Stevens reply on family summoning at Ashes Pathfinders #84

Sounds great how he explained its "anti-cheat" mechanic. 30sec-1min cast time for the summon and a 30min CD on the ability. But, anyone else concerned how easy its to chain it? For 10 people it still means 5 people needs to travel, but if everyone has chained their summon to 1 more player, its still only 5 needing traveling. Boosting your raid/gank/war party from 5 to 10 in 1min, they can then summon 5 more people and so on. Adding a 30min CD on the ability for the person being summoned aswell, would solve this no? Or add a reagent cost to the summon. Or some kind of PvP debuff on whoever is summoned. Just abit worried about shock PvP partys with this mechanic.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ventharien

I think there will have to be at the very least, a 12 hour cooldown after use to dissuade abuse of the system. Add in having to be in certain areas to do so, like taverns, or city centers, limits its risks and prevalence even more. And pretty much every suggestion so far will do the same to some degree.

Honestly, with the amount of safeguards that will need to be in place to keep larger organized groups (who are not even the target of the mechanic) from heavy usage for advantage, it will become more and more clunky for the small groups and couples of people it is intended for. I think it would just be better to scrap it then fight through all that.

If you know your bud gets off of work at x time, then you have to be near their location. Does that mean you have to keep in mind your play time and how far you happen to be adventuring? Sure. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Suddenly an out of the way tavern freehold gets to be a base of operations as you clear and explore an area, and your friend chills out there when it's time to call it a night.

Noaani

Irohnic wrote: »

many people enjoy leveling a toon with a couple friends, family, guildies, whatever. If you don't have some sort of fast travel mechanic this becomes a huge chore because you either can a.) only play the game when the other person is on so you don't end up in different places or b.)walk long distances everytime you log on together just to be ablet to start playing the game (this map is going to be HUGE). Meanwhile if you make fast travel/teleportation available to everyone everywhere the world feels small no matter how much content and space you put in it. I think the family system is a good compromise which is exactly what a game is supposed to be, a compromise between enabling you to do things you can't do IRL while presenting challenges, rules and realism that makes those things interesting and fun

I don't understand how this is an issue.

If you play the game with a friend and you are playing while they are not online, you are going to be mismatched with levels. When I play with a friend - or indeed with multiple friends - we have specific characters that we only use when we are all online so that we can all progress at the same pace. Since we are doing this, obviously all our characters are in the same area every time we play.

Even if you decided you were ok with mismatched levels, it really isn't that hard to stay in the same area. If you log on and your friend is an hours walk away from where you are, that is because they spent an hour of their time walking to that location. What they should do, realiztically, is just not do that.

If you are intending on playing the game with a person, stay in that general area.

A massive part of the reason Ashes has little in the way of fast travel is because that requires people to be organized. You can't just buy materials on the market and make items with them - you need to transport those materials from where you bought them to where you want to use them, using the caravan system. You need to be organized.

What the family teleport system is saying is that casual players simply don't need to be organized. They are excused from that.

Since being organized is not a factor of casual/not-casual, that is obviously a bullshit position to take. If the game is going to ask a level of organization from one group of players in order to be successful, it should ask for that same level of organization from all groups of players in order to be successful.

What this means is that - other than metropolis services - either everyone should have access to fast travel (destroying half of the game), or no one should have fast travel.

The key thing is that all players should have access to fast travel for their style of game play as all other players. Since the game will not fonction if all players have fast travel, that means the family summons simply should not exist - which literally means nothing more than casual players need to keep themselves organized.

Noaani

Hurf Derfman wrote: »

When join a family, your account joins the family. So this includes alts. It has its own chat tab.

This can't happen.

If it were done like this, every player would need to join a specific family when joining a guild, which means the guild know all alts that player has, meaning that player is unable to be active in espionage against that guild.

The game can't have any system that affects all characters on an account.

Irohnic

Noaani wrote: »

Irohnic wrote: »

many people enjoy leveling a toon with a couple friends, family, guildies, whatever. If you don't have some sort of fast travel mechanic this becomes a huge chore because you either can a.) only play the game when the other person is on so you don't end up in different places or b.)walk long distances everytime you log on together just to be ablet to start playing the game (this map is going to be HUGE). Meanwhile if you make fast travel/teleportation available to everyone everywhere the world feels small no matter how much content and space you put in it. I think the family system is a good compromise which is exactly what a game is supposed to be, a compromise between enabling you to do things you can't do IRL while presenting challenges, rules and realism that makes those things interesting and fun

I don't understand how this is an issue.

