Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Zergs will destroy the game if left unchecked
FeintToParry
Member
Siege balance, Node growth, and Zergs will make or break this game.
One of the best parts of Ashes of Creation that drew me in while watching Peon's video was the notion that players are actually being encouraged to invest their time and effort into a pseudo-permanent community Node. This has great potential for replayability and looks like an encouraging way to keep max-level players from getting bored quickly.
However, the Node system could ultimately be the downfall of the game if Sieges are not well balanced (or if Node growth is left unchecked). Specifically, Intrepid will want to make Nodes proportionally easier to build than destroy. If it takes a long time and a lot of effort from some players to build a Node, it ought to take a ton of effort and resources to destroy that same Node. Otherwise, Zergs/mega guilds will take over most servers in time.
Here's what the start of the game will look like without restriction on Node growth and Sieging:
Initially, it is highly likely that players will first invest their time and effort into their individual characters rather than a Node. This makes the most sense as a solo player, but even players in guilds will most likely prefer to put their time into permanent power gains.
Once players start to approach the limits of what they can do on their own, we will see Node development begin in earnest, with the first Metropolis being constructed by either a hardcore guild or a Zerg. Often, they are one and the same. The next part will vary, but it will look something like this: a superpower Zerg Node will emerge and either conquer or feudally enslave the surrounding Nodes. It may start as a regional power, but if Sieges are too easy to accomplish, it will rapidly engulf the region, the continent, and ultimately the entire world. To the point that the Zerg starts playing whack-a-mole with new Nodes built by any would-be rivals.
To some of us, conquering the entire world sounds awesome, and it probably is if you are on the winning side. But if a Zerg proliferates, you will more than likely not be on the winning side. In fact, if there is room for 5 metropolises on the game's map, you will more than likely be part of the 80% that lose. This is the nature of open-world survival games like Rust and MMO/survival hybrids like the very recent (and already underpopulated) Last Oasis. I understand that one of the core tenets underlying the philosophy of the game is that of #1 "Risk vs. Reward" and #2 "Not everyone can be a winner." And I respect both of those tenets, but just because not everyone can be a winner, does not mean that there should only ever be one winner. After all, once a Zerg takes control, they won't have to take on much risk at all in order to reap rewards.
Here's how player attrition will accelerate once a Zerg takes control of an entire server:
First, imagine that you've been part of a node for the last month and you've finally progressed to Metropolis level. You spent a couple days each week doing Node-related farming so that your average-sized guild can unlock Metropolis and get into your Node's unique raid. The Zerg on the other continent takes notice, and while you and your guild were trying to progress your characters further, and spent roughly a month of playtime focused on PVE, the Zerg built up Siege weaponry and initiates a Siege against your Node. Pause for a second - none of this is a problem so far. As we've all heard, Ashes of Creation is fundamentally a PvX MMO where there are reasons for PVEers and PVPers to intermingle. The problem happens after the Zerg successfully outnumbers and conquers the PVE guild - repeatedly. Maybe during the conflict, words were exchanged and things get personal. Now, the PVE guild decides to settle with a smaller Node in a secluded area further away from their destroyed Node. As soon as the Zerg gets wind of it, they descend on the PVEers' new Node in its fledgling state and send them back to the stone age a second time. The PVE guild breaks up due to internal squabbles brought on by their repeated defeat and a handful of players quit the game entirely because they spent time and effort investing in both Nodes just to see everything get reduced... to Ashes...
This process repeats for every guild the Zerg hates or views as a threat, and with every repeat obliteration, players leave. Worse yet, players on the server who weren't destroyed yet see that every time a Node reaches Metropolis, the Zerg annihilates them with a pre-emptive strike. Now the rest of the server population don't even want to grow their Node lest all of their progress be wiped out. Cowering in fear is not an emotion that should ever be cultivated. Now that a single dominant Zerg has emerged, the rest of the server is disincentivized to cultivate their Nodes, or they feel compelled to join the Zerg either directly or as a vassal state, thereby perpetuating the vicious feedback loop. If you think this is bad, think of the Classic WoW servers that lost their entire Alliance population due to being outnumbered and ganked by the Horde. Now imagine the Horde could actually destroy Ironforge and force the Alliance to rebuild. Repeatedly. They would quit the game in droves, faster than they already have.
