Throne and Liberty further proves Ashes needs Factions

Probably the most important feedback I will bring over to AoC.

If you're not apart of the mega super multi guild that controls the server you are not allowed to play the game. Meaning you either get the benefits of being the #1 guild on the server and snowball or you become content to be farmed by the #1 guild and quit the game to do something more fun.

New World had this, Throne and Liberty has this and Arche Age 2 will have this. These games have all failed or are going to fail.

Add factions to Ashes to prevent this problem. Two factions is great. Three would be the best design.

Small scale GvG has little to no accessibility which means less players playing in the game and spending money. Good luck.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Talents

Gruntag

I'm sorry, but this is a bad take/ bad idea. No thank you

arkileo

Githal wrote: »

I would say: bring scaling aoe spells that the more targets the spell hit the bigger the dmg.
So if you hit 1 target the spell would deal 300 for example. If the same spell hit 5 targets, it will deal 1k dmg to each of the targets. IF it hit 50 players it will one shot them all. GG now there are no mega zergs on the battlefield, and the positioning of players will be important

Or can be balanced if needed that this increase dmg takes effect if you hit more than 10 targets. So if you hit from 1 to 9 targets the dmg is 300. Then the more above 10 you hit the bigger the dmg

@NyceGaming made a similar argument in his recent video. I'm not totally against it as a means to disperse zergs, but I think it would just cause a shift in tactics rather than the total defeat of large guilds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5KGE2yITbo

akabear

In "Ashes of Creation" (AoC), players can effectively belong to factions by being citizens of a node.

These nodes create a sense of community and allegiance among players, leading to faction-like dynamics within the game.

The issue will be the size or strength (may not be same thing) of the most dominant node vs all others!

CROW3

deathwish wrote: »

These games have all failed or are going to fail.

I agree.

JamesSunderland

Steven experienced Faction Gameplay in Archeage, and i do believe that like me he does understand the shortcomings and fallings of such system when compared to a properly made factionless system like Lineage 2's, and also understands that even with factions, it does not stop "mega super multi guild" from being a thing by itself, 1 Faction can always become insanely dominant and completely crush the opposite one like a "mega super multi guild" could do, making the opposite Faction quit or migrate to the dominant one if there are no restrictions to facton player numbers disparity.

Do you know what is the greatest weakness of "mega super multi guild"?
Human Behavior, mainly pride, envy and greed, but sometimes the other 4 play a role aswell, they pile on top of each other in human interactions specially related to the most common type, the hierachical one, as it's the basis for societies and the desire of the best for oneself is part of the self-preservation instinct.

Not even history is required to acknowledge that, the bigger the "institution" the less connected the individuals are, the more bureaucratic and corrupted it becomes and eventually crumbles upon the weight of its own body, destroying its weak bonds and tearing itself apart through internal conflict that individuals/smaller groups aligned personal interests will always generate, ego truly is hella of a concept.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

1 Faction can always become insanely dominant and completely crush the opposite one like a "mega super multi guild" could do

Or you could have two guilds in either faction create an out of game alliance and dominate the server that way.

This happened on several Archeage servers, though none of them that I saw lasted very long.

Azherae

TL is simply not a 'fleshed out' enough experience to prevent this even if their intention was to try.

Now, admittedly, neither is Ashes, but Ashes definitely wants to be more fleshed out, and TL at least has the potential to be.

Games with weak incentives have linear politics.

EDIT: eh, might as well expand this and hope it doesn't get too long. Analogy incoming.

MMOs rely on progression. Progression comes in paths, but a lot of the time it's more like a hallway or corridor in a PvP game (doesn't require PvP, but I think all PvP games basically have it recently except oddly MAYBE TL itself).

When people start these games, they walk down the corridor until they reach the door leading to their 'branch point', their chosen path to influence/power/content. TL currently only has 'rooms', not 'other corridors'. You walk forward by just doing more or less the same thing as everyone else, so everyone has the same goals and targets. This means they benefit from all moving together, and if they do want an opponent, they 'look behind them'.

Games with more corridors like FFXI and SWG, or 'infinite corridors' like EVE and Elite Dangerous, don't have to worry about this. Games with lots of corridors but only a few that ever 'join back up' like BDO don't have to care either.

