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

Ludullu

deathwish wrote: »

Trying to reinvent the wheel and hoping by some miracle it works out is just pure gambling. Where is the proof of concept?

Where's the reinvention exactly? I want the same system that L2 had in 2004, just with better balancing.

You want the same system WoW had in 2004, supposedly also with better balancing, except I don't see how factions in any way influence guild overtaking content. You also didn't answer my question related to that. You simply gave an example from a faction-based game explaining that their design is shit and revolves around a single point on the map.

Ashes will have at the very least 5 such locations on a much much much bigger map - all w/o fast travel. So I don't really see how NW is in any way a good example for your case here.

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Baselessly reinventing the wheel just to stake out an arbitrary contrarian opinion is Nikr's specialty 😂

Welcome to the Ashes forums sir

Yes, wanting the same thing Steven does is very bad around these here parts

Veeshan wrote: »

Reason death balls exist is because in almost every single game AoE have a target cap usually 5 players which are chosen at random

Which I totally agree is the dumbest thing ever. No good reason to have that and I will definitely tell Intrepid as much in my feedback, if for some reason their aoes are also limited.

Veeshan wrote: »

TLDR: AoE need to be effective at clumps but less effective against single targets so like single target spell does 60% more dmg than an aoe skill so to get your value u need to hit 3 targets at a time kinda deal.

And that's exactly how I expect them to work. Yet people are asking them to hit for way more, if you get more targets in the aoe. Which, imo, makes them too OP.

deathwish wrote: »

Goonswarm Federation is a pretty good example of a single guild gatekeeping.

What context is missing from the video I posted? Goon controlled, at most, half of the map at any given time. How is that bad? Especially when they inevitably still fell.

Githal wrote: »

They can just put 1 skill like the living bomb of fire mage in wow. That hits 1 target, the target explodes hitting all nearby targets and putting the living bomb on all that were hit. Then all explode and they ignite new bombs on every new target. With mega zergs till the players split all will be with bombs.

Anything of this kind of aoe application would be much better than any scaling.

Dimitraeos

@Ludullu_(NiKr)

Yes, wanting the same thing Steven does is very bad around these here parts

I can just as easily claim the same thing. Very weak and weird response.

And that's exactly how I expect them to work. Yet people are asking them to hit for way more, if you get more targets in the aoe. Which, imo, makes them too OP.

Congratulations, you've arrived at our position. Maybe if you had spent a few more moments critically trying to understand what was being forwarded (and reading carefully) we'd have skipped the banter.

And that's exactly how I expect them to work. Yet people are asking them to hit for way more, if you get more targets in the aoe. Which, imo, makes them too OP.

My man finally understood what we were forwarding. I love seeing good ideas grow on people

Endowed

Otr wrote: »

There are 6 factions in the game: 5 metropolis nations and the 20 neutral nodes outside them.

And when they are all in an (largely predetermined) brotherhood (not in-game mechanics) they are just one blob faction.

Steven comes from games which are exactly this. Haves and have-nots, where RMTs are incredibly effective.

:Elrond Voice: " I was there three thousand years ago in Lineage2"

Vyril

Guilds, and node citizenship are micro factions.

Superior to static 2, or 3 faction systems. Where the server normally locks into just choosing flavor of the week. Or even worse, can't switch at all and the server sucks.

Ludullu

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Congratulations, you've arrived at our position. Maybe if you had spent a few more moments critically trying to understand what was being forwarded (and reading carefully) we'd have skipped the banter.

My man finally understood what we were forwarding. I love seeing good ideas grow on people

Except the main example of "scaling aoes" in the past discussions has been the Albion's aoes. And the literally do more damage the more people are in them. But not in the way of "you hit more people so you do more dmg overall", but instead "the more people you hit, the higher the base strength of the ability is".

So no, nothing changed. I was always for no target caps on aoes, but that is not "scaling".

Dimitraeos

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Congratulations, you've arrived at our position. Maybe if you had spent a few more moments critically trying to understand what was being forwarded (and reading carefully) we'd have skipped the banter.

