I feel you guys are stuck in trying to rp thinking you are the main character and its going to be like 300( movie). And are not actually thinking about actual game design and the effect of having 500 more people....
Nothing is going to be epic you are just going to lose the fight quickly. And the large guilds are going to be the coordinated hardcore guilds that will forever end up staying in power since now they can zerg down anyone they want.
How you imagine it happening in a rp (movie) is not going to be the reality for players.
You think " Hardcore(lol) Guilds " will stay in Power forever ?
Guess what, Mag7spy ... ... ... 😁 ... ... ... People WILL. NEED. - to band together - so they can take one or a few Elitist Guilds on.
You want the Game to live ?
And not to die ?
Then don't make Nodes where 500 Players can hold the Node against like 1200 to 2500. Because THIS, is how you kill a Game. By taking the Freedom away, even if the Freedom is chaotic.
Why making an MMO where like +9000(?) People can be on One Server - when You Nerf it at the same Time, when a significant Amount of these Players want to go to War for their Fantasy and Fun on that Server ?
This would be the only horrible Shot into the Knee i can imagine for the Game right now.
I feel you guys are stuck in trying to rp thinking you are the main character and its going to be like 300( movie). And are not actually thinking about actual game design and the effect of having 500 more people....
Nothing is going to be epic you are just going to lose the fight quickly. And the large guilds are going to be the coordinated hardcore guilds that will forever end up staying in power since now they can zerg down anyone they want.
How you imagine it happening in a rp (movie) is not going to be the reality for players.
You think " Hardcore(lol) Guilds " will stay in Power forever ?
Guess what, Mag7spy ... ... ... 😁 ... ... ... People WILL. NEED. - to band together - so they can take one or a few Elitist Guilds on.
You want the Game to live ?
And not to die ?
Then don't make Nodes where 500 Players can hold the Node against like 1200 to 2500. Because THIS, is how you kill a Game. By taking the Freedom away, even if the Freedom is chaotic.
Why making an MMO where like +9000(?) People can be on One Server - when You Nerf it at the same Time, when a significant Amount of these Players want to go to War for their Fantasy and Fun on that Server ?
This would be the only horrible Shot into the Knee i can imagine for the Game right now.
500 people? If a hardcore guild can have uncapped wars that only benefits them they will get more people and the best people to win all the wars easily. This isn't benefiting anyone you are trying to make a argument casuals players that won't care as much or put as much time in things are going to be more organized than a serious hardcore guild?
I'm sorry to say this will not be the case you are going to make the game worse and hardcore players getting the benefit of staying in power like a snowball effect.
If you go to war casuals players won't even know what to do waiting for someone to tell them what to do. I've seen this first hand in a war where people had no plan and were wondering what to do. And hardcore players take the reigns and they listen.
I'm sure you aren't fully suggesting this but 9000 people on a server do not need to be at s siege in anything around a fraction of that number in any war. We are talking about a node siege we are not talking about planetside levels where you have multiple nodes you are all fighting over...
Capped numbers and balance between that is fine to make sure fights are strategic, optimized, balanced and are not a complete mess.
I want sieges and wars to feel fun and fair not turn into garbage that no one will care for and zergs massing up to auto win. Again this is not a movie, no one is a main character this is a game. And a game needs to paly well and be fun.
How you kill a game is by making it not fun and imbalanced + frustration of loss and destruction where you can't do anything about it in any capability. And obviously a node isn't holding to hold up 500 against 2500 people... Again which won't be fun for anyone.
I want sieges and wars to feel fun and fair not turn into garbage that no one will care for and zergs massing up to auto win.
It will not be or feel "fair" for +1000 People to not be able to put the Pressure of 1000 People onto a Node which has not enough Defenders to prevent becoming their Vassal.
You are quite right.
Nobody of us is the Main Character. This is not a Movie.
And hence, it should be ingame a lot like it is in Reallife. And War - is not fair. It never has been.
I want sieges and wars to feel fun and fair not turn into garbage that no one will care for and zergs massing up to auto win.
It will not be or feel "fair" for +1000 People to not be able to put the Pressure of 1000 People onto a Node which has not enough Defenders to prevent becoming their Vassal.
You are quite right.
Nobody of us is the Main Character. This is not a Movie.
And hence, it should be ingame a lot like it is in Reallife. And War - is not fair. It never has been.
Vassal system has nothing to do with this...so any arguments around it really shouldn't be talking about being able to destroy a node from zerging...
There is a clear reason why games have balance in it from classes to gameplay. No one has interest in playing a game that isn't fun. Its only a select amount of people advocating they want to fight while being out numbered and lose everything in their storage and house they have been building up with a zerg attacking them. And have that be the norm to the point there is less competition on the server since everyone just goes to live at the same node in order to be apart of the zerg.
Well good thing we are playing a game where is is designed to be fun. Advocating for frustrating game design tied to loss of wealth and all the items in your storage sounds silly. Zerg and/or fight them in the open world if that is what you want to do.
There is a clear reason why games have balance in it from classes to gameplay. No one has interest in playing a game that isn't fun. Its only a select amount of people advocating they want to fight while being out numbered and lose everything in their storage and house they have been building up with a zerg attacking them. And have that be the norm to the point there is less competition on the server since everyone just goes to live at the same node in order to be apart of the zerg.
Well good thing we are playing a game where is is designed to be fun. Advocating for frustrating game design tied to loss of wealth and all the items in your storage sounds silly. Zerg and/or fight them in the open world if that is what you want to do.
You know ?
I am confident +1000 Players or so can STILL easily make the Life of a Node Population of +500 Players of an Enemy Node a living Hell, even if some Nonsense-System prevents them from just taking the Node in a Siege or Two.
You know what this is ?
They can lurk around the Node in Groups and target and repeatedly kill those Node Citizens of that Enemy Node as soon as those gathered some Ressources.
They can sack every - and i truly mean - EVERY. SINGLE. CARAVAN. that might start from the +500 Players Node.
They can support Monster Coin Raids onto the Node and leave massive Damage.
You are not truly as naive to think, that if +1000 Players want to pressure and "sack" a smaller Node, that some magical Nonsense-System/Magic will come and save the significantly outnumbered, smaller Faction of Players,
now do You ? 🙄
Totally disagree with the author and the point voiced in this thread is absolutely not farsighted.
It seems there’s a common oversight in discussions about server balance and gameplay dynamics: the impact of zerg forces. Having witnessed servers transform into stagnant swamps under the weight of zerg domination, I feel compelled to shed light on this issue.
In theory, a server thrives on competition and skill, where any guild or coalition can rise to prominence through strategy and prowess. However, the reality often skews differently when one faction amasses a zerg—a vast number of players that can overwhelm any opposition, regardless of the skill level or tactical acumen of the smaller groups.
This imbalance leads to a one-sided gameplay experience, where a single guild or alliance dominates the server, effectively turning it into a monotonous bog. Opposition guilds, no matter how skilled or organized, find themselves incapable of standing against the sheer volume of players in the zerg. The result? A server where the competitive spirit is crushed under the weight of numbers, driving away players who seek a balanced and engaging competitive environment.
The dominance of a single faction due to zerg tactics removes the incentive for new or existing players to engage in server-wide events or conflicts. It leads to a game state that is unappealing to anyone not part of the ruling zerg, as their efforts seem futile against an insurmountable tide of players.
Addressing this issue is crucial for maintaining a healthy, vibrant server community. Game developers should consider mechanisms to balance power dynamics, such as limiting guild sizes, implementing mechanics that incentivize smaller group play, or devising penalties for zerg behaviors that discourage strategic diversity.
