Unpopular opinion : Zergs are necessary and Castle sieges should not be fair

Now i’m a player that enjoys playing in small but well organized guilds so i’m not strange to been zerged and the frustration that brings, and I admit that in the current day and age content creators and streamers have a little bit too much power when it comes to creating zergs and running people over. However in a world where battles matter because they change the actual state of the world you can say those who win battles have the power to control the state of the world. I just don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP and so increasing the number of people should be a valid response when you can’t win by skill alone.

In my mind the winner of the battle should be the side with the best combination of 4 things:

Skill (PvP players)
Equipment (PvE players)
Organization (Party leaders and/or shot callers)
Numbers (Guild leaders and politician)

The first 3 are fairly common in most MMOs while the fourth “Numbers”, there is usually not much to do other than recruiting more people for your guild.

In Ashes though, there is Politics too, given the way the nodes system works and the fact that there is no fast travel, most guilds will have a base in one city and do activities around that city which means guilds will be competing for limited resources which in turn lead to frictions and battles, but also alliances when it makes sense. And so Guild leaders will do well by keeping good relationships with other guilds with common interests so in case a zerg comes by you have someone to ask for help.

As i said, i don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP because that usually turns to tyranny real quick. Zergs or the potential for a zerg keeps cocky PvPers in place. For this same reason I don't believe castle or node sieges should be instanced or player capped, since that would remove the political factor (Numbers) out of sieges which doesn’t make any sense to me given that the only reason for sieges is actual politics.

We can have fair guild vs guild matches in a coliseum or something i will be the first to sign up for it, but sieges are not the place to define which guild is better at pvp, it's the place to find out which side is more influential and can convince more people their vision for the world is the best.

Now there is a point in which zergs become a problem, this point in my mind is when the difference in number is so big that the fight doesn’t make sense anymore, specially when their only intention is trolling. I’m not arguing zergs are never a problem what i’m saying i guess is forcing equal numbers in fights is not the solution and recruiting more people/guilds to your side should be a valid strategy.

I would love to hear what if people agree or not with this take and please don’t be too harsh on me this is my first post in this forum and English is not my first language

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Liniker

I dont think thats an unpopular opinion, its based, and thats how it will/should be, keeping in mind zergs in AoC are being dealt with the lack of teleportation

Aszkalon

MartianApe wrote: »

In my mind the winner of the battle should be the side with the best combination of 4 things:

Skill (PvP players)
Equipment (PvE players)

I don't quite understand how Equipment as a Strength should be limited to PvE Players.

As if PvP Players won't also do the many things that PvE Players do, to craft themselves some powerful and nice gear. The only Difference between them will be, that some like to do PvE only Content and others also engage into PvP as well, right ?

Right ? ^.^

Nerror

The limit on players in a castle siege mostly has to do with technical limits. First and foremost, the castle siege experience has to be decent from a lag/latency/fps perspective, or no one involved will be having any fun. 250v250 is their confirmed minimum amount of players, but they want to try to increase it to 500v500. If one side can only muster 100 players, the siege will still happen even if they are outnumbered by a lot.

Liniker

Nerror wrote: »

The limit on players in a castle siege mostly has to do with technical limits. First and foremost, the castle siege experience has to be decent from a lag/latency/fps perspective, or no one involved will be having any fun. 250v250 is their confirmed minimum amount of players, but they want to try to increase it to 500v500. If one side can only muster 100 players, the siege will still happen even if they are outnumbered by a lot.

I'm strongly against 500v500 for castle sieges :x I think node sieges should hold these extremely massive no cap battles with thousand players or more (if they can achieve it like TL did) since node sieges everyone can participate and have very high stakes,

but castle sieges I hope they make it as the top end game Guild content in a controled enviroment, 250v250 almost too much since most guilds wont be able to get those numbers online, but 500v500 is just no longer guild content and it becomes alliance vs alliance, which I really dislike

RocketFarmer

Only a fool attempts a siege at equal numbers. Usually takes 2 to 1 odds or higher and the time to reduce the effectiveness of the defensive positions to make it winnable.

However, you can throw all of that out if you have characters surviving death. If you want a realistic siege, then only one death per player would be allowed. That changes the strategy and makes the numbers more significant. Also makes the characters who can resurrect more significant, although I think some economic factor needs to come into play there to balance the cost of the siege against the reward.

If you want what most players find as fun, then reviving characters is part of it and the number of players isn’t as relevant. A smaller group of highly skilled, well organized players could offset numbers. Even in this arcade style of siege warfare, I think you need an economic factor associated with reviving characters.

We also haven’t seen the plans for how they’ll allow outside forces to break a siege. That’s very much part of siege strategy. The battle of Alesia being the most famous example, being a siege within a siege. And I get the intent is to make an MMORPG rather than a battle simulator. But how much fun would it be to turn the tables at a point in time in the siege?

Could be something as simple as a timer before those outside the siege are permitted to enter if the battle hasn’t been resolved, whether they are allied with the defenders or are another opportunistic faction. That might even play out where attackers and defenders switch tactics to defend against the new forces. And stakes should be higher if the new forces are allowed to enter.

You also need to make the strategy of taking castles and then allowing them to be retaken, rinse and repeat, having a negative return. The cost of losing a castle needs to be very high, with significant consequences economically and socially. Or the rewards of defending higher if you want a less negative incentive.

Sieges, and major battles in general, should have the opportunity for other characters to play their role in warfare at the fringes. Things such as supplying the defenders, looting the corpses, skirmishes, or supplying the attackers. Should play a part. Would they consider the chaos of running a resupply caravan during a siege, or does the lack of caravan resources at a castle make that impossible (or should they consider it)? To me that would be more interesting that just a Zerg.

