Guild Battalions & Passive Buffs

superhero6785

So we know the plan is to separate Guilds into Battalions.



We also know the plan is to create choice in guild upgrades - you can choose to become larger, or choose passive buffs for members. Knowing now there is an inherent separation through battalions, I wonder if they'll implement it like this:

-Each battalion is 50 players
-Available upgrade adds 1 additional battalion (+50 members)
-Passive upgrades must be applied to a battalion

So, to compare two different guilds, each with 4 upgrades available to them:

Guild 1 (150 members total)
1) +1 Battalion
2) +1 Battalion
3) +5% mining resource, applied to Battalion #2
4) +5% crafting chance, applied to Battalion #3

Guild 2 (50 members)
1) +5% mining resource, applied to Battalion #1
2) +5% lumber resource, applied to Battalion #1
3) +2% experience gain, applied to Battalion #1
4) +2% damage reduction in against other players, applied to Battalion #1

Now, I don't want to focus much on the specific numbers, as this will have to be balanced, but rather the implementation of choice. I like this method too because it really accentuates the idea of being part of a particular battalion. You may have 1 battalion focused on PvP, with PvP oriented passives. Another battalion for crafters or gatherers, with their respective passives.

People have also raised concerns that large guilds will be the meta, but with this implementation the more battalion upgrades you take, the harder you're hit by spreading out passives. I can see a 50 member PvP focused guild of "Spartan warriors" or even a 50 person crafter's guild, really excelling in parts of the game.

Ludullu

50 ain't feeling all that "micro". I think Steven just meant "parties" (families). The classic concept of constant/static parties that play together all the time and play a role of a single unit on the battlefield.

8 people, in the context of a guild, does feel "micro".

Azherae

I don't think there's any reason to believe this is a game design decision or necessarily has any inherent game design thing other than the fact that you could have a robust permissions system.

This is quite possibly just 'how Steven managed his own guild' and he is using common terms.

You can see this sort of guild management in other games, but it's not always the way any given guild works best, so we should probably just ask on the next LiveStream if 'Batallions' are a specific thing within the game or not.

On the other hand, if you are right (and I similarly can't think of any reason to say that you CAN'T be) I'd prefer it not to be the case. Only some guilds benefit from this style of construction/management within them and I wouldn't like the ones that don't have this benefit to have to spend time 'organizing and working around this added system' in this way.

Structured organizing already has enough innate benefits, and 'forcing people into it to get experience with it' might not make things better.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

This is quite possibly just 'how Steven managed his own guild' and he is using common terms.

Here's some info on his experience, if you haven't checked it out before.
https://legacy-lineage2.com/Knowledge/clans.html

Player ranks would determine which clan skills you'd have access to. (here's a list)

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

This is quite possibly just 'how Steven managed his own guild' and he is using common terms.

Here's some info on his experience, if you haven't checked it out before.
https://legacy-lineage2.com/Knowledge/clans.html

Player ranks would determine which clan skills you'd have access to. (here's a list)

I should not be surprised at this, and somehow I am.

I retract my earlier point though, thanks for the clarity as always.

I still hope we don't just see this sort of thing reproduced, but I don't think it can 'hurt' enough to care enough to oppose it strongly.