TL has to add either corridors or factions (they're trying both, a little at a time, probably testing playerbase responses). Ashes supposedly has lots of corridors (Nodes). If it turns out that it doesn't, then no one builds their own 'mini-factions' with their own goals.

General method that has succeeded for me in the past:
1) Put the branch points fairly early, specialization that diverges the playerbase a little in their goals. Doesn't seem to work for location but that wasn't the type of game I was testing in, so can't say.
2) Create interdependency that actually has mutually exclusive goals as you get closer to the end (without that part, guilds just get big and specialize internally)
3) Remove at least some aspect of control of the political situation/resource situation from players' hands on either side of whatever equation, and/or make it so that random players have a meaningful chunk of the effect (Ashes is already doing this, most other games of this type do this, TL currently doesn't)

The holes in TL's design based on lack of the above are their issues, not Ashes issues, unless the same holes appear in Ashes for whatever reason. For now, the idea is that they will manage at least the second two, if not all three. TL might manage to at least add #1 soon, and depending on their Crafting system, could maybe squeeze in some signs of the other two, at which point factions are not required.

Big guilds will still exist, but their levels of control and absolute cohesion wouldn't. It's easy to 'control' a big guild when everyone's just walking down the same corridor, you don't really have to 'control' anything at that point.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Mag7spy

Factions is one of the worse things ever, its passive aggressive people trying to one up each other and win. Then leads to a zerg fraction winning easily do to number imbalance and kills. Your issue with zerg guilds becomes worse with factions.

Also anyone on NA 2 for throne and liberty beta xD

arsnn

Op you describe a dynamic that mostly happens in pvp themepark games.

I would expect it to turn out more like in sandbox mmo (such as eve), where communities have local agency and content is widely distributed and not easy to access due to travel times.

Githal

arkileo wrote: »

Githal wrote: »

I would say: bring scaling aoe spells that the more targets the spell hit the bigger the dmg.
So if you hit 1 target the spell would deal 300 for example. If the same spell hit 5 targets, it will deal 1k dmg to each of the targets. IF it hit 50 players it will one shot them all. GG now there are no mega zergs on the battlefield, and the positioning of players will be important

Or can be balanced if needed that this increase dmg takes effect if you hit more than 10 targets. So if you hit from 1 to 9 targets the dmg is 300. Then the more above 10 you hit the bigger the dmg

@NyceGaming made a similar argument in his recent video. I'm not totally against it as a means to disperse zergs, but I think it would just cause a shift in tactics rather than the total defeat of large guilds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5KGE2yITbo

Well if 1 of the zergs out there manages to keep their players in good positions all the time without people breaking the ranks(which will cause instant wipe from a mass spell) and still keep people in approximately close range since else they will be fighting 10% of the zerg vs other group. Then i would say this zerg deserves to exist. But i am pretty sure that 99% of the zergs wont manage to do anything

Noaani

Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another.

If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement.

Dimitraeos

Noaani wrote: »

Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another.

If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement.

No it just punishes large groups of players that arent coordinated. Think of it as a "zerg tax". Should numerical superiority be a valid strategy? Of course. Should you have to be wary of things that can counterract it? Yes. That's the point of anti-zerg, ant-deathball type mechanics like having a handful of scaling AoE damage abilities (or like ive suggested, items like mines, grenades, bombs, etc).

This doesn't mean EVERY skill is like this, it just means that the tools for this should exist somewhere. If they dont, then there is no scenario where zergs aren't at a potential risk to their zerging.

Dimitraeos

Githal wrote: »

arkileo wrote: »

Githal wrote: »

I would say: bring scaling aoe spells that the more targets the spell hit the bigger the dmg.
So if you hit 1 target the spell would deal 300 for example. If the same spell hit 5 targets, it will deal 1k dmg to each of the targets. IF it hit 50 players it will one shot them all. GG now there are no mega zergs on the battlefield, and the positioning of players will be important

Or can be balanced if needed that this increase dmg takes effect if you hit more than 10 targets. So if you hit from 1 to 9 targets the dmg is 300. Then the more above 10 you hit the bigger the dmg

@NyceGaming made a similar argument in his recent video. I'm not totally against it as a means to disperse zergs, but I think it would just cause a shift in tactics rather than the total defeat of large guilds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5KGE2yITbo

Well if 1 of the zergs out there manages to keep their players in good positions all the time without people breaking the ranks(which will cause instant wipe from a mass spell) and still keep people in approximately close range since else they will be fighting 10% of the zerg vs other group. Then i would say this zerg deserves to exist. But i am pretty sure that 99% of the zergs wont manage to do anything

Good, that should be the case. If a zerg doesnt work to coordinate its mass numbers, then they should be punished by players who utilize anti-zerg mechanics like mentioned in the video.

