Preventing Guild Alliances

So, maybe this has already been addressed, and I am sure it has, but I have not been able to find it. So, my one and only worry with the game coming out is how Intrepid will keep the highest level guilds from teaming up. For example, it is already known that only 5 nodes within a world can be the highest level at a time, and in order for a new one to be formed an old one must be destroyed, at least to some degree. Now what if the highest 5 guilds within a server were to claim there nodes and then decide to team up to lock their 5 nodes into place for a long extended period of time? Is this something that others would find discouraging or is it a tactical play you guys would like to keep in place? If there are any Developers who wish to chime in please do so! Let me know, I am curious what the community thinks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

bloodprophet

Should Intrepid limit player agency?
How? Why? Because players are grouping up and playing the game?
I get where your coming from with mega guilds.
In one of the recent streams this was touched on in the Q&A portion.
Steven said pretty much that. Player agency is paramount.
Nodes take a lot of people a mega guild could make a bunch of smaller guilds and dominate a server. So?

Eathan

bloodprophet wrote: »

Should Intrepid limit player agency?
How? Why? Because players are grouping up and playing the game?
I get where your coming from with mega guilds.
In one of the recent streams this was touched on in the Q&A portion.
Steven said pretty much that. Player agency is paramount.
Nodes take a lot of people a mega guild could make a bunch of smaller guilds and dominate a server. So?

Nodes are meant to be dominated, not servers. Ofc you are in constant competition with the server but never in constant war.

bloodprophet

So should they tell paying customers that are not breaking the TOS they can't play and form up as they wish?

Eathan

bloodprophet wrote: »

So should they tell paying customers that are not breaking the TOS they can't play and form up as they wish?

That's the point in this thread. To limit it in a way it isn't game breaking. It's an mmo and being as "Group play" focused as Steven has said of course not. They have put in a couple things into the game to prevent any groundbreaking group play but they have catered to the players in other aspects

Jiraiya

Eathan makes a very valid point. There is no reason at all that the 5 largest guilds in the game would not run the server. In fact it would be in their best interest to. I do understand the idea behind "it would motivate smaller players to rise up and fight back" but that seems extremely one sided and very unlikely. The motivation for any single player or even a handful of players to try and take on the 5 largest guilds, let alone one, is a great idea on paper and awesome in motivational speeches, but the application is just not practical. It would almost seem like the theme would be "all you new players - your main focus in this awesome MMO is to solely try to take down the superpowers by yourself". This would totally take away from PVM/PVE based players and gear it more towards PVP. A large attraction for this game, to a lot of players including myself, is the PVM/PVE aspect of it. There is a lot of brainstorming and topics that need to be brought up here and we truly don't have one good answer yet. No one is saying one or the other is right, this is just food for thought.

bloodprophet

So players should not be free to associate as they choose?
How could they stop this?

tautau

However, often the motivation of the big guilds, those who want to control a metropolis, is PVP. Check out the recruiting posts if you don't believe me, though we all know that from the games we have played.

So they don't want to just 'control the server' - they want to fight. That is their motivation, fighting. So the big guild alliances will tend to fight each other, for the fun of it. This empowers the smaller guilds because the big ones want more allies in their wars, so the balance of power on a server will always be shifting.

That is also the likely reason for five metropolis. Not six, which would split 3-3. Not three, because 2 vs 1 can often dominate. But 2 vs 3 can be a decent fight, particularly if the 2 get smaller groups to help. I think it will probably keep things stirred up, and not lend itself to long term static dominance.

Eathan

bloodprophet wrote: »

So players should not be free to associate as they choose?
How could they stop this?

Literally nobody has said that...

Eathan

tautau wrote: »

However, often the motivation of the big guilds, those who want to control a metropolis, is PVP. Check out the recruiting posts if you don't believe me, though we all know that from the games we have played.

So they don't want to just 'control the server' - they want to fight. That is their motivation, fighting. So the big guild alliances will tend to fight each other, for the fun of it. This empowers the smaller guilds because the big ones want more allies in their wars, so the balance of power on a server will always be shifting.

That is also the likely reason for five metropolis. Not six, which would split 3-3. Not three, because 2 vs 1 can often dominate. But 2 vs 3 can be a decent fight, particularly if the 2 get smaller groups to help. I think it will probably keep things stirred up, and not lend itself to long term static dominance.

With that logic you could use that argument to the advantage of what I'm saying. For example, by the time someone does rise up, which is already unlikely, they get 1v4'd.

Jiraiya

tautau wrote: »

However, often the motivation of the big guilds, those who want to control a metropolis, is PVP. Check out the recruiting posts if you don't believe me, though we all know that from the games we have played.

So they don't want to just 'control the server' - they want to fight. That is their motivation, fighting. So the big guild alliances will tend to fight each other, for the fun of it. This empowers the smaller guilds because the big ones want more allies in their wars, so the balance of power on a server will always be shifting.

