The principles are still the same whether or not it is real life. 1000 people is not enough to control the world. Honestly, 1 guild being in charge of each metro isn't really bad in my opinion as long as they aren't all assholes. But, I foresee it being more likely that there will be a majority guild in each city, but isn't necessarily in control of the whole city. It is not easy to form or maintain guilds of such immensity; they are rare.
"The Russian government has sought to shape public opinion, not respond to it. It has done so successfully by silencing political opposition and independent media". If the people never hear any other view or opinion of course they will say they favor the person who they are constantly being told is great.
Well like I said before, they don't have to be assholes. They will control the nodes, reward their guild members, and attract others. It's hard to say exactly how it will play out, since we still don't know what the organizing structure will look like. We simply don't know exactly how the devs want to structure the city hall and so on. For example, will there be some sort of a "court" system to redress the grievances of players who may have been wronged by some action taken by the guild (maybe a reduction in tax to new guild members vs players not in the guild)? Here, we are simply going through a mental exercise of what may or may not happen. There are ways to prevent abuses and I hope that we will see some sort of system in place to at least provide some organizational framework for this political system that they want to create.
As for Russia, the economy is doing better than it did in 1990s, so part of Putin's support stems from that (maybe with the exception of an increasingly hostile middle class). High oil and gas prices have saved Putin in the past, but if the economy doesn't diversify, he and his cronies will face more troubles in the future. But yes, he also controls the media and so on. Anyway, that's kind of a tangent haha I just wanted to use Putin to say that successful dictators know how to keep power and retain control.
Yeah, it would be nice if they released more information about the systems, so we could have a more informed discussion about potential flaws. Right now, we are kinda just exchanging philosophy, past experience, and hopes for what the game should or shouldn't be. Oh, no I agree; he is a smart man. I got to give credit where credit is due.
It's funny that you can seamlessly upscale from "experience" in a 40 to 100 player max server to 10.000 per server game, but the moment someone brings something equally on the edge to the table, you can throw it out the window. Tell me why a gamer would travel several hours in downtime doing effectively nothing. Most wouldn't bother, especially hard core players because they know they could spend their time more favorably. Still waiting for your explanation on how your "experience" from a different rule set, scale and structure is applicable to Ashes. Persistent pvp is not enough to tie it together, otherwise the real world example that was, in fact, a persistent pvp "game" in it's essence would be just as applicable and as shown contradicts your argument.
Why would they travel hours to crush another node? Because that's how you "win" AoC and make epic videos to post on YouTube. These hardcore players will spend 7-10 straight days waking up every 4 hours to breed and raise top of the line virtual animals...they are no-lifers.
Look, I realize you are going to blindly defend AoC no matter what. That's OK. All games have their fanbois.
It is obvious you have little or no experience in persistent PvP games. Again, that's OK. Just let the folks who know what they're talking about discuss the issues they've seen in other games and how they foresee those issues making their way to AoC. You don't have to take it personally.
At this point is just call you a troll, you still don't provide ANY argument why those different rulesets matter to AoC. It's not even that they are half hearted, you just avoid providing any argument, cause you know as well as I do that you have no basis for your claims and argue for the sake of argument or boredom.
I was open to a discussion but aside from personal attacks you have provided nothing so far to further the discussion. I never defended AoC actually, I only provided information that you lack information in your arguments and pointed out flaws in your logic which as pointed out twice now, you avoid answering to aside from personal attacks. <shrug> Whoever reads this will realise it and will hopefully avoid feeding you sooner or later so I have done my part. You keep going with your negative attitude. It will get you far I'm sure.
It's funny that you can seamlessly upscale from "experience" in a 40 to 100 player max server to 10.000 per server game, but the moment someone brings something equally on the edge to the table, you can throw it out the window. Tell me why a gamer would travel several hours in downtime doing effectively nothing. Most wouldn't bother, especially hard core players because they know they could spend their time more favorably. Still waiting for your explanation on how your "experience" from a different rule set, scale and structure is applicable to Ashes. Persistent pvp is not enough to tie it together, otherwise the real world example that was, in fact, a persistent pvp "game" in it's essence would be just as applicable and as shown contradicts your argument.
Why would they travel hours to crush another node? Because that's how you "win" AoC and make epic videos to post on YouTube. These hardcore players will spend 7-10 straight days waking up every 4 hours to breed and raise top of the line virtual animals...they are no-lifers.
Look, I realize you are going to blindly defend AoC no matter what. That's OK. All games have their fanbois.
It is obvious you have little or no experience in persistent PvP games. Again, that's OK. Just let the folks who know what they're talking about discuss the issues they've seen in other games and how they foresee those issues making their way to AoC. You don't have to take it personally.
So instead of just calling people who disagree with you "fanbois" (god I must be getting old what is that spelling?) or belittling them because their experience isn't from the same games as you try having a real discussion?
At this point you just keep repeating yourself claiming you know better then everyone else because you played Ark and it was terrible. ignoring points you can't contend, resorting to name calling and trying to invalidate others opinions because their experience isn't the same as yours. It really doesn't help your argument and if anything makes it look like you are the one who is "taking this personally".
That being said you have to remember AoC is an MMORPG with predetermined and moderated servers. Ashes plays by a different rule set then Ark. MMO's have much larger worlds, and bigger server populations. Making it harder for a single group to move around and control the majority of the population. They have active GMs and usually enforce griefing rules. So if a group was targeting a single individual/group of players to the point of griefing them, or they take advantage of possible corruption/PKing exploits the GMs will take proper action as needed.
From what I can gather in ark it takes 15 minutes to travel from one end of the ark map to the other flying. how true this is IDK. and the max server size of Ark official servers is 70 people on at a time? (all I could find was a post from 2015 might be outdated.) So controlling a server that small and when you can move around so freely and the majority of your gear/supplies/(whatever you would classify dino's as? mounts/weapons?) can be taken/destroyed while offline would be child's play and toppling the big dog would be near impossible. But when population goes to 10,000 and the world takes hours to move around in and my character progress can't be hindered while offline and while I'm online I can't lose gear and can stash supplies in a bank. I can not see a single group controlling more then 1 node, if that.
I've looked around for mega guilds in RPGs and the only game I could find that had a mega guilds was EVE. I've seen some large guilds/groups in other games and games with predetermined factions usually have some unbalance with people gravitating towards certain factions like in Secret world everyone wanted to be a dragon or Templar leaving the illuminate as the weak group and had no chance in pvp. Warsong Battalion/vanguard/ect. in WoW and while they were annoying at times they were far from server controlling.
