The freeholds are not for casuals. They are for guilds. Should they be for megaguilds or not?

Enough with the casual farmiville QQ.
Freeholds are an important achievement.

Feeeholds should be family locked. Period. This will prevent 1000 member guilds from giving permission to 1000 people to work on the freehold.
Even the battalion permission idea will cause people to stop and think:

"Do I wanna be a nobody with nothing, amongst 1000 people? Or should I join a guild with 50-80 members and rotate batalion/family membership so that I am permitted to gain access to the 'guilds freeholds' ?" Fvck waiting for 1000 other members.

I think such restrictions will further empower meaningful, smaller communities and weaken the strong advantage that big guilds have, the sheer numbers power.

I think freeholds should allow permission to family members only to help small, strong guilds compete for them, whilst the big guilds enjoy the castles.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

If FH access is capped at family members only, this wont affect so much guilds of 80-100 members. Real guilds with real friendships.

If FHs are capped at family members only, it will be a direct nerf to zergguilds and an indirect buff to 80-100 member guilds.

The side effect of freeholds being family only in relation to very large guilds is that said guilds would then want more freeholds.

Guilds of 80-100 would probably still be able to get freeholds, but guilds around the 70-80 range would then be mostly locked out, and any smaller would be completely locked out.

Obviously this depends on how many very large guilds you have on your server.

George_Black

Noaani wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

If FH access is capped at family members only, this wont affect so much guilds of 80-100 members. Real guilds with real friendships.

If FHs are capped at family members only, it will be a direct nerf to zergguilds and an indirect buff to 80-100 member guilds.

The side effect of freeholds being family only in relation to very large guilds is that said guilds would then want more freeholds.

Guilds of 80-100 would probably still be able to get freeholds, but guilds around the 70-80 range would then be mostly locked out, and any smaller would be completely locked out.

Obviously this depends on how many very large guilds you have on your server.

You dont get it.
People wouldnt join zerg guilds because they would get locked out of FH access. Without people zerg guilds weaken. They dont have the same potential of wealthy to big for multiply FHs.

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

If FH access is capped at family members only, this wont affect so much guilds of 80-100 members. Real guilds with real friendships.

If FHs are capped at family members only, it will be a direct nerf to zergguilds and an indirect buff to 80-100 member guilds.

The side effect of freeholds being family only in relation to very large guilds is that said guilds would then want more freeholds.

Guilds of 80-100 would probably still be able to get freeholds, but guilds around the 70-80 range would then be mostly locked out, and any smaller would be completely locked out.

Obviously this depends on how many very large guilds you have on your server.

You dont get it.
People wouldnt join zerg guilds because they would get locked out of FH access. Without people zerg guilds weaken. They dont have the same potential of wealthy to big for multiply FHs.

It isn't that "I don't get it", it is more a case of I see freehold access being a requirement for guilds to function if they want to be competitive.

A guild - any guild - would want it's members to have access to a freehold.

Also, imagine you are running a zerg guild. I know it isn't your thing, but just imagine you found yourself in that situation.

In order to survive, your zerg guild needs a constant supply of new recruits. However, you find that you aren't able to get new recruits without being able to provide them access to a freehold. You want the guild to survive.

Keep in mind, even though the numbers are going down, you still have over a thousand players at your disposal - what do you do?

While you and I have differing opinions on many things, I think we would both come to the same conclusion here.

George_Black

All you said was:
Zerg guilds will need more FHs.

That's all. Gz, you solved a mystery.

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

All you said was:
Zerg guilds will need more FHs.

That's all. Gz, you solved a mystery.

Yeah, they will.

And as I am sure you will agree, if that is what they try to get, that is what they will get.

Which was my point - if freeholds are family access only, larger guild will want more freeholds. If larger guilds want more freeholds, there are less freeholds for everyone else.

Is there some part of that you disagree with?

George_Black

Man get the hell outta here.
Here read some, because I know you read what you yourself typed (twice I bet) more that what the others wrote in their entirety.

George_Black wrote: »

Megaguilders may make a different choice and NOT join a megaguild if FHs arent accessible to guild members but only family members.

George_Black wrote: »

If FHs are capped at family members only, it will be a direct nerf to zergguilds and an indirect buff to 80-100 member guilds.

