Guild member caps are put in place for balance and for management. In the case of balance, your "community" would like be so big that it could monopolize a system that uses reputation of members for example. Other people would find it hard to rival the numbers, which forces more smaller groups out and causes an absolute need to gather members to compete. In the case of management, 500 members are a living hell to keep track of and the people that would be forced into this situation won't like this.
A couple other points are that splitting large groups into smaller guilds with an alliance chat actually helps manage the guild chats and the caps can force diversity and new guilds can be built up quicker and more reasonably.
lets stop and thing for a moment... "hmm... why do past open PvP games make guild caps?"
@nagash is right, 200 is very large. I would hate to see this game fail because they went over 300
What game has failed because it went over 300? Guild Wars 2 hasn't failed, ESO hasn't Failed. DAOC hasn't failed. What other game has allowed more than 300 in a guild and failed?
You can't blame Warhammer on the guild system, that died because they turned siege warfare into let's watch 4 guys swing a ram for 30 minutes. EA killed warhammer, ask any former dev.
Be honest, the reason conglomerates aka large guilds exists is not because of a family friendly lets all be friends all the time mentality. It's is a mob mentality to more or less abuse/exploit game mechanics or lack thereof by overwhelming design without consequence.
Now I am not opposed to uncapped guild systems, under the condition there is a exponential upkeep mechanic per membership increase.
As for zergs....my experience is that death balls occur when the retaliation is capped. due to cleaves and aoe damage target caps. Primarily by design to not break servers with math.
Cluster nuking should impact the entire zerg cluster not just 5 targets within the cluster. forcing dispersal.
I guess I'm missing the logic here. Why can't you just split the guild into sub-groups who play at the same time period? And then form an alliance? You have a guild of 1,000. Split the guild into 4 groups of 250. All 4 guilds can be in the same city and form an alliance. They can work towards the same goals, just like they would if they were a 1K guild. Same number of people would be online regardless.
That is exactly how I would like to see it!
Create an Alliance text channel as the OP suggested and your good to go!
I think, in Ashes, the guild caps are to help ensure that the world is dynamic and subject to more change than is possible when the leadership of a mega-guild is commanded by a handful of people.
You will just have to play in order to see whether the end design actually works well for your community. If you're playing pre-launch, perhaps your feedback during early access will sway the mechanics to better accommodate your desires.
Do we really want to start catering huge aspects of MMOs to casual players?
Please don't hate me casuals. I love you and you deserve as much a game you can play as anyone else, but less is not more in MMORPGs.
It's a slippery slope in my opinion, and can lead to condensing content down and giving us "content droughts" because when a game is designed to allow everything to be experienced with 8hrs a week of game play when many people are playing 2 or 3 times that much.
Do we really want to start catering huge aspects of MMOs to casual players?
Please don't hate me casuals. I love you and you deserve as much a game you can play as anyone else, but less is not more in MMORPGs.
It's a slippery slope in my opinion, and can lead to condensing content down and giving us "content droughts" because when a game is designed to allow everything to be experienced with 8hrs a week of game play when many people are playing 2 or 3 times that much.
Which part indicates catering to casuals? But, yeah, most players are some form of casual. Expect content and mechanics which accomodate players all along both spectra - challenge and time.
Really difficult to have content drought unless the devs fail to code their pillars according to the design.
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.
I like and am truly amazed (not being sarcastic here), that there's a guild that manages to gather over a thousand people while avoid the common pitfalls of lack of focus, or individuals not having a voice.
But I have to point out that to argue on the basis that guild size affects success of game really requires way stronger proof before it can be accepted as a premise for the discussion.
This isn't even the usual case of "correlation doesn't imply causation." Because a correlation hasn't even been proven. In fact, there might not be a weak correlation between guild size and game success. SWG and Final Fantasy XIV had a size limit of about 500 and had huge drops in population soon after launch for example.
I'm not saying that asking for a bigger limit is wrong, but using this particular argument and to try and hinge the discussion upon this unproven claim doesn't seem particularly useful.
I would hate to see this game fail because they went over 300
Because decline in server population is better? Just because this game has all this hype right now, that doesn't mean that people are going to stay loyal to it. ESO is a pretty good example to that.
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.
I like and am truly amazed (not being sarcastic here), that there's a guild that manages to gather over a thousand people while avoid the common pitfalls of lack of focus, or individuals not having a voice.
