I'm still shocked you bought in without being aware of the Corruption system. But, I guess if you only looked at the info on the Kickstarter... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The fact that we have players saying that this system is too PvP friendly, and we have players saying that this system is too PvE friendly should tell the developers that they have the idea for the system about right.
They want a system where there is a sense of risk in every day actions, but don't want the game to become a murder simulation. Seems like they are on target.
Ashes is not niche, AFAIK. And, in Ashes, killing a non-combatant -which is the epitome of non-consensual PvP- is punished with Corruption.
NPCs and mobs also provide risk for everyday actions. We won't know how on-target the devs are until we see in-game whether the Corruption mechanic achieves its purpose: minimizing non-consensual PvP combat.
Don't like niche? Then Ashes is definitely not going to be for you. Steven came out in the Aggelos livestream and outright said that if the game is considered niche he is ok with that. That certain people are going to be unhappy with decisions made and he is also ok with that. As he pointed out in Discord when "the community" started telling him who he could and could not give content creator status to, he is the boss, there is no board he is beholden to, and he will make decisions based on whatever he wants to do at that point. So people need to understand that yes, anything could change, but an individual that has a set vision of his nostalgia passion project is not going to bend to the whim of the unwashed masses yelling "Rabble, Rabble, Rabble!" on various media.
For every game, there will be some people who will be unhappy with dev decisions. Thousands of people are unhappy with dev decisions made for WoW.
Shadowbane was niche. Shroud of the Avatar is niche. But, niche isn't really a relevant point. We don't know what numbers Steven is hoping for, but I'm pretty sure he's hoping that Ashes will be more sustainable than Shadowbane and more popular than Shroud of the Avatar.
I expect Steven will be thrilled if Ashes as popular as Eve. My understanding is that Steven hopes Corruption will keep non-consensual PvP combat at the same levels as they are in Lineage 2 but not as high as they are in Eve. I haven't heard people complain about non-consensual PvP Lineage 2 being too high. The non-consensual PvP in Eve is notorious enough to keep most casual PvPers and PvErs from having any interest in playing.
So... if Steven's objective is to have non-consensual PvP combat at similar levels to Shadowbane and Eve, players like Lateana and me probably will not be playing Ashes. That's OK. Just like it's OK that I don't play Eve. But, I don't think Steven wants the non-consensual PvP combat to be similar to the levels of Eve. Rather, Steven wants non-consensual PvP combat to be similar to the levels of Lineage 2. Which might be sufficient for retaining Steven's target numbers of casual PvPers and PvEers, regardless of whether Lineage 2 is considered to be niche.
Niche is not a really a relevant measure. The amount of non-consensual in Lineage 2 is a good measure for those people who have played Lineage 2, since that is the goal Steven is shooting for.
Where have you been that you invested heavily in Ashes without being aware of the PvP system??? Ashes never had separate servers for PvP combat in its game design.
This. People that open their wallets for pre orders kickstarters etc. And AFTER the money leaves their bank acct or hits their credit card go "guess i should read up on what this game is about"......yeah those folks render me speechless. .just no logic at all.
Where have you been that you invested heavily in Ashes without being aware of the PvP system??? Ashes never had separate servers for PvP combat in its game design.
This. People that open their wallets for pre orders kickstarters etc. And AFTER the money leaves their bank acct or hits their credit card go "guess i should read up on what this game is about"......yeah those folks render me speechless. .just no logic at all.
It's a well known fact that the majority of people is ...well... stupid. careless. moronic etc. That's why politicians and mobster are allowed to do what they want - because people don't care, not even when it's their own interest involved. The movie "Idiocracy" is a very good example of what awaits us in the not-that-far future.
