What challenges should guild alliances face?
-
i also think the whole isometric view will be a problem for zergs too. Only so many people can fit on a screen, thus only so many can attack an object. then add in friendly fire with no-clip with line of sight projectiles hitting the nearest object, it'll be pretty hard to blob things.
-
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
i also think the whole isometric view will be a problem for zergs too. Only so many people can fit on a screen, thus only so many can attack an object. then add in friendly fire with no-clip with line of sight projectiles hitting the nearest object, it'll be pretty hard to blob things.
Player collision and friendly fire are indeed the most efficient ways to deter zerging.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
i also think the whole isometric view will be a problem for zergs too. Only so many people can fit on a screen, thus only so many can attack an object. then add in friendly fire with no-clip with line of sight projectiles hitting the nearest object, it'll be pretty hard to blob things.
Player collision and friendly fire are indeed the most efficient ways to deter zerging.
Yep. Imagine a scenario where a battle is being waged between two guilds, one smaller than the other, but the smaller guild is trying to hold a bridge or choke point and the larger guild has to find a way to breach it. Player collisions and friendly fire would make such tactical scenarios much more dynamic and exciting since both parties would have to be very, very judicious in their troop configuration, deployment, and management of the terrain.
As opposed to just being able to literally run right through the enemy and haul ass towards the target.
-
Setting aside collisions as a lag nightmare, a much larger guild will still be able to swallow up that smaller group holding the choke point:
- Leave a defensive force at the chokepoint, to spar and pretend to fight
- In the meantime, take another large group around the obstacle (I've seen very few, if any, single chokepoints on the Fractured map that couldn't be bypassed with a bit of walking)
- Hit the smaller force from two sides -or- force them to retreat (if they've done the smart thing and set up scouts to watch flanks)
- Profit!
@Gothix, @Jetah, and @Alexian:
I'm curious: where have you all seen evidence that friendly fire and collisions are actually a serious consideration for limiting the size of armies? I've never heard of that in the real world.
The bottom line is that the larger your army, the more options you have, even with friendly fire and collisions. I can't see those mechanics deterring zerging.
-
@Roccandil we didn't say "eliminate zerging". But they would certainly reduce it. And then in addition of some other mechanics, zerg can become more trouble then what it's worth.
And that is the goal.
-
combat will/should have a first contact, first damage. it was mentioned in the KS that a tank could intercept damage destined for other players. IF that system system is setup and the friendly fire has a limited amount of friendlies (lets just say it caps at 5 players in a party) then any other 'friendly' will get hit by said abilities.
when you bowl you can't hit the back center-pin first. you have to hit the front row first, either center or left or right. by these assumptions, it's logical that a group of 200+ can't attack a single wall or player. they'll have to attack the closest object which will be their own guild/alliance members. we may see more small group fights than zerg fights.
when i say abilities i also mean spells. i just didn't want to type it every time.
-
Logistic, enemy alliances, events, politics, and all that.
There's always the potential for big battles so long as the technology can support it... but the best way to have challenges affect such a group is through the all too neglected parts of games. Droughts, floods, goods transport, and so on can all be things that make challenges for people in game, and the large a group the more they would have to deal with such issues.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil we didn't say "eliminate zerging". But they would certainly reduce it. And then in addition of some other mechanics, zerg can become more trouble then what it's worth.
And that is the goal.
Hmm. I don't think friendly fire would reduce zerging (see below), nor is that my goal.
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
combat will/should have a first contact, first damage. it was mentioned in the KS that a tank could intercept damage destined for other players. IF that system system is setup and the friendly fire has a limited amount of friendlies (lets just say it caps at 5 players in a party) then any other 'friendly' will get hit by said abilities.
when you bowl you can't hit the back center-pin first. you have to hit the front row first, either center or left or right. by these assumptions, it's logical that a group of 200+ can't attack a single wall or player. they'll have to attack the closest object which will be their own guild/alliance members. we may see more small group fights than zerg fights.
when i say abilities i also mean spells. i just didn't want to type it every time.
Some ranged abilities (like magic missile), appear to rise over whatever is in front of you, Also, it would be silly if you couldn't do the same with archery.
Even so, all a larger group has to do is fire front-line to front-line. They will almost certainly have a bigger semi-circle, be able to focus fire better, and easily obliterate the smaller group (that's exactly how it works in World of Tanks, which has both collisions and friendly fire).
And unlike World of Tanks, where sides are actually even, a zerg will be able to cycle replacements into their line.
-
I'm increasingly persuaded much of the anti-alliance, anti-zerg sentiments I see here and elsewhere (Albion) are merely attempts to defeat dominance by changing the rules.
