Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Guilds should be encouraged to grow, not discouraged.
Hardhit
Member
Guilds are a cornerstone of MMOs. From a developer's perspective, they should be embraced for what they are and shouldn't be chastised unfairly for the negative impacts that they sometimes have on gameplay.
The reality is that Discord (and to a lesser extent Teamspeak and Ventrillo) changed the way that MMO gaming is played. These tools allow players to interact directly, in real time, outside of the limitations of in-game chat/voice. They allow for the creation of communities, friendships and comraderies that span multiple games and years of game-play. They allow for a level of organization/coordination not often planned for by developers.
Naturally, some of these guilds have become very good at what they do and as a result they tend to attract quality players and frequently dominate gameplay across games.
Recognizing this, it falls to the game designers and developers to come up with ways to find some balance between large-guild and small-guild gameplay. That said, it should not be a goal to dismantle or even to discourage large guild game-play.
In most MMOs that I have played, in truth, I have been disappointed with the developers' approach to guilds. Very little effort, I find, is put into contributing to the health, well-being and pride of these guilds by game designers. I find this to be very surprising given that these guilds often form the lifeblood of these games. It is often these guilds that take server-wide leadership in promoting/creating content when the game itself struggles for new content, often for years on end. Yet, what does the guild gain from its long-standing support?
Trying to discourage the formation of large guilds is a non-starter. They already exist and their communities are extensive. They are successful for a reason. These guilds will adapt to in-game mechanics that are designed to benefit small guilds. Limited number of player buffs per guild, for example, will simply result in the creation of sub-guilds. Discord enables the organization and coordination that will still make them successful.
Yes, large guilds have an advantage of numbers and resources, but large guilds also have to deal with a myriad of large guild issues. That's why not all large guilds are successful and why a number of smaller guilds are quite effective.
In either case, I believe game designers should find ways to help promote guilds that are tied to the success of those guilds in-game as measured by its member contributions (both individual achievement as well as guild-specific contributions). Statues honoring guild-firsts... achievement rankings by guild (adjusted for player number), guild titles, node-naming rights, castle naming rights, guild progression paths, guild banners, guild storage sizes and adornments of varied size and status, in addition to guild buffs. Many of these shouldn't be static though.
In a player-driven system, if guild members leave a guild or become inactive for a lengthy period of time, the reputation of the guild should decline commensurately. If all players had an individual guild achievement score, this could be aggregated and averaged or normalized to a certain size for the guild itself. Guild achievements then become individual member achievements from a scoring perspective before it is aggregated into the guild itself. If a guild member leaves a guild, the player itself should lose a material percentage of their guild reputation score (say 30%) and their contribution to the next guild will be lower upon joining. Yes, high achievement players will still be coveted, particularly those who have demonstrated considerable long-standing loyalty to guilds, but leaving a guild should not be without in-game consequence either. Guild flipping shouldn't be a thing. Having a personal-use guild bank shouldn't be a thing.
The point is to encourage guild gameplay and make in-game guilds a living, breathing player-driven element of the game itself while supporting the fact that guilds are their own communities.
Think of all the things that you wished guilds might have had in all those games that you have played. How did those games fall short? What improvements could have been made? The sky is the limit for AOC...
The reality is that Discord (and to a lesser extent Teamspeak and Ventrillo) changed the way that MMO gaming is played. These tools allow players to interact directly, in real time, outside of the limitations of in-game chat/voice. They allow for the creation of communities, friendships and comraderies that span multiple games and years of game-play. They allow for a level of organization/coordination not often planned for by developers.
Naturally, some of these guilds have become very good at what they do and as a result they tend to attract quality players and frequently dominate gameplay across games.
Recognizing this, it falls to the game designers and developers to come up with ways to find some balance between large-guild and small-guild gameplay. That said, it should not be a goal to dismantle or even to discourage large guild game-play.
In most MMOs that I have played, in truth, I have been disappointed with the developers' approach to guilds. Very little effort, I find, is put into contributing to the health, well-being and pride of these guilds by game designers. I find this to be very surprising given that these guilds often form the lifeblood of these games. It is often these guilds that take server-wide leadership in promoting/creating content when the game itself struggles for new content, often for years on end. Yet, what does the guild gain from its long-standing support?