If you play the game with a friend and you are playing while they are not online, you are going to be mismatched with levels. When I play with a friend - or indeed with multiple friends - we have specific characters that we only use when we are all online so that we can all progress at the same pace. Since we are doing this, obviously all our characters are in the same area every time we play.

Even if you decided you were ok with mismatched levels, it really isn't that hard to stay in the same area. If you log on and your friend is an hours walk away from where you are, that is because they spent an hour of their time walking to that location. What they should do, realiztically, is just not do that.

If you are intending on playing the game with a person, stay in that general area.

A massive part of the reason Ashes has little in the way of fast travel is because that requires people to be organized. You can't just buy materials on the market and make items with them - you need to transport those materials from where you bought them to where you want to use them, using the caravan system. You need to be organized.

What the family teleport system is saying is that casual players simply don't need to be organized. They are excused from that.

Since being organized is not a factor of casual/not-casual, that is obviously a bullshit position to take. If the game is going to ask a level of organization from one group of players in order to be successful, it should ask for that same level of organization from all groups of players in order to be successful.

What this means is that - other than metropolis services - either everyone should have access to fast travel (destroying half of the game), or no one should have fast travel.

The key thing is that all players should have access to fast travel for their style of game play as all other players. Since the game will not fonction if all players have fast travel, that means the family summons simply should not exist - which literally means nothing more than casual players need to keep themselves organized.

Come on dude you gotta give me a little more credit than that. Obviously I understand that you can just stay in the same area as your friend that you are levling with. We're talking about a QOL feature, by nature it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fundamentally change the game, it just makes certain things more convenient. This is an RPG we're talking about so just having an alt that you only play when your friend is online is not something that suits everyone and is in it's nature restrictive. family teleport makes it more convenient. When classic wow launched last year I decided I would level my main character with my brother for the nostalgia, but with classic WoW the questlines are very linear and there is not much to do outside of leveling (in terms of crafting, gear, etc.), so like you're saying I only played that character when my brother and I were both available which ended up being not alot given differences in schedules. I found this to be very restrictive and not appealing, so my alt character (the one I would play solo) actually ended up leveling way faster and becoming the one I enjoyed and "identified" as my main. This happened due to the linear-ness of leveling in WoW, but AoC doesn't have to be like that. there is tons you can do in other systems outside of just leveling your adventure class, so yes, I would like to level with a few friends, but also play the other parts of the game on my own when they aren't available. My post was in response to someone basically saying the number of 8 seemed quite arbitrary, and I was simply responding that I like it, that it serves my purposes and that is why. You're welcome to have a different opinion but it's a bit ridiculous to deny that family teleport as it is currently described would not make co-op play more convenient. It doesn't make it impossible to level co-op without family teleport, it's just a matter of convenience as all QoL features are.

As for the second part about requiring people to be organized, ya that's one of those things that is always at odds (or balance) with convenience. For example, being able to see mob health bars, or damage numbers when you hit is actually a convenience aspect of the game. Some players could say "well really you don't need that stuff if you're just organized with your spreadsheets and standardized mob kill times to be able to maximize your dps", but most people don't want to do that and hence support basic things like being able to see damage numbers which give you a rough estimate of how your character is improving. If you go to the extreme with that convenience and give things like dps meters it can cause problems with how the game is played, inhibit social interactions, etc., which is why it is a balance between convencience and requiring "organization". Most people (not all but most) afaik agree with that particular balance (that showing damage numbers is okay). I see the family summon system, as it is intended to be used, as a reasonable, balanced QoL feature, one that will make certain aspects more convenient without really fundamentally changing how the game is played. I think the issues arise from potential abuses, not from how it is intended to be used, so if there is a way to adapt certain mechanics such as cooldowns, cast times, location locks, etc. to prevent abuses while allowing the originally intended usage, than by all means keep it in. however if there is no way to do that, then by all means take out the summon system all together, I'm not gonna quit the game over it. Like you've said I'll still be able to level with a friend, it's just not going to be as convenient. It is what it is, a QoL feature.

