Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Guild Size Limits


Recommended Posts

I'm sure many people will balk at this idea, particularly among the larger guilds, but I think this could be a way to somewhat limit zergs and to make it so that extra accounts aren't so desirable compared to VIP.

 

Let's say that the large castle can support 100 players (growing food, amount of storage, etc.). So what if the max guild size was 100 unique accounts? Having an alt account for crafting would still be possible, but you would likely have to put the character in a separate guild. In the Shadow and Dregs at least, that would mean the account wouldn't get any share of the winnings. The player would also be subject to friendly fire from the other guild.

 

Really large guilds could create multiple guilds and form alliances, but they couldn't all actually be in the same guild and ultimately would be competing against each other for the win.

 

Maybe 100 isn't the right number. Maybe it needs to be 200. Maybe it needs to be 50. Whatever the number, I think having a hard limit would be beneficial.

 

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm sure many people will balk at this idea, particularly among the larger guilds, but I think this could be a way to somewhat limit zergs and to make it so that extra accounts aren't so desirable com

I'm not typically for more artificial limitations than necessary, so off the cuff I say "Why?".       So these were the two ideas I picked out that seemed to address the sort of 'why?' question I

We need more information about the guild/sub-guild system and how it interacts with the campaign mechanics (win/loss, import/export, kneeling, factions, building ownership).

I'm not typically for more artificial limitations than necessary, so off the cuff I say "Why?".

 

 

I'm sure many people will balk at this idea, particularly among the larger guilds, but I think this could be a way to somewhat limit zergs and to make it so that extra accounts aren't so desirable compared to VIP. 

 

Really large guilds could create multiple guilds and form alliances, but they couldn't all actually be in the same guild and ultimately would be competing against each other for the win.

 

 

 

So these were the two ideas I picked out that seemed to address the sort of 'why?' question I find inherently lending itself to the idea.

 

First: I do not see how this will limit zergs.  This will just encourage people to come up with alternative ways to get around the hard-coded limitation.  Also note that this will require additional coding, and could lead to potential bugs, etc.  I feel safe in assuming we all want the smoothest game experience possible.

 

Second: While it sounds lovely that larger forces would be forced to break-up into sub-units and compete, let's be realistic (with some insight gained from other games too)...  People love to come up with ways to work around, game the system, and so on.  So while you think X Y and Z are competing, what is really occurring is 'Main Guild' is designating who wins this campaign (say X in this example), and Y and Z (maybe A, and B, and C, or more too) are actually coordinating to ensure that X wins this round, and Y gets it in the next iteration, and Z gets it the time after that (or, if they are the a-typical gamers X gets it every time, because they are the "A Team"/favorites/leadership/etc.)

 

So perhaps I am just blind, but I don;t see this solving any issue(s), and makes more work for the devs, and potentially more bugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with multiple accounts. Let people buy the game twice or thrice, that's ok for me - more money for the company.

 

The biggest fear, as far as i can see, is that those accounts will be used to get more out of campaigns, by filling them with non-active puppets -- clogging campaigns for active players. Several design aspects of the game don't stop those ambitions - but they make them harder.

 

For example the physics engine will make multiboxing harder (several characters can't be in the same place - so aiming bot-like will be harder). And ingame orientations are designed to be full-time jobs (sure, you can play a fighting account and a crafting account - but do you have the time?). And ACE can adjust the numbers of players allowed to enter a campaign, to ensure that enough active player can participate. This will have to be tested and adjusted, and i am pretty sure that ACE will do so.

 

The one big flaw i see in your plan is that i expect "ancillary accounts" not to be played (a lot) actively and/or frequently and that your scheme is limited to the dregs.

 

People will be busy enough to play one account. So they won't be subject to friendly fire. And exept of the dregs, they will probably get "some" share of the winnings. But frankly, the more time you use to smuggle an ancillary actively into the other side, the more you endanger the probability that the side of your main account wins. You might place all your ancillaries on the side of your main. But then again it would cost you just time you could use more usefully by playing your main. I assume that in the end it is all the same -- meaning that people might choose not to trust their abilities to help their side win ... going the way of a self-fulfilling prophecy by weakening their own side. The results will clear their minds. 

 

As for the sizes:

 

The word was that ACE expects most guilds to be small or medium sized guilds. Between 20 and 40 if i remember it correctely. If this is still true, thats the base the foundations of the guild (and guild-fealty) systems will be build on. The last thing we heard was that there will be the possibility that guilds/groups will be able to kneel to other guilds/groups in the campaigns. And that there will be a hierachical guild/sub-guild system, working on several levels (sub-sub-sub-sub-guild). So ancillaries could just be part of such a sub-guild.

