What challenges should guild alliances face?
-
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
not a video but here's some comments on it;
https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/post/49262from last year, answer by Prometheus https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/post/26697
Thanks boss!
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil - you raise some good points about the considerations a zerg might make before the fight starts, but that doesn't quite refute @Bardikens' point that when the battle actually commences, it usually becomes a numbers and AOE game.
Take away AoE entirely, and it's still a numbers game. If I wanted to improve Albion's alliance system, the ability to mass numbers is where I'd hit it. I'd leave AoE/friendly fire alone.
Also, the more I do zergs, the more it looks like friendly-fire AoE would primarily affect tanks, since they have skills specifically designed for them to deliberately jump into piles of enemies to pull them together and lock them down for AoEs. (If your DPS or healers are in AoE range of your tanks, you're probably doing it wrong!)
Friendly fire simply doesn't make sense to me in that context (all griefing aside). You'd need to rework the roles of tanks, which would have a cascading effect on the entire game balance.
-
Without weighing in on game mechanics like AOE/Friendly Fire, I want to answer the post question from another angle...
The thing about Game of Thrones Ascent that long-time players miss most now that GOTA has ended is the Alliance vs Alliance phases that occurred at regular intervals. Phases lasted various lengths of time (24hours to 7 days) and were always being tweaked by devs to make them fairer & more exciting.
Each phase had overall winning alliances and players - points accumulated by succeeding at attacks against rival alliances, but players could use a wide variety of attacks (fight, harrass, steal, swindle, sabotage...), as well as actions that supported friendly alliances (barter, repair...). Garrisons in alliance camps defended against actions, but troops lost effectiveness as they got wounded, and eventually died and needed to be replaced or resurrected at cost.
There were prizes for alliance eminence in the various types of actions that changed phase to phase - so, a particular phase might have special rewards for the Swindlers or the Sabs or the Skirmishers - so different playing styles all had a way to enjoy themselves (something Fractured gets, which I truly appreciate!)
Not sure how this would map onto Fractured, but the introduction of AvA phases was a complete game-changer in what had been up to that point a fairly generic 2d RPG/Builder game with fabu graphix. I had never before played an online game for more than a few months, but played GOTA for over 6 years and there's still a fb page full of ppl in mourning, looking for a similar experience and not finding it anywhere.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil - you raise some good points about the considerations a zerg might make before the fight starts, but that doesn't quite refute @Bardikens' point that when the battle actually commences, it usually becomes a numbers and AOE game.
Take away AoE entirely, and it's still a numbers game. If I wanted to improve Albion's alliance system, the ability to mass numbers is where I'd hit it. I'd leave AoE/friendly fire alone.
It's a numbers game in the sense that numbers are the difference with all things being equal, but this obfuscates the fact that without AoE, things like hemming and bridge defenses and bottlenecking would be more than just initiation tactics. We know there will be AoE in the game, so we can't assume these fully, but making people consider unit positioning, movement, logistics and when and how to use reinforcements and their AoE abilities SHOULD be an important part of a hardcore game that is horizontal on the power scale.
Also, the more I do zergs, the more it looks like friendly-fire AoE would primarily affect tanks, since they have skills specifically designed for them to deliberately jump into piles of enemies to pull them together and lock them down for AoEs. (If your DPS or healers are in AoE range of your tanks, you're probably doing it wrong!)
This is really a fault in game design that revolves around mobas. While Fractured has an isometric perspective, it will utilize a more action-based combat and would hopefully negate the need for the traditional triad in that regard. There's nothing that i know of that says the game will focus heavily on CCs either, which is another gameplay flaw that mobas tend to over-utilize.
What we need in Fractured is more regimental style play that relies on lines and movement (since there may and SHOULD be unit collision) that mirror battles moreso from antiquity than a dogpiling mess where tanks can run through opposing lines with little thought to their own safety.
Friendly fire simply doesn't make sense to me in that context (all griefing aside). You'd need to rework the roles of tanks, which would have a cascading effect on the entire game balance.
And friendly fire is the only thing that makes sense to me. Ive played Albion since beta, played Archeage, played LoL, Smite, Heroes, etc., so I understand where you are coming from.