The problem is that dominant guilds and alliances tend to be dominant, not because of the rules, but because they're simply that good. As long the rulesets you throw their way apply equally to everyone, they're going to be the best. (Of course, it's standard human behavior not to like admitting that.)
As such, the only real way to cut them down to size is to get good.
(Of course, you could always try a Harrison Bergeron, but I'll be heartily opposed to that!)
-
As to limiting zerg sizes, one effective mitigation I haven't seen described yet is an anti-scheduling PvP philosophy.
For example, a huge part of assembling a zerg in Albion is knowing when to assemble it. Key PvP activities always happen at certain times that everyone knows in advance, thus maximizing attendance (everyone's ready for it).
For PvP activities that are -not- on a schedule (say, enemy mage raiders or gergs), it's much harder to assemble a zerg to counter the enemy. No one's prepared for it, fewer people are online, and those who are online are out doing other stuff already.
So, if you want to limit zerg sizes, one means of accomplishing that is to avoid creating in-game PvP schedules. (Of course, this really only limits response sizes; those on offense can schedule activities whenever they want. But, then that can be spied on.
)
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Hmm. I don't think friendly fire would reduce zerging (see below), nor is that my goal.
Your goal is not to reduce zerging? Well... i guess that explains a lot... lol
Personally i prefer where skills determine the outcome of the battles and not who brings 1000 players vs 150.
-
@Roccandil I disagree with the dominant group thing. Most games not only have them with numerical advantages (which is easy to see, and historically accurate, but makes for a terrible balance in games like this) but offer increased rewards for the results often further skewing the next results.
Put on a level field, things often change. Where some of the players might indeed be very good, the same is likely true of those who they were dominating with those advantages. In fact, those who were being dominated are likely as good or better on average, because they have faced hardships forcing them to attempt to improve.
That all is an aside to the entire debate on zergs otherwise, though. Creating good systems that don't punish players within games due to such advantages is a tough thing. At least for games with less vertical power curve we have more limited imbalances to address.
-
@Jairone said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Logistic, enemy alliances, events, politics, and all that.
There's always the potential for big battles so long as the technology can support it... but the best way to have challenges affect such a group is through the all too neglected parts of games. Droughts, floods, goods transport, and so on can all be things that make challenges for people in game, and the large a group the more they would have to deal with such issues.
Thanks for your contributions to the thread!
Those of us who support a politically dynamic Fractured agree with you: logistics should play a significant role in undermining casual power projection by guilds and alliances. It should be possible but extremely challenging for any entity to project and maintain power, especially across large distances.
Since Fractured is incorporating energy and hunger mechanics into the game, they will hopefully play crucial factors in a would-be conqueror's calculus.
@Jairone said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil I disagree with the dominant group thing. Most games not only have them with numerical advantages (which is easy to see, and historically accurate, but makes for a terrible balance in games like this) but offer increased rewards for the results often further skewing the next results.
Put on a level field, things often change. Where some of the players might indeed be very good, the same is likely true of those who they were dominating with those advantages. In fact, those who were being dominated are likely as good or better on average, because they have faced hardships forcing them to attempt to improve.
That all is an aside to the entire debate on zergs otherwise, though. Creating good systems that don't punish players within games due to such advantages is a tough thing. At least for games with less vertical power curve we have more limited imbalances to address.
You have the right of it!
As many of us have said in this thread, numbers (and greater numbers) should absolutely be an advantage in most situations. Though again, as was the case in the real world, there are military scenarios in which an army's greater numbers can prove to be a hindrance to them based on terrain and logistics.
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Hmm. I don't think friendly fire would reduce zerging (see below), nor is that my goal.
Your goal is not to reduce zerging? Well... i guess that explains a lot... lol
Personally i prefer where skills determine the outcome of the battles and not who brings 1000 players vs 150.
Skill and numbers should both be factors in an army's success or failure. Guilds and alliances should have the opportunity to bring greater numbers to bear against their enemy if they have that advantage, but there should be realistic costs and challenges to such an effort.
And adding player collision mechanics and enabling friendly fire could add additional factors into the field of battle, requiring more tactical deployment of forces, enabling scenarios in which smaller armies could use their enemies' greater numbers against them, and creating an altogether more interesting, dynamic, and unpredictable war framework.
(Though, granted - all that we suggested does require much greater skill, patience, and tactical acumen than what is needed to simply drown your enemy in a chaotic zerg and spamming AOEs with abandon.
)All in all, it seems that most people who've posted in this thread support examination and possible implementation of the proposals discussed, which is good. I'm pleased to see that so many players support ideas that will make the game more challenging and exciting for guilds and alliances and who wish to avoid the many pitfalls of Albion Online's controversial and highly criticized set-up that SBI is still struggling to correct after 2 years.
