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

Guild inconsistencies on a Guild-focused game


Recommended Posts

Posted this on the last feedback thread, but I think this should get a proper post.

This is a game where guilds play the major role. Not much on the PVE side of the coin, sure, but since the game is aimed at PVP action, it's exactly how it should be.

The problem here is the lack of balance. Some players are here for a long time, with their guilds and friends. Others are just getting here now and many will keep coming. Like any other game, players barely know what to do in game, but always want to join the most populated guilds already. Sure, it makes easier to level, to get help, to get some answers. But this way, small and new guilds get doomed to be small forever.

Dregs is almost unplayable for small guilds. Yeah, we can focus on the card missions, sure. But it hardly makes any difference since just walking across the maps is a tough task, like when all of the sudden you're getting killed by 5, 10, 20 members of the same guild.

We're on test and the guild members limit is 500. 500!!! I started playing a couple weeks ago and like every game I play I created my own guild. But i can't get people (got 8 so far). Because everyone wants to be on a guild that will be able to wipe players of the small ones on a PVP environment.

So we need to think about this limit again. At least for now. When the game is officially launched lots of players will come and this won't be a problem. But now it is. And a big one because affects the gameplay directly. Limit guilds to 50, 100 players tops. It will make things way better. What's the point of having a few crowded guilds and dozens of small ones that can't fight for 'the throne'?

Also, we need an in game guild interface asap! We lose lots of players because we need to use the site to control it. It doesn't make any sense. Like I said in the very beginning of this text: This is a game where guilds play the major role. Just add a tab showing on and off members, the option do invite in game, and we're good for now.

That's it. I just wish we can make things a bit more competitive. Because the way it is right now, is far from it.

cB9UT9m.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont see how limiting guilds to 50 where the biggest zergs are 30 when every active player is on at once which rarely happens will solve anything. I also dont see how small guilds cant compete, spidergang had 7 members last dregs, it was their first campaign ever, they placed 3rd over my own esteemed undefeated in the trials of the gods guild HoA the 2nd largest active guild in the game atm, the current divine favor system heavily favors small guilds over large guilds

hoayaga2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you limit guild size, you're just going to get secondary guilds under the same banner. Ultimately you achieve nothing.
Dregs isn't impossible for smaller guilds, but if that's much of a concern, maybe it'd be worth looking at playing Faction campaigns.
The aim on Test now is Dregs, though.

231e101d88.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just check the recruiting forum and you'll see. Everyone wants to join the big ones. It's not even an opinion, it's a fact.

You guys said small guilds can do it, but have you tried? You can barely walk the map! To get some good points from the cards you need at least a band to walk with and farm whatever the cards asks to.

28 minutes ago, Groovin said:

If you limit guild size, you're just going to get secondary guilds under the same banner. Ultimately you achieve nothing.

No, because different guilds will hit each other with they try to fight in a same band. There's no alliance system yet (which would be great and would solve the big/small guild problem, but anyway). Also, if they do this, only one will get the points and I'm sure no one would like to be in a guild that works for no reward.

30 minutes ago, Groovin said:

maybe it'd be worth looking at playing Faction campaigns.

I did and I liked it. In a few days they took off tho. But I want to fight as my guild, not only as a faction. So it doesn't matter. Problem stays the same.

32 minutes ago, Staff said:

i dont see how limiting guilds to 50 where the biggest zergs are 30 when every active player is on at once which rarely happens will solve anything. I also dont see how small guilds cant compete, spidergang had 7 members last dregs, it was their first campaign ever, they placed 3rd over my own esteemed undefeated in the trials of the gods guild HoA the 2nd largest active guild in the game atm, the current divine favor system heavily favors small guilds over large guilds

Because like any other game, the more players a guild gets the more active players on a rotation it will have. Of course a big guild will easily have 30 online. But if you have 50 members, getting 30 logged at the same time is much more challenging that if you have 300 members. So sorry, but your argument doesn't take that in consideration. And if they were able to do something as 7, good for them. But how about the other dozens of guilds that couldn't? One rare successful example doesn't count to invalidate the fact we need balanced numbers.

