I'm looking for a big open world that has risk and reward, not just a reward treadmill that we find in so many games.
I agree with this.
The question I have for people (Steven included) is this; if I am out with my guild of 40 people,and we run across a group of 8, what penalty do we face from attacking them?
We are going to win, and some of us are going to gain corruption. However, thay corruption will be worked off before anyone can kill those that gained corruption.
To me, this sounds like a reward treadmill.
Word gets out. An enemy guild shows up. Big pvp. Great story for the server to discuss for days to come.
So what if you got away with it this time?
That isn't going to happen every time though. It may happen some times, but in order to happen it requires a guild of similar size, similar persuasion, and similar location to all be online at that point in time and all have nothing better to do.
But then, even *IF* this happens, that isn't a penalty though.
There was still corruption gained with no real penalty, or chance of a penalty.
Is that not something you are as against as me? You want risk vs reward, that means there needs to be risk. Right now, in a moderate sized group, there isn't any risk.
Edit; or do we all secretly just want a game where the bigger group will always just curb stomp the smaller group?
The bigger group will always win. Unless the small group plays against 5 yearolds.
I am totally ok with a large number of players PKing everything in sight and then managing to get away.
Make friends. Make guilds. Start animosity. Have fun.
I have been there and it works fine. People got used to instanced content and opt in pvp. I cant convince anyone. Let them try the game on release
There is supposed to be risk in attacking other players.
Attacking in a large group means there is no risk. It isn't about "managing to get away" at times.
Either the game has risk vs reward at all levels, or it should have it at none.
If the solution to problems like this is always "next time, bring more friends", then most people are going to hear that as "next time, play a different game", and that is what they will do.
Why have corruption at all as a mechanism to decide whether it is worth attacking other players or not when that decision is skewed towards always just attacking them the more you outnumber them?
There is risk there, minimal if you're engulfed by a friendly zerg, but still risk. I think it is a valid concern, the way zergs and the corruption system interact, we'll have to see how it plays out in development. But I think its partly going to be by design. Strength in numbers is just a reality.
How do you counter it? Strength in numbers yourself. Take note of who killed you and get revenge at some point. Sometimes you're just going to get merc'd though. Sometimes you're just going to be on the losing side of an engagement. Everyone will at times. Move on from it and do the same thing to them that they did to you.
How do you counter it? Strength in numbers yourself.
That is a slow burn for any games death.
If you can only go out and play the game if you are in a group of 40+ players, how long do you expect the average player to stay subbed to the game?
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Have to agree with George on this one.
Yes, sometimes a guild did do a sweep as a larger force and even do sustained pvp with some reds in the mix.
But it was still a risk.. only the bold or the mistaken ventured forth red. And yes, sometimes they came unstuck. Wars were sometimes invoked this way, when one party did not want to play ball.
And there were still opportunists that popped the reds, and ran off with the gear.
And a well organised and skilled small group can put a less skilled zerg on its knees. And sometimes even an individual, in my L2 days experience.
You're whittling it down to just that scenario, that's not going to be the way it goes every time. Zergs are a problem in many pvp mmos though. Ashes is at least taking a stance on trying to minimize them.
But everyone's not just going to be repeatedly mowed down by 40 man zeros. If thats the way the game turns out then the devs fucked up. Its going to happen sometimes. Sometimes it might be done to you and sometimes you might be the one doing it. Welcome to a pvp game.
That is because any scenario that is advantageous to players will become the predominant scenario.
I agree, if the game ends up being something where large groups of players just kill smaller groups of players without needing to put any thought in to it, the developers would have failed.
What ideas can we possibly come up with to prevent this from happening...
How do you counter it? Strength in numbers yourself.
That is a slow burn for any games death.
If you can only go out and play the game if you are in a group of 40+ players, how long do you expect the average player to stay subbed to the game?
Ye because around every corner there will be 40 dudes that want to PK.
The ideas are there:
Progress takes time instead of endgame crap.