Lastly, could you clarify your point on hardcore vs casual? My apologies, I just don't really understand it. Everyone has the same access to the system, so how is the family teleport system "saying that casual players don't need to be organized". Hardcore players get just as much access to it, and there is still plenty of need for organization. the intended purpose is to make one aspect of the game, grouping up with a few friends, more convenient, whether you are a hardcore player, casual player, or anywhere in between, or am I missing something where it is restricted to certain players somehow?

Ventharien

Irohnic wrote: »

We're talking about a QOL feature, by nature it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fundamentally change the game, it just makes certain things more convenient.

QoL changes very often fundamentally change the systems and baseline of a game. LFG, fast travel, instant access to mats, portable refinery/crafting benches, and queues are all systems intended to make life easier for the average gamer, allowing them quicker, more efficient entrance into content or usage. And they all have changing effects on MMO's many of which have equated to negatives to the social aspect of this genre, so we shouldn't assume just because this system seems to be a benign move to allow players to experience the game together, that it could not also bring light or heavy penalties to various other systems.

If you have that much difficulty meeting up with a buddy, there does come a point that you have to accept that you aren't easily going to be playing friends, depending on your situation. And if it's a very important thing to you to be playing with this friend, you're going to make it happen. Keeping track of where the 'rest' spot where you'll be meeting up, and gravitating to that location as their login time approaches, planning game sessions that you know will take a good bit of time before hand, etc.

Irohnic

Ventharien wrote: »

Irohnic wrote: »

We're talking about a QOL feature, by nature it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fundamentally change the game, it just makes certain things more convenient.

QoL changes very often fundamentally change the systems and baseline of a game. LFG, fast travel, instant access to mats, portable refinery/crafting benches, and queues are all systems intended to make life easier for the average gamer, allowing them quicker, more efficient entrance into content or usage. And they all have changing effects on MMO's many of which have equated to negatives to the social aspect of this genre, so we shouldn't assume just because this system seems to be a benign move to allow players to experience the game together, that it could not also bring light or heavy penalties to various other systems.

If you have that much difficulty meeting up with a buddy, there does come a point that you have to accept that you aren't easily going to be playing friends, depending on your situation. And if it's a very important thing to you to be playing with this friend, you're going to make it happen. Keeping track of where the 'rest' spot where you'll be meeting up, and gravitating to that location as their login time approaches, planning game sessions that you know will take a good bit of time before hand, etc.

Right, there are plenty of examples of QoL features that ended up being abused/having very negative consequences in a variety of games, as well as those that did not; hence my emphasis on compromise and balance. I don't think we should assume it will be benign, I think we should try to avoid those types of game-altering negative consequences via anticipation of problems and reactions to problems and if it comes down to it, total removal of the system. But that doesn't mean we should write off the system on premise alone. The intended use and effect is not to cause fundamental changes in how the game is played or cause negative consequences elsewhere, so it should absolutely be adjusted to avoid those things and removed if they prove to be unavoidable, (emphasis on if they prove because only testing will tell). What I don't agree with is writing the system off entirely just on premise alone. good games aren't built in black and white, they are built by finding the balance between corresponding opposites (risk/reward vs ownership, difficulty vs progress, convenience vs. organization/time-investment, etc.).

Noaani

Irohnic wrote: »

But that doesn't mean we should write off the system on premise alone.

We are not writing it off on premise alone, we are writing it off because there have been a half dozen or so discussions about it on these forums since it was announced, and people have come up with many, many ways in which it will be abused.

One of the key aspects of the caravan system in Ashes is that since there is no fast travel and you are a moving target, the only real threat to them are groups that you happen to come across - as opposed to groups that organize upon spotting your location and direction. The idea is, without fast travel, groups won't be able to organize, meet up and still catch up to where you are.

This is exactly what Steven has said in regards to caravans, but it was said before there was any mention of a summons system. Naturally, this is all out the window if that summons system is implemented. Groups are now able to gather instantly to challenge a caravan that a player spots, and so caravans are all of a sudden significantly more vulnerable.