 

For a large castle the officially announced number of supported shops/players is 120. This number just can't be equal to the number of guild members. Just look at the number of houses on the very small hamlet parcel we can see in game. I didn't count them, but they are definitely more than the expected five supported shops/players. Adding to this, you will have to add those players who won't want to have a shop or house or specific rights. Multiply this with the possible numbers of strongholds in one EK and you will see that they can't be compared with guild sizes ("EK" because strongholds don't really matter in CW's in regard of guild sizes - there they are just strategical places).

 

tl;dr:

I think this is a nice idea. But i don't believe that it would make a real difference. Most important thing, in my opinion, is to make every job in game a fulltime job and to balance the risk and reward between using one or more accounts. Especially regarding the fealty hierarchy for guilds, i don't expect possible guild size limits to make any big design differences.

2W1ZHpA.jpg
EU-Support-Guild (no ingame management)
Join [CoR] (or any other guild) to get a 10% discount on the next game bundle you buy!
Join - Discord Channel 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know if this is still corect but they were planing to have guild system where both accaunts and another guild can be on guild roster so you can have guild that is part of the guild. That it self says that they have 0 interest in any sort of limitation, with the exeption of engine limitation, for how large the guilds are.

 

https://youtu.be/HaDZbKG1gY0?t=5m40s

Link to post
Share on other sites

That it self says that they have 0 interest in any sort of limitation, with the exeption of engine limitation, for how large the guilds are.

 

Unless there is a difference between being in the same guild and being in a sub-guild.

 

You could have a limit to the size of a guild that impacts certain things, such as campaign rewards, buffs, friendly fire, et cetera, while allowing people to make larger supra-guilds by swearing sub guilds in.

 

If guilds capped at 100 it could still be true that only 100 people can win a Dregs campaign, even if that guild has sub-guilds with hundreds more players.

 

In other words, you could turn the "knobs" in such a way that a guild of limited size matters, even though they could have many sub-guilds.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there is a difference between being in the same guild and being in a subguild.

 

You could have a limit to the size of a guild that impacts certain things, such as campaign rewards, buffs, friendly fire, et cetera, while allowed people to make larger supra-guilds by swearing sub guilds in.

 

If guilds capped at 100 it could still be true that only 100 people can win a Dregs campaign, even if that guild has sub-guilds with hundreds more players.

 

 

Then it isn't guild at all.

They also sad that there is no difference between guild and player for the purpose of the roster. Also they are pretty clearly trying to build a game with EVE online in mind (and others) where nations clash over dominance not a bunch of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure many people will balk at this idea, particularly among the larger guilds, but I think this could be a way to somewhat limit zergs and to make it so that extra accounts aren't so desirable compared to VIP.

 

Let's say that the large castle can support 100 players (growing food, amount of storage, etc.). So what if the max guild size was 100 unique accounts? Having an alt account for crafting would still be possible, but you would likely have to put the character in a separate guild. In the Shadow and Dregs at least, that would mean the account wouldn't get any share of the winnings. The player would also be subject to friendly fire from the other guild.

 

Really large guilds could create multiple guilds and form alliances, but they couldn't all actually be in the same guild and ultimately would be competing against each other for the win.

 

Maybe 100 isn't the right number. Maybe it needs to be 200. Maybe it needs to be 50. Whatever the number, I think having a hard limit would be beneficial.

 

Thoughts?

Personally, I agree with you.

 

I'd like to see it tried both ways.

Edited by coolwaters
Link to post
Share on other sites

The sub-guilds and having a guild cap aimed at removing zergs is a bit counter-intuitive.

 

Shadowbane had a decent model and it scaled pretty out of control until in some cases it was half the server vs the other half.

 

I dont see a problem with that. Specifically because the world gets reset again and the win conditions will limit some of this.

 

We have sort of actually seen already in the pre-alpha that when a zerg guild zergs it up, annoys one to many guilds, and a few guilds temporary group up and crushes them for hours till they log off.

 

Also, while in theory a guild limit would work, in practice it wouldn't. The same thing if there was no grouping in dreggs, all that would mean is that a guild had to be more careful with their abilities. It would still be guild vs guild just no one would play support classes.

Edited by Vectious

CfWBSig.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will not work. It didn't in Shadowbane when they tried to limit the number player cities under color of one flag/nation/guild. They just created secondary tags and continued to claim cities. the limit is 50? Well ......I'll just create 4 nations of 50 to work together for my 200 members. 

 

Friendly fire? Well that may work to an extent. But there was friendly fire in SB (at least for AOE spells) for anyone not in group (max of 10 players)

 

Then there is the question of alt characters. Hell, some cities (trees of life) had well over 1000 individual toons bound to them. Where do you put the limit?

 

The larger point is, limiting numbers is an inherently bad idea in a sand box environment.

 

Learn, adapt, politic and ally.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe 100 isn't the right number. Maybe it needs to be 200. Maybe it needs to be 50. Whatever the number, I think having a hard limit would be beneficial.

 

I like this idea, but I think it should be a percentage. It would be pretty dumb competing in a campaign if half the server was in 1 guild and this is something people might mutually agree to so everyone gains some benefits from the campaign.

