Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Zerg ftw?
rishaki
Member Posts: 181
From what info i have gather it feels like this game will turn out to who have thoe most Max lvl players on thir side. In Linage2 its basicly 2 sides on my server and they can own any other clan. Even thire sub clans can hold castles since it only req a few high levl players/heroes/nobless to own any mid/low pop clan. Basicly La2 is a game where players is given allt he power. I like the game for what it is but i think some balance changes should be made in this game to avoid this kind of things and from what i have heard its impossible since other clans /players can sign up to help a guild. THIS IS NOT GOOD. This will allow a big clan to dominate whole servers, especially since they can choose time for sieges.
Clan x makes a sub clan if there is a regulation to how much a clan can posess.
Clan x sets siege time for thire first keep to 5pm and second for 8pm. When defend is over for first one they just turn and help thire sub clan to defend the second one... This will encurage zergs and smaller class will be left with nothing. Atleast this is how it turned out in Lineage 2.
This game will be much better if everyone, even those who do not wish to be in a huge clan, can participate in sieges and will also be rewarded for it. People allways finde a way to get what they want and only when it isent possible they abandon the game/clan to join a zerg. I could never see myself as a member of a clan with more players than i can get to know and play/chat regulary with. That would leav me unsure with what kind of people i am claned with and wether or not i can support them when things go wrong, if i dont know a claned member, what diffrence a claned from a random player?
Comments
That's pretty much why I don't like PvP based on player organizations. I think it's inevitable that this sort of thing will happen in AoC. Yes, they limit guilds to one battle keep per guild but that's so easy to get around it's laughable. There is almost no doubt that the border kingdoms will be dominated entirely by just two or maybe three major guilds and for anyone who doesn't want to join one of those guilds the PvP might as well not even exist I'm afraid.
I just don't see how they could prevent this from happening given the current set up they have.
I think the only way that player organization based warfare could ever avoid the zerg syndrom is if the virtual world were huge and there was no instant/easy/very quick way to travel around. So that just GETTING to a far away city to attack it would be a major logistical challenge. But I digress with my daydreams.
That's how all guild vs guild based games end up. Shadowbane and lineage 2 are good examples of uber guild(s) dominating a server untill they get bored and quit or go another server. Not much funcom can do about that. Faction based games don't have this problem, so regardless of if you are in an uber guild, a small guild or unguilded you can enjoy everything game has to offer.Then again, faction based games like daoc and soon to be war will most likely inevitably end up with one faction being more popular, just how things are.
First off, each clan can only control 1 keep. Second, the time for seiges are not set by the players. There is a set time when keeps are vulnerable. So, yeah, no worries.
This can be avoided.
1. Limit each player (per account to avoid alt clans holding keeps) to only sign up as defender at 1 hold but unlimited times every 7 days reset. Or limit player to defend only thire own keep if they have one. This would give merceneries the possebility to be on more than 1 siege as defender every 7days.
2. Each clan can only posses so much.
So even clan with 400 members clan can only hold 1 keep since they wont be able to defend more, even if they make sub clans and have thir sub clans defend for them while posessing another keep attackers can just sign for bothe thire keeps and attack the weakest defend , if they defend equal on bothe just taken one since they can only do it with half force.
I cant see of any way to work around this and it wont limit players to much, ofc it sucks you can only defend your own keep and not help alliance but strong clans (those who got a keep in first place) can pobebly spare a few of thire clan members to assist alliance. And if small clans form a allaince to take a keep they still have to appeal to alliance in the way that they show up every time they are sieged, wich is harder much harder than having a zerg clan in the first place. Strong clans can hold keeps on thire own and will there not have any need of allies. Usaly big/strong clans are not popular and have few allies so this should really not be a problem.
First off, each clan can only control 1 keep. Second, the time for seiges are not set by the players. There is a set time when keeps are vulnerable. So, yeah, no worries.
Wrong... There will be a timeframe when siges can take place, whitin that timeframe defending clan will be able to pick exactly what time it will take place.