This process is inevitable unless game systems exist to actively curb the growth potential of a Zerg and also the potential effectiveness of a Zerg's Sieges.
Recommendations for Intrepid regarding Node development and mitigating Zergs
1. Ensure that individual player progression is so closely tied to Node progression that even while players are doing individual tasks, almost everything they do is contributing to their Node in some way. I am under the impression that this is already the case, to some degree, but I want to emphasize that it should apply to almost EVERYTHING. This way, players do not have to go too far out of their way to work toward a collective goal that is just going to be wiped out regardless by a Zerg.
2. Do not create significant, direct rewards for players that destroy Nodes. I know that some items players store in their apartment/storage will be trapped in the Node once a siege is declared and part of that loot will be accessible to the attackers if they are victorious. It's cool that you can plunder a Node and all, but I implore the team to make this a paltry sum in comparison to the amount required to prepare and execute a Siege. Initiating and succeeding with a Siege should ultimately yield a negative return on investment in the short term. Sieging should never be able to fund more Sieging.
3. Make it slow to build and expensive to maintain a war machine. By this, I mean that it should take an attacking Node a lot of effort and time to initiate a Siege in the first place, regardless of the size of the Node they are attacking. Here's one simple way to do this: whether or not you've succeeded or failed in a Siege, all of those materials invested in the Siege equipment should be lost afterward. You won't be able to initiate a siege on another Node for a long time simply because of how expensive it is to do so. This would be on top of the existing cooldown protecting a Node from being Sieged over and over again, but it would also protect neighboring Nodes from being Sieged immediately afterward. This should be done to prevent a warmongering guild/Node from destroying every Node on the server and keeping the rest of the server in the stone age. If you've ever played Rust or other survival games, you've seen how Zergs that grow large enough will inevitably wipe out their neighbors followed soon after by the entire map (some of you may have recently seen this play out in Last Oasis, a very new MMO/survival game that has already seen tremendous player attrition due to the unrestricted power of Zergs).
4. Following that last point, put a soft cap on Node populations. I don't think there's much of a point in hard capping Node population because it's impossible to stop Zergs from forming and swallowing up smaller guilds into their empire, even if they aren't strictly part of the same Node. But there is still value in a soft cap. It should be increasingly costly for a mega Node to accept a new citizen once they reach a certain size, and from that point on citizenship should grant diminishing returns for all players in that Node and diminishing returns for the Node itself. This could be manifested with a "crowding" debuff or something of the sort where for every X players you have over that Node's soft cap, taxes increase by Y percent, and the Node's leadership must use that extra tax revenue to pay for a solution to the crowding debuff. If you've ever seen those pictures of overpopulated metropolitan US cities at the turn of the 19th century, you probably noticed that there is horse shit everywhere, all over the streets. I think that would be hilarious if the player's mounts started pooping while in an overcrowded metropolis, but the point is ultimately that solo players who aren't really loyal to the Node should be disincentivized from staying in that Node once it reaches a certain size. These measures would limit Zergs from consolidating power behind a single Node, but it doesn't yet address the problem of vassal states. If a Zerg builds a metropolis, they could threaten the rest of the continent's nodes to send them money and soldiers or get conquered. If those vassal states had to pay extra money to the Zerg metropolis, they would effectively have a higher tax rate or develop more slowly, which is why the first soft cap requirement is necessary to prevent their solo players from simply joining the Zerg metropolis.
5. Soft caps on population does something to address the monetary issue, but to solve the issue of zergs demanding more players to join the zerg in PVP, that's where hard caps on Sieges are essential. I know that Intrepid plans on 250v250 Sieges, which is already insane, and they're planning to go for 500v500. I implore the team to stick with 250v250 so that zergs can't simply overwhelm the defense with more players. If you can do 500v500, that's an awesome technical accomplishment and it should mean that 250v250 works well and is stable. By keeping the Siege numbers down, you prevent the Zerg from doing what Zergs do best, as their namesake suggests.
