What challenges should guild alliances face?
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
I'm planning to play on all three planets, and I definitely hope the developers rule out friendly fire. In a game like Fractured, I can only see it as a huge mess, and I think it would destroy the game.
Granted, I've played games with well-done friendly fire and player collisions, like World of Tanks, but I can't see that success translating into Fractured.
Fair enough. Then we’re definitely gonna be at long term odds.
I’ll continue to push back on suggestions that Fractured mimic Albion Online’s wildly unpopular and game killing alliance system that has incited major criticism and required aggressive corrective attempts by their developers.
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
I'm planning to play on all three planets, and I definitely hope the developers rule out friendly fire. In a game like Fractured, I can only see it as a huge mess, and I think it would destroy the game.
Granted, I've played games with well-done friendly fire and player collisions, like World of Tanks, but I can't see that success translating into Fractured.
Fair enough. Then we’re definitely gonna be at long term odds.
I’ll continue to push back on suggestions that Fractured mimic Albion Online’s wildly unpopular and game killing alliance system that has incited major criticism and required aggressive corrective attempts by their developers.
Dude, I feel like you're crediting the Albion alliance system with far too much innovation.
I really don't understand your fixation with it!To me, the basic functionality of a game-supported alliance is the following:
- You can't attack allies
Additional functionality would be:
- Ally NPC guards will support you
- You can enter alliance-controlled areas
- You gain access to a central alliance chat
Nothing innovative or complicated there, and that's basically how alliances in Wurm Online worked, for instance. No limit I ever found on alliances, either; Wurm Online simply didn't have enough population to create the problems Albion Online has faced.
The irony is that if AO were truly that unpopular, the alliance system wouldn't be a problem.
AO is a victim of its own success; I suspect its alliance system would do just fine with a significantly lower population. I see it as a scaling issue, not a fundamental flaw.In short, "No one plays Albion Online any more, it's too crowded!"
-
so melee dps doesn't exist? i'd love to see a type of melee healing!
they'll have to turn off collision in cities. there's no way around it.
eve online has a fee for alliance size, iirc. DS could make it exponential in cost as you add guilds into the alliance. lets say DS wants an alliance to average 5 guilds. after 5 guilds the cost to maintain the alliance could double and double for each guild after 6.
my problem is when a guild or alliance becomes so big that it's better to split it into multiple. this is also used to by pass many limits placed at the guild level.
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Allies should be able to betray and kill allies.
They already can. Leaving the alliance at a critical time will do exactly that. The problem I see is that you're thinking tactically, not strategically, about friendly fire and betrayal.
Alliances should be difficult to negotiate and maintain.
Maintain, I can see that, negotiate, definitely not. That is, negotiation should be entirely up to the players; the game shouldn't intrude on that process. Once an alliance has been agreed upon, however, I want the game to enforce it (include any appropriate maintenance).
It should be very difficult to conquer and maintain large empires.
I agree.
Diplomacy, battlefield tactics, political strategy, subterfuge, espionage, betrayal, economic leverage should all be viable tools in the player’s toolkit, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.
Absolutely. Disabling friendly fire in no way hurts that. Again, the kind of friendly fire you're talking about is minor, and suited mostly for griefing.
It would hurt -far- more if I were depending on Ally A to guard my back from Enemy B in a protracted war while I fought Enemy A on a different front, and Ally A decided to join my enemies. Friendly fire is entirely irrelevant to that level of betrayal.
-
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
so melee dps doesn't exist? i'd love to see a type of melee healing!
Melee DPS does exist, although they do seem to get killed more often.
In multiple events I've seen it posted "ask the shotcaller if you want to bring melee DPS".Melee healing, not so much (not in AO).
In Wurm Online you had to be pretty close to heal someone, though. AoE wasn't nearly so powerful there, however; melee DPS was the thing.Actually, Wurm Online was a little silly in that you could be DPS/tank/healer/melee/archer/priest/sorcerer all at once. There were no classes (outside priests, which only contrasted with crafters); you could be nearly everything at the same time.
-
no classes here either. i suspect people will have 1 self sustained or will try to get as much life leech as possible.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Dude, I feel like you're crediting the Albion alliance system with far too much innovation.
I really don't understand your fixation with it!Because Albion is the most immediate and relevant reference for the kind of system I’d like to avoid. I never claimed they invented it.
