What challenges should guild alliances face?
-
I think "scamming" shouldn't be sanction-able, unless it's done by exploit.
you're saying scamming shouldn't be allowed, unless it'd done by exploit. exploits are bad in game terms. scams are good. scams are using the others person lack of information against them. as you mentioned in your other comment.
problem about using the word exploit is the different implied definitions.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Enabled friendly fire and collision mechanics will force all guilds, armies, battalions, zergs, etc. of varying size that they need to be tactical about how, when, and where they deploy their assets. It will require them to carefully consider the terrain in ways that disabled friendly fire doesn't; they'd need to be careful not to let themselves be drawn into situations where their numbers are a hindrance. It's realistic, it demands greater tactics, and it might minimize the extent to which zergs can just blindly steamroll the opposition!
Exactly. And if there is some alliance player deliberately going into your line of fire constantly, then use social mechanics to punish his behavior. Get him kicked out of alliance, have your town guards place him on "attack on sight list", have NPCs in your towns refuse to trade him. Have other people around you remember him and punish him by full extend of social methods.
Which, in turn, would add more dimension to inter-guild diplomacy and alliances.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Outright disabling all friendly fire is definitely not a solution. That would be like completely disabling all in game chat for everyone because some players are going around insulting people...
But it -is- a solution. It's simply not one you like. Suggesting that developers try to please everyone is a bad idea; instead, they should simply try to make the game they want to make: that will result in their best possible game.
I'd rather the developers included all friendly fire, all the time, and collisions, if it's what they really wanted all along, even though I personally wouldn't want to see that.
-
with how elements react with other elements, i dont see how full FF would work.
if we're fighting something in water and i use an electric spell then you're taking damage as well as the mob/player. if i'm near melee range while you're swinging then i'm taking melee damage while attack the mob/player.
i dont see full FF working.
-
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
with how elements react with other elements, i dont see how full FF would work.
if we're fighting something in water and i use an electric spell then you're taking damage as well as the mob/player. if i'm near melee range while you're swinging then i'm taking melee damage while attack the mob/player.
i dont see full FF working.
That makes sense. I've mostly been thinking about friendly fire in context of fireball-style AoE (an Albion Online thing, I suppose), as opposed to direct attacks where you click on an enemy, and the enemy only is targeted.
But yeah, now that you mention it, even direct melee attacks in Fractured are AoE.
-
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
with how elements react with other elements, i dont see how full FF would work.
if we're fighting something in water and i use an electric spell then you're taking damage as well as the mob/player. if i'm near melee range while you're swinging then i'm taking melee damage while attack the mob/player.
i dont see full FF working.
I think some extensions of protections can be made. People were floating ideas of party immunity and/or guild immunity (as long as these are capped). This would still allow for reasonable exceptions while forcing a larger emphasis on deployment strategy/resource usage.
Perhaps it should be experimented with just to see what happens, but I don't think this is contrary to at least what I was suggesting previously.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
But it -is- a solution. It's simply not one you like.
By that logic, "not releasing a game at all" is also solution xD just not the one you like. (It most certainly prevents all abuse of everything, globally.)
So let me rephrase that for your convenience.
That is not a - good - solution.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
with how elements react with other elements, i dont see how full FF would work.
if we're fighting something in water and i use an electric spell then you're taking damage as well as the mob/player. if i'm near melee range while you're swinging then i'm taking melee damage while attack the mob/player.
i dont see full FF working.
That makes sense. I've mostly been thinking about friendly fire in context of fireball-style AoE (an Albion Online thing, I suppose), as opposed to direct attacks where you click on an enemy, and the enemy only is targeted.
But yeah, now that you mention it, even direct melee attacks in Fractured are AoE.
this game doesn't have click attacks. you shoot a projectile it can hit anything in the path. when you aim, you have to predict where they'll be so you hit them. If you have a tank friend, they can intercept hits (be in-between you and the attack) so you dont take damage or take less.
@Bardikens
Guild immunity means blog/zerg fight styles and i'm completely against that! It's been mentioned by staff that groups will have friendly fire immunity but nothing much was stated beyond that.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
But it -is- a solution. It's simply not one you like.
By that logic, "not releasing a game at all" is also solution xD just not the one you like. (It most certainly prevents all abuse of everything, globally.)
So let me rephrase that for your convenience.
That is not a - good - solution.Ooh, another strawman!
Is not supporting friendly fire really analogous to not releasing the game at all?The developers will decide how much griefing they want in the game, and how much they want to prevent it. I'm curious to see what they will come up with; so far, I've mostly liked their philosophy.
-
@Jetah guild immunity can be a thing if guilds have limited membership numbers (lets say 200-300, that's enough for decent guild). In that way you would not have thousand players zergs happening. Or if instead of member limit you have soft cap on member limit by imposing large upkeep costs on large guilds.
