Throne and Liberty further proves Ashes needs Factions

Probably the most important feedback I will bring over to AoC.

If you're not apart of the mega super multi guild that controls the server you are not allowed to play the game. Meaning you either get the benefits of being the #1 guild on the server and snowball or you become content to be farmed by the #1 guild and quit the game to do something more fun.

New World had this, Throne and Liberty has this and Arche Age 2 will have this. These games have all failed or are going to fail.

Add factions to Ashes to prevent this problem. Two factions is great. Three would be the best design.

Small scale GvG has little to no accessibility which means less players playing in the game and spending money. Good luck.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Nerror

deathwish wrote: »

Probably the most important feedback I will bring over to AoC.

If you're not apart of the mega super multi guild that controls the server you are not allowed to play the game. Meaning you either get the benefits of being the #1 guild on the server and snowball or you become content to be farmed by the #1 guild and quit the game to do something more fun.

New World had this, Throne and Liberty has this and Arche Age 2 will have this. These games have all failed or are going to fail.

Add factions to Ashes to prevent this problem. Two factions is great. Three would be the best design.

Small scale GvG has little to no accessibility which means less players playing in the game and spending money. Good luck.

Way too late to make such a major change. It completely redefines the core of the game.

TheDarkSorcerer

I was part of closed beta for T&L and currently playing open beta and had same concerns. I really disliked the zerg trains. So I agree with you here. 3 factions would be wonderful instead of current format.

Ludullu

Laetitian

Make more of an effort to drum up the opposition. Engage in politics. Make alliances against superpowers, instead of becoming a superpower. Encourage other players to engage in more manageable, personally rewarding goals than "controlling" the entire realm as a mere underling to their big boss alliance leader.

I like faction games. I even think the design could work for Ashes with nodes.

But it won't happen, because that's just not the game Ashes is envisioned as. So you should put your thoughts to coming up with different solutions, both for player mindsets, and game mechanics empowering underdogs to band together, and incentivising small-to-midsized alliance gameplay in the first place.

Ludullu

A question to the faction lovers. What makes you believe you'd get even the tiniest bit of content if there's factions in the game? Do you think some strong guild will suddenly decide to let you take content simply because you're from the same faction?

Also, isn't NW literally a faction-based game? And wasn't AA the same (which leads me to believe that AA2 would be as well)? How in the hell are they a good example for this argument?

Laetitian

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote:

A question to the faction lovers. What makes you believe you'd get even the tiniest bit of content if there's factions in the game? Do you think some strong guild will suddenly decide to let you take content simply because you're from the same faction?

Ostensibly, content in a faction-based game would just largely be designed to involve and benefit the entirety of the faction. If you control the territory, you control its content, and there's a part of it for you to participate in, and a part of it for the enemy to contest.

But like I said, I don't think that discussion is worthwhile, because Ashes won't be a faction-based game, and there are better solutions to find that might actually be applied in Ashes.

tautau

1. AoC should be different, not trying to imitate other games and thus split that part of the player base.
2. AoC's plan of having players create their own, voluntary, factions of node and guild-based player groups is both an innovative and much more fun approach
3. This one is just my opinion, but I find faction based games to be rather childish, as if the game company has to tell me who my friends and enemies are since they don't seem to think that I can make that decision myself
4. Some players would prefer not to have an innate in game enemy. While they may end up with enemies in AoC, at least they have a chance at not having enemies, while a faction-based game forces them to.

arkileo

I disagree with the assessment that "because it didn't work in x game, it won't work in y game"

Ashes is a systems-heavy game. If it devolves into 1-guild dominance, then I imagine they'll introduce some system to negate that. Just because x game didn't feel the need or spend the effort to find a solution, doesn't mean Intrepid won't.

I'm not opposed to multiple factions, but like others have said, I think it's way too late. Plus, depending on how they're implemented, they can have the big downside requiring the devs to make content that only ~50% of the players will see, thereby reducing the amount of content available to everyone.

Faimith

I don't think Ashes of Creation should have factions. The dynamic of having one strong guild that others must form alliances against or infiltrate is much more interesting. It adds depth and excitement to the game, fostering emergent gameplay and player-driven politics. Predefined factions could simplify these interactions and take away from the organic experience that makes these conflicts and strategies so engaging.

Plus, you can't really compare AoC to other games that use different systems, as AoC's unique mechanics offer a distinct and richer experience.

Ludullu

Laetitian wrote: »

Ostensibly, content in a faction-based game would just largely be designed to involve and benefit the entirety of the faction. If you control the territory, you control its content, and there's a part of it for you to participate in, and a part of it for the enemy to contest.

So it's not about factions. It's about content that rewards participation rather than winning. It's about being presented with something on a silver platter simply for existing.

