How big should guilds allowed to be?
-
@Shivashanti said in How big should guilds allowed to be?:
@grofire wait there will be FF within groups and guilds on human and demon planet? do we have that confirmed?
something like that. it was posted by @Prometheus a while ago so i'm not sure if it's changed. basically there's zero advantage by demons as group/guild/alliance FF is on at all times while the Beast dont really have FF (on the fury planet). so an attack on the furies by demons means multiple negatives.
-
@Roccandil
Ah, I see. I haven't played since July (so the last 2 seasons). Glad to hear they finally make improvements in this regard.
About the realm-gate: I understand that in Fractured we can fast travel within the same planet* (but without items), so as long as you keep sets in multiple locations it will be alright. Imagine Albion being played only in the royals, but without blue and yellow zones - that's how I imagine it.
*source -> last point@grofire said in How big should guilds allowed to be?:
do not forget that, not like albion, there will be FF on human and demon planet, so doesn't matter what the size of the guild, too many people and they will lose.
That's a very stupid idea for a full loot pvp game which will bring a lot of frustration (in both pve and pvp). I mean, imagine being the tank and not only having to deal with whatever the mobs throw at you, but also dodge DD's skills. And I doubt that the biggest zerg will lose because the top guilds will soon figure out it's better to send people in waves.
In fact even in Albion you'd send people in waves because the maps had cap of 300 players -> https://i.imgur.com/jj8nwgo.jpg
-
I believe in limits, I'd just like to see them imposed in a more open way.. The more people you have, the higher the resource cost. The more territories you have, the more resource cost.. The larger the alliance, the more the cost..
Whatever limits are to be imposed, please do so in a logical way that doesn't hinder the immersion.
-
@Vortech said in How big should guilds allowed to be?:
I believe in limits, I'd just like to see them imposed in a more open way.. The more people you have, the higher the resource cost. The more territories you have, the more resource cost.. The larger the alliance, the more the cost..
Whatever limits are to be imposed, please do so in a logical way that doesn't hinder the immersion.
the problem is with more members you have a better chance of getting more resources. it'd have to be exponential cost as the guild level increases (assuming 5 or so levels with each level adding 50-ish spots).
-
@Vortech I believe resource costs doesn't matter at all when you just steamroll everything in a big zerg.
-
Instead of guild size, let's limit them by guild weight?
<Slim Pickens Guild> LFM must weigh under 125lbs?
-
One other method is allow FF inside a guild, and have no CAP on member number.
Just keep FF off in raid formation.
So basically guild can come with 4 raids, inside raid there is no FF, but different raids will do FF to each other, and will need to strategize.
-
@Jimbolini
that's a good one
-
@Jetah said in How big should guilds allowed to be?:
the problem is with more members you have a better chance of getting more resources. it'd have to be exponential cost as the guild level increases (assuming 5 or so levels with each level adding 50-ish spots).
It's more then resources, think food, think currency.. Whatever the choice in the end, the pace or the time to produce should be balance to outpace simply more bodies. In AO, a select few are tasked with the food production and each guild must find a balance. Where AO lacks is that it does not increase the burden as the guilds/alliances grow.
@Shivashanti said in How big should guilds allowed to be?:
@Vortech I believe resource costs doesn't matter at all when you just steamroll everything in a big zerg.
By resource cost, I'm talking about food.. maybe silver.. Not raw resources.
-
@Vortech
It's not correct to compare food in Albion (20min buff, everyone can grow the raw resources safely on their island and it takes 5min/day) to that in Fractured (you die when you starve).
How about silver - the result is taxes being raised by 5% or so. Instead of putting an artificial limit where it becomes unprofitable to maintain a big guild, better have a hard cap because the first scenario can be cheated: a big guild (think BA in Albion) can have multiple alt guilds whose members only join the big guild on important events.
Also, again, FF between party members / guild mates is a very bad idea. Hard cap on number of players is the best scenario.
-
Depends on how much "survival" will Fractured feature when it gets released.
With a bit more focus on survival, a big zerg (without resources, because people will be weight limited) could starve or freeze to death in night without shelter, and die, loosing all their gear in the process.
-
@Gothix said in How big should guilds allowed to be?:
Depends on how much "survival" will Fractured feature when it gets released.
With a bit more focus on survival, a big zerg (without resources, because people will be weight limited) could starve or freeze to death in night without shelter, and die, loosing all their gear in the process.
Would love it if we could use tactics, like starve the enemy out.
Massive enemy guild hold up in its castle freeze the water source and stop supply wagons so the guild has to leave its castle to fight or starve to death
-
If food becomes to the point you start dying from starvation then this game is not for me. I don't want real world mechanics in a game that's supposed to be fun. I don't want to be spending all my time working to stay alive. I want time to explore, build and just have fun.