 

I don't think any 1 guild should be larger than 10-25% of the max server population. Those not in the guild would get sick of losing to the number crunching and would stop logging into this campaign. Those in the large guild would appreciate the benefits, but not receive the feeling that they deserved them. This will lead to people growing bored of CF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense.

Care to elaborate?

 

Why would anyone create a sub-guild when it is literally forbiden to cooporate?

And how will you enforce that? People will figure it out, they won't care about your arbitrary limits.

Plus this is counterintuitive to the mechanic when defeated guild can pledge their support to someone else instead of leaving. Why would they do that if they can't get anything out of it? They will just leave and then you will have 200 people with entire world for them self because everyone just gave up. Yeah FUN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, forget the numbers. It will not work. An extreme example. 

 

I roll in with a 200 man guild. We average 60 a night but can muster 100-110 for an "event". We average 2.5 alts per man. 500 total bound avatars. How do you limit that? How about a topper!

 

I take that guild and ally with 3-4 other nations of ...oh say...50 people (another 100 or so on the field for my alliance now)! This alliance comes with a promise, a 30/23.3/23.3/23.3 split of all embargoed resources at campaign completion to be transferred to each Guild leader(or sub guild if you wish) in my EK. This is assuming I keep my word of course, but for this example, let's say I do. I have just wrote a simple road map to dominate and get around the "winner take all embargo".

 

It can and will happen. Politics is what made Shadowbane, as politics will make this game. This scenario I just laid out will happen, or something very near to it.

 

Face it, your team of 20-30 bros isn't going to come in and have artificial number limits to compete, it is not enforceable. Politics, alliances, mutual protection pacts, subterfuge, betrayal will make the game what it is or has the potential to be. Grand. No artificial "50 man" limits will change that. "Friendly Fire" will not change that. 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to elaborate?

 

Why would anyone create a sub-guild when it is literally forbiden to cooporate?

And how will you enforce that? People will figure it out, they won't care about your arbitrary limits.

Plus this is counterintuitive to the mechanic when defeated guild can pledge their support to someone else instead of leaving. Why would they do that if they can't get anything out of it? They will just leave and then you will have 200 people with entire world for them self because everyone just gave up. Yeah FUN.

 

It seems to me that you don't understand what I was saying. The assumptions you are making about what I said are so out-of-whack that I don't know where to start to "elaborate" on how your responses are nonsense.

 

I said nothing about forbidding cooperation. I said nothing about enforcement. I said nothing about changing the kneel mechanic.

 

All I was saying is that it would be possible to have game mechanics that distinguish between a "guild" and an association of "sub-guilds." I didn't propose any specific mechanics because I was just talking about general concept. Perhaps you can't heal sub-guildies in certain campaigns, perhaps sub-guilds of winning guilds can't export as much as the guild proper. Lots of perhaps. I'm talking about an open-ended concept for how mechanics could be tinkered with.

 

There is nothing that can really prevent people from cooperating in game. But you can control what sorts of synergies are available to groups of players in many ways.

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more information about the guild/sub-guild system and how it interacts with the campaign mechanics (win/loss, import/export, kneeling, factions, building ownership).

Edited by soulein

Shadowbane - House Avari/Hy'shen
"Gimp elves get good elves killed." - Belina

Avari Discord - https://discord.gg/Bch24PV

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sub-guilds and having a guild cap aimed at removing zergs is a bit counter-intuitive.

 

Shadowbane had a decent model and it scaled pretty out of control until in some cases it was half the server vs the other half.

 

A cap on binds would go a long way to addressing the "alt account" issue I see on the horizon, given the current model.

 

If you only have 100 binds to a tree / town, do you want it to be 10 bros or 10 alts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A cap on binds would go a long way to addressing the "alt account" issue I see on the horizon, given the current model.

 

If you only have 100 binds to a tree / town, do you want it to be 10 bros or 10 alts?

Bros before Alts?

 

.....just doesn't have the same ring to it....

CfWBSig.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

No to limits, its simply impractical and does little to nothing of solving your perceived problem. Zergs are by no means something new and by no means are they invulnerable. Adapt and overcome, its pretty simple, you don't need the developers to design artificial limits just because you don't agree with a play style.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No to limits, its simply impractical and does little to nothing of solving your perceived problem. Zergs are by no means something new and by no means are they invulnerable. Adapt and overcome, its pretty simple, you don't need the developers to design artificial limits just because you don't agree with a play style.

 

Just so I don't come off looking soft here, I hate the idea of caps.

 

I just hate alt accounts in a game like this even more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People will find a way around artificial barriers like that. Zerging must be discouraged by implementing gameplay mechanisms that make it inefficient and a pain in the ass to manage. For example implement friendly fire and zergs will kill themselves, make in game chat proximity only etc.

Edited by rajah
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...