Posts made by Roccandil

@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

That's an all-or-nothing argument, but this is a question of risk management. Friendly fire and collisions represent mechanics at high risk for griefing in an MMO.

Personally, I don't believe the cost is worth any benefit they might provide.

It’s not an “all or nothing argument” lol. It’s merely a fact.

There is absolutely no way to completely prevent griefing as long as Fractured is multiplayer and includes PvP content.

As I see it, you're arguing that because griefing can't be eliminated, there's no reason to not have friendly fire (or collisions). That's an all-or-nothing argument.

Simply saying, however, that griefing can't be eliminated is irrelevant to my argument. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and you'll spend the first 30% of your time solving 70% of the problem, and the remaining 70% of your time solving the remaining 30% of the problem.

Friendly fire and collisions are low-hanging fruit. They're in the first 70% of the problem, and not using them eliminates a great deal of potential griefing (as well as development time and cost).

Again, this is risk management basics.

Now, as regards your spat with @Gothix, I’m sorry to say he’s right: no one on OUR side of the debate has insisted that their “rules” apply to all three planets. I share his respect for various play styles and also don’t want to impose my views of PvP onto Arboreus.

I reject your premise; at best, it's an assumption and a strawman. I'm planning to PvP on Syndesia and Tartaros (and Arboreus if need be), and I'm arguing for what I want to see in PvP.

Farlander and I have just as much right as you to do that.

Trying to manipulate us into the perception of being "PvE-only players wanting to impose PvE everywhere", well, let's just say, that's not true. I hope that wasn't deliberate.

@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

Dude, that's -you-. If his posts are a demand to make the entire game his way, so are yours.

You should consider that writing lies isn't a strong argument.

What I wrote is that I like the way this game is developed atm. 3 planets with different rules, allowing everyone to play how he likes in a certain zone. Nowhere have I asked for changing rules on Arboreus, to turn the safe zone off (even if I would personaly prefer to play without safe zones completely, but I respect the whole gaming community enough, to not ask for a full PvP world).

So please, don't write an obvious falsehoods as an argument. I respect the current plans of developers to make different planets with different rules so many people can play same game together, and still be able to enjoy it.

As I see it, you're conflating rejecting friendly fire and collisions in PvP with wanting carebear PvE rules everywhere. I suppose I could also call that conflation a lie.

I want to play on Syndesia and Tartaros, and I -don't- want friendly fire or collisions in PvP. Ever.

@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

Wow, way to twist what Farlander said! You've definitely lost rep with me.

What else to say to a person that's demanding an entire game to be made how he likes? All 3 planets. Completely disregarding (may as well say disrespecting) all other players that want to play this game.

Dude, that's -you-. If his posts are a demand to make the entire game his way, so are yours.

Rather, I just see another player with an opinion, to which he is entitled. In no way do I see his posts as you see them.

@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

What was said is that the only way to eliminate griefing or the possibility of griefing is to play games that don’t involve interaction with other players or allow PvP, which is indeed a fact.

That's an all-or-nothing argument, but this is a question of risk management. Friendly fire and collisions represent mechanics at high risk for griefing in an MMO.

Personally, I don't believe the cost is worth any benefit they might provide.

@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want to see friendly fire and collision. There are too many ways to exploit those game mechanics to grief. I haven't seen much in the way of resolving those problems other than "deal with it this is a hardcore game not meant for carebears".

You should read the thread posts before replying then. I wrote a solution (used by MMOs already) couple of posts up.

Sounds like a clunky solution to me! I wouldn't want to play that way.

@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

In that case read a bit about the game before posting in the forums. You have an entire planet where noone can "killy you willy nilly".
And if you want an entire game (all 3 planets) to be made to your own personal liking (PvE mode), completely disregarding other peoples desires, then you are not even worth discussing with.
Remember, you are not developing this game, you are just a single player wanting to play it, among thousands others. And if you continue this path, demanding an entire game to be made "how you like" you aren't going to have much rep among gaming community, so you may as well go play a solo game.

Wow, way to twist what Farlander said! You've definitely lost rep with me.

@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

There is a very simple solution for collision issue, that many MMOs are already using.

Player collision exists (NPCs can be excluded from this to prevent abuse), and works full time (even in cities), however, if you want you can activate sneak mode where your movement becomes slower, but you can "pass through" the crowd.

Slower movement makes sense, realism wise, you are pushing through and thus moving slower, and also makes sense so there is a drawback with that mode so people wouldn't just have it activated full time.

So if at any time someone "boxes you" near mailbox "for the lolz" you can just activate sneak mode and move away.