What would it mean "you cannot defend more than one keep" if your guild, which just successfuly defended your keep, rolls to a friendly guild's keep (sub clan's keep) can they not kill people there? If they can, then aren't they esseintially defending that keep by killing would-be attackers?
Granted, funcom went with "tickets" instead of who holds the keep at the end, so this is a bit harder sinc the defendign guild would need to have more tickets than attackers (or than a friendly guild that is killing all attackers) but I am sure it can still be done.
Maybe you can find some answers here: Clarifications on Border Kingdoms and Seiging
First off Lineage 2 is that way because they limit clan size. AOC will not. Lineage 2 used to have a lot of small clans in an alliance, alliance members did not get castle benefits, only the controlling clan. That forced them to get castles for every clan. Alt clans holding castles is just arrogance. If you don't want to be in a clan thats large enough to control a keep, then go for a battle tower. If you think a clan large enough to capture and defend a keep is a zerg then you don't deserve a keep. the word Zerg is typicle MMO whining. Or my favorite, the elitists. Having a very small clan but claiming to have the best. Mopped the floor with many of these people even while we were out numbered. Of coarse our numbers all ways trippled on the forums later.
Now L2 has larger clans but still artificialy limited in numbers. People are going to find ways around it if numbers win the battles. I doubt in AOC you will have to worry about 1 allied group controlling all the keeps. More likely you will get a keep but a stronger guild will come crush it for the buffs. They have stated that destroying keeps will grant some kind of bonus.
Yay, you killed allot of elits since you are so, LeetGoshUZ!!Z! The fact still remains. Will just have to wait and see how things turns out since of the ticket system i did not know about.
The only way around having guilds ally together and dominate a border kingdom will be ....
1. Players won't support it, and band together to destory the alliance. (If 10 guilds work together to plan a siege, they can plan to siege 5 locations, then only goto 1 of them, together. They defenders will have to spread out, and a focused force may be able to topple them.
2. Game Master INTERVENTION.
No actually I'm just an above average pvper. But thats all I need to be to kill fodder like you. Any one claiming there guild is small but made up of elites is just lol.
Think of it like this. On any given server they plan on a population of about 1500 people. there are 9 battle keeps. Thats 9 guilds that can have no official alliance.
There will be 12 towers, thats 12 more guilds that can siege and hold a base. Again no alliance is supported by the game.
There will be 18 resources. Thats 18 more guilds that can siege for resources. It was stated in a recent interview that no guild can hold 2 of any of these. Thats 39 guilds that can fight over large to small objectives. alliances will be needed but wont lock any one out.
Ok, why complain and let a1 or 2 guilds take over?
Why not fight back? If they can do it, so can you. And the big guilds would love some competitions
So the worst whiners need to begin a new guild......consisting of 100% whiners. You wold get hundreds of members right away.
This is one of the big reasons i wanna play AoC
Let's say that I took your advice and formed the "Whiners" guild. And let's say it works out well for me. Now what?
We go into the border kingdoms and take our first keep. All the while agressively recruiting more people. But now I want to take over another battle keep. Ok, I create an alt character and use him to create "Whiners 2", a sub-guild which I also control. I spin off some of the people from the main guild into the sub-guild and we take another keep.
By this point there will already be a lot of people in the game who aren't in big enough guilds to compete in PvP. They want to get in on the action too so the small guilds start falling apart and those people start joining the bigger guilds (and their associated sub-guilds).
So now the biggest guilds are getting even bigger. So I create more alts (and a second account if necessary) and create "whiners 3, 4, 5 and so on as needed). Technically they are all separate guilds but in reality they are all controlled by me. And since there is no way to for people in a guild to rebel and overthrow their guild master it's just tough luck if the peons don't like it. If one of my peasants starts bitching I kick him/her out of the guild and then he/she is screwed for participating in PvP at all.
Now what if I take over the entire border kindoms area? What are you gonig to do about it? I have the numbers on my side. Even if you get enough people together to take a keep or tower I'm just going to take it right back again. You'll never hold it very long.