George_Black wrote: »

A mega guild may have 1-10 people that own a FH. That means 8-80 people will use FHs if permissions are capped at family members only. There rest 1000 wont get it.

George_Black wrote: »

You dont get it.
People wouldnt join zerg guilds because they would get locked out of FH access. Without people zerg guilds weaken. They dont have the same potential of wealthy to big for multiply FHs.

George_Black wrote: »

Without people zerg guilds weaken. They dont have the same potential of wealthy to big for multiply FHs.

RESULT: zerg-guilds with lower numbers wont' have as much money to bid
RESULT: zerg guilds, since they dont have people to contribute won't be able to successfully steal all the FHs
RESULT: zerg guilds lose members, more and more independent guilds are formed with EX-ZERG GUILDIES.\
RESULT: the family capping of FH permission access weakens zerg-guilds numbers as well are their poket.

You made an obvious statement "zerg guilds will want more FHs" and now you repeatedly tell me to agree to it, then you made a false claim that zerg guilds will steal FHs from some pedantic-for-argument-sake 50-80 guild (just for the sake of being a contrarian), even though I just told you that zerg guilds that lose members also lose money.

I disagree with what you said "zerg guilds that lose members (and money) will manage to steal FHs." I disagree with your whole premise based on that, that FHs being capped at family membership only, doesn't combat zerg guilds. It does. What's your contribution except for "zerg guilds will want (they wont get to...)"
"agree to my obvious statement"? What's your contribution?

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

Man get the hell outta here.
Here read some, because I know you read what you yourself typed (twice I bet) more that what the others wrote in their entirety.

George_Black wrote: »

Megaguilders may make a different choice and NOT join a megaguild if FHs arent accessible to guild members but only family members.

George_Black wrote: »

If FHs are capped at family members only, it will be a direct nerf to zergguilds and an indirect buff to 80-100 member guilds.

George_Black wrote: »

A mega guild may have 1-10 people that own a FH. That means 8-80 people will use FHs if permissions are capped at family members only. There rest 1000 wont get it.

George_Black wrote: »

You dont get it.
People wouldnt join zerg guilds because they would get locked out of FH access. Without people zerg guilds weaken. They dont have the same potential of wealthy to big for multiply FHs.

George_Black wrote: »

Without people zerg guilds weaken. They dont have the same potential of wealthy to big for multiply FHs.

RESULT: zerg-guilds with lower numbers wont' have as much money to bid
RESULT: zerg guilds, since they dont have people to contribute won't be able to successfully steal all the FHs
RESULT: zerg guilds lose members, more and more independent guilds are formed with EX-ZERG GUILDIES.\
RESULT: the family capping of FH permission access weakens zerg-guilds numbers as well are their poket.

You made an obvious statement "zerg guilds will want more FHs" and now you repeatedly tell me to agree to it, then you made a false claim that zerg guilds will steal FHs from some pedantic-for-argument-sake 50-80 guild (just for the sake of being a contrarian), even though I just told you that zerg guilds that lose members also lose money.

I disagree with what you said "zerg guilds that lose members (and money) will manage to steal FHs." I disagree with your whole premise based on that, that FHs being capped at family membership only, doesn't combat zerg guilds. It does. What's your contribution except for "zerg guilds will want (they wont get to...)"
"agree to my obvious statement"? What's your contribution?

I'm not sure what your problem here is, my dude.

You seem to be triggered just because it's me posting.

You seem to think that people can't or won't adjust to the game around them.

I disagree, I think players will.

That seems to be about it.

George_Black

Since players or zerg guilds will adjust to anything let's skip straight to launch

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

Since players or zerg guilds will adjust to anything let's skip straight to launch

I agree, they will.

As such, if a large guild is having recruitment issues due to not having enough freeholds for it's members, they will adjust and get more.

More likely though, such guilds will realize right from the start that they will need many freeholds (assuming freeholds are family access only). As such, it is likely that they will work to have many freeholds right from the start.

I'm still not sure which part of that you are disagreeing with.

George_Black

"Adjust" The magic word. Kinda empty without any context now isn't it? "They will adjust, they will manage to get even more FHs while losing members and money. Why do you disagree?" Because you make no sense and I dont have time or the inclination to help you out.