To me, the basic functionality of a game-supported alliance is the following:
- You can't attack allies
Additional functionality would be:
- Ally NPC guards will support you
- You can enter alliance-controlled areas
- You gain access to a central alliance chat
Nothing innovative or complicated there, and that's basically how alliances in Wurm Online worked, for instance. No limit I ever found on alliances, either; Wurm Online simply didn't have enough population to create the problems Albion Online has faced.
Albion’s system, among other problems, has enabled a painfully small handful of organizations to rigidly control the game since it launched in July 2017.
This is indisputably bad. It’s not good. It doesn’t promote a dynamic and exciting political culture for aspiring guilds and alliances. It is the very definition of, “you can’t beat ‘em, better join ‘em!”
It suggests to ambitious but smaller guilds that they need to join the problem rather than fight it in order to, borrowing your phrase, “experience endgame content.”
No guild or alliance or coalition should ever be so powerful or secure that devs have to impose GvG seasons and territory resets to wipe the board clean every month, or double the size of conquerable land and create hideouts for smaller guilds specifically to allow smaller guilds a chance for glory.
That’s what happened with AO lol. I’m not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the problems and the desperate corrective efforts that SBI has gone through to try to fix things.
The irony is that if AO were truly that unpopular, the alliance system wouldn't be a problem.
AO is a victim of its own success; I suspect its alliance system would do just fine with a significantly lower population. I see it as a scaling issue, not a fundamental flaw.In short, "No one plays Albion Online any more, it's too crowded!"
Respectfully, that’s a spurious argument!
Albion Online saw major freefalls in player population multiple times throughout its 2 year run. It went F2P in April in order to bolster an exceedingly low player population.
The fact that the game is relatively populated now doesn’t refute the fact that its alliance system is highly criticized by many players and guild leaders, is a subject of two major threads in the developer statements subforum, and has prompted many conciliatory gestures by SBI.
So again I reiterate: alliances in a Fractured should be difficult to maintain. There should always be the viable threat of betrayal and intrigue and deception. Conquering and maintaining sweeping territory should be exceedingly difficult and grueling and prompt major considerations by alliance leaders, “is this worth it?”
That’s what happened with empires and coalitions in the real world and so should it be here. It should be virtually impossible for zerg guilds and alliances to rule the game as they do in AO.
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Dude, I feel like you're crediting the Albion alliance system with far too much innovation.
I really don't understand your fixation with it!Because Albion is the most immediate and relevant reference for the kind of system I’d like to avoid. I never claimed they invented it.
To me, the basic functionality of a game-supported alliance is the following:
- You can't attack allies
Additional functionality would be:
- Ally NPC guards will support you
- You can enter alliance-controlled areas
- You gain access to a central alliance chat
Nothing innovative or complicated there, and that's basically how alliances in Wurm Online worked, for instance. No limit I ever found on alliances, either; Wurm Online simply didn't have enough population to create the problems Albion Online has faced.
Albion’s system, among other problems, has enabled a painfully small handful of organizations to rigidly control the game since it launched in July 2017.
Hmm. That doesn't fit my observations. Not even counting guilds, there's a -lot- of room and gameplay for a lone wolf. Sure, a few alliances may control the black zone, but that's not controlling the entire game.
Actually, I just counted, and while it's a bit difficult due to the interface, I counted 12+ different alliance flags owning territory in the black zone. Yeah, there's a big dog or two, but that's to be expected. (And, in all honesty, the AO black zone seems very small compared to the single Fractured continent we've seen so far.)
This is indisputably bad. It’s not good. It doesn’t promote a dynamic and exciting political culture for aspiring guilds and alliances. It is the very definition of, “you can’t beat ‘em, better join ‘em!”
I started with F2P, and my journey through Albion thus far has been quite interesting. I haven't felt choked at all by the alliance system, and I've seen all kinds of dynamic and exciting political culture.
It suggests to ambitious but smaller guilds that they need to join the problem rather than fight it in order to, borrowing your phrase, “experience endgame content.”
I don't have a problem with smaller guilds joining alliances to experience endgame content. I actually like how easy Albion's system makes it for a new guild to get in on the action and start learning.
No guild or alliance or coalition should ever be so powerful or secure that devs have to impose GvG seasons and territory resets to wipe the board clean every month, or double the size of conquerable land and create hideouts for smaller guilds specifically to allow smaller guilds a chance for glory.
I see this as the developers attempting to improve the game, while keeping accessibility to large alliances intact for players and guilds. That's their decision, and I can understand it.