EVE is the closest thing I can find to mega guilds controlling a server and from what I can find they really don't. The biggest corp in EVE from google searching seems to be 15000 players and I can't find anything about them being too powerful or controlling the game, nothing. in fact it seems they recently made a tactical retreat while attempting to attack a space station.
with the exception of EVE I can't even find gaming communities with that many people even ones spanning multiple games only seem to have 1000-2000 people max (again that's across multiple games). So even if they brought their while community that's 2000 out of a 10000 person server and that is assuming everyone of their members is online at the moment.
After HOURS of researching and googling I can honestly say AOC will most likely not suffer from Mega guilds controlling a server. There may be powerful guilds and those guild may make allies. But when a group gets too big AKA Imperium in EVE or WSB in WoW the server will rise up and fight them back. WSB is now a 4 or 5 man dead guild. Imperium while not destroyed apparently suffered a lot.
Make a organizational guild(non-guild) ranking system directly affecting resource management and "Node" development for combatants, resource gatherers and crafters. I.E. (Bob is a "Dungeon Crawler/Master" and therefore can only directly affect node development of Dungeons.) (Alice is a "Beast Initiate/Trainer/Master" and therefore can only directly affect node development of field bosses) (Obould is an Orc "Peon/Scout/Pillager" directly affecting guild military node might) (Bauuse is a Rune "Gatherer/Nomad/Master" harnessing the arcane energy of Verra.)
Having a unique player development system would help spread out the big guilds and benefit the casual players just wanting to do a quick dungeon. Implementing a series of quest-lines for each ranking system would help buffer the oncoming wave of combatants/non-combatants whether it be guild or no guild. If you did implement a system like this then you would have to have rewards for both non-guildies and guildies, perhaps even deciding to have Verra related guilds which we already know there is going to be a thieves guild (thank you!)
Also, your rank may directly affect or influence a party. Say Bob completes a dungeon every night, but is not in a guild and this night he is in a guild party. Although he is a dungeon master, his influence doesn't affect the Guild's dungeon influence because he is not in the guild. However, he is still affecting the field's dungeon development. Perhaps since he is a "Dungeon Master", this night the group is fighting "elite" monsters.
Personally if there is a mega guild they still have to send caravans of cargo and gold out into the world to trade with other nodes. Robin hood those shipments. Guerrilla warfare there still a pve world that you can level and build up in so what if your community is smaller raid their caravans and out posts. To me it sounds fantastic even if mega guild takes over resist, raid, fight them
It's funny that you can seamlessly upscale from "experience" in a 40 to 100 player max server to 10.000 per server game, but the moment someone brings something equally on the edge to the table, you can throw it out the window. Tell me why a gamer would travel several hours in downtime doing effectively nothing. Most wouldn't bother, especially hard core players because they know they could spend their time more favorably. Still waiting for your explanation on how your "experience" from a different rule set, scale and structure is applicable to Ashes. Persistent pvp is not enough to tie it together, otherwise the real world example that was, in fact, a persistent pvp "game" in it's essence would be just as applicable and as shown contradicts your argument.
Why would they travel hours to crush another node? Because that's how you "win" AoC and make epic videos to post on YouTube. These hardcore players will spend 7-10 straight days waking up every 4 hours to breed and raise top of the line virtual animals...they are no-lifers.
Look, I realize you are going to blindly defend AoC no matter what. That's OK. All games have their fanbois.
It is obvious you have little or no experience in persistent PvP games. Again, that's OK. Just let the folks who know what they're talking about discuss the issues they've seen in other games and how they foresee those issues making their way to AoC. You don't have to take it personally.
So instead of just calling people who disagree with you "fanbois" (god I must be getting old what is that spelling?) or belittling them because their experience isn't from the same games as you try having a real discussion?
At this point you just keep repeating yourself claiming you know better then everyone else because you played Ark and it was terrible. ignoring points you can't contend, resorting to name calling and trying to invalidate others opinions because their experience isn't the same as yours. It really doesn't help your argument and if anything makes it look like you are the one who is "taking this personally".
That being said you have to remember AoC is an MMORPG with predetermined and moderated servers. Ashes plays by a different rule set then Ark. MMO's have much larger worlds, and bigger server populations. Making it harder for a single group to move around and control the majority of the population. They have active GMs and usually enforce griefing rules. So if a group was targeting a single individual/group of players to the point of griefing them, or they take advantage of possible corruption/PKing exploits the GMs will take proper action as needed.
From what I can gather in ark it takes 15 minutes to travel from one end of the ark map to the other flying. how true this is IDK. and the max server size of Ark official servers is 70 people on at a time? (all I could find was a post from 2015 might be outdated.) So controlling a server that small and when you can move around so freely and the majority of your gear/supplies/(whatever you would classify dino's as? mounts/weapons?) can be taken/destroyed while offline would be child's play and toppling the big dog would be near impossible. But when population goes to 10,000 and the world takes hours to move around in and my character progress can't be hindered while offline and while I'm online I can't lose gear and can stash supplies in a bank. I can not see a single group controlling more then 1 node, if that.
I've looked around for mega guilds in RPGs and the only game I could find that had a mega guilds was EVE. I've seen some large guilds/groups in other games and games with predetermined factions usually have some unbalance with people gravitating towards certain factions like in Secret world everyone wanted to be a dragon or Templar leaving the illuminate as the weak group and had no chance in pvp. Warsong Battalion/vanguard/ect. in WoW and while they were annoying at times they were far from server controlling.
EVE is the closest thing I can find to mega guilds controlling a server and from what I can find they really don't. The biggest corp in EVE from google searching seems to be 15000 players and I can't find anything about them being too powerful or controlling the game, nothing. in fact it seems they recently made a tactical retreat while attempting to attack a space station.
with the exception of EVE I can't even find gaming communities with that many people even ones spanning multiple games only seem to have 1000-2000 people max (again that's across multiple games). So even if they brought their while community that's 2000 out of a 10000 person server and that is assuming everyone of their members is online at the moment.
After HOURS of researching and googling I can honestly say AOC will most likely not suffer from Mega guilds controlling a server. There may be powerful guilds and those guild may make allies. But when a group gets too big AKA Imperium in EVE or WSB in WoW the server will rise up and fight them back. WSB is now a 4 or 5 man dead guild. Imperium while not destroyed apparently suffered a lot.