Trying to discourage the formation of large guilds is a non-starter. They already exist and their communities are extensive. They are successful for a reason. These guilds will adapt to in-game mechanics that are designed to benefit small guilds. Limited number of player buffs per guild, for example, will simply result in the creation of sub-guilds. Discord enables the organization and coordination that will still make them successful.
Yes, large guilds have an advantage of numbers and resources, but large guilds also have to deal with a myriad of large guild issues. That's why not all large guilds are successful and why a number of smaller guilds are quite effective.
In either case, I believe game designers should find ways to help promote guilds that are tied to the success of those guilds in-game as measured by its member contributions (both individual achievement as well as guild-specific contributions). Statues honoring guild-firsts... achievement rankings by guild (adjusted for player number), guild titles, node-naming rights, castle naming rights, guild progression paths, guild banners, guild storage sizes and adornments of varied size and status, in addition to guild buffs. Many of these shouldn't be static though.
In a player-driven system, if guild members leave a guild or become inactive for a lengthy period of time, the reputation of the guild should decline commensurately. If all players had an individual guild achievement score, this could be aggregated and averaged or normalized to a certain size for the guild itself. Guild achievements then become individual member achievements from a scoring perspective before it is aggregated into the guild itself. If a guild member leaves a guild, the player itself should lose a material percentage of their guild reputation score (say 30%) and their contribution to the next guild will be lower upon joining. Yes, high achievement players will still be coveted, particularly those who have demonstrated considerable long-standing loyalty to guilds, but leaving a guild should not be without in-game consequence either. Guild flipping shouldn't be a thing. Having a personal-use guild bank shouldn't be a thing.
The point is to encourage guild gameplay and make in-game guilds a living, breathing player-driven element of the game itself while supporting the fact that guilds are their own communities.
Think of all the things that you wished guilds might have had in all those games that you have played. How did those games fall short? What improvements could have been made? The sky is the limit for AOC...
0
Comments
If you join a larger guild, you benefit from the power of the larger guild, at the cost of having to accept that the guild resources will largely be flowing to the higher-ranking members of the guild. And some general/public guild boosts/facilities will probably stil be stronger for you than they would be in a smaller guild, simply because the larger guild will have invested more into them.
In a more tight-knit group of experts, guild resources will more evenly find their way to you when you're not a top-ranking member, but you'll be part of a less powerful group overall.
Sounds like the system already does a great job at equally rewarding strong guilds of any size. Where's the problem here that needs to be solved with a score?
Is the main concern loyalty? Wouldn't a healthy guild system encourage players to play among the groups that best fit their playstyle, and therefore encourage them to move around if a more appropriate community for them presents itself?
Please this, I am not understanding what you want to discuss other than reward and penalize players appropriately for guild size. Which that isn't a guild problem that is a player skill and teamwork problem. Most big guilds go BRRRRRRRRR and zerg to feed officers. Goodswarms also never last long term. Small guilds feed each other and grow together and dominate in the end many weeks to months down the line. Steven mentioned possible local voice chat similar to NW, if I remember right it may be limited to taverns or towns?
Zerg guilds dont even know their own members.
Some leading guy barks "I need 1 tank 1 healer and 20 dds" and the blob spits out nameless volunteers.
The guy achieves his short term task and then back to oblivion with the members.
Zergs guilds should be discouraged.
Guilds should be protected.
If somebody achieves having 1k members by leveling up 4 guilds and managing them without handed tools let that person enjoy their guild.
Zerg guilds should not be encouraged. It's bad for the social aspect of the game and it's bad for the members.
What is or isn't a guild on a social level does not matter when it comes to game mechanics. Zerg guilds are annoying, will happen, and are still very much a guild. Your personal views on social ethics of what make a guild do not matter. Most players want something tangible as a reward, not some social credit score or to be unfairly penalize for being in a mega guild. Even if I agree zerg guilds should not be encouraged for the games long term health you also can not take anything away from them things that non zerg guilds have access to. If the guilds are not being destructive to the community by breaking ToS then they absolutely have a right to exist and should be afforded every convenience and disadvantage as the smallest on the server.
Hopefully the corruption system can take care of this when they kill people and all 500 people turn red after mowing down a node off war time.
Only thing worse is hacks.
RPGs are intended to be more stage play than sport.
Ha! So, I guess no family vacations for guild members, right? No thanks. 🤣
A guild is a club not a cult.