The only way to fight me is for some other mega-guild to form. So let's say someone else does exactly the same sort of thing I did with their main guild called the "Bitchers" guild. Sub-guilds being Bitchers 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on.
Ok, so the whiners and the bitchers fight with each other in a more or less stabilized stand off. But that's it. That's about the best you can hope for in this set up. If YOU want to participate in PvP you are going to have to join either the Bitchers or the Whiners. You don't like that? Tough sh-t, there's nothing you can do about it.
That's why this sort of PvP sucks. You either prostitute yourself to an organization you don't really want to be in or you are completely shut out.
You should know the sort of snowball effect that will come into play here.Let's say that I took your advice and formed the "Whiners" guild. And let's say it works out well for me. Now what?
We go into the border kingdoms and take our first keep. All the while agressively recruiting more people. But now I want to take over another battle keep. Ok, I create an alt character and use him to create "Whiners 2", a sub-guild which I also control. I spin off some of the people from the main guild into the sub-guild and we take another keep.
By this point there will already be a lot of people in the game who aren't in big enough guilds to compete in PvP. They want to get in on the action too so the small guilds start falling apart and those people start joining the bigger guilds (and their associated sub-guilds).
So now the biggest guilds are getting even bigger. So I create more alts (and a second account if necessary) and create "whiners 3, 4, 5 and so on as needed). Technically they are all separate guilds but in reality they are all controlled by me. And since there is no way to for people in a guild to rebel and overthrow their guild master it's just tough luck if the peons don't like it. If one of my peasants starts bitching I kick him/her out of the guild and then he/she is screwed for participating in PvP at all.
Now what if I take over the entire border kindoms area? What are you gonig to do about it? I have the numbers on my side. Even if you get enough people together to take a keep or tower I'm just going to take it right back again. You'll never hold it very long.
The only way to fight me is for some other mega-guild to form. So let's say someone else does exactly the same sort of thing I did with their main guild called the "Bitchers" guild. Sub-guilds being Bitchers 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on.
Ok, so the whiners and the bitchers fight with each other in a more or less stabilized stand off. But that's it. That's about the best you can hope for in this set up. If YOU want to participate in PvP you are going to have to join either the Bitchers or the Whiners. You don't like that? Tough sh-t, there's nothing you can do about it.
That's why this sort of PvP sucks. You either prostitute yourself to an organization you don't really want to be in or you are completely shut out.
Yes and no.
The sad part about it is that Guilds can and have allied with another to totally dominate a setup in past games. What makes AoC so limiting and vulnerable to massive Guilds dominating is the fact that there are really very few locations to fight over. Guilds can easily shut out smaller ones and eventually, through time, smaller ones can be weeded out until only 2 Mega Guilds remain. This system is used similarly with Shadowbane, but SB had many more points to fight over, thus preventing one Guild from dominating simply because it was too large of an area to cover. To prevent such domination Funcom needs to INCREASE the NUMBER of Battlekeeps, resource points and forts to fight over. Simply having 9 BK's is not enough. They are going to be owned by the 3 Big Mega guilds and thats gonna suck.
However, Guilds arent steel walled and fall apart, have politics etc take a look at Darktide. Guild Politics were big on that server and even though one large guild did dominate for awhile it wasnt complete domination and polotics eroded and destroyed guilds. Hopefully AoC's alliance system would add some depth.
Remember that Funcom does have a mercenary system allowing people to join in and fight for a price without being in the guild. However I do imagine it would get boring fighting for the same 2 guilds over and over. Hence my biggest fear of this game....
Luckily they have FFA servers so no worries
Usually on FFA servers guilds tend to be slightly more unstable and politics tend to be even more intense.
My biggest worry when it comes to GvG play is the fact that since the Border Kingdoms are centered around GvG sieges, but these sieges can only happen at certain times, what are the hardcore PvPers going to be doing the rest of the time?
They won't be PvEing.
They won't be gathering resources.
They won't be defending their keep.
They'll be doing one of two things, running around the Border Kingdoms attacking anyone they can or doing the instance PvP.
I was going to say they could be attacking another keep, but they would have to wait until a specific time to do that too.