Look at how much you have typed just to say "Zerg guilds will want more FHs. Agree. Now!" I am not here to agree with you buddy or exchange many words with you.

FHs being capped to family members only, is a boon to proper guilds and a disadvantage to zerg guilds. This is my feedback for the devs.

I don't find value in any of your posts. I am not your audience and I am not " triggered " . I just don't like talking with certain people I see as time-wasters, know-it-alls and contrarians, and I am not hiding the fact; plain and simple.
"They will adjust" means nothing. Hold on to your fallacies. I am here to give solid concepts. Take that bait of yours and you know what to do with it.

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

I don't find value in any of your posts. I am not your audience and I am not " triggered " .

You are triggered.

Adapting is adjusting - I am not sure why you think adjust is a magic word but adapting isn't.

As I said, you seem to think they will not adapt - you may think they will try, but you are saying they will fail at adapting. Those large guilds realizing that they need more freeholds bot not actually getting them is literally those guilds not adapting.

It's great that your feedback is that you think limiting access for freeholds to 8 people instead of a potential 100 or more would be a good thing. Really, great feedback my dude.

My feedback is that the more people Intrepid allow to access a freehold, the more people will have access to freeholds.

Sweatycup

"Guild size of 300 is currently the maximum cap that can be attained by leveling the guild and selecting the path of size as opposed to the path of guild skills." - https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guilds

Noaani

Sweatycup wrote: »

"Guild size of 300 is currently the maximum cap that can be attained by leveling the guild and selecting the path of size as opposed to the path of guild skills." - https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guilds

Yes, but a "guild" in a social sense does not need to be contained within a "guild" in the mechanical sense.

All one needs to do is have [guilds 1], [guild 2], [guild 3] etc, and the size of a guild as a social structure is limited only by the population willing to join.

Sweatycup

Sure we could argue the whole server population could be working together too. That'd be a strange world, huh?

Depraved

Sweatycup wrote: »

Sure we could argue the whole server population could be working together too. That'd be a strange world, huh?

and boring lol

Noaani

Sweatycup wrote: »

Sure we could argue the whole server population could be working together too. That'd be a strange world, huh?

I mean, we could.

The thing is, there are already guilds out there of a few thousand players wanting to play Ashes. Guilds as in plural.

All I am saying is that the guild cap isnt really a cap at all. It does add a slight complication to managing a much larger guild, but that is about it.

Abarat

George_Black wrote: »

I am not aggressive.

Is there a test that would output a numerical scale of aggression, so we could start reporting that like our Bartle scores?

Abarat

George_Black wrote: »

Boneshatter wrote: »

Likely the best way to limit giant guilds is to make the talent/perk points for smaller guilds really strong. If the big guilds are spending points to boost their members from 50 to 300 the perks for the smaller guilds should be comparable.

Comparable to the point that a full guild vs guild will favor the larger guild, but a small skirmish will favor the smaller guild.

What if large guilds, named Mafia, Mafia1, Mafia2, Mafia3, Mafia4 all have small individual numbers, with great passive skills, yet by Mafia10 they have the numbers too?

I keep seeing stuff like this and I do believe it will happen. I guess managing a guild broken down into smaller guilds will be FAR more difficult for guild leaders to manage/hold together than one big guild.

There will need to be a guild leader and officers in each guild... they will start to think they are providing more than the other alliance guilds, therefore deserve more, etc. Visibility into the goings on will be more difficult. People get ideas.

I have never been in a MEGA guild before, if you have (or even if you have not), do you agree?

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

Also... doesn't this mean that Crafters now have to hit max Adventurer Level in order to max their Crafter Level?
Lots of Crafters would almost prefer to have minimal Adventurer Level. I'm mean, sometimes you get Adventurer xp just from exploring. But there are Crafters who wish to just focus as much as possible on Crafting rather than being forced to max Adventurer before they can max Crafting.

didnt steven imply that crafting will yield adventure xp.

Is that a thing?

Raven016

Depraved wrote: »

Sweatycup wrote: »

Sure we could argue the whole server population could be working together too. That'd be a strange world, huh?

and boring lol

Unless IS will make good PvE dungeons and bosses.

Child Item