@Wanderlust_AOC Structured PvP is worse - it'll eventually get predictable, stale, and dull. It must be Dynamic - and Open World PvP is the closest thing to it. And since there's no fast travel , zerging will not be possible. On the flip-side ... that kinda also means that you can't escape the potential-large group of PKers Hunting out there ... i.e. 3v1 and other variants
However, thats ultimately dependent on how on " Iterations of Combat " ... and how much change is intrepid willing to do. Some MMOs, the overall combat is suited to where it could be very possible for YOU to win against 2v1 (2 players trying to PK you). And i think some older MMOs could potentially have it to where you could win against 3v1 ( 3 players trying to PK you ) . But that turns into lots of speculation. In addition to considering other ... " fundamental attributes "
Such as ... how technical will combat be ?
I've seen plenty of Structured PvP - it always gets boring overtime. Whereas Open World PvP ... theres always so many things to consider
Possibility to have bounty hunters only in militaristic node sounds kind of lame. That will leave lots of areas out of this cool feature. Big -1
It's bounty hunters only from Military nodes - if you have to be a citizen in order to get the quest that gives you the title. But, then, if that's true, we would have to see if people have to remain a citizen of a Military node in order to keep the title. But, it's a great question to ask Steven to clarify.
Purple Named Players will only drop Crafting Material Items
Red Named Players will drop Crafting Material items AND the potential of dropping some Gear ... not sure if it was just 1 gear-piece or all-gearfor Red-Named Players.
( i think it was just 1 gear-piece. )
I would presume similar to RuneScape ... bu not to the " RuneScape Extreme " either. In short, many things are still being tested out. But they're still focusing on the technical-side of things first @Wanderlust_AOC
And since there's no fast travel , zerging will not be possible.
Fast travel only makes zerging a little bit harder, but we are definitely still going to see some zerging. Now i presume you mean by zerging where groups roams through the whole world using fast travels. But zerging in Ashes will be different, it will be much more local and we are going to see larger groups to visit neighbour zones, just out of their own node's influence.
Possibility to have bounty hunters only in militaristic node sounds kind of lame. That will leave lots of areas out of this cool feature. Big -1
It's bounty hunters only from Military nodes - if you have to be a citizen in order to get the quest that gives you the title. But, then, if that's true, we would have to see if people have to remain a citizen of a Military node in order to keep the title. But, it's a great question to ask Steven to clarify.
Good point. If you can travel to militaristic node and get your "bounty hunter lisence" and get back to your node, then i guess it would work somehow acceptable way. Still it will set nodes different kind of position from open world PvP pov. That means gathering will be most safe in militaristic zone and ganking a thing in others nodes' influence where aint (or much less) bountyhunters running after. Sounds bad imo and there should be bountyhunting happening everywhere, equally as possible and not just centralized around one node type.
Well, I don't know that "centralized around one node type" really has the meaning you imply. A server is going to have many Military nodes at the town level. A region is also quite likely to have many Miltitary nodes at the town level. So, bounty hunters "centralized around one node type" very well may not be a thing at all.
A key component of zerging is how quickly the raid is able to form. Restricted fast travel knocks that component out for the most part. Sieges have great potential to have masses of people attacking a node, but that will have days and weeks of planning, so doesn't really qualify as a zerg. Also, there will be objectives that must be completed, which will require more strategy than just pounding on the walls with a horde. Caravans will frequently need to be found. They won't always be taking the same route or traveling at the same time of day. So, without fast travel, it's more difficult to rally the masses typically associated with a zerg after the caravan has been discovered. You have to rely on those who are quite local because a caravan can outrun people traveling from far away.
Possibility to have bounty hunters only in militaristic node sounds kind of lame. That will leave lots of areas out of this cool feature. Big -1
I'm not so sure it would.
With only four node types, I would happily put a whole lot of money (in game money, obviously) on the fact that every possible metropolis will have at least one military node that is able to level up to level 4 within it's ZoI.
I see players that are actively working on bounty hunter (it seems as if it is a progression thing) to be fairly wide ranging in their search for corrupt players - not simply hanging around their home node.
My next question in relation to the system is that if bounty hunter is a progression system will gaining corruption negatively affect that progression?
