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?
i think he was talking about the downsides to gathering a large number of players, not the ability to use discord lol
Also, there is quite a major cost to maintaining a large group of players.
Killing a world boss with 40 people nets you significantly more per playtime spent than having to bring 250 people to a single world boss kill as the amount of reward doesn't scale with the amount of players you bring.
Making 250 log in, travel there and protect their world boss kill is stupid at best. Neither will anybody participate for long, if it means sharing the loot designed for 40 people with 249 others. At this point, you might as well just grind some mobs or gather some ore because the money equivalent you get from that will be significantly higher than sitting around a world boss.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Even then the only limitations on player gathering is how many people can be in an area before the server can't keep up and fps drop to 0.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
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?
@Biccus The problem with guilds controlling areas of the map is that mobility will be an issue. The big alliance can control a section of the map, but only that section. Being able to move to an area away from their influence is an option.
Why would this pose any kind of a problem? If someone/a group of people can organize something this big, why shouldn't they be able to be this big?
With 103 nodes, there won't be monopolies on entire servers. Some servers will - without a doubt - have some server-giant guilds. However, the bigger the guild, the more fractures it will be destined to have. It's more or less a part of that server's character.
I think I know what the OP's base concern is, and really, it comes down to this: Even if it *were* possible for a single player-organization to control and monopolize an entire server (again, that's 103 nodes), how boring would it be, to only have one collection of guilds doing things? Wouldn't sieges have to be entirely staged?
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?
You bring up a good point. Even if there is no official support of massive guilds. Nothing is ever going to stop massive amounts of people from working together if they choose to.
No point in trying to fight player agency on this one.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Was thinking after posting earlier during lunch. If a mega cross game guild like Goon Squad or one of the others decides to bring 5000 players into the game and make 100 50 person guilds how would any company combat that as long as they aren't breaking rules.
I think in this situation you make the best of it or jump servers. I see no reason any company would send 5000 subs away (which would lead to more) just because players got together and through shear force of numbers altered the natural flow of a server.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Why would this pose any kind of a problem? If someone/a group of people can organize something this big, why shouldn't they be able to be this big?
With 103 nodes, there won't be monopolies on entire servers. Some servers will - without a doubt - have some server-giant guilds. However, the bigger the guild, the more fractures it will be destined to have. It's more or less a part of that server's character.
I think I know what the OP's base concern is, and really, it comes down to this: Even if it *were* possible for a single player-organization to control and monopolize an entire server (again, that's 103 nodes), how boring would it be, to only have one collection of guilds doing things? Wouldn't sieges have to be entirely staged?
That works out to less than 5km/sq per node. tiny. Now factor in concurrent players.what does it matter if you have 103 nodes, a 50k population and maybe 3k concurrent players if you have thousands of people from a mega guild each with a alt account hammering the login servers?
Some streamer shows up with 20k followers to decimate your server for the luls. Is this reasonable gameplay that should be accommodated?
It's a very complicated subject and i don't have the answers. But, I am taking part in most of the similar mmos in alpha or nearing in/beta and this is the problem plaguing all of them. If you simply let the biggest group take over the game is going to die. I am watching this exact issue unfold in other games. There needs to be a path for the little guy to rise to the top. If that isn't feasible the little guy is going to stop trying and move on. Game is then DOA.
Very interested to see how Steven deals with this through to release. Jeff too, seems like a humble brilliant mind to me. I don't think anarchy is the answer here. it might be successful short term but after everything is secured it's basically dead. Looking at a wipe every few months.
Why would this pose any kind of a problem? If someone/a group of people can organize something this big, why shouldn't they be able to be this big?
With 103 nodes, there won't be monopolies on entire servers. Some servers will - without a doubt - have some server-giant guilds. However, the bigger the guild, the more fractures it will be destined to have. It's more or less a part of that server's character.
I think I know what the OP's base concern is, and really, it comes down to this: Even if it *were* possible for a single player-organization to control and monopolize an entire server (again, that's 103 nodes), how boring would it be, to only have one collection of guilds doing things? Wouldn't sieges have to be entirely staged?