@Rivest: EVE only has one type of player-based organization: corporation. Every corporation (guild) in that game operates based on the exact same rules and the things those corporations do only affect their own members, not independent players who don't belong to them. You can't really compare AoC to EVE. This game proposes to create 4 different varieties of political systems that will affect ALL players within a particular node and zone of influence, irrespective of player allegiance. So if I don't belong to the guild, it is still likely that I will be affected by whatever decisions they make. I don't know if a single guild will be able to control the entire map, but it is feasible to suggest that a few guilds will be able to organize, pool their resources, and establish control of 5 nodes. Remember, only 5 nodes in this game can reach the maximum lvl of development so it's not like they need to worry about every node out there as long as they can focus on defending their own nodes. EVE doesn't have nodes.... there is no way for any corporation in that game to control the entire game because there is nothing to control.
I don't know what makes you so certain that his game will avoid having to deal with some powerful guilds controlling certain nodes but I hope you are right. Again, this is all just speculation.
I should actually revise my statement there. You now made me think of all the things that players CAN control in EVE. So corporations in that game do control space, but there are LIMITS to what they can control. They can (and do) control systems that are called "zero space" or "null sec" these are star systems that don't have any law enforcement (NPC protection) and can be owned by corporations. BUT the universe has many varieties of security zones, so high security star systems cannot be controlled by players.
So nvm, players CAN CONTROL things in EVE, but don't because there are LIMITS to what they can control.
I don't fear the mega guild. I'm suspecting a guild member limit of any size would create its own feudal society. With any guild expansion, beyond whatever arbitrary limit that is set upon, someone trusted from the original guild will have to be given charge of the "new guild". Each branch would create its new leadership tree either from scratch with new recruits or employ other trusted members from the original guild. Strong leadership and organization will prevail, but what happens when the offshoots equals or surpasses the original guild? Where will the players allegiances lie? What will happen if an offshoot guild becomes equally powerful and their leadership changes? Will the new leaders honor old allegiances? If this is the case, guilds will come and go just like any other civilization in history. Fear not humans, the Dunir will set things right.
2. What measures/mechanics are being implemented to prevent mega guilds (1000+ members) from splitting into 3-4 smaller in-game guilds and coordinating outside the game to take complete control of a node or entire server?
Mega guilds of 1000+ well coordinated members will be able to out-produce several thousand casual players. Such groups will not need any help from the "casual masses" to build, maintain or defend their node of choice. Needing to satisfy the "casual masses" is the linchpin of the whole node system balance.
Good question; guess it all hinges on why be in this massive player dynamic world rather than a theme park MMO if you are going to stay solo?
Not sure what the "official" answer to this might be but don't these "casual masses" individually need to guild up and get organised themselves? make a choice and belong to something on the server? Pick a side?
Mega Guilds = Guild alliances, isn't that the whole point, wars will be played out between groups of allied Guilds to see who can dominate a server.
In other big MMO's I have played these Mega guilds if they do "win" or dominate the server usually break up after a while due to player boredom, (what do we do when there is no one left to conquer?) they make new alliances and start new wars.
This isn't a thread for discussions, so this will be my last comment on this matter.
I'm going to guess there are many times more people that want to be in small 5-20 man guilds where they actually matter rather than being a nameless cog in a 1000+ person zerg collective.
Those people in the small guilds will not be happy being steamrolled by the 1000 member zerg collective, and will not play the game...and will not pay subscription fees.
If the only solution to curtail the inevitability of these mega-guilds is to cap in-game guilds to 300 people...well...yeah...it won't work. These guilds organize outside of the in-game guild mechanics/features.
That's why I asked the question. The official answer will be the determining factor as to whether or not they get $500 from me. I would be shocked if they actually answer this question in a meaningful way, honestly. So I suppose I'll continue to be a "wait and see" guy with AoC.
There will be a guild cap and I'm fairly certain that if a "mega guild" were to try and circumvent this capacity that they would be found out and punished severely for it. Plus, like you said, no one wants to be part of some Zerg collective and most people won't stand for allowing large guilds like that to steamroll everyone.
If a "mega guild" showed up and began bullying people out of the game they would be the ones that end up being bullied out of the game. Either by the game moderators or by the players themselves.
Look, if you make a system where "20 player guild" has similar influence like "300 player guild", that "300 player guild" will simply create 15x "20 player" guilds that work together instead.
It's about 1 player (and his unit of time spent) having similar influence like another player (per unit of time spent).
so "20 player guild" where each player actively plays 15 hours per week, should have similar influence like "300 player guild" where each player plays 1 hour a week.
Of course this is under assumption that all those players use their time equally efficient. However someones "hours" may be twice as valuable as another players "hour" if he knows how to use his hour better.
There should be no hand holding, and artificially equalizing players. EACH PLAYER SHOULD GET THAT AMOUNT OF REWARD AS HE DESERVES BY PLAYING, using his skills / time.
One thing though, skills should matter. If one player is skilled he should be able to do more in one unit of time than another player that didn't learn the ropes yet. Otherwise it would just be stupid, and all competitive players will just leave the game, and farmville casuals will remain, until the game dies.
@nscheffel Just because someone supports the game and the devs' vision does not mean they are a "fanboi". You keep turning it into an us vs them argument when most of the people on here actually do like the dev's vision and just want to make sure that vision includes preventing foreseeable problems. It is not being a "fanboi" to like what the devs are doing. It is not being a "fanboi" to say you don't share the same concerns as someone else. No one is saying that Intrepid is infalliable (literally no one has said that and I have read almost every thread on this forum; in fact, the vast majority of people have expressed some form of criticism to Intrepid) only that it is not productive to judge systems we haven't even seen in their most basic stage yet much less tested.
The fact of the matter is there is not enough information to make an informed judgement on, so saying something won't work right now is groundless and not constructive. The OP has a legitimate worry about mega guilds having all the power. Intrepid has not given us enough information about how governments work, how guilds work, or really anything and since none of us have actually tested any of those systems we cannot say with any certainty on how effective or ineffective they will be in quelling this potential problem. Until they tell us more or we get to test the systems, all we can do is discuss what we THINK works or doesn't based off of past experiences. I trust that Intrepid will design their systems to make the mega guild problem a non-issue, but if, when testing, it is obvious that it can be exploited you can bet I will be there to tell Intrepid there is a problem.
@nscheffel Just because someone supports the game and the devs' vision does not mean they are a "fanboi". You keep turning it into an us vs them argument when most of the people on here actually do like the dev's vision and just want to make sure that vision includes preventing foreseeable problems. It is not being a "fanboi" to like what the devs are doing. It is not being a "fanboi" to say you don't share the same concerns as someone else. No one is saying that Intrepid is infalliable (literally no one has said that and I have read almost every thread on this forum; in fact, the vast majority of people have expressed some form of criticism to Intrepid) only that it is not productive to judge systems we haven't even seen in their most basic stage yet much less tested.