MartianApe

Aszkalon wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

In my mind the winner of the battle should be the side with the best combination of 4 things:

Skill (PvP players)
Equipment (PvE players)

I don't quite understand how Equipment as a Strength should be limited to PvE Players.

As if PvP Players won't also do the many things that PvE Players do, to craft themselves some powerful and nice gear. The only Difference between them will be, that some like to do PvE only Content and others also engage into PvP as well, right ?

Right ? ^.^

Yeah you are totally right, also PvE player will fight the fights and have some skills in PvP. I never said a PvP player can't also be a PvE player and contribute with gear. This is a PvX game my man everybody will do both like it or not.

But the point i was trying to make is the better PvE players you have the better chance at getting the top gear your guild has and the better PvP players the guild has the more chances at winning with lower numbers/gear

Mag7spy

MartianApe wrote: »

Now i’m a player that enjoys playing in small but well organized guilds so i’m not strange to been zerged and the frustration that brings, and I admit that in the current day and age content creators and streamers have a little bit too much power when it comes to creating zergs and running people over. However in a world where battles matter because they change the actual state of the world you can say those who win battles have the power to control the state of the world. I just don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP and so increasing the number of people should be a valid response when you can’t win by skill alone.

In my mind the winner of the battle should be the side with the best combination of 4 things:

Skill (PvP players)
Equipment (PvE players)
Organization (Party leaders and/or shot callers)
Numbers (Guild leaders and politician)

The first 3 are fairly common in most MMOs while the fourth “Numbers”, there is usually not much to do other than recruiting more people for your guild.

In Ashes though, there is Politics too, given the way the nodes system works and the fact that there is no fast travel, most guilds will have a base in one city and do activities around that city which means guilds will be competing for limited resources which in turn lead to frictions and battles, but also alliances when it makes sense. And so Guild leaders will do well by keeping good relationships with other guilds with common interests so in case a zerg comes by you have someone to ask for help.

As i said, i don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP because that usually turns to tyranny real quick. Zergs or the potential for a zerg keeps cocky PvPers in place. For this same reason I don't believe castle or node sieges should be instanced or player capped, since that would remove the political factor (Numbers) out of sieges which doesn’t make any sense to me given that the only reason for sieges is actual politics.

We can have fair guild vs guild matches in a coliseum or something i will be the first to sign up for it, but sieges are not the place to define which guild is better at pvp, it's the place to find out which side is more influential and can convince more people their vision for the world is the best.

Now there is a point in which zergs become a problem, this point in my mind is when the difference in number is so big that the fight doesn’t make sense anymore, specially when their only intention is trolling. I’m not arguing zergs are never a problem what i’m saying i guess is forcing equal numbers in fights is not the solution and recruiting more people/guilds to your side should be a valid strategy.

I would love to hear what if people agree or not with this take and please don’t be too harsh on me this is my first post in this forum and English is not my first language

Equal numbers is literarily the solution for siege you are trying to make a run around argument on why numbers should be a thing when numbers are already a thing in reality.

You don't just have 500 or 250 guild members on at all times that are realizable first of all, it really isn't that easy. So numbers is already something that has a bit of challenge to it and some element of politics is needed to get the right people to ensure you have the highest chance of winning.

Also we can look at a game that released already which is about zergs being Throne and liberty you ruin all elements of politics and you just have mega guilds on the server, or everyone working together to win and removing any kind of competition since its not a fight...

If i somehow can bring 2000 more people to automatically win and just destroy all nodes that sounds like easy work. Not only do you need to reduce that there needs to be other caps so not just anyone can get thrown in without reason. If your group is attacking a node it should be mostly YOUR group. AkA guild, node, vassals, etc you pull from.

People seriously need to get out of their head pvpers are better or with better gear so you should be able to zerg them to win. It is extremely silly because the reality if they are going to be zerging your ass and than people complaining these hardcore guilds are doing. While people thinking they can win against large guilds with zergs will be doing the Pikachu case when they end up on the other end.

Also no one is TALKING ABOUT OW pvp, this is only in relation to sieges. Also sieges running like dog crap with all the loss that comes to the server sounds irritating as hell if you see 4k people show up to make the performance bad.

MartianApe

Nerror wrote: »

The limit on players in a castle siege mostly has to do with technical limits. First and foremost, the castle siege experience has to be decent from a lag/latency/fps perspective, or no one involved will be having any fun. 250v250 is their confirmed minimum amount of players, but they want to try to increase it to 500v500. If one side can only muster 100 players, the siege will still happen even if they are outnumbered by a lot.

I understand the limitations due to technology/server capacity I'm not talking about those but i've seen a lot of discussion about making siege battles fair and how to deal with zergs that go against what you are describing, i'm new here in the forum so if that is the plan I'm glad, it seems reasonable however a bit low of a cap hopefully they manage to increase it a bit

MartianApe

Mag7spy wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Now i’m a player that enjoys playing in small but well organized guilds so i’m not strange to been zerged and the frustration that brings, and I admit that in the current day and age content creators and streamers have a little bit too much power when it comes to creating zergs and running people over. However in a world where battles matter because they change the actual state of the world you can say those who win battles have the power to control the state of the world. I just don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP and so increasing the number of people should be a valid response when you can’t win by skill alone.

In my mind the winner of the battle should be the side with the best combination of 4 things:

Skill (PvP players)
Equipment (PvE players)
Organization (Party leaders and/or shot callers)
Numbers (Guild leaders and politician)

The first 3 are fairly common in most MMOs while the fourth “Numbers”, there is usually not much to do other than recruiting more people for your guild.