As to militaristic nodes being the safest to gather around to avoid PvP, don't forget that they will also have a potential means of reducing corruption faster - so I wouldn't necessarily say this would always hold true. I'd wager some military nodes would have a reputation as bounty hunters, some would have a reputation as PK'ers, and some would just not have much reputation at all.
I do agree with @Dygz, however, in that we don't know if you need a military node to become a bounty hunter and can then move on, or if you need to actively be a citizen of a military node in order to make use of the system at all.
Wanderlust_AOC I think you may be confused on how the pvp system works, one there is no forced pvp, if you are not flagged for pvp and a pvp player attacks you they receive harsh penalties through the corruption system. second you dont have to pvp if you dont want to.
As for your investment into a game; They Steven/Intrepid hadn't gone into any form of development and hadn't hashed out its own details. You can only blame yourself for not being happy with whatever has happened. Don't be a frog, look before you leap!
@Noaani Reminds me of the demon-hunter Paladin who lost the connection to his god after becoming possessed by a demon himself and killing several nuns. That demon was exorcised but he still had to suffer through being a fallen Paladin. The Clockwork Wars
Corrupted Bounty Hunter could be a fascinating story for Ashes.
Where have you been that you invested heavily in Ashes without being aware of the PvP system??? Ashes never had separate servers for PvP combat in its game design.
^ there's nothing left to say. Do your research before investing kids!
I find if weird in the first place that you would invest anywhere above 100$ into a game without checking all of the avalible information.
And still loot does that. People are dumb. That's a fact. What do you think, how does these early acess scam games make living? Most people just brainlesly spend money on random crowfoundings without even reading what is it...
Ashes of Creation looked so promising, my wife and I both invested heavily into the game in order to play early Alpha. But now I'm wondering if we'll play at all. When are developers going to learn that there are PvE players and there are PvP players, and non-consensual PvP makes all the PvP players happy, but makes many of the PvE players unhappy. Why force non-consensual PvP on all of us who find the game mechanics appealing, but are not interested in being forced to play PvP?
And of all the ways to handle non-consensual PvP, yet another reputation system? This didn't work in UO, doesn't work in ArcheAge, sucks to all holy hell in Albion Online, and it won't work in Ashes. More importantly, if implemented across all servers will totally destroy what could have been a great game.
I only check in here once in a while, so someone please tell me that I'm misunderstanding, that they are only talking about non-consensual PvP on certain servers, and that there will indeed be PvE-only servers.
It worked pretty well in BDO. Sure, you can still get killed by random players. But usually it's for a reason.
BDO was actually another example of what I thought did not work well. I forgot that one. My wife and I would be killed just because we were grinding in an area that someone else wanted for themselves. It wasn't griefing, I concede, there was an actual purpose to killing us, but it definitely didn't make for a very fun experience for us, since we could never grind without enough guild members available to join us. That harkens back to the old EverQuest model of needing a group to do anything constructive, which I found compelling back in 90's, but not anymore ;-)
Well, I don't know that "centralized around one node type" really has the meaning you imply. A server is going to have many Military nodes at the town level. A region is also quite likely to have many Miltitary nodes at the town level. So, bounty hunters "centralized around one node type" very well may not be a thing at all.
A key component of zerging is how quickly the raid is able to form. Restricted fast travel knocks that component out for the most part. Sieges have great potential to have masses of people attacking a node, but that will have days and weeks of planning, so doesn't really qualify as a zerg. Also, there will be objectives that must be completed, which will require more strategy than just pounding on the walls with a horde. Caravans will frequently need to be found. They won't always be taking the same route or traveling at the same time of day. So, without fast travel, it's more difficult to rally the masses typically associated with a zerg after the caravan has been discovered. You have to rely on those who are quite local because a caravan can outrun people traveling from far away.
Ok its hard to say cause it needs to been see in practise, but averagely on paper 25% of town level nodes are militaristic, which could be about 15-20% of all zones. So yeah there is a change that bountyhunting wont be a thing in every node.