That is also the likely reason for five metropolis. Not six, which would split 3-3. Not three, because 2 vs 1 can often dominate. But 2 vs 3 can be a decent fight, particularly if the 2 get smaller groups to help. I think it will probably keep things stirred up, and not lend itself to long term static dominance.

I really hope this is how it would turn out. But I still have my fears on latter option. If it were to turn to that then I really feel that new player retention would be so low. As I said in my other forum post, players who are not partaking in Alpha or Beta would be at a severe disadvantage.

Elo

Since the quest content would not develop until other nodes level up, I think an alliance would eventually break down. All the available quests would get used up, then people would want to destroy one of those nodes so they can access more content in other nodes. The 5 metropolis alliance would have to agree on who gets destroyed, whose months long-invested houses will all be destroyed.

Eathan

I'm all for the PvP, this game has a very big emphasis on it. I just feel there should be some kind of reward so great when a level 5 node overtakes another level 5 node that it keeps war going constantly. With that said if it takes as many people to hold down a node as the devs state then it should be nearly impossible for one single good no matter how big to overtake all 5, but who knows for sure.

Eathan

Elo wrote: »

Since the quest content would not develop until other nodes level up, I think an alliance would eventually break down. All the available quests would get used up, then people would want to destroy one of those nodes so they can access more content in other nodes. The 5 metropolis alliance would have to agree on who gets destroyed, whose months long-invested houses will all be destroyed.

This is actually the first valid point that I have seen. It does make sense especially if word gets out on what specifically would arise from allowing another node to grow. My only problem with this is we all are here for the longevity of the game, and eventually a meta will be found on which zones offer the best quest/dungeons. Once it is found out that even makes the zones harder to take as people who like the dungeon and quest in that area, because they are so rewarding, will do all they can to keep it that way. Imagine a zone is discovered that levels people beyond imagine. Nobody is gonna wanna lose that node, and while the devs can constantly tweak things of that nature, we have all seen games that struggle to keep up with tweaks in comparison to the methods players find to level/get loot.

bloodprophet

Eathan wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

So players should not be free to associate as they choose?
How could they stop this?

Literally nobody has said that...

Is that not the point of the thread?
Big guilds are just a collection of individual players.
What if a mega guild moves into a server from another game. A Goon Squad or some such and they bring 8000 players and take up a large portion of the servers population. Then what?
Even if they remove guilds all together and they are all just single players co-operating for a common cause the result would be the same would it not?
What if it is a collection of smaller guilds that have a loose banding together no real alliances. Would this not also have the same effect?

Eathan

bloodprophet wrote: »

Eathan wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

So players should not be free to associate as they choose?
How could they stop this?

Literally nobody has said that...

Is that not the point of the thread?
Big guilds are just a collection of individual players.
What if a mega guild moves into a server from another game. A Goon Squad or some such and they bring 8000 players and take up a large portion of the servers population. Then what?
Even if they remove guilds all together and they are all just single players co-operating for a common cause the result would be the same would it not?
What if it is a collection of smaller guilds that have a loose banding together no real alliances. Would this not also have the same effect?

Firstly, nobody ever said stop guilds, or make them less people. Secondly, nobody in there right mind could argue that a "Goon Squad" the size of 8000 people is good for any game especially in a PvP game. How do you pvp someone that large? Third by the time people get to that point are they even a guild? Guilds were put into place to organize the ideas and thoughts of players with like minds, and to compete in mmo's at the highest level, When you throw 8000 people into a group there is zero organization and so this argument is pointless. The whole point of this thread it to propose ideas in which limit people from making these massive groups that can completely determine the outcome of a server. Saying this does not limit people from associating themselves with others etc. Nobody is going to miss the other 7,999 people I can assure you.

bloodprophet

Size of the group in question will vary depending on perception. Some will think the 8 man group is to large and others will think 8000 is to small.
I think you are trying to fight nature it's self. As you said " Guilds were put into place to organize the ideas and thoughts of players with like minds, and to compete in mmo's at the highest level" and you are correct. The 8000 player group is trying to work together the same as an 8 man group just on a larger scale.

People tend to gather with like minded people for common goals. Attempting to stop it is like yelling at the sky because it is windy and you don't like the wind. Nothing we can do about it. Work with the wind to your advantage, or get out of it's way. Either way attempting to fight nature has never worked out well in the long term for people.

How to fight it. Deception and chaos come to mind. With espionage being a thing. Join their group and start some "He said, she said" quarrels in the organization and watch the house burn down.Sometimes the fight is best fought behind the scenes and not face to face.

Or
Read and learn to become a leader that can hold together a large guild that CAN compete.

"There is no test a smart man can not pass." Joseph Sisko

Tyranthraxus

Eathan wrote: »

So, maybe this has already been addressed, and I am sure it has, but I have not been able to find it. So, my one and only worry with the game coming out is how Intrepid will keep the highest level guilds from teaming up. For example, it is already known that only 5 nodes within a world can be the highest level at a time, and in order for a new one to be formed an old one must be destroyed, at least to some degree. Now what if the highest 5 guilds within a server were to claim there nodes and then decide to team up to lock their 5 nodes into place for a long extended period of time? Is this something that others would find discouraging or is it a tactical play you guys would like to keep in place? If there are any Developers who wish to chime in please do so! Let me know, I am curious what the community thinks.

