The freeholds are not for casuals. They are for guilds. Should they be for megaguilds or not?

Enough with the casual farmiville QQ.
Freeholds are an important achievement.

Feeeholds should be family locked. Period. This will prevent 1000 member guilds from giving permission to 1000 people to work on the freehold.
Even the battalion permission idea will cause people to stop and think:

"Do I wanna be a nobody with nothing, amongst 1000 people? Or should I join a guild with 50-80 members and rotate batalion/family membership so that I am permitted to gain access to the 'guilds freeholds' ?" Fvck waiting for 1000 other members.

I think such restrictions will further empower meaningful, smaller communities and weaken the strong advantage that big guilds have, the sheer numbers power.

I think freeholds should allow permission to family members only to help small, strong guilds compete for them, whilst the big guilds enjoy the castles.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

deadmansprice

Lads, let's just chill a bit. While it's fine to argue about things, it's best to keep it civil. We all have different opinions on what we see on Steven's vision and the direction of Ashes, and while it's true that Ashes is geared towards a very specific audience, being very aggressive with someone is not productive

Noaani

deadmansprice wrote: »

and while it's true that Ashes is geared towards a very specific audience, being very aggressive with someone is not productive

To be fair, that very specific audience that Ashes is geared towards is very aggressive.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect anything less while discussing the game. If the forums weren't aggressive, then that just means the target audience for the game aren't participating in the discussion.

Shabooey

Just because someone likes "aggressive" gameplay, which I presume you mean PvP, in no way makes them an aggressive person or gives them the right to behave aggressively in a forum.

Noaani

Shabooey wrote: »

Just because someone likes "aggressive" gameplay, which I presume you mean PvP, in no way makes them an aggressive person or gives them the right to behave aggressively in a forum.

Sure it does.

George_Black

deadmansprice wrote: »

Lads, let's just chill a bit. While it's fine to argue about things, it's best to keep it civil. We all have different opinions on what we see on Steven's vision and the direction of Ashes, and while it's true that Ashes is geared towards a very specific audience, being very aggressive with someone is not productive

I am not aggressive. I am confronting peoples claims. I will leave it at that, since I noticed that you are a mod, and perhaps somebody has felt wrong by me and brought this to your attention.

Shabooey

That's one of the most ridiculous takes I've ever heard. So you're saying because of the way we like to play a game, that's how we are in real life?

Raven016

Shabooey wrote: »

Just because someone likes "aggressive" gameplay, which I presume you mean PvP, in no way makes them an aggressive person or gives them the right to behave aggressively in a forum.

The true ego comes out when you play the game.
They would do the same during a zombie apocalypse in rl

George_Black

I will leave it at that. Remember the topic, which is about guild gameplay and freeholds. Let's be constructive again.

Raven016

deadmansprice wrote: »

, and while it's true that Ashes is geared towards a very specific audience,

Vaknar wrote: »

Rest assured that casual players are very important to us!

Shabooey

@Raven016 I'm not sure if that's serious or not so apologies if I misunderstand your take.
You're saying people would behave the same way they do when playing a game to if they were faced with a life and death situation like a zombie apocalypse, that it would be the PvP players only that would do some sort of fighting?

I'm absolutely lost at the takes on this I really am, I try and stay away from silly posts and offer feedback and such about the game but this is crazy haha.

Raven016

Shabooey wrote: »

@Raven016 I'm not sure if that's serious or not so apologies if I misunderstand your take.
You're saying people would behave the same way they do when playing a game to if they were faced with a life and death situation like a zombie apocalypse, that it would be the PvP players only that would do some sort of fighting?

I'm absolutely lost at the takes on this I really am, I try and stay away from silly posts and offer feedback and such about the game but this is crazy haha.

I agree with your original post that players who are aggressive verbally in game via voice or on forums are often not competent as PvP-ers or PvE-ers.
But in a real situation, where law enforcement collapsed, survival would push people do things they do not normally do. I was not in such a situation though, so I cannot be sure. Is just an opinion.

Ayeveegaming1

Raven016 wrote: »

Shabooey wrote: »

@Raven016 I'm not sure if that's serious or not so apologies if I misunderstand your take.
You're saying people would behave the same way they do when playing a game to if they were faced with a life and death situation like a zombie apocalypse, that it would be the PvP players only that would do some sort of fighting?

I'm absolutely lost at the takes on this I really am, I try and stay away from silly posts and offer feedback and such about the game but this is crazy haha.

I agree with your original post that players who are aggressive verbally in game via voice or on forums are often not competent as PvP-ers or PvE-ers.
But in a real situation, where law enforcement collapsed, survival would push people do things they do not normally do.