That works out to less than 5km/sq per node. tiny. Now factor in concurrent players.what does it matter if you have 103 nodes, a 50k population and maybe 3k concurrent players if you have thousands of people from a mega guild each with a alt account hammering the login servers?
Some streamer shows up with 20k followers to decimate your server for the luls. Is this reasonable gameplay that should be accommodated?
It's a very complicated subject and i don't have the answers. But, I am taking part in most of the similar mmos in alpha or nearing in/beta and this is the problem plaguing all of them. If you simply let the biggest group take over the game is going to die. I am watching this exact issue unfold in other games. There needs to be a path for the little guy to rise to the top. If that isn't feasible the little guy is going to stop trying and move on. Game is then DOA.
Very interested to see how Steven deals with this through to release. Jeff too, seems like a humble brilliant mind to me. I don't think anarchy is the answer here. it might be successful short term but after everything is secured it's basically dead. Looking at a wipe every few months.
Just don't start on a streamer server. It's literally that simple.
You'll know where every single noteable streamer in your region start. Signing up on the same server is on you, not them.
If you simply let the biggest group take over the game is going to die. I am watching this exact issue unfold in other games. There needs to be a path for the little guy to rise to the top. If that isn't feasible the little guy is going to stop trying and move on. Game is then DOA.
This exactly!
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
...It's a very complicated subject and i don't have the answers. But, I am taking part in most of the similar mmos in alpha or nearing in/beta and this is the problem plaguing all of them. If you simply let the biggest group take over the game is going to die. I am watching this exact issue unfold in other games. There needs to be a path for the little guy to rise to the top. If that isn't feasible the little guy is going to stop trying and move on. Game is then DOA.
Very interested to see how Steven deals with this through to release. Jeff too, seems like a humble brilliant mind to me. I don't think anarchy is the answer here. it might be successful short term but after everything is secured it's basically dead. Looking at a wipe every few months.
It takes months to secure an area by building a metropolis which locks out an unknown amount of other content. Destroying that metropolis is required to open the additional content. If the winning zerg starts quitting due to stagnation, then their metropolis may become vulnerable to being destroyed and the world changes rather than needing a wipe. On the other hand, if the winning zerg starts destroying another metropolis to build a new metropolis and increasing their zone of control, then another period of months are required to build the new metropolis and lock down the area. This happens for 5 metropolis's. If at any point, the large zerg becomes to spread out compared the competitors, one or more of the metropolis's may become vulnerable and result in a reset of the metropolis area.
As far as a streamer showing up with 20k followers goes, they can try it with all characters at level 1. If they show up at an empty server to take over, they might be able too. The current plan is that that AoE's hit all players in the effect area. There is no target cap. Because of this, I am not sure if thousands of level 1s would dominate even a few high level characters.
Otherwise, if they want to take over their going to have to put in the work of leveling. Which is slow compared to most MMO's. Also, the servers can only hold 10k concurrently. If they want to show up and take over an area long term on a highly populated server, most of them are gonna have long queue times.
I agree that there is very little stopping a large enough group from taking over provided that organization is done outside the game as the in game systems are not optimized for it. However, the gameplay is not setup to make a fun experience for such groups over the long term. I feel like such groups will probably break down over time; and, the server will not only rebalance, but often the content of the server will reform as power shifts.
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That works out to less than 5km/sq per node. tiny. Now factor in concurrent players.what does it matter if you have 103 nodes, a 50k population and maybe 3k concurrent players if you have thousands of people from a mega guild each with a alt account hammering the login servers?
This is an interesting point. Players won't spread out evenly across nodes. Not just because of chance, but because of how the nodes are designed. The level of content in a given area is based on the local node. Low level nodes = low level content, metropolis nodes = max level content. Therefore, max level characters will be concentrated into the metropolis and stage 5 nodes.
Also, the available rewards for content is very limited. A maximum of 40 man groups can gain rewards from any given PvE fights and all the max level characters are concentrated into relatively small areas of the map for the rewards. This is intended to be a warzone.
