The Tides of PVP
-
@eurav said in The Tides of PVP:
Well, but I expect there to be a member limit... just like in every other mmorpg...
Also we still don´t know how sieges work...And... every city has a value
And... just like there are people who would want to join the best guild, there are also those who do not want to...@whisper said in The Tides of PVP:
maller guilds joining them so they don't get theirs destroyed
Cities can´t be "destroyed", they can only be claimed / overtaken. But I guess you coult take a city and then kick every player out, which will make the city go back to a hamlet, or even the thingy before that, so destroying is kinda possible...
Well, I doubt anything I say is going to change your mind, so I will stop here.
We don't know the limit though. It's possible it is 100, it's possible it is 500. Ah, if you were trying to change my mind that would be a problem. We don't know the details so my mind is not set, "This will be a problem and the game is DOoommedd" is not the message I hope I set out.
My message is, "This is a constant problem in SandBox games that are based on PVP with the ability to build/take cities. How can we fix the problem before it starts?".
I would agree with setting a player limit on guilds is a viable option for that. Far simpler than the two I suggested as well.
-
@whisper said in The Tides of PVP:
We don't know the limit though. It's possible it is 100, it's possible it is 500. Ah, if you were trying to change my mind that would be a problem. We don't know the details so my mind is not set, "This will be a problem and the game is DOoommedd" is not the message I hope I set out.
My message is, "This is a constant problem in SandBox games that are based on PVP with the ability to build/take cities. How can we fix the problem before it starts?".
I would agree with setting a player limit on guilds is a viable option for that. Far simpler than the two I suggested as well.Yeah I see, sry about that
I mean you are right, and are more experienced than me in this, and obvisously it could still be that one guild owning a few "main" cities could give them a huge advantage.
I have not yet seen a game without a guild member limit so I kinda assumed we would have one
And I am also very confident in the devs to have thought about this issue, seeing as it seems like they put a lot of thought in other issues.
But yeah, the "main problem" is that we don´t really have enough information.
The biggest thing for me is how Sieges are going to work, hopefully we will get an insight into this soon enough
-
Well it would also help a little if guilds knew that snowballing like that would directly hurt the game. So if someone sees it happening they should use that to drum up a war effort.
-
@lovechildbell
Eh, in my experience they already know it defeats the game experience for non-guild members. And that's the point.
-
I think in large scale-wise, as other people have mentioned, there are several mechanics to prevent your worries from happening. However, I believe that there is absolutely no function on the small scale to stop this from happening.
Open world full loot PVP games always ends up getting dominated by one side after a while because you're literally losing your stuff. It is difficult for one little guy to play his game on his own unless he always hides in safe zones because he WILL get ganked by big bad demons when he decides to be brave and visit a different planet. I think this is a huge reason why games like Albion easily decline. Runescape is simply old school for some people, but honestly I hate full loot garbage really. I will give this game a try and see if they really deliver their "novel" experience.
-
@Eurav
We know that the guild member cap is determined by the amount of cities owned and is potentially limitless. Even if the guild member cap was hard and finite, you would still have groups creating multiple guilds and using alliances to hold all their members. To prevent that you'd have to somehow come up with incentives or deterrents strong enough to outweigh the benefit of having a huge alliance, which I've never seen done successfully.I haven't really seen anything that convinces me that huge alliances controlling everything on Syndesia and Tartaros isn't a possibility.
-
@target said in The Tides of PVP:
@Eurav
We know that the guild member cap is determined by the amount of cities owned and is potentially limitless. Even if the guild member cap was hard and finite, you would still have groups creating multiple guilds and using alliances to hold all their members. To prevent that you'd have to somehow come up with incentives or deterrents strong enough to outweigh the benefit of having a huge alliance, which I've never seen done successfully.I haven't really seen anything that convinces me that huge alliances controlling everything on Syndesia and Tartaros isn't a possibility.
The guild limit seems like it would almost encourage the snow ball effect. But it also gives a pretty good incentive for guilds who want to expand cities as well which is good.
I kind of like my Emergency situation where the game would give incentives for other guilds to rally against a guild that is getting too big/taking too much and rewards them for succeeding.
