This problem do occur quite often i 2-faction games where one side can simply maul the other side to the point where the other side quits the server/game. There is a two-fold solution to this issue, don't have red vs blue factions and there has to be enough content so that being on a losing side doesn't kill the game for you.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
I think games like ESO handled this kind of issue pretty well, where the PVP and the PVE sides of the game are completely seperate so PVE players are not affected in any way regardless of what happens on the Cyrodil servers, as long as PVE players are not impacted it doesn't really matter which side is winning or losing.
This reminds me of EU Emerald Dream the server in WoW I was playing on as a Horde character. Initially it wasn't so bad but this was before the days of the merging of Battlegroups and the Horde was slowly losing their population on that server. I was enjoying instant queues on the server as a Horde but as the population dwindled I found I could not buy anything on the AH. The prices were ridiculous because so few items were being sold and I could not get any groups to play as this was the old days before the 'Looking for Dungeon" era. In the end I just gave up playing on that server it was either that or transfer to another realm.
Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?
get people together to make it the winning side?
You mean like early MMOs? Blasphemy!
It's far more likely people will just complain about how unfair it is until the developer caves and implements "balance checks" so all players can feel special.
We've all but eliminated competition in our schools (at least in America) so how can you expect kids to grow up knowing how to handle things like setbacks and loss? They're not capable.
I don't understand the question. As far as I know Ashes won't have a faction system like ESO, so you won't be on the losing side unless you are in a crappy guild who always lose in guild wars.
Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?
get people together to make it the winning side?
You mean like early MMOs? Blasphemy!
It's far more likely people will just complain about how unfair it is until the developer caves and implements "balance checks" so all players can feel special.
We've all but eliminated competition in our schools (at least in America) so how can you expect kids to grow up knowing how to handle things like setbacks and loss? They're not capable.
Well, unlike early MMOs, this games PvE fun is based around how good your sides PvP is.
Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?
get people together to make it the winning side?
You mean like early MMOs? Blasphemy!
It's far more likely people will just complain about how unfair it is until the developer caves and implements "balance checks" so all players can feel special.
We've all but eliminated competition in our schools (at least in America) so how can you expect kids to grow up knowing how to handle things like setbacks and loss? They're not capable.
Competition is a bad word in UK too, does not exist outside of team sports. Its Winners and Runners Up, Strengths and Difficulties. We see winners and losers in everything from business to sport, from gaming to politics to one idea besting another. But remember kids, competition does not exist.
Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?
Difference between Guild Wars2 and Ashes of Creation is GW2 was instanced PvP and the world activities for PvE didn't change for better/worst !
This may effect how much fun PvE is for the loosing side.
Wait for release after a week or two check their forums see which is the dominating side and choose that side, win win.
edit: personally I avoid PVP focused mmorpg cause I play games to relax and enjoy not to be frustrated. I do PvP in Destiny/CoD in those you need aiming/skill quick reaction and I get more kills than deaths in mmorpg pvp is dumb as shit.
Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?
get people together to make it the winning side?
When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).
In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time
In ESO, same thing
The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)
No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.
It may start that way at first, with people swarming to the largest side, but as time passes things tend to balance out, at least in some games that I've observed.
DAOC is one of the better examples. First, due to its design, a skilled, high level group could take out a zerg several times its size.
In fact, the ultimate fighting group was "the 8 man" and I can recall legendary one's on MLF such as a Hib team led by "the General."
His team routinely tore apart zergs, and as one of the dominant faction members (Albs) I can recall immese satisfaction in finally taking his team down.
The thing is, because I was in the zerg, my nightly "reward" might be earning 400 to 1000 prealm points. On the General's 8 man they might earn 75K to 100K. This gave the best players and guilds strong incentive to roll on atheir own and seek fights with smaller groups.
Most recently I played on the revived DAOC freeshard and small group combat came roaring back.
The server on all 3 factions quickly broke into smaller fights and it became a "rule" you did not jump in a fight and help another group in your faction without their permission.
What was totally surprising is how most players actually respected this. Sure, there were a few renegade groups who didn't, but they found themselves totally excluded from the 3 or 4 major alliances which meant huge penalties from getting no intel on the frontiers to being unable to join Dragon raids, where the best in game items.