The fact of the matter is there is not enough information to make an informed judgement on, so saying something won't work right now is groundless and not constructive. The OP has a legitimate worry about mega guilds having all the power. Intrepid has not given us enough information about how governments work, how guilds work, or really anything and since none of us have actually tested any of those systems we cannot say with any certainty on how effective or ineffective they will be in quelling this potential problem. Until they tell us more or we get to test the systems, all we can do is discuss what we THINK works or doesn't based off of past experiences. I trust that Intrepid will design their systems to make the mega guild problem a non-issue, but if, when testing, it is obvious that it can be exploited you can bet I will be there to tell Intrepid there is a problem.
"The OP" was a mod splitting my Q&A question into it's own thread. Someone thinks it is a valuable discussion to be having, despite what the fanbois chant over and over.
I've suggested fixes to the problem I see popping up. Fanbois just blindly say, "they know what they are doing", as if comments like that are counter to my suggestions.
I agree with you about the discussion becoming stale now though since we don't have any real info to further inform the discussion. That's why I agreed to stop commenting about this potential issue, and I will revisit this thread in the future as appropriate.
As has been said, this is not your typical 'small group multiplayer' themepark game dominated by guilds as the main structure. Nor is it a kill anything else that moves PvP sandbox. This is a community size node based game dominated by nodes as the main structure. Guilds will always be subordinate to the node, however grand their designs and opinion of their own greatness and relevance. Guild epeen waving, is irrelevant. Node progression will also require activity from all kinds of group size....(even single player activity) to progress the node and fulfil node requirements that just maintain it, let alone expand it.
Most if not all previous games never allowed community endeavour as all groups competed. Here all groups collaborate that belong to the same node. There is no conflict of interest. What solo and small group players or even mega guilds do for the node helps what the large groups do for the node and vice versa. If anything their mutual cooperation and preferred varied play-styles is and will be a requirement.
Also, you are making it sound like a 1000+ guild will be built on the foundations of tyrannical dictatorship and iron rule rather than guild consensus. In the consensus scenario....the node will be run no differently to how the node occupants would run it anyway (by consensus). So no issue. In the dictatorship scenario of a group of robots being told exactly what to do by some elite tyrant at the top of the pyramid or suffer the consequences (mafia style)....how many players will actually choose to remain under such a regime and for how long ?
Granted their are the submissive types that love to be dominated....but that type of guild IMHO, will not dominate the player base guild base or node base. Such people are normally the ones reported and banned unless they are wise enough to get others to do the dirty work for them.
So... will mega guilds exist....yes. Will they exert wide influence yes. But those mega guilds are constructed from individuals who will demand a say over guild direction and as such individual consensus will decide the nodes fate regardless.
And would having some tyrants in the game be bad for the game at the end of the day ? Would they not add natural enemies to the gameplay that everyone will want to hate and wipe out ? Is saving the game world from tyranny not an epic quest in itself ?
So... will mega guilds exist....yes. Will they exert wide influence yes. But those mega guilds are constructed from individuals who will demand a say over guild direction and as such individual consensus will decide the nodes fate regardless.
Mega guilds won't necessarily be influenced by members. They aren't naturally a democracy.
Personally, I find the concept of in game guilds to go against the grain of what I consider an immersive game to be. That guy wants to join our group? Oh, look, he's from Method, yeah, they're pretty good players. We'll take him. It brings the game back to the real world. Guilds outside the game? Sure, they're going to happen and that's fine.
For that matter, I find that formal groups go against the grain. It's great to say that you're going to group up and protect this caravan, but if I don't get an invite, does that mean I can't go or just that I don't get rewards for helping? If it means neither, then why have grouping to start with?
Not sure where it goes, but I'm just of the opinion that having to manage group and guild membership makes this all more artificial, less MMOish and more prone to "power leveling".
I read just about everything here. I hate to say it but Mega Guilds are a problem in AA which keeps people from playing the game because that 1 guild controls everything. Everyone that wants to play and not be a part of that guild does has a hard time doing other things. The problem is not having 5 to 10 large guilds controlling most of the server, the problem is with 1 guild controlling the server.
Lets take some of Ashes lore here to help solve this situation. Dillias diary talks about Harbingers loomed overhead that come to befall the world of Verra. This is the worlds destruction. What if we script this event that if a server was to have a Mega guild and that Mega guild ended up with so much corruption that the Harbingers descend again to destroy the world of Verra with a twist. Anyone that has the corruption of this guild is now a target. When the Harbingers descend on Verra they only attack nodes that have the corruption of the Mega guild on it. Houses, apartments, freeholds and cities are all destroyed.
If a player has been in this Mega guild within the last 90 days when the Harbingers attack will be killed allowing their bodies to be fully looted by anyone not in the Mega guild. The destruction will include up to 75% of anything they have in storage, their gold and so on. If mega guilds want to play in a corruptible manner let them, but use the Verra destruction event lay waste to everything they have and the casual players will benefit from the destruction because they can take from these Mega players when the destruction happens.
Now I would put parameters around when the Mega guild gets corruption. If the guild has 300 or 400 players, controls 1 Metropolis, 1 City, and a few lower nodes then ok no problem. But as soon as a guild controls more than 1 Metropolis corruption builds and the more they control the faster corruption builds.
There are a few reasons for this. First in games like ArcheAge where large guilds control the entire server people like me who want to craft and have fun with the game cannot because this guild makes it so expensive for anyone not in their guild. This drives people like me away from playing the game causing the game to have to be P2W to be sustainable when 1 group of people control a server.
Second If you want to maintain a subscription based game you need more then a few thousand paying subscribers to be here. They will not play a game where a large guild dominates the game. It just is not going to happen. Now a large guild controlling 1 Metropolis, 1 City and a few other nods where there can be 4 or 5 other large guilds doing the same. Its not a problem. But the minute its 1 guild controlling a server its a problem.
3rd, the Destruction of Verra including the destruction of nodes are already built into the game. Also players losing gear while some of this gear can be expensive to replace and time consuming. As long as you do not have a WoW Style Raiding gear treadmill and more of a SWG like gearing system its not as punishing when people have to replace gear. It cost gold but thats OK.
4th, Some guilds might get a kick out of the idea of 2 dozen nodes to only see these nodes destroyed even if the casual player base massively benefits off this because these players can loot the mega guilds storage. Let put it this way. If I knew in the next few days Verra's Destruction was coming again. I would grab all the loot I could while this destruction was happening. Then put boat loads of stuff on my vendor to sell it. These Mega guild players will then just work again to control everything giving me mountains of gold to buy back their stuff. Then they can do it all over again.