Sounds annoying!

@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

They already can. Leaving the alliance at a critical time will do exactly that.

That shouldn't be your only recourse and requires the presence of someone with the UI permissions to drop out of the alliance at the appointed time.

Imagine, if you will, at the Red Wedding - arguably the ultimate betrayal/false flag in contemporary fiction - Walder Frey had to put "The Rains of Castamere" on loop because he had to unfriend Robb Stark from Facebook, change his banners, and get written permission to shank him first.

No, the whole point about alliances is that they should be tenuous if you don't put in the work and that even then there's no guarantee of anything.>

Why? Honestly, an alliance is an alliance. If it's modeled in-game, I see no good reason to be able to attack each other. Otherwise, it's meaningless. If you don't want alliances supported in-game at all, and have them be unofficial, so be it, but I'd much rather have them supported.

The problem I see is that you're thinking tactically, not strategically, about friendly fire and betrayal.

How so?

You only get one shot at betrayal. If I were going to betray an ally, I wouldn't worry about dropping tags, perms, and surprising a zerg: that's small potatoes, even if I win the battle.

Rather, I'd maneuver my "ally" into a strategic position that I could then exploit to utterly destroy them. Never do an enemy a small injury, and all that.

And in that sense, an official in-game, no-friendly-fire alliance helps me, because it raises a false sense of confidence.

Maintain, I can see that, negotiate, definitely not. That is, negotiation should be entirely up to the players; the game shouldn't intrude on that process. Once an alliance has been agreed upon, however, I want the game to enforce it (include any appropriate maintenance).

Yes, that's precisely what I mean: the players should be able to negotiate the style and nature of the alliance. AO treats "alliances" like one-size-fits-all empires with lord-vassal relationships.

In AO, the whole lord-vassal thing seems to me largely inconsequential. No one is forced into an alliance, which means you can enter an alliance on your terms.

I agree.

You say that... and yet disabling friendly fire will make it much, much easier for alliances to gain and retain control. They won't have to worry much about battlefield tactics and positioning; critical betrayals by allies will be telegraphed and much harder to pull off.

Again, you're enmeshed in mere tactics. Remember, you can only betray someone once. Make it count at a strategic level!

Absolutely. Disabling friendly fire in no way hurts that. Again, the kind of friendly fire you're talking about is minor, and suited mostly for griefing.

Not at all. Enabled friendly fire will compel guild and alliance military leaders to consider positioning and tactics much more carefully than OMG SWARM 'EM AND DROP AOEs HAHAHAHAHAHA KEEP CLICKIN TIL THEY'RE DEAD. They'll also have to wonder if their ostensible allies can and will betray them at a crucial point in the battle.

Zerg tactics in AO are not mindless clickfests, and I'm actually impressed at how much is involved in running and calling a successful zerg.

It would hurt -far- more if I were depending on Ally A to guard my back from Enemy B in a protracted war while I fought Enemy A on a different front, and Ally A decided to join my enemies. Friendly fire is entirely irrelevant to that level of betrayal.

They dovetail.

In your scenario, imagine Ally A has the option to actively attack you during the battle because of secret negotiations and arrangements with Enemy A. But, irony of ironies, unbeknownst to them you have negotiated a clandestine truce with Enemy B, who's tired of Enemy A's shenanigans, and they come to your defense when you're betrayed by Ally A!

And lo, no one has to pause to drop out of an alliance UI and telegraph the damn thing in advance. My suggestion only enhances your scenario.

Not interested. Besides, if you really want to implement a tactical betrayal, dropping tags is fast and easy to plan for (it's a button click!).

I started with F2P, and my journey through Albion thus far has been quite interesting. I haven't felt choked at all by the alliance system, and I've seen all kinds of dynamic and exciting political culture.

I started when the game launched in July 2017.

And you may not be choked because your philosophy has been, by your own admission, to join bigger alliances for endgame content.

Speaking of...

I don't have a problem with smaller guilds joining alliances to experience endgame content. I actually like how easy Albion's system makes it for a new guild to get in on the action and start learning.

I don't have a problem with that either. But smaller guilds shouldn't feel compelled to do so because it's impossible to dislodge the "big dogs" due to the game's mechanics.

Who said compelled? Besides, I don't expect a brand-new guild to instantly be able to participate on their own in endgame; I'd think that would disappoint me in any game.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and all that.

