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

Guilds, Factions, Campaigns And Alliances Question


bluddwolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

When a guild is formed, does it select a faction (for the faction wars world)?

 

When entering the faction warfare world, is that when a faction is selected?

 

Is there a plan on the faction worlds to balance the size / strength of each faction?

 

I speculate that "alliances" may become much more fluid or temporary than many might expect. That fluidity might be as often as, every time you enter a new world campaign.

 

That might actually be a good thing, because then guilds will not have long lasting enemies or friends, and will therefore have to forge many "neutral" but respectful relationships because you will never know who your next bed fellow might be. Your friend today, may crush you under their boots tomorrow or in another world today!

 

Thoughts?

Edited by Bluddwolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are questions I'd very much like to know too, but they have yet to be answered formally.  I hope multiple factions can exist in one guild just for varied player tastes and choices.  As for like the three-faction world, that will probably be determined by which of the three "columns" of gods you worship are... the tree, the moon or the sun group.  God alignment would also determine what you fight for in god war, and on the guild vs guild world, well, that explains itself.  My guess is a guild will not be limited to one faction/god.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

just not enough info as of yet...

 

i'm also VERY curious as to what will be hard coded and what will be enforced by Players only....lots of Possibilities, both good and terribad there, imo

 

we will see..."soon"

 

aaAAAaaaAAAAarRRRRRrrRRRrrrrrRRRRRrgGGGGgggGGGGGGGGGGggggggHHHHHhhhHHHhhhHHH!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!eleven!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!

FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

just not enough info as of yet...

 

i'm also VERY curious as to what will be hard coded and what will be enforced by Players only....lots of Possibilities, both good and terribad there, imo

 

we will see..."soon"

 

aaAAAaaaAAAAarRRRRRrrRRRrrrrrRRRRRrgGGGGgggGGGGGGGGGGggggggHHHHHhhhHHHhhhHHH!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!eleven!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!

 

 

They might have ideas for the mechanical alliance system but they can not predict emergent player behavior. 

mael4.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first glance, that seems like it would be a tragic addition. It takes a major political choice and minimizes it by virtue of mechanical limitation. If that is the way Crowfall intends to operate I would expect a race for the first big group to find the loophole around it. 

 

Trust is a commodity, and should be earned through exposure to your potential allies and the nature of game histories spanning multiple campaigns. Game mechanics should enhance player choice, not arbitrarily limit it. 

mael4.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

aaAAAaaaAAAAarRRRRRrrRRRrrrrrRRRRRrgGGGGgggGGGGGGGGGGggggggHHHHHhhhHHHhhhHHH!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!eleven!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!

 

 

 

6/10 on your Pirate speak Doc.   Needs some work.

The Shipwrecked Pirates

www.thesaltymaid.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in Shadowbane Alliances were handled by the clans personally, there was no formal game mechanic involved, I suspect this will be the case, as per factional sway or religious beliefs they too could play an important role depending on whether the game invests importance upon those choices...

EZgFne1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first glance, that seems like it would be a tragic addition. It takes a major political choice and minimizes it by virtue of mechanical limitation. If that is the way Crowfall intends to operate I would expect a race for the first big group to find the loophole around it. 

 

Trust is a commodity, and should be earned through exposure to your potential allies and the nature of game histories spanning multiple campaigns. Game mechanics should enhance player choice, not arbitrarily limit it.

 

It also creates "strange bedfellows" and removes over reliance on known allies or even enemies. I can also see the issue of larger organizations with large allies to essentially "take control" of a server at the point of log in, just because they already know who they are working with and how they will go about dominating the campaign. In a way, it is a complex version of farmng.

 

As an example from Mechwarrior Online. When we managed to get an 8 man side to drop in the same instance, we had an 80% success rate (tracked over 1000 drops). When we dropped as a 4 man, with the other 4 being ransoms or a different group, the success rate dropped to 60% ( again, tracked over 1000 drops). The loss rates in both scenarios was usually a result of the amount of cohesion of our opponents.

 

When we saw the sides forming up we could tell, with pretty good accuacy, how the match was likely to turn out before the drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also creates "strange bedfellows" and removes over reliance on known allies or even enemies. I can also see the issue of larger organizations with large allies to essentially "take control" of a server at the point of log in, just because they already know who they are working with and how they will go about dominating the campaign. In a way, it is a complex version of farmng.

 

As an example from Mechwarrior Online. When we managed to get an 8 man side to drop in the same instance, we had an 80% success rate (tracked over 1000 drops). When we dropped as a 4 man, with the other 4 being ransoms or a different group, the success rate dropped to 60% ( again, tracked over 1000 drops). The loss rates in both scenarios was usually a result of the amount of cohesion of our opponents.

 

When we saw the sides forming up we could tell, with pretty good accuacy, how the match was likely to turn out before the drop.

 

Reliance on your diplomatic efforts is not a net negative. Sure it provides an advantage over temporary alliances of convenience, because it took more effort in to get the reward (trust, compatibility, reliability)

 

It makes betrayal more meaningful, because you expend a high cost in an attempt to find a high gain. Limiting long term diplomacy merely hampers player behavior. Again, I expect competitors to merely look for the most reliable way to circumvent arbitrary limitation. 

 

I hear calls for these types of things on these boards a lot. In many cases it comes from people that would vehemently demand for no limitations on player risk and combat. I seriously don't see how this is not exactly the same, limiting player behavior. 

