Ive found myself through the years becoming more an more of a casual player because of work, life obligations, my weekly "Handsome Men with Great Smiles" meetings.
Oh.. THAT's where I know you from.
Can I attend this meeting? I want to see the handsome men with great smiles! Or is it men only?
I don't recall the devs mentioning an alliance cap.
They haven't so far as I know. Even if there was such a thing what would stop guilds from allying in Discord?
400 people = 4 x 100 person guilds = 2 x 200 person guilds etc... so really what's the point of a hard guild cap or alliance cap?
Wars. From my assumption based on how the flagging system works. When a war is declared flagging won't be necessary to kill the enemy. So i see limits being needed just for that reason let alone anything I can't think of right now. A massive guild declares war on your much smaller guild, it will be hard assuming they are not lower level than you. if they are you'll be able to win by killing their lower levesl
I don't recall the devs mentioning an alliance cap.
They haven't so far as I know. Even if there was such a thing what would stop guilds from allying in Discord?
400 people = 4 x 100 person guilds = 2 x 200 person guilds etc... so really what's the point of a hard guild cap or alliance cap?
Wars. From my assumption based on how the flagging system works. When a war is declared flagging won't be necessary to kill the enemy. So i see limits being needed just for that reason let alone anything I can't think of right now. A massive guild declares war on your much smaller guild, it will be hard assuming they are not lower level than you. if they are you'll be able to win by killing their lower levesl
Not quite understanding what you're meaning? A war declared against a smaller guild I assume will have to be accepted by the smaller guild.
Yes, the flagging in a guild war is only be between the warring guilds and their allies. But I'm not sure how this relates to the open world flagging system and what would happen if additional non allied combatants enter the fight.
Regarding zerging or griefing smaller guilds, I don't think Intrepid is wanting this to be a viable playstyle. That's how I read it anyway.
i dont think the defending guild would have to accept the war deck as if someone goes to war with them, you cant tell them no. they gonna attack you either way. just to add that in there
i dont think the defending guild would have to accept the war deck as if someone goes to war with them, you cant tell them no. they gonna attack you either way. just to add that in there
In my tired mind, that kind of goes against the principle of meaningful conflict. But yeah, you might be right!
i dont think the defending guild would have to accept the war deck as if someone goes to war with them, you cant tell them no. they gonna attack you either way. just to add that in there
In my tired mind, that kind of goes against the principle of meaningful conflict. But yeah, you might be right!
you could be right. i just look at things from a more realistic perspective. its a game but we want to be immersed aswell. so if it gets to out there then immersion is taken away. and i dont think u can turn down war irl. which is where im coming from
@noespark based of other games i wouldn't be surprised if they need to accept a war.
attacking "either way" is kind of i irrelevant if you factor in the flagging system. If you have declined a war (and that feature is available) they will have to gain corruption to kill you
i dont think the defending guild would have to accept the war deck as if someone goes to war with them, you cant tell them no. they gonna attack you either way. just to add that in there
In my tired mind, that kind of goes against the principle of meaningful conflict. But yeah, you might be right!
you could be right. i just look at things from a more realistic perspective. its a game but we want to be immersed aswell. so if it gets to out there then immersion is taken away. and i dont think u can turn down war irl. which is where im coming from
Lets get this part out of the way. I said "Wars" not "sieges" not "fortresses" I said WAR. There is no bases or anything like that involved in a guild on guild WAR
You will earn kills which in wars determines who wins in the end.
Wars are not "lets all meet up and fight" wars are "this is going to be several days if you see them, kill them"
after reading a few pages, this one Stood out the most. Throughout these Discussion I'm surprised that no one mentioned the " Unexpected ":
Whose to say no other Guild might have their own hidde agenda ? The entirety of this debate is literally a ... " 1-on-1" scenario. And even though some Guilds may be in Alliance with others ... whose to say that some of those Guilds don't have their own Agenda ?
One of the Guilds could be a Double-Agent for the other Alliances. And even if so ... what if Both Guild A & Guild B is ambushed by Guild C ?
Guild C doesn't have to have any ties with the either Personal-Guild Alliances. That Guild probably has it's own Alliances with others who wants to overthrow Both Guilds.
In other words, this entire scenario is view rather " 2D " as opposed to 3D - they're other Variables to Consider.