I don't want mechanics that will allow jerks to cause problems within my guild so I don't want friendly fire between guild mates unless they can turn it on and off or goto an instanced battlefield where they can pvp. I want consensual combat between friendlies. In fact, I want to limit as many mechanics as possible that can lead to griefing. In real life I would have more tools in my arsenal to deal with these kinds of people. It's called the law and it comes with its own set of punishments. I can't get that kind of justice in a game. So when you are thinking guild hopping and griefing is just part of a game I say bs. It doesn't have to be. I shouldn't haven't to vette a new guild member as if I was hiring someone for a top secret project.
Anyway those are my rants on some of the subjects in the thread lol.
-
@Farlander i see most of it similar to you, but the survival aspect isn't really that high. in the last test we just had to eat something all 30 mins or so and that's totally fine since it is easy to obtain.
-
@Razvan said in How big should guilds allowed to be?:
@Vortech
It's not correct to compare food in Albion (20min buff, everyone can grow the raw resources safely on their island and it takes 5min/day) to that in Fractured (you die when you starve).
How about silver - the result is taxes being raised by 5% or so. Instead of putting an artificial limit where it becomes unprofitable to maintain a big guild, better have a hard cap because the first scenario can be cheated: a big guild (think BA in Albion) can have multiple alt guilds whose members only join the big guild on important events.
Also, again, FF between party members / guild mates is a very bad idea. Hard cap on number of players is the best scenario.So food is also used to feed territories and buildings in AO. Food in relations to territories are valued by their nutrients per weight as the have to physically be run to the tower. Food in regards to buildings is all about the favorite food multiplier.. In AO food running is a strategic thing, managing the resources, the farmers, the cooks, and the distribution are pretty serious at the higher levels.
Regarding silver, the point would be that it becomes unprofitable.. Larger guilds can generate more silver but if the cost outpaces the production then you have an indirect form of cap not some artificial cap. The larger the numbers, the higher the costs.. Is the juice worth the squeeze?
AO already has cooldowns to prevent guild, alliance hopping.
-
@Farlander said in How big should guilds allowed to be?:
in a game that's supposed to be fun. I don't want...
That's the thing
different players consider different things fun and not fun.For you one thing is not fun, for someone else that exact thing is fun, and something that you consider fun isn't fun for other person.
-
@Vortech said in How big should guilds allowed to be?:
So food is also used to feed territories and buildings in AO. Food in relations to territories are valued by their nutrients per weight as the have to physically be run to the tower. Food in regards to buildings is all about the favorite food multiplier.. In AO food running is a strategic thing, managing the resources, the farmers, the cooks, and the distribution are pretty serious at the higher levels.
Ah yes, I forgot about that. However, I disagree with your sentiment about how important the food is: territories generate a lot more energy (silver-wise) than what you'd pay for to feed it, which means that literally they pay for themselves (ignoring the other advantages they give, like protection and SP). The problem that remains is the fact that you have to transport the food and it's heavy. The guilds I've been in have weekly trade run CTAs so players can safely transfer their gathered resources from territories to Caerleon. Well, on the way to the terries you are empty anyway so you can pick food from Caerleon to feed the towers. All in all, I think the tower feeding is more about creating a huge need of food to keep the economy running than anything else.
Regarding silver, the point would be that it becomes unprofitable.. Larger guilds can generate more silver but if the cost outpaces the production then you have an indirect form of cap not some artificial cap. The larger the numbers, the higher the costs.. Is the juice worth the squeeze?
So, at this point why not have a hard cap because it's the same thing, but your idea can be exploited.
AO already has cooldowns to prevent guild, alliance hopping.
Yet gvgers still merc a lot.
It's hard to compare this system to Albion due to their map limitations, but let's say Albion's guild system changes so a guild is profitable up to 40 members and there's FF inside alliances but not inside guilds. I can imagine MG asking their alt guilds members to drop guild and join the main 2 days prior to the reset day. Why would people stay in the alt guilds? For the same reason they do now: a chance to be in the top guild when a spot opens.PS: I haven't played Albion since august, so my information is 2 seasons old. I heard that now SP is shared among alliance guilds. Did this break the big alliances?
-
@Gothix You're right. One thing may be fun for one person and not another. Those proclamations I made I said were for me. If you played Life is Feudal for a month you would know where I'm coming from lol. Some people do like to be tortured while they play. I'd suggest that game for them. Myself I'm trying to steer the progression of this game's development away from those aspects that are not fun for me. Selfish maybe but that is the reason why I'm here; to help progress this game into something I enjoy
-
Im guessing devs will simply focus on different things on different planets.
PvE players will not be able to force more PvE on demon world and PvPers will not be able to force more PvP on beastmen world.
And humans will simply have it balanced in middle.
-
With the requirements to fulfill from the knowledge tree though you will have both sides complaining about each area lol.
