About guilds...

[Sik San]

TL;DR

I don't mind guilds, but guldhalls (garrisons or whatever you call it) is pure cancer. I've seen some games become totally barren and that's rly bad thing regarding immersion. Personally, I like immersion very much and I hate guldhalls.

 

[Torgue_Joey]

TL;DR

I don't mind guilds, but guldhalls (garrisons or whatever you call it) is pure cancer. I've seen some games become totally barren and that's rly bad thing regarding immersion. Personally, I like immersion very much and I hate guldhalls.

AND HERE COME THE BIG HUGE ASS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND ME AS AN EXAMPLE.
I SAY YES TO GUILD HALL, BECAUSE I HAVE A COMPLETE OPPOSITE EXPERIENCE OF THAT "CANCER RANT".

NOT ONCE HAVE I PLAYED A GAME WHERE SH*T BECAME "BARREN BECAUSE OF GUILD HALLS".

AND I'M STILL FOR ORBITING SHIPS AS INSTANCED GUILD HALL

 

[AdmiralStryker]

I was hoping for either something military, like having Reapers be organized into Companies, or because of the close knit nature of Gatestriders perhaps call them Families (Companies would make more sense for people to leave/join groups).

Concerning the rest of this topic, I really think that Grummz needs to address his plans for the actual nature of the "wargame" aspect of Em-8er. Typically in MMO's It's everyone does what they want with their friends, whether grouped or solo. However in a RL war there is a clear and rigid hierarchy with orders coming down from above which soldiers have to follow or they are disciplined. Of course being a game nobody wants to be forced into performing a specific function (time, interests etc). However simply letting everyone do their own thing takes a lot of the sails out of a "wargame".

Will there be a frontline? If so then it won't matter whether you are in a group or not, your efforts are going to be somewhat directed by the needs of the game. Perhaps the game could have action slots, where people could "volunteer" for different activities (patrols, frontline combat, harvesting, mining etc). But those activities would be organized by the game into a full wargame strategy.

The alternative to this as I see it is figuring out whether the concept of anyone doing their own thing with no command structure really working for a realistic wargame scenario. Much of what makes a military strong is it's coordination and strategic abilities as well as disicpline and cohesiveness. Imagine if the <insert your country here> army simply allowed its soldiers to do whatever the heck they wanted anytime anywhere...

As for guild halls, I think that frontline outposts really fill the role of guildhalls. If Companies/Families/guilds/clans or whatever can be put in charge of building and maintaining an outpost in a particular sector then perhaps they might get some small bonuses (cheaper repairs etc) to using that particular base/outpost.

While I like this, keep in mind it's a wargame. We're supposed to work together. I don't want some AI dictating how we fight the war. That just sets it up as a battle of one AI&soldiers vs another AI&soldiers. We're supposed to use our resourcefulness and quick thinking to outwit the Tsi-Hu, not let a machine do that for us.

I'm fine with armies being vessels for that. If you want to take an army and have it be the cavalry and run to where the action is, sure. I, as a more lone-wolf type might stick to where the action isn't as intense but defend bases that are getting hit by smaller forces. Everyone should be able to do what they want to help the war effort.

I'm wary about guild outposts. I'm okay with them, if:
-They do not lock out ANY players from ANY guilds, no matter what guild controls them. And when I mean no lockouts, I mean nothing instanced, or nothing instanced that isn't 100% publicly accessible. You can have banners and writing on the walls and your own designs.
-The resource/other benefits for controlling them are small. Enough to reward you for putting resources in, but not a huge amount(If the rewards are making you profit from owning that base, they're too much. They should mitigate the cost of maintaining/upgrading the base, nothing more.)
-The base in no way penalizes any players from conducting normal activities there, regardless of whether or not they're in the owning guild.
-There is a kickout feature that is resource agnostic if a guild decides to capture a base and troll it, say by occupying it and defending it, but not ever upgrading it and impairing the world. While I don't anticipate this being a problem, I want precautions taken.

I'm in agreement with a few others here-being in a guild shouldn't get you much other than a consistent group of folks to play and chat with. The teamwork and unity and aid that comes from being in a guild is its own reward. While I recognize that benefits can encourage joining a guild, I'm worried that people are going to work for the good of their guild bonuses rather than the good of the game world, and that is something I don't want. Ie I don't want people dumping resources into a guild to get a boost to resources gained rather than putting those resources into a base that's on the front line.

@BunnyHunny : I'm hoping that, as in firefall, the constantly-under-attack nature of our world will compel people to work together. I'd rather see the bonuses you get for being in a guild placed on the world scale, where they incentivize an entire zone of people rather than a group of players. I'd like to avoid anything instanced to begin with. If you want a separate private chat, cool. I see no reason for you to be in a hall rather than out in the world fighting. The game is not supposed to be a safe world, it's a world under attack.

Guild competition for contributions to the war: Eh, maybe. Bragging rights is fine, as are cosmetics. They would be the only reason I see a guild merchant existing.

Guild unlocks/merchants: Aside from cosmetics, no. Any item, ability, gun, omniframe, whatever, that isn't cosmetic/has no effect on gameplay whatsoever should be completely unlockable by anyone playing alone. I'm a firm believer that playing in a guild should be a choice that should have no direct negative consequence aside from being relatively alone in the game world, not something that's required for you to access items.

 

[Nalessa]

I do love the concept of guild/clan/army halls/bases, but it should be done in a way that you still need to visit "city" hubs for some things, like auction house or certain vendors, events, etc etc.

Right now, in ESO, almost any city you go to has a bunch of people everywhere, it makes the game feel very much alive with people crafting stuff, visiting vendors, some people rp'ing in taverns or temples, etc etc etc ...


One of the saddest things in mmo's is always seeing dead places with noone around, so while I do support guild housing of some sort, I hope it doesn't come at the cost of emptying every other hub out there.

