Like I said before if a guild and its alliance can fight off every other guild and win every war against them and still hold the map then they deserve to have it in my opinion
Yea nobody ever said otherwise
Looks at title
"Preventing Guild Alliances"
are you sure?
I see you wrote alliance in that, only saw guild first time around. Yea I'm cool with guilds holding down their territory, even with an alliance, my problem is mass alliances, not everything can be explained in the title
again if they can manage it I think it's fine and if players dislike it then its up to them to fight back and take back the power
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
Like I said before if a guild and its alliance can fight off every other guild and win every war against them and still hold the map then they deserve to have it in my opinion
Yea, nobody ever said otherwise.
Looks at title
"Preventing Guild Alliances"
are you sure?
I see you wrote alliance in that; I only saw guild the first time around. Yea, I'm cool with guilds holding down their territory; even with an alliance, my problem is mass alliances; not everything can be explained in the title
again if they can manage it, I think it's fine, and if players dislike it, then it's up to them to fight back and take back the power
I agree with this. If a single guild can manage to take over a single server, let them, but I highly doubt that will happen. As someone said, people will social engineer their way up to the top to ruin a guild. Some will even band together to fight back and have spies and decoys inside these guilds. Some will steal or give information on members of the guilds farming spots, which will cause drama and, he said, she said, arguments. Even in Eve Online, Goonsquad was at the top. Players came together and fought back. Players betrayed members inside the guild and so on. It happens in every game, we might not see it all the time, but it does happen. It’s never fun to have one person rule the whole server; that’s why people do this, but if you can manage to take on the whole server, have no drama what-so-ever, and have it well organized, then you obviously deserve it and need a reward, but I haven’t seen that happen. So, I highly doubt it’ll become a problem.
Like I said before if a guild and its alliance can fight off every other guild and win every war against them and still hold the map then they deserve to have it in my opinion
Yea nobody ever said otherwise
Looks at title
"Preventing Guild Alliances"
are you sure?
I see you wrote alliance in that, only saw guild first time around. Yea I'm cool with guilds holding down their territory, even with an alliance, my problem is mass alliances, not everything can be explained in the title
It still feels as though you're presenting this as a problem, when it sounds like a perfectly valid (and very boring - I can't imagine anyone wanting to establish this!) way to play.
I want conflict, the game is built for conflict. You appear to be arguing against players' ability to group, out of the fear that the game will not generate conflict. Am I wrong?
Even if you honestly believe this is possible to establish AND to maintain, is this something you perceive as likely?
Like I said before if a guild and its alliance can fight off every other guild and win every war against them and still hold the map then they deserve to have it in my opinion
Yea nobody ever said otherwise
Looks at title
"Preventing Guild Alliances"
are you sure?
I see you wrote alliance in that, only saw guild first time around. Yea I'm cool with guilds holding down their territory, even with an alliance, my problem is mass alliances, not everything can be explained in the title
It still feels as though you're presenting this as a problem, when it sounds like a perfectly valid (and very boring - I can't imagine anyone wanting to establish this!) way to play.
I want conflict, the game is built for conflict. You appear to be arguing against players' ability to group, out of the fear that the game will not generate conflict. Am I wrong?
Even if you honestly believe this is possible to establish AND to maintain, is this something you perceive as likely?
I don’t understand the problem here at all. @Eathan ,You say you don’t like alliances, but then you do like them. Name a game where alliances became so big that it caused a game to die off? People are gonna say WoW but, I don’t see how that’s the case if the servers are still doing somewhat well. People are gonna say the dead servers, they’re dead because if there’s no competition people will merge into another server with competition, that’s just the nature of video games. Some people are more competitive than others. Yes, servers do die due to lack of competition, but another server thrives off of the competition, especially if it’s player driven. I also don’t see how it could be a problem if 10k players can be on a server at once and you have 1200 members as alliances. You still gotta deal with the rest of the players on the server, plus the small guilds with their buffs.
i dont mind Guild alliances at all....... what i dont want to see is ESO type guilds, to be exactly what i dont like is someone able to be a member in 5 guilds same time !
i dont mind Guild alliances at all....... what i dont want to see is ESO type guilds, to be exactly what i dont like is someone able to be a member in 5 guilds same time !
Yea, that's what I was saying in a higher comment, there should be penalties for hoping, this would also lessen the use of sister guilds
I see this is your first post so welcome! Jumping in, Guilds don't control nodes. Neither do Alliances. They can be influential, there are positions of honor within nodes for them (Patronages) but they have no system where X guild has X node in their control and now can do X things.
