Greetings, glorious testers!

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.

To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

1,200 member Guild Alliances and Server Control

LeiloniLeiloni Member, Alpha Two
edited March 2021 in General Discussion
So as we know, you can have up to 300 people in one guild and they can create an alliance of 4 such guilds that have enough bonuses to effectively act as one single mega-guild.

So my question is - what's to prevent a 1,200 member mega-guild, or two, from completely taking over the server and ruining the game for the rest of us? No node competition because they can just take what they want so the rest of us are only left to control the scraps with nodes they don't want. No real ability to successfully siege a node or a castle because hey, they have 1200 people to defend it. No real ability to contest world/regional bosses, caravan trade routes, dungeons, anything.

Even if you don't want to contest those spots, but are more PvE oriented and merely want to go through a specific dungeon or kill a certain regional boss for their loot - if this guild decides it's theirs, they can camp it 24/7 with their tons of members and you'd never get a chance at the content.

If you're in one of those guilds - do you really expect to have any real competition? If you like PvP, you're not going to get it. You're just going to steamroll people which isn't fun for you or them.

Am I missing something key here or is this a massive game-killing flaw in the system?
«13456

Comments

  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    That's 1,200 players out of about 50,000 of possible players on a server. That's a minority so I don't think they will have as much power and control as you think they will.

    That being said, bigger alliances will always have power in MMORPGs (as they do in real life as well), but as long as there are incentives to not handhold too much and create some need for competition that the alliance can't share very well (i.e. node/castle control, resources etc.) and as long as the server population is significantly greater than the maximum possible alliance size the system should work just fine.
  • AntVictusAntVictus Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    As already stated, 1200 isn't shit when compared to everyone else on the server as a whole. Plus even if they were all on, that's still 8800 that would be doing things against them if they tried to be fucky. They might "control" something for an amount of time, but eventually people will get sick of it and smash them out of an area and in the worst case off the server entirely.
  • RhuellRhuell Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I've also read several comments by experienced guild leaders and members discussing internal conflict and how difficult it is to maintain guilds and alliances of that size.
  • Funeral directorFuneral director Member, Alpha Two
    Wow.....what a let down reading this. This game just fell off my radar. For the ZvZ type of players i'm sure this is great, but if you can't be a small scale clan and have bonus's etc, then those of us that prefer more small scale are going to be quite let down. Buzzkill....
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    @Funeral director There is a lot we don't know about the game yet... so I have no idea how you can be so disappointed already. The developers have stated that they do want to provide content and opportunities for smaller scale groups as well.

    That being said, the truth is that with any open world game, numbers will often result in an advantage. And honestly, why would they not? Numbers are power in games and in real life. It's almost impossible to stop that because there is no natural way to do it.

    I prefer small scale/solo content as well, but the reality is that open world games often favor big groups. It's just how things work naturally.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited March 2021
    Nothing is there to directly stop it.

    It's just unlikely to happen often as maintaining guilds that size is difficult. Even when it does happen, guilds that large usually don't stick around that long.

    While zerging content can make it safer, the more people you commit to something and the more time they spend doing it, the less profitable it is.

    From my experience, when a large alliance forms like this usually is when the game becomes the most fun. The alliance becomes an enemy you are motivated to beat which leads to a lot of resources being dumped into things like wars and sieges. If you are on the alliance's side, it can become a you against the world scenario as you start to find yourself being hit from all directions.
  • McShaveMcShave Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Intrepid has said that guilds who decide to go for larger size will lose power in other aspects. We don't know exactly how this going to be implemented tho, and I doubt it's gonna be actual combat power.

    Popular streamers are definitely going to have a huge advantage and will most likely be castle lords or metropolis mayors. But outside of this, I expect the politics of keeping 1200 players all on the same track to be quite difficult. If you can succeed, then you deserve it.
  • MakinojiMakinoji Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    They might be able to take over a small corner of the map but nothing on a grand scale. 1200 like everyone else has said is a blip compared to players on the server.
  • I am concerned about large guilds/alliances being able to have monopoly on whatever they want. Why not either lower the maximum member count, limit number of alliances or make any guild in control of a castle not able to form an alliance with another guild in control of a castle?
  • AsgerrAsgerr Member, Alpha Two
    edited March 2021
    I think the best way to showcase why this shouldn't be an issue, is to present it as a story, possibly a history lesson even.