Even if Ashes were a faction game - it would not be designed this way. Steven's entire idea of "risk/reward" is built on player friction and one side of the conflict overcoming another. 3k people getting rewarded for existing is not "overcoming an opponent".

And if it's not the entire 3k winning, then we can go back to my initial question of "where'd be the difference between the current design and a faction-based one".

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the current design should simply be balanced in a way where a weaker group of people at least has a slightly higher chance of standing up to a stronger group.

And you know which games never fucking have that design? Faction-based bullshit. WoW servers go to completely one side to such an extent that Blizzard literally had to cave in and say "yaaay, friendship has won, so now both factions can play with each other". And afaik NW's servers were also usually dominated by a single faction. Not sure about AA though. But even with 2 examples of factions completely fucking failing, I find it hard to believe that a faction-based design would magically be better than guilds.

And as another note to the faction lovers. Don't blame the devs and instead blame the damn weaklings that don't even attempt standing up to a stronger enemy. It's the sucking up of every new player to the established giant that ruins games, not faction or factionless design of the game.

Ludullu

Also, one of the biggest counterarguments for factions has always been this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTplwFJu2Ck
Even the biggest overtakes of the map crumbled sooner or later. So why have a boring static game with 2 factions, when you could have a map like this for every server in Ashes?

Aszkalon

deathwish wrote: »

Ashes needs Factions

Apologies for unpopular Question-kind-of-Opinion here, but ... ...

... ... ... are our Nodes not basically our Factions already ? Or at Maximum-Size - our Node-Empires ?

Won't we have WAAAAAAAY to many different Places, Locations - Areas that we love -> in which we will already have our different Nodes as Players ?

Sure,
i myself as a Player am more than willing to join Forces with some other Nodes maybe, in Case it also serves MY Goals and my NODES Goals,

but Factions like the Vanu Sovereignty, the New Conglomerate - or Terran Republic ?

How are they supposed to make Sense ? We come all as Settlers, right ? As NewComers. As newly arrived Explorers, Adventurers - and Vanguards/Advance-Parties of our People.

If the Game has 85 Nodes at the Time of Release, how are Three Factions somehow supposed to be located somewhere ? I mean i am aware we could make all of this random - and on every Server every Faction holds different Biomes and Locations,

but the Nodes with their Hierarchy already kinda have that Faction-Being. A Metropolis can be seen as it's own Faction kinda - or am i so very wrong with thinking this ?

Noaani

deathwish wrote: »

Probably the most important feedback I will bring over to AoC.

If you're not apart of the mega super multi guild that controls the server you are not allowed to play the game. Meaning you either get the benefits of being the #1 guild on the server and snowball or you become content to be farmed by the #1 guild and quit the game to do something more fun.

This is kind of the design intent if Ashes.

The game is built to appeal to the 1% at the top. It is built around a few people being able to shape what others can and can not do.

Laetitian

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote:

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the current design should simply be balanced in a way where a weaker group of people at least has a slightly higher chance of standing up to a stronger group.

And you know which games never fucking have that design? Faction-based bullshit. WoW servers go to completely one side to such an extent that Blizzard literally had to cave in and say "yaaay, friendship has won, so now both factions can play with each other". And afaik NW's servers were also usually dominated by a single faction. Not sure about AA though. But even with 2 examples of factions completely fucking failing, I find it hard to believe that a faction-based design would magically be better than guilds.
[...]
So it's not about factions. It's about content that rewards participation rather than winning. It's about being presented with something on a silver platter simply for existing.

I still agree with your reasoning for why this community-driven allegiance system will create a very compelling risk-versus-reward balance for Ashes.

I disagree with the general condemnation of faction-based games.
You don't get "presented something on a platter for existing/participating."
You get encouraged to earn your realm's success for your own sake and your allies' sake.
The part you're forgetting is that the 2/3 of the playerbase whose realm isn't dominating aren't getting those rewards for existing, so all of them, both their tryhards and their casuals, are incentivised to try harder;
and simultaneously the currently dominant faction is encouraged to maintain that lead in order to hold on to their advantage.

Of course some players in that mix are going to contribute less than others, but everyone's going to feel the sting of not having contributed enough when their realm is lagging behind behind, or is losing its advantage.

That's really not much different than being part of a large guild.
The difference being that the game design of a faction-based game can have more controlled influence on faction power dynamics.
(But again, I think there is plenty that can be done to design those underdog compensations and diplomacy options in Ashes, and if the game design itself doesn't create that balance, I fully agree that it's up to the players to do round up and motivate the resistance against those dominant alliances.

And yeah, like others have stated, node allegiance is already going to limit how much oversized alliances can really control on their own, since they'll either face opposition in their own nodes, or they'll run out of money trying to buy out the citizenships of the entire region they want to control.)