I guess we are talking about different zergs. To me zergs happens only at open world and not in events, also zerg can already be 9+ players, because it does not matter much to invidual player if he/she will be rammed by 9 or 40 players. Result is still same, death. Now it does not matter much is there fast travel or not if i want to assemble a zerg or gank group. I will play in guild where most of players are playiny at yhe same place so there wont be any problems with assembling (like most of guilds).
And i dont presume how this zerging and ganking goes, because i have experience of games which have open world PvP. I have been killing others and been killed so many times to have lots of different point of views. So only thing which will really prevent and make zerging and ganking happen less is corruption system.
Possibility to have bounty hunters only in militaristic node sounds kind of lame. That will leave lots of areas out of this cool feature. Big -1
I'm not so sure it would.
With only four node types, I would happily put a whole lot of money (in game money, obviously) on the fact that every possible metropolis will have at least one military node that is able to level up to level 4 within it's ZoI.
I see players that are actively working on bounty hunter (it seems as if it is a progression thing) to be fairly wide ranging in their search for corrupt players - not simply hanging around their home node.
My next question in relation to the system is that if bounty hunter is a progression system will gaining corruption negatively affect that progression?
As to militaristic nodes being the safest to gather around to avoid PvP, don't forget that they will also have a potential means of reducing corruption faster - so I wouldn't necessarily say this would always hold true. I'd wager some military nodes would have a reputation as bounty hunters, some would have a reputation as PK'ers, and some would just not have much reputation at all.
I do agree with @Dygz, however, in that we don't know if you need a military node to become a bounty hunter and can then move on, or if you need to actively be a citizen of a military node in order to make use of the system at all.
Of course people will also move more wider, but most of the time players will play near their own node, generally and averagely. That is just simple math.
Well if players in militaristic nodes' focus to gank own non-combatant citizens and that way slow down their node's progression, then i guess i will just be amazed of the stupidity.
I was planning to bountyhunt mostly in my node and that way give fellow citizens more safe gathering and generally PvE play, so our node would progress faster. To neightbour zones i will assemble ganking groups to slow down progression and steal some resources at the same time.
If people do not care about their citizenship, then i guess my plan is just shit.
25% of nodes will likely be Military nodes, but it is also likely that every City has at least one if not multiple Military Towns. In which case, centered around the Military node won't have much meaning because the bounty hunting would really be focused on the ZOI of the City, rather than the Military nodes, specifically. We need more detailed on how the parent node affects the other nodes in its ZOI.
Zerging typically happens during events - the event pops and a horde of players fast travel to the location to participate in the event. Typically, defeating the encounter merely due to pounding at the target(s) high numbers of people rather than any strategic tactics.
It seems to me that you are just talking about raiding, not zerging. 9 people is not a zerg. In Ashes, 9 people is barely even a raid. I would say a zerg is typically 40+ people. 9-40 people is a raid. But, that is semantics.
Ganking is not synonymous with zerging. So, yeah, fast travel has no bearing on the existence of gank groups. Corruption is intended to minimize gank groups. Yes.
Seems like it would be pretty difficult to be both a bounty hunter for your own node and a ganker against other nodes. Also, probably not worth the effort since ganking isn't really going to slow node progression much. Derailing caravans will do that. And I'm not sure you can really plan to gank a caravan. You can raid a caravan, sure. More semantics, I suppose.
You will probably not be raiding enemy nodes all the time. Even as a pvper, you will have to hang out in node and farm up to progress your character. During those times, i'll respond to fellow citizens being attacked. I'd also probably head back home if i hear someone is being attacked. You are even encouraged to do this as the enemy probably has resources from those they killed. Of course, if you are cool, you will be giving the resources you get back to the people they were stolen from.
When you attack a node outside of a siege you will probably be doing both attacking gathers and caravans. I'd imagine you just ride around the node areas hitting up the popular spawns as they are more likely to have players. While riding between spawns you would see if you can find caravans along the way.
