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: » 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
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.
Depraved wrote: » they cant defend every node at the same time. (:
Veeshan wrote: » 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. its not immersive to have a billion freeholds litteraly the world look at archage housing plots for example. Also back in medeval time barely anyone "owned" the land they were on when the leader of the area can be like yeah nope cya u dont deserve it. even this day and age a large portion of the population down own land for themselfs :P so yeah rather immersive there still.
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.
Fantmx wrote: » Depraved wrote: » they cant defend every node at the same time. (: Has nobody realized most guilds invested in freeholds will have no reason to defend nodes or even be citizens of the nodes. You don't have to be citizens of a node to own a freehold. So the only choice you will have during a siege is whether to protect your freeholds or let them die. And I'm guessing it might be easier to own freeholds in multiple nodes and when one goes to siege, let it die. Don't waste the resources. If you have 11 other freeholds operating in other territories you will likely not experience much downside. And if your node doesn't change hands you get to keep the freehold anyways. So then you would focus your combat teams on following existing sieges and scooping up new freeholds during the time period you can after the siege ends rather than participating in the sieges themselves.
Noaani wrote: » However, that was not the case just a few short days ago - at least not if you asked literally any poster on these forums.
Depraved wrote: » 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. you are claiming that the family system is required, as in players are required to use it to play. im saying since players will naturally group themselves into families (as in playing with a constant group of people), aoc will give them some perks that will benefit them.
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.
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: » 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: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Depraved wrote: » they cant defend every node at the same time. (: Has nobody realized most guilds invested in freeholds will have no reason to defend nodes or even be citizens of the nodes. You don't have to be citizens of a node to own a freehold. So the only choice you will have during a siege is whether to protect your freeholds or let them die. And I'm guessing it might be easier to own freeholds in multiple nodes and when one goes to siege, let it die. Don't waste the resources. If you have 11 other freeholds operating in other territories you will likely not experience much downside. And if your node doesn't change hands you get to keep the freehold anyways. So then you would focus your combat teams on following existing sieges and scooping up new freeholds during the time period you can after the siege ends rather than participating in the sieges themselves. and if you keep letting them die, you will have 0 eventually. also, dont you have a grace period after a node is destroyed to save your freehold? you have to get the node to level 3. so people will be doing things that will give the node exp, so save their fh..so the large guild will have to kill everybody in the node 24/7 so that they cant get exp, in multiple territories... or split their forces and get multiple territories to level 3... we have to look at how the systems tie together, not just one aspect of the game in isolation. also, a large guild will be bidding on one fh trying to outbid another large guild, meanwhile, everybody else can bid on other fh in the same node.
Owning a freehold makes you a citizen of the accompanying node. You can bid on plots without being a citizen though.
Neurath wrote: » Freehold is still classed as player housing at the moment...
Neurath wrote: » So that means you can have any player housing and not be a citizen... That also means you don't have to pay taxes lol. What a boon.
Mag7spy wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Depraved wrote: » they cant defend every node at the same time. (: Has nobody realized most guilds invested in freeholds will have no reason to defend nodes or even be citizens of the nodes. You don't have to be citizens of a node to own a freehold. So the only choice you will have during a siege is whether to protect your freeholds or let them die. And I'm guessing it might be easier to own freeholds in multiple nodes and when one goes to siege, let it die. Don't waste the resources. If you have 11 other freeholds operating in other territories you will likely not experience much downside. And if your node doesn't change hands you get to keep the freehold anyways. So then you would focus your combat teams on following existing sieges and scooping up new freeholds during the time period you can after the siege ends rather than participating in the sieges themselves. Might be a good idea to only be able to have a freehold at a node you are a citizen of which would keep strong guilds from trying to get them everywhere. Would give more people chances to get them while limiting more competitive guilds at the same time. This could be a bad idea though but just a thought.
Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. you are claiming that the family system is required, as in players are required to use it to play. im saying since players will naturally group themselves into families (as in playing with a constant group of people), aoc will give them some perks that will benefit them. This unit that you speak of - groups that players naturally form themselves in to - that is what guilds are for. The idea has always been that guilds are about gameplay, progression etc, and families are about social interaction among friends. An example of this is that my brother has three young kids. He maintains an account I what ever MMO I am playing. He doesnt have the opportunity to log on more than once every few weeks, so he cant join the guilds I am in (he was a top end raider like myself for years - he understands). However, family systems are for this exact purpose. We could be in the same family, and him jot logging on for weeks at a time would have no negative impact at all on me - because mechanics associated with family systems only exist to facilitate play and communication within the family. There shouldnt even be any negative impact if you dont join a family. With this system in Ashes, the family system is essentially a second guild system. It has a gameplay function, and so needs to be maximized.