Personally, given my arguments in this post and the one above, I would actually love to see what would happen if a streamer had thousands of players attack such a developed server. I would bet that such an attack would only be effective in low level areas; and, considering that even a village requires a 2 day siege declaration, such streams will probably have little impact on the server as I doubt these streamers are there for the long haul.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 2021
If somehow a 5,000 person alliance forms, then I hope the dev`s allow 10,000 monster coins to be used concurrently to spawn 10,000 individual rabid player controlled rabbit zergs to decimate their world to bring balance to the world
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@furnybladeborne if I read your post correctly, I think time plays an important part here. and those that do decide to follow some charismatic leader to wreak havoc for fun may soon lose that fun when to bring fruition to their intention requires 100s of hrs of team work.
A couple points i want to make. Mega guilds may have incredible size but many many many players prefer small guilds. In fact many hardcore players joina middle sized guild that allows them to achieve the pinnacle of gameplay without joining said mega guild. Furthermore a mega guild will have high turnover of its bottom half. Even if a guild manages to expand its influence to multiple nodes it won't be able to take castles any easier than anyone else and since the monarch (castle leader) decides what happens to the surrounding area of the castle zerg guilds are going to struggle to acquire and keep castles. Also everyone knows that 10 noobs is often detrimental to a battle instead of 1 veteran. Think about what 10 veterans would do vs 1 veteran and 49 noobs. No question the 10 vets will have a chance to achieve their goal. Now all of this said the biggest problem is the average player standing no chance against the mega guild, however theres a possibility that the community outside the mega guild is large enough and the opportunity common enough that the server community looks to fight that guild whnever possible making that guild less impactful.
If somehow a 5,000 person alliance forms, then I hope the dev`s allow 10,000 monster coins to be used concurrently to spawn 10,000 individual rabid player controlled rabbit zergs to decimate their world to bring balance to the world
I hope they don't do this.
Monster coins will cost money to buy. If that becomes a necessary means to an end, that is essentially required pay to win - or in this case pay to make your server playable.
I do assume this was completely tongue in cheek though.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The biggest problem is the average player standing no chance against the mega guild, however there's a possibility that the community outside the mega guild is large enough and the opportunity common enough that the server community looks to fight that guild whenever possible making that guild less impactful.
I don't understand why the average player would stand no chance against the mega-guild.
I don't understand why there is an assumption that the people in the mega guild are the Ashes veterans.
Steven is already against zergs, so expect Ashes to have measures in place to prevent zergs.
And small guilds are supposed to have perks that help make them competitive with large guilds - especially when the small guilds form alliances, so...
The devs are already designing with these concerns in mind.
We just have to see how well those concepts are implemented - similar to Corruption.
I agree with @Dygz about ashes having measures to prevent successful zergs.
We know there will be (almost) no fast travel, so it will not be easy to gather large groups of players, particularly for chance encounters. If 8 members of Small guild run into 8 members of Large guild, Large guild will not be able to port in a dozen more to swamp them.
More importantly, to have a Large guild, they will have to choose 'size expansion' over other possible guild skills. Small guild will be choosing other skills, often PvP related, making the members of Small guild individually more powerful than the members of Large guild. Small should win most 1 v 1, all else held equal.
If Small and Large were at war, many of the fights would be parties running into each other, perhaps parties of eight. Who would tend to win? Small guild would, since they choose PvP skills over having a larger guild. Perhaps a group of five Small could routinely kill a group of eight Large, all else held equal. So, in many of the guild war conflicts, Small would win.
But what about the big battles, sieges for nodes and castles? These fights are where Large guild is betting that their larger numbers of 'weaker' players would win, since everyone from both guilds is at the same place at the same time, hence more Large players. Right? Personally, I am not convinced that even here numbers will be the determinative factor. Think back on similar battles you have been in and what do you remember?
Fights at choke points (gates, doors, castle rooms, etc.) and other crowded areas. Fights that come down to 20 vs 20, or maybe 25 vs 35? Again, the individually stronger members of Small guild will have a fighting chance against the more numerous but individually weaker members of Large guild.
In Summary: I think that the community may tend to use experiences with zergs in other games to assume that zergs can dominate in AoC. I think that is it possible that AoC's innovative design will make well designed Small guilds competitive with Large guilds, given even leadership ability.