That’s what happened with AO lol. I’m not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the problems and the desperate corrective efforts that SBI has gone through to try to fix things.
I've seen no desperation in SBI thus far, nor have I seen an utter monopoly on the black zone. Yep, there's a big dog or two, but they don't own everything, and I've seen alliances and guilds collapse and others form.
The situation doesn't seem static. It may not be ideal, but what is? And the situation does seem to be improving.
The irony is that if AO were truly that unpopular, the alliance system wouldn't be a problem.
AO is a victim of its own success; I suspect its alliance system would do just fine with a significantly lower population. I see it as a scaling issue, not a fundamental flaw.In short, "No one plays Albion Online any more, it's too crowded!"
Respectfully, that’s a spurious argument!
Albion Online saw major freefalls in player population multiple times throughout its 2 year run. It went F2P in April in order to bolster an exceedingly low player population.
"Exceedingly low" probably means something different to you than to me.
I played on the Epic Wurm Online cluster for a couple years, in which an average player count of 30 in the entire world meant something was happening. The fact that the game is relatively populated now doesn’t refute the fact that its alliance system is highly criticized by many players and guild leaders, is a subject of two major threads in the developer statements subforum, and has prompted many conciliatory gestures by SBI.
Alliance size is unlimited. That would be an easy fix, and SBI has clearly chosen to not go there (yet). I can see reasons for that; as I said, they seem to be trying to make room for smaller guilds without putting a direct restriction on alliances.
So again I reiterate: alliances in a Fractured should be difficult to maintain. There should always be the viable threat of betrayal and intrigue and deception.
If the developers want to limit alliance sizes, that's their business. On the other hand, alliances will always be limited by human factors.
As I said, I've seen alliances dissolve, guilds fall apart, coups, theft, schism, general drama, etc.: and none of that had anything to do with in-game alliance restrictions. (I feel like I'm agreeing with Gothix!
)Conquering and maintaining sweeping territory should be exceedingly difficult and grueling and prompt major considerations by alliance leaders, “is this worth it?” That’s what happened with empires and coalitions in the real world and so should it be here.
That would be logistics, which I'm all for.
It should be virtually impossible for zerg guilds and alliances to rule the game as they do in AO.
But the Mongols were an OP zerg guild!
(OK, I'm teasing. )
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Albion’s system, among other problems, has enabled a painfully small handful of organizations to rigidly control the game since it launched in July 2017.
This is indisputably bad. It’s not good. It doesn’t promote a dynamic and exciting political culture for aspiring guilds and alliances. It is the very definition of, “you can’t beat ‘em, better join ‘em!”
I stopped playing freemium RTS games because they all seem to devolve into 2 or 3 mega-alliances running everything, each of which is run by uberarrogant players with tonz'o'bux$ and little else to do.
Game of Thrones Ascent, a RPG/builder game, put caps on alliance size but because it was 'freemium' the whales found it easy to migrate en masse as mercenaries and/or form a 'burner alliance' for AvA phases, so simply imposing a cap didn't solve that problem.
I'm looking for Fractured to be different because players will not be able to buy power(s). I'm hoping that paying up front for the whole game and having $$ only for cosmetic frills will make a huge difference.
I trust that devs who are framing their game to avoid $$=power will listen carefully to community ideas, watch outcomes closely, and not be afraid to tweak whatever is not working even when the inevitable wail goes up from the folks whose game fun consists of exploiting whatever system devs set up in order to aggregate goods/control for themselves.
-
There is a very simple solution for collision issue, that many MMOs are already using.
Player collision exists (NPCs can be excluded from this to prevent abuse), and works full time (even in cities), however, if you want you can activate sneak mode where your movement becomes slower, but you can "pass through" the crowd.
Slower movement makes sense, realism wise, you are pushing through and thus moving slower, and also makes sense so there is a drawback with that mode so people wouldn't just have it activated full time.
So if at any time someone "boxes you" near mailbox "for the lolz" you can just activate sneak mode and move away.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
They already can. Leaving the alliance at a critical time will do exactly that.
That shouldn't be your only recourse and requires the presence of someone with the UI permissions to drop out of the alliance at the appointed time.
Imagine, if you will, at the Red Wedding - arguably the ultimate betrayal/false flag in contemporary fiction - Walder Frey had to put "The Rains of Castamere" on loop because he had to unfriend Robb Stark from Facebook, change his banners, and get written permission to shank him first.