    These alliances will rise and likely people will be in awe of them for "years". Their might and organisation paving the way for swaths of new content being completed, to the possible benefit of all those living within their sphere of influence.

    Their military might will likely aid newer or lower level people keep safe from random PKers in their areas.

    Artisans will thrive as there is an increased demand for all type of materials and resources and goods.

    Metropolis and castles will be controlled with a sense of stability.

    Then after "years" egos will begin clashing within the alliances. Guild X wants to develop deeper to the North. Guild Y wants to develop to the South.

    Why should the leader of Guild Z be the one in control of that castle, when it's Guild W that's been working the hardest in that area.

    Smaller alliances will being to form as they are displeased with the total control from this massive alliance. Bribes will begin spreading. Suddenly, all the caravan transports from Guild Y are being attacked and looted. And somehow Guild X is seeing a boom in their productivity and stocks.

    Skirmishes at the edges of their controlled area begin to increase. Players in their area demand better protection, but the alliance is too focused investigating inwards. Money has gone missing. Players are defecting and other materials keep being raided.

    One day the alliance officially breaks up and the guilds, once friends in a formidable legion, declare war on each other for the spoils of what ruins remain of their empire.

    And new guilds will fight and ally to fill the power vacuum and new stories will be written.



    This is usually how things go with these type of situations. Just look at any famous story from EVE Online,
    Sig-ult-2.png
  • YuyukoyayYuyukoyay Member
    edited March 2021
    Absolute Freedom is probably not the right approach, but no game really ever did anything to the scale this game is going to either. That's what the alpha and beta testing is for. The nature of the game might limit you a little bit with travel time and such assuming the teleporting won't be out of control. However, no matter the limitations it will never outweigh the benefits of just zerging stuff.

    It's kind of one of the biggest things they need to look into as it is something that can kill the game if it is too out of control. This game probably isn't going to be new player friendly to begin with, but if they don't look at this concern then eventually new players will just completely stop coming to the game.

    I have some confidence that the game won't devolve to that point, but some of the downsides are unavoidable. It's probably not something they want to leave up to the players on launch because every other game that did that devolved into a zerg invasion and the most 1 sided pvp imaginable.

    There might need to be a few more incentives to avoid the army meta.
    zZJyoEK.gif

    U.S. East
  • Funeral directorFuneral director Member, Alpha Two
    VmanGman wrote: »
    @Funeral director There is a lot we don't know about the game yet... so I have no idea how you can be so disappointed already. The developers have stated that they do want to provide content and opportunities for smaller scale groups as well.

    That being said, the truth is that with any open world game, numbers will often result in an advantage. And honestly, why would they not? Numbers are power in games and in real life. It's almost impossible to stop that because there is no natural way to do it.

    I prefer small scale/solo content as well, but the reality is that open world games often favor big groups. It's just how things work naturally.


    Numbers will always play a part, no doubt, but incentivizing it is the problem. That is literally pushing for the zerg. I don't complain too much when I get zerged down in an ow game, sometimes I get annoyed, but its the not knowing whats going to hit you that makes it so fun. Problem I have is rewarding zergs, that will destroy the small scale clan. I hope they are doing more, I'm not totally giving up on it, but..just lost a ton of excitement for sure.
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    @Funeral director How are they incentivizing it?
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Mega guilds/alliances will absolutely be a problem. How much so remains to be seen, and Ashes devs can do a lot to keep it under control, or not.

    I feel a little bad for the people that missed the dawn of mmo's. The first I played was Ultima Online. To date, one of the best games I've ever played. But a lot of that was because it was actually like entering into a new world. No one knew each other. Think about that...the ramifications of it. There were no mega guilds, or guilds period because online gaming itself was in it's infancy. Everything formed naturally in the world of Ultima Online.

    Friendships were formed organically. Guilds, alliances, enemies, all formed organically. At server/game launch, there were no mega guilds tee'd up and ready to plow through all content in the game, ready to run over any solo or small group in pvp that gets in their way.

    Solo and small group players could really make an impact in the world. It was the wild west. Because there were no mega guilds, or even just regular organized guilds, with built up synergies from gaming with each other over decades.

