So I've been playing Throne and Liberty for almost two weeks now, and I have to say I enjoyed it more than I thought it would.
The first part will be focusing on that game, while the second part of my post will connect it all back to Ashes (please bear with me lol, it's going to be a long one - also T&L portion is done as a spoiler, as I realized that my post is getting way too long).
I'm not going to go into all things I like or dislike about T&L, but only some specific things, like endgame content.
What I realized quickly, is that if you are not a part of the best guilds on the server, or their alliances, your gameplay experience, enjoyment of the game, and simply "content" that you access changes A LOT.
If you are just a regular player, in a regular guild, I feel like you will quickly run out of things to do, or rather, you'll do the same thing over and over again, for nothing, and you'll get bored. Or at least that's my experience.
I know that a lot of people here are comparing Ashes to T&L, because on the surface level, they have many similar systems. So that's why I'm also going to compare it, but with a purpose of pointing out why those systems might not be the same in these two games.
As a regular player, your gameplay basically comes down to:
- doing contracts aka killing random mobs / doing the same quests over and over again
- tied to the previous example, killing mobs or doing contracts in open-world dungeons
- doing the same co-op dungeons for drops
- and maybe doing peace world bosses
This loop isn't a problem by itself. You can always expand on it, add more dungeons, maybe add raids, add more world bosses. It is there to increase your power level. The whole point of this game is to grind stuff in order to get stronger.
The problem is, there is no reason to do it, unless you are in a top guild/zerg.
As a regular player, you will just grind and grind, you'll improve your power level, and for what? Just so you can grind a bit easier and faster? This is not enough.
But for someone who's a part of the top guild/alliance, you do grind for something. You grind to be stronger in PvP against others, you grind in order to help your guild become stronger. You grind so you can beat other guilds, and secure that world boss. You grind so you can showcase that power level in something more difficult, more challenging, something other than your core loop that you do every day.
The thing with that is, that most people aren't a part of top alliances/zergs. Hell, another problem is that some servers are just dominated by a single guild/alliance. There's nobody to actually challenge them.
This in itself is a problem, because after a few weeks, people will realize that the game has nothing to offer, and they will quit. The only people left will be those in top guilds.
If they're lucky, they're on a server that has competition, where you have 2 or 3 guilds/alliances battling it out. This is great for them, they will still have content, they will stay and enjoy the game.
If they aren't, they will be stuck on a server, where they will have nobody standing up to them, and they themselves will get bored, and possibly quit due to lack of "content". (Or they will transfer servers if that's an option)
Here I also have to mention that the way PvP works in T&L is bad. You basically get PvP in a small circle around a world boss, which is just bad. The only good PvP might be inside Open-world dungeons during night, as there's at least way more space. Though that only lasts for 30min.
Then again, with this many players, and a map that small, having PvP across the entire map just wouldn't work at all.
Overall, some of the systems have similarities to what Ashes is going for, but I feel like they've been implemented without much depth, and in a really bad way, that they cannot be comparable at all.
Now we get into Ashes part of discussion.
What's important for Ashes to learn from this?
1. Your core gameplay loop needs to be defined. It needs to be interesting, it needs to have content for
everyone to do, and it needs variety.
2. Vertical progression just for the sake of it is not enough.
3. More meaningful content needs to be
accessible to majority of people, NOT just zergs or top guilds.
Core gameplay loop needs to be defined clearly.
Stuff like node/castle sieges is not a part of CORE gameplay loop.
Stuff like open-world dungeons, gathering, crafting, trading, general open world farming, even world bosses ARE a part of core gameplay loop.
Vertical progression needs to have a meaning. You have to grind for a reason other than just being more powerful.
The question is WHY do you want to be more powerful?
And this is an easy answer for Ashes: To give you an advantage in PvP against other groups/guild, so you can siege other's nodes or castles. Also, it's to allow you to take down even more powerful world bosses, and while at that, to be able to defend/attack against other players who are trying to do the same.
A key part of this should be that there is also a PvE incentive to increase your power. There need to be stronger "endgame" bosses, that you can't just kill as soon as you get to max level, or a few weeks after. Some of them should take months of grinding, before you can gather a strong enough party to take it down.
None of this really exists in T&L. Bosses are whatever, PvP is bad, and that's basically it.
I feel like Ashes' devs definitely have a chance now to see how a similar system shouldn't work, and to actually design it properly.
Ashes map is also going to be much, much larger, so it can allow PvP everywhere. The fact that there is PvP everywhere, immediately puts yet another reason why you might want to engage in that vertical progression system.
This also can mean that there's a lower chance of one zerg dominating the entire server. However, I feel that if you have 2-3 zergs on a server, they will still be able to do that. And that's where we come to a problem:
I can easily see the same thing from T&L being replicated here.
If you have 2-3 zergs dominating the entire server, this automatically means they dominate all the content on that server, which means regular players are locked out from accessing that. Your regular guilds can't really do much against zergs that have several hundred if not thousands of players.
This is why there has to be something that will severely limit how large a zerg can actually get.
I know there's already going to be stuff in the guild system, where you have to choose between having a larger guild, or a smaller - stronger guild with perks/skills. But I don't think that's enough.