In Ashes though, there is Politics too, given the way the nodes system works and the fact that there is no fast travel, most guilds will have a base in one city and do activities around that city which means guilds will be competing for limited resources which in turn lead to frictions and battles, but also alliances when it makes sense. And so Guild leaders will do well by keeping good relationships with other guilds with common interests so in case a zerg comes by you have someone to ask for help.

As i said, i don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP because that usually turns to tyranny real quick. Zergs or the potential for a zerg keeps cocky PvPers in place. For this same reason I don't believe castle or node sieges should be instanced or player capped, since that would remove the political factor (Numbers) out of sieges which doesn’t make any sense to me given that the only reason for sieges is actual politics.

We can have fair guild vs guild matches in a coliseum or something i will be the first to sign up for it, but sieges are not the place to define which guild is better at pvp, it's the place to find out which side is more influential and can convince more people their vision for the world is the best.

Now there is a point in which zergs become a problem, this point in my mind is when the difference in number is so big that the fight doesn’t make sense anymore, specially when their only intention is trolling. I’m not arguing zergs are never a problem what i’m saying i guess is forcing equal numbers in fights is not the solution and recruiting more people/guilds to your side should be a valid strategy.

I would love to hear what if people agree or not with this take and please don’t be too harsh on me this is my first post in this forum and English is not my first language

Equal numbers is literarily the solution for siege you are trying to make a run around argument on why numbers should be a thing when numbers are already a thing in reality.

You don't just have 500 or 250 guild members on at all times that are realizable first of all, it really isn't that easy. So numbers is already something that has a bit of challenge to it and some element of politics is needed to get the right people to ensure you have the highest chance of winning.

Also we can look at a game that released already which is about zergs being Throne and liberty you ruin all elements of politics and you just have mega guilds on the server, or everyone working together to win and removing any kind of competition since its not a fight...

If i somehow can bring 2000 more people to automatically win and just destroy all nodes that sounds like easy work. Not only do you need to reduce that there needs to be other caps so not just anyone can get thrown in without reason. If your group is attacking a node it should be mostly YOUR group. AkA guild, node, vassals, etc you pull from.

People seriously need to get out of their head pvpers are better or with better gear so you should be able to zerg them to win. It is extremely silly because the reality if they are going to be zerging your ass and than people complaining these hardcore guilds are doing. While people thinking they can win against large guilds with zergs will be doing the Pikachu case when they end up on the other end.

Also no one is TALKING ABOUT OW pvp, this is only in relation to sieges. Also sieges running like dog crap with all the loss that comes to the server sounds irritating as hell if you see 4k people show up to make the performance bad.

I'm impressed you think recruiting 2000 players is easy work you probably should get into politics for real lol.
Throne and liberty has fast travel which contributes to zerging the whole map that is not true in AoC and with 2000 people in your clan and 83 nodes you only get 24 people per node if you distribute your forces, otherwise its impossible to do what you are suggesting. I don't think you understand the limitation of an actual world you need to travel

Sieges should be about power, and power includes money, influence and politics as well as fighting skills

Also you misunderstood me i'm always in the PvP guilds fighting against zergs

so i guess what i'm saying is people should really stop crying about zergs and learn how to fight them

Mag7spy

MartianApe wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Now i’m a player that enjoys playing in small but well organized guilds so i’m not strange to been zerged and the frustration that brings, and I admit that in the current day and age content creators and streamers have a little bit too much power when it comes to creating zergs and running people over. However in a world where battles matter because they change the actual state of the world you can say those who win battles have the power to control the state of the world. I just don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP and so increasing the number of people should be a valid response when you can’t win by skill alone.

In my mind the winner of the battle should be the side with the best combination of 4 things:

Skill (PvP players)
Equipment (PvE players)
Organization (Party leaders and/or shot callers)
Numbers (Guild leaders and politician)

The first 3 are fairly common in most MMOs while the fourth “Numbers”, there is usually not much to do other than recruiting more people for your guild.

In Ashes though, there is Politics too, given the way the nodes system works and the fact that there is no fast travel, most guilds will have a base in one city and do activities around that city which means guilds will be competing for limited resources which in turn lead to frictions and battles, but also alliances when it makes sense. And so Guild leaders will do well by keeping good relationships with other guilds with common interests so in case a zerg comes by you have someone to ask for help.

As i said, i don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP because that usually turns to tyranny real quick. Zergs or the potential for a zerg keeps cocky PvPers in place. For this same reason I don't believe castle or node sieges should be instanced or player capped, since that would remove the political factor (Numbers) out of sieges which doesn’t make any sense to me given that the only reason for sieges is actual politics.

We can have fair guild vs guild matches in a coliseum or something i will be the first to sign up for it, but sieges are not the place to define which guild is better at pvp, it's the place to find out which side is more influential and can convince more people their vision for the world is the best.

Now there is a point in which zergs become a problem, this point in my mind is when the difference in number is so big that the fight doesn’t make sense anymore, specially when their only intention is trolling. I’m not arguing zergs are never a problem what i’m saying i guess is forcing equal numbers in fights is not the solution and recruiting more people/guilds to your side should be a valid strategy.

I would love to hear what if people agree or not with this take and please don’t be too harsh on me this is my first post in this forum and English is not my first language

Equal numbers is literarily the solution for siege you are trying to make a run around argument on why numbers should be a thing when numbers are already a thing in reality.