Fantmx wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Depraved wrote: » they cant defend every node at the same time. (: Has nobody realized most guilds invested in freeholds will have no reason to defend nodes or even be citizens of the nodes. You don't have to be citizens of a node to own a freehold. So the only choice you will have during a siege is whether to protect your freeholds or let them die. And I'm guessing it might be easier to own freeholds in multiple nodes and when one goes to siege, let it die. Don't waste the resources. If you have 11 other freeholds operating in other territories you will likely not experience much downside. And if your node doesn't change hands you get to keep the freehold anyways. So then you would focus your combat teams on following existing sieges and scooping up new freeholds during the time period you can after the siege ends rather than participating in the sieges themselves. and if you keep letting them die, you will have 0 eventually. also, dont you have a grace period after a node is destroyed to save your freehold? you have to get the node to level 3. so people will be doing things that will give the node exp, so save their fh..so the large guild will have to kill everybody in the node 24/7 so that they cant get exp, in multiple territories... or split their forces and get multiple territories to level 3... we have to look at how the systems tie together, not just one aspect of the game in isolation. also, a large guild will be bidding on one fh trying to outbid another large guild, meanwhile, everybody else can bid on other fh in the same node. Let me try to better explain my thought process. As a owner/operator of a freehold guild what is your primary goal? Maximizing production and profits. From what we currently know the best path to that goal is not through defending nodes. Freeholds will have limited capacity for crafting and processing stations even at the highest tier permit. So if you want to be a leader in the economy you will need multiple freeholds. You are also going to want these freeholds to be in different nodes so you have easier access to multiple, different types of resources. Lets stay with 12 as your target freehold number since that is what I used before. You have 12 freeholds going and one of their nodes comes under siege. Now you have a choice, do you defend the node or not? Since you will keep the freehold if the siege defense is successful and you will still be able to defend your freehold if the siege dense fails, your best bet is to wait it out and see what happens. You either get to keep your freehold for nothing or you spend less resources defending your freehold instead of the whole node (smaller area and with the help of NPCs) AND against a depleted invading army that only gets two short hours to destroy your freehold in world that lacks fast travel. Your odds will be much better. Now, by defending a node or freehold you will still be expending money, resources and most importantly your guild members time, time that you really want them spending on securing resources and crafting items for the economy. So is there another way? There of course is a third path. You do not defend the node or your freehold. You could still keep your freehold if the node defense is successful and you could still keep your freehold if nobody bothers to try and destroy it, and either way without spending anything. Once a siege is declared that could adversely effect you, you would begin transporting items that you could away from the freehold to another freehold you run that is not under a siege. That helps you keep most of your resources and likely if a guild is preparing for a siege they will be less involved in caravan runs. And even better, if you don't register as a defender of the node and your node is ultimately destroyed by players or node stage reduction, you and your guild members can still loot the remains of the freehold that you had previously not been able to transport away. This further reduces your material loss. Your guild's primary combat focus becomes following the heels of successful sieges trying to open up freehold space that you can then bid on later. And remember you do not need to be a citizen of that node to bid, you just need a guild member to have completed the required quest to bid. I am also assuming that bids will not just be gold but also resources. The more freeholds you have the more experience you have bidding so at some point you would as guild leader get very good at not overbidding or underbidding. You just try to keep your target freehold number active, in this case 12, within a certain margin of productivity. Do I care if they are close to a metropolis or out in a stage 3 node? No, not really. What I care about are local resources and trading routes and more likely you will find resources more abundant and less pillaged outside of the top stage node. Also the freehold starting bids will be proportional to citizens in the node so it will likely not be cost effective to own a freehold in the largest stage node as it will have the largest population of citizens, unless there is a must have resource there not available anywhere else. You would want to account for the likelihood that a stage three node would de-level in the event it's parent node was sieged but again over time this would likely not be hard to predict. Owning a freehold makes you a citizen of the accompanying node. You can bid on plots without being a citizen though. I do not see this explicitly stated in the wiki. The wiki says: Player housing grants the ability to claim citizenship of a Village (stage 3) node or higher.[2][3] So in the end, if you plan to run a freehold guild, you would not defend your node and you would likely not defend your freehold.