Albion is a good example here because it is forced to do what it does because of poor decisions made in development. Say what you will about their Alliance system, but their Alliance system is pretty much the sole reason why the game died twice, why the Outlands were expanded, and why seasons were implemented with catchup mechanics to help smaller guilds. Nothing else could break the monopolies and nothing still has to this day (though now new ones form in the expanded areas). You can enjoy the system and it is not wrong to do so, but it should stay faarrrrrr away from any other game that purports itself to be hardcore. Having an alliance should be hard. You should have to deal with people and ideas and tough decisions. It shouldn't always be a vassal relationship like it is in Albion. It shouldn't dictate who you can or can't kill or betray in-game arbitrarily (I'm willing to concede this up to the guild level, but no further).
In conclusion, I feel that friendly fire is the only option, at least when it comes to alliance members (you could probably argue for protection in a group if the group had a fair cap). There's simply no need to copy a failed system and just see if it works when we can instead demand people to think harder, do more, and really fill the niche of field generals. This will both utilize your idea of limiting battle size by making people deploy their units strategically and have them ready (since allies cant just mob in) while also still allowing AoE to be a tool utilized by the groups (with more caution being exercised).
I think you had the better argument when you were discussing griefing, because at least then conceits and considerations would need to be made when implementing friendly fire adjustments.
And on a less serious note, I hope you are having a great start to your week.
-
@Bardikens speaks troof. Albion's devs have had to do a lot of work in the desperate hope to upset an otherwise unyielding status quo. Their system sucks and SBI knows it.
As Fractured nears completion, it will draw attention from bigger gaming communities and multi-game guilds who will seek to do what they've done in Albion and other games like it.
Fractured has to be different in order to have different outcomes. Problems and challenges should scale. Coordinating zergs effectively should be much, much harder than coordinating 5-10 people. AOE attacks should not be the end all be all for combat, able to be spammed with impunity such that the group with the biggest number of AOE spells is the one who wins 99/100 times.
Alliances should be incredibly risky, requiring that participating guilds do their homework and make concerted effort to maintain positive diplomatic ties. Allies should be able to support you, ignore you, betray you, and attack you based on the strength of your relationship. They should not be de facto mega guilds that are invincible and can't be uprooted or challenged barring internal disintegration, as they are in AO.
This game sells itself on being a hardcore experience. Let's keep it that way!
-
@Bardikens said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil - you raise some good points about the considerations a zerg might make before the fight starts, but that doesn't quite refute @Bardikens' point that when the battle actually commences, it usually becomes a numbers and AOE game.
Take away AoE entirely, and it's still a numbers game. If I wanted to improve Albion's alliance system, the ability to mass numbers is where I'd hit it. I'd leave AoE/friendly fire alone.
It's a numbers game in the sense that numbers are the difference with all things being equal, but this obfuscates the fact that without AoE, things like hemming and bridge defenses and bottlenecking would be more than just initiation tactics. We know there will be AoE in the game, so we can't assume these fully, but making people consider unit positioning, movement, logistics and when and how to use reinforcements and their AoE abilities SHOULD be an important part of a hardcore game that is horizontal on the power scale.
I see this in Albion already; I don't think friendly fire is in any way integral to the value of positioning, logistics, reinforcements, tactics, etc.
Also, the more I do zergs, the more it looks like friendly-fire AoE would primarily affect tanks, since they have skills specifically designed for them to deliberately jump into piles of enemies to pull them together and lock them down for AoEs. (If your DPS or healers are in AoE range of your tanks, you're probably doing it wrong!)
This is really a fault in game design that revolves around mobas. While Fractured has an isometric perspective, it will utilize a more action-based combat and would hopefully negate the need for the traditional triad in that regard. There's nothing that i know of that says the game will focus heavily on CCs either, which is another gameplay flaw that mobas tend to over-utilize.
The traditional triad is traditional because it works.
I'm not married to it, but Fractured is clearly heading that way with the varying race affinities and attribute caps (bears excel as melee tanks, deer excel as ranged DPS, etc.).What we need in Fractured is more regimental style play that relies on lines and movement (since there may and SHOULD be unit collision) that mirror battles moreso from antiquity than a dogpiling mess where tanks can run through opposing lines with little thought to their own safety.
