, a large guild will be bidding on one fh trying to outbid another large guild, meanwhile, everybody else can bid on other fh in the same node.

    Let me try to better explain my thought process.

    As a owner/operator of a freehold guild what is your primary goal? Maximizing production and profits. From what we currently know the best path to that goal is not through defending nodes.

    Freeholds will have limited capacity for crafting and processing stations even at the highest tier permit. So if you want to be a leader in the economy you will need multiple freeholds. You are also going to want these freeholds to be in different nodes so you have easier access to multiple, different types of resources. Lets stay with 12 as your target freehold number since that is what I used before.

    You have 12 freeholds going and one of their nodes comes under siege. Now you have a choice, do you defend the node or not? Since you will keep the freehold if the siege defense is successful and you will still be able to defend your freehold if the siege dense fails, your best bet is to wait it out and see what happens. You either get to keep your freehold for nothing or you spend less resources defending your freehold instead of the whole node (smaller area and with the help of NPCs) AND against a depleted invading army that only gets two short hours to destroy your freehold in world that lacks fast travel. Your odds will be much better.

    Now, by defending a node or freehold you will still be expending money, resources and most importantly your guild members time, time that you really want them spending on securing resources and crafting items for the economy. So is there another way?

    There of course is a third path. You do not defend the node or your freehold. You could still keep your freehold if the node defense is successful and you could still keep your freehold if nobody bothers to try and destroy it, and either way without spending anything.

    Once a siege is declared that could adversely effect you, you would begin transporting items that you could away from the freehold to another freehold you run that is not under a siege. That helps you keep most of your resources and likely if a guild is preparing for a siege they will be less involved in caravan runs.

    And even better, if you don't register as a defender of the node and your node is ultimately destroyed by players or node stage reduction, you and your guild members can still loot the remains of the freehold that you had previously not been able to transport away. This further reduces your material loss.

    Your guild's primary combat focus becomes following the heels of successful sieges trying to open up freehold space that you can then bid on later. And remember you do not need to be a citizen of that node to bid, you just need a guild member to have completed the required quest to bid.

    I am also assuming that bids will not just be gold but also resources. The more freeholds you have the more experience you have bidding so at some point you would as guild leader get very good at not overbidding or underbidding. You just try to keep your target freehold number active, in this case 12, within a certain margin of productivity.

    Do I care if they are close to a metropolis or out in a stage 3 node? No, not really. What I care about are local resources and trading routes and more likely you will find resources more abundant and less pillaged outside of the top stage node. Also the freehold starting bids will be proportional to citizens in the node so it will likely not be cost effective to own a freehold in the largest stage node as it will have the largest population of citizens, unless there is a must have resource there not available anywhere else. You would want to account for the likelihood that a stage three node would de-level in the event it's parent node was sieged but again over time this would likely not be hard to predict.
    Owning a freehold makes you a citizen of the accompanying node. You can bid on plots without being a citizen though.

    I do not see this explicitly stated in the wiki. The wiki says: Player housing grants the ability to claim citizenship of a Village (stage 3) node or higher.[2][3]

    So in the end, if you plan to run a freehold guild, you would not defend your node and you would likely not defend your freehold.

    :)

    i think you cant take stuff out of your wharehouse after a declaration on your node o.o

    anyways, i udnerstood what you meant, but what if multiple territories are attacked and multiple fh your guild owns are at peril, you arent going to defend any of them, and risk losing loot and multiple fh?

    also since the system auto flags you,w hat will you do in the meantime? not play your main? go to another node? what if there are people trying to defend and asking for help? at some point you will need them to help you in a castle siege, caravan, or your own nodes and fh. there will be more small guilds than large guilds with 10+ fh. maybe you are right and it doesnt apply to a large guild with multiple fh if you are just risking one fh that you can recover (if you dont mind leveling everything again). but the majority of people wont be in a super big guild with multiple fh, ppl will know each other within a territory and there will be social consequences for that (even if it makes sense to do what you suggest to minimize resources spent).

    on top of that, members of your guild might nto want to risk losing their fh and ask for help, are you just going to deny it? what if your guild members are in different nodes and they are in war against each other, someone is gonna get pissed off no matter who you decide to help, or not help, then you might lose members.

Sign In or Register to comment.