There are really too many inconsistencies in how MMOs apply their benefits and grouping, for this conversation to go anywhere useful, as it is now, huh?
Galaturc - I need the answer to this myself too. What exactly is a 'Raid' to you?
Yeah, I was just trying to see where the OP is coming from, cause it sure as hell seems like definitely not the place where I'm coming from, which usually results in way too many unneeded pages of forum discussions - all based on a misunderstanding.
There are really too many inconsistencies in how MMOs apply their benefits and grouping, for this conversation to go anywhere useful, as it is now, huh?
Galaturc - I need the answer to this myself too. What exactly is a 'Raid' to you?
Yeah, I was just trying to see where the OP is coming from, cause it sure as hell seems like definitely not the place where I'm coming from, which usually results in way too many unneeded pages of forum discussions - all based on a misunderstanding.
I shoulda asked this from the start.
Absolutely, let's take a moment to clarify what we mean by a "raid" in the context of Ashes of Creation, as it's a term that can encompass various scenarios beyond the traditional 40-player dungeon raids.
As far as I'm aware, in Ashes of Creation, a raid isn't solely limited to dungeons; it encompasses a wide range of activities, including sieges and world PvP. What makes a raid special is that it offers advantages like the ability to track your raid mates, monitor their health and energy, and benefit from auto-targeting features—all of which contribute to seamless coordination and strategy through the user interface. As NiKr rightly pointed out, raids often come with buffs and other bonuses that benefit the entire raid group. Interestingly, many of these advantages are also extended to smaller parties in the game.
The crux of the matter, and one that might have been a bit overshadowed by other suggestions in this discussion, is that currently, there's little incentive to opt for a smaller party when you have access to a larger number of players. The coordination required for a large raid doesn't pose any additional difficulty, and organizing a larger number of players doesn't present any logistical challenges, as it ideally should.
To truly enhance the depth and authenticity of MMORPG battle strategies, moving beyond the simplistic approach of merely comparing army sizes (which often leads to Zerg-like tactics) is essential. To achieve this, we need to introduce logistical challenges that come with organizing larger groups of players, such as the necessity for supplies to maintain the morale and performance of a larger force.
Thankfully, Ashes of Creation (AoC) already has a caravan system in place, which presents a significant opportunity. By leveraging this system, AoC has the potential to create a more intricate and realistic representation of battle strategies that require nuanced planning and tactics, rather than relying on a straightforward numbers game. This shift would bring a new level of complexity and immersion to the game, moving beyond the simplicity of just clashing large numbers against each other.
Historically, MMORPGs have leaned toward promoting larger groups. Given the same quality level of 40 players, for instance, a raid of 40 tends to be favored over five parties of 8 players because the in-game tools provided for organization level the playing field. However, this tends to diminish the appeal of other viable tactics and strategies, such as guerrilla tactics, specialized groups for specific tasks like disrupting supply caravans, or a dedicated party for defending strategic locations like a hill or a flag. The current rule seems to be quite straightforward: the more players you have, the better your chances, which doesn't necessarily account for the logistical challenges that should naturally arise with larger armies.
In essence, what I am suggesting here is the introduction of a more balanced approach, where the size of a group isn't the sole determinant of success, and where players are incentivized to explore a wider range of tactics and strategies. This would add depth to the game and ensure that every player's contributions are meaningful, regardless of the size of their group.
What is your definition of a "raid"? And, what is your view on implementing logistical challenges for larger groups so we can have more diverse strategies on the world PvP and siege gameplay rather than every group of players aiming to be part of a Zerg so they can have a shot at protecting their node from other Zergs?
My experience is that a 'Raid' is made up of Parties.
So it is never that you are choosing between 'Party' and 'Raid' per se. You are simply combining 3 or 5 Parties into a Raid.
The game I mainly play (and another I like) even has specific separate 'Raid level targeting options' that are entirely separate from the Party ones. There is no tradeoff. You form the Parties first, then the 'Raid'.
So, to me, from that perspective, you wouldn't have been discussing 'X or Y', and therefore the idea wouldn't matter until the 'Raid' was 'beyond the size of a 5x party, 40 person group', or for some reason not coordinated enough to bother even 'forming 5 parties before combining those into the Raid'.
Similarly, from the side of '40 players in a Raid composition defeating 5 groups of eight', the answer would always be simply 'join those 5 groups of 8 into a Raid' even if they don't work that well together.
So I only viewed your suggestions as relative to 'a mostly uncoordinated group of 60, or a 20+Raid40, vs a Raid40'. Which is a situation I can see happening when people just 'randomly converge with the same objective but no leader', and I agree that such things should not be able to win by raw numbers.
My experience is that a 'Raid' is made up of Parties.
So it is never that you are choosing between 'Party' and 'Raid' per se. You are simply combining 3 or 5 Parties into a Raid.