My take is that there is forum pvp, or word pvp in game and out. My opinion is that those words can do more damage to people and wanting to play the game than the game mechanics could. The negative conotation of always using ones own feelings, not facts, as a crudgle to sway arguments. The use of hyperbole such as the terms: "many others agree with me", or "nobody will play this game" when they should say: "This is how I feel", or I will not play this game". You have to remember that negative comments travel 4 times as much as positive ones. This is from sales training. Word of mouth spreads fast. On the internet these forums will show on some agorythm as how positively or negatively the community feels about the game. Repetative posts about doom and gloom hurt the game, even if people say they are trying to help.
Solution is to take a breath, try to understand each other better before we post. I am guilty as hell for quickly posting things that sometimes I regret and feel like crap later when I re read them.
In real life it is totally a different scenario, and again its all how we are brought up and in what social conditions we are brought up in. Some people would simply not survive a zombie apocolypse because they think the police would come and save them so they just sit and wait, unarmed in their home. But that is real life, the game is fantasy. With both however words have meanings and the saying is: "The pen is mightier than the sword" So be careful of your word pvp, as it does way more damage than any in game pvp could do.
(sorry for the long rant)

Shabooey

Ah right ok I think I get you. Know one really knows what they would do in a life or death situation and I sincerely hope that no one on these forums are ever put in a position where they have to find out.

Now I think it's best, after that quite frankly ridiculously crazy tangent, we focus the discussion of this thread back to the original question.

Raven016

Shabooey wrote: »

Ah right ok I think I get you. Know one really knows what they would do in a life or death situation and I sincerely hope that no one on these forums are ever put in a position where they have to find out.

Now I think it's best, after that quite frankly ridiculously crazy tangent, we focus the discussion of this thread back to the original question.

Ok. What was the original question?
Ah yes

Freeholds should not be for mega guilds.
Mega guilds should get something even better.

George_Black

Raven016 wrote: »

Shabooey wrote: »

Ah right ok I think I get you. Know one really knows what they would do in a life or death situation and I sincerely hope that no one on these forums are ever put in a position where they have to find out.

Now I think it's best, after that quite frankly ridiculously crazy tangent, we focus the discussion of this thread back to the original question.

Ok. What was the original question?
Ah yes
Freeholds should not be for mega guilds.
Mega guilds should get something even better.

They get castles. Fewer in number, but with most prestige. And I will assume they will have crazy money making features just like in L2.

The FHs however is something that smaller, but competitive communities can look forward to. I am sure all of you, casuals or competitive have sat down and said to your inrl friends, "how good would it be if we could build and defend a home, with activities with which we can make gold".
And no mmos has ever done it. They are all cosmetics and decorations and DPS test dummies, and they are solo.
I have played ESO for 6 years and I used other peoples houses to DPS parse (since I could not be bothered even with the free home and dummie I was given as a participation trophy) and I never ecnountered anyone in those homes, full of decor.
And the times that the guilds would invite people over to someones home, I said to my self "why? why would I go there? What's there to play with?"

AoC has meaningful FHs. AoC is aimed at competitive players. It makes sense to create sought after, hard earned FHs. But there need to be protections from the zerg guilds.

People always complain about zergs and zombie armies and aoe lagfest, but nobody, during the development tries to find ways to counter the MASSIVE benefit of sheer numbers on your side. If anything IS said "what would make it better to run a big guild??" Mistake.

Large guilds are a problem for any meaningful independence of real communities, meaningful guild memberships.
We need to address the FH situation.

deadmansprice

George_Black wrote: »

deadmansprice wrote: »

Lads, let's just chill a bit. While it's fine to argue about things, it's best to keep it civil. We all have different opinions on what we see on Steven's vision and the direction of Ashes, and while it's true that Ashes is geared towards a very specific audience, being very aggressive with someone is not productive

I am not aggressive. I am confronting peoples claims. I will leave it at that, since I noticed that you are a mod, and perhaps somebody has felt wrong by me and brought this to your attention.

It's fine to argue about things, it's just better not to be too direct atleast. It's no issue when you're making firm statements on how things should be from your perspective. I'm just trying to make sure this thread is productive. At the end of the day, even though Ashes is geared towards to a specific audience, there'll be something for everyone, even casuals. can do. I won't derail this thread any further.

And on that note, we do have A2 for a long while, which will allow Intrepid to gather our feedbacks and ensure we get meaningful PvP, and also meaningful freeholds, castles and nodes. While I personally think Intrepid will find a way to sort out the zergfest and large guild numbers, how would you want them to do it? What would be the best way in your opinion?

Boneshatter

deadmansprice wrote: »

While I personally think Intrepid will find a way to sort out the zergfest and large guild numbers, how would you want them to do it? What would be the best way in your opinion?

Make guilds register a "home node" and only allow members of that guild to purchase freeholds in that node.