But I have to point out that to argue on the basis that guild size affects success of game really requires way stronger proof before it can be accepted as a premise for the discussion.
This isn't even the usual case of "correlation doesn't imply causation." Because a correlation hasn't even been proven. In fact, there might not be a weak correlation between guild size and game success. SWG and Final Fantasy XIV had a size limit of about 500 and had huge drops in population soon after launch for example.
I'm not saying that asking for a bigger limit is wrong, but using this particular argument and to try and hinge the discussion upon this unproven claim doesn't seem particularly useful.
I like and am truly amazed (not being sarcastic here), that there's a guild that manages to gather over a thousand people while avoid the common pitfalls of lack of focus, or individuals not having a voice.
There is something truly unique over what @foghladha started and continues to ensure stays focused. There are always people that feels overwhelmed and/or doesn't find their own voice in such a big community, but I do think that the normal welcoming and helpful attitude from the community helps some to find a place and if not, people are welcome to join other communities and then come back later if that's what they want, they are always welcome.
+Guilds have a complex leveling mechanic, with passive abilities and skills as they level. They also increase their max size as they level. Currently I am thinking that max member count will fall around 250-300
I want to implore you to expand this to at minimum 500. I wrote a great article about this in Gaiscioch Magazine titled "The Anti-Social Epidemic: MMOs Make Unconscious Move To Punish Casual Gamers" I understand a hard core PVP guild at 500 players all of them online at the same time would be detrimental to the game, however a casual / social community with 500 people would be lucky to have 40 online at the same time. With 300 you simply have 20-25 people. Spread across the different levels and playstyles this leaves next to nobody to play with.
Please read my article before you make the same mistake so many others have. I personally just rallied over 500 members to help crowdfund Ashes of Creation and now reading this news, Ashes of Creation might be taken off the table. We have never been able to keep members playing when their is a Guild Limit that cuts us in half or fourths.
Small Guild Ceilings hurt the Social Gamer so much more than the hard core gamer as the Social Gamers are Discarded like trash when Guild Limits require guild leaders only keep the most active players. Small guild sizes make it impossible for a casual player to find a home in a larger community.
Please reconsider this stance. It's hurtful to your community and the ones who will suffer the most are those that can't play everyday.
Some data to think about.
In 2001 the average mmo gamer:
Was between 16-25 years of age
Paid $15 per month to play
Average Playtime: more than 40 hours a week
In 2016 the average mmo gamer (Per SuperData Research)
Average Age: 33 Years of Age
Average Playtime: 10 Hours a week
Over the past 15 years the demographic has shifted. Younger gamers are used to playing Free-2-Play or Buy-2-Play games and typically shy away from Subscription Games. However the people who played back in the hayday of the MMO world are used to paying a subscription, however they are no longer 16-25 years old. They are now 30-50 years old, most of which are in the middle stages of their career, have families, and have commitments. They don't play 40 hours a week anymore.
So your target demographic is a more mature demographic that doesn't mind paying a subscription but doesn't have time to play like they used to. Thus your Guild Limit targets these players and alienates them. The communities that have been around for 10+ years are now faced with picking and choosing which of their legacy members can come along and play with them. They're forced to choose which child they love more. This burns people, and breaks communities.
Please think about this, look at the data, research the data, and forecast the long term effect of this choice. Ashes of Creation stands above every other MMO on the horizon right now but this one fact will kill it's potential to bring large pre-existing guilds into the game which is what the original pitch was aimed at.
Skyforge begins with a 30 person limit and requires grinding to raise that up to 250
Games without Small Guild Limits at Launch
Final Fantasy XIV limits to 512 accounts
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
Which set of games has thrived in their first year? Which set of games did not thrive in their first year?
LOL! These are example can't be serious. Look, I promise you the success has nothing to do with the guild limit. I mean, Should we look at the fact you used WoW as an example and it's massive decline was at the same time they updated to 1000 users? you know when it peaked it wasn't 1000 right? That already makes me question all these numbers
Some of those games contain controversy on their lack of success. Why didn't you put Lineage 2 in here? Oh.... it didn't fail.... with 200 max for characters... not even just accounts.
As a once hardcore player that is now casual, I'm quite happy to let the designers decide.
They will ultimately set limits based on own experience as gamers themselves. Given many appear to come from a wide background of multiple playing experiences, I think it is pretty solid hands!