You don't just have 500 or 250 guild members on at all times that are realizable first of all, it really isn't that easy. So numbers is already something that has a bit of challenge to it and some element of politics is needed to get the right people to ensure you have the highest chance of winning.

Also we can look at a game that released already which is about zergs being Throne and liberty you ruin all elements of politics and you just have mega guilds on the server, or everyone working together to win and removing any kind of competition since its not a fight...

If i somehow can bring 2000 more people to automatically win and just destroy all nodes that sounds like easy work. Not only do you need to reduce that there needs to be other caps so not just anyone can get thrown in without reason. If your group is attacking a node it should be mostly YOUR group. AkA guild, node, vassals, etc you pull from.

People seriously need to get out of their head pvpers are better or with better gear so you should be able to zerg them to win. It is extremely silly because the reality if they are going to be zerging your ass and than people complaining these hardcore guilds are doing. While people thinking they can win against large guilds with zergs will be doing the Pikachu case when they end up on the other end.

Also no one is TALKING ABOUT OW pvp, this is only in relation to sieges. Also sieges running like dog crap with all the loss that comes to the server sounds irritating as hell if you see 4k people show up to make the performance bad.

I'm impressed you think recruiting 2000 players is easy work you probably should get into politics for real lol.
Throne and liberty has fast travel which contributes to zerging the whole map that is not true in AoC and with 2000 people in your clan and 83 nodes you only get 24 people per node if you distribute your forces, otherwise its impossible to do what you are suggesting. I don't think you understand the limitation of an actual world you need to travel

Sieges should be about power, and power includes money, influence and politics as well as fighting skills

Also you misunderstood me i'm always in the PvP guilds fighting against zergs so i guess what i'm saying is people should really stop crying about zergs and learn how to fight them

That to me sounds like you aren't really fighting zergs or understanding them in any kind of competitive setting as you try to use the word "get good" Yet you aren't fighting against anyone good.....

Also you thinking mega guilds wont' form and use zergs with a large amount of players in AoC is pretty wild. Based on how popular the game is you will have the most competitive groups work together and gate keep content by zerging. This was already shown to be the case in Throne and liberty to the point it ruined the pvp scene. BDO was also in the same boat with people passing off places and doing fake mock battles.

So ill just bring up actual game examples. Cause its silly to think you are better than fighting 4 of yourself but that is the point of a zerg you vrs *multiple of you.

Aszkalon

MartianApe wrote: »

Yeah you are totally right, also PvE player will fight the fights and have some skills in PvP. I never said a PvP player can't also be a PvE player and

Thanks,

what i want to say, is -> PvP Players will also aim for the strongest Gear they can get - so they have their desired absolute Maximum Power against other Players in PvP.

So when You can get the strongest and best Gear only by being Artisan Grandmasters for Example - and need rare Ingredients and Materials for the strongest Weapons, Armor Pieces, Enchantments, whatever,

WHAT DO PEOPLE EXPECT will PvP-Players do every Second they are not engaged in PvP ?

Flanker

I wish more people understood a simple thing: it doesn't matter how difficult the game is, the only thing that matters is who plays it better.
If numbers are important, why don't you/your guild/your alliance recruit more?

MartianApe

Aszkalon wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Yeah you are totally right, also PvE player will fight the fights and have some skills in PvP. I never said a PvP player can't also be a PvE player and

Thanks,

what i want to say, is -> PvP Players will also aim for the strongest Gear they can get - so they have their desired absolute Maximum Power against other Players in PvP.

So when You can get the strongest and best Gear only by being Artisan Grandmasters for Example - and need rare Ingredients and Materials for the strongest Weapons, Armor Pieces, Enchantments, whatever,

WHAT DO PEOPLE EXPECT will PvP-Players do every Second they are not engaged in PvP ?

Oh for sure but by the definitions I see in this community you are then a PvX player and not a PvP player.

But for once i expect the bigger bosses to be contested in open world and so PvP oriented players will guard the area and stop other guilds from getting to the boss while PvE oriented players will be on the main team in charge of killing the boss.

On the other hand i can see a world where you can get any gear you need as well as leveling by just attacking/defending caravans and then buying the gear in the market and do exclusively PvP if you want to

MartianApe

Mag7spy wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Now i’m a player that enjoys playing in small but well organized guilds so i’m not strange to been zerged and the frustration that brings, and I admit that in the current day and age content creators and streamers have a little bit too much power when it comes to creating zergs and running people over. However in a world where battles matter because they change the actual state of the world you can say those who win battles have the power to control the state of the world. I just don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP and so increasing the number of people should be a valid response when you can’t win by skill alone.

In my mind the winner of the battle should be the side with the best combination of 4 things:

Skill (PvP players)
Equipment (PvE players)
Organization (Party leaders and/or shot callers)
Numbers (Guild leaders and politician)

The first 3 are fairly common in most MMOs while the fourth “Numbers”, there is usually not much to do other than recruiting more people for your guild.

In Ashes though, there is Politics too, given the way the nodes system works and the fact that there is no fast travel, most guilds will have a base in one city and do activities around that city which means guilds will be competing for limited resources which in turn lead to frictions and battles, but also alliances when it makes sense. And so Guild leaders will do well by keeping good relationships with other guilds with common interests so in case a zerg comes by you have someone to ask for help.

As i said, i don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP because that usually turns to tyranny real quick. Zergs or the potential for a zerg keeps cocky PvPers in place. For this same reason I don't believe castle or node sieges should be instanced or player capped, since that would remove the political factor (Numbers) out of sieges which doesn’t make any sense to me given that the only reason for sieges is actual politics.

