Dynamic of city conquering conquering mechanics people involvment (albion errors )


  • TF#8 - GENERAL AMBASSADOR

    The biggest mistake of albion online is that it as an mmorpg with no mmo content let me explain better so our devs not make same mistakes

    The entire game (territories) concerning territorial warfare is based on 5 vs 5, the problem is when you have a 250 man guild as my guild eXploited was, there was no way to get everyone involved, for some reasons:

    1. Equipment for be competitive was very costly and crafters had limited amount of focus points for craft high stuff cheaper so all was going to the gvgers
    2. Even with multiple gvg teams maximum you could get 20-30 people involved, the other 230 have nothing to do beside baby sit the gvgers going to the territory, escorting them back etc
    3. the territories conquered itself mainly where useful to the gvgers since their real value was the high end resource that you where getting there once a day (again a close circle system that only provided gameplay for a selected few)

    The few times you could do zvz in big numbers the game was laggy, messy, and beside looting the opponents there was no real gain for the alliance or guild, even when you conquered a castle the stuff you where getting from the chest was only useful for the gvgers or to be sold becouse there was only a few items high level so no way to make happy 50 ppl who took part of it.

    The only real good mechanic that everyone liked was the hellgate, you where finding hellgates around the world, kill a mob, enter the gate, and you where getting teleported in a dungeon where 90% of time another group of 5 was gettting in too, You killed the enemy team in a fair and kinda agreed pvp full loot, kill the mobs, the final boss, chest of loot etc.

    so hopefully there will be a hellgate mechanics, i really suggest it becouse it was one of the few mechanics that majority of people in albion liked.

    For the problems i mentioned, i suggested in albion to make zvz events like castle provide a bonus for everyone involved not just few selected, In the sense that if an alliance conquer a castle all the people in the zone who partecipated get xp, gold or items, this will promote the people to be present, conquer it, defend it etc. In albion even the castle was only conquerable by 1 guild even if 10 guild of 1 alliance partecipated and only that guild was able to collect the chest.

    Hopefully this few hints will make our devs think about this dynamic and not repeat albion mistakes.

    Regards the city plot again was 5 vs 5, plus defender got incredibly and stupidly high defensive bonus that even the worst guild was able to defend against top one making city plot not changing hands beside politics and metagaming, and again was only a 5 vs 5 so you where sending your best players instead be a guild effort. 20 vs 20 or whatever. At the end the guilds who took the city plots at game start kinda holded it until the end of the guild itself, some even had 2 and one was empty and was impossible to conquer.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @vicious albion had a lot more problems then this... but you right the main issue was that a lot of people grind endlessly just for a few players, and there was no options for someone that want to play without a massive exploiting guild.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    If you let everyone join a siege open world those with more players will achieve it. best thing to make it skill-based is to lock the fight like 50v50, 100v100. they coud put a dynamic number for example if a guild defending the city is small like 25/50 players they could limit the fight to 5v5 or 10v10 and so on.. bigger the defender guild is bigger will be fight. Also zerging is not a solution. There is nothing fun.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @finland that is a bad idea !! limiting the number of players that can join a fight will result (same as in albion) 2 groups: gvg fighters and non gvg fighters. this will result once again in a bad way to play...
    leaving the players to bring all the people they want will be much better, since players that will see they can't win a big guild, will make alliances....
    and one more idea that will definitely work, make getting more players in a guild exponentially harder, like you need more payment for bigger halls and stuff like that...



  • @finland I don't like zerging either, but I don't think there should be a player limit for sieges. I'd rather see anti-zerg builds or other mechanics to counter them. I also believe if small guilds want to stand a chance against larger guilds then they should be making alliances and not rely on arbitrary game mechanics to stay competitive.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @vicious

    Fractured will have Asteroids which will be procedurally generated content. How this works, we don't know but this is how DS will reuse the procedurally generation outside of the planets we have.

    I'd assume the ownership of the land/castle was more valuable than the contents of the chest.

