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

Most Pressing Pre-Release Ask


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Congrats to everyone at ACE for making it to this huge milestone! I expect you are all occupied with lots to do and a ton of nervous energy.

@jtoddcoleman @thomasblair @Tyrant

I did want to take a moment to communicate the biggest outlying issue for launch, IMO - alliance-level scoring for conquest. Many guilds are going to want to play and the alliance system is what allows smaller guilds to maintain an identity while still being competitive as a part of a larger alliance. The concern is that without alliance-level scoring for conquest, we are feeling pressure to dissolve our individual guilds and all tag under one conglomerate. 

I tend to like the idea that guilds can score and win things at the guild level, so I wouldn't want to see it replaced entirely, but I do think the large conquest win should calculate at the alliance level, as a sum of the scores of each of the sub-guilds.

The rest of the changes that I would hope for I think can roll out over time and not lose too much (except maybe more city ownership opportunities and handshake sieges), but this one seems integral to allowing medium-sized guilds to exist without being absorbed (an action that often causes the loss of a lot of players who prioritize guild identity).

Thanks for reading and good luck this month!

Edited by McTan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, McTan said:

Congrats to everyone at ACE for making it to this huge milestone! I expect you are all occupied with lots to do and a ton of nervous energy.

@jtoddcoleman @thomasblair @Tyrant

I did want to take a moment to communicate the biggest outlying issue for launch, IMO - alliance-level scoring for conquest. Many guilds are going to want to play and the alliance system is what allows smaller guilds to maintain an identity while still being competitive as a part of a larger alliance. The concern is that without alliance-level scoring for conquest, we are feeling pressure to dissolve our individual guilds and all tag under one conglomerate. 

I tend to like the idea that guilds can score and win things at the guild level, so I wouldn't want to see it replaced entirely, but I do think the large conquest win should calculate at the alliance level, as a sum of the scores of each of the sub-guilds.

The rest of the changes that I would hope for I think can roll out over time and not lose too much (except maybe more city ownership opportunities and handshake sieges), but this one seems integral to allowing medium-sized guilds to exist without being absorbed (an action that often causes the loss of a lot of players who prioritize guild identity).

Thanks for reading and good luck this month!

This ... and bring back conquest PENALTY. People are buying as many keeps and only building a belltower. Losing it means nothing because there's no penalty anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

ACE, come on. A title from decades ago was able to codify a Two-Shield system. Please for the love of PvP, fix the Alliance System and how scoring is tabulated before live launch so that sub-guilds scoring count at the Alliance shield level and addresses the single biggest "plug" in the Alliance system. If you fix that aspect first, I can give you a pass on the Seasonal Cards rework. 

I get it, capture points and recognition of 1:M is vastly different than 1:1 recognition and requires a major overhaul. 

JUST DO IT!

Edited by tasorin
Spelling/Grammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to be improved for sure.

Not being able to cap stuff because it actually might cause problem for your alliance is stupid.

One idea ive seem thrown around a lot is 2 competition lvls, one to alliance and one to individual guilds. If I cap stuff it counts both to our alliance and our guild. Reward winners in both categories.

And honestly that sounds really simple to implement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

It has to be improved for sure.

Not being able to cap stuff because it actually might cause problem for your alliance is stupid.

One idea ive seem thrown around a lot is 2 competition lvls, one to alliance and one to individual guilds. If I cap stuff it counts both to our alliance and our guild. Reward winners in both categories.

And honestly that sounds really simple to implement.

just some simple blair math will do it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, McTan said:

Congrats to everyone at ACE for making it to this huge milestone! I expect you are all occupied with lots to do and a ton of nervous energy.

@jtoddcoleman @thomasblair @Tyrant

I did want to take a moment to communicate the biggest outlying issue for launch, IMO - alliance-level scoring for conquest. Many guilds are going to want to play and the alliance system is what allows smaller guilds to maintain an identity while still being competitive as a part of a larger alliance. The concern is that without alliance-level scoring for conquest, we are feeling pressure to dissolve our individual guilds and all tag under one conglomerate. 

I tend to like the idea that guilds can score and win things at the guild level, so I wouldn't want to see it replaced entirely, but I do think the large conquest win should calculate at the alliance level, as a sum of the scores of each of the sub-guilds.

The rest of the changes that I would hope for I think can roll out over time and not lose too much (except maybe more city ownership opportunities and handshake sieges), but this one seems integral to allowing medium-sized guilds to exist without being absorbed (an action that often causes the loss of a lot of players who prioritize guild identity).

Thanks for reading and good luck this month!

All of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with McTan. 

We have a great many guilds that don't want to mass recruit and be forced under one tag. The Alliance system was supposed to be an answer for this, but it only gave us a metric to avoid friendly fire.

Finish this and give us Alliance scoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many moving parts with this kinda stuff.

You can't really solve the "big guy versus little guy" with scoring or population caps because big guilds can very easily just break in to smaller ones if its more efficient.