The goal should be to foster an environment where skill, strategy, and teamwork determine success, not merely the capacity to gather the largest mob.
@Vargos Zergs are going to end up happening in OWpvp. But the issue for me is that is a much worse issue when you are talking about zergs that can destroy all the items players own in a storage in a node. Players will end up trying to live in zerg towns to be safe. And why sieges need to not be a zerg fest since that actually has physical effect on player time. Node destruction is the one thing that needs to actually be competitive and not allow a zerg to just win it.
Either way finding the right 250+ people isn't going to be as simple as people think.
@Vargos Zergs are going to end up happening in OWpvp. But the issue for me is that is a much worse issue when you are talking about zergs that can destroy all the items players own in a storage in a node. Players will end up trying to live in zerg towns to be safe. And why sieges need to not be a zerg fest since that actually has physical effect on player time. Node destruction is the one thing that needs to actually be competitive and not allow a zerg to just win it.
Either way finding the right 250+ people isn't going to be as simple as people think.
You forgot Alliances.
Find - and - MAKE - Alliances.
Doesn't matter if you have to bribe People. Doesn't matter if you have to sell yours~... ... ... stuff ingame, to make it happen.
Just kidding. You don't need to sell your Freehold. Or Items. But if 250~ish Elite Players can rise a Node up to a Metropolis and hold it against all Assaults for Conquest and Supremacy against like +1000 Players,
than something will be wrong with the Game not done right.
In the End, one can not argue about Taste or Opinion. I think You seem concerned that You don't find Allies.
I could be as concerned as you as well, over this.
But i am more concerned about the few Freaks and 100.000% No-Lifers being able to act like Kings. While they are in fact, only a few.
It was already back like this in WoW -> Nobody cared about the so called "Kings".
Nobody cares about the Top 100 PvP'ers.
Or the Top 10.
Or who the best Team in the Arena is.
Or who has the best PvP Achievements. Or the rarest and most insane PvP-Mounts.
No matter PvP or PvE, i just run by and pass the People i don't know, need, respect, treasure, care for, whatever you call it.
Why should they be the Kings in Ashes ? They were not even the Kings in all the other MMO's i ever saw. And i don't even knew their Names.
People are always S~OOOOO worried about Unfairness. But never about the Unfairness of the No-Lifing Freaks with things like the best Bandwidth, ingame Gear, Reflexes and/or Teamspeak, Tactics and Swarm- and Hive-mind like Mindset and/or Co-Ordination.
Imagine +9000 Players on a whole Server,
and like a Group of +100 People or so stay the Rulers forever. No matter how many People challenge their Castles and/or Nodes.
Sounds kinda lame. A few shouldn't be able to overpower and dominate the many.
@Vargos Zergs are going to end up happening in OWpvp. But the issue for me is that is a much worse issue when you are talking about zergs that can destroy all the items players own in a storage in a node. Players will end up trying to live in zerg towns to be safe. And why sieges need to not be a zerg fest since that actually has physical effect on player time. Node destruction is the one thing that needs to actually be competitive and not allow a zerg to just win it.
Either way finding the right 250+ people isn't going to be as simple as people think.
You forgot Alliances.
Find - and - MAKE - Alliances.
Doesn't matter if you have to bribe People. Doesn't matter if you have to sell yours~... ... ... stuff ingame, to make it happen.
Just kidding. You don't need to sell your Freehold. Or Items. But if 250~ish Elite Players can rise a Node up to a Metropolis and hold it against all Assaults for Conquest and Supremacy against like +1000 Players,
than something will be wrong with the Game not done right.
In the End, one can not argue about Taste or Opinion. I think You seem concerned that You don't find Allies.
I could be as concerned as you as well, over this.
But i am more concerned about the few Freaks and 100.000% No-Lifers being able to act like Kings. While they are in fact, only a few.
It was already back like this in WoW -> Nobody cared about the so called "Kings".
Nobody cares about the Top 100 PvP'ers.
Or the Top 10.
Or who the best Team in the Arena is.
Or who has the best PvP Achievements. Or the rarest and most insane PvP-Mounts.
No matter PvP or PvE, i just run by and pass the People i don't know, need, respect, treasure, care for, whatever you call it.
Why should they be the Kings in Ashes ? They were not even the Kings in all the other MMO's i ever saw. And i don't even knew their Names.
People are always S~OOOOO worried about Unfairness. But never about the Unfairness of the No-Lifing Freaks with things like the best Bandwidth, ingame Gear, Reflexes and/or Teamspeak, Tactics and Swarm- and Hive-mind like Mindset and/or Co-Ordination.
Imagine +9000 Players on a whole Server,
and like a Group of +100 People or so stay the Rulers forever. No matter how many People challenge their Castles and/or Nodes.
Sounds kinda lame. A few shouldn't be able to overpower and dominate the many.
I'm unsure what you are talking about bringing up "find friends" and talking about alliance in this discussion, seeing as you have had this vibe in other parts of the convo.
I really don't want to bloat a post talking about who and how zergs form. A zerg isn't a random group of people should be enough to explain that and have you stop talking about finding friends.
When it comes to siege fights the best 250 vr 250 is should be the one that wins, that is the whole point....Won't i have more numbers so the node is destroyed. It is called balanced, that 1000 other players will have the befits else where in effecting he node outside of the war.
If it comes down to you wanting content around zerg numbers just destroying all nodes other points have already brought up how that is not good for the heath of the game and stagnates the server.
Yes we clearly have different taste where you want a group to lose do to numbers and i want strategic actual combat and wars. The thing is this is more than just about taste and opinion because wea re talking about node destruction which keep getting ignored and the effect on the server, and the overall effect zergs have on games. Which does not create a heathy atmosphere of pvp., the world and the economy.
So your main worry is people that play more being on top forever, and I'm trying to tell you that doesn't change by making it a zerg fest. You are making it easier for people to stay on top because now they will be the ones making the zergs not the casual player that doesn't care about that kind of work...
People invested into the game with a solid crew around them are going to be the top on AoC that isn't going to change. It takes a lot of work to make a guild like that and there is reasons why they are successful.
Honestly complaining other people are better than you so wanting to zerg them is a bit sad, even more so when you would end up being the first one to complain when those "no-lifers- are the ones that zerg you. This will be my issue people want to use zergs because they can't win a fight and want to be the ones to zerg and won't acknowledge it goes both ways.
Ok si ill further explain some things based on the game. Because sieges are 250 vrs 250 (or 500v500) instantly there is going to be a way to prevent people from engaging be it blocking off the entire zone so no one can go in that area or doing it as an instance. Instance would be the best choice as it be a way that doesn't impact other people from accessing areas / content with what they need to do.
Interesting... is there any comments from the developers or Steven about this, because based on what I've seen so far I'm willing to bet this will not be the case unless an instance is absolutely necessary because of performance reasons.
I understand you like L2 and AoC takes inspiration from a lot of games including L2 but at the same time AoC is its own game and things are going to work different. Rather than castle sieges being uncapped they set a number on it for a reason technical reasons of course. But even Steven doesn't want things to be a zerg fest and have more tactical elements of wars.
I don't think you understand my point, I don't really like L2, not anymore, I would not play another L2, in fact pretty much any other system from L2 i would complain if they implement. It just happen than based on my experience and what information i have from AoC, L2 siege system is the closest i know and happens to be a really good answer to zergs in my opinion.