Most importantly, I'm glad you distinctively mentioned " Wars " and not sieges or Fortresses - " Wars " mean anyone can intervene - at any moment. And Sieges are the same i think ?
That's kinda covered in the statement I made on page 6: "We can't assume that Guild B will defeat Guild A just because of the size of each guild or the mix of hardcores and casuals. Because it's not just going to be about the egos of the members of those two guilds, it's also going to be about the impact and influences each of those guilds has on the region and the world and who on the server wishes to support or oppose Guild A and Guild B."
That's kinda covered in the statement I made on page 6: "We can't assume that Guild B will defeat Guild A just because of the size of each guild or the mix of hardcores and casuals. Because it's not just going to be about the egos of the members of those two guilds, it's also going to be about the impact and influences each of those guilds has on the region and the world and who on the server wishes to support or oppose Guild A and Guild B."
Over the past 4 years we've seen a major movement to shrink guild sizes. Let's take a brief look at a few of the games limited guilds to less than 100 players at launch.
Blade & Soul limits guilds to 50
Black Desert limits to 100
ArcheAge limits to 100
Age of Conan limits to 100
Devilian limits to 95
Aion at launch only supported 90 characters
Skyforge begins with a 30 person limit and requires grinding to raise that up to 250
What do all these games have in common? They all experienced massive reduction in player base shortly after launch. Could it be that players would rather not play a game that doesn't allow casual players to belong? Now let's compare that to titles that don't limit guilds to less than 100 players:
EVE limits 12,600 Accounts
Everquest 1 & 2 do not limit
RIFT does not limit
Ultima Online does not limit
World of Warcraft limits to 1000 characters
All of these titles have crossed the 5 year mark, some even the decade mark. All of them are still profitable and active.
However, it has made the assumption that there is a direct relationship to guild size and success of the game. That is up for debate.
seeing as how WoW has no open world PVP consequences or content to drive open world pvp. guildsize(1000) never affected it. guild size must change with the game. guild size is not whats going to be defining AoC success by any means.
also the first list is full of sh*t games. its nothing to do with the guild sizes. they were just bad
I do not know of Eve's server capacity but if they have had up to 65,000 players online on a single server at the same time, then in context the game would have considerably greater capability to have larger guild sizes.
L2 implemented, at one stage, a teleport system to eject players from an area if there was just too many people gathering than the server could handle.
If this game does make the lands as big as suggested, I would much rather have larger lands, more population on the one server, larger guild sizes and/or alliance members and mechanics to reduce too many people in one area that might crash the server rather than the limit of 10,000.
I am sorry but to me this sounds like a selfish request for your massive community. If you really have only 20-25 active members among 300 you should seriously consider kicking or replacing those who quit or has no interest in the game anymore. We are having 30 active members during our raids and our guild doesnt even have 100 members. Lets say we are not casuals and lets double, even triple down the chances, you are going to have at least 30 online casuals within 300...
I am asking this to a casual player because I cant see a difference from a PvPer point of view, why does it matter if you have 499 more casuals in your guild instead of 299? What is the advantage of having 200 extra casuals in your guild who are logging in twice a week anyway?
Another very important aspect we should not ignore is the server's health. If you cap guilds at 500, there will be max 5 active guilds on the server who are doing something and all your battles will be zerg versus zerg where you cant enjoy anything because you have no idea what is happening around you within those 100 casuals on the battlefield. If you drag down this limit to 250 or 300 (which is still a lot) you will have higher chance having close to at least 10 activite guilds, fighting over different things on different parts of the world and boosting more than just a few nodes and keeping the game world alive.
I say no to zergs. But I am not going to selfishly complain about 300 members cap being a lot because I have only 50 PvPers in my guild.
Let me know which server your 500 men guild (and probably few k men alliance) will roll so i can avoid.
I think 300 people is enough to be honest. I would rather see multiple small guilds running around rather than one huge guild all over the place. It would help to give more balance from one guild to the next and keep it fun.
What I understood from what has been said before is that the sub-guilds get upset when the mega-guild does all manage to be online together because they can communicate easily with everyone in games that don't have alliance chat.
And some people are upset if they feel they aren't a member of the main guild - which I'm guessing means their sub-guild doesn't have the name of the mega-guild.
To me it comes down to relative scales... if the server can handle large numbers then the guilds could be larger but as it stands if the cap on players is approximately 10,000 then that is the starting point to work from.