6. The Corruption system has an oversight regarding Zerg gankers. If a Zerg has already completely conquered the server, which they would be able to do without more restrictions as described above, they could essentially protect their Corrupted players simply by 1) grouping up with massive roving raid groups that are practically unstoppable, that's - why they're called a Zerg, after all - and 2) forbid anyone on the server from touching their Corrupted players lest those players get added to a kill list by the Zerg who goes after their Node next. Admittedly, I don't have a good solution for how to stop this. But a runaway Zerg might cause population crises even before they get to Sieging. Imagine if you couldn't leave your Node's gates without getting murdered 100 yards down the road by a Zerg Rogue waiting to gank every target he can. That will happen and he will get away with it if he can just slink back to his home turf and work it off knowing that his Zerg is protecting him from would-be bounty hunters (who would be mercilessly camped themselves if they stepped foot on the Zerg's Node).
7. Do not allow server transfers for any reason except that the server is dead and being merged. This is going to be a hard pill to swallow for many players, but if Intrepid caves and allows transfers (free or paid) people will flock to any server that doesn't have as much of a Zerg problem, thereby further exacerbating the problem for the players who remain. This is something that Kevin Jordan, former WoW dev for the golden early years of WoW, recommended in his reaction to Peon's video as well.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. These are the reasons why people call this the most ambitious MMO ever attempted, but I believe it can be done. It will require an immense amount of finesse and foresight from Intrepid into how players abuse so many interwoven systems, but it can be done!
TL;DR please don't let Gengis Khan conquer Ashes of Creation
Reddit crosspost link: https://www.reddit.com/r/AshesofCreation/comments/hyn6ig/zergs_will_destroy_the_game_if_left_unchecked/
One of the best parts of Ashes of Creation that drew me in while watching Peon's video was the notion that players are actually being encouraged to invest their time and effort into a pseudo-permanent community Node. This has great potential for replayability and looks like an encouraging way to keep max-level players from getting bored quickly.
However, the Node system could ultimately be the downfall of the game if Sieges are not well balanced (or if Node growth is left unchecked). Specifically, Intrepid will want to make Nodes proportionally easier to build than destroy. If it takes a long time and a lot of effort from some players to build a Node, it ought to take a ton of effort and resources to destroy that same Node. Otherwise, Zergs/mega guilds will take over most servers in time.
Here's what the start of the game will look like without restriction on Node growth and Sieging:
Initially, it is highly likely that players will first invest their time and effort into their individual characters rather than a Node. This makes the most sense as a solo player, but even players in guilds will most likely prefer to put their time into permanent power gains.
Once players start to approach the limits of what they can do on their own, we will see Node development begin in earnest, with the first Metropolis being constructed by either a hardcore guild or a Zerg. Often, they are one and the same. The next part will vary, but it will look something like this: a superpower Zerg Node will emerge and either conquer or feudally enslave the surrounding Nodes. It may start as a regional power, but if Sieges are too easy to accomplish, it will rapidly engulf the region, the continent, and ultimately the entire world. To the point that the Zerg starts playing whack-a-mole with new Nodes built by any would-be rivals.
To some of us, conquering the entire world sounds awesome, and it probably is if you are on the winning side. But if a Zerg proliferates, you will more than likely not be on the winning side. In fact, if there is room for 5 metropolises on the game's map, you will more than likely be part of the 80% that lose. This is the nature of open-world survival games like Rust and MMO/survival hybrids like the very recent (and already underpopulated) Last Oasis. I understand that one of the core tenets underlying the philosophy of the game is that of #1 "Risk vs. Reward" and #2 "Not everyone can be a winner." And I respect both of those tenets, but just because not everyone can be a winner, does not mean that there should only ever be one winner. After all, once a Zerg takes control, they won't have to take on much risk at all in order to reap rewards.