 

[BunnyHunny]

I'm hoping that, as in firefall, the constantly-under-attack nature of our world will compel people to work together. I'd rather see the bonuses you get for being in a guild placed on the world scale, where they incentivize an entire zone of people rather than a group of players.

Stuff like that could be done by implementing something like guild achievements which unlock Ranks, including bonuses.
In best case, all the achievements should require actual skill (high impact gameplay) and not just simple time investment (gather x resources, kill x enemies).

Depending on how event rewards are calculated (point system?), guild achievements could require things like
"an army member must be top contributor to a major event (at least x participants) 50 times" or
"3 army members must be within the top 5 contributors to a major event 20 times"
It would assure, that these Ranks are only given to armies with skilled players who play with high impact.

A Rank could unlock something like a 2% resource bonus for every army member, all of their group members within x range, and other players within x range by half the amount.
Max 10 ranks with +2% each, so 20% for army/group and 10% for others.

If army ranks can be visually/cosmetically indicated, people would have a reason to stick around these guys and group up with them, in order to profit from the boost.
Indications might be: differently colored army tag, unique hat model, bigger omniframe (with no other effects), flashy warpaint (black+gold, red+gold) or being able to put markers on the map

Or a combination of multiple of those (yellow/golden army tag and a black+gold warpaint that also makes the frame ≈15% bigger)


Depending on how the war is supposed to work, that could enable top armies to coordinate the movement of the player mob by posting chat messages ("get 10% boost at location x" or by just having an army squad (eye catching tags) run into a certain direction and having the mob follow.

An option could be added, allowing members of a rank x army (when at least 5 members are present) to buff an event by 1 cat or more, if they choose so.


Not sure if that would be a good concept. I didn't really think it through.
Something like that might work and i guess it definitely could be a good thing, if properly done.

I'd like to avoid anything instanced to begin with. If you want a separate private chat, cool. I see no reason for you to be in a hall rather than out in the world fighting. The game is not supposed to be a safe world, it's a world under attack.

Neither do i and i am not really for army halls either.
I simply said that it is not necessarily just a bad idea and that there could be ways to implement something like it, without doing any harm to the atmosphere in cities.
But creating anything like that would probably be a lot of work and not nearly important enough to get a cut from the budged.

Guild competition for contributions to the war: Eh, maybe. Bragging rights is fine, as are cosmetics. They would be the only reason I see a guild merchant existing.

Guilds could compete in stuff like
>>highest amount of top contributions to events
>>highest amount of top 5 contributions to events
>>highest number of cat 5 creatures slain
on a weekly/monthly basis to get an amount of guild currency, which could then be used to buy extra exclusive cosmetics or something like that (or to fulfill the requirement for a higher army Rank).

Guild unlocks/merchants: Aside from cosmetics, no. Any item, ability, gun, omniframe, whatever, that isn't cosmetic/has no effect on gameplay whatsoever should be completely unlockable by anyone playing alone. I'm a firm believer that playing in a guild should be a choice that should have no direct negative consequence aside from being relatively alone in the game world, not something that's required for you to access items.

While i agree that it might be better, when there are no exclusive "useful" items, i do think, that it would be fair to grant certain army exclusive bonuses (more resources, cheaper research, faster base building,...) aside from those that also work for bystanders.

In a multiplayer game without instanced content, solo players should not be prevented from progressing, but playing in an army, being coordinated and helping each other out, should be rewarded and allow faster progress.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

Stuff like that could be done by implementing something like guild achievements which unlock Ranks, including bonuses.
In best case, all the achievements should require actual skill (high impact gameplay) and not just simple time investment (gather x resources, kill x enemies).

Depending on how event rewards are calculated (point system?), guild achievements could require things like
"an army member must be top contributor to a major event (at least x participants) 50 times" or
"3 army members must be within the top 5 contributors to a major event 20 times"
It would assure, that these Ranks are only given to armies with skilled players who play with high impact.

A Rank could unlock something like a 2% resource bonus for every army member, all of their group members within x range, and other players within x range by half the amount.
Max 10 ranks with +2% each, so 20% for army/group and 10% for others.

If army ranks can be visually/cosmetically indicated, people would have a reason to stick around these guys and group up with them, in order to profit from the boost.
Indications might be: differently colored army tag, unique hat model, bigger omniframe (with no other effects), flashy warpaint (black+gold, red+gold) or being able to put markers on the map

Or a combination of multiple of those (yellow/golden army tag and a black+gold warpaint that also makes the frame ≈15% bigger)


Depending on how the war is supposed to work, that could enable top armies to coordinate the movement of the player mob by posting chat messages ("get 10% boost at location x" or by just having an army squad (eye catching tags) run into a certain direction and having the mob follow.

An option could be added, allowing members of a rank x army (when at least 5 members are present) to buff an event by 1 cat or more, if they choose so.

Guilds could compete in stuff like
>>highest amount of top contributions to events
>>highest amount of top 5 contributions to events
>>highest number of cat 5 creatures slain
on a weekly/monthly basis to get an amount of guild currency, which could then be used to buy extra exclusive cosmetics or something like that (or to fulfill the requirement for a higher army Rank).


While i agree that it might be better, when there are no exclusive "useful" items, i do think, that it would be fair to grant certain army exclusive bonuses (more resources, cheaper research, faster base building,...) aside from those that also work for bystanders.

In a multiplayer game without instanced content, solo players should not be prevented from progressing, but playing in an army, being coordinated and helping each other out, should be rewarded and allow faster progress.

I would rather see any guild achievements be obtainable regardless of whether or not you are in a guild. While I'm not adverse to guilds existing, I see no reason why their bonuses shouldn't be something world-based. Then they can be fought for and lost. I'd rather tie any overall guild bonuses to the world, and any individual guild bonuses just directly to the individual. I wholeheartedly agree that all achievements of the sort should be skill-based.