Bottom line: is it better to have things as they are now or to make a new system which will be way more challenging for everyone? I'm with the second. I don't want my guild to have 500 members just to smash the ones with 10, 20. I want fair fights.

cB9UT9m.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Haggstrom said:

Just check the recruiting forum and you'll see. Everyone wants to join the big ones. It's not even an opinion, it's a fact.

i havent seen a huge surge in W, V, or HoA's (the "big" guilds) numbers with new players, its always the same familiar names im fighting, perhaps your perspective is skewed because youre biased

You guys said small guilds can do it, but have you tried? You can barely walk the map! To get some good points from the cards you need at least a band to walk with and farm whatever the cards asks to.

i have walked the map, if youre dying i suggest roaming with a small 5 man group like you should be in gvg, if youre still dying avoid the bigger guilds zones

No, because different guilds will hit each other with they try to fight in a same band. There's no alliance system yet (which would be great and would solve the big/small guild problem, but anyway). Also, if they do this, only one will get the points and I'm sure no one would like to be in a guild that works for no reward.

implementing features to make up for not having an already planned feature that will be in the game so you have a better time on TEST is dumb

I did and I liked it. In a few days they took off tho. But I want to fight as my guild, not only as a faction. So it doesn't matter. Problem stays the same.

get more guildies, dunno what you want me to say here, small weak guilds that cant compete should not be in crowfalls endgame 

Because like any other game, the more players a guild gets the more active players on a rotation it will have. Of course a big guild will easily have 30 online. But if you have 50 members, getting 30 logged at the same time is much more challenging that if you have 300 members. So sorry, but your argument doesn't take that in consideration. And if they were able to do something as 7, good for them. But how about the other dozens of guilds that couldn't? One rare successful example doesn't count to invalidate the fact we need balanced numbers.

idk about other guilds but my guild could cut our "roster" from 100+ to 30 and have 0 impact on our actual fighting potential, and as for the other guilds that didnt compete? they werent good enough, they didnt play enough, they didnt focus enough, spidergang was focused and did what they had to, why should other guilds who arent willing to take a beating and put in effort win anything? 

Bottom line: is it better to have things as they are now or to make a new system which will be way more challenging for everyone? I'm with the second. I don't want my guild to have 500 members just to smash the ones with 10, 20. I want fair fights.

i dont like the current system, its too pve focused and conquest points arent weighted enough in divine favor, but i like it more than your proposed changes

 

hoayaga2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can keep repeating yourself. It won't cover the points I made. Anyway, I don't understand how anyone likes to fight unfair battles. Well, I guess I actually do... But I rather be defeated on a 10v10 battle than win a 20v5 one. But hey, it's me. I'll keep insisting. If they change it, great.

cB9UT9m.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thegn Haggstrom 

What you are seeking, fairness, will never exist in Crowfall. Smaller guilds need to be smarter, better organized, and set clear objectives that can be met in game. Any cap on guild size will always be gamed by larger guilds. Stay strong, make friends, and take your victories where you can and for every time you get knocked down by a larger forces of players dust yourself off and get back into the arena. The average gamer will always seek out larger guilds because they feel it makes them safer in the game world whereas in realty it only masks their own individual weakness.   

Remember we fight, that is how we win, and that is how we die. 

Lo, There do I see my Father Lo,

There do I see my Mother and My Brothers and my Sisters Lo,

There do I see the line of my people back to the begining Lo,

They do call to me They bid me take my place among them in the halls of Valhalla Where thine enemies have been vanquished Where the brave shall live Forever Nor shall we mourn but rejoice for those that have died the glorious death

 

Hammers High !!  Master Brewer of the Dwarven Hold Mithril Warhammers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people are in your guild and how many do you typically have logged in during your prime time?

I agree that things can easily be overwhelming for the smaller guilds. It needs to be easier to get people in your guild, communicate with them and to be able to work with other small guilds.