You're presenting this as a problem. However, this sounds like it *should* be a viable tactic.

From my experience such alliances can't last long. Between server-giant guild fractures, single-leader-dependency, lack of well-defined guild themes/direction, and just plain ol' MMO-player drama, yours truly can't imagine being concerned about 5 guild-collectives working cohesively enough to ever completely dominate a server for any longer than a few short months.

Also, if alliances are made more-restrictive and more-limiting, how will we band together enough to defend our own Metropolises? Such an achievement as Level 6 Node-rank is intended to require players working together to hold that achievement together - and you're likely already talking about probably 3+ different guilds having to work together; Even with just a few guilds, it's only a matter of time before pettiness and player-drama make working together hard or impossible.

Defending what your community built together is a great direction to collectively possess - but what's the rallying cry for other Metropolises' guild-communities to band together to enforce/maintain a monopoly over Nodes built by otherwise un-related players?

Tyranthraxus

ferretstalker wrote: »

Sounds like that server would have a much more static and stable world than others. Could be a good server for PvE-focused players to play on.

Here's another positive.

Some servers will inevitably develop different characteristics and control-arrangements. Maybe not enter the game with the mentality of sticking eternally with your original launch-choice of Server, as to free you to move around after the initial settling-in? (This is not intended to sound snotty - I just can't figure out how to word it any differently to NOT sound snotty!)

Frank Castle wrote: »

They cant defend all nodes at once. The server could ally with each other, declare a siege on each mega node with a very small guild and then team up against 1 trying to confuse them which city will be attacked.

As much as the big guilds will find ways to dominate, the small guilds will find a way to overcome them. That's the beauty of player-driven, dynamic worlds.

The initiating player of a Node Siege does not limit the participation of the Siege to only their guilds and allies; All players can participate - so long as there is enough room in the battle-zone's player limits (currently quoted to be 250 vs 250).

In addition, a Node can take enough damage from a Siege to simply de-level, as opposed to being completely wiped off the map; "Winning" a Siege won't always feel like victory, to the defenders. As you touched upon, this certainly opens up possibilities for smaller guilds to band together and perhaps do specific damage to an opposing Node, instead of seeking a much-harder outright destruction.

Recluse74 wrote: »

I thought there was a mechanic involved where a node has a deteriorating XP bar, and if the citizens of that node do not keep the XP flowing in, than the Node can and will lose levels. I looked on the wiki and did not see it anywhere, but I know I heard or read it somewhere.

Aye - a lot of players call it 'decay', but the correct term for the Wiki is 'Node Atrophy':

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_atrophy

Nagash

If a guild and its alliance can take other the whole of Verra and keep it like that for a month then I would be super impressed and they deserve it

Yuyukoyay

My problem with it is that in the game as it is right now in philosophy it would not be hard for a guild to come around with 20 slave guilds and all maxed. Take the entire server and not even need other players outside of their guild kingdom for anything else in the game.

They could pvp each other, they could dungeon together, and they could raid together. Leaving absolutely no room for any small group of any kind to oppose it at all.

Anyone seen outside of this guild kingdom is killed on sight and no one would be there to punish them with the corruption system. That could potentially happen on every single server in the game with how big communities in other MMO's have built up over the years. This would completely destroy the game as it was designed to play.

Currently there is nothing in the game to incentivize people to not do that. So you can just assume that is a potential problem that can happen. This kind of thing can happen right at day 1 release too. You will be able to tell it's happening if there are huge groups of people killing you and disregarding the corruption system entirely. The problem is that it can get so out of control that it can lock the entire server down in every single zone in the entire game right from release.

While technically they are playing the game, but would any of you like to play in a game world that was ransacked that extremely. You wouldn't be able to just integrate in with them. Their entire chain of command would be set in stone and unchanging. You'd probably have to try multiple times just to chat with them because they would just kill you on sight with no reasoning.

Other games have similar problems to this. It never got so extreme that it took an entire server at launch, but the game so far is planned to do absolutely nothing to limit this from happening. It has happened to entire servers in many big MMOs already. Ever go to servers in WoW that were completely empty? Not even a single player logged in? That's what it looks like when this happens to a server and they all stop playing the game.

Retail WoW isn't a good game though. So I can't say they'll just up and leave in a game as potentially good as Ashes.

Player agency is one thing, but this isn't player agency. That stopped when the corruption system was rendered useless.

What do you do when you have a completely closed community that runs every single system in the game in a way not intended by the designers of the game? What if they did it and used the server to do stuff illegal on the TOS that ruined the balance on every other server? The penalty cost couldn't possibly be equivalent to the potential monetary gain from doing that.

This is how the game can become pay to win even if there is nothing in the actual game that has systems to promote that.

Thus I would at least like it to be looked into so that people can play the game as it was intended to be an actual game. xD

Child Item