I read just about everything here. I hate to say it but Mega Guilds are a problem in AA which keeps people from playing the game because that 1 guild controls everything. Everyone that wants to play and not be a part of that guild does has a hard time doing other things. The problem is not having 5 to 10 large guilds controlling most of the server, the problem is with 1 guild controlling the server.
There are a few reasons for this. First in games like ArcheAge where large guilds control the entire server people like me who want to craft and have fun with the game cannot because this guild makes it so expensive for anyone not in their guild. This drives people like me away from playing the game causing the game to have to be P2W to be sustainable when 1 group of people control a server.
I have been assured by countless AoC fanbois that there is nothing to worry about.
I read just about everything here. I hate to say it but Mega Guilds are a problem in AA which keeps people from playing the game because that 1 guild controls everything. Everyone that wants to play and not be a part of that guild does has a hard time doing other things. The problem is not having 5 to 10 large guilds controlling most of the server, the problem is with 1 guild controlling the server.
There are a few reasons for this. First in games like ArcheAge where large guilds control the entire server people like me who want to craft and have fun with the game cannot because this guild makes it so expensive for anyone not in their guild. This drives people like me away from playing the game causing the game to have to be P2W to be sustainable when 1 group of people control a server.
I have been assured by countless AoC fanbois that there is nothing to worry about.
Did you read my full post?
I am a Fanboy as well but I can tel you that controlling large guilds will be an issue. They can smoke all the crack they want but it will be an issue. That does not help a P2P game if its a low population game due to a handful of Mega guilds.
I read just about everything here. I hate to say it but Mega Guilds are a problem in AA which keeps people from playing the game because that 1 guild controls everything. Everyone that wants to play and not be a part of that guild does has a hard time doing other things. The problem is not having 5 to 10 large guilds controlling most of the server, the problem is with 1 guild controlling the server.
There are a few reasons for this. First in games like ArcheAge where large guilds control the entire server people like me who want to craft and have fun with the game cannot because this guild makes it so expensive for anyone not in their guild. This drives people like me away from playing the game causing the game to have to be P2W to be sustainable when 1 group of people control a server.
I have been assured by countless AoC fanbois that there is nothing to worry about.
Did you read my full post?
I am a Fanboy as well but I can tel you that controlling large guilds will be an issue. They can smoke all the crack they want but it will be an issue. That does not help a P2P game if its a low population game due to a handful of Mega guilds.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. This whole thread exists due to my concern over mega-guilds and their ability to deny content from the player base.
Most of the fanbois around these forums are chanting "they know what they're doing" over and over, despite the fact that these devs have never created a large scale persistent PvP game, and quite likely don't know what they are doing.
It's just gotten to the point where I can't keep saying the same thing over and over until more info from AoC is known.
I read just about everything here. I hate to say it but Mega Guilds are a problem in AA which keeps people from playing the game because that 1 guild controls everything. Everyone that wants to play and not be a part of that guild does has a hard time doing other things. The problem is not having 5 to 10 large guilds controlling most of the server, the problem is with 1 guild controlling the server.
There are a few reasons for this. First in games like ArcheAge where large guilds control the entire server people like me who want to craft and have fun with the game cannot because this guild makes it so expensive for anyone not in their guild. This drives people like me away from playing the game causing the game to have to be P2W to be sustainable when 1 group of people control a server.
I have been assured by countless AoC fanbois that there is nothing to worry about.
Did you read my full post?
I am a Fanboy as well but I can tel you that controlling large guilds will be an issue. They can smoke all the crack they want but it will be an issue. That does not help a P2P game if its a low population game due to a handful of Mega guilds.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. This whole thread exists due to my concern over mega-guilds and their ability to deny content from the player base.
Most of the fanbois around these forums are chanting "they know what they're doing" over and over, despite the fact that these devs have never created a large scale persistent PvP game, and quite likely don't know what they are doing.
It's just gotten to the point where I can't keep saying the same thing over and over until more info from AoC is known.
I am willing to give the developers the benefit of the doubt because they have played other games like the one they are designing. I also think they understand that if Mega guilds ruin the experience for everyone else that the game will not be around long. That does not mean I dont think Mega guilds should be around. I think that the Mega guilds should not control the server though. I would like to see a scripted event which goes and destroys a corrupted server because of a mega guild though. That would be fun to watch.
Limiting guilds to small number of members goes completely against this and turns Massively Multiplayer Online to "Bunch of Solo Players Online" (which is what you really want, a solo game that you can play online and sometimes meet other people).
MMO is about cooperation AND conflict. You can not demand your competition to be nerfed simply because you enjoy playing solo or in smaller groups.
It's MMO accept it, live with it, instead of demanding this genre to change for your own selfish needs.
Make friends and organize, or be at a disadvantage for playing alone. Those are the rules. Now stop crying about mega guilds.
I read just about everything here. I hate to say it but Mega Guilds are a problem in AA which keeps people from playing the game because that 1 guild controls everything. Everyone that wants to play and not be a part of that guild does has a hard time doing other things. The problem is not having 5 to 10 large guilds controlling most of the server, the problem is with 1 guild controlling the server.
There are a few reasons for this. First in games like ArcheAge where large guilds control the entire server people like me who want to craft and have fun with the game cannot because this guild makes it so expensive for anyone not in their guild. This drives people like me away from playing the game causing the game to have to be P2W to be sustainable when 1 group of people control a server.
I have been assured by countless AoC fanbois that there is nothing to worry about.
Did you read my full post?
I am a Fanboy as well but I can tel you that controlling large guilds will be an issue. They can smoke all the crack they want but it will be an issue. That does not help a P2P game if its a low population game due to a handful of Mega guilds.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. This whole thread exists due to my concern over mega-guilds and their ability to deny content from the player base.
Most of the fanbois around these forums are chanting "they know what they're doing" over and over, despite the fact that these devs have never created a large scale persistent PvP game, and quite likely don't know what they are doing.
It's just gotten to the point where I can't keep saying the same thing over and over until more info from AoC is known.
I am willing to give the developers the benefit of the doubt because they have played other games like the one they are designing. I also think they understand that if Mega guilds ruin the experience for everyone else that the game will not be around long. That does not mean I dont think Mega guilds should be around. I think that the Mega guilds should not control the server though. I would like to see a scripted event which goes and destroys a corrupted server because of a mega guild though. That would be fun to watch.
Agreed. Mega guilds are perfectly fine, and I think they are good for the game. I also agree with you that the issue is them potentially denying content for the rest of the play base.
I pitched several ideas I think can help curb their influence, and I can't judge the devs on game mechanics until those mechanics are known. Right now, the only mechanic we know about is limiting the in-game guild size, and it's blatantly obvious that won't stop anything.