The game I mainly play (and another I like) even has specific separate 'Raid level targeting options' that are entirely separate from the Party ones. There is no tradeoff. You form the Parties first, then the 'Raid'.
I think, we essentially define it similarly albeit with the contrasts; in other MMORPGs, raids and parties don't offer many different benefits, one allows more players into one group and when you have the option, you simply go with the larger group. There's no decision to be made here, unfortunately.
So, to me, from that perspective, you wouldn't have been discussing 'X or Y', and therefore the idea wouldn't matter until the 'Raid' was 'beyond the size of a 5x party, 40 person group', or for some reason not coordinated enough to bother even 'forming 5 parties before combining those into the Raid'.
Similarly, from the side of '40 players in a Raid composition defeating 5 groups of eight', the answer would always be simply 'join those 5 groups of 8 into a Raid' even if they don't work that well together.
That is my point that currently, there is no incentive to remain in a smaller party, say, during a world PvP event, for the fact that a larger raid offers the same benefits, except with added numbers advantage. In fact, there should be logistical and other strategic shortcomings to having too many in one large group. More numbers should not always equal stronger teams if we would like to implement a variety of tactics to AoC world PvP.
So I only viewed your suggestions as relative to 'a mostly uncoordinated group of 60, or a 20+Raid40, vs a Raid40'. Which is a situation I can see happening when people just 'randomly converge with the same objective but no leader', and I agree that such things should not be able to win by raw numbers.
But as NiKr says, they generally don't.
The essential argument I am making in this post is... We all complain about Zergs in other MMORPGs, that when these games implemented battlefield mechanics, they did not consider the very real challenges of supplying food, water, ammo, and other resources to these larger number of players to maintain their morale and performance, and avoid attrition especially when they are outside in a foreign zone as invaders. In my opinion, as long as we don't account for these challenges that inhibited larger armies from traveling too far in actual human history no matter how well organized and professional they were (even for the Romans or the Mongolians), we will always have to live with Zergs in MMORPGs.
AoC has a real shot at implementing a system that somewhat simulates such challenges in a fun and engaging way while adding diverse gameplay strategies even when deciding to form a party or a raid... all while requiring little effort from a game development perspective as this raid supply caravan mechanic would piggyback on the systems already in place.
why do you want to keep punishin gplayers for socializing and grouping? if i have 100 friends and you only have 10, why should i get punished?
small guilds already get passives and stuff that big guilds cant get.
I do not quarrel about having large guilds or having many friends... I don't know what post you are reading, but those are not my statements. However, once you are organizing a party or a raid, how many are in your group should start to matter... because, the way it currently is, the larger you are, the stronger your group becomes. That is promoting a Zerg mentality.
I am starting to think you are in favor of Zergs, which is fine, as long as I know what you are proposing is to maintain the "no risk, more rewards for the Zergs" approach every other MMORPG has taken. I happen to think that this needs balancing.
I am proposing this suggestion not to punish the socializing, or having 100 friends, but to offer a risk element to that group to account for the organizational challenges or logistics that come with it.
if you punish a large raid, guess what? i split my 100 friends in groups of 8 or 16, no debuff no disadvantage no nothing, problem solved. we are still in the same guild and wont be able to hurt each other...
Yes, I would not have a problem with that, at least, now, you have 6 to 12 individual parties that are supposed to function better... This way, you are not managing all of them all at once with no repercussions. Do you see how that is a little more challenging than having a massive group of 40 or 100 players all at once? Currently, there is no advantage of having 5 parties of 8 players versus a raid of 40, by default, you'd prefer a raid of 40 because it is a numbers game, Zergs win.
The alternative is to make the following critical decision; do I get to have better functioning 5 parties of 8, with the caveat that they are all individual, or one raid of 40 but with weaker units and somewhat more challenging logistics - as it should be? Besides all that, I am proposing additional, unique caravan benefits if you can maintain the large group and protect your supplies... adding to the complexity and strategy element of this decision.
also smaller groups arent always made of good players, they can be headless chickens too. the same instructions "go forward, go back dont chase, rotate right, roate left, kill X person" work for big and small groups as well. there is nothing inherently that makes a player better for being in a small group.
Indeed, but this is irrelevant to the post. I never argued that smaller groups are made of good players or that raids are made out of bad players.
All I hear from you is incoherent opposition void of necessary evidence or alternatives. I even think that you have no issue with Zergs in MMORPGs. Again, that is fine as long as I know where you stand. If this is an issue for you as well, however, feel free to add constructively to the conversation and help us devise alternative solutions.
