Balancing guilds with solo play

I have seen a lot about the exciting guild incentives and mechanics planned for AOC which I am all for. My only concern is that this may require an environment whereby you HAVE to align yourself with a guild to be relevant in the game. Personally as a solo player I'm of the opinion that joining a guild should always be out of choice, not necessity. In which ways do you think solo play can be balanced so that solo players/small teams of friends can still choose this path?

One idea I propose is that solo players could carry out as questline to become a mercenary. Mercenaries would be neutral alignment but could be hired by guilds to assist in seiges and bosses etc. This way solo players are not gated away from content but likewise are still able to enjoy soloplay when they choose to.

Just as guilds can acquire reputation, so could mercenaries. At higher reputation levels your price as a mercanary would automatically increase. Reputation would be based on successful "missions"(hires) and feedback from guild seniors (e.g. a simple rating system).

Just as there will be a leaderboard for guilds, there could be s leaderboard for mercenaries. Perhaps this system would be tied to military nodes.

What are your thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

bloodprophet

derp wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

I think being in a guild should offer advantages. And well organized guilds should have advantages over the weakly bound ones.
However if solo players forfeit those benefits, they should be able to survive.
But solo players should not demand to be able to fully experience all aspects of the game. Is like telling developers to not add content specific for guilds.

I'm not against guild content but they're talking about straight up stat buffs via enchantments and stuff. The moment this happens it makes it impossible for a solo/small team to be viable in PvP/pve, therefore making it MANDATORY to be in a guild.

That's called risk vs reward.
GW2 and wow are not MMO's. They are single player games with other people in the way. Heard as much about FF14.

PenguinPaladin

derp wrote: »

I like your approach but why should it be necessary for a solo player to create a guild to play solo? Also a solo player would definitely not progress the guild quick enough. I read that they are planning to have a sliding scale of buffs Vs number of players, if this is the case i would love for the scale to slide all the way down to 1 so a solo player gets the most buffs at the expense of not having other guildies to enjoy guild content with

You're sticking on the word guild too much. Their guild system is your "mercenaries" system in a way. Smaller combat focused guilds are going to be possible, and get buffed from their guild system for being smaller in number. Larger guilds hiring smaller guilds will be something that happens.

Mag7spy

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

derp wrote: »

I like your approach but why should it be necessary for a solo player to create a guild to play solo? Also a solo player would definitely not progress the guild quick enough. I read that they are planning to have a sliding scale of buffs Vs number of players, if this is the case i would love for the scale to slide all the way down to 1 so a solo player gets the most buffs at the expense of not having other guildies to enjoy guild content with

You're sticking on the word guild too much. Their guild system is your "mercenaries" system in a way. Smaller combat focused guilds are going to be possible, and get buffed from their guild system for being smaller in number. Larger guilds hiring smaller guilds will be something that happens.

These solo players are cracked legit want to do everything on their own, interact with no one and get all the perks.

Solo player technically can do that and get all the perks you just have a guild with only you and done.

Vaknar

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

I think you can do all of this without a system coded in place. Make your own solo "guild". Become reputable on your own. Take contracts from larger guilds... Demand your own pay based on what you know you are worth.... i mean, can you make a system better than just talking to and being familiar with those around you?

I was actually thinking the same as this after reading the OP. I think your idea is very interesting, @derp ! As @PenguinPaladin said, even if this feature weren't in Ashes of Creation, I believe there will be systems in place that will make this a possible gameplay style of your choice!

Balanz

I believe that shared interests, like groups, guilds, alliances, crafters, and citizens, will be the largest check on PvP abuse, much more than Corruption. You will be interacting with Guilds regardless.

I also suspect that being grouped, even temporarily, might be the best defense against PvP.

That suggests that Guilds are a strong advantage. If there a lot of players like the OP, I suspect there will be a lot of small "Pop Up" Guilds that like minded players can join or leave easily.