We can have fair guild vs guild matches in a coliseum or something i will be the first to sign up for it, but sieges are not the place to define which guild is better at pvp, it's the place to find out which side is more influential and can convince more people their vision for the world is the best.

Now there is a point in which zergs become a problem, this point in my mind is when the difference in number is so big that the fight doesn’t make sense anymore, specially when their only intention is trolling. I’m not arguing zergs are never a problem what i’m saying i guess is forcing equal numbers in fights is not the solution and recruiting more people/guilds to your side should be a valid strategy.

I would love to hear what if people agree or not with this take and please don’t be too harsh on me this is my first post in this forum and English is not my first language

Equal numbers is literarily the solution for siege you are trying to make a run around argument on why numbers should be a thing when numbers are already a thing in reality.

You don't just have 500 or 250 guild members on at all times that are realizable first of all, it really isn't that easy. So numbers is already something that has a bit of challenge to it and some element of politics is needed to get the right people to ensure you have the highest chance of winning.

Also we can look at a game that released already which is about zergs being Throne and liberty you ruin all elements of politics and you just have mega guilds on the server, or everyone working together to win and removing any kind of competition since its not a fight...

If i somehow can bring 2000 more people to automatically win and just destroy all nodes that sounds like easy work. Not only do you need to reduce that there needs to be other caps so not just anyone can get thrown in without reason. If your group is attacking a node it should be mostly YOUR group. AkA guild, node, vassals, etc you pull from.

People seriously need to get out of their head pvpers are better or with better gear so you should be able to zerg them to win. It is extremely silly because the reality if they are going to be zerging your ass and than people complaining these hardcore guilds are doing. While people thinking they can win against large guilds with zergs will be doing the Pikachu case when they end up on the other end.

Also no one is TALKING ABOUT OW pvp, this is only in relation to sieges. Also sieges running like dog crap with all the loss that comes to the server sounds irritating as hell if you see 4k people show up to make the performance bad.

I'm impressed you think recruiting 2000 players is easy work you probably should get into politics for real lol.
Throne and liberty has fast travel which contributes to zerging the whole map that is not true in AoC and with 2000 people in your clan and 83 nodes you only get 24 people per node if you distribute your forces, otherwise its impossible to do what you are suggesting. I don't think you understand the limitation of an actual world you need to travel

Sieges should be about power, and power includes money, influence and politics as well as fighting skills

Also you misunderstood me i'm always in the PvP guilds fighting against zergs so i guess what i'm saying is people should really stop crying about zergs and learn how to fight them

That to me sounds like you aren't really fighting zergs or understanding them in any kind of competitive setting as you try to use the word "get good" Yet you aren't fighting against anyone good.....

Also you thinking mega guilds wont' form and use zergs with a large amount of players in AoC is pretty wild. Based on how popular the game is you will have the most competitive groups work together and gate keep content by zerging. This was already shown to be the case in Throne and liberty to the point it ruined the pvp scene. BDO was also in the same boat with people passing off places and doing fake mock battles.

So ill just bring up actual game examples. Cause its silly to think you are better than fighting 4 of yourself but that is the point of a zerg you vrs *multiple of you.

Dude I'm trying to tell you from the beginning there is no competitive settings siege should not be a competition. Plus if they can get 2k players as skilled as you i'm sorry to tell you the one that is not competitive is most likely you

Also please stop bringing Throne and liberty is complete irrelevant to this discussion server size was 5k plus fast travel, it was pretty much designed for zergs

you keep saying mega guilds, all i hear when you say that is guilds bigger than mine :'( :'( :'(

Lets do some simple logic ok

Big map + No TP + all sieges at the same time = a zergs can take a city but never control the server. and if they split to fight many nodes well that is not a zerg any more right
Plus in this game resources are not unlimited so taking a city with 2k plus might not be even worth it in terms of profit.

Each side should bring to the siege as many people as they can and the server allows with good performance which apparently is 500 v 500 or not even that so i'm not sure why you are bringing 2k players zergs to beging with but in any case 2k is only 20% of the max concurrent users which is not enough to dominate the server without another alliance to be able to fight back

TheHiddenDaggerInn

Liniker wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

The limit on players in a castle siege mostly has to do with technical limits. First and foremost, the castle siege experience has to be decent from a lag/latency/fps perspective, or no one involved will be having any fun. 250v250 is their confirmed minimum amount of players, but they want to try to increase it to 500v500. If one side can only muster 100 players, the siege will still happen even if they are outnumbered by a lot.

I'm strongly against 500v500 for castle sieges :x I think node sieges should hold these extremely massive no cap battles with thousand players or more (if they can achieve it like TL did) since node sieges everyone can participate and have very high stakes,

but castle sieges I hope they make it as the top end game Guild content in a controled enviroment, 250v250 almost too much since most guilds wont be able to get those numbers online, but 500v500 is just no longer guild content and it becomes alliance vs alliance, which I really dislike

Ya that would make sense to allow 500 vs 500 for a node, seeing as it effects so many more people.

Dripyula

For immersions sake I totally support this possibility. I think it will definitely make for some irreplacable, memorable moments. Just imagine the epic of it when your Castle is breached by +600 players while you only have... 300?

Mag7spy

MartianApe wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Now i’m a player that enjoys playing in small but well organized guilds so i’m not strange to been zerged and the frustration that brings, and I admit that in the current day and age content creators and streamers have a little bit too much power when it comes to creating zergs and running people over. However in a world where battles matter because they change the actual state of the world you can say those who win battles have the power to control the state of the world. I just don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP and so increasing the number of people should be a valid response when you can’t win by skill alone.