The same will hold true for contested PvE content - entier raids of an organized guild will literally be able to port from one side of the game world to the other, allowing them to much more easily dominate top end content. Without this system, it would have been possible for the developers to spawn two raid encounters on opposite sides of the game world simultaniously, requiring a guild to first kill one, then travel for an hour or more to get to the other. This would give rival guilds a good amount of time to attempt to get the kill on that second encounter, making it much harder (almost impossible) for any one guild to dominate all top end content on a server. Now that travel is instant - it will be somewhat trivial for the first guild to get a raid at the level cap to also dominate that top end content.

These kinds of things absolutely break the game - and all for a QoL feature for people that both can't be bothered to be organized, and also can't be bothered to have alts to play with specific friends. Feel free to come up with a way to try and balance this QoL feature with breaking both the caravan system (a core system of the entire game) and top end content in general - the rest of us can't.

This is what happens when you design a system around lack of organization (or competence, or motivation), and place it in the hands of guilds full of highly organized, competent and motivated people.

That is why we are all writing off the system. It is the details of it and what those details will mean for the game, not because of the premise as you suggest.

Irohnic

Noaani wrote: »

Irohnic wrote: »

But that doesn't mean we should write off the system on premise alone.

We are not writing it off on premise alone, we are writing it off because there have been a half dozen or so discussions about it on these forums since it was announced, and people have come up with many, many ways in which it will be abused.

One of the key aspects of the caravan system in Ashes is that since there is no fast travel and you are a moving target, the only real threat to them are groups that you happen to come across - as opposed to groups that organize upon spotting your location and direction. The idea is, without fast travel, groups won't be able to organize, meet up and still catch up to where you are.

This is exactly what Steven has said in regards to caravans, but it was said before there was any mention of a summons system. Naturally, this is all out the window if that summons system is implemented. Groups are now able to gather instantly to challenge a caravan that a player spots, and so caravans are all of a sudden significantly more vulnerable.

The same will hold true for contested PvE content - entier raids of an organized guild will literally be able to port from one side of the game world to the other, allowing them to much more easily dominate top end content. Without this system, it would have been possible for the developers to spawn two raid encounters on opposite sides of the game world simultaniously, requiring a guild to first kill one, then travel for an hour or more to get to the other. This would give rival guilds a good amount of time to attempt to get the kill on that second encounter, making it much harder (almost impossible) for any one guild to dominate all top end content on a server. Now that travel is instant - it will be somewhat trivial for the first guild to get a raid at the level cap to also dominate that top end content.

These kinds of things absolutely break the game - and all for a QoL feature for people that both can't be bothered to be organized, and also can't be bothered to have alts to play with specific friends. Feel free to come up with a way to try and balance this QoL feature with breaking both the caravan system (a core system of the entire game) and top end content in general - the rest of us can't.

This is what happens when you design a system around lack of organization (or competence, or motivation), and place it in the hands of guilds full of highly organized, competent and motivated people.

That is why we are all writing off the system. It is the details of it and what those details will mean for the game, not because of the premise as you suggest.

These are all valid concerns for the misuse/abuse of the system outside of it's intended design, you know the kinds of things I've been saying should absolutely be considered... My posts have not been in response to those sorts of issues because they are valid, I recognize that, and have said multiple times that they should be considered and prevented, and if they can't be prevented, then the teleport system should be removed all together. Intrepid has multiple alphas and betas to figure that out. What my posts have been in response to are people saying "it makes no sense to limit the number at 8, just give it to no one or give it to everyone", or yourself claiming that the fast travel system should be removed because somehow it benefits casual players more than hardcore players. Those arguments ARE attacking the system on premise alone, and I don't agree.

If you want to just throw down the towel and say "it's impossible to prevent abuse so just remove it now", then fine, you're welcome to that opinion, but don't pretend like that's somehow based in fact or evidence when no one has even played the game yet. I don't see any harm in Intrepid trying to implement the system and then removing it if it causes issues, and the flipside, if it can be implemented successfully, it will make the game at least a little bit more enjoyable for a lot of people.

Sathrago

Irohnic wrote: »

If you want to just throw down the towel and say "it's impossible to prevent abuse so just remove it now", then fine, you're welcome to that opinion, but don't pretend like that's somehow based in fact or evidence when no one has even played the game yet. I don't see any harm in Intrepid trying to implement the system and then removing it if it causes issues, and the flipside, if it can be implemented successfully, it will make the game at least a little bit more enjoyable for a lot of people.