At first, Midgard was the most populated realm because of perceived advantages, and for a few months dominated. But soon after many rerolled to join Hib or Alb and before long both were able to hold their own.
I think one key thing is in DAOC theres no reward per sec for being on the winning side, (aside from DF access) say at the end of a match or round, which I think might be a cause for some of the problems seen in other games.
Even with DF access, after a realm takes it they generally flood in, leaving the frontiers undefended so the lower pop realms can take the keeps back and gain DF access themselves
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?
get people together to make it the winning side?
When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).
In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time
In ESO, same thing
The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)
No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.
Well, we had it in Lineage 2. And as I mentioned, it was the Hindemith server. Elder Scrolls Online? Guild wars 2? Sorry I don't think they make the grade there. Can't comment on Dark Age of Camelot but when you have a game that isn't realm vs realm, where there are clans/guilds who are all fighting each other and plotting then the power is more fluid. And eventually those larger groups break up and start fighting each other.
I mean, you pick games where there are artificial sides created for you. I highly suspect you have never played Lineage 2 or EVE for that matter.
And again, to punctuate the point, there are powers that rise and eventually they fall and it continues. Now, if you want perfect balance you will never get this. This doesn't happen.
Agreed.. but how is this game set up.. will be the real question.
Well, in this 2nd video about the node system (which sounds great by the way) they mention that at some point the leader might have buildings that defend against a siege.
So maybe it will be more like a Lineage 2? Probably not to be honest but if players can siege other players and then that gives some idea as too what we can expect. I imagine players will be tethered to the node they help grow/pledge allegiance to.
The thing is, can that node be brought down to lower levels (from the high metropolis stage)?
Ok fair point, but GW2 had siege war in it as well, and their system was Server based and costly to move around, assuming you could, as some of the servers were closed, so, just the existence of Siege does not give me the sense of fluid teams. DaoC also had Siege and you literally could not change sides in that game, afaik.
Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out there are sieges in the open world, at least if their metropoles are in the open world which all indications point to yes.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think one key thing is in DAOC theres no reward per sec for being on the winning side, (aside from DF access) say at the end of a match or round, which I think might be a cause for some of the problems seen in other games.
Even with DF access, after a realm takes it they generally flood in, leaving the frontiers undefended so the lower pop realms can take the keeps back and gain DF access themselves
Well there are the relic bonuses. Those are pretty sweet!
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?
get people together to make it the winning side?
When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).
In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time
In ESO, same thing
The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)
No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.
Well, we had it in Lineage 2. And as I mentioned, it was the Hindemith server. Elder Scrolls Online? Guild wars 2? Sorry I don't think they make the grade there. Can't comment on Dark Age of Camelot but when you have a game that isn't realm vs realm, where there are clans/guilds who are all fighting each other and plotting then the power is more fluid. And eventually those larger groups break up and start fighting each other.
I mean, you pick games where there are artificial sides created for you. I highly suspect you have never played Lineage 2 or EVE for that matter.
And again, to punctuate the point, there are powers that rise and eventually they fall and it continues. Now, if you want perfect balance you will never get this. This doesn't happen.
Agreed.. but how is this game set up.. will be the real question.
Well, in this 2nd video about the node system (which sounds great by the way) they mention that at some point the leader might have buildings that defend against a siege.
So maybe it will be more like a Lineage 2? Probably not to be honest but if players can siege other players and then that gives some idea as too what we can expect. I imagine players will be tethered to the node they help grow/pledge allegiance to.
The thing is, can that node be brought down to lower levels (from the high metropolis stage)?
Ok fair point, but GW2 had siege war in it as well, and their system was Server based and costly to move around, assuming you could, as some of the servers were closed, so, just the existence of Siege does not give me the sense of fluid teams. DaoC also had Siege and you literally could not change sides in that game, afaik.
Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out there are sieges in the open world, at least if their metropoles are in the open world which all indications point to yes.
I missed that.
We shall see how things pan out, too often with PvP team based games, is that its just as likely that it could be fun, or could suck... depending on how they handle it. Without playing it, I won't know till it happens.