I think the prescribed time idea is going to backfire, because it creates PvP downtime where the only thing left to do will be ganking or instanced PvP.
And since CTF will get boring at some point, that leads to random PvP, which ultimately leads to ganking.
I definitely see this leading to several guilds owning the Border Kingdoms and other players either joining up or getting slaughtered.
Hopefully there's something I've missed. Please let me know if there is.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
I think that you have to consider how many "Hardcore" PvP'ers there are to start with, what specific server they will play on aswell.
Lets say the anyone who considers themselves as a hardcore PvP'er goes on a PvP FFA server.
They will have options to do the PvP mini games : CTF, Team Annihilation, Drunken Brawling (others may come aswell)
This looks on the whole that they promote team play, Guild Wars GvG is a very popular Team event, Played it? Its very competitive and has lasting appeal in forming offensive and defensive tactics in a group along with objectives per map. Same can be said for the style of play say in UT2K4 something that is very popular still to this day - anyone into fighting should appreciate these mini games and the play style that can be done in them as to be nicely transferable to large scale Seige battles. With Seiges looking like they will need coherent participation, eg, The mounts, The Rangers, Flanking, Directional Offensive strategy etc etc So good? YES!
Im just gonna quote a few lines from Athelans clarification - here, im sure you read it: http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?p=927312#post927312
In the Border Kingdoms:
"There are 3 levels of PvP objectives in the Border Kingdoms
Resources, which have a turnover time of 24 hours
Forts, which have a turnover time of 3 days
Battlekeeps, which have a turnover time of 7 days"
Plenty of things to fight over here.
"In a given region there may be 3 Battlekeeps, 4 Forts, and 6 or so resources, this is again based on estimates.
NOTE THIS MEANS EACH KEEP IS NOT AN INSTANCE BUT A PART OF THIS AREA."
Clarification on what could be potentially just in one region
"Only one guild may win possession of an objective, however there is no limit to who wants to participate
"If you hold a nearby Fort or two you could also counterattack the keep etc"
So your a hardcore PvP'er there are Forts to fight for, for your guild, or if your a Merc, a free flowing individual who looks for any opportunity to kill, a hand for hire, there are lots of "objectives" to take part in
"The Border Kingdoms is an open PvP area, this means that engaging other players is available at all times, except your own party or guild members."
This hasn't changed its OPEN PvP - ALL TIMES.
Taking the above into consideration and then approaching what you say; If you want to have the hardcore fights, the hardcore, biggest battles thats going to be the BattleKeeps. SO yes you will have to gather resources to build your walls back up, to fortify your position. And anyone into winning (hardcore PvP'ers) will have to and do in other games take into account - Strategy. Hardcore PvP'ers always look for the best opportunitys and best way, the quickest way to put down a foe. Fortifying your position in the Border Kingdoms will be essential to give yourself the best possible chance to win. Winning is the bottom line here. Don't like gathering resources? Then be a Merc, go solo, the region is yours...
Your Statements:
"They'll be doing one of two things, running around the Border Kingdoms attacking anyone they can or doing the instance PvP."
Exactly, there are Forts and Resources to fight over, even if you have no intent of doing anything with them after, if your solo or in a party of similar minded people.
"I think the prescribed time idea is going to backfire, because it creates PvP downtime where the only thing left to do will be ganking or instanced PvP."
Wrong, factor into your cause for concern two things - 1. Sleep - The Hardcore PvP'er may play hardcore 20 hrs a day times, but that hardcore player will need to sleep my friend. and 2. Server Type and location. - Different servers have different rulesets (full information still unknown so far), Location - whats the point of being a hardcore PvP'er and joing a server the other side of the world? There isn't really, servers always have had times when the population sleeps, hence finding a server fitting to your play style and times will be important, based on what you want to get from the game. Waking up playing the game, and getting what you want out of it ( in this case, your a hardcore PvP'er and need population to kill) - In my Opinion - no big put down intended!