    It was truly a magical experience and I'm sorry for anyone that missed it. That magic lasted and steadily waned off over the next couple years. Guilds formed in games, then stayed intact and went to the next game. By the time Warhammer Online came around, I became aware of guilds like Ruin and Goons, with thousands of members, whose sole purpose was to coordinated zerg and overwhelm whatever unfortunate server they chose to roll on.

    Well the magic isn't coming back unfortunately, that ship has sailed. But it IS a beautiful thing to see gaming guilds that have been gaming together for decades. The friendships that have formed. Some of them even have real life meet and greets. And now there are guilds that have rivalries with others and follow each other to servers in the games they play to continue the rivalry. All good stuff.

    So it's the job of devs to create mechanics that ensure mega guilds don't run over everyone. Real, preventative mechanics, not things that players can just side skirt, manipulate and exploit. I think Ashes is doing that. God I hope so.
  • edited March 2021
    Giga Alliances/Zergs have a terrible enemy that always destroys them, good old E-Drama.
    May it be greed, envy or pride, internal conflict will always rekt them, the bigger the group the faster it happens. Zergs are born and killed reasonably frequently, specialy in a game without factions, in which you don't have a permanent common enemy. I can bet the servers will fluctuate between 2-10 sides because of the number of Castles.
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    @Funeral director
    When leveling up your guild, you are given a choice between passive boosts for your guild members or guild size increases.

    This means that each player in a smaller guild will be stronger than an equally geared player in a larger guild.

    This is done to assist smaller guilds in still being g relevant on the server as a whole.
  • GreenGreen Member, Alpha Two
    As much as I think these big guilds wont be able to properly structure and actually be able to mobilize 1200 players at a time, the ability of extremely high number guilds to forcefully run an area is scary. I don't think intrepid should incentivize mediocrity and allow players who don't put in as much work as the next player to do as well. That being said, if a 1200 player guild wanted to, nothing stops them from sending 100 players to stop anyone from going into the local dungeon (other than corruption but well have to see how that is tuned). This isn't rewarding the better player or the better geared player, it rewards the bigger group. Maybe a guild swallows the pill of corruption and decide to camp the outside of a raid for the first few days its active killing anyone who comes. Then they spend the next few days doing whatever they want with their superior numbers and gear. At the moment as far as I'm aware nothing stops people from doing this. For reasons I don't have to state, things like this are unhealthy for the game. Maybe this won't happen or it will be manageable but it definitely needs to be looked at as a potential issue.
  • LeiloniLeiloni Member, Alpha Two
    edited March 2021
    Green wrote: »
    As much as I think these big guilds wont be able to properly structure and actually be able to mobilize 1200 players at a time, the ability of extremely high number guilds to forcefully run an area is scary. I don't think intrepid should incentivize mediocrity and allow players who don't put in as much work as the next player to do as well. That being said, if a 1200 player guild wanted to, nothing stops them from sending 100 players to stop anyone from going into the local dungeon (other than corruption but well have to see how that is tuned). This isn't rewarding the better player or the better geared player, it rewards the bigger group. Maybe a guild swallows the pill of corruption and decide to camp the outside of a raid for the first few days its active killing anyone who comes. Then they spend the next few days doing whatever they want with their superior numbers and gear. At the moment as far as I'm aware nothing stops people from doing this. For reasons I don't have to state, things like this are unhealthy for the game. Maybe this won't happen or it will be manageable but it definitely needs to be looked at as a potential issue.

    This is what people are missing. You don't need all 1200 to make a difference. When the average small guild is 30-50 people, and at any one time they may only be running around with a fraction of that, it's super easy for a 1200 person guild to pull a tiny fraction of their members to lock down a world boss or dungeon. It doesn't take much at all to over come a small guild that on their absolute best day, can't field more than 4% of your numbers.