I am perfectly fine with guild cosmetics, but they should not affect gameplay. To "buffing" an event by a category, hell no. That is abusable, and massively so. That is a power for devs and only devs.

Guilds competing for cosmetics: Sure. That's fine. I'd like to see any cosmetics a guild can get be sold for irl money as well, but that's not required and may be a bad idea for the profit of the game.

I am very much against army exclusive bonuses. Why? When you're playing with a group, you automatically have an advantage. You have numbers, you have coordination. That's already going to lead to having more events and missions accomplished and won, which will lead to more resources being gained. That's enough of a buff in my opinion. You don't need more to set you apart from the average player. I say if anyone wants more, then they should work up upgrading the world level. The levels of bases and the tech level of the world should dictate how fast we refine resources, how much we can excavate(or THMPR upgrades should). Playing with an army does allow faster progress simply by the inherent advantages of teamwork. I only ask that those rewards not get doubled down upon.

 

[EvilKitten]

While I like this, keep in mind it's a wargame. We're supposed to work together. I don't want some AI dictating how we fight the war. That just sets it up as a battle of one AI&soldiers vs another AI&soldiers. We're supposed to use our resourcefulness and quick thinking to outwit the Tsi-Hu, not let a machine do that for us.

I think the point of my post was to point out that in a real army YOU the soldier don't get a choice, I was attempting to brainstorm methods by which we can have a semblance of a military while still allowing players the freedom of a game. I don't think my proposed suggestion is about the AI dictating how you fight the war so much as it provides the military framework within which you do what you want.

Like if you want to do patrol work you can "sign up" and the game will put you in a patrol group (or alternately you can group up prior and then sign up as a preformed group). You are given objectives which you will have to follow (this is the military after all) but how you choose to function is up to you. Success or failure of your mission will reflect on your military status as it would in any real military. But the AI doesn't force you to go on a patrol, or go out mining. The activity you perform is entirely up to you.

Anyways this is getting away from guilds but I wanted to point that out.

Grummz has already talked about having varying sized premade outposts scattered about which can be used to push back the melding er terraforming pocket. As far as I know they are all intended to be fully available to everyone. My suggestion of assigning guilds to maintenance and such is mostly intended for bragging rights as well as maintaining resource sinks that are guild sized rather than individual sized. A guild wouldn't even be required to operate in the area, but their resources would go towards maintaining their assigned outpost and it would fly their "colors" while doing so.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

I think the point of my post was to point out that in a real army YOU the soldier don't get a choice, I was attempting to brainstorm methods by which we can have a semblance of a military while still allowing players the freedom of a game. I don't think my proposed suggestion is about the AI dictating how you fight the war so much as it provides the military framework within which you do what you want.

Like if you want to do patrol work you can "sign up" and the game will put you in a patrol group (or alternately you can group up prior and then sign up as a preformed group). You are given objectives which you will have to follow (this is the military after all) but how you choose to function is up to you. Success or failure of your mission will reflect on your military status as it would in any real military. But the AI doesn't force you to go on a patrol, or go out mining. The activity you perform is entirely up to you.

I misunderstood you, then. That seems sort of like questing which I think is trying to be avoided here. It seems fine, however it would require a multitude of missions with very broad scopes, and I'm not sure how hard they would be to make. Getting rewarded for playing how you like to play is certainly something I'm a fan of, though ideally that would happen anyways.

 

[BunnyHunny]

I would rather see any guild achievements be obtainable regardless of whether or not you are in a guild.

So... no guild achievements then?

While I'm not adverse to guilds existing, I see no reason why their bonuses shouldn't be something world-based. Then they can be fought for and lost. I'd rather tie any overall guild bonuses to the world, and any individual guild bonuses just directly to the individual. I wholeheartedly agree that all achievements of the sort should be skill-based.

This is very confusing and probably contradictory.

If something is unlocked by skilled play, it should NOT be for everyone, but only for those who unlocked it. Otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose of any requirement at all.

What do you mean by overall and by individual bonuses?

Guilds competing for cosmetics: Sure. That's fine. I'd like to see any cosmetics a guild can get be sold for irl money as well, but that's not required and may be a bad idea for the profit of the game.

That would again defeat the whole purpose of any requirements to unlock something.

If any raging potato can get something by simply buying it, it is nothing special and belongs in a different category.

I am very much against army exclusive bonuses. Why? When you're playing with a group, you automatically have an advantage. You have numbers, you have coordination. That's already going to lead to having more events and missions accomplished and won, which will lead to more resources being gained. That's enough of a buff in my opinion.

Wrong. Have you ever actually played an open world MMO with a group?
NO coordination.
NO advantage.
NO more winning and accomplishing.
A group of randoms does not give you an advantage in the open world.
You can not rely on anyone.
The number of people does not come from the group. The group forms because there is a number of people.

Anything else is too high of an expectation.

You don't need more to set you apart from the average player. I say if anyone wants more, then they should work up upgrading the world level.

You want communism in Ember?
Most of what you said about any kind of unlock was basically: "it can be a skill based unlock, but when somebody unlocks it, EVERYBODY has to get it"
That makes no sense at all.

Skill must be rewarded exclusively.



Why would you even care if people who play in guilds can progress faster?
It is not like it is necessary.
If you want that as well, join a guild.

I might be wrong, but you sound like the typical "pay2win-solo-player" to me.
You want no army exclusive stuff.
You want a multiplayer game, but seemingly no reason to actually play with others.
You want to get stuff for free, unlocked by other people by being skilled.
You do not want stuff that sets skilled players apart from the average player, unless you can also buy it.
You want to be able to buy stuff that is supposed to be unlocked by skill... wtf.

You might want that, but that is bad.

People have to be rewarded for what they do. Not for what others do.
When an army works towards a goal together, then the army should be rewarded for that.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

So... no guild achievements then?