You do understand that that's how TBI, our mutual alliance, was formed, correct? Members of SUN, one of the most powerful guilds in AO, specifically formed a guild and alliance because it wasn't really feasible for most guilds to get a taste of endgame content under the extant system. TBI was sponsored and patronized by SUN's leader, Franksinatra, until the others got it up and running.

And even then, they had to pay a mercenary GvG team to gain any traction. When that team bounced, TBI was screwed.

I see this as the developers attempting to improve the game, while keeping accessibility to large alliances intact for players and guilds. That's their decision, and I can understand it.

That's a heck of a spin!

But that's how I see it.

These updates occurred because AO's system made it virtually impossible to challenge and dislodge big alliances. Per AO's own staff:

The Future of Guilds, Alliances and Outlands
The most universal feedback we received focussed on limiting the influence of large alliances and the ability of new guilds to compete in the territory ownership gameplay in the Outlands.

Yep. And it makes sense. To compete with the veterans, at a minimum, you need a big pool of players, you need experienced shotcallers, you need organization, and you need top-tier players with depth of top-tier gear to do GvGs (which by definition excludes new players).

The experienced people who can provide that are already in big alliances. A brand new alliance of brand new guilds shouldn't be expected to compete with the big dogs, and frankly, I wouldn't want them to be able to.

On the other hand, I'm all for there being enough territory that the veteran alliances can't take it all. But that's more a question of scale than system.

To be honest, I really don't like how black zones work, but not because of big alliances (or lack of friendly fire). It simply doesn't feel like home.

I can't link to my personal island there, there are no real markets there, and it simply "feels" like Caerleon and the royal cities are the actual home areas. I go into the black zone for war or resources, but despite territories changing hands, and home plots, and resource plots, there's no real feeling of city-states there, and I always come back to the royal continent to do my real business.

If I were to change AO, that's the first thing I'd look at: encouraging people to shift completely into the black zone. Let people move islands to home plots; maybe allow home plots to be grown into actual cities, or something, while making it harder to project power. (Allow deep expansion, as opposed to broad expansion.)

Maybe a guild could only own a home plot and adjacent territories, which would allow more guilds to own territory. At that point, I might drop GvGs entirely and consider balancing alliances within the context of a long-term world (like EVE Online).

Don't think I'd ever go for friendly fire or collisions, though!

@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

Dude, I feel like you're crediting the Albion alliance system with far too much innovation. I really don't understand your fixation with it!

Because Albion is the most immediate and relevant reference for the kind of system I’d like to avoid. I never claimed they invented it.

To me, the basic functionality of a game-supported alliance is the following:

• You can't attack allies

Additional functionality would be:

• Ally NPC guards will support you
• You can enter alliance-controlled areas
• You gain access to a central alliance chat

Nothing innovative or complicated there, and that's basically how alliances in Wurm Online worked, for instance. No limit I ever found on alliances, either; Wurm Online simply didn't have enough population to create the problems Albion Online has faced.

Albion’s system, among other problems, has enabled a painfully small handful of organizations to rigidly control the game since it launched in July 2017.

Hmm. That doesn't fit my observations. Not even counting guilds, there's a -lot- of room and gameplay for a lone wolf. Sure, a few alliances may control the black zone, but that's not controlling the entire game.

Actually, I just counted, and while it's a bit difficult due to the interface, I counted 12+ different alliance flags owning territory in the black zone. Yeah, there's a big dog or two, but that's to be expected. (And, in all honesty, the AO black zone seems very small compared to the single Fractured continent we've seen so far.)

This is indisputably bad. It’s not good. It doesn’t promote a dynamic and exciting political culture for aspiring guilds and alliances. It is the very definition of, “you can’t beat ‘em, better join ‘em!”

I started with F2P, and my journey through Albion thus far has been quite interesting. I haven't felt choked at all by the alliance system, and I've seen all kinds of dynamic and exciting political culture.

It suggests to ambitious but smaller guilds that they need to join the problem rather than fight it in order to, borrowing your phrase, “experience endgame content.”

I don't have a problem with smaller guilds joining alliances to experience endgame content. I actually like how easy Albion's system makes it for a new guild to get in on the action and start learning.

No guild or alliance or coalition should ever be so powerful or secure that devs have to impose GvG seasons and territory resets to wipe the board clean every month, or double the size of conquerable land and create hideouts for smaller guilds specifically to allow smaller guilds a chance for glory.

I see this as the developers attempting to improve the game, while keeping accessibility to large alliances intact for players and guilds. That's their decision, and I can understand it.

That’s what happened with AO lol. I’m not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the problems and the desperate corrective efforts that SBI has gone through to try to fix things.