Also, it would help immensely to the clarity of your post if you did not quote my entire post every single time you reply to me.
it seems that you have this idea because uve played solo mmorpg. the 2 mmorpg vie played the most (and yes ive played those solo mmorpgs as well) its way more beneficial to divide your guild in smaller groups rather than a big zerg (also 40 people isnt even a zerg). when you play a game where you have to cooperate with your party members to get shit done, rather than just solo players grouped in a party, then splitting in parties is best.
and yes, tis a punishing mechanic for having more friends, because now we are getting these random hurdles for playing together.
also, in node wars, you are kinda limited by the number of people in your node. thats your army. most people will be in the t6 nodes. numbers will be aorund equal. smaller nodes will fight other smaller nodes. big nodes attacking smaller nodes...sucks for them. try to talk to your parent node and get help instead of punishing people for playing together.
and in castle sieges, its 250 vs 250, so equal numbers.
out in the open, not a big reason to move your whole guild to one spot other than to kill a boss or to mass pvp for a spot. and again, you could just divide yourself in parties, which is what happens anyways. this isnt a game where every class can do everything. this is a game where you gonna need a healer, a bard, dps and a tank in each party, so naturally people are gonna group in parties that make sense. no one will want to make a party of 8 dps, or 7 bards and one tank...
the only thing your suggestion is punishing is random casuals who dont play in a cp and are just farming stuff then group together with other random people for an event or a boss, etc. now they are screwed by this caravan mechanic...
My experience is that a 'Raid' is made up of Parties.
So it is never that you are choosing between 'Party' and 'Raid' per se. You are simply combining 3 or 5 Parties into a Raid.
The game I mainly play (and another I like) even has specific separate 'Raid level targeting options' that are entirely separate from the Party ones. There is no tradeoff. You form the Parties first, then the 'Raid'.
I think, we essentially define it similarly albeit with the contrasts; in other MMORPGs, raids and parties don't offer many different benefits, one allows more players into one group and when you have the option, you simply go with the larger group. There's no decision to be made here, unfortunately.
So, to me, from that perspective, you wouldn't have been discussing 'X or Y', and therefore the idea wouldn't matter until the 'Raid' was 'beyond the size of a 5x party, 40 person group', or for some reason not coordinated enough to bother even 'forming 5 parties before combining those into the Raid'.
Similarly, from the side of '40 players in a Raid composition defeating 5 groups of eight', the answer would always be simply 'join those 5 groups of 8 into a Raid' even if they don't work that well together.
That is my point that currently, there is currently no incentive to remain in a smaller party, say, during a world PvP event, for the fact that a larger raid offers the same benefits, except with added numbers advantage, when in fact there should be logistical and other strategical shortcomings to having too many in one large group. More numbers should not always equal stronger teams if we would like to implement a variety of tactics to AoC world PvP.
So I only viewed your suggestions as relative to 'a mostly uncoordinated group of 60, or a 20+Raid40, vs a Raid40'. Which is a situation I can see happening when people just 'randomly converge with the same objective but no leader', and I agree that such things should not be able to win by raw numbers.
But as NiKr says, they generally don't.
The essential argument I am making in this post is... We all complain about Zergs in other MMORPGs, that when these games implemented battlefield mechanics, they did not consider the very real challenges of supplying food, water, ammo, and other resources to these larger number of players to maintain their morale and performance, and avoid attrition especially when they are outside in a foreign zone as invaders. In my opinion, as long as we don't account for these challenges that inhibited larger armies from traveling too far in actual human history no matter how organized and professional they are (even for the Romans or the Mongolians), we will always have to live with Zergs in MMORPGs.
AoC has a real shot at implementing a system that somewhat simulates such challenges in a fun and engaging way while adding diverse gameplay strategies even when deciding to form a party or a raid... all while requiring little effort from a game development perspective as this raid supply caravan mechanic would piggyback on the systems already in place.
But that's part of MMORPGs that differentiates them from strategy games. It takes an entirely different approach, to cause these to feel even remotely realistic. And even in games where that different approach exists, it wouldn't really be Caravan based, it would be entirely based on the specific things you mentioned.
MMO characters have no hunger (usually), no thirst, no fatigue (at least not for fighting for 5 straight ingame hours, unless you count MP), no oversaturation, no sickness, and sometimes no Ammunition requirements or weight limits.
Adding back even half of those still doesn't change anything, because as long as no character 'must camp out overnight and had to carry their food in a very limited inventory', the Zerg 'win' by simply having everyone bring their own. Which, honestly, is how it works all the time.
Zergs in MMORPGs work moreso because MMORPG characters (and even players) just tend to be more coordinated and serious for these things. You tell a few people 'make sure to bring Steak to boost your Attack', they'll bring Steak. You tell them 'bring stuff to craft ammo for the Rangers', they'll bring the stuff. Those that don't are already 'the unorganized masses'.
In short, at least for me, the challenges 'aren't real', or rather, they're already being simulated as well as they can reasonably be.