Items have value instead of being a matter of an instanced run.
Different biomes offer different gatherables, instead of everybody going to cyrodiil to zerg around.
There will be node activities, instead of everybody lving up and "that's it. Im done. Let's kill noobs".
These things prevent fantasy scenatios of 40 men wanting to pk you.
The problem with comparing what players did in L2 to what they will do in Ashes is that there are essentially two entire generations of MMP players that play games vastly different to how L2 players played.
It is normal these days to form in to large, multi-game guilds. That was not a thing back when L2 was played by more than 14 people.
Player organization is far superior to what it was back then as well.
There is also much more of a focus among players these days to "win" the game rather than to "play" the game.
This means that if these organized groups of players don't see any advantage in hanging around for some PvP, they won't.
Expecting an L2 experience in any MMO these days is going to lead to disappointment, because the player base that made that game simply doesn't exist any longer.
Players will always try to steer situations to be advantageous to them. That's a 2 way street though. Both parties involved should be trying to do that. One party will do it better. Pretty much everyone is going to be on both sides of that equation at some point. You win some and lose some.
I don't really see the issue. Even zergs aside, there's going to be times when 6 players come across 3 players and take advantage of their numbers. You can't control all of that, its just pvp happening in a pvp game. The 3 players have the duty of making the best decision in that situation. Run away, evade, hide or maybe fight if they think they're that good to beat 6 people.
The 6 people will be in the same situation if they come across 12 hostile players. Its just the game, pvp happening.
And if you lose, its really not that big of a deal in the first place. Its not like a full loot game. You might not even really have any harvested mats on you for them to even take and you baited them into taking a corruption hit for nothing. If you did have mats, ok you lost some mats. Welcome to ashes, that's part of the game.
Players will always try to steer situations to be advantageous to them. That's a 2 way street though. Both parties involved should be trying to do that. One party will do it better. Pretty much everyone is going to be on both sides of that equation at some point. You win some and lose some.
I don't really see the issue. Even zergs aside, there's going to be times when 6 players come across 3 players and take advantage of their numbers. You can't control all of that, its just pvp happening in a pvp game. The 3 players have the duty of making the best decision in that situation. Run away, evade, hide or maybe fight if they think they're that good to beat 6 people.
The 6 people will be in the same situation if they come across 12 hostile players. Its just the game, pvp happening.
And if you lose, its really not that big of a deal in the first place. Its not like a full loot game. You might not even really have any harvested mats on you for them to even take and you baited them into taking a corruption hit for nothing. If you did have mats, ok you lost some mats. Welcome to ashes, that's part of the game.
6 v 3 is not nearly the same thing as 40 v 8.
I agree that such small scale situations need to further attention - which is why what I suggested would have no impact on them at all.
The pvp isn't supposed to be fair at all times. Only way to make it even numbers is to instance it.
Not trying to make it even numbers.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Last thing I want from this game is a L2 clone.. but the mechanics for some elements are very, very similar and the issues some people are raising and discussing were experienced in that game under similar circumstances. That is about the extent of the comment.
L2 & ESO I have seen a skilled team take on 2-5x as many players and win hands down in pvp.
NW recently had plenty of opportunistic pvp, fair fights and a lot of call to action zergs.
Limited to no fast travel and vast area should help to alleviate some of the impact of zergs.. The novelty of zergs soon wears off..
Sure in the past, I have done sweeps with my clan of 10-15 players for perhaps 1-2 buff rounds. then business back as usual.. and equally been caught off guard to be in pvp or pk`d offering little to no resistance.. but soon learned to be a little more aware of the environment.
But any player that creates, joins and/or supports mega guilds, well....
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
SorianLore on these forums used to kick my clan and my butt on a regular basis back in the day..
Zero issues.. was our issue to get better.. all in a day`s fun!
If not for his clan, I would probably stayed pve.. and looking at past screen shots, I think it took getting to near end game and probably around 2-3,000 pvp fights before was just average!