    ArcheAge had castle sieges but were limited to 50v50, iirc. This allowed more people to enjoy the content. However, it also put a requirement of guilds needing 50 people online at the time of a siege. If Fractured could code in a Mercenary sub-set of a guild then it could allow small guilds to recruit outside help without inviting them into the guild.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @jetah mercenary or just a few small guilds in alliance.... there should be, IMO, no limit for big fights.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @grofire said in Dinamic of city conquering conquering mechanics people involvment (albion errors):

    @jetah mercenary or just a few small guilds in alliance.... there should be, IMO, no limit for big fights.

    only problem I can see is when one guild or alliance becomes the biggest and starts to conquer everything. This happened in Eve Online a few times. People hate being on the losing side with zero chance to win so they'd join the big zerg guild just to be winners all the time.

    if sieges are capped at a player limit then it's harder for one guild to 'own' everything.



  • @jetah said in Dinamic of city conquering conquering mechanics people involvment (albion errors):

    only problem I can see is when one guild or alliance becomes the biggest and starts to conquer everything. This happened in Eve Online a few times. People hate being on the losing side with zero chance to win so they'd join the big zerg guild just to be winners all the time.

    Presumably the counter to that would be the smaller guilds building alliances. Unless the big guild is 60% of the server population, there should be enough people to stop them.

    As far as I know, one coalition in Eve has never owned all of nullsec. How did they get stopped?


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @target

    they were broken up by the developers hidden as regular players. they created strife within the alliance so it would break up.

    problem is you get to a point where the big alliances have the resources to produce gear faster than smaller alliances. big alliances also have more numbers against smaller alliances. So more players and more toys usually means they'll win. I know some minor exceptions exist but on average...


  • TF#8 - GENERAL AMBASSADOR

    @jetah upkeep, in a scaling way, more you own more it cost to a point where owning too much is pointless, this created in eve the "renting alliances"

    if you look the eve political map of 2009 few entities owned almost everything., after 2012-13 it was more fractioned with many more "minor" entities dividing the space.

    eve devs made a mistake when they introduced the cyno system, on the orbital stations (pos) with cyno generators, cyno jammers, jump bridges that made defence and lostigic too easy, so even a small alliance with such easy logistic was able to handle much space.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @vicious said in Dynamic of city conquering conquering mechanics people involvment (albion errors ):

    eve devs made a mistake when they introduced the cyno system, on the orbital stations (pos) with cyno generators, cyno jammers, jump bridges that made defence and lostigic too easy, so even a small alliance with such easy logistic was able to handle much space.

    that's how should be. If you stop small guilds/clan they will quit. The game should be fun for both sides.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @vicious ya that what i said too, this way the game is the most immersive it can be, and there is no huge guild or alliances, but you still don't force people to even fight.


  • TF#8 - GENERAL AMBASSADOR

    they forced too many of this mechanics, hellgate where fine all rest was ripetitive, gvg, arena hg city plots , expeditions all was 5 vs 5


  • TF#7 - AMBASSADOR

    I honestly hope there is a modest guild member cap for this reason.
    In Albion everyone would remember the alliance run by Gluttony - can't remember the name of it but I remember him.
    It had thousands of people who, when asked, could zone out an entire region and generally were the "pests" you had to deal with at every hotspot.

    They weren't often skilled or well armed but large numbers cause issues for smaller groups.

    I'm all for unlimited open world PvP BUT put a cap on guild member numbers (which I think they're doing?)

    [EDIT] and NO alliances - let's be honest they were more trouble than they were worth


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @mimi I do not think hard cap is good in a game like this, there should be an upkeep, a cost for every member added to guild or alliance, and this upkeep should be exponentially.


  • TF#7 - AMBASSADOR

    @grofire That would also work! Anything to stop one guild taking over all the resource rich areas simply because they have the numbers.


  • TF#6 - DIPLOMAT

    Oh man I remember that from Albion Online that was so annoying


Log in to reply
 

Copyright © 2020 Dynamight Studios Srl | Fractured