In my mind the winner of the battle should be the side with the best combination of 4 things:

Skill (PvP players)
Equipment (PvE players)
Organization (Party leaders and/or shot callers)
Numbers (Guild leaders and politician)

The first 3 are fairly common in most MMOs while the fourth “Numbers”, there is usually not much to do other than recruiting more people for your guild.

In Ashes though, there is Politics too, given the way the nodes system works and the fact that there is no fast travel, most guilds will have a base in one city and do activities around that city which means guilds will be competing for limited resources which in turn lead to frictions and battles, but also alliances when it makes sense. And so Guild leaders will do well by keeping good relationships with other guilds with common interests so in case a zerg comes by you have someone to ask for help.

As i said, i don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP because that usually turns to tyranny real quick. Zergs or the potential for a zerg keeps cocky PvPers in place. For this same reason I don't believe castle or node sieges should be instanced or player capped, since that would remove the political factor (Numbers) out of sieges which doesn’t make any sense to me given that the only reason for sieges is actual politics.

We can have fair guild vs guild matches in a coliseum or something i will be the first to sign up for it, but sieges are not the place to define which guild is better at pvp, it's the place to find out which side is more influential and can convince more people their vision for the world is the best.

Now there is a point in which zergs become a problem, this point in my mind is when the difference in number is so big that the fight doesn’t make sense anymore, specially when their only intention is trolling. I’m not arguing zergs are never a problem what i’m saying i guess is forcing equal numbers in fights is not the solution and recruiting more people/guilds to your side should be a valid strategy.

I would love to hear what if people agree or not with this take and please don’t be too harsh on me this is my first post in this forum and English is not my first language

Equal numbers is literarily the solution for siege you are trying to make a run around argument on why numbers should be a thing when numbers are already a thing in reality.

You don't just have 500 or 250 guild members on at all times that are realizable first of all, it really isn't that easy. So numbers is already something that has a bit of challenge to it and some element of politics is needed to get the right people to ensure you have the highest chance of winning.

Also we can look at a game that released already which is about zergs being Throne and liberty you ruin all elements of politics and you just have mega guilds on the server, or everyone working together to win and removing any kind of competition since its not a fight...

If i somehow can bring 2000 more people to automatically win and just destroy all nodes that sounds like easy work. Not only do you need to reduce that there needs to be other caps so not just anyone can get thrown in without reason. If your group is attacking a node it should be mostly YOUR group. AkA guild, node, vassals, etc you pull from.

People seriously need to get out of their head pvpers are better or with better gear so you should be able to zerg them to win. It is extremely silly because the reality if they are going to be zerging your ass and than people complaining these hardcore guilds are doing. While people thinking they can win against large guilds with zergs will be doing the Pikachu case when they end up on the other end.

Also no one is TALKING ABOUT OW pvp, this is only in relation to sieges. Also sieges running like dog crap with all the loss that comes to the server sounds irritating as hell if you see 4k people show up to make the performance bad.

I'm impressed you think recruiting 2000 players is easy work you probably should get into politics for real lol.
Throne and liberty has fast travel which contributes to zerging the whole map that is not true in AoC and with 2000 people in your clan and 83 nodes you only get 24 people per node if you distribute your forces, otherwise its impossible to do what you are suggesting. I don't think you understand the limitation of an actual world you need to travel

Sieges should be about power, and power includes money, influence and politics as well as fighting skills

Also you misunderstood me i'm always in the PvP guilds fighting against zergs so i guess what i'm saying is people should really stop crying about zergs and learn how to fight them

That to me sounds like you aren't really fighting zergs or understanding them in any kind of competitive setting as you try to use the word "get good" Yet you aren't fighting against anyone good.....

Also you thinking mega guilds wont' form and use zergs with a large amount of players in AoC is pretty wild. Based on how popular the game is you will have the most competitive groups work together and gate keep content by zerging. This was already shown to be the case in Throne and liberty to the point it ruined the pvp scene. BDO was also in the same boat with people passing off places and doing fake mock battles.

So ill just bring up actual game examples. Cause its silly to think you are better than fighting 4 of yourself but that is the point of a zerg you vrs *multiple of you.

Dude I'm trying to tell you from the beginning there is no competitive settings siege should not be a competition. Plus if they can get 2k players as skilled as you i'm sorry to tell you the one that is not competitive is most likely you

Also please stop bringing Throne and liberty is complete irrelevant to this discussion server size was 5k plus fast travel, it was pretty much designed for zergs

you keep saying mega guilds, all i hear when you say that is guilds bigger than mine :'( :'( :'(

Lets do some simple logic ok

Big map + No TP + all sieges at the same time = a zergs can take a city but never control the server. and if they split to fight many nodes well that is not a zerg any more right
Plus in this game resources are not unlimited so taking a city with 2k plus might not be even worth it in terms of profit.

Each side should bring to the siege as many people as they can and the server allows with good performance which apparently is 500 v 500 or not even that so i'm not sure why you are bringing 2k players zergs to beging with but in any case 2k is only 20% of the max concurrent users which is not enough to dominate the server without another alliance to be able to fight back

You honestly are not going to be in competitive sieges gear / skill thing. Based on your knowledge / input it is showing you are lacking actual experience here.

If you want to do logic we will do it based on the actual game and how it works, not your magic up logic.

1. You need to dec a place with a siege scroll, that scroll takes a lot of effort to make based on the level of the city. And there is cooldowns based on node progression as well as if you defend. So do not try to say sieges all happen at the same time when that is false information and nothing to do with logic.