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Players will always try to steer situations to be advantageous to them. That's a 2 way street though. Both parties involved should be trying to do that. One party will do it better. Pretty much everyone is going to be on both sides of that equation at some point. You win some and lose some.
I don't really see the issue. Even zergs aside, there's going to be times when 6 players come across 3 players and take advantage of their numbers. You can't control all of that, its just pvp happening in a pvp game. The 3 players have the duty of making the best decision in that situation. Run away, evade, hide or maybe fight if they think they're that good to beat 6 people.
The 6 people will be in the same situation if they come across 12 hostile players. Its just the game, pvp happening.
And if you lose, its really not that big of a deal in the first place. Its not like a full loot game. You might not even really have any harvested mats on you for them to even take and you baited them into taking a corruption hit for nothing. If you did have mats, ok you lost some mats. Welcome to ashes, that's part of the game.
We still have to see how much of a deterrent the Corruption. Steven says Ashes' version is intended to be harsher than the Lineage 2 Karma.
The Sheep are intended to also ae a significant amount of power and influence.
Open world PvP isn't fair. You can be outnumbered, or be caught in a situation where everyone is at low health after killing a group when another group shows up, for example. These situations aren't fair, and it's unlikely that you will fight in completely fair situations in open world.
That's the thing with open PvP, even the most skilled players and guilds can lose battles. Stuff like items and individual skill tend to matter less than sheer numbers in open world PvP. But I like open world PvP or PvX, because even though it's not fair, and doesn't always reward those who played the best, it can still create great stories and experiences that you can never get in PvE. You can be put in unfair situations, or a string of them, and overcome the odds. Plus it never gets boring, because you never know what to expect in open world PvP.
I don't think it's possible for Intrepid to make open world PvP where a larger group has no advantage over a smaller group. If they did, then it would unfairly penalize the larger group. Instead, it's up to the players to figure this out. This is another reason why we need distance to matter in Ashes, so that a large guild can't be everywhere at once. A smaller guild could exploit this fact to even out a numbers advantage. So while Intrepid can't design a game to make every open PvP engagement fair, they can avoid giving large guilds more tools to further exploit number advantage (teleportation). And while communication is better nowadays, this can also be used to coordinate with other guilds against big guilds.
All we know is that the corruption system is not going to be so harsh that its unused and meaningless. It could still end up being fairly harsh though.
Limited to no fast travel and vast area should help to alleviate some of the impact of zergs.. The novelty of zergs soon wears off..
The way I see it, limited fast travel is what will allow for what I am talking about.
Let's say I take my guild out for what ever activity we have planned that day. The general plan will be for everyone to meet at a specific location, and we will all move together to where we need to be from there.
This is fairly standard stuff, and there will be many guilds doing this most days.
When we are all moving along together, if we come across someone that basically just didn't get out of our way, we have no reason to not kill him. We could probably do that without even slowing down.
That player has no recourse, no reasonable action at all that they can take against us, and even if they are a part of a large guild - unless that guild is already assembled and nearby - they can't do anything to us either.
By the time we get to where we are going, that corruption could well have already been worked off.
Literally the only way we would ever face even the slightest penalty for anyone we kill in this manner is if we happen upon another guild basically doing the same thing.
Even the guild summons isn't realistically enough to assist in catching up to a full raid of 40 or more players moving at full speed.
When one player comes across another player, there is a decision that needs to be made as to whether one kills the other and potentially gains corruption. In small scales like this, it really is a risk.
In large scale, that risk - and so that decision - simply isn't there.
This isn't about trying to even out the odds of PvP or anything - if a guild decides that the risk is worth it, go for it.
It is purely, 100% about there needing to be a risk at this level just as there is a risk at the 1v1 level.
We don't know how long its going to take to work off corruption.
That individual player does have recourse, they can get the word out that X guild is formed up and headed in whatever direction, and then other players/guilds can try to locate them and interfere. Is it really worth it for a 40 man group to kill a solo guy who may or may not have loot on them on the way to their raid? Maybe, maybe not, that's for them to decide.