No, the whole point about alliances is that they should be tenuous if you don't put in the work and that even then there's no guarantee of anything.
The problem I see is that you're thinking tactically, not strategically, about friendly fire and betrayal.
How so?
Maintain, I can see that, negotiate, definitely not. That is, negotiation should be entirely up to the players; the game shouldn't intrude on that process. Once an alliance has been agreed upon, however, I want the game to enforce it (include any appropriate maintenance).
Yes, that's precisely what I mean: the players should be able to negotiate the style and nature of the alliance. AO treats "alliances" like one-size-fits-all empires with lord-vassal relationships.
I agree.
You say that... and yet disabling friendly fire will make it much, much easier for alliances to gain and retain control. They won't have to worry much about battlefield tactics and positioning; critical betrayals by allies will be telegraphed and much harder to pull off.
Absolutely. Disabling friendly fire in no way hurts that. Again, the kind of friendly fire you're talking about is minor, and suited mostly for griefing.
Not at all. Enabled friendly fire will compel guild and alliance military leaders to consider positioning and tactics much more carefully than OMG SWARM 'EM AND DROP AOEs HAHAHAHAHAHA KEEP CLICKIN TIL THEY'RE DEAD. They'll also have to wonder if their ostensible allies can and will betray them at a crucial point in the battle.
It would hurt -far- more if I were depending on Ally A to guard my back from Enemy B in a protracted war while I fought Enemy A on a different front, and Ally A decided to join my enemies. Friendly fire is entirely irrelevant to that level of betrayal.
They dovetail.
In your scenario, imagine Ally A has the option to actively attack you during the battle because of secret negotiations and arrangements with Enemy A. But, irony of ironies, unbeknownst to them you have negotiated a clandestine truce with Enemy B, who's tired of Enemy A's shenanigans, and they come to your defense when you're betrayed by Ally A!
And lo, no one has to pause to drop out of an alliance UI and telegraph the damn thing in advance. My suggestion only enhances your scenario.
I started with F2P, and my journey through Albion thus far has been quite interesting. I haven't felt choked at all by the alliance system, and I've seen all kinds of dynamic and exciting political culture.
I started when the game launched in July 2017.
And you may not be choked because your philosophy has been, by your own admission, to join bigger alliances for endgame content.
Speaking of...
I don't have a problem with smaller guilds joining alliances to experience endgame content. I actually like how easy Albion's system makes it for a new guild to get in on the action and start learning.
I don't have a problem with that either. But smaller guilds shouldn't feel compelled to do so because it's impossible to dislodge the "big dogs" due to the game's mechanics.
You do understand that that's how TBI, our mutual alliance, was formed, correct? Members of SUN, one of the most powerful guilds in AO, specifically formed a guild and alliance because it wasn't really feasible for most guilds to get a taste of endgame content under the extant system. TBI was sponsored and patronized by SUN's leader, Franksinatra, until the others got it up and running.
And even then, they had to pay a mercenary GvG team to gain any traction. When that team bounced, TBI was screwed.
I see this as the developers attempting to improve the game, while keeping accessibility to large alliances intact for players and guilds. That's their decision, and I can understand it.
That's a heck of a spin!
These updates occurred because AO's system made it virtually impossible to challenge and dislodge big alliances. Per AO's own staff:
The Future of Guilds, Alliances and Outlands
The most universal feedback we received focussed on limiting the influence of large alliances and the ability of new guilds to compete in the territory ownership gameplay in the Outlands.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
There is a very simple solution for collision issue, that many MMOs are already using.
Player collision exists (NPCs can be excluded from this to prevent abuse), and works full time (even in cities), however, if you want you can activate sneak mode where your movement becomes slower, but you can "pass through" the crowd.
Slower movement makes sense, realism wise, you are pushing through and thus moving slower, and also makes sense so there is a drawback with that mode so people wouldn't just have it activated full time.
So if at any time someone "boxes you" near mailbox "for the lolz" you can just activate sneak mode and move away.
Sounds annoying!
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
They already can. Leaving the alliance at a critical time will do exactly that.
That shouldn't be your only recourse and requires the presence of someone with the UI permissions to drop out of the alliance at the appointed time.
Imagine, if you will, at the Red Wedding - arguably the ultimate betrayal/false flag in contemporary fiction - Walder Frey had to put "The Rains of Castamere" on loop because he had to unfriend Robb Stark from Facebook, change his banners, and get written permission to shank him first.