I like the concept of unit collision in principle, but that has two huge issues for me:
- Griefing. (You can block/trap neutrals/friendlies just to give them a hard time.)
- Corner cases. By that, I mean simple, unintended annoyances that accompany collider implementations. Cities will become a huge pain (I'd hate to think of Albion's cities with collisions between players!
)
I also realize that while the zvzs in Albion seem like a dogpiling mess, I'm increasingly aware of order within them: a kind of law of the storm.
Friendly fire simply doesn't make sense to me in that context (all griefing aside). You'd need to rework the roles of tanks, which would have a cascading effect on the entire game balance.
And friendly fire is the only thing that makes sense to me. Ive played Albion since beta, played Archeage, played LoL, Smite, Heroes, etc., so I understand where you are coming from.
Albion is a good example here because it is forced to do what it does because of poor decisions made in development. Say what you will about their Alliance system, but their Alliance system is pretty much the sole reason why the game died twice, why the Outlands were expanded, and why seasons were implemented with catchup mechanics to help smaller guilds. Nothing else could break the monopolies and nothing still has to this day (though now new ones form in the expanded areas). You can enjoy the system and it is not wrong to do so, but it should stay faarrrrrr away from any other game that purports itself to be hardcore. Having an alliance should be hard. You should have to deal with people and ideas and tough decisions. It shouldn't always be a vassal relationship like it is in Albion. It shouldn't dictate who you can or can't kill or betray in-game arbitrarily (I'm willing to concede this up to the guild level, but no further).
In conclusion, I feel that friendly fire is the only option, at least when it comes to alliance members (you could probably argue for protection in a group if the group had a fair cap). There's simply no need to copy a failed system and just see if it works when we can instead demand people to think harder, do more, and really fill the niche of field generals. This will both utilize your idea of limiting battle size by making people deploy their units strategically and have them ready (since allies cant just mob in) while also still allowing AoE to be a tool utilized by the groups (with more caution being exercised).
I think you had the better argument when you were discussing griefing, because at least then conceits and considerations would need to be made when implementing friendly fire adjustments.
Calling Albion's system failed seems an oversimplification. As far as I can see, Albion is doing well, despite flaws and DDOS attacks, and they're making steady (if incremental) improvements.
Again, if there's a problem, it's simply that alliance size is unlimited; there's no penalty whatsoever to just stacking more and more guilds into an alliance. Experimenting with a maximum alliance size could help tremendously.
Maybe alliances could get around that by having unofficial members, but then players in those guilds could (and would) be ganked by the main alliance and vice versa (which seems to be what you're after). Plus, the big advantage to an alliance is protection from territory guards, and that wouldn't extend to unofficial members.
(That's actually another Fractured consideration: I want to be able to control whom my NPC town guards attack.)
And on a less serious note, I hope you are having a great start to your week.
Thanks!
-
I don't want friendly fire and I don't want collision with friendly players. I don't care if the game is mimicking real life. I play the game because it isn't real life. I've been in too many games where griefers just ruin them. They use the rules to their advantage to make the lives of other players miserably. Rules that were not intended to be used in the manner they use them. Then devs have to find work arounds because no one wants griefers in their games.
In real life a griefer would face consequences. They would be put in jail or even put to death. Devs can ban but rarely do players get banned for griefing because they were only using a loophole. If there is friendly fire dickheads will just go around killing their "friends" until they get booted from their guild/alliance. Then they will just hop around until someone catches on to their game. Even one incident can jeopardize an entire guild/alliance and ruin the fun for even more than the person they griefed.
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.
-
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
I don't want friendly fire and I don't want collision with friendly players. I don't care if the game is mimicking real life. I play the game because it isn't real life. I've been in too many games where griefers just ruin them. They use the rules to their advantage to make the lives of other players miserably. Rules that were not intended to be used in the manner they use them. Then devs have to find work arounds because no one wants griefers in their games.
Fractured purports itself to be a hardcore sandbox game that avoids many of the conveniences and shortcuts of other “sandbox/sandpark” MMOs.
In this regard, friendly fire and unit collision should NOT be out of the question.