That works out to less than 5km/sq per node. tiny. Now factor in concurrent players.what does it matter if you have 103 nodes, a 50k population and maybe 3k concurrent players if you have thousands of people from a mega guild each with a alt account hammering the login servers?
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.
Each server is going to have about 8000 to 10000 players so yes 1200 is still a minority but still an advantage considering how big the world is.... Controlling smaller guilds is only sustainable if the big guild in control is Overpowered and unfortunately for those interested that's not the case.... Because the playing field is leveled to an extent keeping control over smaller groups is not an easy feat and psychologically actually makes the whole group weaker than other guilds and alliances.
Here comes it's biggest enemy, individual wants or desires.. The world has a lot to do and a lot to discover and over time there would be internal conflicts that could erupt and many more similar issues for mega guilds.... Plus the only thing à mega guild gains from taking over a server is the fact that they did... Nothing else, therefore even if a mega guild manages to take over a server (which is near impossible) it would be exceptionally harder for them to maintain it unless you have 80% of the whole server working together, let's keep in mind that not all 8000 to 10000 people in a server know each other before joining the server.
😩I really don't like having to type long explanations, so I won't explain everything check the AOC wiki to better understand some of these things, just know a méga guild is not going to find it easy to grieve the whole server as the world is way too big and busy for it to grasp let alone maintain
Here's the wiki address: https://www.ashesofcreation.wiki/
Anyway all of this would be tested and dealt with as intrepid studio plans to make a game that suits as many people as they can..... Emphasis on "they can". They are placing as much alternatives as possible within the game so as not to shut out any group of players from any major events within the game. For example, node sieges have objectives that solo or smaller groups can participate in to help turn the tide of the battle. Though because they're treading at the border by trying to offer gameplay for both solo and non-solo players it would not be perfect for either and would have some that won't like the game nonetheless and that's okay. I think the rest is up to the player in how he would deal with whatever issues he faces with his/her fellow server players.... As someone said he'd just gank them as well where he can, note that while ganking them back he can loot them 😈.... The thing is solo players are not helpless to big groups, you just need to stratégie how you'll deal with them and I really like that, that's emphasis on skills considering smaller guilds have the upper hand when the fights are small enough.
As stated over and over again 1200 is not enough to influence a server in more ways than just the fact that they are still a minority
On a server with an expected population of 15,000 people in total (most will not be at capacity), an organized guild of 1,200 absolutely will dominate.
Not just influence. Dominate.
History (both gaming and real) is full of this. You do not need to be in the majority to have domination over others - you can easily achieve this with 10% or so of the population. You just need to be better organized.
As stated over and over again 1200 is not enough to influence a server in more ways than just the fact that they are still a minority
On a server with an expected population of 15,000 people in total (most will not be at capacity), an organized guild of 1,200 absolutely will dominate.
Not just influence. Dominate.
History (both gaming and real) is full of this. You do not need to be in the majority to have domination over others - you can easily achieve this with 10% or so of the population. You just need to be better organized.
This statement is made assuming game mechanics is the same as the ones you've played.... Anyway once alpha 2 shows up I think you'll be enlightened better, but I do recommend you read the wiki so you could understand better the dynamics of the game..... With how big the world is they can not easily dominate on their own, they would need allies willing to give them control and of course the allies would need to be numerous enough, bro it is not easy to manage a large group in games, let alone a huge territory with lots of possibilities.
Please read the wiki below so you're better informed on what you want to know https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
This statement is made assuming game mechanics is the same as the ones you've played.... Anyway once alpha 2 shows up I think you'll be enlightened better, but I do recommend you read the wiki so you could understand better the dynamics of the game..... With how big the world is they can not easily dominate on their own, they would need allies willing to give them control and of course the allies would need to be numerous enough, bro it is not easy to manage a large group in games, let alone a huge territory with lots of possibilities.
Please read the wiki below so you're better informed on what you want to know https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
Yeah, Noaani, go read the wiki you uninformed noob. lololol
In my experience, smaller, better guilds always dominate the Walmart guilds. Walmart guilds are filled with bad players, alts, tourists, and other essentially useless players.