Can I ask you something? Are you a hardcore PvP'er? Have you ever met a Hardcore PvP'er who hasn't "ganked" someone? Would you term them anything less than a hardcore PvP'er if so? In a Hardcore PvP'ers mind is Ganking a bad thing? Do we not expect to see some Kill On Sight types and this type of player thought on a FFA PvP Server in the Open PvP of the Border Kingdom? Anyway...
Im guessing that you forgot something with regards to Griefing / Ganking; The Bounty System. http://bymitra.com/search/13019 there is a search for you
Although again im sorry to say further details and implementation are a bit scare but there is quite a bit of hindsight in some of the dev's posts.
Would you still agree with your statement - "I think the prescribed time idea is going to backfire, because it creates PvP downtime where the only thing left to do will be ganking or instanced PvP." under consideration of the points I made?
Well whatever, your post comes across as saying the hardcore PvP'er wont have alot of features in AoC - I would honestly have to disagree from the information I've read and the media I've seen. It sure looks like there are plenty of options if you intend on going down that road, or if you simply enjoy PvP more than PvE. But one thing looks forsure - The Border Kingdoms don't look carebear to me, especially if your going on a FFA PvP server (who knows what server ruleset will apply)
Maybe some of the points I mentioned might alleviate your concerns? I am not arguing here, just pointing out a few things, hope it goes down ok.
I can't quite understand the rest of what you are getting at, but you seem to be saying that the ordinary person will have to join a guild that they don't want to join to do PvP, but in reality, any guild can field a large army through the use of mercenaries, all that they need is a lot of money, and they can get that through PvE.
Also It seems that you said that they need to make sub guilds etc. well it probably won't make a difference in your equations or whatever, but one guild can own multiple battle keeps, and also, it will be hard for any guild to own all of them because you would essentially need all of the players who would do PvP to defend them at their appropriate times so that no new guilds came along and took one of them.
Lets say the anyone who considers themselves as a hardcore PvP'er goes on a PvP FFA server.
They will have options to do the PvP mini games : CTF, Team Annihilation, Drunken Brawling (others may come aswell)
This looks on the whole that they promote team play, Guild Wars GvG is a very popular Team event, Played it? Its very competitive and has lasting appeal in forming offensive and defensive tactics in a group along with objectives per map. Same can be said for the style of play say in UT2K4 something that is very popular still to this day - anyone into fighting should appreciate these mini games and the play style that can be done in them as to be nicely transferable to large scale Seige battles. With Seiges looking like they will need coherent participation, eg, The mounts, The Rangers, Flanking, Directional Offensive strategy etc etc So good? YES!
Im just gonna quote a few lines from Athelans clarification - here, im sure you read it: http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?p=927312#post927312
In the Border Kingdoms:
"There are 3 levels of PvP objectives in the Border Kingdoms
Resources, which have a turnover time of 24 hours
Forts, which have a turnover time of 3 days
Battlekeeps, which have a turnover time of 7 days"
Plenty of things to fight over here.
"In a given region there may be 3 Battlekeeps, 4 Forts, and 6 or so resources, this is again based on estimates.
NOTE THIS MEANS EACH KEEP IS NOT AN INSTANCE BUT A PART OF THIS AREA."
Clarification on what could be potentially just in one region
"Only one guild may win possession of an objective, however there is no limit to who wants to participate
"If you hold a nearby Fort or two you could also counterattack the keep etc"
So your a hardcore PvP'er there are Forts to fight for, for your guild, or if your a Merc, a free flowing individual who looks for any opportunity to kill, a hand for hire, there are lots of "objectives" to take part in
"The Border Kingdoms is an open PvP area, this means that engaging other players is available at all times, except your own party or guild members."
This hasn't changed its OPEN PvP - ALL TIMES.
Taking the above into consideration and then approaching what you say; If you want to have the hardcore fights, the hardcore, biggest battles thats going to be the BattleKeeps. SO yes you will have to gather resources to build your walls back up, to fortify your position. And anyone into winning (hardcore PvP'ers) will have to and do in other games take into account - Strategy. Hardcore PvP'ers always look for the best opportunitys and best way, the quickest way to put down a foe. Fortifying your position in the Border Kingdoms will be essential to give yourself the best possible chance to win. Winning is the bottom line here. Don't like gathering resources? Then be a Merc, go solo, the region is yours...
