PDA

View Full Version : Guild vs Guild


Ohnoto
01-21-2011, 09:24 AM
I'm part of a large gaming community and I've got a few questions on how the Guild features will be.

As part of a guild, will there be a guild city, separate from player cities that guild members can send resources and units to build and defend? If not, this would be a cool feature :-)

When attacking someone, will you be able to have guild members bring their armies as well and attack the same person together?

I'm just hoping that being a part of a guild in this game is more than just a tag, but can actually be something that is built up and has some meaning :-)

Thanks.

bravekilla
01-21-2011, 09:31 AM
Wouldn't guild overkill this ? Basically, you are already a nation not a single unit trying to form a army. Might be good to do small alliances... but having overwhelming nations allying other nations who are just picking on small ones while just allying the big ones would kinda kill it, no ?

Ohnoto
01-21-2011, 09:36 AM
I'm not saying it wouldn't. I agree that it would, I am just wanting to see if that is possible or not.

I certainly wouldn't be happy to get attacked by a group of members from a guild, but if it were to be allowed and happen, my guild would team up against them.

Dalkor
01-21-2011, 09:47 AM
They could add barrier's, Like Alliances/Guilds of this size cannot attack Alliances/Guilds of that size, which don't necessarily have to be based on numbers of troop's, but could be based on economy of the region and what not.

But seeing the huge battles that would take place because of this would be amazing!

LiTos456
01-21-2011, 02:38 PM
Its a huge world and each city state is still controlled by only one person. This being RTS you could really say that your whole army is the equivalent of one character in a 3rd person game. While there hadn't been much details about guilds yet, I reckon there will be a system in place and DoFSource will also have external support for it.

Arachnid
01-22-2011, 01:18 AM
I'd definitely like there to be a reason, beyond someone to talk to while playing, to join an alliance, etc. If there are no tangible benefits, I'd be hard pressed to join one for any reason other than that my alliance "might" decide to help retaliate against someone who attacked me...if they feel like it.

pkdavid
01-24-2011, 05:08 AM
I agree, there should be a covenant brings a lot of things, otherwise I see no advantage to be inside.

lordsabbath88
01-24-2011, 07:30 AM
I would prefer the solution one city - one player. Because we're a sort of "king" of our cities, and i suppose that guilds may form a sort of alliance, so when a member of that guild is attacked, another member of that guild could run to help defending, or such things..

darkviju
01-24-2011, 07:34 AM
The advantages of belonging to a guild are as in the real life I suppose. They won't attack you, and if you get attacked, they maybe help you.

TriggerHappyNDB
01-24-2011, 10:17 AM
My main question about the nature of guild vs. guild combat is of exactly how large scale the battles themselves can be. Guilds, presumably, can have dozens of members, but surely no one battlefield can harbor that many people with all of their army camps, units, and so forth.

So exactly how many players can battle one another at a time? Are we talking 4v4, 5v5, even 6v6 matches? And can these matches happen at one of the involved players' settlements, with 6 enemies attacking him/her and he and 5 allies defending the city, or must they happen on open terrain?

lordsabbath88
01-24-2011, 11:25 AM
My main question about the nature of guild vs. guild combat is of exactly how large scale the battles themselves can be. Guilds, presumably, can have dozens of members, but surely no one battlefield can harbor that many people with all of their army camps, units, and so forth.

So exactly how many players can battle one another at a time? Are we talking 4v4, 5v5, even 6v6 matches? And can these matches happen at one of the involved players' settlements, with 6 enemies attacking him/her and he and 5 allies defending the city, or must they happen on open terrain?

i think it depends by the position where your armies are. If my army is too far from yours, i believe that's impossible to help your soldiers.
Well, i hope it is so.. otherwise it would be too good to belong a guild!

Hans
01-24-2011, 11:40 AM
will there be 2v2 3v3 game types ?

Shinigami
01-24-2011, 03:58 PM
what about 3v3v3 Have multiple guilds warring not just 2 or another guild attacking after both are weakened?

Bamboocha
01-24-2011, 04:13 PM
about the part where we share villages/castles/cities, each player could have a "special key" to their city, and they have to give it to someone to share the city/whatsoever/village with the player

Peacebringer01
01-24-2011, 04:29 PM
I'd be cool to see guilds fight over specific areas for control. Give those areas a bonus if you control them, but have them be hotly contested. Definitely have a limit to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 or whatever to keep it from being the one guild of 500 people dominating everything.

