Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
If you want to truly enjoy AvA...
TheMaelstrom
Member UncommonPosts: 393
I posted this in another thread, but I wanted to post in my own topic to try and help people understand the AvA of Global Agenda a little better.
The major complaint I'm hearing is that people join an Agency, and the Agency is part of a huge alliance. The alliance controls any part of the AvA maps they want simply because they're so damn big and have so many players at their disposal that no one can stop them.
So here's my 2 cents: To get the most fun out of Global Agenda, DON'T join a massive Agency / Alliance.
When everyone wants to be on the winning team, one Alliance grows so big that they can dominate any AvA map they want.
Here's the thing... that's NOT THE POINT of AvA.
The whole point behind the AvA conflicts is to encourage rivalry and unrest. When you form an alliance and just let everyone join it, what the shit do you expect is going to happen?
For my part, I won't join any Agency whose plan is to join "Massive Mega-Alliance 101", because the entire point behind the AvA game is to be IN CONFLICT with other Agencies.
In my opinion, HiRez should re-work the Alliance system to allow no more than "X" number of Agencies to join, with a total of "X" number of combined players between those Agencies. They should be able to run the metrics to fill in the Xs. That would alleviate this whole "Ooooooh let's all be friends in an online competitive pvp game" syndrome.
------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion is simple: If you join an Agency and see that they're part of a huge alliance that controls the map, LEAVE that Agency and join another one. You're not gonna enjoy yourself if you control everything and no one can rival you. And as long as there's no rivalry, the AvA will suck for everyone.
edit: Spelling and such
edit2: Removed some questionable statements at the request of the first replier. Thanks for the input.
No godless person can comprehend those minute distinctions
in doctrine that provide true believers excuse for mayhem.
-Glen Cook
Comments
This isn't needed.
you only needed to say this, which is true. Don't put the ernest on the players when they are playing the game as designed by the developers. They need to address it to have more conflict. It's nt like it's some big secret that players (in this genre esspecially) will nearly always take the path of least resisance.
It's less players screwing things up, and more the devs not realizing their mistake.
This isn't needed.
you only needed to say this, which is true. Don't put the ernest on the players when they are playing the game as designed by the developers. They need to address it to have more conflict. It's nt like it's some big secret that players (in this genre esspecially) will nearly always take the path of least resisance.
It's less players screwing things up, and more the devs not realizing their mistake.
I see where you're coming from, and I even considered removing both of those lines, but I left them in specifically because:
1) I said "my 2 cents" were "you're playing it wrong", which I thought conveyed my own opinion, which everyone is entitled to.
and
2) While it's true that players are only using the mechanics that the developers put in place, I still think that people who join the biggest Agency / Alliance they can find and then piss and moan about AvA not being fun are, in fact, the problem.
I made 2 suggestions that I believe would fix the issue. One from the player end (join another Agency), and one from the developer end (fix the Alliance system).
Again, I see where you're coming from, but my intent wasn't to be insulting. It was to hopefully motivate people and show them that each one of us - the players - can have a real impact on how much fun GA can provide us. I'll edit it out of the original post though since it obviously rubbed you the wrong way and that wasn't my intent.
No godless person can comprehend those minute distinctions
in doctrine that provide true believers excuse for mayhem.
-Glen Cook
agreed. i played perfect world, and there territory wars was terrible. on my server, one guild had the entire map controlled except for 2 spots. they had 99% of the high lvl players in there guild. I HATED IT! i don't see how Hi Rez can expect people to pay $13 for the AvA when you know your going to get slaughtered if your not in the biggest guild. $13 a month for this? no thanks.
This isn't needed.
you only needed to say this, which is true. Don't put the ernest on the players when they are playing the game as designed by the developers. They need to address it to have more conflict. It's nt like it's some big secret that players (in this genre esspecially) will nearly always take the path of least resisance.
It's less players screwing things up, and more the devs not realizing their mistake.
Just so.
It is not the players responsibility to redesign the game informally on the fly; that is just silly. I have seen the refrain for decades people never stop saying it, but it is just plain silly.
What is the benefit of an agency to be in alliance?
Basically it's like having an "extended guild". If your Agency is in an alliance with Agency X, and Agency Z attacks a hex controlled by Agency X, you can help them defend it. And you would hope that they will in turn help you defend your territory. Of course, back-stabbing and other foul play may complicate these agreements in some cases, which should lead to AvA the way (I believe) it was meant to be played.
No godless person can comprehend those minute distinctions
in doctrine that provide true believers excuse for mayhem.
-Glen Cook
What I have on mind is that unless you implement incentives for agencies to join your alliance, this system won't work imho.
Putting hard caps on sizes won't help anything, since you can split the entities, but you won't separate the people.
Well, this is one advantage to the capped size of the battles. Someone will want those resources. And all you need is 10 good people to take and hold a hex, no matter how big an alliance is against you.
I predict alliances are going to be very fluid.
I dont agree at all.. You don't realize how much money it costs to own all the land the big alliances have. The average hex is like some 15k per day.. the others are alot more.. Right now as all the players in those alliances are leveling and learning the game the income is coming in... Soon that income of pvp will drop as the players aer doing less and less missions, this increases tax rate of these bigger ones.. along with the penalty of additional funds per day per member of agency, owning all that land adds up quickly.. start losing an armored beacon, missiles stations etc... millions of credits start piling up fast... banks drop fast... this destroys alliances, some big ones are paying for their smaller partnerrs.. Land != victory, in some cases it can deter growth.. if you are spending all your income on land and not towards building teh correct compents to get to end game.. you may inflict doom on yourself.
There is also the current problem of the smaller agencies/alliances that are taking 1 hex and learning the game with their small group. They are picking off other small agencies and noone is attacking the big dogs... So basically its like the big dogs are free to roam and conqeur as you help them, and so you are fighting small and big and at end of the day the map shows it by all land being owned by big dog alliance. Add to the fact some smaller guys make treaties with one particular big dog until they realize the big dog enjoyed you holding their land for when they really want it..
-- Pon --