Here's how player attrition will accelerate once a Zerg takes control of an entire server:
First, imagine that you've been part of a node for the last month and you've finally progressed to Metropolis level. You spent a couple days each week doing Node-related farming so that your average-sized guild can unlock Metropolis and get into your Node's unique raid. The Zerg on the other continent takes notice, and while you and your guild were trying to progress your characters further, and spent roughly a month of playtime focused on PVE, the Zerg built up Siege weaponry and initiates a Siege against your Node. Pause for a second - none of this is a problem so far. As we've all heard, Ashes of Creation is fundamentally a PvX MMO where there are reasons for PVEers and PVPers to intermingle. The problem happens after the Zerg successfully outnumbers and conquers the PVE guild - repeatedly. Maybe during the conflict, words were exchanged and things get personal. Now, the PVE guild decides to settle with a smaller Node in a secluded area further away from their destroyed Node. As soon as the Zerg gets wind of it, they descend on the PVEers' new Node in its fledgling state and send them back to the stone age a second time. The PVE guild breaks up due to internal squabbles brought on by their repeated defeat and a handful of players quit the game entirely because they spent time and effort investing in both Nodes just to see everything get reduced... to Ashes...
This process repeats for every guild the Zerg hates or views as a threat, and with every repeat obliteration, players leave. Worse yet, players on the server who weren't destroyed yet see that every time a Node reaches Metropolis, the Zerg annihilates them with a pre-emptive strike. Now the rest of the server population don't even want to grow their Node lest all of their progress be wiped out. Cowering in fear is not an emotion that should ever be cultivated. Now that a single dominant Zerg has emerged, the rest of the server is disincentivized to cultivate their Nodes, or they feel compelled to join the Zerg either directly or as a vassal state, thereby perpetuating the vicious feedback loop. If you think this is bad, think of the Classic WoW servers that lost their entire Alliance population due to being outnumbered and ganked by the Horde. Now imagine the Horde could actually destroy Ironforge and force the Alliance to rebuild. Repeatedly. They would quit the game in droves, faster than they already have.
This process is inevitable unless game systems exist to actively curb the growth potential of a Zerg and also the potential effectiveness of a Zerg's Sieges.
Recommendations for Intrepid regarding Node development and mitigating Zergs
1. Ensure that individual player progression is so closely tied to Node progression that even while players are doing individual tasks, almost everything they do is contributing to their Node in some way. I am under the impression that this is already the case, to some degree, but I want to emphasize that it should apply to almost EVERYTHING. This way, players do not have to go too far out of their way to work toward a collective goal that is just going to be wiped out regardless by a Zerg.
2. Do not create significant, direct rewards for players that destroy Nodes. I know that some items players store in their apartment/storage will be trapped in the Node once a siege is declared and part of that loot will be accessible to the attackers if they are victorious. It's cool that you can plunder a Node and all, but I implore the team to make this a paltry sum in comparison to the amount required to prepare and execute a Siege. Initiating and succeeding with a Siege should ultimately yield a negative return on investment in the short term. Sieging should never be able to fund more Sieging.
3. Make it slow to build and expensive to maintain a war machine. By this, I mean that it should take an attacking Node a lot of effort and time to initiate a Siege in the first place, regardless of the size of the Node they are attacking. Here's one simple way to do this: whether or not you've succeeded or failed in a Siege, all of those materials invested in the Siege equipment should be lost afterward. You won't be able to initiate a siege on another Node for a long time simply because of how expensive it is to do so. This would be on top of the existing cooldown protecting a Node from being Sieged over and over again, but it would also protect neighboring Nodes from being Sieged immediately afterward. This should be done to prevent a warmongering guild/Node from destroying every Node on the server and keeping the rest of the server in the stone age. If you've ever played Rust or other survival games, you've seen how Zergs that grow large enough will inevitably wipe out their neighbors followed soon after by the entire map (some of you may have recently seen this play out in Last Oasis, a very new MMO/survival game that has already seen tremendous player attrition due to the unrestricted power of Zergs).