My man finally understood what we were forwarding. I love seeing good ideas grow on people

Except the main example of "scaling aoes" in the past discussions has been the Albion's aoes. And the literally do more damage the more people are in them. But not in the way of "you hit more people so you do more dmg overall", but instead "the more people you hit, the higher the base strength of the ability is".

So no, nothing changed. I was always for no target caps on aoes, but that is not "scaling".

Except Albion was only one example of something like what was originally described which was literally what you were agreeing with the other poster with just now lmao. Damage goes up after hitting a certain # of people. Making the skill useful for punishing deathball zergs and not single target...as if that was a real concern anyway.

I have literally described the same thing and you poo-poo'd it. Apologize for being a contrarian and I will forgive you

Laetitian

Otr wrote: »

There are 6 factions in the game: 5 metropolis nations and the 20 neutral nodes outside them.

I'd go further and say it's one faction for every active node. Vassal nodes are encouraged to support their reigning nodes, but that doesn't mean they'll play along with any bullshit their regent node comes up with.

85 factions should be enough to offer a foundation for people to counter fun-sucking mega guilds dominating their region.

At the same time it keeps opportunities for strong alliances to show off their power, if they own enough of the citizenships in their area, and operate benevolently enough not to drum up an overwhelming opposition against themselves.

Laetitian

Endowed wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

There are 6 factions in the game: 5 metropolis nations and the 20 neutral nodes outside them.

And when they are all in an (largely predetermined) brotherhood (not in-game mechanics) they are just one blob faction.

Steven comes from games which are exactly this. Haves and have-nots, where RMTs are incredibly effective.

:Elrond Voice: " I was there three thousand years ago in Lineage2"

What's your point? If all players across the entire realm are part of the same alliance "brotherhood," there's no opposition against the brotherhood.
Okay? At that point the players have made their decision, and you should probably want to go play on a different realm that's not infested with lame people anyway, no?

Noaani

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).

I think you are missing the point.

Sure, a game should have anti-zerg mechanics and/or systems. Not arguing that point.

However, systems where a small number of players can influence a large number of players in a significant way should take some skill. Making it so AoE damage scales up based on how many targets it will hit is something so low skill that people could make use of it by accident.

It is a low skill "solution" to the low skill "problem" of zeros.

At the very least, make it so that bards are able to mark players with an effect, and a different class has AoE abilities that multiply damage and increase the target cap by an amount based on how many marked targets they will hit.

Even that is fairly base level in terms of player skill. Simply adding damage to AoE's based on total targets is mind-numbingly unskilled and should be as discouraged as mind-numbingly unskilled zeros are.

I really don't get how people can complain about something like zerging, but then think such an unskilled solution is a good idea.

Ludullu

@Veeshan a question. What did you mean here

Veeshan wrote: »

TLDR: AoE need to be effective at clumps but less effective against single targets so like single target spell does 60% more dmg than an aoe skill so to get your value u need to hit 3 targets at a time kinda deal.

Did you mean "Skill A is single target and has 100 power. Skill B has 60 power when hitting one person, but has 100 power when hitting 3 people" or did you mean "skill B has 60 power, so when you hit 3 people for that 60 power - you do more than 100 dmg overall, so it's more useful than using skill A against one target"?

Or perhaps you meant something completely different?

Voxtrium

Comparing a game with barely any depth to it to AOC is silly. Additionally AOC has faction like systems, they are called node citizenship

Iskiab

Bad take, TnL is proof organization for pvp by guild leads to elitism and total domination by the most hardcore pvp guilds.

Organizing by node, instead of guild, will allow anyone who's part of the node to jump in and help.

Otr

Laetitian wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

There are 6 factions in the game: 5 metropolis nations and the 20 neutral nodes outside them.

I'd go further and say it's one faction for every active node. Vassal nodes are encouraged to support their reigning nodes, but that doesn't mean they'll play along with any bullshit their regent node comes up with.

85 factions should be enough to offer a foundation for people to counter fun-sucking mega guilds dominating their region.