Or a soft reset (in a way) where if a guild controls too much of a planet 80%+ of land claims or major cities? And no one can take them down on that planet then trigger an event where the other planets are allowed to stay on that planet but can only engage with that said guild so they have to consolidate their forces on what they want to keep and the three planets can attempt to reign them in power wise in a PVP free for all. Then after wards give them a bonus/buff/reward for accomplishing that feat so even though they might lose a lot they can still count themselves as a winner for triggering the event (Kind of a, "We won the game" kind of moment without needing a server reset).
I guess my second idea is kind of complex but I think it would be a fun way for everyone to break apart a strong grasp on power. My first idea (stolen from civ 6) might work but it can also just not work at all.
-
@pluto so they intentionally destroy the game?
Edit: herp derp grammar
-
Well surely there will be a battle royale mode for those that get frustrated with other pvp modes
-
@lovechildbell
It's not really that they want to destroy the game, rather they get an ego trip by being the best. You really don't know people if you think they'll disband their organization just because they're dominating a server/world. If you can't achieve world domination in real life, next best thing is in a game apparently bahaha.
-
@pluto I'm not saying to disband per say but more throwing fights, allowing time for others to catch up, back room politics and drama as some way to splinter a group into smaller chunks
-
@lovechildbell said in The Tides of PVP:
@pluto I'm not saying to disband per say but more throwing fights, allowing time for others to catch up, back room politics and drama as some way to splinter a group into smaller chunks
You are a good person. I see what you are saying. I agree with Pluto though. What you are suggesting isn't the way I ever seen a guild on the verge of dominating a game acting. In fact it is the complete opposite. Once a guild/alliance has a clenched fist on a game normally it strengthens and others tend to be the ones that splinter under the pressure while the ones on top get stronger from it.
It's why I am proposing a way to offset a guild in total control. Or maybe it's not possible, but it is still worth discussing in my opinion.
-
@whisper I just don't see any other way other then making the game less sandboxy and no one really wants that, thou it may have to be something we tolerate if people are just gonna kill the game
-
@lovechildbell
Maybe. There's also the point of making it exponentially hard to control more land. For example, owning 1 unit of land takes x effort. Owning 2 units of land is x^2. 3 x^3. Etc. Balanced as necessary. How that's done in actuality... beats me. I'm not the game designer
Could be implemented through resource cost, people required for defense... who knows
-
@pluto that still puts it on the "its impossible" side of things
-
Maybe, maybe not. If owning an entire world required 100,000 players and all their resources... I'd say it's pretty impossible.
-
In my head the best option will always be limit of guild members, I do not see a better option than this to make things more balanced, because even if a strong guild appears and dominate several territories the limited members will be scattered to be able to protect everything and they will be at a disadvantage if they are invaded.
-
@meninodeouro said in The Tides of PVP:
In my head the best option will always be limit of guild members, I do not see a better option than this to make things more balanced, because even if a strong guild appears and dominate several territories the limited members will be scattered to be able to protect everything and they will be at a disadvantage if they are invaded.
What prevents "soft alliances" of guilds? I saw that sort of thing all the time in World of Tanks (feeder clans, etc.).
-
When people play the game, most of people don't care about others, but only about their own progress. This is reality. Accept it.
Guilds will chose alliances if it suits them, if they have advantage due to it (as simple as that). If they gain nothing from it, or if they lose from it, they will not.
This is why solution is to tie all the spoils of war to a single winning guild, not able to be shared with other guilds. Invent rewards that are bound to guilds that win. Some guild (horizontal) progression, that only winning guilds get.
Then limite guild member number to 150-200 and voila. You will have no alliances. Unless 2000 people will want to be slaves for 200, working for progress of those 200, and abandoning their own. And I really doubt that they will want that.
-
@chrightt said in The Tides of PVP:
Open world full loot PVP games always ends up getting dominated by one side after a while because you're literally losing your stuff. It is difficult for one little guy to play his game on his own unless he always hides in safe zones because he WILL get ganked by big bad demons when he decides to be brave and visit a different planet. I think this is a huge reason why games like Albion easily decline. Runescape is simply old school for some people, but honestly I hate full loot garbage really. I will give this game a try and see if they really deliver their "novel" experience.
Albion has 99 reasons to decline, but this is not one of them