Dygz

This topic isn't really about PvP, though.

tautau

My solution, since sometimes I want to be social and sometimes I don't, is for my main to be in a guild and an alt or two not to be. If I am social, I log in my main and do stuff with my guild. If I'm not social, I log into a crafter or my toon which hunts down corrupted players...who have the best drops in the game!

NishUK

tautau wrote: »

If I'm not social, I log into a crafter or my toon which hunts down corrupted players...who have the best drops in the game!

Is that your cat side talking? o__O

Craiken

derp wrote: »

I'm not against guild content but they're talking about straight up stat buffs... making it MANDATORY to be in a guild.

I'd like to second this concern. Simply joining a guild should not make a player better at solo activities. Why should being able see Guild Chat make someone better at swinging a sword? In my opinion, that's an inelegant mechanic that breaks immersion.

Craiken

Karthos wrote: »

Maybe you just don't want to play MMORPGs.... This is like going to a Mexican Restaurant and saying "I don't like Mexican food, please make me a hamburger".

IMO, solo play has a place in any fantasy roleplaying world. Make room for the hermit wizard, the knight errant, the wandering bard, and all the other classic fantasy loners. You may want to join the king's feast in a crowded hall, but someone else might prefer sitting with their hood up in the shadowy corner of a less than reputable tavern.

Mag7spy

Honestly hope guild is tied to your account, don't liek the joining multiple guild things. Though it shouldn't be as bad in this game compared to lost ark. Just causes more issues even more so with you having so

Craiken wrote: »

Karthos wrote: »

Maybe you just don't want to play MMORPGs.... This is like going to a Mexican Restaurant and saying "I don't like Mexican food, please make me a hamburger".

IMO, solo play has a place in any fantasy roleplaying world. Make room for the hermit wizard, the knight errant, the wandering bard, and all the other classic fantasy loners. You may want to join the king's feast in a crowded hall, but someone else might prefer sitting with their hood up in the shadowy corner of a less than reputable tavern.

The game is balanced around group play not solo play, this is a mmorpg after all not a single player rpg. The content int he game is around group pvp including smaller groups and massive wars. I don't see this rpg point where you need to be a hermit wizard in a mmorpg, what does that have to do with gameplay? If you want to rp that you can rp that, if you want to do high end content in the game you will need a group.

Dygz

The OP asks about having a method of recognizing unaffiliated, itinerant, mercenary player characters who have a stellar combat record for Sieges and Caravans so that they can be picked up by various groups far across the world.
You are just being triggered by the term solo. In this case, solo does not mean what you think it means.

But, yes, Ashes also supports solo play. So, there is a place for solo play in Ashes - and that still is not the same thing as "single-player" or non-social.

Mag7spy

Dygz wrote: »

The OP asks about having a method of recognizing unaffiliated, itinerant, mercenary player characters who have a stellar combat record for Sieges and Caravans so that they can be picked up by various groups far across the world.
You are just being triggered by the term solo. In this case, solo does not mean what you think it means.

But, yes, Ashes also supports solo play. So, there is a place for solo play in Ashes - and that still is not the same thing as "single-player" or non-social.

You can be solo and join a guild, i know exactly what it means lmao.

Make room for the hermit wizard, the knight errant, the wandering bard, and all the other classic fantasy loners

You can do that and be in a guild, if you are trying to make a point of avoiding of being in any guilds or doing group content that is to your own disadvantage. The rp fantasy to be a lone wolf and refuse to use the guild system to get whatever buffs you get from it is your own issue. Its a group oriented game and that is the vision for it. All mmorpgs have solo play in it, that isn't anything new. If you are going to try and say I'm rping so because i rp in this way i should have the guild bonus while being guildless as well I think that is just silly.

Dygz

Yeah. You can be solo and not join a guild. But, still want to join groups... and have some method of people inviting you by checking your wins/losses record - assuming you have high wins.

