Guilds and real market trading

Lets say there is 1-2 guilds that have non-aggression pacts, or are considered allies. These guilds are massive with active players and top level gear.

The powerhouse guild gets a castle, and then sieges all other guild castles, only allowing someone to get a guild castle by use of "buying' the castle from the big guild using RMT (real market trading)

Do you think this will be an issue?
If so, how could it be stopped.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Hedgemon wrote: »

Lets say there is 1-2 guilds that have non-aggression pacts, or are considered allies. These guilds are massive with active players and top level gear.

The powerhouse guild gets a castle, and then sieges all other guild castles, only allowing someone to get a guild castle by use of "buying' the castle from the big guild using RMT (real market trading)

Do you think this will be an issue?
If so, how could it be stopped.

It is unlikely, since each castle requires you to defend a siege every Saturday.

If a guild has multiple castles, they need to defend multiple sieges simultaneously.

George_Black

It's not unlikely. The alternative are restrictions that make open world mmos boring and meaningless so that nobody would pay $$$.
Players that do things that break the rules can be reported and banned. Meaning all that sub money they paid would be for nothing plus their progress is gone.

You seem concerned. What do you propose?

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

It's not unlikely.

It is unlikely because a guild trying to hold on to five castles has five sieges to attend and defend at the same time.

They could just focus on the castle siege proper, and leave the node stage sieges for other guilds to take on without contest, but that means they then have much harder sieges to defend, where every bonus is in the attackers favor.

Also, there will still be one week every four where there are two castles themselves being sieged at the exact same time, so even if they only defend castle sieges, there are still times where they would need to split their forces in two.

I have no doubt someone will attempt to do this, but the chances of success and the work involved in making it happen make it unlikely that they will succeed in gaining all castles, let alone in being so dominant as to think that they would be able to sell them.

George_Black

Define guild.

My definition of guild is some people playing mmos for 20-30 years together. They might started as 20 people back then and now they are 5000, playing under the same name and same icon.
Get them all in a server and thats 10 guilds with the same name. Guild, guild1 guild2 guild3... One leadership one clan controlling 5 castles.

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

My definition of guild is some people playing mmos for 20-30 years together.

That is a fairly narrow definition of a guild

Based on your definition, there would only be a handful of guilds in the world.

If a guild like this were on a server, no sane person would purchase a castle on that same server. Either that guild is always there as a threat to take it back, or that guild leaves the server leaving you with a massively underpopulated and thus basically a non-functioning server.

So, not only would such a guild be unlikely to be successful in selling, but they would also likely eventually ruin the server they are playing on.

George_Black

And with people asking, suggesting, demanding better organizational features and tools, as well as large number of guild members per guild, it's not unlikely at all.
Which is why I am in favour of games with guilds of 60-70 members.

It's one thing leveling up and maintaining coordinating 10 guilds and their skills for a zergy alliance and it's another leveling up and maintaining 71 guilds.

And some people might say "if they manage to do that, good on them. 500 ppl per guild doesnt hurt the game".
Yet as soon as they see the youtubers and their armies of fanatic watchers, they will complain.

Small number of players per guild is the way to go to avoid monotonous war sceneries and zergy alliances.

Small, unique banners with true identity and sense of direction.

FutureCultLeader

I'd be quite happy with the emergent social gameplay that would arise out of one guild pissing off the server, alliances would be formed, united to a common enemy. This stuff shouldn't be restricted imo.

maouw

Whatever the likelihood of it happening, the big guild will get bored when there is no other competition and this will cause some sort of implosion of power. Literally the story of every superpower that ever existed.

*sideways glance*

Bricktop

maouw wrote: »

Whatever the likelihood of it happening, the big guild will get bored when there is no other competition and this will cause some sort of implosion of power. Literally the story of every superpower that ever existed.

*sideways glance*

And if they don't implode they will get bored after a few months of dominating, declare themselves the "winner", slap it onto their "guild accomplishments" and move onto the next FOTM game.

Guilds that have a long history together and are highly organized have little chance of exploding, they are more of the "Get bored and take my ball and go home" type. It's the guilds that recruit hundreds of people over the course of 1 game that this can happen to easily.

Child Item