-
@Alexian i definitely agree on guilds not being hard capped in member size. And yes this is why logistical cost is so important to implement, and collision and friendly fire would add so much value.
-
A Compendium of Suggestions Part 1
By: Bardikens
Guys, over the past two weeks I have been working on a list of suggestions of things that I'd like to see in Fractured or in sandbox MMOs in general. This is basically a compendium of sorts that contains suggestions and ideas for some (not all) aspects of the game. The first couple of sections are about guilds and alliances, so I've decided to post them here so as to not double post in the forums. Each post will be divided by similar topic groupings and will have a link to the Google Doc with the entire document. This is only meant for discussion.
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qrD2MwlirFeuFF3U88XVUcvPa3yVbbslkbImYow0XJk/edit?usp=sharing)
(We are skipping the introduction piece which can be read in the full doc.)
Guilds in Sandbox MMO
What makes a guild?
Traditionally, a guild consists of groups of people banding together to do activities that would be challenging or impossible alone. They haven’t always been given status in games, but almost all games nowadays have methods to discern guild-mates from regular players, as we as game mechanics or UIs tied to being within a guild itself. In essence, these groups come to form the political groups of the game, the various polities that vie for control of some resource, race to be the top on the server, or exist solely for community benefit.
What should a guild look like in Fractured?
I think guilds in Fractured can follow the main curve of games in this respect. Guilds should be represented in the UI and should definitely come with benefits that outpace and incentivise the solo player to take part.
I would personally like to see:
-
Members lists - Common in games to show who exists and who is online in your guild.
-
Membership logs - Who joins and leaves within a certain period of time (24-48h is fine).
-
Ranks/titles that, even if they are for flavor only, can be fully customized.
-
If there is a centralized monetary fund of some sort (a la the guild UI in Albion), then dedicated auditing logs as well.
-
Perhaps a system that allows guilds to choose what type of guild they are, allowing for special rules or bonuses (trade guild, nation, etc.)
Why?
I think guilds in the hardcore sandbox MMO are the lynch-pin to success and what set hardcore sandboxes awayfrom other sandbox games and even from themeparks. Guilds in sandboxes are in the unique position to alter the political landscape of the game, so much so that developers often have to make changes to baseline game design in order to shift the game towards or away from ends that guilds have forced their hands on. One problem unique to guilds in all video games is having to keep up with each individual member and what they can do in your guild.
If you have a guild with 50 members, 10 ranks, and each rank can do different things or are expected to do different things and, say, 2 towns, or even 1 town with many different buildings, that is a lot of micromanaging for the guild leader or the governor. While keeping it difficult to manage multiple towns or polities should be the goal, there should also be some way, while maintaining overall logistical difficulty, to take stock of what is going on in a particular guild or town. Most games do this, and I see no reason to change. The more customization in ranks, titles, and their powers the better in a sandbox adhering to some realism without selling the farm.
Alliances in a Sandbox MMO
What is an Alliance in a sandbox?
Sandboxes, like with guilds, are in a unique position to make politics a viable form of gameplay and empires a viable, yet difficult, goal. An alliance in a sandbox is basically two or more guilds who decide to band together, whilest remaining individual political powers, and sign non-aggression pacts, trade clauses and usually military alliances that see the pooling of resources for the greater good. Unlike in a themepark, the sharing of resources in a sandbox is paramount to the success of an alliance, as well as the furthering of a fledgling empire. This can cause some political drama and issues and in some cases, outright betrayal.
What should an Alliance look like in Fractured?
I think alliances in Fractured should be a prominent, but difficult to maintain force. There should be alliances, and they should have some representation in the UI. However, I think that it must stop in the UI. Other than perhaps noting who is in your alliance as you see them, there really shouldn’t be any in game benefit to having an alliance member standing right next to you.
What I would like to see:
-
Treaties of different value: Non-aggression pacts, trade contracts, defensive alliances, military alliances, and Military Access pacts, client-states and vassals(similar to the Total-War games). These should be noted in the UI, but are non-binding in game, i.e. the players aren’t FORCED to adhere to these rules, opening up the floor for political intrigue and scrutiny towards who is allowed to be in an alliance.
-
The ability to carry Alliance banners alongside guild banners on towns and in battle providing some small morale boost to nearby members.
-
The ability for individual members of alliances to betray their alliance at any time, necessitating good communication, subterfuge, and trust between all members.
-
The ability for vassals and client-states to be taxed by their vassal liege.
-
Alliance members who ARE NOT vassals of a guild are on equal political standing.
-
Alliance members SHOULD NOT be immune to friendly fire.
Why?