In real life a griefer would face consequences. They would be put in jail or even put to death. Devs can ban but rarely do players get banned for griefing because they were only using a loophole. If there is friendly fire dickheads will just go around killing their "friends" until they get booted from their guild/alliance. Then they will just hop around until someone catches on to their game. Even one incident can jeopardize an entire guild/alliance and ruin the fun for even more than the person they griefed.
Let me be clear: I, too, am interested in mitigating griefers. As you rightly point out, in real life, consequences are such that most people are compelled to behave in good faith. Trolls and griefers on the internet are less inclined to do so and thus a hardcore sandbox game should take that into consideration and try to design the system to deter griefing as much as possible.
That can be done while also enabling friendly fire and unit collision. These things are not inherently mutually exclusive. So let’s discuss ways to achieve both goals instead of unproductively dismissing the possibility out of hand.
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.
I’m going to strongly push back on this part.
By your own logic, you should play one of the many games that allow large alliances to run unchallenged (like Albion!) instead of trying to make Fractured just like them.
Large alliances that are allowed to operate unfettered will chill games. That is a fact. That is why Albion Online’s devs were forced to implement GvG seasons, double the size of the Outlands, and proposed hideouts for smaller guilds... because large alliances were essentially invincible beyond the most extreme circumstances. If you go to AO’s forums, you’ll see that imposing restrictions on alliances is one of the most popular shared demands/requests from the game’s users.
Fractured is styling itself to be different and more hardcore and more thoughtful than games like AO. Fractured is a game that intends to make logistics, travel, distance, politics, and territory management and maintenance much more hands on and demanding than many of its peers. The reason for that is that it allows for more dynamic politics and keeps the game interesting instead of creating a system where a large zerg alliance/community can come into the game and own it forever.
So no, the solution should not be “you can’t beat them, better join them.” Large alliances and large guilds should be allowed to exist... but their problems and challenges should scale so as to keep them on their toes and allow meaningful possibility for them to be defeated.
Anything else is just a bad idea.
-
Fractured is not a game featuring modern civilization where police forces are superiorly organized and have modern technologies to hunt down criminals in super efficient way (hell, even today so many criminals go free...).
Fractured features medival style civilization where battle is led by using spears, bows and arrows and some magic. Guards move on foot or on horses, and large part of land is unexplored and uncivilized.
So if you want to compare consequences for criminals with RL world, do not compare it to the modern world law system and police force. Compare it with how efficient was dealing with criminals in medival times.
Also don't forget government corruption in those times as well, where often pursuing certain "criminals" even wasn't in the "government" interests.
Also by playing on Arboreus, you have a whole planet where you can't be griefed or even killed... and if you are asking for even more than that, well... lets not get into further details, but I think no more words are needed, in that case, to explain what this request is anyway.
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Fractured purports itself to be a hardcore sandbox game that avoids many of the conveniences and shortcuts of other “sandbox/sandpark” MMOs.
What are you basing this on? My impression was that the developers were designing a range of experiences. So, sure, Tartaros is hardcore, but I wouldn't class Syndesia and especially Arboreus as hardcore:
- Tartaros: hardcore free-for-all
- Syndesia: structured, lawful empire/warfare
- Arboreus: peaceful PvE
Honestly, I could see alliances working differently on all three planets. Since Arboreus players can't attack each other anyhow, I imagine alliances there would primarily be defense or trade related.
Since Tartaros is a free-for-all, maybe only the most simplistic alliances are possible there (suzerain/vassal).
On Syndesia, I'd love to see guilds able to negotiate guild-to-guild treaties and alliances with other guilds, as equals, more like real diplomacy. Interlocking webs of treaties could then be a thing.
-
Arboreus can still be hardcore with some mad animals placed to roam there.
-
As long as they didn't eat newbies or destroy houses/towns.
The biggest mobs on the Epic cluster in Wurm Online regularly did that, because the population wasn't high enough to keep the big mobs in check, so it contributed to a vicious cycle of encouraging new players to quit...
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Fractured purports itself to be a hardcore sandbox game that avoids many of the conveniences and shortcuts of other “sandbox/sandpark” MMOs.