If its good enough, might even be swung to go hardcore again!
So what would you guys think if (step out of what you know and imagine what if)
Guilds Can Be Up to 500 Accounts - Cool the rage a moment and listen to the rest.
Guild can only own 1 node. - Each guild could back a node and support it's growth.
Guilds would be based on Accounts not Characters. This would prevent 1 guild from creating 10 sub guilds and linking them through an alliance to be able to claim more territory. It would require 10 different people running those sub guilds which I can tell you from first hand experience is a nightmare to try to manage and usually ends up with guilds under your lead breaking off on their own.
Guilds would have to transport materials for siege weapons from their home node to the node they wish to lay siege to.
When a guild who owns a tier 3 or higher node declares siege on a node, their own node becomes vulnerable to attack.
If a Guild vacated their node to siege another node their node could be attacked at any time by any other group of players. Thus requiring them to defend their home base while assaulting and transporting supplies to the front line. The further the assault, the longer it would take to transport supplies to the front lines.
Nodes that are successfully sieged but not claimed lose a percentage of their coffers and require repair costs. Costs increase based on
In this situation regardless of the size of your guild, you would not be able to take everything. You would not be able to wipe over the world. You would have to have a defense, a supply line escort and an assaulting force to successfully lay siege and if you win unless the guild decides to leave their old node for their slightly destroyed new node the node would remain in the hands of the previous owner with a bit of repairs and a little lost out of its coffers.
With said system it could also be said that guilds could earn wealth by conquering villages and castles but in the same sense their coffer value goes up in doing so, making them a noteworthy target. The more wealth a guild accrues the more risk that if their castle falls they lose it all. I would also go as far as to make the tier = a percentage of the loss if the town falls. So if it's a tier 1 you lose next to nothing a tier 6 loses 90% etc.
There are several ways in a game design front that you can mitigate larger guilds from overrunning the place. It doesn't have to be a giant free for all. All of the things mentioned above are realistically feasible and more in line with what actually happens in war. If you spread your forces too thin you are subject to attack.
Just an idea. Would be interested to see what your ideas on this are and what ideas spawn from this idea. Collaboration makes great games. Don't look for walls look for solutions. Present your ideas.
Most of that sounds horrible for all kinds of reasons. None of it really seems to fit the game design.
Guilds don't "own" nodes. No one "owns" nodes. You can occupy a node. For a while.
Guilds really serve functions in the game world. Meta-guilds have to fit themselves to the in-game concept of guilds rather than the other way round. RPGs are really about characters; not the players. My alts may very well not wish to be in the same guilds for all kinds of reasons. Guilds cannot be bind-to-account.
We already have to transport siege weapons from our home nodes to the node that is going to be sieged. Or at least transport the resources necessary to build the siege weapons. That is not merely a guild function.
Takes a long time to prepare for a siege. It's possible, I suppose for someone to declare a siege on a node that has already declared a siege on a different node, but it seems unlikely that the two sieges would be active at the exact same time.
City nodes de-level. I don't think they can be "claimed". I think not claiming a castle or fortress would have to mean there was some form of ransom for a truce/cease fire. We'll have to see, though, how the losses and rewards are dealt with. City nodes that de-level will already inherently be struggling to rebuild.
It's going to be tough to wipe over a world. I don't think any mega-guild will have the resources to do that. City nodes de-level one Stage and is immune to sieges for about a month. So, wiping a world is going to take a very long time.
A guild trying to wipe a world would likely be a target for the entire server regardless.
There are several ways to mitigate larger guilds, but the guild size in the case of Ashes will have to fit the specific design of Ashes. Guild cap is not going to be arbitrary. And the decision probably won't be based on trying to make things easy for a mega-guild. Rather it's going to be about how the devs want the in-game guilds to interact with each other and influence the dynamics of the virtual world.
Most of that sounds horrible for all kinds of reasons. None of it really seems to fit the game design.
Guilds don't "own" nodes. No one "owns" nodes. You can occupy a node. For a while.
Guilds really serve functions in the game world. Meta-guilds have to fit themselves to the in-game concept of guilds rather than the other way round. RPGs are really about characters; not the players. My alts may very well not wish to be in the same guilds for all kinds of reasons. Guilds cannot be bind-to-account.
I think we could argue the semantics of the word "own" in reference to guilds owning nodes. Just like debating do you really "own" the music you buy or who really "owns" a river.