Also i don't really want a zergfest (maybe my use of the word zerg in the title was a bit too strong and clickbaity ) like you call it either, i just don't think capping the fights is the right solution to zergs and i'm yet not convinced it is needed, i believe the systems i described before would take care of most zerg issues. Maybe i'm a bit naïve but still
I'm also not advocating for any system in particular, i guess if i could summarize the idea i wanted to transmit in a few sentences would be something like this:
"I don't believe capping the fights is the right solution to the zerg problem, it removes most of the influence of politics and strategy from the fight and makes it so it only depends on tactics and fighting skills. Sometimes even numbers does not mean the fight is even. Sieges can me something more than just a competitive pvp activity"
You might not agree with this I'm guessing, and that is fine. If it ends up being like you are describing it, its fine too, I will be doing my best with the existing rules, but it will be like any other MMO in my opinion.
We need to remember the effect of a node being destroyed literally removes content and removed every single item every player had in the town into nothing for them as well as their homes. When people lose things in a way they feel is unfair it is going to damage the game. Zerg strats are powerful and hard to deal with and why there is excitement if you manage to win. Though at most times what happens is complete discouragement meant because most people are going to lose. People will end up living in the town where the zergs are strongest just to stay protected and further ruin the balance of the world and cause overall less pvp since it isn't worth the risk of being attacked by the zerg.
This i completely agree, a complete destruction of a node its something to severe for a random zerg to be able to accomplish, however losing a node will be discouraging and feel unfair anyways. Also it will feel even more unfair and discouraging for a guild with 250 of the best PvPers to take over and destroy a 2000 citizen town without them being able to do anything just because they are good at PvP, specially if 80% of the citizens can only watch and prey.
Also one more point i wanted to pick your mind on, you mention you would prefer if Castle Sieges are a Guild content instead of an Alliance content, i'm not sure if this was discussed at some point or not but for example let's say a server has 15k users, at 300 members per guild there is 50 guilds just to get a number, but there is only 5 castles and this can only be attacked once a month. How do we decide who goes first? is there a months long queue to attack or how does that work? can there be multiple attackers?
To focus on the point about the people in the city not being able to fight because its capped to whatever number that might be. Yes people will complain if its loss cause people are attached. People will also complain if they can fight and its loss from something they deem unfair even more so. If that thing is unfair and feels like they can not win against it they will be even more vexed and start blaming the game over blaming players. Which has a much more negative impact.
Castles sieges are guild content based on the game.
Though i am for that being guild content as i view there should be a lot of layers of different elements of pvp. Nodes, guilds, corruption, etc. Rather than everything just being the same allowing for different elements of groups to be able to enjoy pvp like smaller groups.
I'm unsure what their plans to do are for it, my only guess is like how you dec on a node you will have to make a scroll to dec on a castle. IMO when someone decs it should give a window to allow others to dec and pick a random dec of that pile that go for it. (Which helps reduce people trying to game the system and do fake decs so they can remain uncontested).
Though i feel once a month is too long I'd rather have it be more bi weekly or atleast once every 3 weeks. But everything is down to testing and can be changed at the end of the day.
My own question to you so i can better understand is why do you think more numbers of equal power are not going to win. Be it defending or attacking and removing the bias advantage either group might have. More people = more dmg, healing, tanks, etc. If you have a group doing double the dmg there is no reason why they won't be winning.
I also don't really think politics on bringing more people is really that big a deal, generally people will want to fight even more so if they re rewards. Things are going to be skewed for people to want to come to destroy a node and get a bunch of loot. People in PvP always lean more on the destructive side even more so when there is a reward so getting people isn't hard.
Also more on politics unless we are going to be very punishing with the amount of sieges you can do in attacking I don't feel that leans too much on the politics in a sense. Mainly because there isn't a cost for an individual to help in an attack (i can explain more on this if needed).
Well the type of system i have in my mind (based on no real info or data and probably not the one they will implement) would not reward players for participating in the siege, in fact it could even penalize them with exp lost per death. But then the Castle owner should get big benefits, maybe even part if the taxes of the nearby towns or access to special dungeons or unique items that only the castle can craft, i don't know something he could distribute between the people that helped him take the castle. And then hopefully very difficult to capture with one guild alone so alliances are needed and deals have to be made.
So motivation for people to participate is either riches or wanting to take power away from the current owner. This makes the owner a powerful player in the region but still reliant on alliances or at least good relationships with other guilds and the citizens in general. This way big guilds have reasons to ally with small guilds and maybe even help the grow but in the other hand day to day activities can cause friction between guilds or even bring them closer if for example they get together to fight for bosses in the open world.
Now the profit for owning a castle is limited and probably not worth the hassle if split into too many players/guilds, the way you share the profits can also cause alliances to dissolve in my opinion, specially when egos get mixed in.
I see sieges not as a end game activity necessarily but instead something all guilds in different stages of development can participate even if they contribute very little at least they take focus away from important targets. when there is no cap every single body counts
Anyway i like to dream a little from time to time haha.
Regarding politics, in a system like this politics play a big role in bringing people to the battle but also to keep attackers away too, having good trading relationships with nearby towns is essential to reduce the number of people wanting to plunder your node. Getting to know in advance who is attacking you and bribing the right guild to pretend to join the attackers and instead defend would break the moral in the attacking side and potentially stop them from trying again in the near future. Having alliances with guild with high reputation as good siege fighters could make plunderers choose another node over yours
To your question about numbers, the way i see it, having more numbers only give you more "potential damage", "potential heals", etc. how much of that potential damage your team actually applies is a completely different thing and on top of that the damage can also get mitigated by heals and shields.
For example 10 of your range dps focus down 1 enemy when only 5 where necessary to ensure the kill, you wasted 5 people rotations and so half your potential damage. On the other hand of 4 people focused the enemy and the enemy survives for any reason you also wasted 4 people rotations and a big chunk of potential damage.
Now of course this has a limit and the more organized and experienced the other side is the harder it is to get an advantage from doing that.
But there is many levels at which you can apply this same way of thinking, of course you have the individual level where some key roles and important cooldowns that can make a difference. You also have the party level, even in tab target combat systems the ability of a party to maintain combat readiness during the engages and win even battle after even battle with no to few losses. You have what in my guild we used to call squads (2-5 parties with one shot caller acting as a single group), at this level you have things like when to engage and how, when to retreat, setting traps with big cooldowns, holding choke points. And finally the main shot caller coordinating the different squads to pull ambushes, timing attacks, etc. and thinking on the main objective, sometimes killing the enemy is not the only way to win.
Different games have different skill caps in each one of this levels, and it might be that a game doesn't have any room for outplay on one or more of this levels. I've seen siege battles won by decisive actions at each one of this levels.
On top of that you have trickery and quick thinking, you can trick your enemies into splitting or even not defending entirely by just deceiving your enemy. In one instance convinced our allies (that were attacking a castle at the same time we were defending ours) to borrow their scout party and post it right outside of the siege area where the enemies had their respawn flag so the enemies fearing and attack from our allies had to keep a considerable amount of forces defending their flag since loosing the flag meant a lot longer cooldowns on death, so we had a easier time holding the castle just by bluffing a backdoor attack to their flag.
On top of all of this I believe a castle should give the owner a significant advantage in the battle, that is the whole point of a castle, so defending while outnumbered should be more commonly achieved while attacking even with equal numbers should be fairly difficult.
Also I believe attacking a castle siege should have a big cost, not only in time but also in resources, maybe even greater cost the bigger your army is, after all that is true in real life and it would deter zergs looking only for loot. Following the idea that pvp should be meaningful and affect the state of the world, node sieges and castle sieges should be sparse in my opinion and drain the resources of both sides.
BTW: Sorry for the delay i was away for the holidays.. and Ren'Kai fighter hype !!
I want sieges and wars to feel fun and fair not turn into garbage that no one will care for and zergs massing up to auto win.
It will not be or feel "fair" for +1000 People to not be able to put the Pressure of 1000 People onto a Node which has not enough Defenders to prevent becoming their Vassal.
