Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Throne and Liberty further proves Ashes needs Factions
deathwish
Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
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.
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.
1
Comments
Way too late to make such a major change. It completely redefines the core of the game.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 ?
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Guild is " Balderag's Garde " for now. (German)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
@NyceGaming made a similar argument in his recent video. I'm not totally against it as a means to disperse zergs, but I think it would just cause a shift in tactics rather than the total defeat of large guilds.
These nodes create a sense of community and allegiance among players, leading to faction-like dynamics within the game.
The issue will be the size or strength (may not be same thing) of the most dominant node vs all others!
I agree.
Do you know what is the greatest weakness of "mega super multi guild"?
Human Behavior, mainly pride, envy and greed, but sometimes the other 4 play a role aswell, they pile on top of each other in human interactions specially related to the most common type, the hierachical one, as it's the basis for societies and the desire of the best for oneself is part of the self-preservation instinct.
Not even history is required to acknowledge that, the bigger the "institution" the less connected the individuals are, the more bureaucratic and corrupted it becomes and eventually crumbles upon the weight of its own body, destroying its weak bonds and tearing itself apart through internal conflict that individuals/smaller groups aligned personal interests will always generate, ego truly is hella of a concept.
Aren't we all sinners?
Or you could have two guilds in either faction create an out of game alliance and dominate the server that way.
This happened on several Archeage servers, though none of them that I saw lasted very long.
Now, admittedly, neither is Ashes, but Ashes definitely wants to be more fleshed out, and TL at least has the potential to be.
Games with weak incentives have linear politics.
EDIT: eh, might as well expand this and hope it doesn't get too long. Analogy incoming.
MMOs rely on progression. Progression comes in paths, but a lot of the time it's more like a hallway or corridor in a PvP game (doesn't require PvP, but I think all PvP games basically have it recently except oddly MAYBE TL itself).
When people start these games, they walk down the corridor until they reach the door leading to their 'branch point', their chosen path to influence/power/content. TL currently only has 'rooms', not 'other corridors'. You walk forward by just doing more or less the same thing as everyone else, so everyone has the same goals and targets. This means they benefit from all moving together, and if they do want an opponent, they 'look behind them'.
Games with more corridors like FFXI and SWG, or 'infinite corridors' like EVE and Elite Dangerous, don't have to worry about this. Games with lots of corridors but only a few that ever 'join back up' like BDO don't have to care either.
TL has to add either corridors or factions (they're trying both, a little at a time, probably testing playerbase responses). Ashes supposedly has lots of corridors (Nodes). If it turns out that it doesn't, then no one builds their own 'mini-factions' with their own goals.
General method that has succeeded for me in the past:
1) Put the branch points fairly early, specialization that diverges the playerbase a little in their goals. Doesn't seem to work for location but that wasn't the type of game I was testing in, so can't say.
2) Create interdependency that actually has mutually exclusive goals as you get closer to the end (without that part, guilds just get big and specialize internally)
3) Remove at least some aspect of control of the political situation/resource situation from players' hands on either side of whatever equation, and/or make it so that random players have a meaningful chunk of the effect (Ashes is already doing this, most other games of this type do this, TL currently doesn't)
The holes in TL's design based on lack of the above are their issues, not Ashes issues, unless the same holes appear in Ashes for whatever reason. For now, the idea is that they will manage at least the second two, if not all three. TL might manage to at least add #1 soon, and depending on their Crafting system, could maybe squeeze in some signs of the other two, at which point factions are not required.
Big guilds will still exist, but their levels of control and absolute cohesion wouldn't. It's easy to 'control' a big guild when everyone's just walking down the same corridor, you don't really have to 'control' anything at that point.
Also anyone on NA 2 for throne and liberty beta xD