You say 1,200 players as if all 1,200 are perfectly coordinated, skilled players working towards a single vague goal of "controlling the server." And even if a significant number of them are working together, their impact will have diminishing returns.
There's zero chance that a smaller guild of better players (perhaps only better because of the bonuses being in a smaller guild provides) can do nothing. 1,100 random noobs running around saying they're part of the big team that is basically run by only 100 vs 40 hardcore raiders? Yeah, who cares?
What is it you're afraid they'll control, anyhow?
They'll zerg your nodes in sieges? Node loyalty matters before guild loyalty, and being part of the guild isn't necessary to partake in a siege. Not to mention castles are purposefully designed to be a force multiplier, meaning being outnumbered doesn't matter.
They'll farm resources, control supply, and manipulate the economy? Opportunity for profit.
They'll camp bosses? Diminishing returns on numbers; the smaller guilds can camp bosses just as easily, because it's designed for 40 people.
They'll gank people? Corruption system, bounty hunter system, personal skill, easier to coordinate smaller groups, guerilla warfare.
No, the statement is made assuming the mechanics of a game I have been following closely (as in, daily) since 2017.
You're missing out important details, it's extremely difficult to control the whole server, while I understand we're not giving detailed reasoning to that conclusion you have to understand that it's not easy to type these explanations, at least for me, that's why I referred you to the wiki it has in depth information on nodes, dungeons, openworld pvp and so on which are supposedly what a mega guild is to control, when you read on them you'll see for yourself why that is a very difficult task.... And if any mega guild should achieve this then its a big accolade on it's own, it shows great leadership and coordination within the group... And even maintaining it is another big issue as the world is dynamic and multiple things happen on different parts of the world at relatively the same time. To be able to achieve this is tremendous feat and that shouldn't be taken away from those that can. But you guys assume it's something a group of players can just come and do it, for that to be the case the game has to allow for pay to win mechanics or overpowered character leveling, that's not the case so there is really no issue with mega guilds in theory at the moment,we'll just have to wait for the alpha and beta phases to test these things
Comments
i think he was talking about the downsides to gathering a large number of players, not the ability to use discord lol
Killing a world boss with 40 people nets you significantly more per playtime spent than having to bring 250 people to a single world boss kill as the amount of reward doesn't scale with the amount of players you bring.
Making 250 log in, travel there and protect their world boss kill is stupid at best. Neither will anybody participate for long, if it means sharing the loot designed for 40 people with 249 others. At this point, you might as well just grind some mobs or gather some ore because the money equivalent you get from that will be significantly higher than sitting around a world boss.
@Biccus The problem with guilds controlling areas of the map is that mobility will be an issue. The big alliance can control a section of the map, but only that section. Being able to move to an area away from their influence is an option.
With 103 nodes, there won't be monopolies on entire servers. Some servers will - without a doubt - have some server-giant guilds. However, the bigger the guild, the more fractures it will be destined to have. It's more or less a part of that server's character.
I think I know what the OP's base concern is, and really, it comes down to this: Even if it *were* possible for a single player-organization to control and monopolize an entire server (again, that's 103 nodes), how boring would it be, to only have one collection of guilds doing things? Wouldn't sieges have to be entirely staged?
You bring up a good point. Even if there is no official support of massive guilds. Nothing is ever going to stop massive amounts of people from working together if they choose to.
No point in trying to fight player agency on this one.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I think in this situation you make the best of it or jump servers. I see no reason any company would send 5000 subs away (which would lead to more) just because players got together and through shear force of numbers altered the natural flow of a server.
The primary focus of this game, if I'm not mistaken.
Ha- [edit] That's in the ocean by the way.
The Dark Alliance is building the Tulnar Civilization on our server!
[NA] [18+] - We need EVERYONE!
If you want in, send me a message!
That works out to less than 5km/sq per node. tiny. Now factor in concurrent players.what does it matter if you have 103 nodes, a 50k population and maybe 3k concurrent players if you have thousands of people from a mega guild each with a alt account hammering the login servers?
Some streamer shows up with 20k followers to decimate your server for the luls. Is this reasonable gameplay that should be accommodated?
