Warth wrote: » I don't see any reason why Intrepid would have to interfere here. If a mega-zerg with 25k players wants to start on one server and play house, then let them. Let them have their server, pay for it with their subs and let others that aren't interested in this join another server. Matter of fact is, these mega zergs are far and few inbetween. Joining a server where they are not is a very simple thing.
Nagash wrote: » If a guild can do that then I give my hot to them
Prieston wrote: » Warth wrote: » I don't see any reason why Intrepid would have to interfere here. If a mega-zerg with 25k players wants to start on one server and play house, then let them. Let them have their server, pay for it with their subs and let others that aren't interested in this join another server. Matter of fact is, these mega zergs are far and few inbetween. Joining a server where they are not is a very simple thing. My worry is when they become the norm. and less about exact numbers as much as how the amount of players affects the design of the game. and if they are thinking about such things when they make their zones
Prieston wrote: » Nagash wrote: » If a guild can do that then I give my hot to them its cool when its a guild, less so when its a virtual mafia lol I would typically agree though my main concern is about the gameplay impact large numbers of players might have, and if servers should be capped for design's sake rather than just a technical limiattion
Warth wrote: » Prieston wrote: » Warth wrote: » I don't see any reason why Intrepid would have to interfere here. If a mega-zerg with 25k players wants to start on one server and play house, then let them. Let them have their server, pay for it with their subs and let others that aren't interested in this join another server. Matter of fact is, these mega zergs are far and few inbetween. Joining a server where they are not is a very simple thing. My worry is when they become the norm. and less about exact numbers as much as how the amount of players affects the design of the game. and if they are thinking about such things when they make their zones they haven't become the norm in the last 25 years of online gaming and they won't become the norm now
Nagash wrote: » Prieston wrote: » Nagash wrote: » If a guild can do that then I give my hot to them its cool when its a guild, less so when its a virtual mafia lol I would typically agree though my main concern is about the gameplay impact large numbers of players might have, and if servers should be capped for design's sake rather than just a technical limiattion I can see them running part of the map but not the whole area, plus with the way the game works people will have many chances to fight back effectively
Wulfenthrad wrote: » I don't think any system can really curb a guild of that size. I mean, at a certain point the "mega-guild" would be a substantial portion of the server's population. Though, from my understanding sieges will be 250 vs. 250, so as long as you can get to that cap you should be fine. Also, from my understanding, guild will have a member cap to keep them from getting too big. But, that doesn't stop them from simply making parallel guilds that work in tandem. But, at the end of the day, keeping a guild that size in check would be quite the undertaking. Managing, much less coordinating, that many players would be incredibly difficult. Then throw in the fact that if they were to hold several castles for instance, and they'd have practically the entire server against them. From that, an entirely new dynamic forms between the massive mega-guild empire and the several large guilds that put constant pressure on it. Now that sounds like an interesting server. Ultimately, the best way to take on a mega-guild is to form a coalition with your fellow guilds to even the teams. As the game prides itself on being player driven, it is up to the players to decide how they shape it.
Prieston wrote: » My basic concerns: 1. Players being able to trivialize content via zerging 2. there simply not being enough world to go around if server populations are too high
Nagash wrote: » Prieston wrote: » My basic concerns: 1. Players being able to trivialize content via zerging 2. there simply not being enough world to go around if server populations are too high With the lack of fast travel and guilds sizes being linked to bonuses Zerging should have less of an impact on ashes than other games, as for the size of the world I don't think will be a problem with how the nodes work and how content works around them. I could be wrong, but from what the devs have said, they want to prevent mass zergs. Yet like everything we will have to wait and see.
Prieston wrote: » Nagash wrote: » Prieston wrote: » My basic concerns: 1. Players being able to trivialize content via zerging 2. there simply not being enough world to go around if server populations are too high With the lack of fast travel and guilds sizes being linked to bonuses Zerging should have less of an impact on ashes than other games, as for the size of the world I don't think will be a problem with how the nodes work and how content works around them. I could be wrong, but from what the devs have said, they want to prevent mass zergs. Yet like everything we will have to wait and see. I hope you're right. guess I've just seen it fail before so I'm worried lol
Noaani wrote: » Prieston wrote: » Nagash wrote: » Prieston wrote: » My basic concerns: 1. Players being able to trivialize content via zerging 2. there simply not being enough world to go around if server populations are too high With the lack of fast travel and guilds sizes being linked to bonuses Zerging should have less of an impact on ashes than other games, as for the size of the world I don't think will be a problem with how the nodes work and how content works around them. I could be wrong, but from what the devs have said, they want to prevent mass zergs. Yet like everything we will have to wait and see. I hope you're right. guess I've just seen it fail before so I'm worried lol You cant really look at WoW and then claim to have seen a competent game developer that has put actual effort in to making a good game has failed in a specific aspect of that. Blizzard have not been competent or interested in making a good game for almost 15 years now. So, what is it exactly that you have seen fail?
Prieston wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Prieston wrote: » Nagash wrote: » Prieston wrote: » My basic concerns: 1. Players being able to trivialize content via zerging 2. there simply not being enough world to go around if server populations are too high With the lack of fast travel and guilds sizes being linked to bonuses Zerging should have less of an impact on ashes than other games, as for the size of the world I don't think will be a problem with how the nodes work and how content works around them. I could be wrong, but from what the devs have said, they want to prevent mass zergs. Yet like everything we will have to wait and see. I hope you're right. guess I've just seen it fail before so I'm worried lol You cant really look at WoW and then claim to have seen a competent game developer that has put actual effort in to making a good game has failed in a specific aspect of that. Blizzard have not been competent or interested in making a good game for almost 15 years now. So, what is it exactly that you have seen fail? I used them as an example of failure, concern was never with competence but sure jab at blizz they deserve it at this point i guess lol
Noaani wrote: » Prieston wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Prieston wrote: » Nagash wrote: » Prieston wrote: » My basic concerns: 1. Players being able to trivialize content via zerging 2. there simply not being enough world to go around if server populations are too high With the lack of fast travel and guilds sizes being linked to bonuses Zerging should have less of an impact on ashes than other games, as for the size of the world I don't think will be a problem with how the nodes work and how content works around them. I could be wrong, but from what the devs have said, they want to prevent mass zergs. Yet like everything we will have to wait and see. I hope you're right. guess I've just seen it fail before so I'm worried lol You cant really look at WoW and then claim to have seen a competent game developer that has put actual effort in to making a good game has failed in a specific aspect of that. Blizzard have not been competent or interested in making a good game for almost 15 years now. So, what is it exactly that you have seen fail? I used them as an example of failure, concern was never with competence but sure jab at blizz they deserve it at this point i guess lol You missed the point. You said you have seen it fail before. I am asking you where you have seen a developer making actual efforts on several fronts and failed. Intrepid are making it so larger guilds miss out on passive buffs that smaller guilds have, having nodes that players chose to live in rather than factions that require them to live there, giving players an exponentially increasing reason to war with other nodes rather than ally with them, having 5 major nodes per server rather than the usual two factions which makes it significantly harder for one alliance to dominate a server, allow players and guilds to move to a different node if they don't like how theirs is functioning, almost completely limiting fast travel meaning the simple logistics of moving large nu.bers of people around the game world make zerging an actual logistical nightmare. Basically, Intrepid have put a whole lot of thought in to it, and you say you have seen that fail. So again, I am asking where you have seen that level of thought on the matter of zerging fail. What games have you played have even put half that much effort in to it?