Nice to theorize tho.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?
get people together to make it the winning side?
When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).
In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time
In ESO, same thing
The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)
No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.
It may start that way at first, with people swarming to the largest side, but as time passes things tend to balance out, at least in some games that I've observed.
DAOC is one of the better examples. First, due to its design, a skilled, high level group could take out a zerg several times its size.
In fact, the ultimate fighting group was "the 8 man" and I can recall legendary one's on MLF such as a Hib team led by "the General."
His team routinely tore apart zergs, and as one of the dominant faction members (Albs) I can recall immese satisfaction in finally taking his team down.
The thing is, because I was in the zerg, my nightly "reward" might be earning 400 to 1000 prealm points. On the General's 8 man they might earn 75K to 100K. This gave the best players and guilds strong incentive to roll on atheir own and seek fights with smaller groups.
Most recently I played on the revived DAOC freeshard and small group combat came roaring back.
The server on all 3 factions quickly broke into smaller fights and it became a "rule" you did not jump in a fight and help another group in your faction without their permission.
What was totally surprising is how most players actually respected this. Sure, there were a few renegade groups who didn't, but they found themselves totally excluded from the 3 or 4 major alliances which meant huge penalties from getting no intel on the frontiers to being unable to join Dragon raids, where the best in game items.
At first, Midgard was the most populated realm because of perceived advantages, and for a few months dominated. But soon after many rerolled to join Hib or Alb and before long both were able to hold their own.
I think one key thing is in DAOC theres no reward per sec for being on the winning side, (aside from DF access) say at the end of a match or round, which I think might be a cause for some of the problems seen in other games.
Even with DF access, after a realm takes it they generally flood in, leaving the frontiers undefended so the lower pop realms can take the keeps back and gain DF access themselves
Well you can make it so that you join a faction on staring on a "server" and you cannot change that faction. You can only create new characters in the same faction. Also if you are not in a guild what's wrong with the server allocating you to a faction?
Players like to have freedom, (channelling here from the other thread) but its rules like this and the ones you mentioned that stop real gameplay headaches. Likewise if all items are bind on equip or for that account only, you could stop skin gambling.
It is true that if you give a gamer an inch he will take the npc's shop, your housing and take a frontier castle down stone by stone and erect it in his backyard.
There are no factions in Ashes. The Developers are also working to make sure that large guilds cannot control the world. Who knows how that will work. We will see.
I think the OPs question and concern highlight the reality that no one likes to lose and that MMO players don't really want living worlds or consequences in the world. They don't want changing environments or real risk. They want an illusion of challenge that provides nearly guaranteed success at least over the course of a couple of attempts.
Then they play games like WOW which is designed for this crowd? I agree that most people dont want to risk things in an MMORPG. I will not play a WOPVP game with full Looting again. To me its just a waste of my time. However Ashes has a very good balance of risk vs reward overall. Players can loot you once they kill you but its a small percentage of your resources. If they PK enough they can risk everything on them including their gear unlike a law abiding player
I think the OPs question and concern highlight the reality that no one likes to lose and that MMO players don't really want living worlds or consequences in the world. They don't want changing environments or real risk. They want an illusion of challenge that provides nearly guaranteed success at least over the course of a couple of attempts.
It's not that I mind loosing at PvP so much, I could care less.
But the loosing side has less PvE content.
I'll be playing this game, but I'll be like the millions trying to get on the winning side, so I get a full PvE game for the money !
I think the OPs question and concern highlight the reality that no one likes to lose and that MMO players don't really want living worlds or consequences in the world. They don't want changing environments or real risk. They want an illusion of challenge that provides nearly guaranteed success at least over the course of a couple of attempts.
It's not that I mind loosing at PvP so much, I could care less.
But the loosing side has less PvE content.
I'll be playing this game, but I'll be like the millions trying to get on the winning side, so I get a full PvE game for the money !
I doubt PVP will control PVE in this game. Steven Sheif is a smart gamer who understands what happened in AA and BDO. I feel that he will not allow for single grinding locations for PVE. I sense the world will be massive at least from what I seen so far, to the point there will be a lot of PVE content.