It's a very complicated subject and i don't have the answers. But, I am taking part in most of the similar mmos in alpha or nearing in/beta and this is the problem plaguing all of them. If you simply let the biggest group take over the game is going to die. I am watching this exact issue unfold in other games. There needs to be a path for the little guy to rise to the top. If that isn't feasible the little guy is going to stop trying and move on. Game is then DOA.
Very interested to see how Steven deals with this through to release. Jeff too, seems like a humble brilliant mind to me. I don't think anarchy is the answer here. it might be successful short term but after everything is secured it's basically dead. Looking at a wipe every few months.
Just don't start on a streamer server. It's literally that simple.
You'll know where every single noteable streamer in your region start. Signing up on the same server is on you, not them.
This exactly!
It takes months to secure an area by building a metropolis which locks out an unknown amount of other content. Destroying that metropolis is required to open the additional content. If the winning zerg starts quitting due to stagnation, then their metropolis may become vulnerable to being destroyed and the world changes rather than needing a wipe. On the other hand, if the winning zerg starts destroying another metropolis to build a new metropolis and increasing their zone of control, then another period of months are required to build the new metropolis and lock down the area. This happens for 5 metropolis's. If at any point, the large zerg becomes to spread out compared the competitors, one or more of the metropolis's may become vulnerable and result in a reset of the metropolis area.
As far as a streamer showing up with 20k followers goes, they can try it with all characters at level 1. If they show up at an empty server to take over, they might be able too. The current plan is that that AoE's hit all players in the effect area. There is no target cap. Because of this, I am not sure if thousands of level 1s would dominate even a few high level characters.
Otherwise, if they want to take over their going to have to put in the work of leveling. Which is slow compared to most MMO's. Also, the servers can only hold 10k concurrently. If they want to show up and take over an area long term on a highly populated server, most of them are gonna have long queue times.
I agree that there is very little stopping a large enough group from taking over provided that organization is done outside the game as the in game systems are not optimized for it. However, the gameplay is not setup to make a fun experience for such groups over the long term. I feel like such groups will probably break down over time; and, the server will not only rebalance, but often the content of the server will reform as power shifts.
Also, the available rewards for content is very limited. A maximum of 40 man groups can gain rewards from any given PvE fights and all the max level characters are concentrated into relatively small areas of the map for the rewards. This is intended to be a warzone.
Personally, given my arguments in this post and the one above, I would actually love to see what would happen if a streamer had thousands of players attack such a developed server. I would bet that such an attack would only be effective in low level areas; and, considering that even a village requires a 2 day siege declaration, such streams will probably have little impact on the server as I doubt these streamers are there for the long haul.
Perhaps that is the saving grace.
I hope they don't do this.
Monster coins will cost money to buy. If that becomes a necessary means to an end, that is essentially required pay to win - or in this case pay to make your server playable.
I do assume this was completely tongue in cheek though.
I don't understand why there is an assumption that the people in the mega guild are the Ashes veterans.
Steven is already against zergs, so expect Ashes to have measures in place to prevent zergs.
And small guilds are supposed to have perks that help make them competitive with large guilds - especially when the small guilds form alliances, so...
The devs are already designing with these concerns in mind.
We just have to see how well those concepts are implemented - similar to Corruption.
We know there will be (almost) no fast travel, so it will not be easy to gather large groups of players, particularly for chance encounters. If 8 members of Small guild run into 8 members of Large guild, Large guild will not be able to port in a dozen more to swamp them.
More importantly, to have a Large guild, they will have to choose 'size expansion' over other possible guild skills. Small guild will be choosing other skills, often PvP related, making the members of Small guild individually more powerful than the members of Large guild. Small should win most 1 v 1, all else held equal.
If Small and Large were at war, many of the fights would be parties running into each other, perhaps parties of eight. Who would tend to win? Small guild would, since they choose PvP skills over having a larger guild. Perhaps a group of five Small could routinely kill a group of eight Large, all else held equal. So, in many of the guild war conflicts, Small would win.
But what about the big battles, sieges for nodes and castles? These fights are where Large guild is betting that their larger numbers of 'weaker' players would win, since everyone from both guilds is at the same place at the same time, hence more Large players. Right? Personally, I am not convinced that even here numbers will be the determinative factor. Think back on similar battles you have been in and what do you remember?