Your Statements:
"They'll be doing one of two things, running around the Border Kingdoms attacking anyone they can or doing the instance PvP."
Exactly, there are Forts and Resources to fight over, even if you have no intent of doing anything with them after, if your solo or in a party of similar minded people.
"I think the prescribed time idea is going to backfire, because it creates PvP downtime where the only thing left to do will be ganking or instanced PvP."
Wrong, factor into your cause for concern two things - 1. Sleep - The Hardcore PvP'er may play hardcore 20 hrs a day times, but that hardcore player will need to sleep my friend. and 2. Server Type and location. - Different servers have different rulesets (full information still unknown so far), Location - whats the point of being a hardcore PvP'er and joing a server the other side of the world? There isn't really, populations of servers always have downtime in periods of population, hence finding a server fitting to your play style and times will be important, based on what you want to get from the game. Waking up playing the game, and getting what you want out of it ( in this case, your a hardcore PvP'er and need population to kill) - In my Opinion - no big put down intended!
Can I ask you something? Are you a hardcore PvP'er? Have you ever met a Hardcore PvP'er who hasn't "ganked" someone? Would you term them anything less than a hardcore PvP'er if so? In a Hardcore PvP'ers mind is Ganking a bad thing? Do we not expect to see some Kill On Sight types and this type of player thought on a FFA PvP Server in the Open PvP of the Border Kingdom? Anyway...
Im guessing that you forgot something with regards to Griefing / Ganking; The Bounty System. http://bymitra.com/search/13019 there is a search for you
Although again im sorry to say further details and implementation are a bit scare but there is quite a bit of hindsight in some of the dev's posts.
Would you still agree with your statement - "I think the prescribed time idea is going to backfire, because it creates PvP downtime where the only thing left to do will be ganking or instanced PvP." under consideration of the points I made?
Well whatever, your post comes across as saying the hardcore PvP'er wont have alot of features in AoC - I would honestly have to disagree from the information I've read and the media I've seen. It sure looks like there are plenty of options if you intend on going down that road, or if you simply enjoy PvP more than PvE. But one thing looks forsure - The Border Kingdoms don't look carebear to me, especially if your going on a FFA PvP server (who knows what server ruleset will apply)
Maybe some of the points I mentioned might alleviate your concerns? I am not arguing here, just pointing out a few things, hope it goes down ok.
Are your watching me Ben? Im not saying something negativeI think the way AOC is going about its is spot on, I loved the epic drama that happened when we went to war in L2. We started out as mercs then made a power grab the only thing is L2 castles were to few and timers where out of whacked in the begining. This led to alot of down time. It took alot to take a castle and from the vid from the con will it in AOC
. Guilds that sit back and play it safe in thier castle. will get thier lunch took, as they should for being carebears. You got to get out and take the resource nodes and forts.
From the link in my first post: this one - http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?t=38043Athelan Says:
"Yes this means you should be diplomatic and get help when defending/attacking, because you are going to have to give people reasons to want to help you. This also means controlling nearby forts is crucial to sieging to have fallback points for respawn for both defenders and attackers.
This eliminates problems with having "buddies" "alliance mates" "dummy guilds" you name it from declaring war and keeping an objective, especially a keep from being contended by people who really want to win it. This refers to the fact anyone can attack during a vulnerability window."
"Ownership is tracked based on guild, a single individual cannot capture and hold an objective.
A guild may hold numerous resources and forts but only one Battlekeep"
The BEST way to make it so that players can't just make sub guilds, and block siege times, or take on additional battle keeps is make it if you should join a guild, your WHOLE account joins that guild, or clan, and cannot joing another one.
Right there is a huge flaw. Some people don't want to join their whole account to a guild. Maybe they want a casual PvE player not associated with the guild.
That and guilds will have far more members than they can rely on for defense. It'll be very misleading for a guild to have 50 members but only 6 or 7 accounts.