No, the whole point about alliances is that they should be tenuous if you don't put in the work and that even then there's no guarantee of anything.>
Why? Honestly, an alliance is an alliance. If it's modeled in-game, I see no good reason to be able to attack each other. Otherwise, it's meaningless. If you don't want alliances supported in-game at all, and have them be unofficial, so be it, but I'd much rather have them supported.
The problem I see is that you're thinking tactically, not strategically, about friendly fire and betrayal.
How so?
You only get one shot at betrayal. If I were going to betray an ally, I wouldn't worry about dropping tags, perms, and surprising a zerg: that's small potatoes, even if I win the battle.
Rather, I'd maneuver my "ally" into a strategic position that I could then exploit to utterly destroy them. Never do an enemy a small injury, and all that.
And in that sense, an official in-game, no-friendly-fire alliance helps me, because it raises a false sense of confidence.
Maintain, I can see that, negotiate, definitely not. That is, negotiation should be entirely up to the players; the game shouldn't intrude on that process. Once an alliance has been agreed upon, however, I want the game to enforce it (include any appropriate maintenance).
Yes, that's precisely what I mean: the players should be able to negotiate the style and nature of the alliance. AO treats "alliances" like one-size-fits-all empires with lord-vassal relationships.
In AO, the whole lord-vassal thing seems to me largely inconsequential. No one is forced into an alliance, which means you can enter an alliance on your terms.
I agree.
You say that... and yet disabling friendly fire will make it much, much easier for alliances to gain and retain control. They won't have to worry much about battlefield tactics and positioning; critical betrayals by allies will be telegraphed and much harder to pull off.
Again, you're enmeshed in mere tactics.
Remember, you can only betray someone once. Make it count at a strategic level!Absolutely. Disabling friendly fire in no way hurts that. Again, the kind of friendly fire you're talking about is minor, and suited mostly for griefing.
Not at all. Enabled friendly fire will compel guild and alliance military leaders to consider positioning and tactics much more carefully than OMG SWARM 'EM AND DROP AOEs HAHAHAHAHAHA KEEP CLICKIN TIL THEY'RE DEAD. They'll also have to wonder if their ostensible allies can and will betray them at a crucial point in the battle.
Zerg tactics in AO are not mindless clickfests, and I'm actually impressed at how much is involved in running and calling a successful zerg.
It would hurt -far- more if I were depending on Ally A to guard my back from Enemy B in a protracted war while I fought Enemy A on a different front, and Ally A decided to join my enemies. Friendly fire is entirely irrelevant to that level of betrayal.
They dovetail.
In your scenario, imagine Ally A has the option to actively attack you during the battle because of secret negotiations and arrangements with Enemy A. But, irony of ironies, unbeknownst to them you have negotiated a clandestine truce with Enemy B, who's tired of Enemy A's shenanigans, and they come to your defense when you're betrayed by Ally A!
And lo, no one has to pause to drop out of an alliance UI and telegraph the damn thing in advance. My suggestion only enhances your scenario.
Not interested.
Besides, if you really want to implement a tactical betrayal, dropping tags is fast and easy to plan for (it's a button click!).I started with F2P, and my journey through Albion thus far has been quite interesting. I haven't felt choked at all by the alliance system, and I've seen all kinds of dynamic and exciting political culture.
I started when the game launched in July 2017.
And you may not be choked because your philosophy has been, by your own admission, to join bigger alliances for endgame content.
Speaking of...
I don't have a problem with smaller guilds joining alliances to experience endgame content. I actually like how easy Albion's system makes it for a new guild to get in on the action and start learning.
I don't have a problem with that either. But smaller guilds shouldn't feel compelled to do so because it's impossible to dislodge the "big dogs" due to the game's mechanics.
Who said compelled? Besides, I don't expect a brand-new guild to instantly be able to participate on their own in endgame; I'd think that would disappoint me in any game.
Rome wasn't built in a day, and all that.
You do understand that that's how TBI, our mutual alliance, was formed, correct? Members of SUN, one of the most powerful guilds in AO, specifically formed a guild and alliance because it wasn't really feasible for most guilds to get a taste of endgame content under the extant system. TBI was sponsored and patronized by SUN's leader, Franksinatra, until the others got it up and running.
And even then, they had to pay a mercenary GvG team to gain any traction. When that team bounced, TBI was screwed.
I see this as the developers attempting to improve the game, while keeping accessibility to large alliances intact for players and guilds. That's their decision, and I can understand it.