Honestly the only real way to address this issue is to make sure there are appropriate tiers of risk/reward campaigns so that the "little guys" and the "big guys" don't have reasons to try and compete in the first place. If the "little guys" want to compete at that level, their only real option is and has always been adopting the patterns of the "big guys" and that's just not a behavior pattern you can change. People wanna win, and they're always going to do whatever it takes to win. "Big guys" are always going to serve as an impenetrable wall moreso than a conquerable obstacle due to far more efficient logistical and command structures and the idea that "a bunch of little guys" can gang up on the big guys just never really pans out because the big guys are always much more likely to be the thing standing in the way of the little guys, and allying with them rather than each other is always the most efficient means of removing those obstacles.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

...that "a bunch of little guys" can gang up on the big guys just never really pans out because the big guys are always much more likely to be the thing standing in the way of the little guys, and allying with them rather than each other is always the most efficient means of removing those obstacles.

McTan's suggestion may or may not help small guilds compete together, but it sure would help small guilds to be able to contribute to an alliance without being subsumed by a shell guild and potentially lose out on building their guild identity.

And compared to what we have now would at the very least make it more reasonable for them to compete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

So many moving parts with this kinda stuff.

You can't really solve the "big guy versus little guy" with scoring or population caps because big guilds can very easily just break in to smaller ones if its more efficient.

Honestly the only real way to address this issue is to make sure there are appropriate tiers of risk/reward campaigns so that the "little guys" and the "big guys" don't have reasons to try and compete in the first place. If the "little guys" want to compete at that level, their only real option is and has always been adopting the patterns of the "big guys" and that's just not a behavior pattern you can change. People wanna win, and they're always going to do whatever it takes to win. "Big guys" are always going to serve as an impenetrable wall moreso than a conquerable obstacle due to far more efficient logistical and command structures and the idea that "a bunch of little guys" can gang up on the big guys just never really pans out because the big guys are always much more likely to be the thing standing in the way of the little guys, and allying with them rather than each other is always the most efficient means of removing those obstacles.

This is a simpler ask than that, not trying to solve big guy versus little guy - simply allowing alliances to function as the point-getter for conquest so that there is not as much pressure for sub-guilds to merge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, McTan said:

This is a simpler ask than that, not trying to solve big guy versus little guy - simply allowing alliances to function as the point-getter for conquest so that there is not as much pressure for sub-guilds to merge.

Fair enough, but at the end of the day all it really changes are the shields. A QOL buff for alliances that essentially end up operating in exactly the same way. I'm not opposed to that really, I just don't think based on what JTodd said on stream it seems likely to significantly alter the behavior of players in regards to alliances. As long as players have control of who joins of leaves alliances, those alliances will remains mostly static season to season and campaign to campaign.

As a QOL buff its certainly a thing we should have always had as it reflects how people actually play the game in alliances.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individual rewards on cards. Earned daily weekly season campaign Things like food, small mats, sparkle dust, exports, imports, 

Group/murder based rewards, like individual rewards but geared towards groups of 6. Weekly, season, campaign timescales for those rewards.

Guild based actions/cards/rewards/  Season/ campaign rewards, adding up what guilds have done. Season/campaign timescale Items like siege, larger dust rewards, gold rewards.

Alliance based rewards. Campaign based rewards the big stuff.  Single use instapot rank 1 bell tower.  5 importable siege engines. Large dust and or gold reserves. Relics for Ek's that last a month once placed.  Still temporary but geared towards the 50-100 man scaled to 500 man groups. 

My toons that are named, are in UDL. They will stay in UDL. Scoring and rewards be damned. I earned my place in UDL and that tag goes to multiple games. Let us keep and use the things that are bigger than Crowfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PopeUrban said:

Fair enough, but at the end of the day all it really changes are the shields. A QOL buff for alliances that essentially end up operating in exactly the same way. I'm not opposed to that really, I just don't think based on what JTodd said on stream it seems likely to significantly alter the behavior of players in regards to alliances. As long as players have control of who joins of leaves alliances, those alliances will remains mostly static season to season and campaign to campaign.

As a QOL buff its certainly a thing we should have always had as it reflects how people actually play the game in alliances.

It's such a simple change and it's substantially more than a QOL buff. This will basically decide whether guilds can have their own identity, or whether they are strongly incentivized to roll up. 

The result of a mandate to roll up is that the guild spots in big shield guilds will be highly coveted, which means they will eventually be attached to contribution requirements, further cementing the game as designed for no-lifers. For example, some top guilds in Albion require 30+ hours per week spent on guild activities alone just to keep a spot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alot said:

It's such a simple change and it's substantially more than a QOL buff. This will basically decide whether guilds can have their own identity, or whether they are strongly incentivized to roll up. 

The result of a mandate to roll up is that the guild spots in big shield guilds will be highly coveted, which means they will eventually be attached to contribution requirements, further cementing the game as designed for no-lifers. For example, some top guilds in Albion require 30+ hours per week spent on guild activities alone just to keep a spot. 

Honestly in my personal experience you can just replace the word "guild" with "nation" or "alliance" and this statement remains true.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

Honestly in my personal experience you can just replace the word "guild" with "nation" or "alliance" and this statement remains true.

Even with a game as popular as Albion, and significant penalties for including too many people, alliances always have guilds with lower requirements. There are usually one or two "big shield" guilds in Albion that push for 1st/2nd/3rd for a season (sort of like a campaign), the rest in the alliance contribute to the big shield win, while settling for gold or crystal rank themselves. The big shield guilds are the ones that have the requirements. These requirements encourage really unhealthy behavior, of course, while also splitting up communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...