My only issue is the potential bad image it could cause if it were released onto live servers. Now if you mean just testing in alpha and all that im down to clown. The clear guild abuse this system has is enough reason for me not to want it in the game just because I believe in the goal of no easily accessible fast traveling.

bigepeen

For a game where distance is so important, any kind of teleportation system is incredibly valuable. They will either have to neuter it to the point where it's cumbersome for casual players to use, defeating it's entire purpose, or else it will be exploited by guilds to the point where they will have a system in place that will become basically mandatory for every guild member to use.

I guess we can go through testing to make this even more obvious. But if distance is as important as they say it is and this is useful for casual players, then it's not rocket science to figure out the result.

Noaani

Irohnic wrote: »

If you want to just throw down the towel and say "it's impossible to prevent abuse so just remove it now", then fine, you're welcome to that opinion, but don't pretend like that's somehow based in fact or evidence when no one has even played the game yet. I don't see any harm in Intrepid trying to implement the system and then removing it if it causes issues, and the flipside, if it can be implemented successfully, it will make the game at least a little bit more enjoyable for a lot of people.

The problem is, the difference between a player being summoned to join friends and a player being summoned to monopolize top end content or hunt caravans is purely in player intent. There is no system based difference, and as such, no system can be built to allow one and not the other.

The problem with the notion of "just test it" is that test environments almost never have guilds with the same level of organization and drive as live servers do. Since this is the basis for where the issues with this summons are to be found, those issues won't manifest in a testing environment.

FuryBladeborne

Noaani wrote: »

Hurf Derfman wrote: »

When join a family, your account joins the family. So this includes alts. It has its own chat tab.

This can't happen.

If it were done like this, every player would need to join a specific family when joining a guild, which means the guild know all alts that player has, meaning that player is unable to be active in espionage against that guild.

I am not following you. Why would every player need to join a specific family when joining a guild? I can see how working with a specific family within a guild would be beneficial or easier but not why it would be a requirement.

I am trying to get a citation on whether characters or accounts are considered for the family system.

Noaani wrote: »

The game can't have any system that affects all characters on an account.

Just FYI, an account can only have 1 citizenship per account, per server. As you pointed out, having a system that affects all characters on an account may make it difficult to spy on other nodes unless the spy uses a second account.

"A player can only claim citizenship to one node at a time.[5]
Only one citizenship may be declared per account, per server.[6][7][8]
This may have changed to one citizenship per account.[9]"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Citizenship

Noaani

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Hurf Derfman wrote: »

When join a family, your account joins the family. So this includes alts. It has its own chat tab.

This can't happen.

If it were done like this, every player would need to join a specific family when joining a guild, which means the guild know all alts that player has, meaning that player is unable to be active in espionage against that guild.

I am not following you. Why would every player need to join a specific family when joining a guild? I can see how working with a specific family within a guild would be beneficial or easier but not why it would be a requirement.

I am trying to get a citation on whether characters or accounts are considered for the family system.

Noaani wrote: »

The game can't have any system that affects all characters on an account.

Just FYI, an account can only have 1 citizenship per account, per server. As you pointed out, having a system that affects all characters on an account may make it difficult to spy on other nodes unless the spy uses a second account.

"A player can only claim citizenship to one node at a time.[5]
Only one citizenship may be declared per account, per server.[6][7][8]
This may have changed to one citizenship per account.[9]"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Citizenship

To your last point, that is correct. If you wish to spy on a guild in a different node cluster, or even spy on any guild with competent counter-espionage, you are probably going to need to renounce your node citizenship. That's all a part of the deal, and is fine.

As to the first part, if a guild is in a position where it wants to contest top end content, or other similar activities, you will need to join a family in order to gain access to the summons the guild will have in place, but that require you to be in the right family.

If this system goes ahead, every guild that is serious about the game will have a network of alts to summon guild members to where they are needed. It will just be a part of what these guilds will do, and new recruits will be required to be a part of that.

