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

Join Guild or Quit

Recommended Posts

I would love to know how this game went from being semi-permanent but eventual win mechanic to prevent 1 guild/nation from dominating the map, to forcing people off a campaign or forcing them to join one of the winning guilds.

This just accomplishes the same thing, doesn't it? This score system where someone can be king is fine and dandy, but if someone on a map doesn't really care who actually is the  major domo, why should they be forced to quit the campaign if they don't want to join up with one of the winning guilds? This is a HUGE leap from making it so people don't quit from one guild dominating, to forcing people to quit if they don't join up. Why is this different than in Shadowbane being forced to join the zerg guild or quit? Someone people don't want to be part of those factions. This means that smaller, losing guilds can't just ban together and try to force the larger one out. Which was a tactic that could be done in Shadowbane. CN trying to take over everything? Everyone ban together to force them out for now. Then go back to their own guild politics.

And how would this system work? Would it be guilds swearing fealty to another guild as a sub guild of a nation? Or would this force a tag switch. I'm sorry, but personally I'm not interested in a game where I'm forced to join someone or be kicked from the game early to restart everything I've been working on in the game. I don't like battlegrounds in "pvp MMOs", I don't like the WvWvW system in Guild Wars 2 where you're constantly just recapping things that were taken and then lost moments before, or Elder Scrolls Online version.

I will just take it as my money lost if my only choices in this game is faction play, or GvG play up until you're forced to play with a larger guild. Or custard all to just finding small scale pvp and crafting. I thought this game was more than forcing people to play the "King" metagame, and rather do this in my own way than mechanics forcing it on me.

Even if you keep your guild tags but forced to swear fealty, now these gvg and dreg campaigns become faction campaigns, forcing factions on people who specifically chose not to do factions. 

So your choices, from what was said are:

1. Be a complete badass and just win. Ya, everyone would like this.

2. Swear fealty and having joining guild/nations essentially be forced to join the zerg (because these will grow because of this), which essentially creates factions. Forcing people to participate in the throne meta. Too bad if you just wanted to be able to work on stuff, and find small scale pvp fights out in the world.

3. Kicked off campaign. Well now instead of playing a game like World of Warcraft and having a 15-60 min instanced battleground, you get a 1-2 week battleground, before you are gone have have to restart on another campaign.

Edited by Navystylz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jah said:

Am I missing something? Why would you be forced off a campaign?

In the live Q&A someone brought up the point system. And Todd said not only do they plan on keeping the points are part of the game to track things, but they want to have it so that those with the least points fall off the throne race, and they have to swear fealty to the winning guilds or get lost.

From the way he said it, sounded like you're done with the campaign if you don't and are not one of the winning guilds. Until one is left as the winning and reset happens. I certainly hope he only meant you are no longer gaining any points towards it. But even then this means that a big chunk of the game is locked out to you if you don't join one of the other guilds. Getting outposts, mines or caravans won't mean anything to you except as a place to maybe find some pvp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Navystylz said:

In the live Q&A someone brought up the point system. And Todd said not only do they plan on keeping the points are part of the game to track things, but they want to have it so that those with the least points fall off the throne race, and they have to swear fealty to the winning guilds or get lost.

From the way he said it, sounded like you're done with the campaign if you don't and are not one of the winning guilds. Until one is left as the winning and reset happens. I certainly hope he only meant you are no longer gaining any points towards it. But even then this means that a big chunk of the game is locked out to you if you don't join one of the other guilds. Getting outposts, mines or caravans won't mean anything to you except as a place to maybe find some pvp.

This was for one campaign type specific to the Dregs, not all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll have to watch the stream. I don't like the idea of forcing people to be in a guild (or worse, to be in a winning guild) in order to play in a Dregs campaign. If I want to run around solo, with no real hope of winning, I should be able to do that.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ardrea said:

This was for one campaign type specific to the Dregs, not all of them.