I'm probably just not experienced enough to have the benefit of 'being an a Raid group vs a smaller party'. Why do we care if 'smaller parties' have advantages against Raids anyway? It's just 40 people. It's not THAT hard to manage 40 people for 2 days, particularly if they know their roles and required supplies.
My experience is that a 'Raid' is made up of Parties.
So it is never that you are choosing between 'Party' and 'Raid' per se. You are simply combining 3 or 5 Parties into a Raid.
The game I mainly play (and another I like) even has specific separate 'Raid level targeting options' that are entirely separate from the Party ones. There is no tradeoff. You form the Parties first, then the 'Raid'.
I think, we essentially define it similarly albeit with the contrasts; in other MMORPGs, raids and parties don't offer many different benefits, one allows more players into one group and when you have the option, you simply go with the larger group. There's no decision to be made here, unfortunately.
So, to me, from that perspective, you wouldn't have been discussing 'X or Y', and therefore the idea wouldn't matter until the 'Raid' was 'beyond the size of a 5x party, 40 person group', or for some reason not coordinated enough to bother even 'forming 5 parties before combining those into the Raid'.
Similarly, from the side of '40 players in a Raid composition defeating 5 groups of eight', the answer would always be simply 'join those 5 groups of 8 into a Raid' even if they don't work that well together.
That is my point that currently, there is currently no incentive to remain in a smaller party, say, during a world PvP event, for the fact that a larger raid offers the same benefits, except with added numbers advantage, when in fact there should be logistical and other strategical shortcomings to having too many in one large group. More numbers should not always equal stronger teams if we would like to implement a variety of tactics to AoC world PvP.
So I only viewed your suggestions as relative to 'a mostly uncoordinated group of 60, or a 20+Raid40, vs a Raid40'. Which is a situation I can see happening when people just 'randomly converge with the same objective but no leader', and I agree that such things should not be able to win by raw numbers.
But as NiKr says, they generally don't.
The essential argument I am making in this post is... We all complain about Zergs in other MMORPGs, that when these games implemented battlefield mechanics, they did not consider the very real challenges of supplying food, water, ammo, and other resources to these larger number of players to maintain their morale and performance, and avoid attrition especially when they are outside in a foreign zone as invaders. In my opinion, as long as we don't account for these challenges that inhibited larger armies from traveling too far in actual human history no matter how organized and professional they are (even for the Romans or the Mongolians), we will always have to live with Zergs in MMORPGs.
AoC has a real shot at implementing a system that somewhat simulates such challenges in a fun and engaging way while adding diverse gameplay strategies even when deciding to form a party or a raid... all while requiring little effort from a game development perspective as this raid supply caravan mechanic would piggyback on the systems already in place.
But that's part of MMORPGs that differentiates them from strategy games. It takes an entirely different approach, to cause these to feel even remotely realistic. And even in games where that different approach exists, it wouldn't really be Caravan based, it would be entirely based on the specific things you mentioned.
MMO characters have no hunger (usually), no thirst, no fatigue (at least not for fighting for 5 straight ingame hours, unless you count MP), no oversaturation, no sickness, and sometimes no Ammunition requirements or weight limits.
Adding back even half of those still doesn't change anything, because as long as no character 'must camp out overnight and had to carry their food in a very limited inventory', the Zerg 'win' by simply having everyone bring their own. Which, honestly, is how it works all the time.
Zergs in MMORPGs work moreso because MMORPG characters (and even players) just tend to be more coordinated and serious for these things. You tell a few people 'make sure to bring Steak to boost your Attack', they'll bring Steak. You tell them 'bring stuff to craft ammo for the Rangers', they'll bring the stuff. Those that don't are already 'the unorganized masses'.
In short, at least for me, the challenges 'aren't real', or rather, they're already being simulated as well as they can reasonably be.
I'm probably just not experienced enough to have the benefit of 'being an a Raid group vs a smaller party'. Why do we care if 'smaller parties' have advantages against Raids anyway? It's just 40 people. It's not THAT hard to manage 40 people for 2 days, particularly if they know their roles and required supplies.
well, chronicles of elyria's sieges were going to be like that. players had to bring their resources, camp outside / near the siege area, survive out in the wild, etc. sieges were supposed to last for days in real time. but the game was designed that way...kind of like a survival mmorpg (you could perma die in that game but you could reincarnate into another character of your family). sadly, the game became vaporware.
the idea was really cool tbh, but the game was designed with that in mind. its a bad idea for ashes.
Actually I think I know how to make my point clearer @Galaturc .
The suggestion simulates the wrong thing.
If you look at a MOBA or team shooter, the character respawns when defeated and has to run back to the fight. This isn't actually meant to simulate 'dying in combat', despite also doing that. It's just its own balance thing, because the 'rules of the world' are different. It's arbitrary.