But I agree that guilds serve a function and need to fit into the server as needed. But you can bet there will be many guilds who claim "ownership" over a node.
Hell, guilds in games I've played have declared ownership over bridges, NPCs and even dungeons. People are territorial. So be prepared for rigorous negotiation on the meaning of "ownership" in game.
No. Own and occupy are two different things in the context of what was written. Such that a guild can only own one node. There is no way to make that happen without own meaning something much more significant than occupy.
And, really, even occupy refers more to a castle or a fortress than it does a camp/village/town/city/metropolis.
No. Own and occupy are two different things in the context of what was written. Such that a guild can only own one node. There is no way to make that happen without own meaning something much more significant than occupy.
You didn't read or absorb what I wrote did you? Give it another try.
I did read what you wrote. That is not what ownership means in the context of what foghladha wrote. In the context of foghladha's post where a guild can only own one node - that has to be mechanically enforced - not just in the minds of the players.
So what would you guys think if (step out of what you know and imagine what if)
Guilds Can Be Up to 500 Accounts - Cool the rage a moment and listen to the rest.
Guild can only own 1 node. - Each guild could back a node and support it's growth.
Guilds would be based on Accounts not Characters. This would prevent 1 guild from creating 10 sub guilds and linking them through an alliance to be able to claim more territory. It would require 10 different people running those sub guilds which I can tell you from first hand experience is a nightmare to try to manage and usually ends up with guilds under your lead breaking off on their own.
Guilds would have to transport materials for siege weapons from their home node to the node they wish to lay siege to.
When a guild who owns a tier 3 or higher node declares siege on a node, their own node becomes vulnerable to attack.
If a Guild vacated their node to siege another node their node could be attacked at any time by any other group of players. Thus requiring them to defend their home base while assaulting and transporting supplies to the front line. The further the assault, the longer it would take to transport supplies to the front lines.
Nodes that are successfully sieged but not claimed lose a percentage of their coffers and require repair costs. Costs increase based on
In this situation regardless of the size of your guild, you would not be able to take everything. You would not be able to wipe over the world. You would have to have a defense, a supply line escort and an assaulting force to successfully lay siege and if you win unless the guild decides to leave their old node for their slightly destroyed new node the node would remain in the hands of the previous owner with a bit of repairs and a little lost out of its coffers.
With said system it could also be said that guilds could earn wealth by conquering villages and castles but in the same sense their coffer value goes up in doing so, making them a noteworthy target. The more wealth a guild accrues the more risk that if their castle falls they lose it all. I would also go as far as to make the tier = a percentage of the loss if the town falls. So if it's a tier 1 you lose next to nothing a tier 6 loses 90% etc.
There are several ways in a game design front that you can mitigate larger guilds from overrunning the place. It doesn't have to be a giant free for all. All of the things mentioned above are realistically feasible and more in line with what actually happens in war. If you spread your forces too thin you are subject to attack.
Just an idea. Would be interested to see what your ideas on this are and what ideas spawn from this idea. Collaboration makes great games. Don't look for walls look for solutions. Present your ideas.
As long as the guild numbers do not cause an imbalance in the aspect of gameplay. That my primary concern.
My secondary concern is we all know that there are players who enjoy playing in large guilds and there are those who don't. If the presence of large guild forces small guilds into alliances with other guilds to form mega alliances because the majority of significant pvp activities require large groups, that could be an issue as well.
If there are enough options for smaller guilds to contribute (as mentioned by Steven) to sieges on smaller important objectives etc, and the smaller guilds are suitably engaged instead of being forced into big alliances that'll be perfect and the presence of larger guilds won't bother me at all.
There are too many moving bits and variables for us to make an informed decision on whether larger caps are ideal. As long as the developers make these decisions with the balance of sieges/wars/gameplay in mind it's fine. It also depends on how the developers envision how the gameplay should pan out.
All in all, I think as long as people don't feel that guild size screws up their gameplay or game experience, there will be many around who won't even think twice about what the maximum guild member cap is and you can have as many members as you want.
I did read what you wrote. That is not what ownership means in the context of what foghladha wrote. In the context of foghladha's post where a guild can only own one node - that has to be mechanically enforced - not just in the minds of the players.
I see, I didn't know we were restricted to what OP had said here in this discussion. Never mind!
@Karthos We aren't restricted in general, but you quoted my reply - and that reply is to a specific context.