You are quite right.
Nobody of us is the Main Character. This is not a Movie.
And hence, it should be ingame a lot like it is in Reallife. And War - is not fair. It never has been.
There is a clear reason why games have balance in it from classes to gameplay. No one has interest in playing a game that isn't fun. Its only a select amount of people advocating they want to fight while being out numbered and lose everything in their storage and house they have been building up with a zerg attacking them. And have that be the norm to the point there is less competition on the server since everyone just goes to live at the same node in order to be apart of the zerg.
You're wrong though. I've been the guy who kept having to rally people together when the enemy was zerging, or the enemy tryhard guilds were controlling everything and taking everything uncontested. And without fail, once the losing side has been rallied together in spite of the disadvantage, and once they've started fighting the enemy off and realised that they can win again (could be for multiple reasons; distracted enemies or because the losing side recruited so many people who were fed up with the tryhard guilds' dominance) - they're staying around for hours longer than they initially intended to play that night. And they log back on more than they have been the previous month.
People absolutely love banding together against the odds. They act demotivated and passionless when they've been beaten by a majority a few times, but if you keep encouraging them to try again and recruit more people for their purpose, the war spirit in them lights up and they have more fun than they've ever had in any fair battles in their entire lives.
It's a question of quality over quantity. Fair fights are more consistent, but they're boring. Lifeless. A job.
if you want fair fights, play a MOBA. MMOs should get their group dynamics from players' decisions, not the game design.
Most here post in a Role play sense while pretending to mimic "real life". The underdog story line is only fun if you can come out on top. If not you are only ever "second". This whole supposed game without game rules make even less sense. Larger groups will come out on top in this Game. No idea why pretending to uncap anything would add or change that. Granted its way better to hide as a bad player in larger groups.
I'm unsure what you are talking about bringing up "find friends" and talking about alliance in this discussion, seeing as you have had this vibe in other parts of the convo.
Not necessarily just the People from possible Friendlists of Course.
I really don't want to bloat a post talking about who and how zergs form. A zerg isn't a random group of people should be enough to explain that and have you stop talking about finding friends.
Does it really matter if you team up with complete, random Strangers - or People one has known for Decades of VideoGaming ?
I know just one thing -> when People are not allowed to attack a Node with ALL THEY HAVE - saying as in ALL their Members available to attack a Node,
only so that a minor Group of Defenders has a Chance and can actually defend a Node against a bigger Group of People that would normally overwhelm them,
then that leaves the Enemies with superior Numbers with nothing but to terrorise the Node-Citizens of the Node they want to subdue outside the Sieges. Like sacking all the Caravans. Like Assassinating all the Ressource Gatherers.
And so on - and so on.
As douchy as this sounds - > i am just saying what i can easily expect People to do, as someone who played Planetside 2 and experienced People from the OTHER FACTIONS log out and in again as "Soldiers on our Side" and then C4-bombing us from behind into our own Vehicles to breach our Positions as Engineer's from our Side, so that our Sunderers blow up and give the Enemy Lines a Chance to push forward in Stalemate-Situations.
( As annoying as this was -> People took the WAR-ASPECT of Planetside Two very, VERY seriously back then. and i admit it was kinda funny at times. Addes to the unexpecting. )
I am superconfident Mag7 and Please mark my Words - > if the System will be INTENTIONALLY designed to give a Leg-up to normally inferior Numbers of Players against superior Numbers of their Opponents,
THESE OPPONENTS - WILL - find a Way to still put the Pressure on their outnumbered Enemies.
I want sieges and wars to feel fun and fair not turn into garbage that no one will care for and zergs massing up to auto win.
It will not be or feel "fair" for +1000 People to not be able to put the Pressure of 1000 People onto a Node which has not enough Defenders to prevent becoming their Vassal.
You are quite right.
Nobody of us is the Main Character. This is not a Movie.
And hence, it should be ingame a lot like it is in Reallife. And War - is not fair. It never has been.
There is a clear reason why games have balance in it from classes to gameplay. No one has interest in playing a game that isn't fun. Its only a select amount of people advocating they want to fight while being out numbered and lose everything in their storage and house they have been building up with a zerg attacking them. And have that be the norm to the point there is less competition on the server since everyone just goes to live at the same node in order to be apart of the zerg.
You're wrong though. I've been the guy who kept having to rally people together when the enemy was zerging, or the enemy tryhard guilds were controlling everything and taking everything uncontested. And without fail, once the losing side has been rallied together in spite of the disadvantage, and once they've started fighting the enemy off and realised that they can win again (could be for multiple reasons; distracted enemies or because the losing side recruited so many people who were fed up with the tryhard guilds' dominance) - they're staying around for hours longer than they initially intended to play that night. And they log back on more than they have been the previous month.
People absolutely love banding together against the odds. They act demotivated and passionless when they've been beaten by a majority a few times, but if you keep encouraging them to try again and recruit more people for their purpose, the war spirit in them lights up and they have more fun than they've ever had in any fair battles in their entire lives.
It's a question of quality over quantity. Fair fights are more consistent, but they're boring. Lifeless. A job.
if you want fair fights, play a MOBA. MMOs should get their group dynamics from players' decisions, not the game design.
You are mixing rp with what will actually happen.
You will e trying to rally when most the people have already joined the zerg guilds, a few people will show up maybe you get a bit lucky. And half those people leaving during mid stomp and voice coms quiet as you can't do anything but get rushed down and end up losing quickly.
People annoyed at you all their crap got destroyed and go find the zerg guild nodes to live in or quit the game tired of dealing with this over and over again.
You may be find losing all your stuff and being weak over and over again. That is not most people.
You will e trying to rally when most the people have already joined the zerg guilds, a few people will show up maybe you get a bit lucky. And half those people leaving during mid stomp and voice coms quiet as you can't do anything but get rushed down and end up losing quickly.
People annoyed at you all their crap got destroyed and go find the zerg guild nodes to live in or quit the game tired of dealing with this over and over again.
You may be find losing all your stuff and being weak over and over again. That is not most people.
Did you describe what You think will happen TO YOURSELF, Mag7spy ?
You think when the Game is not as you want, the Game will die and People will constantly lose their Nodes ?
I can only say it again and again,
if a huuuge, bigger Number of Players want to Expand their little Empire of a Node, made their own Node into a Metropolis - and subdue the Nodes around themself and turn then into their Vassals,
no Mechanic will stop them. No possible Siege-Limitations who shrink their Number of who can attack their targeted Node to the same Number as those who will defend the Node, will stop them.
They can attack and ambush EVERY. SINGLE. CARAVAN. that leaves that Node, with significant Numbers of Players.
Doesn't matter if it's economical Caravans, or Player Caravans. <- This last Statement is only wrong in Case Players can not attack "PvE-spawned" Caravans who are more or less(?) economical.
And they can bloody murder (lol) EVERY Ressource Gatherer, Farmer, Animal/Meat-Hunter, Mineral-Miner etc. when those leave their Node. Their Pals can even "murder" their Comrades to punch the Corruption out of them, should their Victims not fight back and die green.
Lastly,
there is the Possibility of Sabotage possible.
Just plant/smuggle +10 to +80 oft the own People into the "Defender Ranks" as seemingly harmless Node Citizens - and then do some Afk Stuff or stand there jerking off ( ) or whatever else, when the fighting Begins.
Then, the smuggled in "Defenders" help their Attacker-Friends by intentionally losing -> BOOM Node sacked.
NOTHING will stop the Rise of our evil Empire. Muahahahahaahah.