Gamerfett
01-24-2011, 05:11 PM
I'm part of a large gaming community and I've got a few questions on how the Guild features will be.

As part of a guild, will there be a guild city, separate from player cities that guild members can send resources and units to build and defend? If not, this would be a cool feature :-)

When attacking someone, will you be able to have guild members bring their armies as well and attack the same person together?

I'm just hoping that being a part of a guild in this game is more than just a tag, but can actually be something that is built up and has some meaning :-)

Thanks.

I hope not as this would force most people to join guilds. I could see guilds using this to bully new players, or strong players that might want to do things alone.

lordsabbath88
01-24-2011, 06:19 PM
I hope not as this would force most people to join guilds. I could see guilds using this to bully new players, or strong players that might want to do things alone.

exactly the point! The game have to legitimate a player who doesn't want to join a guild! we know that guilds are over-powered compared to single-players because members of a guild could trade much better, and i believe that a good economy will be the basis of our future cities :)

Refleax
01-24-2011, 07:03 PM
exactly the point! The game have to legitimate a player who doesn't want to join a guild! we know that guilds are over-powered compared to single-players because members of a guild could trade much better, and i believe that a good economy will be the basis of our future cities :)

Guilds do promote more team play but I can't see why anyone would be against a guild system. I haven't really tried the game yet tough so I may change my opinion after doing so. :p

padawan1988
01-25-2011, 02:56 AM
As always a guild has advantages and disadvantages ... but often beneficial

mindleach
01-25-2011, 10:38 AM
Personally, I have played games like this game that have the same concept, build your town, make an army, do quest, and so on and so forth. I am personally against having an in-game guild /alliance. The reasons are for me that guilds / alliances have or usually end up bullying those single player cities. I'm more in favor of having my city stand alone to make a name for itself then being in a well known guild / alliance.

Ohnoto
01-25-2011, 02:53 PM
From the wiki, it states

Players can also temporarily align themselves with other players to take on the mightiest of Strongholds or advance in their questing. For a more permanent alliance, players can establish Guilds and engage in large-scale Guild vs. Guild battles.

I haven't been around for a few days, didn't realize this posting would start up so much discussion.

As I stated before, I would like to hope we won't have 2v1 battles, as that is obviously unfair. I was looking more for confirmation on the subject.

I am more curious though about the guild vs. guild battles. Is this like a war game where you create a battlefield map and do a fast paced typical RTS type battle?

Or what I think would be really nice is if guilds could have their own guild city that members could donate funds into, where as it the guild city got bigger, members would get special bonuses or extra units when attacking or defending.

LiTos456
01-25-2011, 02:57 PM
2v1 may be possible for the sake of realism but we'll do our best to make sure these cases are balanced.

TRANG-Supreme
01-28-2011, 02:41 PM
I am hoping you can form alliances with other players to make kingdoms...

Thats just me though.

modernatomic
01-28-2011, 04:03 PM
I haven't really seen any information on the diplomacy options available or planned. Will there be ways to set up automatic tribute to avoid attack from specific players, or cease-fire terms that last x days? Resource sharing, map sharing, joint war declaration options?

Guilds could use these options to form, even if a traditional guild environment isn't supported. Also, if these choices are available with NPCs, it'd be great to have as many of the same options available to conduct diplomatic treaties between actual players in the online game mode as well.

hawkravengold
01-30-2011, 12:51 PM
I am hoping you can form alliances with other players to make kingdoms...

This is really something that I think the devs should consider greatly. The main reason that I've even become interested in this game (other than the fact that it's an excellent concept) is because I play several other MMOs and my RL friends that play with me have referred me to this one. I have hopes that we could band together to build our own empire. I just think it would be a positive addition to the game.

MoLiva
01-30-2011, 06:23 PM
I hope guilds or alliances play a large role in this game and have more functionality than just a group of allies that you can chat with and call on for help every once and a while.

NobleIre
01-30-2011, 06:28 PM
Guild v Guild battles - if orchestrated correctly - could be very compelling. On a related note, 2v1 and similar battles could be a great deal of fun if correctly implemented. Of course, balancing these so that people don't get overrun is the true problem. I wonder at what methods you can use to balance those battles.

Limiting the number of participating troops from each army would work. While it'd prove unfair/unrealistic for the side with two armies - that group would then still have twice as many troops left in order to attack again. I'm just spitballing ideas, ofcourse.

master0p
01-30-2011, 08:08 PM
Hey guys...