Outside of that context, then yeah, ownership could be figurative rather than literal. And we can have fun roleplaying that we own all kinds of stuff. Yes. But, that's not any kind of argument. We'd be in agreement.
Comments
A couple other points are that splitting large groups into smaller guilds with an alliance chat actually helps manage the guild chats and the caps can force diversity and new guilds can be built up quicker and more reasonably.
Why is this thread so long?
You can't blame Warhammer on the guild system, that died because they turned siege warfare into let's watch 4 guys swing a ram for 30 minutes. EA killed warhammer, ask any former dev.
It's is a mob mentality to more or less abuse/exploit game mechanics or lack thereof by overwhelming design without consequence.
Now I am not opposed to uncapped guild systems, under the condition there is a exponential upkeep mechanic per membership increase.
As for zergs....my experience is that death balls occur when the retaliation is capped.
due to cleaves and aoe damage target caps. Primarily by design to not break servers with math.
Cluster nuking should impact the entire zerg cluster not just 5 targets within the cluster. forcing dispersal.
Create an Alliance text channel as the OP suggested and your good to go!
You will just have to play in order to see whether the end design actually works well for your community. If you're playing pre-launch, perhaps your feedback during early access will sway the mechanics to better accommodate your desires.
Please don't hate me casuals. I love you and you deserve as much a game you can play as anyone else, but less is not more in MMORPGs.
It's a slippery slope in my opinion, and can lead to condensing content down and giving us "content droughts" because when a game is designed to allow everything to be experienced with 8hrs a week of game play when many people are playing 2 or 3 times that much.
But, yeah, most players are some form of casual.
Expect content and mechanics which accomodate players all along both spectra - challenge and time.
Really difficult to have content drought unless the devs fail to code their pillars according to the design.
I like and am truly amazed (not being sarcastic here), that there's a guild that manages to gather over a thousand people while avoid the common pitfalls of lack of focus, or individuals not having a voice.
But I have to point out that to argue on the basis that guild size affects success of game really requires way stronger proof before it can be accepted as a premise for the discussion.
This isn't even the usual case of "correlation doesn't imply causation." Because a correlation hasn't even been proven. In fact, there might not be a weak correlation between guild size and game success. SWG and Final Fantasy XIV had a size limit of about 500 and had huge drops in population soon after launch for example.
I'm not saying that asking for a bigger limit is wrong, but using this particular argument and to try and hinge the discussion upon this unproven claim doesn't seem particularly useful.
No point in playing.
Some of those games contain controversy on their lack of success. Why didn't you put Lineage 2 in here? Oh.... it didn't fail.... with 200 max for characters... not even just accounts.
They will ultimately set limits based on own experience as gamers themselves.
Given many appear to come from a wide background of multiple playing experiences, I think it is pretty solid hands!
If its good enough, might even be swung to go hardcore again!
There might be strength in numbers, but then again, there is challenge without.
There are some challenges that I imagine need numbers but some if numbers are used, it will be a cakewalk!
In past, I have seen the dominant PvP clan split as the true hardcore PvP'ers wanted a challenge! 10% of original clan!
All depends which way you want to go!
Guilds Can Be Up to 500 Accounts - Cool the rage a moment and listen to the rest.
Guild can only own 1 node. - Each guild could back a node and support it's growth.
Guilds would be based on Accounts not Characters. This would prevent 1 guild from creating 10 sub guilds and linking them through an alliance to be able to claim more territory. It would require 10 different people running those sub guilds which I can tell you from first hand experience is a nightmare to try to manage and usually ends up with guilds under your lead breaking off on their own.
Guilds would have to transport materials for siege weapons from their home node to the node they wish to lay siege to.
When a guild who owns a tier 3 or higher node declares siege on a node, their own node becomes vulnerable to attack.
If a Guild vacated their node to siege another node their node could be attacked at any time by any other group of players. Thus requiring them to defend their home base while assaulting and transporting supplies to the front line. The further the assault, the longer it would take to transport supplies to the front lines.
Nodes that are successfully sieged but not claimed lose a percentage of their coffers and require repair costs. Costs increase based on
In this situation regardless of the size of your guild, you would not be able to take everything. You would not be able to wipe over the world. You would have to have a defense, a supply line escort and an assaulting force to successfully lay siege and if you win unless the guild decides to leave their old node for their slightly destroyed new node the node would remain in the hands of the previous owner with a bit of repairs and a little lost out of its coffers.