Then because of that you need a new mechanic in place that makes up for that. I think that they're Border Kingdom system has a lot of potential flaws, and they might have made their PvP way more complicated than it needed to be.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say "backfire." Even though it might not have been the same topic.Right there is a huge flaw. Some people don't want to join their whole account to a guild. Maybe they want a casual PvE player not associated with the guild.
That and guilds will have far more members than they can rely on for defense. It'll be very misleading for a guild to have 50 members but only 6 or 7 accounts.
Then because of that you need a new mechanic in place that makes up for that. I think that they're Border Kingdom system has a lot of potential flaws, and they might have made their PvP way more complicated than it needed to be.
Wait so you changing your -
"I think the prescribed time idea is going to backfire, because it creates PvP downtime where the only thing left to do will be ganking or instanced PvP."
To - "The BEST way to make it so that players can't just make sub guilds, and block siege times, or take on additional battle keeps is make it if you should join a guild, your WHOLE account joins that guild, or clan, and cannot joing another one. (That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say "backfire.")"
Could you specifically state what is going to "backfire" in your opinion? please - is it a mixture of both or one or the other? I am confused.
"Right there is a huge flaw. Some people don't want to join their whole account to a guild. Maybe they want a casual PvE player not associated with the guild." - is that an assumption? if not could you provide direct linkage to back it up?
"That and guilds will have far more members than they can rely on for defense. It'll be very misleading for a guild to have 50 members but only 6 or 7 accounts." - Just the way you think it will happen? Guilds will have for more members to rely on for attack and defence - if needed you mean? Yes it would be misleading but dont you think that numbers of a guild aren't tied to alt characters, such as guild wars, all your accounts are tied to your one guild. We don't even know if guild numbers on the battle field will be viewable, we just know rough maximum amount on screen at once. We also know that you can advertise for Mercs and "teleport" them in for help.
"Then because of that you need a new mechanic in place that makes up for that. I think that they're Border Kingdom system has a lot of potential flaws, and they might have made their PvP way more complicated than it needed to be." - this is the proper first bit of juicy information to come to light from this area - only a daft person would assume its the last, only a fool would take it as final. There is talk and looks like a scope for some sort of alliance feature to be implemented. I think this system would benefit from this if implemented.
Let's say that I took your advice and formed the "Whiners" guild. And let's say it works out well for me. Now what?
We go into the border kingdoms and take our first keep. All the while agressively recruiting more people. But now I want to take over another battle keep. Ok, I create an alt character and use him to create "Whiners 2", a sub-guild which I also control. I spin off some of the people from the main guild into the sub-guild and we take another keep.
By this point there will already be a lot of people in the game who aren't in big enough guilds to compete in PvP. They want to get in on the action too so the small guilds start falling apart and those people start joining the bigger guilds (and their associated sub-guilds).
So now the biggest guilds are getting even bigger. So I create more alts (and a second account if necessary) and create "whiners 3, 4, 5 and so on as needed). Technically they are all separate guilds but in reality they are all controlled by me. And since there is no way to for people in a guild to rebel and overthrow their guild master it's just tough luck if the peons don't like it. If one of my peasants starts bitching I kick him/her out of the guild and then he/she is screwed for participating in PvP at all.
Now what if I take over the entire border kindoms area? What are you gonig to do about it? I have the numbers on my side. Even if you get enough people together to take a keep or tower I'm just going to take it right back again. You'll never hold it very long.
The only way to fight me is for some other mega-guild to form. So let's say someone else does exactly the same sort of thing I did with their main guild called the "Bitchers" guild. Sub-guilds being Bitchers 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on.
Ok, so the whiners and the bitchers fight with each other in a more or less stabilized stand off. But that's it. That's about the best you can hope for in this set up. If YOU want to participate in PvP you are going to have to join either the Bitchers or the Whiners. You don't like that? Tough sh-t, there's nothing you can do about it.
That's why this sort of PvP sucks. You either prostitute yourself to an organization you don't really want to be in or you are completely shut out.
Now, this is when it gets really interesting....