But considering this guild is in the habit of steamrolling solo players 40v1 everywhere they go, they've probably made a lot of enemies. Those enemies would definitely like to know when this guild is going to do some 40 man content.
That is the risk at that level, along with the individual corruption.
That individual player does have recourse, they can get the word out that X guild is formed up and headed in whatever direction, and then other players/guilds can try to locate them and interfere.
With a lack of world wide chat, and fast travel, I don't see how this is possible.
The game is literally designed to prevent spontaneous zergs, meaning the pre-organized zerg is not likely to face any real obstacle.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
Again just for a reference to a past system knowing full well that AoC may scale the system differently.
So, to follow the earlier example, yes, I group up in L2 and we pass a group of players that deserved a pk on the way somewhere.
There was usually no means to work off karma there and then unless we were fortunate to be either in an area with suitable level and density mobs and/or almost at the destination we were going to AND that destination included PvE.
What were the consequences, well that varied, if we had cleared our previous pk`s by quest, it was an infinitely better position. If not, then immediately risky, but still did it at the time if it was felt warranted.
Generally there was never just random pk`ing.. it was usually for a purpose.. be that retribution, warning or other political reasons.
Now if red well;
If slightly red, would just continue on with group to destination and group would guard.
If a little more red, would abandon group to solo it off and re-join the group.
A little more red than that, then someone might come to stand point while I worked it off
Quite red, well if I really wanted to continue with the group, I might get my group to kill me to burn off karma there and then and use a high rez from another player (who knows if AoC will have scales on this) or all on point and others prepared to go red to defend me.
And if really red, and heat on tail, may risk going more red for the pursuing fight or log for a while, bring an alt back later to scout and log back on.
To burn off a little karma of 1-2 kills and no previous karma was 15-30min of mobs of good level and density but public area.. to get a quiet area usually meant wrong level mobs and less density so 30-60min.
A good few pk`s could be 45-180min to burn off, so quite alert for a longer period.
So will see how it works.. but I think the fears are way over rated.. and for now other than grouping up for a very large, infrequent raid, I have not seen reason players would group up much beyond a single party or two at most, so no real zergs.. (Happy to be mistaken)
Its not only possible but intended by steven. Global chat and fast travel aren't needed. Discord plus local chat is more than enough for a guild to form up to attack an enemy. Not on the complete other side of the map but regionally. I think you underestimate pvpers.
The game is intended to be competitive and to create rivalries. Guilds will definitely hunt other guilds down if they get intel. And they will sometimes.
There are very, very few people left that PvP for the PvP. For everyone else, it is PvP for what ever is in it for them.
In this case, there really is nothing in it for them.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ah.. clan wars.. yep, that is a whole different discussion.. but really.. far better to have a mobile and agile small group than a zerg.. where is the sport in a zerg..
Other side of large clans.. some player from small clans that did not like pvp join the larger ones for safety . but for the smaller active pvp clans.. that just makes more easier targets.
Ah.. clan wars.. yep, that is a whole different discussion.. but really.. far better to have a mobile and agile small group than a zerg.. where is the sport in a zerg..
Other side of large clans.. some player from small clans that did not like pvp join the larger ones for safety . but for the smaller active pvp clans.. that just makes more easier targets.
Most people don't care about sport. Especially when your core game design is centered around power and greed. Games that rely on merit and fair play tend to be less popular. See fighting games relative popularity, see casual tilted mmos vs hard core, see fortnight vs battlefield.
Ashes designs into these greed and power driven behaviors so that they will 'be more popular.' Their target audience is people who think of themselves as a hardcore gamer, not the casual. Sure they give casuals lip service, but the core design isn't geared towards the casual. Promises based in greed and power are the easiest to attract such gamers with and catches enough casuals that it boosts their numbers.