Alliances are political powers in sandbox games. Too often, though, they are not real alliances, but a vassal-liege relationship where one guild forms an empire of smaller guilds who pay tribute. This is usually enforced in game via immunity to friendly fire, allowing larger guilds and alliances to paste massive hordes together that, while choreographed, usually end with the bigger army crushing the smaller one.
In reality, alliance members are usually politically equal in terms unless some other deal has been made. In this sense, there shouldn’t be a “LEADER” of an alliance de jure, but obviously there will be de facto. What they agree upon is what decides their position in the alliance and those terms can change on a whim if either side is uncomfortable or find themselves facing greener pastures.
With regards to friendly fire, I think it is okay to leave guild members immune if necessary, but do not extend that protection to alliance members. This will force alliance members to strategize about how they will participate in a battle, and hopefully force alliance leaders to strategize and react in ways that are different than the typical “dog-piling” we see with modern zergs.
Ultimately, an alliance should be rewarding as long as the powers are playing their part. It should not, however, be automatically rewarding without great care taken by the heads of each of the guilds involved and should be the vehicle that drives the political intrigue that so many games lack.
-
-
Very nicely written @Bardikens
-
Excellent work @Bardikens!
Glad to see the suggestion doc is ready for release and discussion.
In addition to the stuff we already discussed, I wish to say again I support your call for a guild audit log that allows officers to track who has joined and left the guild within a reasonable timeframe so Discord permissions and such can be adjusted accordingly.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Hmm. I don't think friendly fire would reduce zerging (see below), nor is that my goal.
Your goal is not to reduce zerging? Well... i guess that explains a lot... lol
Personally i prefer where skills determine the outcome of the battles and not who brings 1000 players vs 150.
Bringing 1000 players requires more skill than bringing 150. Logistics, coordination, communication are all vital, and make managing 1000 players much harder.
@Jairone said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil I disagree with the dominant group thing. Most games not only have them with numerical advantages (which is easy to see, and historically accurate, but makes for a terrible balance in games like this) but offer increased rewards for the results often further skewing the next results.
Put on a level field, things often change. Where some of the players might indeed be very good, the same is likely true of those who they were dominating with those advantages. In fact, those who were being dominated are likely as good or better on average, because they have faced hardships forcing them to attempt to improve.
That all is an aside to the entire debate on zergs otherwise, though. Creating good systems that don't punish players within games due to such advantages is a tough thing. At least for games with less vertical power curve we have more limited imbalances to address.
Unlimited alliance size is already a level playing field. The truth is that equal opportunity almost never ends in equal outcome. In order to guarantee equal outcome, you must punish the best players.
If the rules are equally applied to all players, the best players will dominate. If you restrict alliance/guild sizes, the best players will concentrate, to the exclusion of other players (see World of Tanks).
And if you think that somehow helps newer players learn, well, see World of Tanks.
To aid learning, it's far better to spread out the best players through a population, instead of keeping them all together.
-
A few more things:
- This is a massive multiplayer online game. Zergs are a consequence of the massive nature of such a game. If you don't like zergs, why are you playing an MMO?
- Human factors are an effective limit to alliance sizes: personalities, drama, reward distributions, misunderstandings, and the panoply of human entropy weaken alliances the larger they get. Holding a huge alliance together requires a great deal of effort, all game mechanics aside.
- In the unlikely event that everyone decides to make one game-spanning alliance, the players will effectively be saying they don't like PvP, and they just want to play PvE. Instead, then, of trying to force something unwanted on customers via artificial limitations, I'd ask myself what is it about my PvP implementation that the customers dislike so much?
-
@Bardikens said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
I think alliances in Fractured should be a prominent, but difficult to maintain force. There should be alliances, and they should have some representation in the UI. However, I think that it must stop in the UI. Other than perhaps noting who is in your alliance as you see them, there really shouldn’t be any in game benefit to having an alliance member standing right next to you.
If there's no in-game functionality to alliances, I see no reason to have a pretty alliance UI that does nothing. I want in-game alliances to matter, and I agree with Albion's approach of not allowing allies to attack each other.
Having said that, I agree that the flat nature of Albion alliances (one leader, many members) is less than ideal (although clearly simpler to code and support). I'd rather see alliances be made individually, guild-to-guild.
That provides the following possible scenario which can't exist in Albion:
- Guilds A and B are allied
- Guilds B and C are allied
- Guilds A and C are not allied
- Guilds A and C are at war
- Tension develops between guilds A and B
That would tend to increase the pressure on the human factors of alliances, making sustaining a huge alliance that much more difficult (not to mention the extra paperwork of adding a new ally to every guild already in the alliance!
).That would also be more true to life, rather like the Byzantine web of alliances that existed before WWI.
One more thing: I could see Tartaros being as you say, with no real alliances at all. That fits its free-for-all nature. I think forcing that on Syndesia, however, would be a grave error.