Zerging typically happens during events - the event pops and a horde of players fast travel to the location to participate in the event. Typically, defeating the encounter merely due to pounding at the target(s) high numbers of people rather than any strategic tactics.
It seems to me that you are just talking about raiding, not zerging. 9 people is not a zerg. In Ashes, 9 people is barely even a raid. I would say a zerg is typically 40+ people. 9-40 people is a raid. But, that is semantics.
Zerging does NOT mean it would typically happen during events or that fast traveling would be one part of zergs definition. High numbers are correct. Zerg typically means large group of players which roams through lands killing everything in path and trusting to their numbers. That would be closer truth.
Raiding in mmorpg's means typically PvE content, harder than dungeons. It is not used in PvP context.
In ashes group size is determined to be around 8. From PvE point of view 9+ would be raid group. So that is why i said 9+ would be zerg, a small one, but still. And if thats not fine with you, we can talk about larger group too, but it still wont take out my point. It is very easy to assemble zerg just with your own guild. Been there done that.
So zerg does not have just one certain definition, it can scale a lot. In games which have open world PvP and larger groups are fighting each other, the action is called zerg vs zerg (ZvZ). There the numbers does not matter, if they are just above the normal group size.
Seems like it would be pretty difficult to be both a bounty hunter for your own node and a ganker against other nodes. Also, probably not worth the effort since ganking isn't really going to slow node progression much. Derailing caravans will do that. And I'm not sure you can really plan to gank a caravan. You can raid a caravan, sure. More semantics, I suppose.
Its very easy to be both because we have alts. It does not need to be the main purpose to try slow down the node. It is more like a minor bonus. Ganking is one way to get some resources if i pick my targets wisely (what it comes to non-combatant players). My main focus will be with purples and reds or in other hand it will be short ganking session if i just try to kill the green ones.
You will probably not be raiding enemy nodes all the time. Even as a pvper, you will have to hang out in node and farm up to progress your character. During those times, i'll respond to fellow citizens being attacked. I'd also probably head back home if i hear someone is being attacked. You are even encouraged to do this as the enemy probably has resources from those they killed. Of course, if you are cool, you will be giving the resources you get back to the people they were stolen from.
When you attack a node outside of a siege you will probably be doing both attacking gathers and caravans. I'd imagine you just ride around the node areas hitting up the popular spawns as they are more likely to have players. While riding between spawns you would see if you can find caravans along the way.
Well yeah i can imagine this all can happen.. except giving back stolen resources, who the hell will be that cool?
A good lesson on reading the not so fine print before buying. There will be PVE nuggets to this game, enough to satisfy a strictly PVE player I do not know. I hope that the game is enjoyable to you though.
Comments
But, I guess if you only looked at the info on the Kickstarter...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The fact that we have players saying that this system is too PvP friendly, and we have players saying that this system is too PvE friendly should tell the developers that they have the idea for the system about right.
They want a system where there is a sense of risk in every day actions, but don't want the game to become a murder simulation. Seems like they are on target.
And, in Ashes, killing a non-combatant -which is the epitome of non-consensual PvP- is punished with Corruption.
NPCs and mobs also provide risk for everyday actions.
We won't know how on-target the devs are until we see in-game whether the Corruption mechanic achieves its purpose: minimizing non-consensual PvP combat.
Shadowbane was niche. Shroud of the Avatar is niche.
But, niche isn't really a relevant point.
We don't know what numbers Steven is hoping for, but I'm pretty sure he's hoping that Ashes will be more sustainable than Shadowbane and more popular than Shroud of the Avatar.
I expect Steven will be thrilled if Ashes as popular as Eve.
My understanding is that Steven hopes Corruption will keep non-consensual PvP combat at the same levels as they are in Lineage 2 but not as high as they are in Eve.
I haven't heard people complain about non-consensual PvP Lineage 2 being too high.