I've seen no desperation in SBI thus far, nor have I seen an utter monopoly on the black zone. Yep, there's a big dog or two, but they don't own everything, and I've seen alliances and guilds collapse and others form.

The situation doesn't seem static. It may not be ideal, but what is? And the situation does seem to be improving.

The irony is that if AO were truly that unpopular, the alliance system wouldn't be a problem. AO is a victim of its own success; I suspect its alliance system would do just fine with a significantly lower population. I see it as a scaling issue, not a fundamental flaw.

In short, "No one plays Albion Online any more, it's too crowded!"

Respectfully, that’s a spurious argument!

Albion Online saw major freefalls in player population multiple times throughout its 2 year run. It went F2P in April in order to bolster an exceedingly low player population.

"Exceedingly low" probably means something different to you than to me. I played on the Epic Wurm Online cluster for a couple years, in which an average player count of 30 in the entire world meant something was happening.

The fact that the game is relatively populated now doesn’t refute the fact that its alliance system is highly criticized by many players and guild leaders, is a subject of two major threads in the developer statements subforum, and has prompted many conciliatory gestures by SBI.

Alliance size is unlimited. That would be an easy fix, and SBI has clearly chosen to not go there (yet). I can see reasons for that; as I said, they seem to be trying to make room for smaller guilds without putting a direct restriction on alliances.

So again I reiterate: alliances in a Fractured should be difficult to maintain. There should always be the viable threat of betrayal and intrigue and deception.

If the developers want to limit alliance sizes, that's their business. On the other hand, alliances will always be limited by human factors.

As I said, I've seen alliances dissolve, guilds fall apart, coups, theft, schism, general drama, etc.: and none of that had anything to do with in-game alliance restrictions. (I feel like I'm agreeing with Gothix! )

Conquering and maintaining sweeping territory should be exceedingly difficult and grueling and prompt major considerations by alliance leaders, “is this worth it?” That’s what happened with empires and coalitions in the real world and so should it be here.

That would be logistics, which I'm all for.

It should be virtually impossible for zerg guilds and alliances to rule the game as they do in AO.

But the Mongols were an OP zerg guild! (OK, I'm teasing. )

The benefit to claiming fiefs doesn't need to be money; it could also be prestige. Nearby claims would thus be a kind of suburbs of a town, contributing to its prestige gain.

If money were indeed the object, I imagine an appropriate money sink would be guild/alliance upkeep. That would need to be balanced, of course, to prevent snowballing, but one way or another, the fundamental idea here is to make active claims worth fighting over on Syndesia (without directly affecting the actual claim owner/builder).

That would make guild territorial ownership more than simply owning towns, and thus territorial warfare would have many soft points to contest, instead of the much harder (and rarer) fortifications of a town.

I see an ever-shifting territorial map, for instance, in which you can see guild ownership of towns and house claims, and in which house claims on the borders change hands frequently. I think that would be really cool.

@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Roccandil

so melee dps doesn't exist? i'd love to see a type of melee healing!

Melee DPS does exist, although they do seem to get killed more often. In multiple events I've seen it posted "ask the shotcaller if you want to bring melee DPS".

Melee healing, not so much (not in AO). In Wurm Online you had to be pretty close to heal someone, though. AoE wasn't nearly so powerful there, however; melee DPS was the thing.

Actually, Wurm Online was a little silly in that you could be DPS/tank/healer/melee/archer/priest/sorcerer all at once. There were no classes (outside priests, which only contrasted with crafters); you could be nearly everything at the same time.

@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

Allies should be able to betray and kill allies.

They already can. Leaving the alliance at a critical time will do exactly that. The problem I see is that you're thinking tactically, not strategically, about friendly fire and betrayal.

Alliances should be difficult to negotiate and maintain.

Maintain, I can see that, negotiate, definitely not. That is, negotiation should be entirely up to the players; the game shouldn't intrude on that process. Once an alliance has been agreed upon, however, I want the game to enforce it (include any appropriate maintenance).

It should be very difficult to conquer and maintain large empires.

I agree.

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.

Absolutely. Disabling friendly fire in no way hurts that. Again, the kind of friendly fire you're talking about is minor, and suited mostly for griefing.

It would hurt -far- more if I were depending on Ally A to guard my back from Enemy B in a protracted war while I fought Enemy A on a different front, and Ally A decided to join my enemies. Friendly fire is entirely irrelevant to that level of betrayal.

@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

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.

Fair enough. Then we’re definitely gonna be at long term odds.