 

Let player groups determine the political landscape. Limiting player choice in the diplomatic sphere or limiting guild size is taking away a players choice to determine how much effort they are willing to put in to reach a win condition. 

 

Don't limit PvP - Let the players decide. Just give us tools. 

 

Don't limit guild size and diplomacy - Let the players decide. Just give us the tools. 

 

I can't for the life of me understand why I see the same players (Not you Bludd, you are just the most recent incarnation of people wanting mechanical benefit for your playstyle) agreeing with the first but not the second statement. 

mael4.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear calls for these types of things on these boards a lot. In many cases it comes from people that would vehemently demand for no limitations on player risk and combat. I seriously don't see how this is not exactly the same, limiting player behavior. 

 

Let player groups determine the political landscape. Limiting player choice in the diplomatic sphere or limiting guild size is taking away a players choice to determine how much effort they are willing to put in to reach a win condition. 

 

Don't limit PvP - Let the players decide. Just give us tools. 

 

Don't limit guild size and diplomacy - Let the players decide. Just give us the tools. 

 

I can't for the life of me understand why I see the same players (Not you Bludd, you are just the most recent incarnation of people wanting mechanical benefit for your playstyle) agreeing with the first but not the second statement.

Exactly. I think a lot of the people on this forum come from very different MMOs. I wish I could put your post on a flag and wave it everywhere.

 

Anyone who's played a politically-driven game like EVE knows that artificial restrictions on player organizations will only suck the fun out of a game.

 

If they want to impose certain limits on the themeparky faction vs. faction worlds, then fine. But don't touch the guild vs. guild worlds. Don't fix what isn't broken.

 

I really hope faction influence is pretty limited outside faction vs. faction worlds. I have zero interest in participating in those worlds and so I don't want my character defined by the three faction PvP in any way shape or form.

Me too. I assume it will only be kept to the FvF worlds, but I was kind of concerned when they said that all characters are "Divine Warriors" fighting for a god. I hope that's just a lore thing and isn't an actual forced restriction across all the worlds.

Edited by Zarithas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I think a lot of the people on this forum come from very different MMOs. I wish I could put your post on a flag and wave it everywhere.

 

Anyone who's played a politically-driven game like EVE knows that artificial restrictions on player organizations will only suck the fun out of a game.

 

If they want to impose certain limits on the themeparky faction vs. faction worlds, then fine. But don't touch the guild vs. guild worlds. Don't fix what isn't broken.

 

 

Yeah I could be convinced that it could work on the faction worlds. Less risk, less effort in, less reward. 

 

Otherwise artificially limiting big organizations or alliances is fixing a problem that does not exist. If you want your play style to be favored then go to the worlds where the risk is less and thus draws in other smaller player groups. 

mael4.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faction and God wars are alliances by default. You will have multiple people from multiple guilds playing on those worlds and I am sure there will be a Faction chat channel to coordinate attacks and defenses. I already posted a thread in General about how choosing a faction/god needs to done when you enter a campaign for the first time. This allows the entire guild to join the same faction incase when on a gvg world they choose something different then others.

 

It also depends on if there are any special perks for which god you choose. If its purely for the purpose of faction/god pvp worlds and not cosmetic or ability given then deciding which god to fight for on character creation will be easy for a guild. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I could be convinced that it could work on the faction worlds. Less risk, less effort in, less reward.

 

Otherwise artificially limiting big organizations or alliances is fixing a problem that does not exist. If you want your play style to be favored then go to the worlds where the risk is less and thus draws in other smaller player groups.

 

Actually, I think the risk is less where large groups along with large allies go into the same world / instance so as to dominate it right from the initial drop. Somehow you seemed to miss or avoid that point I was making.

 

I'm of course assuming that there is a limited number of slots open for each server, even if the number is in the hundreds, it might be possible to monopolize the server. I'm wondering if the Devs have considered the possibility of a campaign being farmed, rather than contested, by large alliances populating a world but instead of open conflict they cooperate in maximizing everyone's "harvest" from the campaign. They then take turns in "winning" to balance out the harvest yields over several campaigns.

Edited by Bluddwolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the risk is less where large groups along with large allies go into the same world / instance so as to dominate it right from the initial drop. Somehow you seemed to miss or avoid that point I was making.

 

I'm of course assuming that there is a limited number of slots open for each server, even if the number is in the hundreds, it might be possible to monopolize the server. I'm wondering if the Devs have considered the possibility of a campaign being farmed, rather than contested, by large alliances populating a world but instead of open conflict they cooperate in maximizing everyone's "harvest" from the campaign. They then take turns in "winning" to balance out the harvest yields over several campaigns.

 

 

-It is players reducing that risk, by putting in more effort to maintain long ties based on the virtue of past experience. They have an advantage because they put in more effort. That isn't negative behavior. 

 

-We don't know what that limited number will be, if it will be applicable at all, and how the alliance system that has been verified as a supported structure will operate. 

 

-We don't know how expansive the alliance system will be, but I would not hurry to expect people trading wins. If a group is massive enough to divide forces and accomplish that then good on them, for however long they can keep the monolith fed. 

 

If you want rules that limit player behavior put it in the faction worlds. Otherwise player groups will just find a work around. 

mael4.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on large groups and large alliances. They take a lot of work to maintain. Betrayal is more damaging and more epic in scope. Saying they have an inherent advantage is ignoring the amount of work it takes to keep such systems working. 

mael4.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...