ATM I would say that if a guild had 10 players for a siege widow, they could compete just fine. With the current population they could easily get some forts and good fights. There are even been times where a 10 person force could have taken a keep.

I think the larger issue isn't a lack of players but a lack of leadership or knowledge. On day of 1 the current test campaign, -W- Knocked down an enemies keep. We didn't claim it and announced it multiple times in general chat that it was up for grabs, all anyone had to do was walk in and plant the seed. It sat there unclaimed for hours.

I've also never seen a full group of enemies outside of -V- or HoA. Part of this needs to be on the smaller guys too. If you can't field even a full group most of the times you need to work on that.

aeei5jG.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Haggstrom said:

You can keep repeating yourself. It won't cover the points I made. Anyway, I don't understand how anyone likes to fight unfair battles. Well, I guess I actually do... But I rather be defeated on a 10v10 battle than win a 20v5 one. But hey, it's me. I'll keep insisting. If they change it, great.

I mean, more bodies is always good.

I'd rather we work on keeping the optimal group size (not guild size) small. I really don't think people are roaming in groups of 30.

Thing is a 5 man guild shouldn't be getting in situations where they are getting outnumbered 4 to 1. If that is all you can field you will not be competing for keeps, or at least you wont be ruling them for long (or most likely at all). You just have to understand you just isn't able to play against the big guilds directly. Wanna attack their gathering parties? Doable. Join a siege (maybe for some actual benefits)? That is smart. Going alone with 5 guys to take someone's castle? Not gonna happen.

Heck, if anything I would imagine most small groups would be totally in favor of attacking big guilds holdings simply because why not? We don't have, huh, treaties (not this word) but just talk with others. Even if it is only to be a pain in the ass. Everybody loves some good ol' chaos.

Edited by BarriaKarl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how you, old players, keep blaming the small guilds and new players of being too weak, or incapable of getting organized, or whatever else. You just ignore the very basic fact: old and big guilds have more people now because they had enough time to play and gather many allies, friends, or whatever else you may call. Now they are big. Now they will keep getting most players, because like said before, most players don't want to be in a new small guild. And that's the very reason they need to stop growing even more and becoming simply impossible to fight against. Limit guilds. Get all guilds strong. And we'll see who's actually strong. Sure, some guilds, even crowded, will be weak. But at least the numbers will be fair.

Also, this is a TEST isn't it? We tested the way it is right now. So why not testing another system (which is not even a system, just changing max numbers) and after that decide which one is better, which one is more competitive and brings more action to the game? This is TEST, folks. Not an unchanging version of the game.

cB9UT9m.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Haggstrom said:

It's amazing how you, old players, keep blaming the small guilds and new players of being too weak, or incapable of getting organized, or whatever else. You just ignore the very basic fact: old and big guilds have more people now because they had enough time to play and gather many allies, friends, or whatever else you may call. Now they are big. Now they will keep getting most players, because like said before, most players don't want to be in a new small guild. And that's the very reason they need to stop growing even more and becoming simply impossible to fight against. Limit guilds. Get all guilds strong. And we'll see who's actually strong. Sure, some guilds, even crowded, will be weak. But at least the numbers will be fair.

I understand your concerns, but I must point out that ACE has not yet directed much attention to the new player experience. Guild systems are very much still being developed in some cases, so I expect more changes in this regard also. 

It could also be a symptom of being on a short term test server. Sometimes it is simpler and more efficient to test at this time by jumping into a large guild since everything will be wiped soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

I understand your concerns, but I must point out that ACE has not yet directed much attention to the new player experience. Guild systems are very much still being developed in some cases, so I expect more changes in this regard also. 

It could also be a symptom of being on a short term test server. Sometimes it is simpler and more efficient to test at this time by jumping into a large guild since everything will be wiped soon.

Thanks. Yeah, but they should start caring about new players. They offer a refund option, so they're bringing people in and letting them go away extremely disappointed. Not the best strategy in my opinion. You can see a good amount of people talking about the game in a not so kind way.