Most of this discussion centers around the silly "mega guilds can't possibly impact the server" line spouted by fanbois who have never played persistent PvP games, so I've stopped discussion with people of that limited mental capacity.
Limiting guilds to small number of members goes completely against this and turns Massively Multiplayer Online to "Bunch of Solo Players Online" (which is what you really want, a solo game that you can play online and sometimes meet other people).
MMO is about cooperation AND conflict. You can not demand your competition to be nerfed simply because you enjoy playing solo or in smaller groups.
It's MMO accept it, live with it, instead of demanding this genre to change for your own selfish needs.
Make friends and organize, or be at a disadvantage for playing alone. Those are the rules. Now stop crying about mega guilds.
Literally nobody has said they don't want mega guilds. People don't want them to be able to deny content to the rest of the server.
What I wrote is a truth, regardless of how some may be hurt to hear it.
If one wants to play a massively multiplayer online game, then one should accept that this includes term "massively" in it's full meaning.
MMO is about working with others (and against others) to face the challenges. It is about community, about players making their own fate depending on their skills and on what they are willing to give in. And major part of this is organization, and acknowledging that strength lies in numbers, and not only in skills.
Players that demand this genre be changed so they are able to play solo (or in small groups) and still be able to do everything undisturbed should really just go play some single player game, or some small multiplayer co'op.
Accept it, you are NOT ENTITLED to access all the content in a game that's ruled by social mechanics.
ACCESSING CONTENT is part of challenge, and to be able to access it you NEED TO belong to a group, and work with this group so that you can TOGETHER access the content. Playing SOLO in a MMO should mean that you will fail in many activities.
TLDR: If you want to play a MMO as a solo player, and still demand that you are able to do everything then realize that you will need to man up and start actually accepting the rules of a game that you wish to play, and stop crying about it like a kid that wants things cause he feels he is entitled to them.
MMOs, specially PvX MMOs always get ruined by bunch of solo players that wish to play the game solo and in small groups and then cry on forums constantly so developers protect them from PvP, and so developers give them access to all content regardless of this being a massively multiplayer game where YOUR SUCCESS SHOULD DEPEND ON YOU PLAYING IN LARGER GROUPS, learning how to be well organized and play as a TEAM rather then individual.
Then they come and insult people that want to play this game as it should be played (as MMO) and accuse them of being griefers etc.
I am even more disappointed that developers actually listen to those cries and start catering to them, and then ruin their games.
I'm actually quite hopeless about ever seeing a good PvX or PvP MMO again that does not cater to such players and ends up watering down everything, protecting "poor kids" from reality of game world.
I'm quite afraid AoC will go down that route too...
You're clearly over emotionally attached to your zerg guild, and there is no logical conversation to be had with you. I'll try one last time to explain it, but I'm quite positive it won't get through.
Example: If players need metal to compete with the alpha tribe, and that alpha tribe can completely deny other players access to all sources of metal, then there is zero chance the alpha can be challenged. It has absolutely nothing to do with solo vs group vs guild.
If you think a single group of players should be able to completely run an entire server to the point where they stamp out all competition before said competition is able to get to the point of competing...well...that's your opinion I guess. This is a problem specific to persistent PvP games and is precisely why all FPS games start everyone out with the same gear at the beginning of each PvP match. .
Games like that end up with one group of players playing by themselves completely unchallenged by anyone...yet here you are defending that scenario in the name of PvP...ironic.
Example: If players need metal to compete with the alpha tribe, and that alpha tribe can completely deny other players access to all sources of metal, then there is zero chance the alpha can be challenged.
See that right there is completely false.
Those players that want metal should stop playing solo, and they should group up (join another organized guild) and then CHALLENGE alpha guild for that metal.
THAT is the point of MMO. Working together with other people and grouping up to become stronger, while in same time trying to hold your guild organized, cooperative and without drama.
You need to realize that solo play is not meant for MMO.
Comments
Oh, no I agree; he is a smart man. I got to give credit where credit is due.
Look, I realize you are going to blindly defend AoC no matter what. That's OK. All games have their fanbois.
It is obvious you have little or no experience in persistent PvP games. Again, that's OK. Just let the folks who know what they're talking about discuss the issues they've seen in other games and how they foresee those issues making their way to AoC. You don't have to take it personally.
I was open to a discussion but aside from personal attacks you have provided nothing so far to further the discussion.
I never defended AoC actually, I only provided information that you lack information in your arguments and pointed out flaws in your logic which as pointed out twice now, you avoid answering to aside from personal attacks. <shrug> Whoever reads this will realise it and will hopefully avoid feeding you sooner or later so I have done my part. You keep going with your negative attitude. It will get you far I'm sure.
At this point you just keep repeating yourself claiming you know better then everyone else because you played Ark and it was terrible. ignoring points you can't contend, resorting to name calling and trying to invalidate others opinions because their experience isn't the same as yours. It really doesn't help your argument and if anything makes it look like you are the one who is "taking this personally".
That being said you have to remember AoC is an MMORPG with predetermined and moderated servers. Ashes plays by a different rule set then Ark. MMO's have much larger worlds, and bigger server populations. Making it harder for a single group to move around and control the majority of the population. They have active GMs and usually enforce griefing rules. So if a group was targeting a single individual/group of players to the point of griefing them, or they take advantage of possible corruption/PKing exploits the GMs will take proper action as needed.
From what I can gather in ark it takes 15 minutes to travel from one end of the ark map to the other flying. how true this is IDK. and the max server size of Ark official servers is 70 people on at a time? (all I could find was a post from 2015 might be outdated.) So controlling a server that small and when you can move around so freely and the majority of your gear/supplies/(whatever you would classify dino's as? mounts/weapons?) can be taken/destroyed while offline would be child's play and toppling the big dog would be near impossible. But when population goes to 10,000 and the world takes hours to move around in and my character progress can't be hindered while offline and while I'm online I can't lose gear and can stash supplies in a bank. I can not see a single group controlling more then 1 node, if that.
I've looked around for mega guilds in RPGs and the only game I could find that had a mega guilds was EVE. I've seen some large guilds/groups in other games and games with predetermined factions usually have some unbalance with people gravitating towards certain factions like in Secret world everyone wanted to be a dragon or Templar leaving the illuminate as the weak group and had no chance in pvp. Warsong Battalion/vanguard/ect. in WoW and while they were annoying at times they were far from server controlling.