ReLamas

You bring up a very important concern that has been a point of contention in many MMOs. The dominance of mega guilds can indeed create an imbalance that makes the game less enjoyable for players who are not part of these large groups. However, I'm not convinced that adding factions is the best solution to this problem.

Factions can sometimes lead to their own set of issues, such as faction imbalance where one faction becomes significantly stronger than the others, leading to a similar problem of dominance. Additionally, factions can restrict player freedom and choice, forcing players into predefined groups that may not align with their personal playstyle or the friends they want to play with.

Ashes of Creation's approach might naturally mitigate the problem of mega guilds due to its large, expansive map, which makes it difficult for a single guild to dominate everything. The absence of fast travel means that controlling vast territories requires significant coordination and effort, which can help prevent any one guild from becoming overly dominant. This large map and the logistics involved in moving across it could naturally limit the power of mega guilds.

Instead of factions, it might be more beneficial to focus on game mechanics that encourage balance and competition. For example, implementing diminishing returns for controlling multiple territories, incentivizing alliances between smaller guilds, and providing dynamic events that can disrupt the power of dominant guilds could all contribute to a more balanced game environment.

ReLamas

Additionally, I think it's worth noting how Ashes of Creation's node system introduces a unique dynamic that could address some of these concerns without relying on traditional faction systems. Each node essentially acts like its own mini-faction, with its citizens working together to develop and protect their area. This creates a multitude of smaller communities within the game, rather than just two or three large factions.

With this system, players are encouraged to participate in and contribute to their node's growth, fostering a sense of community and local allegiance. Because there will be many nodes across the expansive map, it naturally diversifies power and makes it difficult for any one group to dominate the entire server. Each node will have its own interests and conflicts, leading to a more complex and engaging political landscape.

Moreover, the node system also means that players will have more localized objectives and rivalries, which can help mitigate the issue of mega guilds dominating everything. This decentralized approach ensures that even smaller guilds and solo players have meaningful roles and opportunities to influence their immediate environment, contributing to a richer and more varied gameplay experience.

In essence, the node system in Ashes of Creation offers a form of factional gameplay but on a much larger and more intricate scale. This could provide the balance and community engagement we all hope for in a truly immersive MMO.

senna

I'd be really impressed if a single guild manages to control and gatekeep the entirety of a 10,000 player server, that's some pretty hardcore dedication.

Archeage, a game that Ashes intends to mirror a good number of design philosophies from, had a faction system that in no way prevented mega guilds or players intentionally gating content from others. Large guilds are inevitable to pop up regardless of faction, and the main factor for whether a faction succeeds or fails in Archeage is what amenities are reasonably available to the faction. Pirates were intentionally doomed to fail due to their position not allowing much PvE content outside of Auroria and other neutral zones. Stable factions designed by the developer will always have these issues to some extent, and whichever faction has the "best" access to relevant resources is where many competitive guilds flock, exacerbating the issue you seem to be trying to address rather than solving it. The reality is that factions only fully prevent mega guilds if the factions are so small by design that you can't even have a mega guild in them, which is obviously not fun or interesting for anyone.

On a separate note, as Aszkalon stated, the way nodes and many other systems in-game are intended to work is as factions. Your allegiances lie primarily with your node, with your node members most of the time being considered as allies to you, and things like guild affiliation, religion, etc. impact who you are friends with as well. With this being said, you pretty much have factions in game already, thus solving the general gist of what you want. Join a node structure with players and resources you want, and you probably won't struggle nearly as much as you seem to believe. As it turns out, being in a node structure with large and successful guilds probably means you will have a good time doing to content you want.

Tryol

OP's name checks out.

Githal

I would say: bring scaling aoe spells that the more targets the spell hit the bigger the dmg.
So if you hit 1 target the spell would deal 300 for example. If the same spell hit 5 targets, it will deal 1k dmg to each of the targets. IF it hit 50 players it will one shot them all. GG now there are no mega zergs on the battlefield, and the positioning of players will be important

Or can be balanced if needed that this increase dmg takes effect if you hit more than 10 targets. So if you hit from 1 to 9 targets the dmg is 300. Then the more above 10 you hit the bigger the dmg

Ludullu

Githal wrote: »

I would say: bring scaling aoe spells that the more targets the spell hit the bigger the dmg.
So if you hit 1 target the spell would deal 300 for example. If the same spell hit 5 targets, it will deal 1k dmg to each of the targets. IF it hit 50 players it will one shot them all. GG now there are no mega zergs on the battlefield, and the positioning of players will be important

Or can be balanced if needed that this increase dmg takes effect if you hit more than 10 targets. So if you hit from 1 to 9 targets the dmg is 300. Then the more above 10 you hit the bigger the dmg

Child Item