What are you basing this on? My impression was that the developers were designing a range of experiences. So, sure, Tartaros is hardcore, but I wouldn't class Syndesia and especially Arboreus as hardcore:
- Tartaros: hardcore free-for-all
- Syndesia: structured, lawful empire/warfare
- Arboreus: peaceful PvE
Honestly, I could see alliances working differently on all three planets. Since Arboreus players can't attack each other anyhow, I imagine alliances there would primarily be defense or trade related.
Since Tartaros is a free-for-all, maybe only the most simplistic alliances are possible there (suzerain/vassal).
On Syndesia, I'd love to see guilds able to negotiate guild-to-guild treaties and alliances with other guilds, as equals, more like real diplomacy. Interlocking webs of treaties could then be a thing.
I'm happy to clarify that I'm not and haven't been referring to Arboreus at all in any of my posts. I'm sure @Bardikens would be happy to say the same.
Arboreus is predominantly PvE and thus the PvP/guild warfare aspects will be much more limited than on Syndesia and Tartaros. So I'm fine if friendly fire is disabled on Arboreus and alliance rules are much more "carebear" in nature.
That said, I'm basing my assessment of Fractured as "hardcore" based on the various mechanics and limitations the devs are imposing on players. You won't be able to carry many heavy objects without a wagon and have to physically pick up and move lumber and stone. It currently takes 16 hours to cure a handful of leather pieces. City management entails more than merely staving off would-be conquerors and requires you to do more than give X gold to a random NPC, who does all of the upkeep for you. Talents and gear are more horizontal, emphasizing player skill and experience over vertical progression. Fast travel is minimal to non-existent.
In short, the emphasis on consequences and exploration and skill and management and overall effort as opposed to convenience and safety in 2 out of the 3 planets is what motivates me to call Fractured a "hardcore game."
This ain't RuneScape.
-
Hmm. Maybe I'm just used to Wurm Online!
"Grinding" equals "hardcore" to a lot of people, and Fractured is supposed to have a -lot- less grinding (if any).That's one of the main reasons it intrigued me.
At any rate, I remain staunchly opposed to friendly fire in any form.
I'm also opposed to unlimited alliance sizes (I like Gothix's suggestion).
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Hmm. Maybe I'm just used to Wurm Online!
"Grinding" equals "hardcore" to a lot of people, and Fractured is supposed to have a -lot- less grinding (if any).That's one of the main reasons it intrigued me.
At any rate, I remain staunchly opposed to friendly fire in any form.
I'm also opposed to unlimited alliance sizes (I like Gothix's suggestion).I’m happy for you to be staunchly opposed to friendly fire... on Arboreus where it won’t effect you.
Please don’t try to rule it out for the other two planets, which are more hardcore and could benefit from it.
-
@Gothix Are you saying in medieval society you could get away with murder and thieving? I think history would dictate a different response. You are trying to base your results for consequences on real life results. The game world does not replicate real life. In a game world people don't track down individuals that do wrong. A person that does wrong can go log out and that is the end of your trail. So I will say this to you, don't go comparing game world capabilities to real world abilities for finding criminals.
A game has to have a reaction for every action. If you commit a crime you are flagged. If you commit a crime a guard whacks you. I don't want you commit a crime and nothing happens unless another player does something about it.
@Alexian I would like you to explain to me how friendly fire will keep other players from griefing players in allied guilds? You can either do damage to friendly players or not all the time. Unless the game has instanced battle fields where that ruleset is turned on it is on all the time. So you can be walking in town and some dickhead allied player who decided he was bored with the game can come up and kill you unexpectedly. Guards won't do anything because he is your ally. So let's hear your fix for this problem. Boxing in (collisions) is the oldest play in the book for blue killing. Are you ok with a group of griefers going around just boxing in people for the hell of it? There are many players whose only fun is making others not have fun. These players don't get banned because they are playing with the rules of the game. I'd like the rules to stop this behavior. If you want to call me a snowflake go ahead. I'd then suspect youi are one of those players that enjoys making others upset
-
@Farlander game already works like that.
On Syndesia you get flag for being a thief and murderer, and depending on your flag, certain NPCs will react in different way to you (that includes guards) up to the point that good aligned cities (ruled by good guilds) may not even allow you to enter because guards will attack you on sight, and other NPCs will want nothing to do with you.