I agree with @AeonAuron.. to be a vibrant and organic ebb and tide of the balances of power, there needs to be opportunity for power to switch hands.
If 500 players is a limit, then there is likely hood that there will be 3-7 mega clans and 2-3 that ally together and hold the balance of power.. With such control of the server it will become joyful for a few and stagnant for the rest.
But if there the clan sizes are managed well by leaders with their active player bases and the max guild/clan size could be quite tight and the tussle between control not so great to overcome and perhaps more engaging
I've been read this thread since it came up and thou I'm from the Gaiscioch community I see both sides of the argument. Just for starters Gaischoch is actually one massive guild spread across multiple games lead by one guild leader aka Foghladha with elders ( officer in place) to help manage. Its a lot of work and for the last 12 years been up to the challenge, to those who say it can't be done, sorry to say there's your prove it can be done.
That a side 10,000 player cap per server it wont matter it if its few large guilds or many small it will ALL add up in the end, no one is forcing anyone to join mega guilds that up to the individual they can go small or go big or none at all be a personal preference. What makes your game play enjoyable is yours to own.
Personally I like the idea of a bigger guild cap I've read to the other people commenting here that there is an alliance chat, interesting could it work either way sure. We are still years away from official release.
Interestingly, we're kinda focusing on guild max being capped at 250-300.
The devs also plan to have content for smaller guild that choose to go after the horizontal perks rather than the vertical perks.
That's going to factor in as well. Could be that casuals in an offline megaguild would prefer joining a small guild in-game rather than a large guild... even though both types are part of the mega-guild's in-game alliance.
Not sure this was posted yet but ..." maybe " the LiveStreams deserves " a revisit ?
Very good tidbit to point out; with the absence of fast travel, zerg play definitely becomes a bigger obstacle, and it sounds- from the way the Dev in the stream described this- the point is to make statistic planning and troop-movement around the zones in the game-world more realistic and meaningful.
With that case-in-point a bit more clear to me; i definitely stand by Fog in this stance on being able to have the ability to maximize a Guild size to much larger numbers- seeing as how instant-Zerg-play in this game appears like it won't even be possible.
Without the abilities to instantly teleport from one area in the world to another; small and large guilds still have to make use of strategic planning in order to come out on top.
I'm re-linking the video Eragale posted with a timestamp placement, just watch this part of the video, as it's really informative and it could very well water-down some fears people may have about Small Versus Mega-guilds. https://youtu.be/3UIqmWTGZ2k?t=23m26s
There's a whole lot of assumptions floating about in this post. Let me point a few out.
1. Large Guilds Can Take Over The World. Watching DocGotGame's Interview Intrepid talks about how this wont be possible as there is no fast travel to allow a zerg to quickly move. If a mega-blog guild is on the east side of the map, they wont have time to respond to attacks on their west side territories. Their game mechanic is set up with NO fast travel, which means blobs need to mobilize and a lot of the time fights will be over before they can respond. In Warhammer Online we used this to our advantage when our forces were outnumbered and outgunned. We'd split into little groups of players and spread out across the maps hitting targets pulling the blob where we wanted them to be then hitting targets the furthest run away. It's highly effective and a large blob is not going to have the ability to just appear on the battlefield. They must ride via mount all the way across the land and be subject to other things slowing them down.
2. Preventing Large Guilds Prevents Blobs - As one of the most well known PUGmancers out there, I can tell you in almost every group I lead, 10-15 players are Gaiscioch and 50+ are not. The majority of my warforce since DAOC has always been made up of public militia. Regardless of how you split guilds up this will not stop people from flocking to capable leaders on the battlefield that are open for public militia. Guild size has nothing to do with blob size.
3. 500 Player Guilds Have 500 Players online. In the case of Gaiscioch in Guild Wars 2 we rotate our 500 person roster with the most active players in the community. 490 accounts are in at all times, people who go afk get rotated out as people who return from afk get invited. Every single player in the roster has played in the past 7 days. That said. Our community is Global. We have members in 67 nations across all times zones. Built on Casuals our average player spends less than 10 hours in game per week. Throughout the day you usually will find 30-45 people online. But this doesn't mean it's the same 30-45 people. Each of the 490 players actively in the roster plays at some point for a few hours here and a few hours there based on how much time real life allows. The assumption that 30-45 players are all who plays is false. Our roster is active 24/7. There is no peak time. This spreads out the 490 casual players across 24 hours and 7 days a week.