That's a heck of a spin!
But that's how I see it.
These updates occurred because AO's system made it virtually impossible to challenge and dislodge big alliances. Per AO's own staff:
The Future of Guilds, Alliances and Outlands
The most universal feedback we received focussed on limiting the influence of large alliances and the ability of new guilds to compete in the territory ownership gameplay in the Outlands.Yep. And it makes sense. To compete with the veterans, at a minimum, you need a big pool of players, you need experienced shotcallers, you need organization, and you need top-tier players with depth of top-tier gear to do GvGs (which by definition excludes new players).
The experienced people who can provide that are already in big alliances. A brand new alliance of brand new guilds shouldn't be expected to compete with the big dogs, and frankly, I wouldn't want them to be able to.
On the other hand, I'm all for there being enough territory that the veteran alliances can't take it all. But that's more a question of scale than system.
To be honest, I really don't like how black zones work, but not because of big alliances (or lack of friendly fire). It simply doesn't feel like home.
I can't link to my personal island there, there are no real markets there, and it simply "feels" like Caerleon and the royal cities are the actual home areas. I go into the black zone for war or resources, but despite territories changing hands, and home plots, and resource plots, there's no real feeling of city-states there, and I always come back to the royal continent to do my real business.
If I were to change AO, that's the first thing I'd look at: encouraging people to shift completely into the black zone. Let people move islands to home plots; maybe allow home plots to be grown into actual cities, or something, while making it harder to project power. (Allow deep expansion, as opposed to broad expansion.)
Maybe a guild could only own a home plot and adjacent territories, which would allow more guilds to own territory. At that point, I might drop GvGs entirely and consider balancing alliances within the context of a long-term world (like EVE Online).
Don't think I'd ever go for friendly fire or collisions, though!
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Alliances will exist in Fractured and apparently feature in-game UI options.
Nothing necessarily wrong with that, of course, but I wonder what challenges and obstacles the devs will put in place for guild alliances?
In Albion Online, alliances are a major political component... but often chilled content. Mega-alliances dominate the land and there's no disadvantage associated with them.
For example, alliances in AO lack friendly fire, so invasion day battles often become giant zerg fests for territory, since there's no challenge or difficulty in just throwing bodies at the enemy and spamming AOE attacks.
Additionally, though AO advertises itself as a hardcore game of subterfuge and diplomacy, there's no effective way to betray alliances - no Red Wedding style assassinations can occur, since in order to pull it off you'd have to drop out of the alliance UI in the first place and telegraph your attack.
This is, of course, an ongoing chain of thought from my other thread about guilds. I ardently believe Fractured should avoid AO's many, many pitfalls when it comes to guilds and alliances.
So what obstacles/challenges should alliances be forced to face in Fractured?what if add
make NPCs guild alliances?
-
I'm going to have to agree with Alexian and Gothix on all of this so far. At the very least we should start as open and free as possible and without game-enforced alliances and such.
Friendly fire and collision can and SHOULD be played around with and tested for viability. We can leave Arb out of it, fine.
Alliances can and should be difficult to maintain and not be artifically enforced in the game outside of a few features in the UI to allow for diplomacy.
If none of this works, it can then be shifted fairly easily, especially friendly fire.
-
The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want to see friendly fire and collision. There are too many ways to exploit those game mechanics to grief. I haven't seen much in the way of resolving those problems other than "deal with it this is a hardcore game not meant for carebears". I will push back as well until I see the final product has ruled it out in the release as long as others argue for it.
The argument that I need to go play some single player game is the same argument used by players for decades in mmos when they want the ability to kill other players willy nilly I will throw this at you, if you want to go grief and kill players at your heart's content go play a free server where like minded players have set up those rulesets for you. I'd suggest UO Outlands. They actually promote reds/greys or at the very least don't impost harsh penalties. I've paid for this game just like everyone. I have as much a right to try to mold it to my liking as anyone else.
I also don't want to see some 13 yr old decide to go on a town killing spree because he's bored and jeopardize an alliance. Some of you are arguing against alliances and I do agree they can be no fun on the receiving end. I'd rather see caps than rules that make alliances near impossible to maintain.
-
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want to see friendly fire and collision. There are too many ways to exploit those game mechanics to grief. I haven't seen much in the way of resolving those problems other than "deal with it this is a hardcore game not meant for carebears". I will push back as well until I see the final product has ruled it out in the release as long as others argue for it.