This is very confusing and probably contradictory.

If something is unlocked by skilled play, it should NOT be for everyone, but only for those who unlocked it. Otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose of any requirement at all.

What do you mean by overall and by individual bonuses?


That would again defeat the whole purpose of any requirements to unlock something.

If any raging potato can get something by simply buying it, it is nothing special and belongs in a different category.



Wrong. Have you ever actually played an open world MMO with a group?
NO coordination.
NO advantage.
NO more winning and accomplishing.
A group of randoms does not give you an advantage in the open world.
You can not rely on anyone.
The number of people does not come from the group. The group forms because there is a number of people.

Anything else is too high of an expectation.


You want communism in Ember?
Most of what you said about any kind of unlock was basically: "it can be a skill based unlock, but when somebody unlocks it, EVERYBODY has to get it"
That makes no sense at all.

Skill must be rewarded exclusively.



Why would you even care if people who play in guilds can progress faster?
It is not like it is necessary.
If you want that as well, join a guild.

I might be wrong, but you sound like the typical "pay2win-solo-player" to me.
You want no army exclusive stuff.
You want to be able to buy stuff that is supposed to be unlocked by skill.
You want to get stuff -that other people unlock for you by being skilled- for free.
You do not want stuff that sets skilled players apart from the average player.

You might want that, but that is bad.

People have to be rewarded for what they do. Not for what others do.
When an army works towards a goal together, then the army should be rewarded for that.

Simply put, you misinterpreted me. Any bonus that the guild is going to have that provides a bonus to the entire guild-those should be things the entire zone works for as a group(ie in exchange for donating 5k resources to a base, get 5% bonus resources gained for the entire guild-make it 50k and everyone in the zone gets the bonus, but this bonus can be lost if the zone downgrades, etc, ensuring that the zone has to be maintained in order for the bonus to be kept).

Any bonus a guild member could obtain via skill should follow the same principle, but you shouldn't need to be in a guild to get them(ie kill x cat 5 kaiju, give a 2% resource bonus to every guildmate around you, instead gives a bonus to all players around you.).

I suggested buying things. As I said, might not be a good idea. If it's that bad then remove it, easy. I'm keeping this civil, don't insult me here. We're discussing ideas on how to make the game better. I'm not suggesting that we commit an atrocious act, I'm giving feedback and suggestions.

A group of randoms might not give you an advantage, but playing with a guild or army? You cannot mean to tell me that playing with twenty other people in comms with you gives you no coordination, no teamwork, or no increased chances of succeeding at what you're trying to do. The bonuses for succeeding more at harder things is what you get for playing in a guild. It's not a % buff to resources gained, but odds are it comes out to one because you're succeeding more often and getting the success rewards instead of the failure ones.

I care because it should not be a requirement to join a guild, to interact with others, to devote time to the guild to play the game and be on equal footing. The inherent bonuses of having a group of people who you communicate with to play with are too high to double down on guild rewards. If you want to earn rewards through skill, that's fine-but don't tie that to a guild.

I enjoy playing solo. While I enjoy running with a guild and will not shy away from playing with a guild I like, I prefer running solo, I like the challenge. I am not a pay to win player. I am speaking here not just for myself but for everyone in the game. Not everyone wants to join a guild. They should not be punished by being locked off from progression options by not being in a guild, plain and simple.


EDIT: And if you believe that you shouldn't be rewarded for what others do, then no army-wide bonuses should exist.

 

[EvilKitten]

I misunderstood you, then. That seems sort of like questing which I think is trying to be avoided here. It seems fine, however it would require a multitude of missions with very broad scopes, and I'm not sure how hard they would be to make. Getting rewarded for playing how you like to play is certainly something I'm a fan of, though ideally that would happen anyways.

1. an act or instance of seeking:a : pursuit, searchb : a chivalrous enterprise in medieval romance usually involving an adventurous journey
   
   
2. obsolete : a person or group of persons who search or make inquiry

Technically any activity you perform in a game could be considered a quest, whether they are self imposed goals you give yourself or whether it is an event with a strict set of checkpoints or as my suggestion a framework for activities and a group finder. I know grummz said no questing, but in the strictest sense of the word that is patently impossible, particularly in a wargame scenario.

I may develop on this idea and put it in its own topic later as it's again not specifically guild related.

 

[Rocket]

AND I'M STILL FOR ORBITING SHIPS AS INSTANCED GUILD HALL

As much as I dislike a focus of any kind on guildhalls, if we have to have them (let's be blunt, Firefall was supposed to have army bases, eventually) and they are not attached to FOB's then I'd be all for the floating terraformers (see the lore) housing area alliance command centers.

The focus still needs to be bigger than a clan.

Technically any activity you perform in a game could be considered a quest, whether they are self imposed goals you give yourself or whether it is an event with a strict set of checkpoints or as my suggestion a framework for activities and a group finder. I know grummz said no questing, but in the strictest sense of the word that is patently impossible, particularly in a wargame scenario.

The thing with a quest is, it usually involves a small group of people (or one person) heading off to do something that does not involve others. As such, @Grummz decision for no quests is good.

Once again, the intended focus appears to be bigger than that.

 

[spiralofhope]

[edit] well this didn't seem like this much when I was typing.. but it's a lot of stuff to think about! I hope it's not intimidating or aggressive.

BunnyHunny:

You bring up some good points, and I think I'm able to articulate a little better. We're looking at things differently.

First to address some fundamental philosophies:

Throughout your entire post, you do not specify WHY and HOW you think, the bad stuff would happen.

I thought I did, but I'll clarify in places you cite.

You do not come up with any way to prevent any of the bad stuff from happening (except from "only do clan tag and chat").

Demonstrate thing is bad. Put bad thing in, bad thing is bad. Solution: don't put bad thing in. That's the reasoning. You bring up some points though, that help me, as you say, specify.