Irohnic

Noaani wrote: »

Irohnic wrote: »

If you want to just throw down the towel and say "it's impossible to prevent abuse so just remove it now", then fine, you're welcome to that opinion, but don't pretend like that's somehow based in fact or evidence when no one has even played the game yet. I don't see any harm in Intrepid trying to implement the system and then removing it if it causes issues, and the flipside, if it can be implemented successfully, it will make the game at least a little bit more enjoyable for a lot of people.

The problem is, the difference between a player being summoned to join friends and a player being summoned to monopolize top end content or hunt caravans is purely in player intent. There is no system based difference, and as such, no system can be built to allow one and not the other.

The problem with the notion of "just test it" is that test environments almost never have guilds with the same level of organization and drive as live servers do. Since this is the basis for where the issues with this summons are to be found, those issues won't manifest in a testing environment.

You're certainly right that differentiation will be tricky. Player intent can't be controlled via game design but player use can to a degree. Don't want people to use summons to attack caravans? Put a debuff after tele that prevents someone from participating in caravan attack/defence. Dont want it used to contest world bosses? Put a world boss debuff or inhibit summons within x distance of the boss. I think there is a way to virtually nullify pretty much any abuse you can think of, the question as many have pointed out is more "is it worth it?" At what point is it too limited to actually be useful for it's intended purpose? If the summon comes with an hour long debuff that makes you weak in pvp, cant be done in zones near world bosses, and locks you out of caravan fights, then I think that it addresses most of the combat related exploits we've seen mention. I would be more hesitant to use it personally but could still sometimes use it.

The point you make about live servers being a different environment is a good one, but that doesn't mean you cant specifically test abuses by trying to set up a summon system for caravans or whatever abuse you want to address and see if you can actually make it viable with the limitations that intrepid ends up putting in place. Guilds may not naturally do it during beta testing, but if intrepid puts it as a teating goal, one can certainly try it and see the results. Additionally if it were to be in-game on launch, starting it out in a heavily restricted state doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. If players end up hating it and want less restrictions Intrepid can start removing certain restrictions 1 at a time, ensuring the system doesnt start being abused with each rollback.

Noaani

Irohnic wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Irohnic wrote: »

If you want to just throw down the towel and say "it's impossible to prevent abuse so just remove it now", then fine, you're welcome to that opinion, but don't pretend like that's somehow based in fact or evidence when no one has even played the game yet. I don't see any harm in Intrepid trying to implement the system and then removing it if it causes issues, and the flipside, if it can be implemented successfully, it will make the game at least a little bit more enjoyable for a lot of people.

The problem is, the difference between a player being summoned to join friends and a player being summoned to monopolize top end content or hunt caravans is purely in player intent. There is no system based difference, and as such, no system can be built to allow one and not the other.

The problem with the notion of "just test it" is that test environments almost never have guilds with the same level of organization and drive as live servers do. Since this is the basis for where the issues with this summons are to be found, those issues won't manifest in a testing environment.

You're certainly right that differentiation will be tricky. Player intent can't be controlled via game design but player use can to a degree. Don't want people to use summons to attack caravans? Put a debuff after tele that prevents someone from participating in caravan attack/defence. Dont want it used to contest world bosses? Put a world boss debuff or inhibit summons within x distance of the boss.

Cheesy, arbitrary mechanics like that are really stupid, and should be avoided at all costs.

Also, what if hunting caravans is what me and my friends do? If we have a friend that logs in late to the game and we want to summon that friend to us so we can hunt together, why shouldn't we be allowed to? Why should the summon only apply to people that are summoning their friend to do one activity and not another? That is stupid and arbitrary.

Even if they did that, how long would it last? If it is only a few minutes, then we can just shadow that caravan until the timer wears off. If it is an extended period of time, that just infringes on our ability to do what we want to do, or to react to things others are doing around us.

The same can be said of world bosses. If I have a friend that logs in an hour after I do and I summon him to me, why should that prevent us from taking on a world boss we then come across? Again, stupid and arbitrary.

If it comes down to the option of not having this summons and telling casual players to just organize themselves, or making a game that has these stupid and arbitrary limitations all over the place, I know for sure which one I would rather.