4. "A selfish request for your massive community" - My community is large yes, but we are built on casual players. The question I have for you is why, just because someone is part of a large guild, should their opinion not matter. If we have 500 players who want to subscribe to Ashes of Creation, why should their voices not be heard? What changes from a player who is by themselves with no guild, to a player who is part of a guild that makes their opinion null and void? This isn't 1 guild being selfish this is 500 players that want to play together who have been playing together for 16 years. We too look forward to Ashes of Creation, but what your saying is that 500 voices are not worth listening to because their linked by a community. We want to play this game the same way you do. If Ashes of Creation allows us to play together we will be a community that fights their ass off to better the game world for everyone.
Our focus has been and always will be on nurturing healthy game communities. Helping new players, providing fun events for all to enjoy, and providing players with guides and content for the game. We're not some mega-guild that wants to rule everything. We want to serve everyone. We plan to help others who need assistance. Ruling isn't in our plan.
So if you consider Gaiscioch selfish you really should google us. We've devoted 16 years to giving away the best loot in the game, supporting children's charities and helping games like Ashes of Creation. get crowdfunded. Over the history of our community I have always put others before myself. All I want is to be able to entertain a server community and bring laughter and fun times to the game. I don't want to have to tell my friends they can't come along because guild systems are too small. If that's selfish then I guess i'm selfish.
In Closing The amount of salt you guys are displaying this early in the game is amazing. I can only imagine what it's going to be like at launch. If this game does become a suitable home for us, we will have our work cut out for us. I'm sorry you guys have been traumatized by large guilds in the past. We're not all that way. Please don't put in the same bucket as other large guilds. We literally grew large by snowballing over the course of 16 years. But our members all are nurturing type players that look out for others and help out those in need. We're not looking for power, were looking for a place we can lend a helping hand.
" So if you consider Gaiscioch selfish you really should google us. We've devoted 16 years to giving away the best loot ... "
As nice as this sounds, this excerpt above is slightly uncomfortable. i personally would never want* anyone to "give me" any kind of Loot - I'd rather explore in the world & earn it. Because then that 1st Player's Experience is practically "care-beared". On the other hand ...
In Closing " ... We literally grew large by snowballing over the course of 16 years. But our members all are nurturing type players that look out for others and help out those in need. We're not looking for power, were looking for a place we can lend a helping hand. "
This is nice to hear. I'm unsure what initiated the Premise of this discussion, but there's always a " flip-side " to every situation - so its understandable
Ashes of Creation Kickstarter Livestream May 8, 2017
23:51
STEVEN: When designing Ashes of creation it was very important to us that we create certain systems that apply to smaller groups, smaller organizations, and they had a place within those systems, and then also having the application of larger guilds and larger groups.
There's a lot of different things that smaller groups can do better than larger groups and we wanted to make sure that we focused on those systems. When it comes to sieges, there will be roles for smaller groups to play. When it comes to developing certain structures within a node, smaller groups will have an advantage.
And another thing that's a huge aspect of what we've experienced in the past is that games that really emphasize zerg play... one of the primary components is the ability of that zerg to form in a very short period of time and port immediately to some location that needs their attention. That's part of what zerg play is.
And, I think with our game, in removing that fast travel mechanic, including meaningful travel that takes time to reach certain places, you're not going to see as much of a development of that zerg play.
If a caravan is moving out from a city and a large guild doesn't catch wind of it until it begins moving, they likely will not have the time to organize, form and reach that point by the time caravan reaches it's location. And I think that's a big aspect of cutting back the potential for zergs to control things in the game.
JEFFREY: We really want strategy to be part of the guild lexicon. We want guilds to have to plan and to have people in the right place at the right time in order to exert their influence on the world. So, that's a big part of it. Having alliances with smaller guilds and allowing them to get into places that a bigger guild might not necessarily be there, you know, guilds that call their home in one town versus in another town, is going to really affect how the world works.