It seems to me like your perspective is limited to the worst possible outcome, for the case that everything about guilds is made in the worst way possible.

Pointing out the worst cases is the proper perspective to have. I can also find circumstances with cheating, griefing and other such things, using the same method. I don't think best-case, and you thinking better-case is our main difference.

I might be wrong, but to me, you sound like an anti social player.
Have you ever actually been a member of a decent clan/army/guild...?

I am and I have. I also vary a lot. Still, what I'm doing is considering the mechanics to see how a runaway guild system will change things.

Guild benefits PROMOTE playing together and joining guilds.
Guild unlocks PROMOTE playing together and joining guilds.
Guild achievements PROMOTE playing together and joining guilds.
Guild-guild competition PROMOTES playing together and joining guilds.

Now please explain to me:
How is any of that supposed to be bad, when everything is achieved by participating in something?

I wish I could find the excellent arguments made by another on the tribalization of a playerbase caused by guild competition. This is the primary drive behind my disagreement with it.

Your final line is our difference. Everything is achieved by participating in something. When everything is achieved by participating in something, participation is forced. That participation is what creates a rift between solo players, players in guilds, and guilds between guilds. I'll articulate this better later..

--

All of those participation-things tribalize. Guild benefits force solo players into guilds (when they want those benefits). Anything unique to a guild tribalizes guilds from one another. Achievements create elitism. Guild competition can just suck it, because the now-forced members are now further-forced into competition.

For players, things become a balance between snob-guilds and casual-guilds. Casuals get stuck in low-performing low-benefit guilds, and the l33t become rabidly tribalized into competing guilds for more stuff and achievements. The participation has encouraged two major types of playerbase.

When the game only has a friends list and guild chat channel, nothing else is risked. Players clump together as they wish, but there is nothing driving them other than their social compatibility.

The reason I think in this way is that this minimal feature-set is perfectly adequate and reduces complexity for developers.

--

Now I get that there's the argument for having, say, farmville mechanics in the game to attract that sort. There's an argument for pvp, there's an argument for achievement, for exploration, for pretty pretty hats, etc etc. I lump overdevelopment of guilds in the same domain. It's effort that ought not to be spent, because the basics are good enough. The events bring people together.

People being able to trigger their own events, like thumping, brings people together from within a friends list, a guilds list, and solo players in earshot. The numbers game of resource/loot collection is the individual reward, is the achievement and is the competition. There's no need, for example, for "number of kills of mob x under circumstance y with 5 or more guild members on Tuesdays" achievements.

Though you made me think on one thing.. there's a strong argument for unique weapons/armor being the "achievement points" viewable openly and not hidden away in some UI panel. I've heard time and time again of people hating on generic gear, and how old awesome hard-to-get stuff eventually became common.

I'd want "that guy did a lot of fighting (didn't just get lucky) to make that weapon" as inspiration for anyone, rather than "that guy joined a guild for the stuff that others worked for." (even if they did work for it) as inspiration between guilds.

I hope that describes what's in my head.

Being member of a clan does not cause people be uncooperative with others.
Being antisocial and/or egocentric does.

Do you think that being a member of a clan (with clan benefits existing) would discourage being cooperative? Why?

The social elements are fine, handled solely by a guild chat channel. However, providing too many mechanics to guilds promotes cloistered friends and friends-of-friends-only grouping, insulating them from the playerbase. This pulls players away from the pool of participants. A new player steps into the game, and nobody needs them until they're recruited.

Firefall did this decently-well, where solo players could wander around doing whatever they want, and events would gather them for fights. This is a system without needing guild gameplay-mechanics outside of chat.

My primary argument was the need for chat and nothing else. Other features are risky.

If there is such a thing as a guild hall, but only for a very limited number of guilds, why would open cities be empty?
Also, if there are only some specific guild vendors and/or something like a guild bank in the hall, the people who can enter, would still run around in cities to access the normal vendors.
If there is such a thing as guild exclusive cosmetics (which look badass), people will run around and go afk in normal zones to show them off.

I wasn't talking about a few guilds, but about a massive number of arbitrarily-created guilds pulling a huge chunk of their participants away. Even if some players go to guild spaces some of the time, they are pulled away fro being viewed. That's the ghost town. It's either minor because there are only a few things in guild halls, or it's major when the outside world is obsoleted by lots of guild vendors/etc.


Ember will have a properly-huge number of players supported on-screen, and it would be amazing to do everything possible to get them out in the open and in the same spots as often as possible. Not just with events, but back in town. This is why I argue against a guild hall for any reason.

Guild-exclusives is an example of tribalism. "Look at me, you peasant, I am better." This is already being done with exclusives for early development contributors. On the one hand there will be individual cosmetics, which is unfortunate and unavoidable, but bringing guilds into that mix now forces players who want those benefits into guilds, and guild exclusives tribalizes them from one another.

People AFKing in town to show off to the peasants is not a good impression either, but I suppose that's unavoidable. I've noticed few players care to openly show off like that, or do it with friends, and just like to look good around the people they're doing things with. My most recent experience with that is Path of Exile and World of Warcraft.

Logging into an online multiplayer PvE game, where there is no reason to actually play together in a coordinated way.

I agree, and the world event mechanics already planned will take care of that, so long as there is no mechanic that separates players or guilds at all. The lack of instancing you mentioned does take care of it.

I think a friends list, a party mechanic and guild chat channel would handle coordination.

 

[BunnyHunny]

Demonstrate thing is bad. Put bad thing in, bad thing is bad. Solution: don't put bad thing in. That's the reasoning. You bring up some points though, that help me, as you say, specify.

Pointing out the worst cases is the proper perspective to have. I can also find circumstances with cheating, griefing and other such things, using the same method. I don't think best-case, and you thinking better-case is our main difference.