And I like to create my guilds, so I had to test it since is something I do in every game I play. Let's just hope they will work on this soon.

cB9UT9m.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Haggstrom said:

There's no alliance system yet (which would be great and would solve the big/small guild problem, but anyway).

Alliances or Fealty systems wouldn't solve the problem as large guilds could join with other large guilds or a bunch of smaller ones that want to have a big brother watching their back.

2 hours ago, Haggstrom said:

Anyway, I don't understand how anyone likes to fight unfair battles. Well, I guess I actually do... But I rather be defeated on a 10v10 battle than win a 20v5 one.

IMO, those that prefer "fair" or game play that at least attempts to resemble sportmanship shouldn't play MMOs for that. Almost everything is built around unfairness in a MMO. The more time you grind, the older an account, the more people you have, better gear, better skill, etc completely tosses any fairness out the window. That is why I believe eSport and MMOs with Arenas are way more popular and fun to average gamers and those seeking a high competitive format. Even those that like these types of games get burnt out.

Not that people can't and don't enjoy a good 5v5 or 20v20 in an open world game, but the same folks likely have no issue rolling someone with 20v1 and getting a laugh out of it.

Just the way it is and always will be.

People want challenge, but winning is more important.

Trying to compete with guilds with years of experience in this game or prior is going to be an uphill battle, especially during testing when people aren't throwing themselves at the game yet. Magically having the same number of players as one of those guilds isn't going to do much, there have been plenty of campaigns/trials that showed numbers don't matter as much as some believe.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, APE said:

IMO, those that prefer "fair" or game play that at least attempts to resemble sportmanship shouldn't play MMOs for that. Almost everything is built around unfairness in a MMO. The more time you grind, the older an account, the more people you have, better gear, better skill, etc completely tosses any fairness out the window. That is why I believe eSport and MMOs with Arenas are way more popular and fun to average gamers and those seeking a high competitive format. Even those that like these types of games get burnt out.

Well, I play MMOs for more than 2 decades and I always rather have a fair fight. I don't get fun squashing enemies that can't harm me. Those eSports you talk are based on that principle. All those teams are at least good enough. Or do you think a noob team would face a pro on a competition? They won't even get there. You're talking about different things. Gear grind, practice time, skill development has nothing to do with the subject here.

15 minutes ago, APE said:

Not that people can't and don't enjoy a good 5v5 or 20v20 in an open world game, but the same folks likely have no issue rolling someone with 20v1 and getting a laugh out of it.

Then why bothering creating a competition environment like Dregs? Just make a full PK open map and that's it. And leave the competition for the ones who actually value competition.

cB9UT9m.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Haggstrom said:

And if they were able to do something as 7, good for them. But how about the other dozens of guilds that couldn't?

This is the problem with our society these days in a broader sense.  "What about X person that is not as good/not as smart/not as capable?!  Let's just cater everything to them--the lowest common denominator!"   Blah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mourne said:

This is the problem with our society these days in a broader sense.  "What about X person that is not as good/not as smart/not as capable?!  Let's just cater everything to them--the lowest common denominator!"   Blah.

Yeah, ignore all the points on a serious discussion to make a comment that brings nothing to the table. Right on!

cB9UT9m.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't matter what I said to you.  Anything said to you in this thread you ignore while saying they ignored you (even if they didn't).  If you weren't daft, though, you'd see that I did make a point (albeit sarcastically):  Don't cater the game to the lowest common denominator.

ACE has made no secrets from the get-go about this game being "hardcore" in the sense that it wasn't going to hand-hold and give freebies to guilds that weren't capable of taking things/wins for themselves.  The game marketed and made a huge deal about bring politics into the mix.  If your guild is too small or incapable...make an alliance or at least a non-aggression pact.  And no, you don't need a fancy UI game mechanic to make an alliance, even if it would be a more elegant system (which they've already said is coming anyway...).

You're not the first newbie to come around here wanting to change the game to be more solo/small-guild friendly.  That's just not what this game is focusing on.  And that does not mean it cannot still be fun for solo players and small guilds.  It just means the game isn't going to hand them things on a silver platter because they're small.