The non-consensual PvP in Eve is notorious enough to keep most casual PvPers and PvErs from having any interest in playing.
So... if Steven's objective is to have non-consensual PvP combat at similar levels to Shadowbane and Eve, players like Lateana and me probably will not be playing Ashes. That's OK. Just like it's OK that I don't play Eve. But, I don't think Steven wants the non-consensual PvP combat to be similar to the levels of Eve.
Rather, Steven wants non-consensual PvP combat to be similar to the levels of Lineage 2. Which might be sufficient for retaining Steven's target numbers of casual PvPers and PvEers, regardless of whether Lineage 2 is considered to be niche.
Niche is not a really a relevant measure.
The amount of non-consensual in Lineage 2 is a good measure for those people who have played Lineage 2, since that is the goal Steven is shooting for.
Structured PvP is worse - it'll eventually get predictable, stale, and dull. It must be Dynamic - and Open World PvP is the closest thing to it. And since there's no fast travel , zerging will not be possible. On the flip-side ... that kinda also means that you can't escape the potential-large group of PKers Hunting out there ... i.e. 3v1 and other variants
However, thats ultimately dependent on how on " Iterations of Combat " ... and how much change is intrepid willing to do. Some MMOs, the overall combat is suited to where it could be very possible for YOU to win against 2v1 (2 players trying to PK you). And i think some older MMOs could potentially have it to where you could win against 3v1 ( 3 players trying to PK you ) . But that turns into lots of speculation. In addition to considering other ... " fundamental attributes "
- Such as ... how technical will combat be ?
I've seen plenty of Structured PvP - it always gets boring overtime. Whereas Open World PvP ... theres always so many things to considerBut, it's a great question to ask Steven to clarify.
- Purple Named Players will only drop Crafting Material Items
- Red Named Players will drop Crafting Material items AND the potential of dropping some Gear ... not sure if it was just 1 gear-piece or all-gearfor Red-Named Players.
( i think it was just 1 gear-piece. )I would presume similar to RuneScape ... bu not to the " RuneScape Extreme " either. In short, many things are still being tested out. But they're still focusing on the technical-side of things first @Wanderlust_AOC
So, bounty hunters "centralized around one node type" very well may not be a thing at all.
A key component of zerging is how quickly the raid is able to form. Restricted fast travel knocks that component out for the most part.
Sieges have great potential to have masses of people attacking a node, but that will have days and weeks of planning, so doesn't really qualify as a zerg. Also, there will be objectives that must be completed, which will require more strategy than just pounding on the walls with a horde.
Caravans will frequently need to be found. They won't always be taking the same route or traveling at the same time of day. So, without fast travel, it's more difficult to rally the masses typically associated with a zerg after the caravan has been discovered.
You have to rely on those who are quite local because a caravan can outrun people traveling from far away.
With only four node types, I would happily put a whole lot of money (in game money, obviously) on the fact that every possible metropolis will have at least one military node that is able to level up to level 4 within it's ZoI.
I see players that are actively working on bounty hunter (it seems as if it is a progression thing) to be fairly wide ranging in their search for corrupt players - not simply hanging around their home node.
My next question in relation to the system is that if bounty hunter is a progression system will gaining corruption negatively affect that progression?
As to militaristic nodes being the safest to gather around to avoid PvP, don't forget that they will also have a potential means of reducing corruption faster - so I wouldn't necessarily say this would always hold true. I'd wager some military nodes would have a reputation as bounty hunters, some would have a reputation as PK'ers, and some would just not have much reputation at all.
I do agree with @Dygz, however, in that we don't know if you need a military node to become a bounty hunter and can then move on, or if you need to actively be a citizen of a military node in order to make use of the system at all.
As for your investment into a game; They Steven/Intrepid hadn't gone into any form of development and hadn't hashed out its own details. You can only blame yourself for not being happy with whatever has happened. Don't be a frog, look before you leap!
Reminds me of the demon-hunter Paladin who lost the connection to his god after becoming possessed by a demon himself and killing several nuns.