4. Following that last point, put a soft cap on Node populations. I don't think there's much of a point in hard capping Node population because it's impossible to stop Zergs from forming and swallowing up smaller guilds into their empire, even if they aren't strictly part of the same Node. But there is still value in a soft cap. It should be increasingly costly for a mega Node to accept a new citizen once they reach a certain size, and from that point on citizenship should grant diminishing returns for all players in that Node and diminishing returns for the Node itself. This could be manifested with a "crowding" debuff or something of the sort where for every X players you have over that Node's soft cap, taxes increase by Y percent, and the Node's leadership must use that extra tax revenue to pay for a solution to the crowding debuff. If you've ever seen those pictures of overpopulated metropolitan US cities at the turn of the 19th century, you probably noticed that there is horse shit everywhere, all over the streets. I think that would be hilarious if the player's mounts started pooping while in an overcrowded metropolis, but the point is ultimately that solo players who aren't really loyal to the Node should be disincentivized from staying in that Node once it reaches a certain size. These measures would limit Zergs from consolidating power behind a single Node, but it doesn't yet address the problem of vassal states. If a Zerg builds a metropolis, they could threaten the rest of the continent's nodes to send them money and soldiers or get conquered. If those vassal states had to pay extra money to the Zerg metropolis, they would effectively have a higher tax rate or develop more slowly, which is why the first soft cap requirement is necessary to prevent their solo players from simply joining the Zerg metropolis.
5. Soft caps on population does something to address the monetary issue, but to solve the issue of zergs demanding more players to join the zerg in PVP, that's where hard caps on Sieges are essential. I know that Intrepid plans on 250v250 Sieges, which is already insane, and they're planning to go for 500v500. I implore the team to stick with 250v250 so that zergs can't simply overwhelm the defense with more players. If you can do 500v500, that's an awesome technical accomplishment and it should mean that 250v250 works well and is stable. By keeping the Siege numbers down, you prevent the Zerg from doing what Zergs do best, as their namesake suggests.
6. The Corruption system has an oversight regarding Zerg gankers. If a Zerg has already completely conquered the server, which they would be able to do without more restrictions as described above, they could essentially protect their Corrupted players simply by 1) grouping up with massive roving raid groups that are practically unstoppable, that's - why they're called a Zerg, after all - and 2) forbid anyone on the server from touching their Corrupted players lest those players get added to a kill list by the Zerg who goes after their Node next. Admittedly, I don't have a good solution for how to stop this. But a runaway Zerg might cause population crises even before they get to Sieging. Imagine if you couldn't leave your Node's gates without getting murdered 100 yards down the road by a Zerg Rogue waiting to gank every target he can. That will happen and he will get away with it if he can just slink back to his home turf and work it off knowing that his Zerg is protecting him from would-be bounty hunters (who would be mercilessly camped themselves if they stepped foot on the Zerg's Node).
7. Do not allow server transfers for any reason except that the server is dead and being merged. This is going to be a hard pill to swallow for many players, but if Intrepid caves and allows transfers (free or paid) people will flock to any server that doesn't have as much of a Zerg problem, thereby further exacerbating the problem for the players who remain. This is something that Kevin Jordan, former WoW dev for the golden early years of WoW, recommended in his reaction to Peon's video as well.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. These are the reasons why people call this the most ambitious MMO ever attempted, but I believe it can be done. It will require an immense amount of finesse and foresight from Intrepid into how players abuse so many interwoven systems, but it can be done!
TL;DR please don't let Gengis Khan conquer Ashes of Creation
Reddit crosspost link: https://www.reddit.com/r/AshesofCreation/comments/hyn6ig/zergs_will_destroy_the_game_if_left_unchecked/
3
Comments
2. Whether a successful siege can fund another siege entirely depends on how popular the Node is and how much materials and wealth it had at the moment of declaring the siege. Outright punishing attackers for doing it in addition to the costs of a siege, is not a good idea.
3. This is already taken into account in the game design. Declaring a siege will require a lot of coordinated effort to acquire the necessary materials for a siege declaration and preparing for that siege - sieging engines will require crafters and materials to be built and used. For now we know that siege will cost equal or more compared to how much resources went into building up a node.
4. I am not sure why you think zergs can conquer anything purely because they are zergs. Battles have their limits and choosing rulers for nodes and castles have rules. It's not like they can just go in and take anything they want. Killing non-combatants will eventually make you so weak your character/group/raid/zerg will get wiped because they killed too many people. Assuming the entire server won't band together to get rid of these bad actors is very naive.
5. Servers will have about 10k concurrent players. I do think 500v500 is a bit of an overkill in general, not just because of zergs. Although, again.. if people know a zerg is sieging a node, they can help. If the community in the game is strong and doesn't want bad actors it will actively squash them out.