Forming a really big guild is nothing you just do for fun. Otherwise we would see a ton of them, right?
I think the few people that manage to do that should be very proud. I could never pull it of.
But i promise that i will do everything i can to fight big guilds in AoC, not because im evil or anything.....its just all will have more fun if there is some action going on.
I have some friends that say they wont play AoC since there will be big guilds owning, well that IS my big reason for playing
Right there is a huge flaw. Some people don't want to join their whole account to a guild. Maybe they want a casual PvE player not associated with the guild.
That and guilds will have far more members than they can rely on for defense. It'll be very misleading for a guild to have 50 members but only 6 or 7 accounts.
Then because of that you need a new mechanic in place that makes up for that. I think that they're Border Kingdom system has a lot of potential flaws, and they might have made their PvP way more complicated than it needed to be.
Wait so you changing your -
"I think the prescribed time idea is going to backfire, because it creates PvP downtime where the only thing left to do will be ganking or instanced PvP."
To - "The BEST way to make it so that players can't just make sub guilds, and block siege times, or take on additional battle keeps is make it if you should join a guild, your WHOLE account joins that guild, or clan, and cannot joing another one. (That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say "backfire.")"
Could you specifically state what is going to "backfire" in your opinion? please - is it a mixture of both or one or the other? I am confused.
"Right there is a huge flaw. Some people don't want to join their whole account to a guild. Maybe they want a casual PvE player not associated with the guild." - is that an assumption? if not could you provide direct linkage to back it up?
"That and guilds will have far more members than they can rely on for defense. It'll be very misleading for a guild to have 50 members but only 6 or 7 accounts." - Just the way you think it will happen? Guilds will have for more members to rely on for attack and defence - if needed you mean? Yes it would be misleading but dont you think that numbers of a guild aren't tied to alt characters, such as guild wars, all your accounts are tied to your one guild. We don't even know if guild numbers on the battle field will be viewable, we just know rough maximum amount on screen at once. We also know that you can advertise for Mercs and "teleport" them in for help.
"Then because of that you need a new mechanic in place that makes up for that. I think that they're Border Kingdom system has a lot of potential flaws, and they might have made their PvP way more complicated than it needed to be." - this is the proper first bit of juicy information to come to light from this area - only a daft person would assume its the last, only a fool would take it as final. There is talk and looks like a scope for some sort of alliance feature to be implemented. I think this system would benefit from this if implemented.
Ummm yeah. To start off with, you left off the next sentence which states "Even though it might not have been the same topic."I was further defining what I meant by "backfire." In general I mean a game mechanic that in order for it to work something else is broken.
i.e. prescribed time leads to ganking or instanced PvP during downtime.
i.e. the entire guild thing leads to forcing people to join their whole account to the same guild, which leads to other things, which leads to unhappiness.
Don't pick and choose what to quote.
1. The first part you quote was me replying to someone else. Ask them to provide linkage.
2. You missed my point..... Actually I missed my own point. I was thinking about when I join a guild and they tell me how many members are in it, or when I look up a guild online and it lists how many members they have.
So yeah, it would have no affect on battles.
3. daft and foolish I am not. The devs have had everything that people are now talking about on paper for.... oh over a year. And people have come up with all the same assumptions. Now they tell us exactly how many of what are in the Border Kingdoms so we can now draw further assumptions and ideas.
My further assumption is that the limited number of everything causes more problems than fixing things and that the entire system of Border Kingdoms is fundamentally flawed. I'm not going to explain how I think it's fundamentally flawed because it would take a long time, and it's all based on how I see things playing out, which is of no consequence to you.
Lets just say that I think the moment they got the idea to smash all the PvP into 3 areas things started looking a bit.... wonky for lack of a funnier word.
But yeah, everything will be great I'm sure. Guilds will reign supreme and the individuals will either join up or die.
On a side note completely unrelated. Have they said "how" these mercs will find the guilds that need them or how guilds will find mercs?
If it's that you go out into the BKs and announce you're looking for a guild to hire you, I think that's going to be met with a sword and spell more often than not.
I'm sure they're not this silly though.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.