    It's super easy to say oh the mega guild will play elsewhere and the game offers small guilds things to do. But the reality is if there's 1200 people all united, they have the power to do whatever they want and there's no way the thousands of other players on the server are going to get together to fight them back. Have you seen it on other games? I haven't. What I have seen is these mega guilds survive year after year regardless of low level member turnover - there's always people to replace them and several of them exist in all major games.
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Leiloni wrote: »
    Green wrote: »
    As much as I think these big guilds wont be able to properly structure and actually be able to mobilize 1200 players at a time, the ability of extremely high number guilds to forcefully run an area is scary. I don't think intrepid should incentivize mediocrity and allow players who don't put in as much work as the next player to do as well. That being said, if a 1200 player guild wanted to, nothing stops them from sending 100 players to stop anyone from going into the local dungeon (other than corruption but well have to see how that is tuned). This isn't rewarding the better player or the better geared player, it rewards the bigger group. Maybe a guild swallows the pill of corruption and decide to camp the outside of a raid for the first few days its active killing anyone who comes. Then they spend the next few days doing whatever they want with their superior numbers and gear. At the moment as far as I'm aware nothing stops people from doing this. For reasons I don't have to state, things like this are unhealthy for the game. Maybe this won't happen or it will be manageable but it definitely needs to be looked at as a potential issue.

    This is what people are missing. You don't need all 1200 to make a difference. When the average small guild is 30-50 people, and at any one time they may only be running around with a fraction of that, it's super easy for a 1200 person guild to pull a tiny fraction of their members to lock down a world boss or dungeon. It doesn't take much at all to over come a small guild that on their absolute best day, can't field more than 4% of your numbers.

    No we get that. But like it has been said, 1,200 is still a small portion of the overall server population. The other guilds can come together and do something about it... it’s a MMORPG after all.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    That kinda stuff is gonna happen Leiloni. It sucks but there are ways to deal with it. Organize a coalition of guilds to fight back against it. Easier said than done I know. But there's other things too. Here's exactly what I would do. I know there's a large concentration of enemy players camping this dungeon or world boss. So I know there will be enemy players leaving that area and going to that area at all times. I'd solo/duo/trio camp the route they're taking. Pvp for days. Pick them off mercilessly. Pvp problems, pvp solutions. Player agency, I think that's what Intrepid is going for.

    When I'm tired of that, I'd just go farm somewhere else, some other dungeon or boss. But that is dependent on there being other worthwhile things to farm. And so I'm hoping in Intrepid's design decisions, they've realized and factored in that there's going to be gigantic mega nerd guilds, and they need many many multiples of points of interest on the map so they can't all be camped at once.

    What I'm more worried about with the mega guilds is what Dynasty did in Atlas. Dynasty was a guild that was like the blob, spreading around the map, conquering and absorbing guilds. You had no chance winning against the zerg so if you were lucky they allowed you to live as an ally. If not, you were just destroyed. It wasn't even a fight.

    Ashes has the 250vs250 node siege mechanic, so that will always be a pretty fair fight. The siege itself. But can a giant zerg guild that abuses the alliance system (you can only have 4 official alliances, but infinite unofficial alliances), can they effectively choke out other nodes in all other ways than the siege (caravans, random pvp, stopping resource gathering), to the point where when the siege happens, the other side is so weakened, demoralized and frustrated with the game that they stand little chance even in the 250vs250 even fight.
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    @Okeydoke The node sieges don’t currently have a 250vs250 limit. Only the guild castle sieges have that limit.

    Of course that all of that is subject to change, but I’m just pointing out that node sieges are not currently capped.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    @VmanGman Damn I didn't know that. Then the OP's point is even more important. Because that would make it just a may the biggest zerg win type of game. But I'd have to bet that that's going to change. There's just no way Intrepid could think that that would be a good idea.
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    @Okeydoke Node sieges (metropolis sieges especially) are supposed to be huge server events. No single guild or alliance will be able to overwhelm that battle.

    I have no idea how they will make it work with such big numbers, but we’ll have to wait and see what they’re cooking.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Yeah I understand there's kind of a blurring of the lines between node citizens, guilds, alliances and just random people when it comes to node wars. No single guild is going to be responsible for defending or attacking a node. I knew it would be multiple guilds, multiple alliances involved, on both sides.

    But so yeah then, at present node wars are sounding like a more freewheeling system of whatever happens happens. And you just better hope you build your freehold in a node that is the zerger instead of the zergee. I dunno, we'll see, hope they have a vision and it's a fun system.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    @Funeral director
    When leveling up your guild, you are given a choice between passive boosts for your guild members or guild size increases.

    This means that each player in a smaller guild will be stronger than an equally geared player in a larger guild.

    This is done to assist smaller guilds in still being g relevant on the server as a whole.