STEVEN: One of the things we're talking about when it comes to guild progression, specifically, and what skills are available during the guild progression... We have a very intricate guild system that involves different levels and different progression aspects and questing, specific guild questing. And as you're advancing that guild in its progression, you have the ability to either expand or focus in on a smaller guild. Let's say for example, you're a group of 20 people and you want to level your guild but you're not interested in expanding it to 100 people or 150 people because you really just want to just stay that that tight-knit group... if you're going to forego the additional membership slots, you'll have the ability to focus in on some stronger skills or some more honed skill-specific skills that are available to your group of 20 that the larger guild who chose to go the route of more membership slots, doesn't have access to. And i think that's a good way to balance how smaller guilds can interact with larger guilds in the game.
PETER: We've also talked about fortresses having scaling for sizes, so having smaller-sized guilds able to siege fortresses.
I'm re-linking the video Eragale posted with a timestamp placement, just watch this part of the video, as it's really informative and it could very well water-down some fears people may have about Small Versus Mega-guilds. https://youtu.be/3UIqmWTGZ2k?t=23m26s
Comments
I would like to point out the impact of limited vs unlimited on an open PvP game is much different than that which is not open PvP
Yes, the flagging in a guild war is only be between the warring guilds and their allies. But I'm not sure how this relates to the open world flagging system and what would happen if additional non allied combatants enter the fight.
Regarding zerging or griefing smaller guilds, I don't think Intrepid is wanting this to be a viable playstyle. That's how I read it anyway.
attacking "either way" is kind of i irrelevant if you factor in the flagging system. If you have declined a war (and that feature is available) they will have to gain corruption to kill you
Throughout these Discussion I'm surprised that no one mentioned the " Unexpected ":
Whose to say no other Guild might have their own hidde agenda ? The entirety of this debate is literally a ... " 1-on-1" scenario. And even though some Guilds may be in Alliance with others ... whose to say that some of those Guilds don't have their own Agenda ?
One of the Guilds could be a Double-Agent for the other Alliances. And even if so ... what if Both Guild A & Guild B is ambushed by Guild C ?
Guild C doesn't have to have any ties with the either Personal-Guild Alliances. That Guild probably has it's own Alliances with others who wants to overthrow Both Guilds.
In other words, this entire scenario is view rather " 2D " as opposed to 3D - they're other Variables to Consider.
Most importantly, I'm glad you distinctively mentioned " Wars " and not sieges or Fortresses - " Wars " mean anyone can intervene - at any moment. And Sieges are the same i think ?
Anyone remembers the Post I made that also mentioned this ?
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/16624/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/p27
(Scroll to the bottom )
"We can't assume that Guild B will defeat Guild A just because of the size of each guild or the mix of hardcores and casuals.
Because it's not just going to be about the egos of the members of those two guilds, it's also going to be about the impact and influences each of those guilds has on the region and the world and who on the server wishes to support or oppose Guild A and Guild B."
http://magazine.gaiscioch.com/features/the_antisocial_epidemic.html
Over the past 4 years we've seen a major movement to shrink guild sizes. Let's take a brief look at a few of the games limited guilds to less than 100 players at launch.
What do all these games have in common? They all experienced massive reduction in player base shortly after launch. Could it be that players would rather not play a game that doesn't allow casual players to belong? Now let's compare that to titles that don't limit guilds to less than 100 players:
All of these titles have crossed the 5 year mark, some even the decade mark. All of them are still profitable and active.
However, it has made the assumption that there is a direct relationship to guild size and success of the game. That is up for debate.
also the first list is full of sh*t games. its nothing to do with the guild sizes. they were just bad
http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
L2 implemented, at one stage, a teleport system to eject players from an area if there was just too many people gathering than the server could handle.
If this game does make the lands as big as suggested, I would much rather have larger lands, more population on the one server, larger guild sizes and/or alliance members and mechanics to reduce too many people in one area that might crash the server rather than the limit of 10,000.
I am asking this to a casual player because I cant see a difference from a PvPer point of view, why does it matter if you have 499 more casuals in your guild instead of 299? What is the advantage of having 200 extra casuals in your guild who are logging in twice a week anyway?
Another very important aspect we should not ignore is the server's health. If you cap guilds at 500, there will be max 5 active guilds on the server who are doing something and all your battles will be zerg versus zerg where you cant enjoy anything because you have no idea what is happening around you within those 100 casuals on the battlefield. If you drag down this limit to 250 or 300 (which is still a lot) you will have higher chance having close to at least 10 activite guilds, fighting over different things on different parts of the world and boosting more than just a few nodes and keeping the game world alive.