That makes me feel better. Didn't hear the qualifier as one type. Though they throw a lot of ideas around about what one type of campaign can be. Certainly hope enough players will be around so that all these different campaign types aren't just ghost worlds with no population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are enough of the right varieties of campaigns, this will help keep more people. One size doesn't fit all, after all. I'm sure some kinds will be a lot more popular, but since campaigns are finite duration and possibly variable size, the devs will also be tempted to experiment and look for campaign types that people like in enough numbers to run occasionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jah said:

I guess I'll have to watch the stream. I don't like the idea of forcing people to be in a guild (or worse, to be in a winning guild) in order to play in a Dregs campaign. If I want to run around solo, with no real hope of winning, I should be able to do that.

Pretty much my thoughts. I'm not a fan of too much interfering in the sandbox in how people should play. That's the whole point of a sandbox game. I understand they won't want the world to stagnate and people quit. But I want a semi permanent MMO that isn't constantly flipping to new worlds with new mechanics, and not being able to choose to hooligan around solo in one of them if that's what I want to do. 

I'm also a fan of mercenary guilds where you can help whomever can pay you or assist in another way. Too many rules will make you play the "battleground objectives" rather than player created fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ardrea said:

If there are enough of the right varieties of campaigns, this will help keep more people. One size doesn't fit all, after all. I'm sure some kinds will be a lot more popular, but since campaigns are finite duration and possibly variable size, the devs will also be tempted to experiment and look for campaign types that people like in enough numbers to run occasionally.

I hear ya. Just worried about systems making you feel obligated to play a certain metagame for your fun to be relevant. There can be only one winner, and sometimes you might not even care who is winning the throne, you just want to achieve smaller goals. Special skins and stuff already will go to the winner, the pvp should be fun for it's own sake and being able to loot people, not to chase rewards. Guess will see in the months to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see lingering in a campaign I know I will lose just to kill and loot the jerks who are winning. That should be possible in the Dregs.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jah said:

I could see lingering in a campaign I know I will lose just to kill and loot the jerks who are winning. That should be possible in the Dregs.

I personally have enjoyed playing the spoiler in many other competitive games.  Nothing like an unknown entity knocking the top dog off their pedestal for gathering sweet sweet salty tears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jah said:

I guess I'll have to watch the stream. I don't like the idea of forcing people to be in a guild (or worse, to be in a winning guild) in order to play in a Dregs campaign. If I want to run around solo, with no real hope of winning, I should be able to do that.

It wasn't forcing people into the guild, it was forcing guilds to bend the knee.  Basically, if you want to keep playing the world, start getting friendly with some of the bigger guilds, or move on. An example was given about in one world guild A may be bending for guild B, and in the other world B to A.  

It's a guild level elimination model, and pretty much the first I think has been said officially about it, although the FAQ does mention "one death and your out" worlds, so the idea of elimination has been around for quite some time.

Also, very much a Dreg's variant.  Came right before the talk on how they will try all sorts of campaigns, and the popular ones will be the ones they make more of.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think this is a model for the Dreg's, more the Guild vs Guild thingy that has been talked alot about in 2016 and now everyone seems to have forgotten :D It would not fit the Dreg's... IMO these worlds are made without any rules - you can join a guild or just roam around freely and only trade with other guilds. This is the vision I understood so far (haven't watched the entire stream tho)


New to the game? Check out this Guide!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

It wasn't forcing people into the guild, it was forcing guilds to bend the knee.  Basically, if you want to keep playing the world, start getting friendly with some of the bigger guilds, or move on. An example was given about in one world guild A may be bending for guild B, and in the other world B to A.  

It's a guild level elimination model, and pretty much the first I think has been said officially about it, although the FAQ does mention "one death and your out" worlds, so the idea of elimination has been around for quite some time.

Also, very much a Dreg's variant.  Came right before the talk on how they will try all sorts of campaigns, and the popular ones will be the ones they make more of.

 

I get that. I covered why that's still wrong, whether you keep your tags or not. The only way to 'force' someone to bend the knee is to bring them into the guild, or the 'nation' system. This creates what is essentially a faction. Winterblades on NA Balane are the main movers and shakers, essentially the smaller guilds would be what 'those bending the knee' are now. This also FORCES people to join the zerg. It might not start out the zerg, but this very system will create the zerg this game is supposed to be combating by not having a permanent world.