We NEED to have as many different guilds as possible, not only for combat aspects and sieges, but for politics, and everything else. Guild member limit is one way I see to make people not go the path of the least effort and all join one huge guild. The other way is to make large guilds have large running costs. I wrote about that in one of the other threads.
The reason I'd prefer guild based immunity, is in case you run into small skirmish happening, 2 vs 3 vs 2 vs 4... and 2 of those are your guild members...
With guild immunity on, you can jump in and help them instantly without having to yell for them to invite you in their party first. It makes an experience much smoother.
And member limitation (or soft cap mechanics) will still prevent large zergs happening, because there will be no guilds with huge member numbers out there.
-
@Roccandil the reason why FF must exist is because if it does not then it either:
- gives a huge advantage to good alignment vs evil alignment
- severely restricts evil alignment playstyle
Players can either be in PvP mode or out of PvP mode. Now, if you don't activate PvP mode, you can't attack anyone, so we can disregard that mode for time being.
Being in PvP mode, you can attack people (you also need to be in this mode to defend yourself, because you need PvP enabled to damage your attacker).
So now there is bunch of people fighting, and all people are in PvP mode, there is a mix of good and evil aligned players from different guilds here (we will exclude neutrals for now for this to remain simple).
Evil aligned people, will want to not only attack good aligned people, but other evil aligned people as well, so if you do not offer them friendly fire you are completely restricting their way of playing, up to the point where it isn't worth playing the game for them.
Not only evil aligned players are in question here, but good part of good aligned guilds, will perhaps want to have a fight (surprise attack) with another good aligned guild that treated them poorly before, in this mayham, so they would like friendly fire enabled as well (this excludes Arboreus of course, I'm talking about Syndesia and Tartaros here).
So If you disable friendly fire existence, you deminish play quality for great majority of evil aligned players, and a good number of good aligned people as well.
You also can't really enable friendly fire for evil aligned people, and turn it off for good aligned people, because (alongside depriving the part of good aligned guilds of play options with this) you would give huge advantage for good aligned people fighting in this mayhem, vs all evil aligned people because they couldn't damage each other, while evils could.
The only way to deal with this is to enable friendly fire for all alignemnts on Syndesia and Tartaros (keep it turned off for Arboreus), and then let people deal with those few "friendlies" (which aren't really friendlies then) that would deliberately stand in their line of fire, by (watching where they are shooting first) and if that's not enough, then using social mechanics. Guild kicks, alliance breaks, refusing to trade with them, and everything else that goes along with it.
This is sandbox, let people deal with people, instead of having mechanics completely diminishing play style options for almost everyone, just to keep few people happy (people that would dislike getting few minus karma points by occasionally hitting same alignment player).
There will surely be quests to get those few points back up when you rarely lose them, plus you can be careful where you are shooting, plus you only get karma points down when you actually kill a person.... your single spell hit will hardly one shot anyone (unless he is already on 1% hp, which will likely get him killed by something else even before he manages to get hit by you).
The situation that you are describing where you would manage to kill someone with aoe, and loose a point or two will happen super rarely, and when it does few points lost doesn't mean anything, and you can get them back later. And you can avoid that if you are somewhat careful in the first place.
For that, it's not worth to exclude friendly fire from game, and completely diminish its features and overall combat quality, just to make occasional player with OCD that doesn't want to lose a single point of karma EVER, happy.
TLDR: (but do read if you care about extra reasoning)
Without friendly fire, intra-alignment skirmishes and fast surprise attacks, just aren't possible, which would bring this (potentially great) sandbox game down up to the point of not being playable for most people that love PvP. And activating friendly fire only for evil alignment (but not for good) would bring a huge disbalance in mass combat.
This is why friendly fire needs to be enabled for everyone on Syndesia and Tartaros, and disabled on Arboreus (to cater to PvE players as well).
By not having friendly fire we can just play a game without PvP then, with just voluntary pre-triggered GvG... because that's how it will really feel like. Like another PvE MMO. (But I guess that's what you would like, it's why you are asking for this.)
-
Hmm maybe after a game starts for like 6 month u make another server???
-
Just to let you know, people arguing over FF, it's already been confirmed to be in game, I asked why the beastmen would find parties easier, with random players (reading the first ever allignment post in news)
Specter answers me by saying, because beastmen cant hurt each other (the rules of the planet good cant attack good), they dont need to group to avoid friendly fire. So can quickly group passersby to make random hunting parties.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Jetah guild immunity can be a thing if guilds have limited membership numbers (lets say 200-300, that's enough for decent guild). In that way you would not have thousand players zergs happening. Or if instead of member limit you have soft cap on member limit by imposing large upkeep costs on large guilds.