Fights at choke points (gates, doors, castle rooms, etc.) and other crowded areas. Fights that come down to 20 vs 20, or maybe 25 vs 35? Again, the individually stronger members of Small guild will have a fighting chance against the more numerous but individually weaker members of Large guild.
In Summary: I think that the community may tend to use experiences with zergs in other games to assume that zergs can dominate in AoC. I think that is it possible that AoC's innovative design will make well designed Small guilds competitive with Large guilds, given even leadership ability.
I think this will rock.
uhh 10k not 3k
Here comes it's biggest enemy, individual wants or desires.. The world has a lot to do and a lot to discover and over time there would be internal conflicts that could erupt and many more similar issues for mega guilds.... Plus the only thing à mega guild gains from taking over a server is the fact that they did... Nothing else, therefore even if a mega guild manages to take over a server (which is near impossible) it would be exceptionally harder for them to maintain it unless you have 80% of the whole server working together, let's keep in mind that not all 8000 to 10000 people in a server know each other before joining the server.
😩I really don't like having to type long explanations, so I won't explain everything check the AOC wiki to better understand some of these things, just know a méga guild is not going to find it easy to grieve the whole server as the world is way too big and busy for it to grasp let alone maintain
Here's the wiki address: https://www.ashesofcreation.wiki/
Sorry don't know how to share the link 😅
Not just influence. Dominate.
History (both gaming and real) is full of this. You do not need to be in the majority to have domination over others - you can easily achieve this with 10% or so of the population. You just need to be better organized.
This statement is made assuming game mechanics is the same as the ones you've played.... Anyway once alpha 2 shows up I think you'll be enlightened better, but I do recommend you read the wiki so you could understand better the dynamics of the game..... With how big the world is they can not easily dominate on their own, they would need allies willing to give them control and of course the allies would need to be numerous enough, bro it is not easy to manage a large group in games, let alone a huge territory with lots of possibilities.
Please read the wiki below so you're better informed on what you want to know
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
Yeah, Noaani, go read the wiki you uninformed noob. lololol
You say 1,200 players as if all 1,200 are perfectly coordinated, skilled players working towards a single vague goal of "controlling the server." And even if a significant number of them are working together, their impact will have diminishing returns.
There's zero chance that a smaller guild of better players (perhaps only better because of the bonuses being in a smaller guild provides) can do nothing. 1,100 random noobs running around saying they're part of the big team that is basically run by only 100 vs 40 hardcore raiders? Yeah, who cares?
What is it you're afraid they'll control, anyhow?
They'll zerg your nodes in sieges? Node loyalty matters before guild loyalty, and being part of the guild isn't necessary to partake in a siege. Not to mention castles are purposefully designed to be a force multiplier, meaning being outnumbered doesn't matter.
They'll farm resources, control supply, and manipulate the economy? Opportunity for profit.
They'll camp bosses? Diminishing returns on numbers; the smaller guilds can camp bosses just as easily, because it's designed for 40 people.
They'll gank people? Corruption system, bounty hunter system, personal skill, easier to coordinate smaller groups, guerilla warfare.
You're missing out important details, it's extremely difficult to control the whole server, while I understand we're not giving detailed reasoning to that conclusion you have to understand that it's not easy to type these explanations, at least for me, that's why I referred you to the wiki it has in depth information on nodes, dungeons, openworld pvp and so on which are supposedly what a mega guild is to control, when you read on them you'll see for yourself why that is a very difficult task.... And if any mega guild should achieve this then its a big accolade on it's own, it shows great leadership and coordination within the group... And even maintaining it is another big issue as the world is dynamic and multiple things happen on different parts of the world at relatively the same time. To be able to achieve this is tremendous feat and that shouldn't be taken away from those that can. But you guys assume it's something a group of players can just come and do it, for that to be the case the game has to allow for pay to win mechanics or overpowered character leveling, that's not the case so there is really no issue with mega guilds in theory at the moment,we'll just have to wait for the alpha and beta phases to test these things