Depraved wrote: » they cant defend every node at the same time. (:
Diamaht wrote: » This is basically Eve. Freeholds are not a player feature, they are a player organization feature.
Noaani wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » This is basically Eve. Freeholds are not a player feature, they are a player organization feature. This *may* be the case. However, that was not the case just a few short days ago - at least not if you asked literally any poster on these forums. The other thing this does is it limits Ashes playerbase to those that want EVE's gameplay in this regard. Just to let you know what that is like, EVE has an average concurrent playerbase to fill half of an Ashes servers target concurrent playerbase.
Diamaht wrote: » Depraved wrote: » they cant defend every node at the same time. (: No they can't, so here: 6) Large corps seek to solidify their territory so they begin talks with other like-minded large and powerful groups. Now Alliances are born. 7) Large corps find that competing against Alliances is not possible so they begin talks of their own. 8) Alliance warfare becomes the dominant force behind most engagement, politics and espionage become paramount. 9) Alliance leaders become more influential than individual corp leaders. Corps are relegated to control various alliance zones of influence. Alliances begin to consider territory well beyond their node as theirs. Notice the language is singular. All of this starts naturally when you bottleneck the most important systems behind a small number of doors. What you do outside these systems is irrelevant, it must all go through the freehold at some point and 1 in100 to 1 in 20 is small enough to be controlled.
Diamaht wrote: » Edit: And you are right, that was not the impression (mine included) but with the new details it's pretty obvious. This is an economy, you just follow the incentives.
Depraved wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » Depraved wrote: » they cant defend every node at the same time. (: No they can't, so here: 6) Large corps seek to solidify their territory so they begin talks with other like-minded large and powerful groups. Now Alliances are born. 7) Large corps find that competing against Alliances is not possible so they begin talks of their own. 8) Alliance warfare becomes the dominant force behind most engagement, politics and espionage become paramount. 9) Alliance leaders become more influential than individual corp leaders. Corps are relegated to control various alliance zones of influence. Alliances begin to consider territory well beyond their node as theirs. Notice the language is singular. All of this starts naturally when you bottleneck the most important systems behind a small number of doors. What you do outside these systems is irrelevant, it must all go through the freehold at some point and 1 in100 to 1 in 20 is small enough to be controlled. yes, people will form alliances, and guess what? alliances cant still defend everything at the same time...unless you have like 5k players on one side or something .-. the issue isnt people forming alliances. the issue is people not forming alliances
LegendaryIII wrote: » "Low Thousands" vs 50,000 accounts (Let's assume 2500 FH's) (Servers may begin with fewer players, however Intrepid might also limit FH's. So we'll ignore this.) You'll need to share. Optimally 2500 FH's × 8 Family Members would allow for 20,000 to have direct access. That's not going to happen, but hopefully around 1/2 that. (Assuming a full server. Join a Family / Guild) --- Guilds ...are going to want many FH's. For a few of reasons. 1: You want your own FH? So do their members. 2: Processing Time & Location. You think 200 players are going to wait in line, so you can have a pretty home? 3: Sieges. If they have 1 FH, and it gets trashed... If you are Solo, or a small guild, and want a realistic shot at a Freehold, you're going to need to rush to 50. After they're all sold your odds are going to plummet. Build a family, pool your resources. Good Luck. And if you see my name, don't bid against me. Thx --- But Sieges!!! In UO we had IDOC's (in danger of collapse) They were the only way to get a home "in-game" once all spots were claimed. 7 days, if not refreshed. Loot! Dozens would camp out waiting for that moment. If there are a lot of sieges, it's possible. Staggered, or rare, Good Luck... You'll have the same competition, but now focused. --- Other options Node Housing will depend on desirability. Apartments will depend on availability. Mayor's...build Apartments. --- Processing If you have the necessary items to process at these levels, you just have to either gain access or have someone do it for you. The question for solo / small guilds; Will you even have access to these materials? Can you get the materials required to build the processing station even if you do own a FH? How long before those with access, choose to sell these items? We don't know. Neither does Intrepid. --- And to those... "Not all 50,000 accounts will be level50, or want a FH" Doesn't really matter. There will be more buyers than Holds.