    Yup, just remember that smaller guilds will be more powerful. Numbers are great, but extra power or abilities might just be enough to win the fight!
  • Interesting to note that there has been some notation of similarity between NW and AoC. NW's biggest problem right now is that there is still no answer in sight on how to balance sides. Many things have been tried and nothing has even come close to working.

    An important thing to note is that you can't put a cap on anything at all. A guild can form as many smaller groups as they want and even pretend to not be associated with one another. In fact, this is exactly what is going to happen without question.

    Aside from the simple raw numbers attributing one guild or another, lets look at at it from another real world example of how I have watched an organization of people steam role entire servers. lets look at resources. A common tactic is for the massive group to simply role through the server and collect all the rare resources needed for upkeep.

    Contrary to popular belief, people are going to pay for multiple accounts. We know there will be no regulation around number of accounts in AoC at all. This also means that community accounts can be used. These alternate accounts can then be used to camp the most important areas. Worth noting, looking at you AoC, that if the nodes or creatures are set on a simple timer then these alternates will also know exactly when to log in and reap the benefits of paying for multiple/community accounts.

    Now, you could make spawns very frequent and/or character specific as other games have. But, this destroys many aspects of the game. For reference, look at how repetitive and silly gathering is in ESO.

    These mega guilds will first and foremost be looking to coordinate with each other and join separate servers. The most important thing for them is to insure they are dominant. Those castle sieges sound amazing and all but trust me it's not so amazing when you have thousands of players in your guild you are trying to keep happy and a loss could mean 6 more months to regain your loss.

    I've heard about 50,000 person servers and that being the answer to mega guilds. It in no way shape or form addresses the issue at all. First and foremost I don't believe for a second there will be anywhere near 50,000 concurrent players. For perspective, comparable games shoot for around 5,000 players at the absolute max. For a game on release day 1-2000 concurrent players would be a very ambitious but probably feasible goal. So, I hope this puts into perspective what kind of impact a group of 1200 of the most dedicated players and all of there alts can possibly have when this game releases.

    Alternate accounts are never a good idea for the health of a mmo from your average players perspective. I'm sure the increased revenue is very tempting but it is playing with fire in my experience. Magnified during the early release days when games are trying to make a footprint or name for themselves. However, that in and of itself isn't going to fix the issue. That I know of there really isn't any easy fix here. Once a permanent alpha/beta server is up you can start to get an idea of how this is going to unfold. Even then, if they are smart they won't play their cards until release. Because once the go button is pushed you can't really take it back.

    I'm all for Ashes of Creation. As a whole I agree with the direction Steven has steered the game to what we are looking at now almost entirely. But, this topic is sort of the elephant in the room. No one ever really succeeds on this and AoC is going to become mighty boring if mega guilds move in and take over servers with sheer numbers and excessive money thrown at alternate accounts.
  • ... Should we have a megaguild megathread?

    Given the sheer size the Ashes world, and the traveling distance between nodes, and that high level contents will eventually be near highest level nodes, and those highest level nodes cannot cluster together by design, I'm not worried about one or two megaguilds taking over the whole server.

    It might be possible for multiple "mega"guilds to each carve up a portion of a server though
  • MaezrielMaezriel Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I can see that a lot of y'all haven't played Eve

    There can, and very likely will be, some mega alliances. In-game restrictions can't stop people from running multiple orgs through a single Discord and there is very little downside to gathering a large number of players.

    That said it doesn't mean they'll inherently dominate an entire server. Verra is supposed to be massive which means travel will be a huge deterrent to those large groups trying to do anything outside of their territory.

    On top of that, the lack of any kind of server transfer means high level players will need to rely on their in-game reputation. If you and your guild make it known that you're just a bunch of trolls people will rally just to ruin your day...it's a tale as old as old as gaming.
    ZeFuP1X.png
    If I said something that you disagree w/ feel free to say so here.
  • LeiloniLeiloni Member, Alpha Two
    edited March 2021
    Maezriel wrote: »
    there is very little downside to gathering a large number of players.

    Then maybe there needs to be.

  • bloodprophetbloodprophet Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Why limit player agency?
    How can a company control what you do outside their game? If your not breaking TOS through using programs to alter the intended use of their product then it is none of their business. What is the cost of maintaining a group to monitor everyones use of discord , TS3 or any of the others out there?
    Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Sign In or Register to comment.