Even though this game has moved away from the marketing hype of "throne war simulator" that's still what I'm hoping it turns out to be.  You think that in a real-life bid for a throne among warring Houses that the small, put-upon House gets a hand-out because the huge zerg-guilds stomp them in open engagements?  The more I'm wasting my time typing this out to you, however, the more I just see the real problem is your play style.**  You could be out having fun and accomplishing things as a small guild--like the 7-man guild pointed out to you earlier in this thread--but instead you're here trying to mold the game in a way that will let you and your playstyle do better, specifically.  Clearly...because a 7-man guild placed 3rd above my "zerg omg op" guild that you're here complaining about.

**Edit:  I don't mean to imply there is something inherently wrong with your play style.  Just that perhaps it isn't a good match for this sort of game.  Not every game can be everything to every person.  There are plenty of other games that allow GvG fighting where the devs took pains to make sure it's all "fair."

Edited by mourne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Haggstrom said:

Well, I play MMOs for more than 2 decades and I always rather have a fair fight. I don't get fun squashing enemies that can't harm me. Those eSports you talk are based on that principle. All those teams are at least good enough. Or do you think a noob team would face a pro on a competition? They won't even get there. You're talking about different things. Gear grind, practice time, skill development has nothing to do with the subject here.

I've been playing since the start of these things and also prefer something resembling a fair fight, but understand that is the exception in these types of games. I get my "fair" competitive fix in other games/genres. A game can't be everything to everyone, especially not with such limited content as Crowfall. 

I've said for a long time that I'd like to see some sort of "ranking" system for campaigns. Ex: Can only enter with and obtain a Green Vessel/Gear during the Campaign. Or a guild has to have earned X Divine Favor or some metric to enter.

Blending lobby/esport game matches (campaigns) with persistent MMO features (characters/gear/resources) without accounting for the wide variety of players and their skill is going to be a mess.

If I played pro players every match in a eSport game or MMO arena, I would give up. Losing over and over is not fun most of the time. I don't even have the delusion that I'm the best and deserve to win like some do.

25 minutes ago, Haggstrom said:

Then why bothering creating a competition environment like Dregs? Just make a full PK open map and that's it. And leave the competition for the ones who actually value competition.

Competition means different things to different people. Winning at all cost is something many follow. Which means stomping others regardless of guide size, experience, gear quality, etc. A win is a win. Play to Crush...

ACE is trying to offer different avenues to victory which hopefully allows guilds to have a chance to compete with their capabilities but fact is not everyone is going to be on even footing all the time in everything. It just can't work that way in this type of game. Capping guilds at 5-25-50-1000 isn't going to change that. It's just one hurdle that people have to walk around and keep playing how they want.

If you had exactly the same number of players as your competition then it would be gear quality, builds, passive training, or some other reason that one side is winning or not. Not sure if you played the past Trials but numbers didn't win the day. Communication, experience, organization are a huge factor and trying to wrangle a bunch of new players is like herding kittens. 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mourne said:

It wouldn't matter what I said to you.  Anything said to you in this thread you ignore while saying they ignored you (even if they didn't).  If you weren't daft, though, you'd see that I did make a point (albeit sarcastically):  Don't cater the game to the lowest common denominator.

ACE has made no secrets from the get-go about this game being "hardcore" in the sense that it wasn't going to hand-hold and give freebies to guilds that weren't capable of taking things/wins for themselves.  The game marketed and made a huge deal about bring politics into the mix.  If your guild is too small or incapable...make an alliance or at least a non-aggression pact.  And no, you don't need a fancy UI game mechanic to make an alliance, even if it would be a more elegant system (which they've already said is coming anyway...).

You're not the first newbie to come around here wanting to change the game to be more solo/small-guild friendly.  That's just not what this game is focusing on.  And that does not mean it cannot still be fun for solo players and small guilds.  It just means the game isn't going to hand them things on a silver platter because they're small.