Its similar to how it works in real warfare: If you overconcetrate and overcommit your forces, you risk losing them all at once. That should absolutely be a consideration for people commanding large groups of players.

NyceGaming

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another.

If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement.

No it just punishes large groups of players that arent coordinated. Think of it as a "zerg tax". Should numerical superiority be a valid strategy? Of course. Should you have to be wary of things that can counterract it? Yes. That's the point of anti-zerg, ant-deathball type mechanics like having a handful of scaling AoE damage abilities (or like ive suggested, items like mines, grenades, bombs, etc).

This doesn't mean EVERY skill is like this, it just means that the tools for this should exist somewhere. If they dont, then there is no scenario where zergs aren't at a potential risk to their zerging.

Someone understands this. Great take. Well said and thank you for respectfully not jumping to extremes.

Rhoklaw

I'm confused... since factions doesn't fix the problem you're describing. Whether you have factions or not, zergs can still exist, just in a different form. Thankfully, Intrepid have already targeted this issue by giving smaller guilds greater rewards in regards to guild perks, in order to balance things out. So folks are able to host large guilds, should they need to, but smaller guilds will garner more benefits.

You will also have alliances in Ashes, but if every guild decides to join the mega guild, than that's a community issue, not a game mechanics issue. More than likely, due to the size of the world in Ashes, you won't have one guild ruling the entire server. It's never going to happen.

EDIT: Eve Online is a wonderful example of this. While Eve Online does in fact have factions, it's not designed in a way that factions prevent a corporation from occupying or owning sections of space from another.

Dimitraeos

NyceGaming wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Adding AoE spells that increase damage based on how many targets are in the area as a means to get rid of zergs is just swaping one low skill play for another.

If the idea is to get rid of low skill play, then it isn't ever going to work. if the idea isn't to get rid of low skill play, then it is pointless to implement.

No it just punishes large groups of players that arent coordinated. Think of it as a "zerg tax". Should numerical superiority be a valid strategy? Of course. Should you have to be wary of things that can counterract it? Yes. That's the point of anti-zerg, ant-deathball type mechanics like having a handful of scaling AoE damage abilities (or like ive suggested, items like mines, grenades, bombs, etc).

This doesn't mean EVERY skill is like this, it just means that the tools for this should exist somewhere. If they dont, then there is no scenario where zergs aren't at a potential risk to their zerging.

Someone understands this. Great take. Well said and thank you for respectfully not jumping to extremes.

OH so you just want everyone dropping BIG DUMB AOES with NO SKILLL?>>>??? /s

Sengarden

Sounds like there aren’t enough people willing to step up and be strong leaders, so you want the game to write some fictional, inspirational leaders to help define how you engage with the world. I’ll admit, most guild leaders aren’t exactly fantasy novel kings and warchief’s. But people are going to have to have some fun and rally behind a unique cause and community to enjoy this game’s potential. I think guilds will have player caps, no? If they do, then all you need to do is get a collection of a few other guilds to fight against their domineering behavior. Get inspired, communicate, form alliances, etc.

Ludullu

Dimitraeos wrote: »

That should absolutely be a consideration for people commanding large groups of players.

NyceGaming wrote: »

Someone understands this. Great take. Well said and thank you for respectfully not jumping to extremes.

A question to both of you. What do you consider a "large group of players"?

Ashes will have body collision, so it'll be physically impossible to fit more than a set number of people into an aoe (unless it's a persistent effect on the ground), and I'd imagine that number would be at most ~2 parties worth of people, which is nowhere near to being a large group.

But if aoes scale so much that they can nearly oneshot 1-2 parties - day-to-day pvp will devolve into aoe flinging, rather than good strategic fights.

And if you're ok with parties being wiped out by singular aoes - how do you expect siegers to breach gates/holes in walls/corridors? If a single aoe can stop a gathering of even just 15 people in one place, how do you expect 500v500 sieges to progress, when the attacking side gets wiped out as soon as they approach the walls?

Child Item