I am not totally against the concept with 3vs1 or even 4vs1.
Maybe alot of people will disagree... but i like a game where some certain of realism is attached on. Its kinda dull to have only 1 vs 1 battles or 2 vs 1 that is balanced that the advantage is minimum.
Back in the days when a castle is under siege. Ofcourse the attackers won't say:
"Hey lets make it fair lets balance this battle..."
They bring all the men they could.

Ofcourse its not fair to do a 10vs1 but It should be possible to do a 4vs1 IMO when attacking a castle.
Allies ofcourse come to the rescue .. even if your not in a guild and you have just friends they will come to the rescue.


And also i agree with forming guilds/alliances/kingdoms w/e you may name it.

Badguy82
01-31-2011, 02:26 AM
I am anxious to see how the guild feature works out. Maybe I will start my own guild. =)

Rounlin
01-31-2011, 08:30 AM
should be interesting to see how this feature plays out. On paper it sounds cool.

NobleIre
01-31-2011, 10:48 AM
I certainly agree with master0p that battles do not have to be utterly balanced. However, the fun may quickly be leeched from the game if weaker players can never survive long enough against the stronger alliances.

EdwardTheGreat
02-05-2011, 01:34 PM
Guilds or alliances, in my own opinions, sound like they would be very compelling and add a lot of strategy to this game. I personally don't know how battles would go down, as I am still fairly new, but I'd imagine you could overwelm your enemy with various flanks and strategies used by different members of the guild/alliance. I can also see it providing a thriving economy to the guild members, as one could always have someone to trade with. You could also assist friendlies in offensive and defensive operations, or flank retreating armies who failed to conquer a city, and then conquer that players city. Then again, I can see it being a nuisance to weaker players, but I guess one could counter that argument along the lines of the use of Social Darwinism? Overall, I think it would be a great idea, but certainly needs some unique aspects to it to work efficiently.

Griegor Mcvennor
02-06-2011, 12:19 AM
I would find it entertaining to see allies arrive and turn the tides of battles. Streams of reinforcements arriving over the course of several hours depending on how far away your allies are vs the enemy's allies.

Perhaps they could put in a timer if allied armies can not arrive in X amount of time then they can not participate in the battle?

Custos
02-06-2011, 03:33 AM
should be interesting to see how this feature plays out. On paper it sounds cool.

I've leaked my ideas into some of my other posts about territorial control for guild kingdom expansion, territorial control that will give benefits to the members. There is one game that is much like this, shattered galaxy if i remember its name correctly. Essentially people from 4 different factions fight over the battle map when one faction is destroyed the lost members join the other existing factions and the fight continues until one faction wins than the contested territories are reset. I realize a lot of people wont like this as they lose everything when their faction is destroyed or when the territories are reset. And generally yes the larger faction will win over the smaller ones. But putting in some npc filler between territories can and may slow the advance of factions to allow some development of smaller factions. Ultimately I posted that there should be a Reinforcements type of multiplayer map allowing people to connect when an allied army has been routed allowing for maybe a 3v3 battle to persistently continue until one side cant field enough replacement armies to hold the territory. I am uncertain if defeated armies have to be replenished or become unavailable to attack of X hours but its a thought. This would be largely for pvp.

The other option would be to have a coop style of kingdom development, where on a different server people take their kingdoms into a strictly coop server in which people battle AI, the AI gets progressively difficult as you push them back into their territories and require more cooperation. Maybe every once or twice a day have an AI incursion or attack upon the players in which they have to work together fend off AI invasions once again allowing for the reinforcements style of gameplay allowing more people to join the battle once an army has been routed. AI incursions would also give maybe a 1 hour notice or something of the like depending on how powerful the army is the notice would increase in time to allow more people to react accordingly. Defeat of territories would inflict and economic penalty or loss of some advantage, maybe even prestige.

These are ideas id like to see placed in a game, and is merely food for thought for the developers out there. Im sure what you're making is going to be fun, but if you want to take my idea i wont argue :D

Incivility
02-10-2011, 08:18 PM
Is there a cap on how many players you can have in your alliance? Can human's ally with orc or elves or any combo of the 3?

master0p
02-10-2011, 08:23 PM
Is there a cap on how many players you can have in your alliance? Can human's ally with orc or elves or any combo of the 3?

sure, i think your able to ally with elves or orcs when your human. Different racial background dont limit to whom you can form an alliance with.

Not sure about the cap, maybe someone else could answer that ^^

tribute
02-11-2011, 04:32 PM
i am also interested in this