Even though this game has moved away from the marketing hype of "throne war simulator" that's still what I'm hoping it turns out to be.  You think that in a real-life bid for a throne among warring Houses that the small, put-upon House gets a hand-out because the huge zerg-guilds stomp them in open engagements?  The more I'm wasting my time typing this out to you, however, the more I just see the real problem is your play style.**  You could be out having fun and accomplishing things as a small guild--like the 7-man guild pointed out to you earlier in this thread--but instead you're here trying to mold the game in a way that will let you and your playstyle do better, specifically.  Clearly...because a 7-man guild placed 3rd above my "zerg omg op" guild that you're here complaining about.

**Edit:  I don't mean to imply there is something inherently wrong with your play style.  Just that perhaps it isn't a good match for this sort of game.  Not every game can be everything to every person.  There are plenty of other games that allow GvG fighting where the devs took pains to make sure it's all "fair."

My play style is battle in fair numbers, like a said a thousand times. Don't like to be on the weak side of a 100v10 and also don't like to be on the winning side of the same 100v10. I said that already, but anyway... As for the 'not the first newbie to come around here wanting to change the game to be more solo/small-guild friendly', not sure you know, but this is a game in its test phase. Many will come and many will say what they think about the game, like it or not, noob or pro. Get used to or don't play a TEST server.

8 minutes ago, APE said:

I've been playing since the start of these things and also prefer something resembling a fair fight, but understand that is the exception in these types of games. I get my "fair" competitive fix in other games/genres. A game can't be everything to everyone, especially not with such limited content as Crowfall. 

I've said for a long time that I'd like to see some sort of "ranking" system for campaigns. Ex: Can only enter with and obtain a Green Vessel/Gear during the Campaign. Or a guild has to have earned X Divine Favor or some metric to enter.

Blending lobby/esport game matches (campaigns) with persistent MMO features (characters/gear/resources) without accounting for the wide variety of players and their skill is going to be a mess.

If I played pro players every match in a eSport game or MMO arena, I would give up. Losing over and over is not fun most of the time. I don't even have the delusion that I'm the best and deserve to win like some do.

Competition means different things to different people. Winning at all cost is something many follow. Which means stomping others regardless of guide size, experience, gear quality, etc. A win is a win. Play to Crush...

ACE is trying to offer different avenues to victory which hopefully allows guilds to have a chance to compete with their capabilities but fact is not everyone is going to be on even footing all the time in everything. It just can't work that way in this type of game. Capping guilds at 5-25-50-1000 isn't going to change that. It's just one hurdle that people have to walk around and keep playing how they want.

If you had exactly the same number of players as your competition then it would be gear quality, builds, passive training, or some other reason that one side is winning or not. Not sure if you played the past Trials but numbers didn't win the day. Communication, experience, organization are a huge factor and trying to wrangle a bunch of new players is like herding kittens. 

What eSport or arena competition put teams with different sizes? Haven't seen any.

I made my point. You're obviously free to disagree. I won't keep repeating myself. Some old players are here saying they don't want it to be different towards being more competitive to new players? Shocker! But hey, maybe we should all quit our guilds and make only one really huge guild so we all could win all the time and no one else would stand a chance, eh? Since winning is all that matters... smh

I'm done. My feedback will remain the same. Hopefully the devs will understand.

cB9UT9m.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Haggstrom said:

not sure you know, but this is a game in its test phase

Wait, what????

 

Edit:  Oh, and for the record I thought I'd point out that you ignored all my points and just wrote what you felt like writing without addressing them.  The same thing you were accusing others of doing...

Edit #2:  It's obvious after your latest responses that you're only here to be "right" and anyone offering opposing viewpoints is "ignoring you" or "just wants easy-wins and no challenge."  The most thrilling part about fighting a larger force is that when you win, you earned it.  It wasn't a game mechanic helping you.  100 v 100 is definitely more fun--for both sides--than a 100 v 10.  I'm not disagreeing with that.  What I am disagreeing with is wanting a game mechanic to enforce the more "fair" feeling 100 v 100.  If a 100 v 100 happens, that's awesome.  If it is mandatory and forced by the game itself...custard that.

Edited by mourne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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