6. Since, i don't think you are correct in the first 5 assumtions, i don't think a zerg can completely conquer a server. It would have to be the size of the entire server to be able to maintain its nodes and content that comes out from that. If you think 500 people can rule over an entire server without 90% of the map and content just dying out and disappearing, you are wrong. Nodes don't just stay up, they need player activity to both level up and to keep them decaying and eventually deleveling. If a zerg somehow manages to chase out literally 10s of thousands of players from the server then eventually they will not have any content to do, the server will die and get closed down. However, i am confident that this won't happen.
7. That's already been talked about to be the case.
Zergs : https://urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zerg
Zergs are not necessarily organized groups of players. They are a mass of players, an unorganized mob. Even if a 'zerg' is organized and for example is a very big guild or even 3 guilds that are maxed out in terms of increasing guild size... They are not the only guild on the server. There are a ton of other big guilds with hundreds of members that like to play games properly and not ruin the fun for everyone.
I can assure you, normal guilds will not let a zerg in the form of guilds run rampart and ruin an entire server.
Remember, there is a feature that lets guilds declare war on each other, so i'd imagine a zerg won't have a lot of fun once 95% of the population on the server declares war on them.
They have also mentioned that being able to siege anyone is a very hard task in its self. Countless quest to get the opportunity to even attempted and then all the resources required to create siege weapons and any other tools. So there is a huge cost to attacking.
You have to consider motives, yes some just want to see suffering but keep in mind sieging is basically destroying raid/quest/better siege, content. So they are limiting there own progression.
These sieges are capped currently at 250 vs 250 possibly 500 vs 500. This being the case having a server of 10000+ with people pissed at the current top dogs you know everyone will be there to kick them as hard as they can defending or attacking. Keep in mind anyone can pretty much join. This zerg better have an elite group of 250+ and be able to not collapse of possibly years.
I think the main point of the system is to create memorable battle/events. The day that the siege against them was successful will be a wonderful and memorable day. I look forward to it.
You are giving to much credit to zergs. Having a group of 20+ rust players dominate a 150 player server is nothing like conquering 400^2 kilometer of 10000+ people.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Fast_travel#Zergs
My thoughts:
1. I'm actually ok with that.
2. I think that the more evolved nodes should yield more while not so developed nodes shouldn't give out too much, or at least disincentivize node sieges whose levels' disparity is too high. If you have a metropolis then go attack another, not a small village.
3. Fair. There must be some time gating and resource gating to mitigate successive destruction; this will make the game a horrible experience at any level.
4. That's hard to do and it wouldn't scale well in the long run IMO. What I think is that node wars could be somewhat controlled, some siege force could be allocated to not so impactful roles but still allow participation, kind of "you may go to a specific artillery that can't do much damage but still have an importance", sort of capping the strength but not the players themselves.
5. A simple way to mitigate this is to hardcap the difference in population by x%. For example, the difference in population can't be higher than 10%, therefore limiting the participants, after x players ofc (a baseline should exist).
6. I don't know but I think that's a natural consequence? And corrupted players should be hell weaker so killing them should be a piece of cake for specialized ranged classes such as rangers.
7. This wouldn't be accepted by at leat 80% of the players I think. At least a one transfer every 6 months should be in place.
I heard a bird ♫
get the flamer
Everyone underestimates Zergs at first when they think "oh, it's just 50 players, but the server has 10,000 players!" Except those 10,000 players aren't working together. That's why I included the part about people only caring about what their Node can do for them and not what they can do for their Node. Players may band together if the right people organize a resistance, but if they don't, and a Zerg wipes out even a handful of Nodes in its region, players may start to perceive the cause as hopeless. After the first loss, most players will probably move on and won't quit immediately. But there is a very high chance that players quit if they lose their Node twice in a row to the same Zerg. It happens all the time in survival games.
Isn't that technically a Zerg?
technically, yes. but its more zerg v zerg so it evens out
If you can't beat them, join them. Now you see the Zerg, now you don't see the Zerg lol
I used the Zerg to destroy the Zerg
Although I strongly disagree Intrepid should actively act against zergs destroying servers, this analogy was on point, holy shit.