Regarding those large guilds gets punished!:
-Well, ever played New World? After a month every server was dominated by one faction! Where is the pvp aspect in it? (yeah it is faction and not guild but you know what i mean)
-Where does more communication and political engagement happen? A large guild which is more or less a monarchy or 3 small guilds who needs to work together.
-Where does more likely a betrayl with hugh consequences happen? 12 people of a 120 member guild rebel or one small guild versus another to get a node, an advantage in the majorship.
In short: i like the guild benefits Intrepid wanna establish. It is not to punish big guilds , it is more to help small to medium sized ones to make an impact in the world. I belief it will lead to much more acton that way... there is always the alliance option as well..
Encouraging guilds as massive "communities" of players that are more or less a numbers game to throw bodies at objectives to overwhelm them. Hell nah.
Mega guilds are lame as hell. which is why I support the limits Steven is implementing for guild sizes, and providing bonuses to smaller tight-knit guilds. Without mega guilds, you allow for more guilds, which makes for more guild vs guild gameplay and more diplomatic interactions as well. As opposed to a couple massive guilds being the center of any one server.
Everything else about member contributions and achievements I agree with though.
I am always conflicted regarding this.
It could mean the Possibility of "many, many Casuals" (lol) to even the Odd's against Players with far superior Reflexes, Talent, Potential, Gear, etc etc etc ... ...
... ... but Yes it could also run the Game into serious Danger of becoming a boring Zerg Festival and Meatgrinder instead of the Battles being somewhat balanced and equal.
I feel that the systems included in Ashes and the general game complexity will make it more difficult for Zerg guilds to prosper. Fingers crossed.
Anyone who disagrees is wrong
Anyway, the map size has nothing to do with it. If you're in a guild with hundreds of people online, you're incentivised to ignore the rest of the world, which leads to a more empty-feeling game community.
And what's worse is you don't just lose your connection to what's going on outside of the guild (because you don't need to depend on anyone; you can just spam guild chat until someone does whatever you're in the mood for with you), you also don't have any real realtionships with the majority of the people you interact with inside your guild.
Guilds where members can barely identify more than 10% of their active fellow members after months of playing in the same guild are pretty cringe by definition. Because that's not a guild, that's a transactional noticeboard. The game should encourage more real and connected communities in every way possible.
true. the caravan system was very basic in silkroad online. back then it was hella fun and the connections you made inside the guild made it easy to ask for help for an escort job you got hired for after a group of thieves jumped you. They dropped everything they were doing and came within 2 mins or so. That created one of the best dynamic scaling random pvp i have met so far in a game.
from a solo escort and being jumped by 3 thieves to a full scale 15vs17 team deathmatch to help escort some low level trader to the next city for their 20k profit (which was low af mind you). God that was fun.
In a massive 700 people guild you wont have that. just look at wow's spam guilds. they have no groups nothing. you just join for buffs and leave once you want something serious.
I was trying to bait a reaction, I also played GW2 and UO a lot, played other games less.
I dont think zergs are a problem at all or massive guilds to AoC, because AoC because fast travelling is not a thing in AoC and the map is enourmous.
Some People here are simply concerned that they might get "swept away" like nothing every single time they made a Node their Home for a few Weeks or Months.
Maybe these Concerns are not unfounded. Or maybe People are just afraid they will never be able to hold a Node-Metropolis or Castle "IF" the many Masses of other Players don't want them to -> no matter how many Elitist-Super-PvP-Fighters they have in their Guilds.
I can see Reasons to be for that AND against that. Damn, so much conflicting Feelings.
this mostly summed up what I was going to say. In NW alpha the massive guilds came in suddenly and took over everything changing the whole game instantly. it wasn't guild vs guild anymore. it was if you cooperate with the turbo guild then you got a few crumbs. To me that isn't organic game-play.
Personally I don't think NW recovered from that. Every response they tried made things worse. It's important to note as I've stated previously that these turbo guilds are going to have many multiple alts and alt guilds and they will always be working towards the goals of the turbo guild.
Ashes have already said they won't get involved with people running multiple accounts. This is a serious problem for every aspect of the game in my opinion. There is no way to enumerate the potential for exploiting a game like this if any person can run or automate an account with zero impunity.
I think from a subscription model point of view the decision to cater to the turbo guilds is catastrophic. in a free to play model it does work in some instances.