EVE is the closest thing I can find to mega guilds controlling a server and from what I can find they really don't. The biggest corp in EVE from google searching seems to be 15000 players and I can't find anything about them being too powerful or controlling the game, nothing. in fact it seems they recently made a tactical retreat while attempting to attack a space station.
with the exception of EVE I can't even find gaming communities with that many people even ones spanning multiple games only seem to have 1000-2000 people max (again that's across multiple games). So even if they brought their while community that's 2000 out of a 10000 person server and that is assuming everyone of their members is online at the moment.
After HOURS of researching and googling I can honestly say AOC will most likely not suffer from Mega guilds controlling a server. There may be powerful guilds and those guild may make allies. But when a group gets too big AKA Imperium in EVE or WSB in WoW the server will rise up and fight them back. WSB is now a 4 or 5 man dead guild. Imperium while not destroyed apparently suffered a lot.
(Alice is a "Beast Initiate/Trainer/Master" and therefore can only directly affect node development of field bosses)
(Obould is an Orc "Peon/Scout/Pillager" directly affecting guild military node might)
(Bauuse is a Rune "Gatherer/Nomad/Master" harnessing the arcane energy of Verra.)
Having a unique player development system would help spread out the big guilds and benefit the casual players just wanting to do a quick dungeon. Implementing a series of quest-lines for each ranking system would help buffer the oncoming wave of combatants/non-combatants whether it be guild or no guild. If you did implement a system like this then you would have to have rewards for both non-guildies and guildies, perhaps even deciding to have Verra related guilds which we already know there is going to be a thieves guild (thank you!)
Also, your rank may directly affect or influence a party. Say Bob completes a dungeon every night, but is not in a guild and this night he is in a guild party. Although he is a dungeon master, his influence doesn't affect the Guild's dungeon influence because he is not in the guild. However, he is still affecting the field's dungeon development. Perhaps since he is a "Dungeon Master", this night the group is fighting "elite" monsters.
Just some thoughts...
I don't know what makes you so certain that his game will avoid having to deal with some powerful guilds controlling certain nodes but I hope you are right. Again, this is all just speculation.
So nvm, players CAN CONTROL things in EVE, but don't because there are LIMITS to what they can control.
There will be a guild cap and I'm fairly certain that if a "mega guild" were to try and circumvent this capacity that they would be found out and punished severely for it. Plus, like you said, no one wants to be part of some Zerg collective and most people won't stand for allowing large guilds like that to steamroll everyone.
If a "mega guild" showed up and began bullying people out of the game they would be the ones that end up being bullied out of the game. Either by the game moderators or by the players themselves.
It's about 1 player (and his unit of time spent) having similar influence like another player (per unit of time spent).
so "20 player guild" where each player actively plays 15 hours per week, should have similar influence like "300 player guild" where each player plays 1 hour a week.
Of course this is under assumption that all those players use their time equally efficient. However someones "hours" may be twice as valuable as another players "hour" if he knows how to use his hour better.
There should be no hand holding, and artificially equalizing players. EACH PLAYER SHOULD GET THAT AMOUNT OF REWARD AS HE DESERVES BY PLAYING, using his skills / time.
One thing though, skills should matter. If one player is skilled he should be able to do more in one unit of time than another player that didn't learn the ropes yet. Otherwise it would just be stupid, and all competitive players will just leave the game, and farmville casuals will remain, until the game dies.
I'll bookmark this thread and bring it back up 6 months after AoC releases.
Just because someone supports the game and the devs' vision does not mean they are a "fanboi". You keep turning it into an us vs them argument when most of the people on here actually do like the dev's vision and just want to make sure that vision includes preventing foreseeable problems. It is not being a "fanboi" to like what the devs are doing. It is not being a "fanboi" to say you don't share the same concerns as someone else. No one is saying that Intrepid is infalliable (literally no one has said that and I have read almost every thread on this forum; in fact, the vast majority of people have expressed some form of criticism to Intrepid) only that it is not productive to judge systems we haven't even seen in their most basic stage yet much less tested.
The fact of the matter is there is not enough information to make an informed judgement on, so saying something won't work right now is groundless and not constructive. The OP has a legitimate worry about mega guilds having all the power. Intrepid has not given us enough information about how governments work, how guilds work, or really anything and since none of us have actually tested any of those systems we cannot say with any certainty on how effective or ineffective they will be in quelling this potential problem. Until they tell us more or we get to test the systems, all we can do is discuss what we THINK works or doesn't based off of past experiences. I trust that Intrepid will design their systems to make the mega guild problem a non-issue, but if, when testing, it is obvious that it can be exploited you can bet I will be there to tell Intrepid there is a problem.
I've suggested fixes to the problem I see popping up. Fanbois just blindly say, "they know what they are doing", as if comments like that are counter to my suggestions.
I agree with you about the discussion becoming stale now though since we don't have any real info to further inform the discussion. That's why I agreed to stop commenting about this potential issue, and I will revisit this thread in the future as appropriate.
This is a community size node based game dominated by nodes as the main structure. Guilds will always be subordinate to the node, however grand their designs and opinion of their own greatness and relevance. Guild epeen waving, is irrelevant. Node progression will also require activity from all kinds of group size....(even single player activity) to progress the node and fulfil node requirements that just maintain it, let alone expand it.
Most if not all previous games never allowed community endeavour as all groups competed. Here all groups collaborate that belong to the same node. There is no conflict of interest. What solo and small group players or even mega guilds do for the node helps what the large groups do for the node and vice versa. If anything their mutual cooperation and preferred varied play-styles is and will be a requirement.
Also, you are making it sound like a 1000+ guild will be built on the foundations of tyrannical dictatorship and iron rule rather than guild consensus.
In the consensus scenario....the node will be run no differently to how the node occupants would run it anyway (by consensus). So no issue.
In the dictatorship scenario of a group of robots being told exactly what to do by some elite tyrant at the top of the pyramid or suffer the consequences (mafia style)....how many players will actually choose to remain under such a regime and for how long ?
Granted their are the submissive types that love to be dominated....but that type of guild IMHO, will not dominate the player base guild base or node base. Such people are normally the ones reported and banned unless they are wise enough to get others to do the dirty work for them.
So... will mega guilds exist....yes. Will they exert wide influence yes. But those mega guilds are constructed from individuals who will demand a say over guild direction and as such individual consensus will decide the nodes fate regardless.
And would having some tyrants in the game be bad for the game at the end of the day ? Would they not add natural enemies to the gameplay that everyone will want to hate and wipe out ? Is saving the game world from tyranny not an epic quest in itself ?
Personally, I find the concept of in game guilds to go against the grain of what I consider an immersive game to be. That guy wants to join our group? Oh, look, he's from Method, yeah, they're pretty good players. We'll take him. It brings the game back to the real world. Guilds outside the game? Sure, they're going to happen and that's fine.