I am of the opinion that nothing should be fair, because then even casuals have a chance to move something in the world and not even the most sweaty tryhard Elitists are safe behind their meta-/ -knowledge,-gear,-builds,-preperations and it will be everybodys game literally.
I also think that if a defending side has lets say... 200 people in their guild and they are attacked by +4 guilds who also have around 200 people... and the defenders could not motivate even more people to defend their node then welp... they have all the right in the world to lose it.
Because diplomacy, bribery and charisma are also stats and arts that should not be underestimated.
Since Ashes is going in on all that realism stuff, why not truly go all out and make a charismatic and highly manipulative mastermind hold the power they deserve?
But I think no matter how a node-siege for example turns out and one sides "loses it all", that the defenders still have a timewindow to evacuate their node and safe about 90% to 80% of their belongings, if their bags are just big and deep enough, it that makes sense.
And that defenders who are overwhelmed in numbers but still dare to stand courageously against impossible odds will impress maybe some ancient old deity of combat & valor, who then blesses them for a unique buff that might also last a month of active playtime, which only ticks down outside a node. So that even being zerged has its smalltime benefits.
You will e trying to rally when most the people have already joined the zerg guilds, a few people will show up maybe you get a bit lucky. And half those people leaving during mid stomp and voice coms quiet as you can't do anything but get rushed down and end up losing quickly.
People annoyed at you all their crap got destroyed and go find the zerg guild nodes to live in or quit the game tired of dealing with this over and over again.
You may be find losing all your stuff and being weak over and over again. That is not most people.
Did you describe what You think will happen TO YOURSELF, Mag7spy ?
You think when the Game is not as you want, the Game will die and People will constantly lose their Nodes ?
I can only say it again and again,
if a huuuge, bigger Number of Players want to Expand their little Empire of a Node, made their own Node into a Metropolis - and subdue the Nodes around themself and turn then into their Vassals,
no Mechanic will stop them. No possible Siege-Limitations who shrink their Number of who can attack their targeted Node to the same Number as those who will defend the Node, will stop them.
They can attack and ambush EVERY. SINGLE. CARAVAN. that leaves that Node, with significant Numbers of Players.
Doesn't matter if it's economical Caravans, or Player Caravans. <- This last Statement is only wrong in Case Players can not attack "PvE-spawned" Caravans who are more or less(?) economical.
And they can bloody murder (lol) EVERY Ressource Gatherer, Farmer, Animal/Meat-Hunter, Mineral-Miner etc. when those leave their Node. Their Pals can even "murder" their Comrades to punch the Corruption out of them, should their Victims not fight back and die green.
Lastly,
there is the Possibility of Sabotage possible.
Just plant/smuggle +10 to +80 oft the own People into the "Defender Ranks" as seemingly harmless Node Citizens - and then do some Afk Stuff or stand there jerking off ( ) or whatever else, when the fighting Begins.
Then, the smuggled in "Defenders" help their Attacker-Friends by intentionally losing -> BOOM Node sacked.
NOTHING will stop the Rise of our evil Empire. Muahahahahaahah.
To myself, no I'm talking about being realistic on what is actually going to happen in the game. I don't talk about myself I talk about situation people will do in general.
Literarily you already stated your point is you want to zerg try hard guilds because they play more than you. Without realizing those try hard guilds will be the ones that zerg you.
I am of the opinion that nothing should be fair, because then even casuals have a chance to move something in the world and not even the most sweaty tryhard Elitists are safe behind their meta-/ -knowledge,-gear,-builds,-preperations and it will be everybodys game literally.
I also think that if a defending side has lets say... 200 people in their guild and they are attacked by +4 guilds who also have around 200 people... and the defenders could not motivate even more people to defend their node then welp... they have all the right in the world to lose it.
Because diplomacy, bribery and charisma are also stats and arts that should not be underestimated.
Since Ashes is going in on all that realism stuff, why not truly go all out and make a charismatic and highly manipulative mastermind hold the power they deserve?
But I think no matter how a node-siege for example turns out and one sides "loses it all", that the defenders still have a timewindow to evacuate their node and safe about 90% to 80% of their belongings, if their bags are just big and deep enough, it that makes sense.
And that defenders who are overwhelmed in numbers but still dare to stand courageously against impossible odds will impress maybe some ancient old deity of combat & valor, who then blesses them for a unique buff that might also last a month of active playtime, which only ticks down outside a node. So that even being zerged has its smalltime benefits.
That is not how it works, all stuff in storages are locked the moment your guild is dec'd. You don't get to take out your items and run away....This meta with casual players thinking gameplay should be more numbers = i win is kind of sad.
I get a lot of you have not done any kind of pvp in mmorpgs recently or have come from more casual mmorpgs. But casuals are not going to be the ones zerging, that is a meta hardcore guilds will be able to use and actually organize / control people. You are simply asking to make the bar impossible for people to overcome it.
I feel you all really are thinking a node is dec's so anyone can just jump in it as well meaning to just destruction of the economy.
"Things shouldn't be fair" anytime i hear that around a siege sounds like people that can't actually win any fight and wanting gameplay of 0 mechanics and just numbers to win fights. But they want to be the ones with the advantage and no one else or they end up complaining.
*edit this idea of casuals raising up to beat a zerg or having better skills than hardcore players is kind of silly. Casuals aren't going to be trying to do diplomacy, bribery and charisma in any real kind of capacity. That is the power hardcore guilds are going to have obviously.
Zergs are trash but there's always going to be zergs.
I played Lineage 2 for 10 years and I faced zergs all the time, usually fought outnumbered as a Saggi because I enjoyed it. The fights vs zergs are literally determined in the first 15 seconds. You got their healerS and somehow outplayed their numbers? You didn't? No? Well then you lost and its over cause half the people aren't coming back to that fight. At least 50% of the people who fight a zerg will die once and never come back to the siege if they're aware they're against massive numbers unless they are part of a highly coordinated group of players.
IMO, just add +1.5 seconds respawn timer per surplus player on the zerg side.
Attacking side has 100. Defending Zerg has 300? Okay, each defending player has a 300 seconds respawn timer during the siege because they have 200 more players than the Attacking side. They still have the numbers advantage, should be fine, right?
To myself, no I'm talking about being realistic on what is actually going to happen in the game.
Actually you kinda convinced me.
I think it will probably be just as You said - and no matter how many "THOUSAND" Players might want to take down one or two specific Nodes,
if none of them can manage to get 250 to 500 People standing which will be able to beat the 250 to 500 Defenders of said Node/s,
then those Nodes will be undefeated forever no matter how much the superior Numbers of hostile Players make the Life of those Node Citizens a living Hell - now won't it ?
Literarily you already stated your point is you want to zerg try hard guilds because they play more than you. Without realizing those try hard guilds will be the ones that zerg you.
I am quite aware since Moment 1 that i myself and everyone i see myself allied with - can also become caught up and Cannonfodder for those Zergs.
But here is the interesting Part, Mag7.
When i mean more People than the usual "Limit" should be able to participate into Node Sieges,
then this is not just meant by "joining the Attackers" and simply crush every single Node in Existence where the Leaders of the gigantic Zerg are in the Mood to do so,
but it also means that People can also freely decide to join and team up with the Defenders.
Of Course this might be tricky when the Defenders are all entrenched in the Node behind the Walls - and everyone hostile "AND" friendly might be Outside.
Some People would need to attack the Attackers from other Directions of the Outside, instead of being able to join the usual Defenders inside the Node/City Walls.
To myself, no I'm talking about being realistic on what is actually going to happen in the game.
Actually you kinda convinced me.