So it's in their interest to attract as many of the people who can be attracted by the most broad of base incentive. They must give them goals and mechanics that reward such audiences time spent and try to design around the problems that causes.
But greed and power type audiences do not typically tilt towards merit and 'sport'. It's anti-thetical to what they look to gain. See any thread about RNG or action combat. A vocal chunk of the community are full throatedly for a very different experience that is less likely to attract the type of people who won't Zerg because they want mastery more than power.
Zerging is a mindset based in an incentive system. Make people afraid of not having as much power as someone else and you will inevitably find yourself surrounds by a bunch of people against a pllboss. Promise them riches and a place to rule 'if they just get big enough' and they will go 'sounds do able' just like everyone else.
Rules of Acquisition #87: Learn the customer's weaknesses, so that you can better take advantage of him.
...
In large scale, that risk - and so that decision - simply isn't there.
...
It is purely, 100% about there needing to be a risk at this level just as there is a risk at the 1v1 level.
I will just throw an idea out there that this made me think of. I wonder if something could be built into the lore such that as corruption is gained, then the more people who are in the vicinity, the greater the chance that a god appears and wipes everyone.
Comments
But then, even *IF* this happens, that isn't a penalty though.
There was still corruption gained with no real penalty, or chance of a penalty.
Is that not something you are as against as me? You want risk vs reward, that means there needs to be risk. Right now, in a moderate sized group, there isn't any risk.
Edit; or do we all secretly just want a game where the bigger group will always just curb stomp the smaller group?
I am totally ok with a large number of players PKing everything in sight and then managing to get away.
Make friends. Make guilds. Start animosity. Have fun.
I have been there and it works fine. People got used to instanced content and opt in pvp. I cant convince anyone. Let them try the game on release
Not the point.
There is supposed to be risk in attacking other players.
Attacking in a large group means there is no risk. It isn't about "managing to get away" at times.
Either the game has risk vs reward at all levels, or it should have it at none.
If the solution to problems like this is always "next time, bring more friends", then most people are going to hear that as "next time, play a different game", and that is what they will do.
Why have corruption at all as a mechanism to decide whether it is worth attacking other players or not when that decision is skewed towards always just attacking them the more you outnumber them?
That is the point.
How do you counter it? Strength in numbers yourself. Take note of who killed you and get revenge at some point. Sometimes you're just going to get merc'd though. Sometimes you're just going to be on the losing side of an engagement. Everyone will at times. Move on from it and do the same thing to them that they did to you.
We rushed a target and looted the gear. We got killed as well but it was fun ruining the day of one red zergling.
I dont want to see guild penalties for pk. It's just stupid.
If you can only go out and play the game if you are in a group of 40+ players, how long do you expect the average player to stay subbed to the game?
Yes, sometimes a guild did do a sweep as a larger force and even do sustained pvp with some reds in the mix.
But it was still a risk.. only the bold or the mistaken ventured forth red. And yes, sometimes they came unstuck. Wars were sometimes invoked this way, when one party did not want to play ball.
And there were still opportunists that popped the reds, and ran off with the gear.
And a well organised and skilled small group can put a less skilled zerg on its knees. And sometimes even an individual, in my L2 days experience.
But everyone's not just going to be repeatedly mowed down by 40 man zeros. If thats the way the game turns out then the devs fucked up. Its going to happen sometimes. Sometimes it might be done to you and sometimes you might be the one doing it. Welcome to a pvp game.
I agree, if the game ends up being something where large groups of players just kill smaller groups of players without needing to put any thought in to it, the developers would have failed.
What ideas can we possibly come up with to prevent this from happening...
Ye because around every corner there will be 40 dudes that want to PK.
The ideas are there:
Progress takes time instead of endgame crap.
Items have value instead of being a matter of an instanced run.
Different biomes offer different gatherables, instead of everybody going to cyrodiil to zerg around.
There will be node activities, instead of everybody lving up and "that's it. Im done. Let's kill noobs".
These things prevent fantasy scenatios of 40 men wanting to pk you.