George_Black

deadmansprice wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

deadmansprice wrote: »

Lads, let's just chill a bit. While it's fine to argue about things, it's best to keep it civil. We all have different opinions on what we see on Steven's vision and the direction of Ashes, and while it's true that Ashes is geared towards a very specific audience, being very aggressive with someone is not productive

I am not aggressive. I am confronting peoples claims. I will leave it at that, since I noticed that you are a mod, and perhaps somebody has felt wrong by me and brought this to your attention.

It's fine to argue about things, it's just better not to be too direct atleast. It's no issue when you're making firm statements on how things should be from your perspective. I'm just trying to make sure this thread is productive. At the end of the day, even though Ashes is geared towards to a specific audience, there'll be something for everyone, even casuals. can do. I won't derail this thread any further.

And on that note, we do have A2 for a long while, which will allow Intrepid to gather our feedbacks and ensure we get meaningful PvP, and also meaningful freeholds, castles and nodes. While I personally think Intrepid will find a way to sort out the zergfest and large guild numbers, how would you want them to do it? What would be the best way in your opinion?

Remove the ability of people to assign FH "privileges" to guild members, because the number of guild members could reach 1000 or so.
Restrict the ability of people to assign FH "privileges" to family members only, since family members are capped at 8 or so.

This way a guild of 50-80 members has 10 familes which potentially own 10 freeholds. Real tight community of real friends. A true guild. Even if they have less FH that let's say 10, this smaller number of guild members can alternate their access to a FH and use it, by rotating family memberships.

A zerg-guild should not be allowed to achieve the same productivity. The way is to deter people from wanting to join a large guild to find safety and comfort in large numbers, unearned strength in mindless AoE numbers.
How do you deter people from joining a zerg guild? You show them that they won't get to enjoy FHs owned by the guild. Only the core members will, even though everybody feeds the money machine. Or... they can wait for in a looooong queue to rotate family memberships.

Zerg guilds need to be addressed. Look at every mmo. There is no counter to when a large guild full of strangers, steamrolls every proud, skilled guild with numbers 10-1.
Steven has said that smaller guilds will be empowered to counter larger guilds.
I think a great method to do that is to show the players in Vera that joining a large guild will most likely exclude you from FH gameplay.

George_Black

Boneshatter wrote: »

deadmansprice wrote: »

While I personally think Intrepid will find a way to sort out the zergfest and large guild numbers, how would you want them to do it? What would be the best way in your opinion?

Make guilds register a "home node" and only allow members of that guild to purchase freeholds in that node.

Large guilds can still break up in small guilds and form alliance. Same leader.
However by locking the "privilege" of FHs functions to family size, the large number of players joining a zerg guild has to wait forever to use a FH.

Raven016

George_Black wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Shabooey wrote: »

Ah right ok I think I get you. Know one really knows what they would do in a life or death situation and I sincerely hope that no one on these forums are ever put in a position where they have to find out.

Now I think it's best, after that quite frankly ridiculously crazy tangent, we focus the discussion of this thread back to the original question.

Ok. What was the original question?
Ah yes
Freeholds should not be for mega guilds.
Mega guilds should get something even better.

They get castles. Fewer in number, but with most prestige. And I will assume they will have crazy money making features just like in L2.

The FHs however is something that smaller, but competitive communities can look forward to. I am sure all of you, casuals or competitive have sat down and said to your inrl friends, "how good would it be if we could build and defend a home, with activities with which we can make gold".
And no mmos has ever done it. They are all cosmetics and decorations and DPS test dummies, and they are solo.
I have played ESO for 6 years and I used other peoples houses to DPS parse (since I could not be bothered even with the free home and dummie I was given as a participation trophy) and I never ecnountered anyone in those homes, full of decor.
And the times that the guilds would invite people over to someones home, I said to my self "why? why would I go there? What's there to play with?"

AoC has meaningful FHs. AoC is aimed at competitive players. It makes sense to create sought after, hard earned FHs. But there need to be protections from the zerg guilds.

People always complain about zergs and zombie armies and aoe lagfest, but nobody, during the development tries to find ways to counter the MASSIVE benefit of sheer numbers on your side. If anything IS said "what would make it better to run a big guild??" Mistake.

Large guilds are a problem for any meaningful independence of real communities, meaningful guild memberships.
We need to address the FH situation.

Have you regularity payed money to a streamer?
I did. Not mmo players though.
But I can imagine a popular streamer, or a few of them joining together onto the same server.
You want the game to make their life hard and force them to split their community somehow? Or punish their followers if they play on the same server in their guild?

The game offers the framework and players use it as they want. You can chose to join a server where the chaos is higher. Maybe it will take some time to find the right server and you will have to give up the one you started on, right after release... but if you want to play a few years long, it is worth doing it.

Hopefully will be more servers to try out. But I am fine with one too. Maybe I will stay with the players from the Alpha 2 server.

Child Item