Adding the Caravan is also arbitrary in the same way, so I'm not really saying 'this is a bad idea', just pointing out that it's not really going to achieve what people want.
If a professional 'Mercenary' shows up to a battle, fully geared, with their own food and ammo, and yells out 'I'll join the side that pays me the most', then you pay them and they help you.
16 Mercs? You pay them and now you have a 'Zerg'. By MMO standards, it's fine because the game is designed around those Mercs 'walking for 4 days straight without rest carrying 55lb of food each'. MMOs introduce those limitations in a different SECTOR of the game (when they bother).
But that's part of MMORPGs that differentiates them from strategy games. It takes an entirely different approach, to cause these to feel even remotely realistic. And even in games where that different approach exists, it wouldn't really be Caravan based, it would be entirely based on the specific things you mentioned.
MMO characters have no hunger (usually), no thirst, no fatigue (at least not for fighting for 5 straight ingame hours, unless you count MP), no oversaturation, no sickness, and sometimes no Ammunition requirements or weight limits.
Adding back even half of those still doesn't change anything, because as long as no character 'must camp out overnight and had to carry their food in a very limited inventory', the Zerg 'win' by simply having everyone bring their own. Which, honestly, is how it works all the time.
Zergs in MMORPGs work moreso because MMORPG characters (and even players) just tend to be more coordinated and serious for these things. You tell a few people 'make sure to bring Steak to boost your Attack', they'll bring Steak. You tell them 'bring stuff to craft ammo for the Rangers', they'll bring the stuff. Those that don't are already 'the unorganized masses'.
In short, at least for me, the challenges 'aren't real', or rather, they're already being simulated as well as they can reasonably be.
I'm probably just not experienced enough to have the benefit of 'being an a Raid group vs a smaller party'. Why do we care if 'smaller parties' have advantages against Raids anyway? It's just 40 people. It's not THAT hard to manage 40 people for 2 days, particularly if they know their roles and required supplies.
Absolutely, I completely agree. When it comes to dungeon raids, organization indeed plays a crucial role in determining success. However, where my suggestion truly shines is during sieges or world PvP, especially those with the potential for 250 vs. 250 or 500 vs. 500 battles (whichever limit AoC ultimately decides upon). This is where I believe we should introduce different strategic considerations when players form their groups.
Your point about the contrast between MMO characters and real-world scenarios is spot on. At their core, these MMORPGs are attempting to simulate battles, albeit not always as realistically as they could. While it might not be practical or enjoyable to implement every aspect of survival maintenance into the game, introducing a debuff when players stray too far from a supply caravan is a straightforward and effective way to address some of these challenges. It adds a layer of realism without making the game overly complicated, making it a valuable addition to enhance the overall gaming experience.
Actually I think I know how to make my point clearer @Galaturc .
The suggestion simulates the wrong thing.
If you look at a MOBA or team shooter, the character respawns when defeated and has to run back to the fight. This isn't actually meant to simulate 'dying in combat', despite also doing that. It's just its own balance thing, because the 'rules of the world' are different. It's arbitrary.
Adding the Caravan is also arbitrary in the same way, so I'm not really saying 'this is a bad idea', just pointing out that it's not really going to achieve what people want.
If a professional 'Mercenary' shows up to a battle, fully geared, with their own food and ammo, and yells out 'I'll join the side that pays me the most', then you pay them and they help you.
16 Mercs? You pay them and now you have a 'Zerg'. By MMO standards, it's fine because the game is designed around those Mercs 'walking for 4 days straight without rest carrying 55lb of food each'. MMOs introduce those limitations in a different SECTOR of the game (when they bother).
On that point, I wish there were different strategic weights to having a party of 8, a small raid of 16, or a large raid of 40 when someone forms their players into groups. Currently, if you have 1-8 players, you form a party, if you have 9 to 16, form a small raid, 16+, form a large raid. Am I missing a point here?
I wish different party sizes offer various benefits so there is more to it than just the numbers...
But that's part of MMORPGs that differentiates them from strategy games. It takes an entirely different approach, to cause these to feel even remotely realistic. And even in games where that different approach exists, it wouldn't really be Caravan based, it would be entirely based on the specific things you mentioned.
MMO characters have no hunger (usually), no thirst, no fatigue (at least not for fighting for 5 straight ingame hours, unless you count MP), no oversaturation, no sickness, and sometimes no Ammunition requirements or weight limits.
Adding back even half of those still doesn't change anything, because as long as no character 'must camp out overnight and had to carry their food in a very limited inventory', the Zerg 'win' by simply having everyone bring their own. Which, honestly, is how it works all the time.