It is normal these days to form in to large, multi-game guilds. That was not a thing back when L2 was played by more than 14 people.
Player organization is far superior to what it was back then as well.
There is also much more of a focus among players these days to "win" the game rather than to "play" the game.
This means that if these organized groups of players don't see any advantage in hanging around for some PvP, they won't.
Expecting an L2 experience in any MMO these days is going to lead to disappointment, because the player base that made that game simply doesn't exist any longer.
I don't really see the issue. Even zergs aside, there's going to be times when 6 players come across 3 players and take advantage of their numbers. You can't control all of that, its just pvp happening in a pvp game. The 3 players have the duty of making the best decision in that situation. Run away, evade, hide or maybe fight if they think they're that good to beat 6 people.
The 6 people will be in the same situation if they come across 12 hostile players. Its just the game, pvp happening.
And if you lose, its really not that big of a deal in the first place. Its not like a full loot game. You might not even really have any harvested mats on you for them to even take and you baited them into taking a corruption hit for nothing. If you did have mats, ok you lost some mats. Welcome to ashes, that's part of the game.
6 v 3 is not nearly the same thing as 40 v 8.
I agree that such small scale situations need to further attention - which is why what I suggested would have no impact on them at all.
Not trying to make it even numbers.
L2 & ESO I have seen a skilled team take on 2-5x as many players and win hands down in pvp.
NW recently had plenty of opportunistic pvp, fair fights and a lot of call to action zergs.
Limited to no fast travel and vast area should help to alleviate some of the impact of zergs.. The novelty of zergs soon wears off..
Sure in the past, I have done sweeps with my clan of 10-15 players for perhaps 1-2 buff rounds. then business back as usual.. and equally been caught off guard to be in pvp or pk`d offering little to no resistance.. but soon learned to be a little more aware of the environment.
But any player that creates, joins and/or supports mega guilds, well....
Zero issues.. was our issue to get better.. all in a day`s fun!
If not for his clan, I would probably stayed pve.. and looking at past screen shots, I think it took getting to near end game and probably around 2-3,000 pvp fights before was just average!
The Sheep are intended to also ae a significant amount of power and influence.
That's the thing with open PvP, even the most skilled players and guilds can lose battles. Stuff like items and individual skill tend to matter less than sheer numbers in open world PvP. But I like open world PvP or PvX, because even though it's not fair, and doesn't always reward those who played the best, it can still create great stories and experiences that you can never get in PvE. You can be put in unfair situations, or a string of them, and overcome the odds. Plus it never gets boring, because you never know what to expect in open world PvP.
I don't think it's possible for Intrepid to make open world PvP where a larger group has no advantage over a smaller group. If they did, then it would unfairly penalize the larger group. Instead, it's up to the players to figure this out. This is another reason why we need distance to matter in Ashes, so that a large guild can't be everywhere at once. A smaller guild could exploit this fact to even out a numbers advantage. So while Intrepid can't design a game to make every open PvP engagement fair, they can avoid giving large guilds more tools to further exploit number advantage (teleportation). And while communication is better nowadays, this can also be used to coordinate with other guilds against big guilds.
Let's say I take my guild out for what ever activity we have planned that day. The general plan will be for everyone to meet at a specific location, and we will all move together to where we need to be from there.
This is fairly standard stuff, and there will be many guilds doing this most days.
When we are all moving along together, if we come across someone that basically just didn't get out of our way, we have no reason to not kill him. We could probably do that without even slowing down.
That player has no recourse, no reasonable action at all that they can take against us, and even if they are a part of a large guild - unless that guild is already assembled and nearby - they can't do anything to us either.
By the time we get to where we are going, that corruption could well have already been worked off.
Literally the only way we would ever face even the slightest penalty for anyone we kill in this manner is if we happen upon another guild basically doing the same thing.
Even the guild summons isn't realistically enough to assist in catching up to a full raid of 40 or more players moving at full speed.