Irohnic

Noaani wrote: »

Irohnic wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Irohnic wrote: »

If you want to just throw down the towel and say "it's impossible to prevent abuse so just remove it now", then fine, you're welcome to that opinion, but don't pretend like that's somehow based in fact or evidence when no one has even played the game yet. I don't see any harm in Intrepid trying to implement the system and then removing it if it causes issues, and the flipside, if it can be implemented successfully, it will make the game at least a little bit more enjoyable for a lot of people.

The problem is, the difference between a player being summoned to join friends and a player being summoned to monopolize top end content or hunt caravans is purely in player intent. There is no system based difference, and as such, no system can be built to allow one and not the other.

The problem with the notion of "just test it" is that test environments almost never have guilds with the same level of organization and drive as live servers do. Since this is the basis for where the issues with this summons are to be found, those issues won't manifest in a testing environment.

You're certainly right that differentiation will be tricky. Player intent can't be controlled via game design but player use can to a degree. Don't want people to use summons to attack caravans? Put a debuff after tele that prevents someone from participating in caravan attack/defence. Dont want it used to contest world bosses? Put a world boss debuff or inhibit summons within x distance of the boss.

Cheesy, arbitrary mechanics like that are really stupid, and should be avoided at all costs.

Also, what if hunting caravans is what me and my friends do? If we have a friend that logs in late to the game and we want to summon that friend to us so we can hunt together, why shouldn't we be allowed to? Why should the summon only apply to people that are summoning their friend to do one activity and not another? That is stupid and arbitrary.

Even if they did that, how long would it last? If it is only a few minutes, then we can just shadow that caravan until the timer wears off. If it is an extended period of time, that just infringes on our ability to do what we want to do, or to react to things others are doing around us.

The same can be said of world bosses. If I have a friend that logs in an hour after I do and I summon him to me, why should that prevent us from taking on a world boss we then come across? Again, stupid and arbitrary.

If it comes down to the option of not having this summons and telling casual players to just organize themselves, or making a game that has these stupid and arbitrary limitations all over the place, I know for sure which one I would rather.

Okay you wouldn't like the debuff so idk... maybe just don't use it??? Why do you care if someone else chooses to use it and accepts restrictions such as a debuff? It's understandable to worry about abuses of the system, but now it sounds like you're just complaining about the summon system just because you personally wouldn't use it. Let's go ahead and remove all crafting from the game too because the combat oriented folks aren't gonna be doing any of that. I really dont see this discussion going anywhere constructive if that's your opinion.

Sathrago

Irohnic wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Irohnic wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Irohnic wrote: »

If you want to just throw down the towel and say "it's impossible to prevent abuse so just remove it now", then fine, you're welcome to that opinion, but don't pretend like that's somehow based in fact or evidence when no one has even played the game yet. I don't see any harm in Intrepid trying to implement the system and then removing it if it causes issues, and the flipside, if it can be implemented successfully, it will make the game at least a little bit more enjoyable for a lot of people.

The problem is, the difference between a player being summoned to join friends and a player being summoned to monopolize top end content or hunt caravans is purely in player intent. There is no system based difference, and as such, no system can be built to allow one and not the other.

The problem with the notion of "just test it" is that test environments almost never have guilds with the same level of organization and drive as live servers do. Since this is the basis for where the issues with this summons are to be found, those issues won't manifest in a testing environment.

You're certainly right that differentiation will be tricky. Player intent can't be controlled via game design but player use can to a degree. Don't want people to use summons to attack caravans? Put a debuff after tele that prevents someone from participating in caravan attack/defence. Dont want it used to contest world bosses? Put a world boss debuff or inhibit summons within x distance of the boss.

Cheesy, arbitrary mechanics like that are really stupid, and should be avoided at all costs.

Also, what if hunting caravans is what me and my friends do? If we have a friend that logs in late to the game and we want to summon that friend to us so we can hunt together, why shouldn't we be allowed to? Why should the summon only apply to people that are summoning their friend to do one activity and not another? That is stupid and arbitrary.

Even if they did that, how long would it last? If it is only a few minutes, then we can just shadow that caravan until the timer wears off. If it is an extended period of time, that just infringes on our ability to do what we want to do, or to react to things others are doing around us.

The same can be said of world bosses. If I have a friend that logs in an hour after I do and I summon him to me, why should that prevent us from taking on a world boss we then come across? Again, stupid and arbitrary.