For that matter, I find that formal groups go against the grain. It's great to say that you're going to group up and protect this caravan, but if I don't get an invite, does that mean I can't go or just that I don't get rewards for helping? If it means neither, then why have grouping to start with?
Not sure where it goes, but I'm just of the opinion that having to manage group and guild membership makes this all more artificial, less MMOish and more prone to "power leveling".
Lets take some of Ashes lore here to help solve this situation. Dillias diary talks about Harbingers loomed overhead that come to befall the world of Verra. This is the worlds destruction. What if we script this event that if a server was to have a Mega guild and that Mega guild ended up with so much corruption that the Harbingers descend again to destroy the world of Verra with a twist. Anyone that has the corruption of this guild is now a target. When the Harbingers descend on Verra they only attack nodes that have the corruption of the Mega guild on it. Houses, apartments, freeholds and cities are all destroyed.
If a player has been in this Mega guild within the last 90 days when the Harbingers attack will be killed allowing their bodies to be fully looted by anyone not in the Mega guild. The destruction will include up to 75% of anything they have in storage, their gold and so on. If mega guilds want to play in a corruptible manner let them, but use the Verra destruction event lay waste to everything they have and the casual players will benefit from the destruction because they can take from these Mega players when the destruction happens.
Now I would put parameters around when the Mega guild gets corruption. If the guild has 300 or 400 players, controls 1 Metropolis, 1 City, and a few lower nodes then ok no problem. But as soon as a guild controls more than 1 Metropolis corruption builds and the more they control the faster corruption builds.
There are a few reasons for this. First in games like ArcheAge where large guilds control the entire server people like me who want to craft and have fun with the game cannot because this guild makes it so expensive for anyone not in their guild. This drives people like me away from playing the game causing the game to have to be P2W to be sustainable when 1 group of people control a server.
Second If you want to maintain a subscription based game you need more then a few thousand paying subscribers to be here. They will not play a game where a large guild dominates the game. It just is not going to happen. Now a large guild controlling 1 Metropolis, 1 City and a few other nods where there can be 4 or 5 other large guilds doing the same. Its not a problem. But the minute its 1 guild controlling a server its a problem.
3rd, the Destruction of Verra including the destruction of nodes are already built into the game. Also players losing gear while some of this gear can be expensive to replace and time consuming. As long as you do not have a WoW Style Raiding gear treadmill and more of a SWG like gearing system its not as punishing when people have to replace gear. It cost gold but thats OK.
4th, Some guilds might get a kick out of the idea of 2 dozen nodes to only see these nodes destroyed even if the casual player base massively benefits off this because these players can loot the mega guilds storage. Let put it this way. If I knew in the next few days Verra's Destruction was coming again. I would grab all the loot I could while this destruction was happening. Then put boat loads of stuff on my vendor to sell it. These Mega guild players will then just work again to control everything giving me mountains of gold to buy back their stuff. Then they can do it all over again.
I am a Fanboy as well but I can tel you that controlling large guilds will be an issue. They can smoke all the crack they want but it will be an issue. That does not help a P2P game if its a low population game due to a handful of Mega guilds.
Most of the fanbois around these forums are chanting "they know what they're doing" over and over, despite the fact that these devs have never created a large scale persistent PvP game, and quite likely don't know what they are doing.
It's just gotten to the point where I can't keep saying the same thing over and over until more info from AoC is known.
Limiting guilds to small number of members goes completely against this and turns Massively Multiplayer Online to "Bunch of Solo Players Online" (which is what you really want, a solo game that you can play online and sometimes meet other people).
MMO is about cooperation AND conflict. You can not demand your competition to be nerfed simply because you enjoy playing solo or in smaller groups.
It's MMO accept it, live with it, instead of demanding this genre to change for your own selfish needs.
Make friends and organize, or be at a disadvantage for playing alone. Those are the rules. Now stop crying about mega guilds.
I pitched several ideas I think can help curb their influence, and I can't judge the devs on game mechanics until those mechanics are known. Right now, the only mechanic we know about is limiting the in-game guild size, and it's blatantly obvious that won't stop anything.
Most of this discussion centers around the silly "mega guilds can't possibly impact the server" line spouted by fanbois who have never played persistent PvP games, so I've stopped discussion with people of that limited mental capacity.
Nice straw man argument though.
If one wants to play a massively multiplayer online game, then one should accept that this includes term "massively" in it's full meaning.
MMO is about working with others (and against others) to face the challenges. It is about community, about players making their own fate depending on their skills and on what they are willing to give in. And major part of this is organization, and acknowledging that strength lies in numbers, and not only in skills.
Players that demand this genre be changed so they are able to play solo (or in small groups) and still be able to do everything undisturbed should really just go play some single player game, or some small multiplayer co'op.
Accept it, you are NOT ENTITLED to access all the content in a game that's ruled by social mechanics.
ACCESSING CONTENT is part of challenge, and to be able to access it you NEED TO belong to a group, and work with this group so that you can TOGETHER access the content. Playing SOLO in a MMO should mean that you will fail in many activities.
TLDR:
If you want to play a MMO as a solo player, and still demand that you are able to do everything then realize that you will need to man up and start actually accepting the rules of a game that you wish to play, and stop crying about it like a kid that wants things cause he feels he is entitled to them.
Then they come and insult people that want to play this game as it should be played (as MMO) and accuse them of being griefers etc.
I am even more disappointed that developers actually listen to those cries and start catering to them, and then ruin their games.
I'm actually quite hopeless about ever seeing a good PvX or PvP MMO again that does not cater to such players and ends up watering down everything, protecting "poor kids" from reality of game world.
I'm quite afraid AoC will go down that route too...
Example: If players need metal to compete with the alpha tribe, and that alpha tribe can completely deny other players access to all sources of metal, then there is zero chance the alpha can be challenged. It has absolutely nothing to do with solo vs group vs guild.
If you think a single group of players should be able to completely run an entire server to the point where they stamp out all competition before said competition is able to get to the point of competing...well...that's your opinion I guess. This is a problem specific to persistent PvP games and is precisely why all FPS games start everyone out with the same gear at the beginning of each PvP match. .
Games like that end up with one group of players playing by themselves completely unchallenged by anyone...yet here you are defending that scenario in the name of PvP...ironic.
See that right there is completely false.
Those players that want metal should stop playing solo, and they should group up (join another organized guild) and then CHALLENGE alpha guild for that metal.
THAT is the point of MMO. Working together with other people and grouping up to become stronger, while in same time trying to hold your guild organized, cooperative and without drama.
You need to realize that solo play is not meant for MMO.