When one player comes across another player, there is a decision that needs to be made as to whether one kills the other and potentially gains corruption. In small scales like this, it really is a risk.
In large scale, that risk - and so that decision - simply isn't there.
This isn't about trying to even out the odds of PvP or anything - if a guild decides that the risk is worth it, go for it.
It is purely, 100% about there needing to be a risk at this level just as there is a risk at the 1v1 level.
That individual player does have recourse, they can get the word out that X guild is formed up and headed in whatever direction, and then other players/guilds can try to locate them and interfere. Is it really worth it for a 40 man group to kill a solo guy who may or may not have loot on them on the way to their raid? Maybe, maybe not, that's for them to decide.
But considering this guild is in the habit of steamrolling solo players 40v1 everywhere they go, they've probably made a lot of enemies. Those enemies would definitely like to know when this guild is going to do some 40 man content.
That is the risk at that level, along with the individual corruption.
The game is literally designed to prevent spontaneous zergs, meaning the pre-organized zerg is not likely to face any real obstacle.
So, to follow the earlier example, yes, I group up in L2 and we pass a group of players that deserved a pk on the way somewhere.
There was usually no means to work off karma there and then unless we were fortunate to be either in an area with suitable level and density mobs and/or almost at the destination we were going to AND that destination included PvE.
What were the consequences, well that varied, if we had cleared our previous pk`s by quest, it was an infinitely better position. If not, then immediately risky, but still did it at the time if it was felt warranted.
Generally there was never just random pk`ing.. it was usually for a purpose.. be that retribution, warning or other political reasons.
Now if red well;
To burn off a little karma of 1-2 kills and no previous karma was 15-30min of mobs of good level and density but public area.. to get a quiet area usually meant wrong level mobs and less density so 30-60min.
A good few pk`s could be 45-180min to burn off, so quite alert for a longer period.
So will see how it works.. but I think the fears are way over rated.. and for now other than grouping up for a very large, infrequent raid, I have not seen reason players would group up much beyond a single party or two at most, so no real zergs.. (Happy to be mistaken)
The game is intended to be competitive and to create rivalries. Guilds will definitely hunt other guilds down if they get intel. And they will sometimes.
There are very, very few people left that PvP for the PvP. For everyone else, it is PvP for what ever is in it for them.
In this case, there really is nothing in it for them.
Other side of large clans.. some player from small clans that did not like pvp join the larger ones for safety . but for the smaller active pvp clans.. that just makes more easier targets.
Most people don't care about sport. Especially when your core game design is centered around power and greed. Games that rely on merit and fair play tend to be less popular. See fighting games relative popularity, see casual tilted mmos vs hard core, see fortnight vs battlefield.
Ashes designs into these greed and power driven behaviors so that they will 'be more popular.' Their target audience is people who think of themselves as a hardcore gamer, not the casual. Sure they give casuals lip service, but the core design isn't geared towards the casual. Promises based in greed and power are the easiest to attract such gamers with and catches enough casuals that it boosts their numbers.
So it's in their interest to attract as many of the people who can be attracted by the most broad of base incentive. They must give them goals and mechanics that reward such audiences time spent and try to design around the problems that causes.
But greed and power type audiences do not typically tilt towards merit and 'sport'. It's anti-thetical to what they look to gain. See any thread about RNG or action combat. A vocal chunk of the community are full throatedly for a very different experience that is less likely to attract the type of people who won't Zerg because they want mastery more than power.
Zerging is a mindset based in an incentive system. Make people afraid of not having as much power as someone else and you will inevitably find yourself surrounds by a bunch of people against a pllboss. Promise them riches and a place to rule 'if they just get big enough' and they will go 'sounds do able' just like everyone else.
Rules of Acquisition #87: Learn the customer's weaknesses, so that you can better take advantage of him.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I will just throw an idea out there that this made me think of. I wonder if something could be built into the lore such that as corruption is gained, then the more people who are in the vicinity, the greater the chance that a god appears and wipes everyone.