We NEED to have as many different guilds as possible, not only for combat aspects and sieges, but for politics, and everything else. Guild member limit is one way I see to make people not go the path of the least effort and all join one huge guild. The other way is to make large guilds have large running costs. I wrote about that in one of the other threads.
The reason I'd prefer guild based immunity, is in case you run into small skirmish happening, 2 vs 3 vs 2 vs 4... and 2 of those are your guild members...
With guild immunity on, you can jump in and help them instantly without having to yell for them to invite you in their party first. It makes an experience much smoother.
And member limitation (or soft cap mechanics) will still prevent large zergs happening, because there will be no guilds with huge member numbers out there.
too easy to zerg though. we dont want 150 people balls running around killing everything because they can't do damage to their guild mates.
@Xzoviac
it was already mentioned on one of the Q&A videos, which is why i said it'll have it. now, things can change but i'd prefer they dont.we have a whole thread on FF somewhere.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil the reason why FF must exist is because if it does not then it either:
- gives a huge advantage to good alignment vs evil alignment
- severely restricts evil alignment playstyle
I do want to see penalties for an evil playstyle. It's risk/reward: the evil playstyle has fewer restrictions, and thus should come at a cost. Otherwise, you're punishing being good, in which case, why have a karma system at all?
As I see it, the primary point of a karma system is to discourage griefing, because griefing diminishes population.
Players can either be in PvP mode or out of PvP mode. Now, if you don't activate PvP mode, you can't attack anyone, so we can disregard that mode for time being.
That's true in Alpha, but I figured that was just a temporary workaround. Are we going to have a flagging system like in Albion?
Being in PvP mode, you can attack people (you also need to be in this mode to defend yourself, because you need PvP enabled to damage your attacker).
Hmm. I don't like that! Albion handles that far better, where "blues" can always attack "reds", no need for the blues to flag up to defend themselves. So, no, not everyone needs to be in PvP mode.
More specifically, blues follow the "karma/good" rules of combat: it doesn't mean they never PvP. If you want to ignore the rules/restrictions, you flag up as a hostile (i.e., be evil). This is effectively "friendly fire" (at a reputation/karma cost, you can attack people who would otherwise be friendly).
So now there is bunch of people fighting, and all people are in PvP mode, there is a mix of good and evil aligned players from different guilds here (we will exclude neutrals for now for this to remain simple).
So, I already disagree with this premise.
A good flagging system changes this significantly.Evil aligned people, will want to not only attack good aligned people, but other evil aligned people as well, so if you do not offer them friendly fire you are completely restricting their way of playing, up to the point where it isn't worth playing the game for them.
Not only evil aligned players are in question here, but good part of good aligned guilds, will perhaps want to have a fight (surprise attack) with another good aligned guild that treated them poorly before, in this mayham, so they would like friendly fire enabled as well (this excludes Arboreus of course, I'm talking about Syndesia and Tartaros here).
So If you disable friendly fire existence, you deminish play quality for great majority of evil aligned players, and a good number of good aligned people as well.
You also can't really enable friendly fire for evil aligned people, and turn it off for good aligned people, because (alongside depriving the part of good aligned guilds of play options with this) you would give huge advantage for good aligned people fighting in this mayhem, vs all evil aligned people because they couldn't damage each other, while evils could.
A flagging system fixes this. Again, it's a choice that tends to make you evil, but if you want to kill friendlies, that makes sense.
The only way to deal with this is to enable friendly fire for all alignemnts on Syndesia and Tartaros (keep it turned off for Arboreus), and then let people deal with those few "friendlies" (which aren't really friendlies then) that would deliberately stand in their line of fire, by (watching where they are shooting first) and if that's not enough, then using social mechanics. Guild kicks, alliance breaks, refusing to trade with them, and everything else that goes along with it.
As I already pointed out, that's not the only way to deal with it.
Also, since flagging hostile is a choice, I'm a lot less worried about someone then standing in your fire to mess with your karma.This is sandbox, let people deal with people, instead of having mechanics completely diminishing play style options for almost everyone, just to keep few people happy (people that would dislike getting few minus karma points by occasionally hitting same alignment player).
A "few people"? Based on what I've seen of MMO populations, the people who like being evil are the few, and they'll chase away everyone else, if allowed.
Really, to use your argument, we should be corralling the people who like being evil as much as possible on Tartaros, to prevent them from lowering the population!
Without friendly fire, intra-alignment skirmishes and fast surprise attacks, just aren't possible, which would bring this (potentially great) sandbox game down up to the point of not being playable for most people that love PvP.
I disagree with your conclusion. But, a flagging system would allow things like intra-alignment skirmishes and surprise attacks.
And activating friendly fire only for evil alignment (but not for good) would bring a huge disbalance in mass combat.
That would require two evil-aligned guilds that don't want to hurt each other, but want to flag up as hostile in the same battle. I'd consider that a job for an alliance system.