2. Sieges are most likely going to get instanced out since its a set amount of people righting in them. By chance they are not or you still need to travel to the area. You will have AMPLE TIME to make your move towards the city and be ready for when the siege happens. Stop trying to use false logic like people don't know how to go somewhere for their event.

3. We are talking about upcapped wars with zergs, if it is not uncapped and even fights there is not much to talk about.

4.20% of the server is a lot when you are talking about sieges and high end content, that is going to be a large % of the strongest player base that will be getting those players together to do it. Please don't try to use a argument that the whole server works together to fight that 20% as some unrealistic point.

If you want to make a argument there is a larger fraction of the server in another group than I would use that as my example for a zerg.

5. Stop trying to make it seem like most people want to fight 1v3+ ratio for siege which will be competitive.
6. You need to realize when people have all their mats in a city and its destroyed to a zerg people are going to be ok with losing all their items in storage to what they would think is BS even more so if it becomes common.

Yikan

I can't say for sure without testing it, but I think there should be a hard cap and a soft cap on participation in a castle siege. Keep the hard cap at 250 v 250 or whatever number that ends up but also allow players to be smuggled in for an ever increasing fee and smuggled players don't respawn at castle spawns.

MartianApe

Dripyula wrote: »

For immersions sake I totally support this possibility. I think it will definitely make for some irreplacable, memorable moments. Just imagine the epic of it when your Castle is breached by +600 players while you only have... 300?

I have memories like this from the Linage 2 times when we manage to maintain our castle for 4 sieges in a row after our previous allies attacked us with 3 times our number it was epic

MartianApe

Mag7spy wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

Now i’m a player that enjoys playing in small but well organized guilds so i’m not strange to been zerged and the frustration that brings, and I admit that in the current day and age content creators and streamers have a little bit too much power when it comes to creating zergs and running people over. However in a world where battles matter because they change the actual state of the world you can say those who win battles have the power to control the state of the world. I just don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP and so increasing the number of people should be a valid response when you can’t win by skill alone.

In my mind the winner of the battle should be the side with the best combination of 4 things:

Skill (PvP players)
Equipment (PvE players)
Organization (Party leaders and/or shot callers)
Numbers (Guild leaders and politician)

The first 3 are fairly common in most MMOs while the fourth “Numbers”, there is usually not much to do other than recruiting more people for your guild.

In Ashes though, there is Politics too, given the way the nodes system works and the fact that there is no fast travel, most guilds will have a base in one city and do activities around that city which means guilds will be competing for limited resources which in turn lead to frictions and battles, but also alliances when it makes sense. And so Guild leaders will do well by keeping good relationships with other guilds with common interests so in case a zerg comes by you have someone to ask for help.

As i said, i don’t believe a small group of people should have all the power just because they are good at PvP because that usually turns to tyranny real quick. Zergs or the potential for a zerg keeps cocky PvPers in place. For this same reason I don't believe castle or node sieges should be instanced or player capped, since that would remove the political factor (Numbers) out of sieges which doesn’t make any sense to me given that the only reason for sieges is actual politics.

We can have fair guild vs guild matches in a coliseum or something i will be the first to sign up for it, but sieges are not the place to define which guild is better at pvp, it's the place to find out which side is more influential and can convince more people their vision for the world is the best.

Now there is a point in which zergs become a problem, this point in my mind is when the difference in number is so big that the fight doesn’t make sense anymore, specially when their only intention is trolling. I’m not arguing zergs are never a problem what i’m saying i guess is forcing equal numbers in fights is not the solution and recruiting more people/guilds to your side should be a valid strategy.

I would love to hear what if people agree or not with this take and please don’t be too harsh on me this is my first post in this forum and English is not my first language

Equal numbers is literarily the solution for siege you are trying to make a run around argument on why numbers should be a thing when numbers are already a thing in reality.

You don't just have 500 or 250 guild members on at all times that are realizable first of all, it really isn't that easy. So numbers is already something that has a bit of challenge to it and some element of politics is needed to get the right people to ensure you have the highest chance of winning.

Also we can look at a game that released already which is about zergs being Throne and liberty you ruin all elements of politics and you just have mega guilds on the server, or everyone working together to win and removing any kind of competition since its not a fight...

If i somehow can bring 2000 more people to automatically win and just destroy all nodes that sounds like easy work. Not only do you need to reduce that there needs to be other caps so not just anyone can get thrown in without reason. If your group is attacking a node it should be mostly YOUR group. AkA guild, node, vassals, etc you pull from.

People seriously need to get out of their head pvpers are better or with better gear so you should be able to zerg them to win. It is extremely silly because the reality if they are going to be zerging your ass and than people complaining these hardcore guilds are doing. While people thinking they can win against large guilds with zergs will be doing the Pikachu case when they end up on the other end.

Also no one is TALKING ABOUT OW pvp, this is only in relation to sieges. Also sieges running like dog crap with all the loss that comes to the server sounds irritating as hell if you see 4k people show up to make the performance bad.

I'm impressed you think recruiting 2000 players is easy work you probably should get into politics for real lol.
Throne and liberty has fast travel which contributes to zerging the whole map that is not true in AoC and with 2000 people in your clan and 83 nodes you only get 24 people per node if you distribute your forces, otherwise its impossible to do what you are suggesting. I don't think you understand the limitation of an actual world you need to travel

Sieges should be about power, and power includes money, influence and politics as well as fighting skills

Also you misunderstood me i'm always in the PvP guilds fighting against zergs so i guess what i'm saying is people should really stop crying about zergs and learn how to fight them

That to me sounds like you aren't really fighting zergs or understanding them in any kind of competitive setting as you try to use the word "get good" Yet you aren't fighting against anyone good.....