No. It isn't.
When your reasoning is: "this is definitely bad, because reason x", but x can be prevented from happening, that is bad reasoning.
It is in no way constructive and i would assume that you will argue differently, when it comes to things that you personally want to see happening.

When talking about ideas to implement into the game, the only useful reasoning is to point out what is positive and then point out how to prevent possible negative effects from occurring.

Your final line is our difference. Everything is achieved by participating in something. When everything is achieved by participating in something, participation is forced. That participation is what creates a rift between solo players, players in guilds, and guilds between guilds. I'll articulate this better later..

The entire game is about participating in events of war.
Literally EVERYTHING is achieved by participating in something.
If you do not want to participate in anything, you should probably look for a game that is about being passive.

All of those participation-things tribalize. Guild benefits force solo players into guilds (when they want those benefits). Anything unique to a guild tribalizes guilds from one another. Achievements create elitism. Guild competition can just suck it, because the now-forced members are now further-forced into competition.

Again, you make claims but do not explain.
How is simply participating at events of war supposed to tribalize in some way?
If you have a problem with guild benefits "forcing" solo players into guilds, when they want the benefits as well, do you also have a problem with forcing every single player into fights, when they want to get resources?
Do you have a problem with people being forced to work, in order to earn money?
Nobody is forced to do anything. It is all a matter of how much you want it. If you want it, you go get it.

You do things and get something in return. If you do not want to do things, you will get nothing in return.
That is how things work in a proper system.

For players, things become a balance between snob-guilds and casual-guilds. Casuals get stuck in low-performing low-benefit guilds, and the l33t become rabidly tribalized into competing guilds for more stuff and achievements. The participation has encouraged two major types of playerbase.

This makes no sense.
Nobody gets "stuck" anywhere. It all depends on the individual player
If you are not very skilled, do not expect to be invited into a very skilled army. Simple as that.
Nobody prevents you from joining a different army and nobody prevents you from playing better.
You should not expect any specific army to invite you, but you can expect some army to invite you.

You might not get invited to an army, because they are nation/language exclusive. You can not simply change your nationality and you mother tongue, or learn a language.
But you can improve your gameplay.
Skill based recruitment is the fairest and should not be a problem for anyone (unless they can not handle the thought that somebody else plays better than they do).

When the game only has a friends list and guild chat channel, nothing else is risked. Players clump together as they wish, but there is nothing driving them other than their social compatibility.

The reason I think in this way is that this minimal feature-set is perfectly adequate and reduces complexity for developers.

Wrong.
You risk every player who likes any kind of competitive gaming.

Now I get that there's the argument for having, say, farmville mechanics in the game to attract that sort. There's an argument for pvp, there's an argument for achievement, for exploration, for pretty pretty hats, etc etc. I lump overdevelopment of guilds in the same domain. It's effort that ought not to be spent, because the basics are good enough. The events bring people together.

Yes. There are arguments for all of that.
However, PvP for example is simply a completely different experience than PvE.
It requires entirely different balancing and is a huge amount of work, if it is supposed to work decently.

No. The events will not bring people together. Not in a social manner.
Maybe a few, but it does not do much.
Instanced content is what usually does this.

Instances not being a thing in planning, is one of the main reasons, why it might be important to make armies relevant by giving them bonus unlocks.
If there is no good reason to group up or to join an army, because stuff is happening everywhere, at any time and anyone can join in, there needs to be an other reason to do so.

People being able to trigger their own events, like thumping, brings people together from within a friends list, a guilds list, and solo players in earshot. The numbers game of resource/loot collection is the individual reward, is the achievement and is the competition. There's no need, for example, for "number of kills of mob x under circumstance y with 5 or more guild members on Tuesdays" achievements.

The people will come and then they will leave.

There is no (skill requiring) achievement and no competition in that. At all.
I am not sure if you understand what competition really means and if you understand, how important achievements and competition are for people, in order to keep playing.
Of course, some don't care. But many do.

Though you made me think on one thing.. there's a strong argument for unique weapons/armor being the "achievement points" viewable openly and not hidden away in some UI panel. I've heard time and time again of people hating on generic gear, and how old awesome hard-to-get stuff eventually became common.

So... you want stuff that is hard to get. So hard that it does not become common.

The numbers game of resource/loot collection is the individual reward, is the achievement and is the competition. There's no need, for example, for "number of kills of mob x under circumstance y with 5 or more guild members on Tuesdays" achievements.

Here you say, that there should NOT be any kind of achievement and that everything should be achieved passively, by gathering resources.

Those are contradictory statements, unless you want stuff to be "hard to get" by making it an endless grind.
And that would be a really bad idea. Also, by making the requirement for a certain item based on time investment (drop luck, massive amount of resources required), you make 100% sure that it will become common, which you seemed to be against at.

I'd want "that guy did a lot of fighting (didn't just get lucky) to make that weapon" as inspiration for anyone, rather than "that guy joined a guild for the stuff that others worked for." (even if they did work for it) as inspiration between guilds.

If by "a lot of fighting" you really mean just that, it is a bad idea.

The second point is only problematic, if what you said earlier would happen, does NOT happen.

For players, things become a balance between snob-guilds and casual-guilds. Casuals get stuck in low-performing low-benefit guilds, and the l33t become rabidly tribalized into competing guilds for more stuff and achievements. The participation has encouraged two major types of playerbase.

If that would happen, people would only get the army benefits that they deserve.

Even if a player has not directly contributed to an army rank, according to what you say,
>> players who are not good (and would not be able to support the army in reaching high ranks), would be stuck in low performing armies with low rank
>> skilled players (who would be able to support the army in reaching high ranks) would all join high performing armies with high rank
So (according to what you said) everyone who gets invited into the armies would get what they deserve.

The social elements are fine, handled solely by a guild chat channel. However, providing too many mechanics to guilds promotes cloistered friends and friends-of-friends-only grouping, insulating them from the playerbase. This pulls players away from the pool of participants. A new player steps into the game, and nobody needs them until they're recruited.