I think the OPs question and concern highlight the reality that no one likes to lose and that MMO players don't really want living worlds or consequences in the world. They don't want changing environments or real risk. They want an illusion of challenge that provides nearly guaranteed success at least over the course of a couple of attempts.
It's not that I mind loosing at PvP so much, I could care less.
But the loosing side has less PvE content.
I'll be playing this game, but I'll be like the millions trying to get on the winning side, so I get a full PvE game for the money !
We don't actually know how that will pan out in reality. Lineage 1 and 2 both have castle dungeons locked behind guild ownership. Some guilds open those dungeons for all, some don't. If the server doesn't like it then they change who owns it (or try to). That's part of the gameplay loop for those games.
Having access to those doesn't mean you'll get your full pve experience. You can have all open access all you want and still not be able to participate.
But my point is that you OP highlights that MMO players don't want dynamic evolving worlds where player choices have lasting consequences and shape a virtual world. Your concern about being able to participate is solid and totally valid, but that only reinforces the idea that those two concepts are at odds with each other.
It's like people who complain about a lack of diversity of class builds and roles and then want to min/max the hardest content. They can't have diversity and total optimization at the same time.
Now that's supposing games like Ashes, Pantheon, CU, etc are truly trying to be dynamic virtual worlds. They may not be, but I suspect they're trying to achieve that to a degree and will market their games as such.
We will have to see how things pan out with the way the Dynamic world will be. I dont think they will lock the Dungeons to only the guilds that control a certain node. I do see them not opening dungeons for nodes that dont reach a certain level. I think its a wait an see on this one. From my understanding is the development team does not want large guilds to control the servers. Hearing that makes me think they will not lock a dungeon behind a single guild being able to control it. Lets see what they do, maybe its worth asking the developers.
There are no sides to pick. There are no factions. This is a sandbox game, so its really what you make of it. Find a guild, form a guild, bring a guild with you, all viable options.
Some content emerges when Nodes reach a certain maturity level. Events happen, dungeons unlock, etc.
From the Live-stream yesterday we found out that some dungeons are open world, so yes if the local guild is intent on keeping you out of "their" area they can.
However, most guilds are going to be busy trying to do "guild" things.
Worst case scenario, you end up in a hostile part of the world, pack up and travel to the other side. In a game with no fast travel with as big of a world as they are planning, you will be able to find a nice corner of the world to call your own.
...then it becomes a matter of defending it.
I have an entire video series on Ashes of Creation if you want to pick through it for answers to some of your other questions.
There are no sides to pick. There are no factions. This is a sandbox game, so its really what you make of it. Find a guild, form a guild, bring a guild with you, all viable options.
Some content emerges when Nodes reach a certain maturity level. Events happen, dungeons unlock, etc.
From the Live-stream yesterday we found out that some dungeons are open world, so yes if the local guild is intent on keeping you out of "their" area they can.
However, most guilds are going to be busy trying to do "guild" things.
Worst case scenario, you end up in a hostile part of the world, pack up and travel to the other side. In a game with no fast travel with as big of a world as they are planning, you will be able to find a nice corner of the world to call your own.
...then it becomes a matter of defending it.
Beautiful Synopsis of how the game works
Remember playing the Alliance side in WoW, where your party would have to sneak past the Horde Undercity in Tirisfal Glades to get to Scarlet Monastery ?
Even then their was a high chance of fighting your way in..... Always a chance of overwhelming odds of PvP.
Now this is good news for PvP'ers, but still could be more frustrating if your guild or side is vastly out numbered, depending on deeper details of how the game is set up, and how strong your server is.
The Scarlet Monastery example is an isolated incident. But with an entire game of living defensively all the time would make the player want to be on the strong side !!
There are no sides to pick. There are no factions. This is a sandbox game, so its really what you make of it. Find a guild, form a guild, bring a guild with you, all viable options.
Some content emerges when Nodes reach a certain maturity level. Events happen, dungeons unlock, etc.
From the Live-stream yesterday we found out that some dungeons are open world, so yes if the local guild is intent on keeping you out of "their" area they can.
However, most guilds are going to be busy trying to do "guild" things.