The suggestion is to be accepted into groups on the other side of the world even when they don't know you personally. They can recognize your worth by checking your rep.
And there is already a feature for that in the Ashes game design that does most of it.

ggFable

Personally, I have nothing against solo players, they run doing their own thing, but I think that players who do not want to be part of a community that would be interested in developing the region, etc., certainly should not be talking here about what or balance, you play in MMO game, be kind to follow the rule of the genre, if you are a solo player, then farm do the job, etc., but do not climb with the squeal that now the guild players have more opportunities.
Maximum is the idea of mercenaries, there are quite a few good players who, for one reason or another, can not be in the guilds, etc., here's a market for mercenaries would be ideal for them.
And these whiners loners, who on every form of MMORPG crying that it is unnecessary to do DPS meters in dungeons, etc., because they get kicked because they only drag the group to the bottom not wanting to develop, do not need the MMORPG community, they do not help the genre evolve, because they do not want to get better themselves!

p.s. English is not my native language, so forgive me if somewhere wrongly expressed the thought

PenguinPaladin

derp wrote: »

Honestly my main concern is balancing. I would like guilds to offer horizontal progression, as soon as it becomes vertical progression it becomes a problem in my opinion

I would somewhat argue the opposite.

Horizontal progression vs more members is not equal?

Having more members is a form of vertical progression.

Now the amount of vertical progression offered to a smaller guild needs to be very precise. Balancing is important. But strictly Horizontal progression would make having smaller guilds somewhat pointless, and all guilds should just go for size.

PenguinPaladin

For the sake of this discussion, im going to list my understanding of the guild system. How i believe it manages to balance "solo" (small group, or more friend focused) play, and hardcore players and large guild concepts.

First. One of the things that came up was the rate at which one player could level a one man guild... that argument is not valid. How quickly one player becomes the best vs a group of players is obviously not "balanced" and it shouldnt be. If you can get ahead on your own, the social structure of an mmo would become meaningless.

The guild system, of potential guild points spent on more members, which is both vertical and horizontal power increase. Vs guild points spent on passive buffs or active skill availability.

It all depends on the depth of the system. Atm people are imagining do i want 20 friends, and vertical buffs vs 200 friends. I believe the guild system will be deeper than that. I see passive buffs durring certain situations. Like 10% more damage and damage resistance while guarding a caravan. I see crafting focused buffs. I see gathering focused buffs. I see very weak overall general combat buffs. And powerful crafting buffs, powerful, specific combat buffs like seiges and caravan interactions. Now i dont know if the system will be so in depth. But it needs to be. More members gives both vertical and horizontal progression. Smaller guilds that want to become usefull towards a purpose, like guarding caravans, or being a nodes crafting service, or being a perfered gathering party. They need some vertical progression to be wanted for these rolls.

Guilds should be able to "vertically scale" towards their perferd role. We just need to balance that a guild cant do everything. Just like with classes. Everyone, solo or not, needs to be able to become something useful, but not be able to do everything. Limiting how much one can do, while still letting them be really good at what they want to do, is the key in making a world where people need one another. And thats what ashes is aming to be.

I dont see why 15 "solo" players couldnt meet up. Talk about how they want to do their own thing, but also need some of the guild passive buffs. And then come together, make a mutual guild thats only there to level the guild up enough for their wanted buffs, and then go their own way. And once these small temp guilds arise, you'll have a whole fleet of random, not at cap solo guilds with the buffs you may want as a solo player, so just try and make some loose friends and join one that fits your play style....

tautau

I think about five players are needed to form a guild, no solo guilds will exist.

It is possible that larger numbers of players will be needed to level up a guild each time.

Mag7spy

Otr wrote: »

tautau wrote: »

I think about five players are needed to form a guild, no solo guilds will exist.

It is possible that larger numbers of players will be needed to level up a guild each time.

What if 4 of the 5 people leave?

Then you have a solo guild lol.

PenguinPaladin

tautau wrote: »

I think about five players are needed to form a guild, no solo guilds will exist.

It is possible that larger numbers of players will be needed to level up a guild each time.

The definition here isnt solo guild, as a single player. Its a guild made up of players who play on their own.

Child Item