NOT playing in groups causes isolation. Playing in groups does the exact opposite.
If players have a bonus aura (from army ranks), people will want to play with and around them.

If something promotes grouping up and playing together, it does the exact opposite of pulling players away from the pool of participants.

If a new player joins the game and notices that he can get a 10% resource boost by simply playing around others, that -again- PROMOTES playing together and grouping up.
Because higher bonuses would usually be exclusive to skilled players, newbies would be around skilled players from the get go and be able to learn faster, because of that.

Firefall did this decently-well, where solo players could wander around doing whatever they want, and events would gather them for fights. This is a system without needing guild gameplay-mechanics outside of chat.

My primary argument was the need for chat and nothing else. Other features are risky.

I have played Firefall for a few years and i can safely say: the only time, when people actively engaged in actual teamplay, was, when there was instanced content and when teamplay was necessary.
That was also, when armies were active and important.
There was an indirect reward for being in an army and playing coordinated in a team, because it made most things easier and certain things were not possible otherwise.

I wasn't talking about a few guilds, but about a massive number of arbitrarily-created guilds pulling a huge chunk of their participants away. Even if some players go to guild spaces some of the time, they are pulled away fro being viewed. That's the ghost town. It's either minor because there are only a few things in guild halls, or it's major when the outside world is obsoleted by lots of guild vendors/etc.

Note: NEVER give special stuff to everyone.
Also, if every army had a guild hall or something like that, there would be an infinite server load.

Again, you did not think it through and act like there is only one way to do it.
The worst way: giving it to every person and every guild.

When the game is about fighting in a war, i am pretty sure that some guild vendors will not make the world obsolete.
Especially, when you are required to fight in the war, if you want to be able to buy anything from the vendors.

Ember will have a properly-huge number of players supported on-screen, and it would be amazing to do everything possible to get them out in the open and in the same spots as often as possible. Not just with events, but back in town. This is why I argue against a guild hall for any reason.

Do you really think, if 5% of the player base have access to something like a guild hall, you would even notice when these people are not in town, but in their hall for a few minutes?
Most people are supposed to be fighting outside of the town anyway.

Guild-exclusives is an example of tribalism. "Look at me, you peasant, I am better." This is already being done with exclusives for early development contributors. On the one hand there will be individual cosmetics, which is unfortunate and unavoidable, but bringing guilds into that mix now forces players who want those benefits into guilds, and guild exclusives tribalizes them from one another.

Again, you talk about tribalism and you still have not specified at all, what you mean by it.

No, it is different. Anything that was paid for, has nothing to do with being better.
Anyone who thinks that being a founder or buying a cosmetic makes you something better,
is probably one of those "peasants" who still wants to have something to brag about, to the other "peasants".

Exactly.
If you want special exclusive stuff that does nothing but look cool, you have to join a guild and play properly to get it.
Damn. How unfair is that... Oh wait, it isn't.
Because you can get it, if you do what is necessary.
(which is NOT the case with any founder exclusive stuff and THAT is somewhat unfair)

Why are you against almost all stuff that requires you to do something in order to get it?

People AFKing in town to show off to the peasants is not a good impression either, but I suppose that's unavoidable. I've noticed few players care to openly show off like that, or do it with friends, and just like to look good around the people they're doing things with. My most recent experience with that is Path of Exile and World of Warcraft.

Actually, it is a good impression for the most part.

Lets take WoW as an example. What would be cooler to log in to?
>>a bunch of people with crap gear, the cheap faction specific mount and no title
>>a dude sporting "The Insane", another one sporting "The Exalted", people riding exclusive mounts and wearing top gear, AND a bunch of people with crap gear and generic mount

Pretty sure that option 2 is quite a bit cooler.
People want to see players at different skill levels. People want to see players who have cool stuff that makes them want to get it as well.

I agree, and the world event mechanics already planned will take care of that, so long as there is no mechanic that separates players or guilds at all. The lack of instancing you mentioned does take care of it.

What the hell are you talking about now?
These mechanics do the exact opposite of supporting coordinated group play.

 

[BunnyHunny]

Simply put, you misinterpreted me. Any bonus that the guild is going to have that provides a bonus to the entire guild-those should be things the entire zone works for as a group(ie in exchange for donating 5k resources to a base, get 5% bonus resources gained for the entire guild-make it 50k and everyone in the zone gets the bonus, but this bonus can be lost if the zone downgrades, etc, ensuring that the zone has to be maintained in order for the bonus to be kept).
[...]
EDIT: And if you believe that you shouldn't be rewarded for what others do, then no army-wide bonuses should exist.

Do you want a huge number of leechers who would never spend any of their own resources on that?
Because that is how you get them.

Scaling it down to army level makes a huge difference.
You can control who gets the bonuses and who does not (by inviting and kicking players).
Skill can be the unlock requirement, rather than spending resources (that does not work if the bonus and the requirements are global).

Players would not get bonuses from their army mates buying them.
Players would get bonuses from their army mates being skilled.
Nobody would have to waste time on farming resources to then spend on a boost that everyone gets.
Just playing already means to participate and work on fulfilling the requirements.

Anyone who wants to make use of bonuses (by playing the game) would also automatically work towards the next bonus rank (provided that their niveau is high enough to be able to achieve what is required).

 

[AdmiralStryker]

Do you want a huge number of leechers who would never spend any of their own resources on that?
Because that is how you get them.

Scaling it down to army level makes a huge difference.
You can control who gets the bonuses and who does not (by inviting and kicking players).
Skill can be the unlock requirement, rather than spending resources (that does not work if the bonus and the requirements are global).

Players would not get bonuses from their army mates buying them.
Players would get bonuses from their army mates being skilled.
Nobody would have to waste time on farming resources to then spend on a boost that everyone gets.
Just playing already means to participate and work on fulfilling the requirements.