Worst case scenario, you end up in a hostile part of the world, pack up and travel to the other side. In a game with no fast travel with as big of a world as they are planning, you will be able to find a nice corner of the world to call your own.
...then it becomes a matter of defending it.
Beautiful Synopsis of how the game works
Remember playing the Alliance side in WoW, where your party would have to sneak past the Horde Undercity in Tirisfal Glades to get to Scarlet Monastery ?
Even then their was a high chance of fighting your way in..... Always a chance of overwhelming odds of PvP.
Now this is good news for PvP'ers, but still could be more frustrating if your guild or side is vastly out numbered, depending on deeper details of how the game is set up, and how strong your server is.
The Scarlet Monastery example is an isolated incident. But with an entire game of living defensively all the time would make the player want to be on the strong side !!
Besides the PvP aspect, you say: "Some content emerges when Nodes reach a certain maturity level."
One side (or guild) would enjoy the fruits of better cities and better content.
This could potentially frustrate many players, because of the dynamic world.
There are no sides to pick. There are no factions. This is a sandbox game, so its really what you make of it. Find a guild, form a guild, bring a guild with you, all viable options.
Some content emerges when Nodes reach a certain maturity level. Events happen, dungeons unlock, etc.
From the Live-stream yesterday we found out that some dungeons are open world, so yes if the local guild is intent on keeping you out of "their" area they can.
However, most guilds are going to be busy trying to do "guild" things.
Worst case scenario, you end up in a hostile part of the world, pack up and travel to the other side. In a game with no fast travel with as big of a world as they are planning, you will be able to find a nice corner of the world to call your own.
...then it becomes a matter of defending it.
Beautiful Synopsis of how the game works
Remember playing the Alliance side in WoW, where your party would have to sneak past the Horde Undercity in Tirisfal Glades to get to Scarlet Monastery ?
Even then their was a high chance of fighting your way in..... Always a chance of overwhelming odds of PvP.
Now this is good news for PvP'ers, but still could be more frustrating if your guild or side is vastly out numbered, depending on deeper details of how the game is set up, and how strong your server is.
The Scarlet Monastery example is an isolated incident. But with an entire game of living defensively all the time would make the player want to be on the strong side !!
Besides the PvP aspect, you say: "Some content emerges when Nodes reach a certain maturity level."
One side (or guild) would enjoy the fruits of better cities and better content.
This could potentially frustrate many players, because of the dynamic world.
Who cares really? When everyone is given the same content the same gear the game is bland and people get bored. I dont care of a guild has a better city, that will not stop me from going into that dungeon. It will not stop me from moving my goods to that city to try to sell or selling my own stuff. Yea that might had better gear because their crafters are some of the best. Who Cares. The minute we try to make everyone have equal outcome we end up with the crappy ass games we have today. Just because you are not in the top guild on the server does not mean you will not be able to have a piece of the pie in the game. It does not mean you cannot craft really good gear and make a ton of money. It does not mean you couldnt go to that dungeon and run it. The ONLY time this really occurred is in a game like ArcheAge because so much content was locked in 1 continent that 1 guild can control entirely by throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars at the game. Add to that the shitty crafting and trade pack systems and you have a game that makes people think the next game like AA will be exactly the same. That is not true.
Comments
It's far more likely people will just complain about how unfair it is until the developer caves and implements "balance checks" so all players can feel special.
We've all but eliminated competition in our schools (at least in America) so how can you expect kids to grow up knowing how to handle things like setbacks and loss? They're not capable.
~~ postlarval ~~
Sorry, I really have no idea, the question did rather necessitate that answer though.
As far as I know Ashes won't have a faction system like ESO, so you won't be on the losing side unless you are in a crappy guild who always lose in guild wars.
Well, unlike early MMOs, this games PvE fun is based around how good your sides PvP is.
Competition is a bad word in UK too, does not exist outside of team sports. Its Winners and Runners Up, Strengths and Difficulties. We see winners and losers in everything from business to sport, from gaming to politics to one idea besting another. But remember kids, competition does not exist.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
EDIT: NM. Looked it up.
Cam Newton. I was right.