Now on a practical note, a guild or alliance could put forth their resources, influence and numbers to try to get their Guild Leader or chosen officer the Mayoral seat, depending on node election type, and perhaps even get it, however this still wouldn't give them 'control' in the way we generally think of it. They couldn't keep people from questing in the area or living in the node itself, in fact, if they did, the node would never make it to Metro (level 6) in the first place. People need to be living, crafting and farming in the node and it's vassals to maintain a healthy level, and not enter exp debt. If they decide to lock the area down, which they could only plausibly do in the extreme short term by murdering every non guild member they see, putting them at extreme corruption levels eventually, weakening them to the point of being easily wiped out, and with a massive exp debt, people will just leave. The node will wither and die due to exp debt.
And if someone wants to stir the pot, any person can drop a siege flag after gathering the necessary mats/completing necessary prereq's, at which point the node is fair game once it becomes siege time. And if there's one thing most players love, it's a reason to burn and loot.
Comments
again if they can manage it I think it's fine and if players dislike it then its up to them to fight back and take back the power
@Jahlon explains it all pretty well in his videos...
https://ashes101.com/
https://ashes101.com/nodes
I agree with this. If a single guild can manage to take over a single server, let them, but I highly doubt that will happen. As someone said, people will social engineer their way up to the top to ruin a guild. Some will even band together to fight back and have spies and decoys inside these guilds. Some will steal or give information on members of the guilds farming spots, which will cause drama and, he said, she said, arguments. Even in Eve Online, Goonsquad was at the top. Players came together and fought back. Players betrayed members inside the guild and so on. It happens in every game, we might not see it all the time, but it does happen. It’s never fun to have one person rule the whole server; that’s why people do this, but if you can manage to take on the whole server, have no drama what-so-ever, and have it well organized, then you obviously deserve it and need a reward, but I haven’t seen that happen. So, I highly doubt it’ll become a problem.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2020/9/15/21436851/ever-online-world-war-bee-2-interview-the-mittani-vily
There’s always drama or something happening which causes player conflict, so I doubt any guild will become that big no matter how organized you are.
(P.S I don’t play Eve, but I do like reading the stories on it. They’re interesting 😆.)
It still feels as though you're presenting this as a problem, when it sounds like a perfectly valid (and very boring - I can't imagine anyone wanting to establish this!) way to play.
I want conflict, the game is built for conflict. You appear to be arguing against players' ability to group, out of the fear that the game will not generate conflict. Am I wrong?
Even if you honestly believe this is possible to establish AND to maintain, is this something you perceive as likely?
I don’t understand the problem here at all. @Eathan ,You say you don’t like alliances, but then you do like them. Name a game where alliances became so big that it caused a game to die off? People are gonna say WoW but, I don’t see how that’s the case if the servers are still doing somewhat well. People are gonna say the dead servers, they’re dead because if there’s no competition people will merge into another server with competition, that’s just the nature of video games. Some people are more competitive than others. Yes, servers do die due to lack of competition, but another server thrives off of the competition, especially if it’s player driven. I also don’t see how it could be a problem if 10k players can be on a server at once and you have 1200 members as alliances. You still gotta deal with the rest of the players on the server, plus the small guilds with their buffs.
Yea, that's what I was saying in a higher comment, there should be penalties for hoping, this would also lessen the use of sister guilds
Now on a practical note, a guild or alliance could put forth their resources, influence and numbers to try to get their Guild Leader or chosen officer the Mayoral seat, depending on node election type, and perhaps even get it, however this still wouldn't give them 'control' in the way we generally think of it. They couldn't keep people from questing in the area or living in the node itself, in fact, if they did, the node would never make it to Metro (level 6) in the first place. People need to be living, crafting and farming in the node and it's vassals to maintain a healthy level, and not enter exp debt. If they decide to lock the area down, which they could only plausibly do in the extreme short term by murdering every non guild member they see, putting them at extreme corruption levels eventually, weakening them to the point of being easily wiped out, and with a massive exp debt, people will just leave. The node will wither and die due to exp debt.
And if someone wants to stir the pot, any person can drop a siege flag after gathering the necessary mats/completing necessary prereq's, at which point the node is fair game once it becomes siege time. And if there's one thing most players love, it's a reason to burn and loot.