Anyone who wants to make use of bonuses (by playing the game) would also automatically work towards the next bonus rank (provided that their niveau is high enough to be able to achieve what is required).

If you're so adamantly against people leeching, remove any bonus that in any way gives a bonus to a player nearby. No skill-based rank should give a bonus to someone who did not participate in obtaining it. Which once again raises the question of why lock that onus to being in a guild? There's no reason. If you're skilled in a guild or skilled as a solo player you should still be able to get that achievement. There is literally NO harm that can be inflicted by an achievement for one player that gives them a bonus being obtainable by anyone with the requisite skills.

As for your first point about leeching upgrades off bases, it's easy-make the bonuses obtained from upgrading a base only apply to those who helped upgrade them(and make it threshold-based so that you have to contribute a decent amount in order for it to work).

 

[AdmiralStryker]

I'm no longer quoting some of the more wall-of-text-ish posts here.

If you want fancy cosmetics for being in a guild, fine.
If you want titles, a chat, a tag, for being in a guild, fine.
If you want anything that changes gameplay for those in a guild, NO. Those bonuses should and must be obtainable by anyone with the requisite skills or dedication to achieve them. I am not saying anyone should get things they don't work for. I love the idea of working for bonuses and special things. But those things should be accessible regardless of whether or not you're in a guild. The fact of the matter is that in a guild you will succeed more, gather more resources, kill more Tsi-Hu, contribute to bases, and kill more Kaiju simply because of the fact that a guild has communication, unity, and can focus its efforts towards something. You want cosmetic rewards for that? Cool, I don't care. But don't slow someone down gameplay-wise more than they already are by not having the group behind them that a guild provides by giving that guild boosts to resources and damage and whatnot. That's not fair.

Same goes for ingame items. If a guild can work for them, individual players should be able to work for them. There is no reason why individual bonuses should require you to be in a group.

 

[BunnyHunny]

If you want anything that changes gameplay for those in a guild, NO. Those bonuses should and must be obtainable by anyone with the requisite skills or dedication to achieve them.

If you are so good, you can join any guild and do the achievements for them.

Same goes for ingame items. If a guild can work for them, individual players should be able to work for them. There is no reason why individual bonuses should require you to be in a group.

Yes there is.
It is a MULTIPLAYER game.
Solo players SHOULD be in a disadvantage.

Playing in a guild makes the game more fun for most people.
But many people do not realize that and do not try to join a guild (unless they get obvious bonuses for it).

 

[AdmiralStryker]

If you are so good, you can join any guild and do the achievements for them.


Yes there is.
It is a MULTIPLAYER game.
Solo players SHOULD be in a disadvantage.

Playing in a guild makes the game more fun for most people.
But many people do not realize that and do not try to join a guild (unless they get obvious bonuses for it).

You should not be forced to. There's simply no reason for that.

Just because you're in a guild doesn't mean you run screaming from anything that has more than 5 people in an area. You should not have to dedicate yourself to being with a specific group of people in order to get bonuses. That's just not fair. Should you have to prove yourself, yes.

As you said, playing in a guild makes the game fun for most people. NOT ALL. Anyone who doesn't enjoy being in a guild should not have to be in one simply to reach the same power potential as someone in a guild. It's playstyle.


As to the inevitable point of "if you don't like being in a guild why are you in a mmo?"


Because you like the game, the concept, the gameplay. Not everyone who plays mmos enjoys a huge amount of interaction, they're fine going into a large event, helping out, and leaving when it's over to find more action. That's purely personal preference and nobody should be hindered by that.

 

[BunnyHunny]

You should not be forced to. There's simply no reason for that.

If you want to get rewards for an event, you have to participate.
If you want to craft something, you need the research and the mats to do so.
If you want the perks of being in an army, you have to join (or create) one.

Nobody is forced to do anything at all.
However, there are ALWAYS certain requirements for most things.

Just because you're in a guild doesn't mean you run screaming from anything that has more than 5 people in an area.

Exactly. Nobody said otherwise.
So what is the problem with joining one?

At this point, it seems like you do not even read (or understand) what i say, because what i suggested earlier would (as i explained) PROMOTE joining people who are already around.

You should not have to dedicate yourself to being with a specific group of people in order to get bonuses. That's just not fair.

Nobody said otherwise.
However, it would not necessarily be unfair, if it was the case (MULTIplayer).

Should you have to prove yourself, yes.

As you said, playing in a guild makes the game fun for most people. NOT ALL.

Most people. Yes.
Not everybody can be pleased, so when you have to decide, you should try to please the most. In this case, that means: those who are willing to join an army.

Anyone who doesn't enjoy being in a guild should not have to be in one simply to reach the same power potential as someone in a guild. It's playstyle.

Nobody has to join a guild to reach the same power potential as somebody who is in a guild, even if there are guild exclusive bonuses.
You might have forgotten, but there is not supposed to be (much or any) vertical progression.

It just might take a bit longer for a solo player, to research and craft everything, which is 100% fair since it is a MULTIPLAYER game.
You should be happy if you are not actually forced to play with a group/army in order to progress beyond a certain point.

As to the inevitable point of "if you don't like being in a guild why are you in a mmo?"

Because you like the game, the concept, the gameplay. Not everyone who plays mmos enjoys a huge amount of interaction, they're fine going into a large event, helping out, and leaving when it's over to find more action. That's purely personal preference and nobody should be hindered by that.

Nobody said anything else.
Why and how would anyone get hindered from doing that?




Let me ask you something:
Aside from people not liking other changes in 1.6/1.7...

How many players do you think, have left Firefall with the reason
"DoD got released, so now there is content where teamplay is required"?
I do not know a single one.

And how many people do you think, have left Firefall with the reason
"the only content that required actual teamplay got so easy that it does not require teamplay anymore, making it boring"?
I know of around 80 active players from my army alone.