And I get it's a variant now. I must have missed when he said a variant could be... but at the same time you can only have so many variants going at once if you plan have a healthy population, and even in dregs if the player is actually forced to quit before the campaign is finished, or join a winner, would not be a healthy situation.

Who do you join? Why would those people care about you? What are you responsibilities to them and they to you? Or does it simply force a join faction scenario where you just become unkillable to them? In which case, again it just becomes faction. Can they choose to deny you? Can they all choose to deny you, thus forcing you to quit campaign? Would it just be better all go one side to force a campaign reset to get back to being their own identity?

So many questions for just this variant, that I wonder how they could even think forcing to kneel or get off the campaign is viable. I'm sure there would be a subset of people who might enjoy this, especially those who just know the power of their guild already. But I personally would never join a campaign that forces eventual faction play, or get off. And really hope it's not a choice between a few bad choices so suck it up or just don't play the game for months.

EDIT: If it's not a variant that will ever touch Dregs, I guess that's better for me. But I still think it's a limiting system for even those people who want a guild vs guild. Without their guild losing identity just because they are not winning 1 aspect of the game.

Edited by Navystylz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already been said by others and in part by the OP, but GvG free politics is the soft counter to large alliance zergs.  

Zerg X starts on server and represents 25% of whole server pop.  The rest of the server suddenly has a good reason to get coalitioned up to counter them.

If this game is successful and there are scores of guilds  instead of three, politics is a soft counter to zerging.  Coalitioning against threat will be common.

Not every agreement to work together has to last forever, UDL/LoD/SiN  playing every game hand in hand for last decade is an exception rather than a rule.  Coalitions to react to a threat like CN in the OP's example and then disband once there is no common threat to fight each other will be much more common.

Or maybe one alliance of players will get 51% of total CF population and kill the game, but I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Angelmar said:

It's already been said by others and in part by the OP, but GvG free politics is the soft counter to large alliance zergs.  

Zerg X starts on server and represents 25% of whole server pop.  The rest of the server suddenly has a good reason to get coalitioned up to counter them.

If this game is successful and there are scores of guilds  instead of three, politics is a soft counter to zerging.  Coalitioning against threat will be common.

Not every agreement to work together has to last forever, UDL/LoD/SiN  playing every game hand in hand for last decade is an exception rather than a rule.  Coalitions to react to a threat like CN in the OP's example and then disband once there is no common threat to fight each other will be much more common.

Or maybe one alliance of players will get 51% of total CF population and kill the game, but I doubt it.

Which is how I expected even GvG to be. And curious why they thought of a variation that actively promotes the very things that choosing a GvG/Dregs server eliminates (factions) and what the game as a whole is supposed to eliminate (people forced to quit or join the zerg). Whether this leads to a win condition eventually or not, doesn't change that's what this style of play is promoting. And it's not fun to people who want to win, don't win and then has to make this choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be interesting to have a campaign with very limited resources to force the war bettwen cities. Limited resources without respawn and players divided into city maps belonging by small, medium, ou large guilds and resources arround. When the supplies run out (food mainly) the world war begins focused on steal another guilds and the last living city wins. JUNGLE RULES!!!
Players in larger guilds would have fewer resources per member due division bettwen all and each one could  be killed by players in smaller guilds, but with more resources per soldier (best equipment due less division in guild). That is, there would be a balance between total population in one guild and individual power per member (inversely proportional).

All guild members need to help each other and will have to hand over all collected resources to the Guild Bank that who will divide for all members a value into gold used to buy items. Of course, the player receives a guild score for contributing. There may be patents in the guild according to the player's score.

The goal would be to create a  guild capable of making its members individually strong and numerous, which would be very difficult in a world with limited resources and with very large number of players in same group. GREED, WAR and HUNGER like real world.

Edited by hamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As your eventually and rightful ruler, High King @soulein would like to invite all of you to our ESL (Elvish as a Second Language) courses in discord every other Thursday at 0430 CST. 


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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...