Zergs in MMORPGs work moreso because MMORPG characters (and even players) just tend to be more coordinated and serious for these things. You tell a few people 'make sure to bring Steak to boost your Attack', they'll bring Steak. You tell them 'bring stuff to craft ammo for the Rangers', they'll bring the stuff. Those that don't are already 'the unorganized masses'.
In short, at least for me, the challenges 'aren't real', or rather, they're already being simulated as well as they can reasonably be.
I'm probably just not experienced enough to have the benefit of 'being an a Raid group vs a smaller party'. Why do we care if 'smaller parties' have advantages against Raids anyway? It's just 40 people. It's not THAT hard to manage 40 people for 2 days, particularly if they know their roles and required supplies.
However, where my suggestion truly shines is during sieges or world PvP, especially those with the potential for 250 vs. 250 or 500 vs. 500 battles (whichever limit AoC ultimately decides upon). This is where I believe we should introduce different strategic considerations when players form their groups.
i thought your suggestion was for big groups vs small groups and specially big groups venturing out their home node or whatever.
castle sieges are instanced, and literally equal numbers in both sides. you wont have 250 vs 50, you will have 250 vs 250 near a castle...
i thought your suggestion was for big groups vs small groups and specially big groups venturing out their home node or whatever.
castle sieges are instanced, and literally equal numbers in both sides. you wont have 250 vs 50, you will have 250 vs 250 near a castle...
Yes, I think there are several different encounters for raids as far as we know. I did not know that the sieges were going to be instanced, however. Is that a fact?
World PvP is a scenario I can imagine having various-sized groups clashing one against another... As I described in an earlier post, I wish there was an element of strategy for when forming parties 16p raids or 40p raids.
Supply caravans would still be a nice addition even if sieges were instanced. As someone suggested earlier, once the caravan moves from the original node to its destination where the siege is, its permanent, and comes with its bonuses, otherwise, a small debuff for the attacking side...
Zergs has been a thing since DAoC. Best way to deal with Zergs is to give classes skills that combat them. Done. Ball groups in ESO would not have been a problem is gear sets that let you deals with them had not been nurfed. Put the power in the hands of the players and they will use them.
What is your definition of a "raid"? And, what is your view on implementing logistical challenges for larger groups so we can have more diverse strategies on the world PvP and siege gameplay rather than every group of players aiming to be part of a Zerg so they can have a shot at protecting their node from other Zergs?
You didn't answer a question I had in my previous comment (maybe you didn't see it).
I'm curious here. What are the "more rewards" you're foreseen here? Especially in the context of your presumed "random 40 dudes come to a place and make a raid together"?
Mobs/bosses won't give their rewards to all 40 people. There's gonna only be a single small amount of loot from any given encounter. And that zerg would have to be static across MONTHS, if they all want to receive equal amount of rewards for being a zerg.
This is somewhat closer to what I expect for the siege process on the attackers' side than for any other type of zergs. As others have pointed out, unless the game was to introduced survival games elements for characters, and the fight had to occur far from the home base, it would do little to curb zergs.
But for sieges... All the logistical (resource) requirements could be part of the quest for the scroll initiating the siege. A caravan to bring all the supplies near the to-be-siege node where a base camp or command base for the attacking force would be erected. In gaming term, a "protected" re-spawn point. Also possibly a target for the defenders to end the siege prematurely.
A caravan as a mobile re-spawn point could be interesting for other types of raid, I guess. Bring one near a dungeon entrance to reduce moving time in cases of wipe. Same for a open world boss fight. (Planetside had something similar if I remember right).
Comments
I shoulda asked this from the start.
As far as I'm aware, in Ashes of Creation, a raid isn't solely limited to dungeons; it encompasses a wide range of activities, including sieges and world PvP. What makes a raid special is that it offers advantages like the ability to track your raid mates, monitor their health and energy, and benefit from auto-targeting features—all of which contribute to seamless coordination and strategy through the user interface. As NiKr rightly pointed out, raids often come with buffs and other bonuses that benefit the entire raid group. Interestingly, many of these advantages are also extended to smaller parties in the game.
The crux of the matter, and one that might have been a bit overshadowed by other suggestions in this discussion, is that currently, there's little incentive to opt for a smaller party when you have access to a larger number of players. The coordination required for a large raid doesn't pose any additional difficulty, and organizing a larger number of players doesn't present any logistical challenges, as it ideally should.
To truly enhance the depth and authenticity of MMORPG battle strategies, moving beyond the simplistic approach of merely comparing army sizes (which often leads to Zerg-like tactics) is essential. To achieve this, we need to introduce logistical challenges that come with organizing larger groups of players, such as the necessity for supplies to maintain the morale and performance of a larger force.
Thankfully, Ashes of Creation (AoC) already has a caravan system in place, which presents a significant opportunity. By leveraging this system, AoC has the potential to create a more intricate and realistic representation of battle strategies that require nuanced planning and tactics, rather than relying on a straightforward numbers game. This shift would bring a new level of complexity and immersion to the game, moving beyond the simplicity of just clashing large numbers against each other.