I’ll continue to push back on suggestions that Fractured mimic Albion Online’s wildly unpopular and game killing alliance system that has incited major criticism and required aggressive corrective attempts by their developers.

Dude, I feel like you're crediting the Albion alliance system with far too much innovation. I really don't understand your fixation with it!

To me, the basic functionality of a game-supported alliance is the following:

• You can't attack allies

Additional functionality would be:

• Ally NPC guards will support you
• You can enter alliance-controlled areas
• You gain access to a central alliance chat

Nothing innovative or complicated there, and that's basically how alliances in Wurm Online worked, for instance. No limit I ever found on alliances, either; Wurm Online simply didn't have enough population to create the problems Albion Online has faced.

The irony is that if AO were truly that unpopular, the alliance system wouldn't be a problem. AO is a victim of its own success; I suspect its alliance system would do just fine with a significantly lower population. I see it as a scaling issue, not a fundamental flaw.

In short, "No one plays Albion Online any more, it's too crowded!"

@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.

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).

@Gothix

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...

@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.

Occurred to me it might be cool if Syndesia house plots represented potential income to guilds. Each claimed plot could generate X fiefdom income per day, but the income wouldn't be taken from the occupant (it would just be an ingame fountain).

Guilds could claim the fiefdom income from the plots (or the owners could declare for a guild), and guilds could fight over the claims on the fiefdom level, making Syndesia even more about wars for territory. (This would in no way affect the actual owner/builders of the claim; a war could rage over their plots, and not affect their plots in the least.)

If the income for a plot rose as it was developed, it might even be in a guild's best interest to help the locals.

@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!

@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.

@Bardikens said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

Alts are a strong problem in hardcore games and should be HEAVILY discouraged. I agree there is the potential for some exploitation, but hopefully through the processes mentioned above it would be minimized.

From what I've heard so far, Fractured encourages alternate toons:

1. With the right starter pack, I believe you can have up to nine on a single account
2. The attribute/knowledge system is designed for a new toon to be powerful out of the box

Alternate accounts may be discouraged, but that's of limited help here, I suspect.

I think you raise some good points, but without friendly fire what's to stop these battles from just becoming Albion Online battles?

To answer this question, I would hypothetically remove AoE from the equation in Albion. Say you've only got direct fire attacks/buffs/heals/debuffs. Does that automatically remove the enormous benefit of getting there firstest with the mostest?

I think the answer is obviously no. So, if there is a problem with alliances in AO, it isn't AoE. The real problem would be the ease of massing players.

But in all fairness, it's not that easy to mass a zerg in AO. An alliance is merely a wide net from which you might get a small percentage of people showing up with the right gear. The logistics of equipping a zerg day after day isn't easy, either.

(Zerg tactics are more than just laying down AoE, as well: the approach to the objective matters; do you come in a visible blob, or do you try to sneak parties in separated, and hide them in a dungeon? What terrain do you set up on? How do you organize information flow between your different parties (since party size is maxed at 20)? Do your zerg members have a properly scattered battle formation so the effect of AoEs will be diminished?)

All that is to say, logistics is my answer to balancing the power of hegemonic alliances:

• Difficulty of travel is one logistical problem: the harder it is to travel, the harder it is to project power.
• Supply is a historical problem: an army travels on its stomach. Not an issue in Albion; possibly an issue in Fractured, we'll see.
• Another historical problem is information: it's hard to coordinate across an entire planet (much less multiple planets). Since we're playing on the internet with effective light-speed comms, this can only be abstracted as a cost of making and maintaining an alliance.
• For much of history, fortifications made the cost of assault too high, which led to lengthy sieges. MMOs seem to want sieges to be relatively easy, however, which I think is a mistake. The higher the effective defenses of a city, the harder it will be to project power, and the more options smaller guilds will have, since they won't need to be in a massive alliance simply to survive.

And those are just some examples.

-Note that I'm just engaging in a friendly debate here and ultimately our discussions are healthy and bring perspective to the developers, so please don't think I'm attacking your opinion or anything. I just happen to be on the more hardcore side of the debate with these things.-

Roger that.

Having said all that, I'm against friendly fire, and I think it's a superficial solution to a deeper issue.

@Bardikens

AoE griefing is a kind of double bind:

1. If there is no penalty for hitting friendlies with AoE damage, you can deliberately kill/damage otherwise protected players without penalty.

2. If there is a penalty, you can stack penalties on innocent players by deliberately entering their AoEs to take damage.

I also suspect that any serious penalty effects would be bypassable by creating temporary griefing alts (and that may be especially easy in Fractured).