I think it will probably be just as You said - and no matter how many "THOUSAND" Players might want to take down one or two specific Nodes,
if none of them can manage to get 250 to 500 People standing which will be able to beat the 250 to 500 Defenders of said Node/s,
then those Nodes will be undefeated forever no matter how much the superior Numbers of hostile Players make the Life of those Node Citizens a living Hell - now won't it ?
Literarily you already stated your point is you want to zerg try hard guilds because they play more than you. Without realizing those try hard guilds will be the ones that zerg you.
I am quite aware since Moment 1 that i myself and everyone i see myself allied with - can also become caught up and Cannonfodder for those Zergs.
But here is the interesting Part, Mag7.
When i mean more People than the usual "Limit" should be able to participate into Node Sieges,
then this is not just meant by "joining the Attackers" and simply crush every single Node in Existence where the Leaders of the gigantic Zerg are in the Mood to do so,
but it also means that People can also freely decide to join and team up with the Defenders.
Of Course this might be tricky when the Defenders are all entrenched in the Node behind the Walls - and everyone hostile "AND" friendly might be Outside.
Some People would need to attack the Attackers from other Directions of the Outside, instead of being able to join the usual Defenders inside the Node/City Walls.
I dont have issues with zergs outside of siege because that isn't really somethin you are going to prevent at the end of the day. And id rather not see weird systems in the OW to make things awkward if it makes the game worse. That is why i say this is a thing for sieges and such to be capped (as castle siege already is). Its still not going to be easy to find the right amount of people be it the cap for highest node siege be 500 players or whatever the number might be.
Politics and such can all play a role with nodes being able to offer help to other nodes through sieges machines, defenses, maybe special buffs for certain fights, etc. The use of politics and such can easily have a large effect on wars without simply making node wars a zerg fest.
"Things shouldn't be fair" anytime i hear that around a siege sounds like people that can't actually win any fight and wanting gameplay of 0 mechanics and just numbers to win fights. But they want to be the ones with the advantage and no one else or they end up complaining.
It's very simple: All players should be able to have agency and impact on developments in the game. Tryhards should have more impact. But a tryhard shouldn't have 100% of potential impact on the state of the map, while casuals get to...farm siege weapons for them. There's a limit to how much a tryhard should be able to expect for their mastery and dedication, and "all the most meaningful siege action, while casuals sit on the bench" is not it.
I've been in fairly exclusive, dedicated guilds in the games I've played. Solid coordination, regular dominance, often while outnumbered, often while fighting equally dedicated guilds on the opposing side. I know what it feels like to win through dedication and expertise. You can save the ad hominems and just argue your point about the system, thank you. I just don't want to see people get bored of not getting to be involved in core gameplay elements because the hardcore guilds reserve that space for themselves.
Especially not if the system is designed that way because people like you convinced themselves that players would be less likely to leave the game if they get to watch "fair" fights fought by their friendly hardcore guild representatives than if they lose "unbalanced" fights that they actually get to participate in.
*edit this idea of casuals raising up to beat a zerg or having better skills than hardcore players is kind of silly. Casuals aren't going to be trying to do diplomacy, bribery and charisma in any real kind of capacity.
In an unrestricted siege army variety of the game, who are these hardcore players who are going around crushing casual-but-emotionally-invested fragile players but simultaneously magically charismatic enough to be winning the diplomacy wars? Who are they allying with? If their diplomacy was as persuasive as you make it out to be, wouldn't they be allied with most of the citizens in their surrounding territories? (Otherwise they'd be outnumbered, which you're saying can't happen to the hardcore alliances.)
And if I'm right that they are allied with those people - who are their enemies who you're claiming they will frustrate with the inevitable losses they will cause them to suffer?
Those opponents who are so devastated about having their stuff taken away by the unlimited tryhard zergs - how would their life be better in a game with restricted siege instances? Wouldn't they have exactly the same problems in either game, except in yours they don't even get to show up on the battlefield in the first place, because it's all decided by proxy wars controlled by the hardcore guilds of their region?
The math outlining the supposed advantages of the restrictions just isn't mathing for me.
"Things shouldn't be fair" anytime i hear that around a siege sounds like people that can't actually win any fight and wanting gameplay of 0 mechanics and just numbers to win fights. But they want to be the ones with the advantage and no one else or they end up complaining.
It's very simple: All players should be able to have agency and impact on developments in the game. Tryhards should have more impact. But a tryhard shouldn't have 100% of potential impact on the state of the map, while casuals get to...farm siege weapons for them. There's a limit to how much a tryhard should be able to expect for their mastery and dedication, and "all the most meaningful siege action, while casuals sit on the bench" is not it.
I've been in fairly exclusive, dedicated guilds in the games I've played. Solid coordination, regular dominance, often while outnumbered, often while fighting equally dedicated guilds on the opposing side. I know what it feels like to win through dedication and expertise. You can save the ad hominems and just argue your point about the system, thank you. I just don't want to see people get bored of not getting to be involved in core gameplay elements because the hardcore guilds reserve that space for themselves.
*edit this idea of casuals raising up to beat a zerg or having better skills than hardcore players is kind of silly. Casuals aren't going to be trying to do diplomacy, bribery and charisma in any real kind of capacity.
In an unrestricted siege army variety of the game, who are these hardcore players who are going around crushing casual-but-passionate players but simultaneously magically charismatic enough to be winning the diplomacy wars? Who are they allying with? If their diplomacy was as persuasive as you make it out to be, wouldn't they be allied with most of the citizens in their surrounding territories? (Otherwise they'd be outnumbered, which you're saying can't happen to the hardcore alliances.)
And if I'm right that they are allied with those people - who are their enemies who you're claiming they will frustrate with the inevitable losses they will cause them to suffer?
Those opponents who are so devastated about having their stuff taken away by the unlimited tryhard zergs - how would their life be better in a game with restricted siege instances? Wouldn't they have exactly the same problems in either game, except in yours they don't even get to show up on the battlefield in the first place, because it's all decided by proxy wars controlled by the hardcore guilds of their region?
The math outlining the supposed advantages of the restrictions just isn't mathing for me.
You are missing the difference between a casual and a try hard player. It gives me the vibe you are expecting casuals to get a "handout" in a sense. If a casual player wants to use their resources to dec a area and bring it into war, all the power to them and not having to sit on the bench. The whole point is who is pushing places into war and defending it. Generally it is going to be more motivated players and such to get that going as casuals don't have as much time to do it because they play or progress less. There is no difference what both of players can accomplish as it is a time thing.
If a casual wants to lead a war they can fully do it but is clear if it takes a lot effort and materials to make the scroll they won't be as motivated to do it using their time elsewhere. Or perhaps you might see them go for small nodes that use less resources to dec.
Either way siege should be the highest levels as they are more so once in while, if siege is what makes people bored from not doing it game has a bunch of other issues as siege isn't something that happens as often for everyone. Other elements of pvp should be what keeps people entertaining at not biweek / monthly gated content.
You think its going to be hardcore vrs casuals players when that isn't the case its going to be hardcore players controlling things and a few groups of them. Casual players will be going to nodes where the hardcore players are at to be safe and be part of the zergs to destroy other nodes.
There life will be better because instead of losing instantly they actually can put up a fight and force ZERGS to have to use a even number of people instead of an automatic win in a siege. People do not have fun in a 1v3 1v5 situation, people will be even more emotionally charged losing to bs reasons when it cost them actual progress with the game (loss of all items in storage and house).
So ya the math is pretty simple 30v65 is not fun its not really high level math or anything. Unless you are talking about being over geared and one shooting groups of people. Every one has power fantasies.
It gives me the vibe you are expecting casuals to get a "handout" in a sense.
In what dystopian nightmare is gameplay a "handout"? The richer players on the winning side can still be the ones who get to cash in all the rewards for their investment, that's not a determining factor for whether the casuals get to show up to defend their preferred side.