Historically, MMORPGs have leaned toward promoting larger groups. Given the same quality level of 40 players, for instance, a raid of 40 tends to be favored over five parties of 8 players because the in-game tools provided for organization level the playing field. However, this tends to diminish the appeal of other viable tactics and strategies, such as guerrilla tactics, specialized groups for specific tasks like disrupting supply caravans, or a dedicated party for defending strategic locations like a hill or a flag. The current rule seems to be quite straightforward: the more players you have, the better your chances, which doesn't necessarily account for the logistical challenges that should naturally arise with larger armies.
In essence, what I am suggesting here is the introduction of a more balanced approach, where the size of a group isn't the sole determinant of success, and where players are incentivized to explore a wider range of tactics and strategies. This would add depth to the game and ensure that every player's contributions are meaningful, regardless of the size of their group.
What is your definition of a "raid"? And, what is your view on implementing logistical challenges for larger groups so we can have more diverse strategies on the world PvP and siege gameplay rather than every group of players aiming to be part of a Zerg so they can have a shot at protecting their node from other Zergs?
So it is never that you are choosing between 'Party' and 'Raid' per se. You are simply combining 3 or 5 Parties into a Raid.
The game I mainly play (and another I like) even has specific separate 'Raid level targeting options' that are entirely separate from the Party ones. There is no tradeoff. You form the Parties first, then the 'Raid'.
So, to me, from that perspective, you wouldn't have been discussing 'X or Y', and therefore the idea wouldn't matter until the 'Raid' was 'beyond the size of a 5x party, 40 person group', or for some reason not coordinated enough to bother even 'forming 5 parties before combining those into the Raid'.
Similarly, from the side of '40 players in a Raid composition defeating 5 groups of eight', the answer would always be simply 'join those 5 groups of 8 into a Raid' even if they don't work that well together.
So I only viewed your suggestions as relative to 'a mostly uncoordinated group of 60, or a 20+Raid40, vs a Raid40'. Which is a situation I can see happening when people just 'randomly converge with the same objective but no leader', and I agree that such things should not be able to win by raw numbers.
But as NiKr says, they generally don't.
That is my point that currently, there is no incentive to remain in a smaller party, say, during a world PvP event, for the fact that a larger raid offers the same benefits, except with added numbers advantage. In fact, there should be logistical and other strategic shortcomings to having too many in one large group. More numbers should not always equal stronger teams if we would like to implement a variety of tactics to AoC world PvP.
The essential argument I am making in this post is... We all complain about Zergs in other MMORPGs, that when these games implemented battlefield mechanics, they did not consider the very real challenges of supplying food, water, ammo, and other resources to these larger number of players to maintain their morale and performance, and avoid attrition especially when they are outside in a foreign zone as invaders. In my opinion, as long as we don't account for these challenges that inhibited larger armies from traveling too far in actual human history no matter how well organized and professional they were (even for the Romans or the Mongolians), we will always have to live with Zergs in MMORPGs.
AoC has a real shot at implementing a system that somewhat simulates such challenges in a fun and engaging way while adding diverse gameplay strategies even when deciding to form a party or a raid... all while requiring little effort from a game development perspective as this raid supply caravan mechanic would piggyback on the systems already in place.
it seems that you have this idea because uve played solo mmorpg. the 2 mmorpg vie played the most (and yes ive played those solo mmorpgs as well) its way more beneficial to divide your guild in smaller groups rather than a big zerg (also 40 people isnt even a zerg). when you play a game where you have to cooperate with your party members to get shit done, rather than just solo players grouped in a party, then splitting in parties is best.
and yes, tis a punishing mechanic for having more friends, because now we are getting these random hurdles for playing together.
also, in node wars, you are kinda limited by the number of people in your node. thats your army. most people will be in the t6 nodes. numbers will be aorund equal. smaller nodes will fight other smaller nodes. big nodes attacking smaller nodes...sucks for them. try to talk to your parent node and get help instead of punishing people for playing together.
and in castle sieges, its 250 vs 250, so equal numbers.
out in the open, not a big reason to move your whole guild to one spot other than to kill a boss or to mass pvp for a spot. and again, you could just divide yourself in parties, which is what happens anyways. this isnt a game where every class can do everything. this is a game where you gonna need a healer, a bard, dps and a tank in each party, so naturally people are gonna group in parties that make sense. no one will want to make a party of 8 dps, or 7 bards and one tank...
the only thing your suggestion is punishing is random casuals who dont play in a cp and are just farming stuff then group together with other random people for an event or a boss, etc. now they are screwed by this caravan mechanic...