For sure I won't be subscribing if the worlds are just run by the biggest groups of people who are also dumping the most amount of money into exploiting multiple accounts and guilds.
let's give some context here. when the massive guilds entered nw there were say 12 potential zones(just and example). they easily had enough people to take all the resources and hold say 9 of those zones. 95% of the people on the server were not interested in zerging and exploiting like the did so they just took over everything. if you lead a guild and you made friends with them then you may be given a zone to run as long as you catered to them. but everyone knew there was no way you could ever put up a fight. These are massive gaming communities with thousands of people who all have disposable income to dump into multiple alt accounts which are then transformed into discreet alt guild which only exist to serve the turbo guild.
It's a terribly complex subject and i don't envy IS for having to try to balance this.
I understand, still, the big guilds are not the problem, the problem is if Intrepid doesn't come with a real mercenary system, for now what AoC proposes is not even close to being acceptable
Forcing people to stay in a guild they don't want to be in or face consequences is really a non starter. Punishing guilds because members don't no-life enough is also a non starter. Neither of these options promote healthy social interactions within a guild.
I also would not want to see some kind of social credit score put into the game. People can handle thier own affairs just fine on thier own.
The idea of guild progression with achievements that can be displayed is great however.
I think large guilds should not have any player benefits even for the core members. They chose size - this means they sacrificed the other benefits for it. it makes no sense to get both size and benefits. Even if it is only for lets say the core 30 players - this still makes no sense. In small guild with 30 players you get the benefits for all, and in large guild you still have 30 players with benefits but also size.
Also Intrepid should not care about out of game communities. As long as the objectives/rewards/tasks/nodes/castles/guild halls/guild quests/sieges/guild wars and everything else is per 1 guild, Then having 20 small guilds allied out of game will be pointless
For example: if world boss gives reward to a single group of 8 players that did most dmg and ALL OTHER groups there get NOTHING - then who will be the idiot that donates his time and effort for someone else when he gets nothing. Massive guilds exist because the average member still gets few rewards - without this they wont stay with the massive guild.
You may say that massive guild will have advantage when farming in the open world - but they will just overfarm particular area and damage the eco system.
There should also be guild corruption - When players from particular guild kills green players over and over - the whole guild should get corrupted status
For now the only advantage a Massive guild will have is Caravan runs. And devs should take care of this for sure. Maybe put max number of players on both defensive and offensive side of the caravan. All other players there that attack a caravan get corrupted.
Also the in game ally system between different guilds should be removed. If you want to ally with other guild - talk with them and do some activity together. No need of in game system alliances.
New World also had basically free fast travel, a much smaller map, and no innate mechanics such as citizenship to stop powerful guilds running rampant. Granted, Ashes will have some fast travel, but it will be extremely limited. It would be too difficult for a large guild to control the entire server in Ashes. An entire metropolis node? Sure. An entire metropolis node and its vassal nodes? Maybe. But to be able to project the type of power you would need to control multiple Metropolis nodes you would need such a high percentage of the players on your server working for your guild directly that you would be essentially building an unofficial PvE server.
And let's say for the sake of argument that you even could get 4-5k players under a single banner (50% of the server). The fact that the game forces you to be a citizen of single node and caps guild size means you would be spread so thin that you would be extremely vulnerable to fracturing and power grabs. Even if you were somehow able to maintain those numbers and your territories for a prolonged period of time, your guild would still be dealing with pressure on multiple fronts. Enough to at least keep it interesting imo.
Part of the problem with New World as well is that the control of every zone ultimately came down to 50v50. When New World increased the server cap to 5,000 this meant that effectively 2% of the server was determining who controlled what. Because of the larger scale in Ashes, wars with massive consequences will have many more chess pieces at play and everyone will at least get to participate in shaping the world.
Large guilds can and should be have more direct power than smaller guilds. There's no way around that. If you want to run a successful smaller guild you better define what success means to you in this game, find some hardcore PvP gigachads, and lead with some guile.
As it was meant to be.
And as they always do.
3 months max is when the twitch simps usually leave.
disagree. that just has been your experience with some games.
anyways fantasy MMO has nothing to do with zergs. those are just the "skins" of the game. a zerg doesn't make a fantasy mmorpg worse or better just because of the zerg and theme, the same way it doesn't make a space mmorpg worse or better because of the theme.