Noaani wrote: » LegendaryIII wrote: » "Low Thousands" vs 50,000 accounts (Let's assume 2500 FH's) (Servers may begin with fewer players, however Intrepid might also limit FH's. So we'll ignore this.) You'll need to share. Optimally 2500 FH's × 8 Family Members would allow for 20,000 to have direct access. That's not going to happen, but hopefully around 1/2 that. (Assuming a full server. Join a Family / Guild) --- Guilds ...are going to want many FH's. For a few of reasons. 1: You want your own FH? So do their members. 2: Processing Time & Location. You think 200 players are going to wait in line, so you can have a pretty home? 3: Sieges. If they have 1 FH, and it gets trashed... If you are Solo, or a small guild, and want a realistic shot at a Freehold, you're going to need to rush to 50. After they're all sold your odds are going to plummet. Build a family, pool your resources. Good Luck. And if you see my name, don't bid against me. Thx --- But Sieges!!! In UO we had IDOC's (in danger of collapse) They were the only way to get a home "in-game" once all spots were claimed. 7 days, if not refreshed. Loot! Dozens would camp out waiting for that moment. If there are a lot of sieges, it's possible. Staggered, or rare, Good Luck... You'll have the same competition, but now focused. --- Other options Node Housing will depend on desirability. Apartments will depend on availability. Mayor's...build Apartments. --- Processing If you have the necessary items to process at these levels, you just have to either gain access or have someone do it for you. The question for solo / small guilds; Will you even have access to these materials? Can you get the materials required to build the processing station even if you do own a FH? How long before those with access, choose to sell these items? We don't know. Neither does Intrepid. --- And to those... "Not all 50,000 accounts will be level50, or want a FH" Doesn't really matter. There will be more buyers than Holds. So, some issues here. What this is doing is turning the family structure in to something that needs to be maximized in order to participate in the game. The original idea of families in Ashes was as a unit for real life friends - so that people could treat guilds as the unit that was to be maximised, while familiy was purely social. Already this is a loss to Intrepid. The next issue is that you are assuming people want the top tier just automatically. What people want is a thing of their own in game. It's fine if it's tier 4 rather than tier 5 - as loing as it is theirs. There are other issues with the above, but it is blatantly clear you've been reading peoples issues with a fairly closed mind on the subject, so I don't see the point in wasting my time further.
Diamaht wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » Depraved wrote: » they cant defend every node at the same time. (: No they can't, so here: 6) Large corps seek to solidify their territory so they begin talks with other like-minded large and powerful groups. Now Alliances are born. 7) Large corps find that competing against Alliances is not possible so they begin talks of their own. 8) Alliance warfare becomes the dominant force behind most engagement, politics and espionage become paramount. 9) Alliance leaders become more influential than individual corp leaders. Corps are relegated to control various alliance zones of influence. Alliances begin to consider territory well beyond their node as theirs. Notice the language is singular. All of this starts naturally when you bottleneck the most important systems behind a small number of doors. What you do outside these systems is irrelevant, it must all go through the freehold at some point and 1 in100 to 1 in 20 is small enough to be controlled. yes, people will form alliances, and guess what? alliances cant still defend everything at the same time...unless you have like 5k players on one side or something .-. the issue isnt people forming alliances. the issue is people not forming alliances And you will have 5k on one side. It turns into maybe a half dozen massive groups with their politics and intrigues being the priority. The rest are navigating within other peoples territories. Is this good or bad? You be judge. Too many bottleneck always limit the number of significant voices.
Depraved wrote: » families have been the "default" of playing some other mmorpg if you want to progress, and there was no real mechanics or incentives in those games, other than it was just convenient or efficient. and guilds who recruited these "families" were usually stronger than guilds who didnt, even on equal numbers, because of the coordination of the players inside these "families" (since you play every day with the same person, you get used to each other play styles and what you will do). aoc is just offering extras for these types of organizations.
Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » families have been the "default" of playing some other mmorpg if you want to progress, and there was no real mechanics or incentives in those games, other than it was just convenient or efficient. and guilds who recruited these "families" were usually stronger than guilds who didnt, even on equal numbers, because of the coordination of the players inside these "families" (since you play every day with the same person, you get used to each other play styles and what you will do). aoc is just offering extras for these types of organizations. Can you point me to one game that uses the family system as essentially a firm gateway to one of the four major gameplay activities in said game? No? Well then, what was your point?
Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » families have been the "default" of playing some other mmorpg if you want to progress, and there was no real mechanics or incentives in those games, other than it was just convenient or efficient. and guilds who recruited these "families" were usually stronger than guilds who didnt, even on equal numbers, because of the coordination of the players inside these "families" (since you play every day with the same person, you get used to each other play styles and what you will do). aoc is just offering extras for these types of organizations. Can you point me to one game that uses the family system as essentially a firm gateway to one of the four major gameplay activities in said game? No? Well then, what was your point? i literally just said there was no real mechanices or incentives in those games, as in not coded inside the game (maybe only in ragnarok where you could get married and had some stuff). you would group yourself with people and play with the same players everyday and do all the activitis together and help each other progress, share resources, etc.
Noaani wrote: » So, some issues here. What this is doing is turning the family structure in to something that needs to be maximized in order to participate in the game. The original idea of families in Ashes was as a unit for real life friends - so that people could treat guilds as the unit that was to be maximised, while familiy was purely social. Already this is a loss to Intrepid. The next issue is that you are assuming people want the top tier just automatically. What people want is a thing of their own in game. It's fine if it's tier 4 rather than tier 5 - as loing as it is theirs. There are other issues with the above, but it is blatantly clear you've been reading peoples issues with a fairly closed mind on the subject, so I don't see the point in wasting my time further.
LegendaryIII wrote: » I'm not building the game.
Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » families have been the "default" of playing some other mmorpg if you want to progress, and there was no real mechanics or incentives in those games, other than it was just convenient or efficient. and guilds who recruited these "families" were usually stronger than guilds who didnt, even on equal numbers, because of the coordination of the players inside these "families" (since you play every day with the same person, you get used to each other play styles and what you will do). aoc is just offering extras for these types of organizations. Can you point me to one game that uses the family system as essentially a firm gateway to one of the four major gameplay activities in said game? No? Well then, what was your point? i literally just said there was no real mechanices or incentives in those games, as in not coded inside the game (maybe only in ragnarok where you could get married and had some stuff). you would group yourself with people and play with the same players everyday and do all the activitis together and help each other progress, share resources, etc. Yeah - as I said, it is a system designed for people that are generally friends outside of the game to have a unit in the game they can share with their friends. Think back to the family summons - the initial mention of families as a system in Ashes. The idea of the summons was so that your friend that can't log in until a few hours after you could be pulled in to where you are so that you can play with said friend. While that system in itself has it's many flaws, it is at least in line with the idea of what a family in an MMO should be. The idea is that it is a system that functions to assist friends in doing content together. What it shouldn't be is a system that is required for content, or a system that inherently increases access to content.
AnimusRex wrote: » Hi Veeshan I did say ORIGINAL design pillars. Economy, Nodes, Meaningful conflict and Narrative. Became the 5 you listed yes. You're kicking at the new goalposts (and you skipped the relevant one, No 1 Immersive Story) so I'll just repeat that it does not feel immersive for developable land ownership to be a scarcity in the game.
Diamaht wrote: » Well if it's 5 to 10 percent of the player base then its zero percent of the player base. 1)These things are destroyable so you need to protect them to safely use them. That requires numbers. 2) Large numbers and the ability to fend off attacks means big wealth and influence. 3) Big wealth and influence means you can buy up land rights. 4) Massive land rights means you can control the game economy. Simply price out the smaller guys and gobble them up. (Or attack them with your numbers). 5) Large and wealthy groups will slowly begin to monopolize the freeholds and therefore the game. This is basically Eve. Freeholds are not a player feature, they are a player organization feature.