Rust - ruined by zergs. Trying to solo or be in a small group only to come across 40 people who can spear into your base in under an hour while you're offline.
Last Oasis - Dead because of zergs. One guild....ONE caused 20000 people to stop playing this game. They just clogged servers and owned everything.
Warhammer online - Dead because of zergs causing a massive amount of server lag and lagging the servers out completely.
Gettings hundreds of people online to just trash the place is a real threat to many games. I know Intrepid is working on preventing all of these major issues from happening but if left unchecked, this would be cancer to deal with in a game like this.
Plenty of people enjoy it, and everything can be erased in a raid except character level. Not to mention you can get raided anytime of day or night. I didn't get into it as a hardcore player, but as a solo I built my base underwater and was a wild menace.
The metropolises seem naturally protected from raids. When they occur they are declarations giving people time to prepare. In a video I watched explaining the concept the raids battle have a max participation size. So if your a metropolis level guild community deserving of a metropolis, you'll have a metropolis level protection.
In Ark the raid cap is the number of people that fit into one server, with no team balance. You set up a raid on a server at 3am because you see it only has 30 players. You bring 170, and fill the server. Those 30 people are stuck defending by themselves, no warning.
I like the node system as it allows rival up starts and occupation. Say the Orcs build a village in the facility of the metropolis, but they also brought an army. It causes people to have to make choices. In IR there's Defense, Deterrence, and Dante's Diplomacy. I think this game is going to have a lot of unique political interactions, especially with the corrupted system.
That may be something to change to the corrupted system. Alliance based griefing and raiding servers. More Pvp oriented so corrupted don't get locked out their own cities for trying to set back rival settlements.
Like if an Orc army is building by your metropolis, you might want to go over there and kill some Orcs because you know it's coming your way.
There is no stopping the Orc army but at least you'd have fired the first shot.
Then again the way system works off default is also very nice at making things friendly for new players. As they wouldn't have an Orc raid party slaughtering everyone outside a village they are about to burn to the ground.
MMO's give us the opportunity to take out much bigger groups with teamwork, timing and AOE CC / damage, moreso then survival games do.
Left unchecked, zergs become Walmart. Walmart ruined the mom and pop. The only thing that could threaten it was the zerg Amazon.
If IS doesn’t balance zergs, Amazon will rule the world.
Virtue is the only good.
I have to say though. Amazon is the father creating New World and New World turned out to be complete doodoo. Maybe Amazon running the world isn't so bad in the MMO scene as long as IS can sneak in with the best MMO of the decade.
edit - i think you might have misread my post
Having no acces to the best dungeons due to guild zergs will make alot of people quit
0dbea148-8cb8-4711-ba90-eb0864e93b5f
In Ashes you will have multiple enemies and it will be different for every player. This means players naturally uniting towards a single goal will be highly unlikely. There will be zergs in Ashes but question is how long will they last. These would have to be player lead who you could rebel against, unlike in classic. The bigger your nation gets the harder it is to keep it from falling apart. It's the reason why our world never got taken over by a single nation.
From my understanding nodes will have a vulnerability window and siege population cap, so zerging is not likely. With a pop. cap the defenders can always match the attackers in numbers, and if they fail to do so, then they shouldn't expect to hold the settlement.
Additionally, guilds have pop. caps, which means there are no mega guilds. Alliances of course can be formed between guilds, but this isn't the same as a mega guild. Alliances tend to splinter overtime as personalities and goals clash.
We should also consider the value of nodes? Nodes need heavy time investment to level and keep protected from PVE/PVP forces. each node type will offer different resources, quests and potentially dungeons/raids. It is in a guild's best interest to make sure that multiple nodes are flourishing so they have access to all materials, and as much content as possible (both for worthwhile things to do, as well as for gear). If they are wiping out everything they can't control, they are strangulating themselves as much as others.
In a direct way a node on the otherside of the world is nothing but a boon for a competing guild because it provides different crafting material and content, while not adversely affecting their node's growth. They shouldn't have interest in destroying the node. They might try to take control over the node, but for most city types, leadership isn't something you can buy with numbers.