Judging by a few quotes I could find on wiki from Steven himself, I get a feeling like he himself doesn't see the problem, or rather doesn't think it is going to be a problem.
Q: How will you stop big mafia guilds from owning all the good dungeons and world bosses by camping them?
A: The real answer to that is going to be what traditionally happens in a non-faction-based game where politics drive player interaction... Over time you have betrayals in the mafia guild and they splinter off into two groups and join the other side or it's like weird things that can occur in that regard. So I think that's the important way that will solve itself. I don't think the developer necessarily has to step in there and say no, let's railroad this politics or let's hand hold this aspect. I think that any time you have a bully, you're going to have a counter bully and that's something that we try to encourage as part of the politics process.
- Here I just feel like that stuff takes a while - politics, backstabbing, drama is definitely going to happen, and guilds will implode, but the question is how long it's going to take, is it going to be too late, is half the server going to quit the game by the time it happens, etc. Why should someone play the game for 1-2 months at level 50, without really experiencing what the game is all about, waiting for that mega zerg to implode, so they might get a chance to experience some actual content?
One of the things that I think will naturally combat the risk that comes with one mega corp or one mega guild owning the server so-to-speak and killing off competition is that Ashes is constantly changing. So the way that nodes spawn and despawn and can be destroyed; and the castles exist to exert pressure; and these world events pop up. It's a massive world and it's constantly changing. Those two things naturally combat the opportunity for mega guilds to claw control over a particular server.
- Who is going to destroy those nodes, if only the mega guilds control them? Is world going to constantly change, if those mega guild control most of it? Is Steven undermining the size that some of these guilds will reach (some of them well into thousands of people)?
Naturally, having a massive world helps a lot. You can always try to pick a corner far away from those guilds, and play the game.
However, I'm not sure how that's going to be the case if you have 2 massive zergs competing on a server. It's definitely a better scenario than just one mega zerg controlling everything, but it's only better if they are fighting against each other. It's also far from perfect, as again, your regular guilds probably won't have access to content, due to either of those zergs controlling world bosses, possibly most of dungeons, maybe trade routes, nodes, etc.
I understand that not everyone can be on top, but it is a much better situation to have 3, 4, or 5 big guilds battling it out, changing enemies, etc. rather than 1 or 2 mega zergs controlling everything. With first example, the world can truly be dynamic, alliances will change, backstabbing will happen, those guilds will need allies often, so your "regular" guild can join them sometimes and help.
Of course a lot of this stuff is just theoretical, it might or it might not happen. What is important is that the devs recognize a potential problem, and hopefully come with solutions before it actually turns into a problem.
I feel like they have done so (but it could be improved).
Alliances for example are a huge topic that I haven't seen many people talk about. I feel that it is really important they nail this part of the game as well.
- Once created, the leader can invite up to three other guilds to this alliance, but this is subject to change.
- A guild may only be a member of one alliance.
- There is no member cap in an alliance, only a maximum of four guilds.
This means that an alliance can at most have 1200 members. However, I feel like there still should be a member cap.
4 guilds is fine, but I think the leader of an alliance can be a 300 player zerg, for example, but other allies should only be limited to a maximum of 300 people TOTAL. Meaning, each alliance guild can only have up to 100 members, or whatever other combination.
Or, a zerg leader might choose to only go with a 100 member guild as the main one, in order to get some key perks, while the alliance consists of guilds that might have more people than them. It's of course up to the leader to decide the best strategy to go for, but overall I think the maximum number of people in an alliance should be cut down to half - 600.
On top of that, content should be designed around this, so that you can't just have a mega zerg creating 4-5 main guilds, with 12-15 other allied guilds under them and still dominating everything. That might be the actually hard part, and at this moment I have no ideas on how that could be solvable
(it's 2am, my brain is not working, and I should really go to sleep).
Let's also just mention castles. If there are 5 guild castles around the entire map, I'd expect that
only one member of the alliance can get a castle. Which would mean, 5 different alliances each own a castle. Again, in theory this would bring more variety, more guilds, rather than 1 or 2, is always a positive.
Of course, mega zergs can always find a way around this, so I guess in the end, just count on luck to not pick a server they're on.
This all ties in with content being accessible to majority of people.
If the world is more dynamic, if there's more competition, if you have 5 powerful guilds, rather than 1-2, it means more opportunity for other regular guilds to join those alliances, and to actually have access to sieges, world bosses, etc. rather than 1-2 guilds/alliances controlling all of it. However, this can also mean that those 5 zerg alliances, are just 5 different mega zergs, that split their players into different guilds - which again, not great, but it's at least better than having 1 or 2 controlling everything.
All the game needs to try to do, is discourage and make it as hard as possible for single guild alliances to work (single mega guilds split into several), and not to allow them to be able to control servers and deny content to regular players.
I want you to look at this more as someone just putting their thoughts into a post, anything that came to mind, rather than something I'm truly behind that I'll defend to death. I'm open to change my mind if I'm wrong about any of this.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to the replies. Hopefully we get a discussion going, and you can point out what I missed, that could be added, or something you disagree with.
Bed.