If it comes down to the option of not having this summons and telling casual players to just organize themselves, or making a game that has these stupid and arbitrary limitations all over the place, I know for sure which one I would rather.

Okay you wouldn't like the debuff so idk... maybe just don't use it??? Why do you care if someone else chooses to use it and accepts restrictions such as a debuff? It's understandable to worry about abuses of the system, but now it sounds like you're just complaining about the summon system just because you personally wouldn't use it. Let's go ahead and remove all crafting from the game too because the combat oriented folks aren't gonna be doing any of that. I really dont see this discussion going anywhere constructive if that's your opinion.

My issue personally is that the game is designed without fast travel as a goal but this will surely be exploited in its current form by guilds that want to be competitive. All they have to do is organize members into family units then send one of each family out to say a dungeon or resource gathering area to contest. All you need is 5 players and you can summon an additional 35 players.

FuryBladeborne

Noaani wrote: »

To your last point, that is correct. If you wish to spy on a guild in a different node cluster, or even spy on any guild with competent counter-espionage, you are probably going to need to renounce your node citizenship. That's all a part of the deal, and is fine.

As to the first part, if a guild is in a position where it wants to contest top end content, or other similar activities, you will need to join a family in order to gain access to the summons the guild will have in place, but that require you to be in the right family.

If this system goes ahead, every guild that is serious about the game will have a network of alts to summon guild members to where they are needed. It will just be a part of what these guilds will do, and new recruits will be required to be a part of that.

I understand. Thank you.

FuryBladeborne

There are some good ideas for limiting family summoning in this thread that I am all for testing and adapting over time after release if needed due to abuse.

Another option that I have not seen listed here would be to limit receiving a family summon to once per day per account on a server. This would reduce the potential for abuse from the maximum number of characters per account on a server each day to one per day per account on a server.

Another option could be to limit how many characters from one guild could be summoned into a given region within a specific time period to limit problems such as zerging.

I think that it could possible to put enough limitations on family summoning to reduce any potential gains from summoning abuse to very low.

Consider some the logistics problems and restrictions that already exist under the currently proposed abuse system:

The entire guild must be organized into 8 or less player groups that are composed of players whom are active at the same time
If limited to one summon per day as discussed in multiple threads so far, it will be problematic to organize summons between players that are online at different times. I can explain this with a longer post but I basically see guild groups splitting due to moving a large mass of people with different timer restrictions at the same time. The only way to avoid this consistently is if the entire guild plays only at the same time.
The groups need to remain functional through guild turnover
The correct characters need to always be in the correct place and not used for something else
The family summoning system cannot be used for its intended purpose meaning that these abusers give up the intended benefit of quickly joining friends for normal gameplay
The guild gives up access to players that will not fulfill the requirements. (i.e. You could have a pro PvP player that doesn't want to adhere to all this and can't join because of it)
All the players have to agree to play the game in this way; and, not some way that the individual player would choose
I only spent a couple minutes thinking about this, there is probably a lot more

Given all the difficulties to overcome in order to accomplish abuse of the summoning system, if the potential gain is low enough then summoning will probably not be abused that much; or, if it is then at least the gain will be relatively low while potentially being very beneficial to those who are using the system as intended to spend the maximum time possible in gaming with friends.

Noaani

Irohnic wrote: »

now it sounds like you're just complaining about the summon system just because you personally wouldn't use it.

If it makes it in to the game, I'll abuse the absolute shit out of it, make no mistake.

A game and its systems should all be simple to follow, and should be intuitive. Placing arbitrary restrictions on some activities after using a summons is not intuitive - even if those restrictions are for a good reason.

If there is a restriction after using the summons, that restriction should be for all forms of combat, not for selected, arbitrary aspects of combat.

The thing is, even with that arbitrary restriction, you aren't actually stopping the issue at hand.

If you are sporting from one side of the world to the other to kill a top end encou ter, you are saving yourself and your raid an hour or more of travel time. 5 minutes wait before you can engage is still a massive time saving.

Same with caravans. It isn't an issue to summon your friends and then follow that caravan for a few minutes before attacking.

The suggestion is stupid and arbitrary from a game design perspective (not from a suggestion perspective), and is completely ineffective at doing what it would need to do.

Child Item