I say no to zergs. But I am not going to selfishly complain about 300 members cap being a lot because I have only 50 PvPers in my guild.
Let me know which server your 500 men guild (and probably few k men alliance) will roll so i can avoid.
And some people are upset if they feel they aren't a member of the main guild - which I'm guessing means their sub-guild doesn't have the name of the mega-guild.
I agree with @AeonAuron.. to be a vibrant and organic ebb and tide of the balances of power, there needs to be opportunity for power to switch hands.
If 500 players is a limit, then there is likely hood that there will be 3-7 mega clans and 2-3 that ally together and hold the balance of power.. With such control of the server it will become joyful for a few and stagnant for the rest.
But if there the clan sizes are managed well by leaders with their active player bases and the max guild/clan size could be quite tight and the tussle between control not so great to overcome and perhaps more engaging
I've been read this thread since it came up and thou I'm from the Gaiscioch community I see both sides of the argument. Just for starters Gaischoch is actually one massive guild spread across multiple games lead by one guild leader aka Foghladha with elders ( officer in place) to help manage. Its a lot of work and for the last 12 years been up to the challenge, to those who say it can't be done, sorry to say there's your prove it can be done.
That a side 10,000 player cap per server it wont matter it if its few large guilds or many small it will ALL add up in the end, no one is forcing anyone to join mega guilds that up to the individual they can go small or go big or none at all be a personal preference. What makes your game play enjoyable is yours to own.
Personally I like the idea of a bigger guild cap I've read to the other people commenting here that there is an alliance chat, interesting could it work either way sure. We are still years away from official release.
The devs also plan to have content for smaller guild that choose to go after the horizontal perks rather than the vertical perks.
That's going to factor in as well. Could be that casuals in an offline megaguild would prefer joining a small guild in-game rather than a large guild... even though both types are part of the mega-guild's in-game alliance.
Look in the Comment Section 23:28
Not sure this was posted yet but ..." maybe " the LiveStreams deserves " a revisit ?
With that case-in-point a bit more clear to me; i definitely stand by Fog in this stance on being able to have the ability to maximize a Guild size to much larger numbers- seeing as how instant-Zerg-play in this game appears like it won't even be possible.
Without the abilities to instantly teleport from one area in the world to another; small and large guilds still have to make use of strategic planning in order to come out on top.
I'm re-linking the video Eragale posted with a timestamp placement, just watch this part of the video, as it's really informative and it could very well water-down some fears people may have about Small Versus Mega-guilds.
1. Large Guilds Can Take Over The World. Watching DocGotGame's Interview Intrepid talks about how this wont be possible as there is no fast travel to allow a zerg to quickly move. If a mega-blog guild is on the east side of the map, they wont have time to respond to attacks on their west side territories. Their game mechanic is set up with NO fast travel, which means blobs need to mobilize and a lot of the time fights will be over before they can respond. In Warhammer Online we used this to our advantage when our forces were outnumbered and outgunned. We'd split into little groups of players and spread out across the maps hitting targets pulling the blob where we wanted them to be then hitting targets the furthest run away. It's highly effective and a large blob is not going to have the ability to just appear on the battlefield. They must ride via mount all the way across the land and be subject to other things slowing them down.
2. Preventing Large Guilds Prevents Blobs - As one of the most well known PUGmancers out there, I can tell you in almost every group I lead, 10-15 players are Gaiscioch and 50+ are not. The majority of my warforce since DAOC has always been made up of public militia. Regardless of how you split guilds up this will not stop people from flocking to capable leaders on the battlefield that are open for public militia. Guild size has nothing to do with blob size.
3. 500 Player Guilds Have 500 Players online. In the case of Gaiscioch in Guild Wars 2 we rotate our 500 person roster with the most active players in the community. 490 accounts are in at all times, people who go afk get rotated out as people who return from afk get invited. Every single player in the roster has played in the past 7 days. That said. Our community is Global. We have members in 67 nations across all times zones. Built on Casuals our average player spends less than 10 hours in game per week. Throughout the day you usually will find 30-45 people online. But this doesn't mean it's the same 30-45 people. Each of the 490 players actively in the roster plays at some point for a few hours here and a few hours there based on how much time real life allows. The assumption that 30-45 players are all who plays is false. Our roster is active 24/7. There is no peak time. This spreads out the 490 casual players across 24 hours and 7 days a week.