You're pretending you're protecting casuals from tryhard guilds overrunning them with the zergs that they are supposedly guaranteed to control, but look how scared you are of casuals choosing to defend the poor diligent hardcore guilds' opposing side and ruining their oh-so-well-earned economic superiority, just by showing up and "voting with their PvP" instead of their time / (ingame) money.
Which is it? Do the most powerful hardcore guilds control the masses, or can the masses ruin the hardcore guilds' investments and compromise their power?
Their life will be better because instead of losing instantly they actually can put up a fight and force ZERGS to have to use a even number of people instead of an automatic win in a siege.
No they couldn't. Their hardcore player overlords and their preferred allied recruits could. The casuals would be left on the benches.
Generally it is going to be more motivated players and such to get that going as casuals don't have as much time to do it because they play or progress less. There is no difference what both of players can accomplish as it is a time thing.
You're removing interesting gameplay, community, and PvP prowess dynamics, and replacing them with e-peen measurement contests won by whoever sinks more of their time into the game. You're ignoring the main point of my first paragraph: I'm all for hardcore players getting the advantage. But you're not giving casuals the disadvantage, you're straight-up removing them from the PVP equation portion of the outcome of the siege.
It gives me the vibe you are expecting casuals to get a "handout" in a sense.
In what dystopian nightmare is gameplay a "handout"? The richer players on the winning side can still be the ones who get to cash in all the rewards for their investment, that's not a determining factor for whether the casuals get to show up to defend their preferred side.
You're pretending you're protecting casuals from tryhard guilds overrunning them with the zergs that they are supposedly guaranteed to control, but look how scared you are of casuals choosing to defend the poor diligent hardcore guilds' opposing side and ruining their oh-so-well-earned economic superiority, just by showing up and "voting with their PvP" instead of their time / (ingame) money.
Which is it? Do the most powerful hardcore guilds control the masses, or can the masses ruin the hardcore guilds' investments and compromise their power?
Their life will be better because instead of losing instantly they actually can put up a fight and force ZERGS to have to use a even number of people instead of an automatic win in a siege.
No they couldn't. Their hardcore player overlords and their preferred allied recruits could. The casuals would be left on the benches.
Generally it is going to be more motivated players and such to get that going as casuals don't have as much time to do it because they play or progress less. There is no difference what both of players can accomplish as it is a time thing.
You're removing interesting gameplay, community, and PvP prowess dynamics, and replacing them with e-peen measurement contests won by whoever sinks more of their time into the game. You're ignoring the main point of my first paragraph: I'm all for hardcore players getting the advantage. But you're not giving casuals the disadvantage, you're straight-up removing them from the PVP equation portion of the outcome of the siege.
Again you arent' getting it "handouts" is about you thinking casuals can't dec a node, that is equal to anyone if they put the effort into it. Of course casuals will have less everything though. Anyway your point casuals sit on the bench isn't true they just have to dec the war themselves
Don't bloat the post about someone being scared please this has nothing to do with the conversation even more so if you are reading out of any fact to bring.
You are getting things confused with what you have been saying or the others about using Zergs to beat hardcore guilds when that isn't what is going to happen as I've already said. Hardcore guilds will use the zerg mechanics to the fullest in pvp.
again stop bring up benches its a stupid point, first off sieges is the end game of PvP that is liek saying casuals are sitting on the benches and can't do end game raids. Second Casuals can dec and choose who fights in the war if they want to. Stop making up air to try to use as a point.
Zergs give hardcore players the advantage you just don't want to accept that because you think casuals are suddenly going to become more skilled and invested than hardcore players.
You saying interesting gameplay is an actual meme, you want to remove interesting gameplay and mechanics in siege that can be balanced out and just have it being a zerg fest. Where the only mechanicals is about how any numbers you can bring to win a fight. Removing the idea of rotations and such and just having tons of numbers everywhere every second until you win.
You try to make it sounds like community isn't a thing, the idea you think if you can't zerg there is no community, politics, etc its pretty incorrect. There is tons of ways to have an influence on a node outside of war which should be a thing, as well as ways to support wars without being there between different nodes.
Which brings me back to my point you want casuals to have free hand-outs to be in siege without actually putting in the effort to dec themselves or make connections to be placed into wars.
If you stay this stuck in the grinder mindset, you just won't get it. You know your version of justice/fairness is tainted if you're willing to sacrifice the enjoyability of the general gameplay for it.
Anyway your point casuals sit on the bench isn't true they just have to dec the war themselves
That's just not an argument. "They get to do it twice a year too, it's fine." is not a good reason to sacrifice access to a gameplay mode for a whole group of players, when there could be other solutions that allow for more dynamic interaction where every player has some say in what happens on the server (and the tryhards still get a big chunk of the advantage anyway.)
that is liek saying casuals are sitting on the benches and can't do end game raids.
"End game raids" are a small subsection of the category "raid." Casuals can still run "raids."
Whereas what you're advocating for is to have the entire category "siege pvp" (Currently it's only castles, you've been arguing in favour of extending it to nodes - I think it's too drastic either way.) be locked behind highest bidder auctions based on time investment, completely locking out some players from a large proportion of the potential activities.
Do you see the flaw with the difference in your comparison? "Small subsection" versus "entire category"? Do you see how that's a completely different scale?
You try to make it sounds like community isn't a thing, the idea you think if you can't zerg there is no community, politics, etc its pretty incorrect. There is tons of ways to have an influence on a node outside of war which should be a thing, as well as ways to support wars without being there between different nodes.
No, I'm not saying other community/politics/territory control interactions are not a thing, I'm saying it's dumb to lock out a large player group from an aspect of the game as vast as siege PVP, and being able to take up arms to directly influence how the territory around them is controlled. The hardcore guilds are already getting their advantages for their investments, why do you have to fully remove the rest of the casual's influence on the outcome of the battle?
How do you not see that alienating the entire casual community from that part of the game would be a problem?
You are getting things confused with what you have been saying or the others about using Zergs to beat hardcore guilds when that isn't what is going to happen as I've already said. Hardcore guilds will use the zerg mechanics to the fullest in pvp.
You completely ignored my counter-point to that (2nd and 3rd paragraph.)
You're pretending you're protecting casuals from tryhard guilds overrunning them with the zergs that they are supposedly guaranteed to control, but look how scared you are of casuals choosing to defend the poor diligent hardcore guilds' opposing side and ruining their oh-so-well-earned economic superiority, just by showing up and "voting with their PvP" instead of their time / (ingame) money.
Which is it? Do the most powerful hardcore guilds control the masses, or can the masses ruin the hardcore guilds' investments and compromise their power?
You saying interesting gameplay is an actual meme, you want to remove interesting gameplay and mechanics in siege that can be balanced out and just have it being a zerg fest. Where the only mechanicals is about how any numbers you can bring to win a fight. Removing the idea of rotations and such and just having tons of numbers everywhere every second until you win.
No. Interesting gameplay is more than just out-skilling your opponent. Social dynamics, morale, and diplomacy that all players should feel involved in all also constitute interesting gameplay. Especially when it comes to who gets to control the map.
Your perfect rotations and optimal coordination would still help. Just like your economic investments will grant you significant advantages. They just wouldn't completely overrule a massive numbers disadvantage.
How dare you tell us we're trying to be the protagonists in 300 while you're literally trying to exclude a large portion of the player base from being relevant on the battleground entirely, so a few players can earn the right to let their amazing feats in their grand battles take centre stage, btw? Who's the real wannabe protagonist?