Allow them to be allies, and thus not be able to hurt each other. Problem solved.Now that would be on Syndesia. On Tartaros, maybe they'd just need to deal with it.
By not having friendly fire we can just play a game without PvP then, with just voluntary pre-triggered GvG... because that's how it will really feel like. Like another PvE MMO. (But I guess that's what you would like, it's why you are asking for this.)
If I wanted a PvE MMO, I wouldn't be playing Albion Online.
-
You know, stepping back from this discussion, I've noticed something intriguing. I see the three planets this way:
- Arboreus: (mostly) peaceful PvE
- Syndesia: structured, territorial PvP
- Tartaros: free-for-all, anything-goes PvP
Gothix, Alexian, and company: you've already got a planet designed your way! What you're actually advocating is making Syndesia more like Tartaros! And that would remove player choice, and make the game more uniform.
I suppose, however, I shouldn't be surprised that Demons from Tartaros are already invading Syndesia.
But the knights of Syndesia shall stand fast against the demonic infection!
-
@Roccandil you claimed that evil aligned players are at advantage because they have more options, and less restrictions then good aligned people in their play.
I'd strongly disagree with that.
-
Lets start with good aligned people being able to effectively play on (and explore) all 3 planets, while evil aligned people can effectively play on only 2 planets (and very restricted on small part of Arboreus, for short time frames).
-
Good aligned people can gain knowledge points from all 3 planets, while evil aligned people can't gain knowledge points from most of Arboreus (it's just not possible).
-
A large number of good guilds will have their guards auto attack evil players on sight, and NPCs refuse to trade them. Only smaller part of evil aligned guilds will give such order against good players to their guards, because they want to attract good aligned people actually coming to their cities, so players can personally have more PvP. (OK, this is just my educated guess, so you can disregard this point, even though I believe it's pretty solid assumption ).
First 2 points are already a huge deal, and disadvantage evil aligned player play options a lot. If you would additionally add good aligned players immune to FF on Syndesia, that would effectively crush evil alignment a LOT.
I also disagree with your premise that good alignment play style should be rewarded by game mechanics, while evil alignment play style should be "punished".
It's not "wrong" to be a person that likes to play evil aligned character. It's just a different playstyle, and not a "worse" one.
You need both alignments healthy populated, or game will surely fail.
-
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil you claimed that evil aligned players are at advantage because they have more options, and less restrictions then good aligned people in their play.
I'd strongly disagree with that.
-
Lets start with good aligned people being able to effectively play on (and explore) all 3 planets, while evil aligned people can effectively play on only 2 planets (and very restricted on small part of Arboreus, for short time frames).
-
Good aligned people can gain knowledge points from all 3 planets, while evil aligned people can't gain knowledge points from most of Arboreus (it's just not possible).
-
A large number of good guilds will have their guards auto attack evil players on sight, and NPCs refuse to trade them. Only smaller part of evil aligned guilds will give such order against good players to their guards, because they want to attract good aligned people actually coming to their cities, so players can personally have more PvP. (OK, this is just my educated guess, so you can disregard this point, even though I believe it's pretty solid assumption ).
First 2 points are already a huge deal, and disadvantage evil aligned player play options a lot. If you would additionally add good aligned players immune to FF on Syndesia, that would effectively crush evil alignment a LOT.
I also disagree with your premise that good alignment play style should be rewarded by game mechanics, while evil alignment play style should be "punished".
It's not "wrong" to be a person that likes to play evil aligned character. It's just a different playstyle, and not a "worse" one.
You need both alignments healthy populated, or game will surely fail.
Imo the best way to make evil balanced with good is, if you steal and dont get caught you dont suffer a kama loss, if you get caught you do.
Same for murder if you murder someone and no one sees you should get away with it.
Always used to piss me off in elderscrolls I could murder somone 6 miles away and the guards would just know I was being bad lol
-
-
beastkin/good karma will only have 30 minutes on Tartaros just like demons/bad karma will have on the beast planet. both ends of the karma will have 30 minutes to pvx and/or explore. we'll need a few spawn locations on each planet so that it's possible to learn as much as we can and unlock as much as we can.
the gods are always watching. i consider Karma a system of the gods.
-
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
beastkin/good karma will only have 30 minutes on Tartaros just like demons/bad karma will have on the beast planet. both ends of the karma will have 30 minutes to pvx and/or explore. we'll need a few spawn locations on each planet so that it's possible to learn as much as we can and unlock as much as we can.
But good aligned players can use this time to travel the full extent of Tartaros (of course, in repeated travels).
Evil aligned players can not visit most of Arboreus at all (as soon as they cross border of large "safe zone", planet will kill them). So basically evil aligned players can only visit small percent of Arboreus land mass.