4. "A selfish request for your massive community" - My community is large yes, but we are built on casual players. The question I have for you is why, just because someone is part of a large guild, should their opinion not matter. If we have 500 players who want to subscribe to Ashes of Creation, why should their voices not be heard? What changes from a player who is by themselves with no guild, to a player who is part of a guild that makes their opinion null and void? This isn't 1 guild being selfish this is 500 players that want to play together who have been playing together for 16 years. We too look forward to Ashes of Creation, but what your saying is that 500 voices are not worth listening to because their linked by a community. We want to play this game the same way you do. If Ashes of Creation allows us to play together we will be a community that fights their ass off to better the game world for everyone.
Our focus has been and always will be on nurturing healthy game communities. Helping new players, providing fun events for all to enjoy, and providing players with guides and content for the game. We're not some mega-guild that wants to rule everything. We want to serve everyone. We plan to help others who need assistance. Ruling isn't in our plan.
So if you consider Gaiscioch selfish you really should google us. We've devoted 16 years to giving away the best loot in the game, supporting children's charities and helping games like Ashes of Creation. get crowdfunded. Over the history of our community I have always put others before myself. All I want is to be able to entertain a server community and bring laughter and fun times to the game. I don't want to have to tell my friends they can't come along because guild systems are too small. If that's selfish then I guess i'm selfish.
In Closing
The amount of salt you guys are displaying this early in the game is amazing. I can only imagine what it's going to be like at launch. If this game does become a suitable home for us, we will have our work cut out for us. I'm sorry you guys have been traumatized by large guilds in the past. We're not all that way. Please don't put in the same bucket as other large guilds. We literally grew large by snowballing over the course of 16 years. But our members all are nurturing type players that look out for others and help out those in need. We're not looking for power, were looking for a place we can lend a helping hand.
This is nice to hear. I'm unsure what initiated the Premise of this discussion, but there's always a " flip-side " to every situation - so its understandable
(btw, what does " Snowballing " mean ? )
23:51
STEVEN: When designing Ashes of creation it was very important to us that we create certain systems that apply to smaller groups, smaller organizations, and they had a place within those systems, and then also having the application of larger guilds and larger groups.
There's a lot of different things that smaller groups can do better than larger groups and we wanted to make sure that we focused on those systems. When it comes to sieges,
there will be roles for smaller groups to play. When it comes to developing certain structures within a node, smaller groups will have an advantage.
And another thing that's a huge aspect of what we've experienced in the past is that games that really emphasize zerg play... one of the primary components is the ability of that zerg to form in a very short period of time and port immediately to some location that needs their attention. That's part of what zerg play is.
And, I think with our game, in removing that fast travel mechanic, including meaningful travel that takes time to reach certain places, you're not going to see as much of a development of that zerg play.
If a caravan is moving out from a city and a large guild doesn't catch wind of it until it begins moving, they likely will not have the time to organize, form and reach that point by the time caravan reaches it's location.
And I think that's a big aspect of cutting back the potential for zergs to control things in the game.
JEFFREY: We really want strategy to be part of the guild lexicon. We want guilds to have to plan and to have people in the right place at the right time in order to exert their influence on the world. So, that's a big part of it.
Having alliances with smaller guilds and allowing them to get into places that a bigger guild might not necessarily be there, you know, guilds that call their home in one town versus in another town, is going to really affect how the world works.
STEVEN: One of the things we're talking about when it comes to guild progression, specifically, and what skills are available during the guild progression...
We have a very intricate guild system that involves different levels and different progression aspects and questing, specific guild questing. And as you're advancing that guild in its progression, you have the ability to either expand or focus in on a smaller guild.
Let's say for example, you're a group of 20 people and you want to level your guild but you're not interested in expanding it to 100 people or 150 people because you really just want to just stay that that tight-knit group... if you're going to forego the additional membership slots, you'll have the ability to focus in on some stronger skills or some more honed skill-specific skills that are available to your group of 20 that the larger guild who chose to go the route of more membership slots, doesn't have access to.
And i think that's a good way to balance how smaller guilds can interact with larger guilds in the game.
PETER: We've also talked about fortresses having scaling for sizes, so having smaller-sized guilds able to siege fortresses.