Arboreus is completely no PvP zone, noone can attack you even if he wants to.
And Tartaros, as a demon world is free for all, lawless world.
So if you can explain to me, what exactly are you complaining about?
-
About rules completely restricting players behavior, I have completely different opinion on that by the way.
Restricted games are boring games. The more freedom the game offers, the better, the more fun, and more possibilities for people to play with.
People that want complete safety everywhere, so that noone touches them, should honestly just play single player offline games. There are plenty of very nice single player RPGs.
Whoever wants to play online and share the world with other people, should realize that different people like different play styles, and world has to be made in such a way to allow that everyone can play in the way that he likes, and not that entirety of a game is made to one single players specific likings.
And devs are already doing great job about that creating 3 different planets with different rules. And honestly if Arboreus is not enough for you, as a whole planet that's peaceful, where noone can touch you, that's your own problem mate. I don't know what else to tell you.
On other 2 planets you can get killed and your "stuff" can be stolen. You will just have to deal with that risk if you will want to travel there.
-
@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Alexian I would like you to explain to me how friendly fire will keep other players from griefing players in allied guilds?
Well first, if I had it my way, in game alliance mechanics and UI would be very minimal. Alliances are relationships and would be treated that way. So if an alliance member attacked you
in proximity of your guild town, the guard would come to your defense because it doesn’t matter if your attacker is an “ally” on paper: he’s a player attacking a guild member in a zone protected by the guild’s guards.We’re told Governors will be able to adjust guard permissions for defense and patrol; designating who guards attack and who they defend should be among those customizable commands.
You can either do damage to friendly players or not all the time. Unless the game has instanced battle fields where that ruleset is turned on it is on all the time. So you can be walking in town and some dickhead allied player who decided he was bored with the game can come up and kill you unexpectedly. Guards won't do anything because he is your ally. So let's hear your fix for this problem.
You just did. Allies shouldn’t be “protected” from other allies because alliances should be carefully considered, negotiated, and maintained relationships between a number of guilds. If an ally tries to shiv or grief you in proximity of your guild’s NPC guards, your ally’s ass should be on the line and not magically protected.
Boxing in (collisions) is the oldest play in the book for blue killing. Are you ok with a group of griefers going around just boxing in people for the hell of it?
If you’re in a world or zone with unrestricted PvP and you’re surrounded by a number of hostiles without any allies, yes, you’re fair game.
There are many players whose only fun is making others not have fun. These players don't get banned because they are playing with the rules of the game. I'd like the rules to stop this behavior. If you want to call me a snowflake go ahead. I'd then suspect youi are one of those players that enjoys making others upset
First, I haven’t called you a “snowflake,” so settle down.
Fractured has three worlds that ostensibly cater to three gamer archetypes. From the tenor of your suggestions, your play style is more inclined for Arboreus. Again, I repeat: none of my suggestions have anything to do with Arboreus, where PvP is minimal and highly restricted.
I agree with you that the devs should impose protections and restrictions to prevent untrammeled griefing on Syndesia. As I have already said, you rightly point out that while in the “real world,” societal protections heavily deter the equivalent of real world “griefer,”, those protections don’t quite exist in a video game.
However, the only real way to completely remove griefing is to play a single player game. As long as Fractured is massively multiplayer and include PvP, there will always be means by which people can grief other players.
So the conversation should be about how to creatively allow for as free of a sandbox experience as possible while also coming up with ways to deter griefing without blowing away the sand.
Allies should be able to betray and kill allies. Alliances should be difficult to negotiate and maintain. It should be very difficult to conquer and maintain large empires. 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. This game should not be allowed to get lazy or boring.
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Hmm. Maybe I'm just used to Wurm Online!
"Grinding" equals "hardcore" to a lot of people, and Fractured is supposed to have a -lot- less grinding (if any).That's one of the main reasons it intrigued me.
At any rate, I remain staunchly opposed to friendly fire in any form.
I'm also opposed to unlimited alliance sizes (I like Gothix's suggestion).I’m happy for you to be staunchly opposed to friendly fire... on Arboreus where it won’t effect you.
Please don’t try to rule it out for the other two planets, which are more hardcore and could benefit from it.
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.