He only knows how to be a sore loser.
~~ postlarval ~~
edit: personally I avoid PVP focused mmorpg cause I play games to relax and enjoy not to be frustrated. I do PvP in Destiny/CoD in those you need aiming/skill quick reaction and I get more kills than deaths in mmorpg pvp is dumb as shit.
DAOC is one of the better examples. First, due to its design, a skilled, high level group could take out a zerg several times its size.
In fact, the ultimate fighting group was "the 8 man" and I can recall legendary one's on MLF such as a Hib team led by "the General."
His team routinely tore apart zergs, and as one of the dominant faction members (Albs) I can recall immese satisfaction in finally taking his team down.
The thing is, because I was in the zerg, my nightly "reward" might be earning 400 to 1000 prealm points. On the General's 8 man they might earn 75K to 100K. This gave the best players and guilds strong incentive to roll on atheir own and seek fights with smaller groups.
Most recently I played on the revived DAOC freeshard and small group combat came roaring back.
The server on all 3 factions quickly broke into smaller fights and it became a "rule" you did not jump in a fight and help another group in your faction without their permission.
What was totally surprising is how most players actually respected this. Sure, there were a few renegade groups who didn't, but they found themselves totally excluded from the 3 or 4 major alliances which meant huge penalties from getting no intel on the frontiers to being unable to join Dragon raids, where the best in game items.
At first, Midgard was the most populated realm because of perceived advantages, and for a few months dominated. But soon after many rerolled to join Hib or Alb and before long both were able to hold their own.
I think one key thing is in DAOC theres no reward per sec for being on the winning side, (aside from DF access) say at the end of a match or round, which I think might be a cause for some of the problems seen in other games.
Even with DF access, after a realm takes it they generally flood in, leaving the frontiers undefended so the lower pop realms can take the keeps back and gain DF access themselves
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
We shall see how things pan out, too often with PvP team based games, is that its just as likely that it could be fun, or could suck... depending on how they handle it. Without playing it, I won't know till it happens.
Nice to theorize tho.
Well you can make it so that you join a faction on staring on a "server" and you cannot change that faction. You can only create new characters in the same faction. Also if you are not in a guild what's wrong with the server allocating you to a faction?
Players like to have freedom, (channelling here from the other thread) but its rules like this and the ones you mentioned that stop real gameplay headaches. Likewise if all items are bind on equip or for that account only, you could stop skin gambling.
It is true that if you give a gamer an inch he will take the npc's shop, your housing and take a frontier castle down stone by stone and erect it in his backyard.
It's not that I mind loosing at PvP so much, I could care less.
But the loosing side has less PvE content.
I'll be playing this game, but I'll be like the millions trying to get on the winning side, so I get a full PvE game for the money !
Some content emerges when Nodes reach a certain maturity level. Events happen, dungeons unlock, etc.
From the Live-stream yesterday we found out that some dungeons are open world, so yes if the local guild is intent on keeping you out of "their" area they can.
However, most guilds are going to be busy trying to do "guild" things.
Worst case scenario, you end up in a hostile part of the world, pack up and travel to the other side. In a game with no fast travel with as big of a world as they are planning, you will be able to find a nice corner of the world to call your own.
...then it becomes a matter of defending it.
I have an entire video series on Ashes of Creation if you want to pick through it for answers to some of your other questions.
Paradox Gaming Network
Paradox YouTube Channel
Ashes 101
Remember playing the Alliance side in WoW, where your party would have to sneak past the Horde Undercity in Tirisfal Glades to get to Scarlet Monastery ?
Even then their was a high chance of fighting your way in..... Always a chance of overwhelming odds of PvP.
Now this is good news for PvP'ers, but still could be more frustrating if your guild or side is vastly out numbered, depending on deeper details of how the game is set up, and how strong your server is.
The Scarlet Monastery example is an isolated incident. But with an entire game of living defensively all the time would make the player want to be on the strong side !!
Besides the PvP aspect, you say:
"Some content emerges when Nodes reach a certain maturity level."
One side (or guild) would enjoy the fruits of better cities and better content.
This could potentially frustrate many players, because of the dynamic world.