At the same time it keeps opportunities for strong alliances to show off their power, if they own enough of the citizenships in their area, and operate benevolently enough not to drum up an overwhelming opposition against themselves.

Level 5 and 6 nodes have the top level crafting benches. And provide the high level PvE content.
You can chose to live in lvl 3 or 4 nodes, have low rent, maybe own a freehold.
And be upset against the larger ones but what can you do against them?

Vassals are subject to the government, alliances, wars, taxes, and trade of their parent node, and are able to receive federal aid from them.[3]
Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals.[3]
Citizens of vassals are bound by the diplomatic states of the parent node.[3]

Better fight against other metropolises and when those fall, use the opportunity to move if that brings an advantage.

ItsNoGood

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

Why is this needed? AoE already increases in effective DPS the more targets you hit. a 500 damage spell hitting 2 targets is 1000 damage, 3 is 1500. Compounding on this sounds unnecessary as any no-cap AoE spells in the game will already incentivize people to spread out. The only reason this wouldn't be the case is if AoE buffs/healing is too strong relative to AoE damage, which can be easily balanced.

Having an ability like Earthshaker's Echoslam from DotA2 that does extra damage for each target hit could be cool, but it shouldn't be the norm for all AoE spells.

Flanker

deathwish wrote: »

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.

Change "guild" to "faction" and everything stays the same.

deathwish wrote: »

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

Do you seriously think that after years being in development, Intrepid will suddenly implement something they had no plans of implementing before? Like, seriously?

P.S. Prior to offering a solution, define a problem? Which issue exactly are you trying to solve? Zergs? Factions won't solve it. Total domination of a certain group of players? Factions won't solve it. Etc.

I hate the idea of factions simply because I am forced to consider someone an enemy just because they belong to another faction. Not because of their words or actions. It doesn't make sense. I want to choose my allies and enemies, I don't want developers to make that choice for me.

Dimitraeos

Noaani 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).

I think you are missing the point.

Sure, a game should have anti-zerg mechanics and/or systems. Not arguing that point.

However, systems where a small number of players can influence a large number of players in a significant way should take some skill. Making it so AoE damage scales up based on how many targets it will hit is something so low skill that people could make use of it by accident.

It is a low skill "solution" to the low skill "problem" of zeros.

At the very least, make it so that bards are able to mark players with an effect, and a different class has AoE abilities that multiply damage and increase the target cap by an amount based on how many marked targets they will hit.

Even that is fairly base level in terms of player skill. Simply adding damage to AoE's based on total targets is mind-numbingly unskilled and should be as discouraged as mind-numbingly unskilled zeros are.

I really don't get how people can complain about something like zerging, but then think such an unskilled solution is a good idea.

I get your point and we are nearly at agreement here but I still think having special skills or items that require good timing and were far and few between (so wasting them was a possibility) is no less "no skill" than a zerg shoveling it's way though a chokepoint with overwhelming numbers and no consequences to its movement/grouping.

I still think some kind of strong AoE has to be a tool against that behavior.

I am NOT saying numbers shouldn't be a valid strategic win condition, they just shouldn't be the only one and should also require skill in coordinating otherwise they can be punished with the aforementioned mechanics or skills.

Dolyem

People arguing for factions just want a "common cause" system to direct players goals.
You get this naturally through nodes in Ashes. And one could argue that guilds themselves are factions in a way.

Anyone arguing that a faction system is needed for a games success is resting it on other ingame systems laurels. Factions constantly become uneven, and mega guilds run multi faction guilds on servers as well.

Bad suggestion

George_Black

Factions limit player agency in choosing your friends and foes. Makes for boring PvP and toxic /alliance channel chats.
Terrible design for mmos.

Dolyem

Also, if there is no AOE cap, zergs will crumble to small groups.

Dimitraeos

Dolyem wrote: »

Also, if there is no AOE cap, zergs will crumble to small groups.

That's my hope, I'm just not fully convinced they'll be enough but I'm hoping.

Child Item