With said system it could also be said that guilds could earn wealth by conquering villages and castles but in the same sense their coffer value goes up in doing so, making them a noteworthy target. The more wealth a guild accrues the more risk that if their castle falls they lose it all. I would also go as far as to make the tier = a percentage of the loss if the town falls. So if it's a tier 1 you lose next to nothing a tier 6 loses 90% etc.
There are several ways in a game design front that you can mitigate larger guilds from overrunning the place. It doesn't have to be a giant free for all. All of the things mentioned above are realistically feasible and more in line with what actually happens in war. If you spread your forces too thin you are subject to attack.
Just an idea. Would be interested to see what your ideas on this are and what ideas spawn from this idea. Collaboration makes great games. Don't look for walls look for solutions. Present your ideas.
None of it really seems to fit the game design.
Guilds don't "own" nodes. No one "owns" nodes.
You can occupy a node. For a while.
Guilds really serve functions in the game world.
Meta-guilds have to fit themselves to the in-game concept of guilds rather than the other way round.
RPGs are really about characters; not the players. My alts may very well not wish to be in the same guilds for all kinds of reasons. Guilds cannot be bind-to-account.
We already have to transport siege weapons from our home nodes to the node that is going to be sieged. Or at least transport the resources necessary to build the siege weapons. That is not merely a guild function.
Takes a long time to prepare for a siege. It's possible, I suppose for someone to declare a siege on a node that has already declared a siege on a different node, but it seems unlikely that the two sieges would be active at the exact same time.
City nodes de-level. I don't think they can be "claimed".
I think not claiming a castle or fortress would have to mean there was some form of ransom for a truce/cease fire.
We'll have to see, though, how the losses and rewards are dealt with.
City nodes that de-level will already inherently be struggling to rebuild.
It's going to be tough to wipe over a world.
I don't think any mega-guild will have the resources to do that.
City nodes de-level one Stage and is immune to sieges for about a month.
So, wiping a world is going to take a very long time.
A guild trying to wipe a world would likely be a target for the entire server regardless.
There are several ways to mitigate larger guilds, but the guild size in the case of Ashes will have to fit the specific design of Ashes.
Guild cap is not going to be arbitrary. And the decision probably won't be based on trying to make things easy for a mega-guild.
Rather it's going to be about how the devs want the in-game guilds to interact with each other and influence the dynamics of the virtual world.
But I agree that guilds serve a function and need to fit into the server as needed. But you can bet there will be many guilds who claim "ownership" over a node.
Hell, guilds in games I've played have declared ownership over bridges, NPCs and even dungeons. People are territorial. So be prepared for rigorous negotiation on the meaning of "ownership" in game.
Such that a guild can only own one node. There is no way to make that happen without own meaning something much more significant than occupy.
And, really, even occupy refers more to a castle or a fortress than it does a camp/village/town/city/metropolis.
That is not what ownership means in the context of what foghladha wrote.
In the context of foghladha's post where a guild can only own one node - that has to be mechanically enforced - not just in the minds of the players.
As long as the guild numbers do not cause an imbalance in the aspect of gameplay. That my primary concern.
My secondary concern is we all know that there are players who enjoy playing in large guilds and there are those who don't. If the presence of large guild forces small guilds into alliances with other guilds to form mega alliances because the majority of significant pvp activities require large groups, that could be an issue as well.
If there are enough options for smaller guilds to contribute (as mentioned by Steven) to sieges on smaller important objectives etc, and the smaller guilds are suitably engaged instead of being forced into big alliances that'll be perfect and the presence of larger guilds won't bother me at all.
There are too many moving bits and variables for us to make an informed decision on whether larger caps are ideal. As long as the developers make these decisions with the balance of sieges/wars/gameplay in mind it's fine. It also depends on how the developers envision how the gameplay should pan out.
All in all, I think as long as people don't feel that guild size screws up their gameplay or game experience, there will be many around who won't even think twice about what the maximum guild member cap is and you can have as many members as you want.
We aren't restricted in general, but you quoted my reply - and that reply is to a specific context.
Outside of that context, then yeah, ownership could be figurative rather than literal.
And we can have fun roleplaying that we own all kinds of stuff. Yes.
But, that's not any kind of argument. We'd be in agreement.