That demon was exorcised but he still had to suffer through being a fallen Paladin.
The Clockwork Wars
Corrupted Bounty Hunter could be a fascinating story for Ashes.
People are dumb. That's a fact. What do you think, how does these early acess scam games make living? Most people just brainlesly spend money on random crowfoundings without even reading what is it...
I guess we are talking about different zergs. To me zergs happens only at open world and not in events, also zerg can already be 9+ players, because it does not matter much to invidual player if he/she will be rammed by 9 or 40 players. Result is still same, death. Now it does not matter much is there fast travel or not if i want to assemble a zerg or gank group. I will play in guild where most of players are playiny at yhe same place so there wont be any problems with assembling (like most of guilds).
And i dont presume how this zerging and ganking goes, because i have experience of games which have open world PvP. I have been killing others and been killed so many times to have lots of different point of views. So only thing which will really prevent and make zerging and ganking happen less is corruption system.
Of course people will also move more wider, but most of the time players will play near their own node, generally and averagely. That is just simple math.
Well if players in militaristic nodes' focus to gank own non-combatant citizens and that way slow down their node's progression, then i guess i will just be amazed of the stupidity.
I was planning to bountyhunt mostly in my node and that way give fellow citizens more safe gathering and generally PvE play, so our node would progress faster. To neightbour zones i will assemble ganking groups to slow down progression and steal some resources at the same time.
If people do not care about their citizenship, then i guess my plan is just shit.
In which case, centered around the Military node won't have much meaning because the bounty hunting would really be focused on the ZOI of the City, rather than the Military nodes, specifically.
We need more detailed on how the parent node affects the other nodes in its ZOI.
Zerging typically happens during events - the event pops and a horde of players fast travel to the location to participate in the event. Typically, defeating the encounter merely due to pounding at the target(s) high numbers of people rather than any strategic tactics.
It seems to me that you are just talking about raiding, not zerging.
9 people is not a zerg. In Ashes, 9 people is barely even a raid.
I would say a zerg is typically 40+ people.
9-40 people is a raid.
But, that is semantics.
Ganking is not synonymous with zerging.
So, yeah, fast travel has no bearing on the existence of gank groups.
Corruption is intended to minimize gank groups. Yes.
Seems like it would be pretty difficult to be both a bounty hunter for your own node and a ganker against other nodes.
Also, probably not worth the effort since ganking isn't really going to slow node progression much. Derailing caravans will do that. And I'm not sure you can really plan to gank a caravan.
You can raid a caravan, sure.
More semantics, I suppose.
When you attack a node outside of a siege you will probably be doing both attacking gathers and caravans. I'd imagine you just ride around the node areas hitting up the popular spawns as they are more likely to have players. While riding between spawns you would see if you can find caravans along the way.
I have not said anything like that.
Zerging does NOT mean it would typically happen during events or that fast traveling would be one part of zergs definition. High numbers are correct. Zerg typically means large group of players which roams through lands killing everything in path and trusting to their numbers. That would be closer truth.
Raiding in mmorpg's means typically PvE content, harder than dungeons. It is not used in PvP context.
In ashes group size is determined to be around 8. From PvE point of view 9+ would be raid group. So that is why i said 9+ would be zerg, a small one, but still. And if thats not fine with you, we can talk about larger group too, but it still wont take out my point. It is very easy to assemble zerg just with your own guild. Been there done that.
So zerg does not have just one certain definition, it can scale a lot. In games which have open world PvP and larger groups are fighting each other, the action is called zerg vs zerg (ZvZ). There the numbers does not matter, if they are just above the normal group size.
Its very easy to be both because we have alts. It does not need to be the main purpose to try slow down the node. It is more like a minor bonus. Ganking is one way to get some resources if i pick my targets wisely (what it comes to non-combatant players). My main focus will be with purples and reds or in other hand it will be short ganking session if i just try to kill the green ones.