But that's part of MMORPGs that differentiates them from strategy games. It takes an entirely different approach, to cause these to feel even remotely realistic. And even in games where that different approach exists, it wouldn't really be Caravan based, it would be entirely based on the specific things you mentioned.
MMO characters have no hunger (usually), no thirst, no fatigue (at least not for fighting for 5 straight ingame hours, unless you count MP), no oversaturation, no sickness, and sometimes no Ammunition requirements or weight limits.
Adding back even half of those still doesn't change anything, because as long as no character 'must camp out overnight and had to carry their food in a very limited inventory', the Zerg 'win' by simply having everyone bring their own. Which, honestly, is how it works all the time.
Zergs in MMORPGs work moreso because MMORPG characters (and even players) just tend to be more coordinated and serious for these things. You tell a few people 'make sure to bring Steak to boost your Attack', they'll bring Steak. You tell them 'bring stuff to craft ammo for the Rangers', they'll bring the stuff. Those that don't are already 'the unorganized masses'.
In short, at least for me, the challenges 'aren't real', or rather, they're already being simulated as well as they can reasonably be.
I'm probably just not experienced enough to have the benefit of 'being an a Raid group vs a smaller party'. Why do we care if 'smaller parties' have advantages against Raids anyway? It's just 40 people. It's not THAT hard to manage 40 people for 2 days, particularly if they know their roles and required supplies.
well, chronicles of elyria's sieges were going to be like that. players had to bring their resources, camp outside / near the siege area, survive out in the wild, etc. sieges were supposed to last for days in real time. but the game was designed that way...kind of like a survival mmorpg (you could perma die in that game but you could reincarnate into another character of your family). sadly, the game became vaporware.
the idea was really cool tbh, but the game was designed with that in mind. its a bad idea for ashes.
The suggestion simulates the wrong thing.
If you look at a MOBA or team shooter, the character respawns when defeated and has to run back to the fight. This isn't actually meant to simulate 'dying in combat', despite also doing that. It's just its own balance thing, because the 'rules of the world' are different. It's arbitrary.
Adding the Caravan is also arbitrary in the same way, so I'm not really saying 'this is a bad idea', just pointing out that it's not really going to achieve what people want.
If a professional 'Mercenary' shows up to a battle, fully geared, with their own food and ammo, and yells out 'I'll join the side that pays me the most', then you pay them and they help you.
16 Mercs? You pay them and now you have a 'Zerg'. By MMO standards, it's fine because the game is designed around those Mercs 'walking for 4 days straight without rest carrying 55lb of food each'. MMOs introduce those limitations in a different SECTOR of the game (when they bother).
Absolutely, I completely agree. When it comes to dungeon raids, organization indeed plays a crucial role in determining success. However, where my suggestion truly shines is during sieges or world PvP, especially those with the potential for 250 vs. 250 or 500 vs. 500 battles (whichever limit AoC ultimately decides upon). This is where I believe we should introduce different strategic considerations when players form their groups.
Your point about the contrast between MMO characters and real-world scenarios is spot on. At their core, these MMORPGs are attempting to simulate battles, albeit not always as realistically as they could. While it might not be practical or enjoyable to implement every aspect of survival maintenance into the game, introducing a debuff when players stray too far from a supply caravan is a straightforward and effective way to address some of these challenges. It adds a layer of realism without making the game overly complicated, making it a valuable addition to enhance the overall gaming experience.
On that point, I wish there were different strategic weights to having a party of 8, a small raid of 16, or a large raid of 40 when someone forms their players into groups. Currently, if you have 1-8 players, you form a party, if you have 9 to 16, form a small raid, 16+, form a large raid. Am I missing a point here?
I wish different party sizes offer various benefits so there is more to it than just the numbers...
i thought your suggestion was for big groups vs small groups and specially big groups venturing out their home node or whatever.
castle sieges are instanced, and literally equal numbers in both sides. you wont have 250 vs 50, you will have 250 vs 250 near a castle...
World PvP is a scenario I can imagine having various-sized groups clashing one against another... As I described in an earlier post, I wish there was an element of strategy for when forming parties 16p raids or 40p raids.
Supply caravans would still be a nice addition even if sieges were instanced. As someone suggested earlier, once the caravan moves from the original node to its destination where the siege is, its permanent, and comes with its bonuses, otherwise, a small debuff for the attacking side...
But for sieges... All the logistical (resource) requirements could be part of the quest for the scroll initiating the siege. A caravan to bring all the supplies near the to-be-siege node where a base camp or command base for the attacking force would be erected. In gaming term, a "protected" re-spawn point. Also possibly a target for the defenders to end the siege prematurely.
A caravan as a mobile re-spawn point could be interesting for other types of raid, I guess. Bring one near a dungeon entrance to reduce moving time in cases of wipe. Same for a open world boss fight. (Planetside had something similar if I remember right).