The argument that I need to go play some single player game is the same argument used by players for decades in mmos when they want the ability to kill other players willy nilly I will throw this at you, if you want to go grief and kill players at your heart's content go play a free server where like minded players have set up those rulesets for you. I'd suggest UO Outlands. They actually promote reds/greys or at the very least don't impost harsh penalties. I've paid for this game just like everyone. I have as much a right to try to mold it to my liking as anyone else.
I also don't want to see some 13 yr old decide to go on a town killing spree because he's bored and jeopardize an alliance. Some of you are arguing against alliances and I do agree they can be no fun on the receiving end. I'd rather see caps than rules that make alliances near impossible to maintain.
I want to clarify: no one here has said you “need” to play single player games. No one here even advised that you do so.
What was said is that the only way to eliminate griefing or the possibility of griefing is to play games that don’t involve interaction with other players or allow PvP, which is indeed a fact.
We both agree that griefing should be highly deterred by game mechanics. Where we differ is that I think the game should attempt to do this in a way that doesn’t needlessly betray its sandbox premise.
You absolutely have the right to advocate for whatever changes you think would make Fractured a better game. No one is trying to suggest otherwise.
But in fact, it was you who tried to prevent me from suggesting changes to the game:
“Everyone is so worried about these large alliances taking over everything. If this is a problem for you just join one. Most large guilds don't have very strict rules. They can't because it is too hard to control and enforce them. Most just say "have fun". It's a source for grouping and finding others to do things with. If you don't like one group move to another. If you want to be in one with your friends only then make an alliance with a neighboring large guild.”
That’s what you told me on the previous page in your first post in this thread.
I respect your right to suggest changes or additions to the game even if I don’t agree with them. Please do the same for me.
-
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want to see friendly fire and collision. There are too many ways to exploit those game mechanics to grief. I haven't seen much in the way of resolving those problems other than "deal with it this is a hardcore game not meant for carebears".
You should read the thread posts before replying then. I wrote a solution (used by MMOs already) couple of posts up.
-
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
The argument that I need to go play some single player game is the same argument used by players for decades in mmos when they want the ability to kill other players willy nilly
I also don't want to see some 13 yr old decide to go on a town killing spree because he's bored
In that case read a bit about the game before posting in the forums. You have an entire planet where noone can "killy you willy nilly".
And if you want an entire game (all 3 planets) to be made to your own personal liking (PvE mode), completely disregarding other peoples desires, then you are not even worth discussing with.
Remember, you are not developing this game, you are just a single player wanting to play it, among thousands others. And if you continue this path, demanding an entire game to be made "how you like" you aren't going to have much rep among gaming community, so you may as well go play a solo game.
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
What was said is that the only way to eliminate griefing or the possibility of griefing is to play games that don’t involve interaction with other players or allow PvP, which is indeed a fact.
That's an all-or-nothing argument, but this is a question of risk management. Friendly fire and collisions represent mechanics at high risk for griefing in an MMO.
Personally, I don't believe the cost is worth any benefit they might provide.
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want to see friendly fire and collision. There are too many ways to exploit those game mechanics to grief. I haven't seen much in the way of resolving those problems other than "deal with it this is a hardcore game not meant for carebears".
You should read the thread posts before replying then. I wrote a solution (used by MMOs already) couple of posts up.
Sounds like a clunky solution to me! I wouldn't want to play that way.
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
In that case read a bit about the game before posting in the forums. You have an entire planet where noone can "killy you willy nilly".
And if you want an entire game (all 3 planets) to be made to your own personal liking (PvE mode), completely disregarding other peoples desires, then you are not even worth discussing with.
Remember, you are not developing this game, you are just a single player wanting to play it, among thousands others. And if you continue this path, demanding an entire game to be made "how you like" you aren't going to have much rep among gaming community, so you may as well go play a solo game.Wow, way to twist what Farlander said! You've definitely lost rep with me.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Wow, way to twist what Farlander said! You've definitely lost rep with me.
What else to say to a person that's demanding an entire game to be made how he likes? All 3 planets. Completely disregarding (may as well say disrespecting) all other players that want to play this game.
Where a whole planet where PvP is completely turned off isn't enough for him, but he wants an entire game to be made to his own liking (and to hell with everyone else).
This what I wrote, were if fact the kindest words I could have chosen. Suggesting a single player game, as that's the only way he can play how he likes without anyone else bothering him.