Also you thinking mega guilds wont' form and use zergs with a large amount of players in AoC is pretty wild. Based on how popular the game is you will have the most competitive groups work together and gate keep content by zerging. This was already shown to be the case in Throne and liberty to the point it ruined the pvp scene. BDO was also in the same boat with people passing off places and doing fake mock battles.

So ill just bring up actual game examples. Cause its silly to think you are better than fighting 4 of yourself but that is the point of a zerg you vrs *multiple of you.

Dude I'm trying to tell you from the beginning there is no competitive settings siege should not be a competition. Plus if they can get 2k players as skilled as you i'm sorry to tell you the one that is not competitive is most likely you

Also please stop bringing Throne and liberty is complete irrelevant to this discussion server size was 5k plus fast travel, it was pretty much designed for zergs

you keep saying mega guilds, all i hear when you say that is guilds bigger than mine :'( :'( :'(

Lets do some simple logic ok

Big map + No TP + all sieges at the same time = a zergs can take a city but never control the server. and if they split to fight many nodes well that is not a zerg any more right
Plus in this game resources are not unlimited so taking a city with 2k plus might not be even worth it in terms of profit.

Each side should bring to the siege as many people as they can and the server allows with good performance which apparently is 500 v 500 or not even that so i'm not sure why you are bringing 2k players zergs to beging with but in any case 2k is only 20% of the max concurrent users which is not enough to dominate the server without another alliance to be able to fight back

You honestly are not going to be in competitive sieges gear / skill thing. Based on your knowledge / input it is showing you are lacking actual experience here.

If you want to do logic we will do it based on the actual game and how it works, not your magic up logic.

1. You need to dec a place with a siege scroll, that scroll takes a lot of effort to make based on the level of the city. And there is cooldowns based on node progression as well as if you defend. So do not try to say sieges all happen at the same time when that is false information and nothing to do with logic.

2. Sieges are most likely going to get instanced out since its a set amount of people righting in them. By chance they are not or you still need to travel to the area. You will have AMPLE TIME to make your move towards the city and be ready for when the siege happens. Stop trying to use false logic like people don't know how to go somewhere for their event.

3. We are talking about upcapped wars with zergs, if it is not uncapped and even fights there is not much to talk about.

4.20% of the server is a lot when you are talking about sieges and high end content, that is going to be a large % of the strongest player base that will be getting those players together to do it. Please don't try to use a argument that the whole server works together to fight that 20% as some unrealistic point.

If you want to make a argument there is a larger fraction of the server in another group than I would use that as my example for a zerg.

5. Stop trying to make it seem like most people want to fight 1v3+ ratio for siege which will be competitive.
6. You need to realize when people have all their mats in a city and its destroyed to a zerg people are going to be ok with losing all their items in storage to what they would think is BS even more so if it becomes common.

Ok let's try to keep this civilized, i know you are passionate about the topic and this game, I am too, but I didn't come here to make enemies and frankly i don't enjoy discussions like this.

So i will make the first step and try to answer with no provocation.

I'm 37 years old, i played MMOs all my life i only played PvX/Full loot PvP game including Lineage 2 for about 10 years and my assumptions on how the system will work are based on Steven mentioning he is a big fan of Lineage 2 and the fact that other systems already implemented are really similar to what L2 had

from the wiki this description to me sounds extremely similar to L2 siege system including the use of the term guild war or node war to describe the suspension of the Corruption system between members of two guilds or nodes until one of the two surrenders or losses the node in case of nodes.

This description tells me there will be a time window once a month where all declared sieges will be resolved in a period of around 6 hours during server prime time. At least this is how L2 sieges worked back in the day. Now this description can also be interpreted as every castle and node has their own time window on prime server time but different days maybe, however given all other similarities i'm willing to bet its the first option.

Also from the wiki, sieges will most likely be open world with some instanced locations, this is also really similar to L2 castle siege system. In L2 there was a limit for how many guilds could register as attackers or defenders but no cap on how many could actually randomly join with no registration and start attacking people. The limitation for no registered guilds was no respawn point near the castle and they were unable to actually conquer the castle

I have awesome memories trying to hold a castle outnumbered 3 to 1 waiting for the rest of our alliance to finish conquering another castle and come to our rescue.

A system similar to this would force guilds no matter their size to prioritize some fights over others while still allowing small guilds to somewhat influence the fights by just going in with no registration and help the side the want and maybe make some favor with the wining side or at least get some reputation for being good at fighting.

This is an old game but this is by far the best siege system I've seen in all my years playing MMOs and i sincerely hope this is what Steven has planned.

Guilds and Alliances size and limitations are also pretty similar to Lineage 2, although a bit bigger the guilds in AoC are still limited to 300 max and alliances to 3 guilds, now if my guess is correct they will implement it so only one guild actually holds the castle and reap the benefits of it, not even the alliance members.

This system all together makes for zergs to make little sense and crumble over time when internal politics raise inside the mega guild because not everybody get to benefit.

And this is mostly why i sincerely believe Steven when he said

Now i agree that zergs could be a problem and i mentioned it in my first post, i'm concerned about zergs following a content creator or whatever external factor decide to destroy a node for no reason, yes of course and Intrepid has to find a solution for this, I just think there must be another way to avoid troll zergs other than limiting siege sizes.

Now if half the server hates your guild and or node for in-game reasons and they want to zerg your town to the ground i'm all for it and i don't see anything wrong with that

Now hope this helps you see my side of the argument a bit better and sorry for lashing out at you after your first comment.

Child Item