If we're being completely honest, we're both asking for the same type of thing: For the thing we're advocating for not to be overridden by the thing the other person is advocating for. It's just that for some reason you can't be satisfied with the compromise of allowing each aspect to be a factor, and instead insist that a numbers advantage should just be a complete non-factor by denying some of those players the right to participate.
If you stay this stuck in the grinder mindset, you just won't get it. You know your version of justice/fairness is tainted if you're willing to sacrifice the enjoyability of the general gameplay for it.
Anyway your point casuals sit on the bench isn't true they just have to dec the war themselves
That's just not an argument. "They get to do it twice a year too, it's fine." is not a good reason to sacrifice access to a gameplay mode for a whole group of players, when there could be other solutions that allow for more dynamic interaction where every player has some say in what happens on the server (and the tryhards still get a big chunk of the advantage anyway.)
that is liek saying casuals are sitting on the benches and can't do end game raids.
"End game raids" are a small subsection of the category "raid." Casuals can still run "raids."
Whereas what you're advocating for is to have the entire category "siege pvp" (Currently it's only castles, you've been arguing in favour of extending it to nodes - I think it's too drastic either way.) be locked behind highest bidder auctions based on time investment, completely locking out some players from a large proportion of the potential activities.
Do you see the flaw with the difference in your comparison? "Small subsection" versus "entire category"? Do you see how that's a completely different scale?
You try to make it sounds like community isn't a thing, the idea you think if you can't zerg there is no community, politics, etc its pretty incorrect. There is tons of ways to have an influence on a node outside of war which should be a thing, as well as ways to support wars without being there between different nodes.
No, I'm not saying other community/politics/territory control interactions are not a thing, I'm saying it's dumb to lock out a large player group from an aspect of the game as vast as siege PVP, and being able to take up arms to directly influence how the territory around them is controlled. The hardcore guilds are already getting their advantages for their investments, why do you have to fully remove the rest of the casual's influence on the outcome of the battle?
How do you not see that alienating the entire casual community from that part of the game would be a problem?
You are getting things confused with what you have been saying or the others about using Zergs to beat hardcore guilds when that isn't what is going to happen as I've already said. Hardcore guilds will use the zerg mechanics to the fullest in pvp.
You completely ignored my counter-point to that (2nd and 3rd paragraph.)
You're pretending you're protecting casuals from tryhard guilds overrunning them with the zergs that they are supposedly guaranteed to control, but look how scared you are of casuals choosing to defend the poor diligent hardcore guilds' opposing side and ruining their oh-so-well-earned economic superiority, just by showing up and "voting with their PvP" instead of their time / (ingame) money.
Which is it? Do the most powerful hardcore guilds control the masses, or can the masses ruin the hardcore guilds' investments and compromise their power?
You saying interesting gameplay is an actual meme, you want to remove interesting gameplay and mechanics in siege that can be balanced out and just have it being a zerg fest. Where the only mechanicals is about how any numbers you can bring to win a fight. Removing the idea of rotations and such and just having tons of numbers everywhere every second until you win.
No. Interesting gameplay is more than just out-skilling your opponent. Social dynamics, morale, and diplomacy that all players should feel involved in all also constitute interesting gameplay. Especially when it comes to who gets to control the map.
Your perfect rotations and optimal coordination would still help. Just like your economic investments will grant you significant advantages. They just wouldn't completely overrule a massive numbers disadvantage.
How dare you tell us we're trying to be the protagonists in 300 while you're literally trying to exclude a large portion of the player base from being relevant on the battleground entirely, so a few players can earn the right to let their amazing feats in their grand battles take centre stage, btw? Who's the real wannabe protagonist?
If we're being completely honest, we're both asking for the same type of thing: For the thing we're advocating for not to be overridden by the thing the other person is advocating for. It's just that for some reason you can't be satisfied with the compromise of allowing each aspect to be a factor, and instead insist that a numbers advantage should just be a complete non-factor by denying some of those players the right to participate.
Again you don't get it you are talk "sacrifice enjoyment" nothing is being sacrificed the experience is being made better because fights will be more fair and not won through zerging where people can't play because of zerg gameplay. That is the first step (and the most obvious one) among other steps to ensure things are balanced and everyone can enjoy content at different tiers. This is the most important step else everything else doesn't matter because zerging wins.
This point makes no sense
"That's just not an argument"
You re clearly trying to ignore a fact, anyone can dec, if you don't want to sit on the bench and that goes for any guilds / groups they should dec so they can do the war. You just want to ignore a clear solution because you again expect handouts for casual which is very sus.
Ya a casual can go to a pve raid and get one shot at the entrance i don't see that as playing it.
Anyone can do siege but it still requires investment as you are talking about end game pvp. But there are ways to split it up, regardless into different tiers based on nodes (not really going to get intot hat in this convo as that be blaot). Zerging ruins that and numbers just become the ultimate weapon. Either way we are talking about node destruction the bar to entry isn't going to be small because of the effect it has that is end game pvp. This is what i mean by you are trying to give people free handouts you want people to do it with the effects it brings without having to put effort to getting to that point. If someone really wants to do a siege they will join a guild to do it, or if they have a decent guild will put effort into making the dec scroll.
I've already talked about this and you ignore the fact you can have multiple systems that allow different groups to have a influence on nodes. You are literally trying to weaponize casuals because you want to zerg a node and trying to dictate what they want to do. When they will be far more annoyed when their node is destroyed and all those items they had spent with their limited time gets wiped do to losing to zerg. Hense why i keeps saying nodes will be dead and people will just live at zerg nodes.
You can't see a potential issue because you want to tarnish a lot of elements of gameplay to zerg nodes not realizing the many levels of damage it would cause to players and the economy.
THere is no counter point you are not understanding what will actually happen in game. no one is going to live at a node that is going to be destroyed instantly by a zerg period. Casuals will be in nodes with hardcore guilds and part of the zerg.
Stop talking about social dynamic casuals are not going to be doing anything hardcore guilds will be picking and rallying people up to zerg down nodes its not any deeper than that. Even more so since its kingdoms as u can't attack nodes you are vassaled to from the parent. Casuals are not putting the time in to organize these kinds of things, I've already seen how they play first hand.
Siege needs to be about the GAMEPLAY not you are zerging a node and making all elements not matter, as well as bringing imbalance to different tiers of nodes when zergs show up at lower tiers. The only thing you have right is morale where casuals will leave at zerg nodes or quit the game.
Again this is another argument that boils down to "THOSE players are BETTER than me." If i have a ZERG i will win for sure! Mean while the reality is those players are better but now can use zerg mechanics on top of their other skills.
I won't compromise on zerg gameplay its trash, if wars are meant to have 500v500 or 1000v1000 without running like dog crap (which i doubt) that is fine as long as its even. There are other ways to allow more players to experience siege and have different tiers of sieges to avoid having war loggers.
Sieges should be competitive, should actually push the gameplay and be the first mmorpg to have good sieges where weapons, defensives, support items, etc actually matter and have a influence on the war. Adding that element of pveing and finding rare items, or people doing elements of life skilling to support the node to build these items. And not have everything interested be muted because people just zerg down a node.
All element of politics can have a large impact on nodes / wars without being reduced to the most bare bones primitive gameplay of zerging.
This is the most important step else everything else doesn't matter because zerging wins.
Massive hyperbole. Zerging would just *have an impact.*
If one side has 300 supporters and the other has 250, that will *have an impact.* It *won't decide who wins.* If the 250 side has the advantage in gear, siege or defence funds, or fighting skill, the 250 side will probably still win. If the side that has all the advantages also happens to have the zerg advantage, that side will win. Which is fine, because clearly no one's strong enough to justify winning in the smaller side, then.
You re clearly trying to ignore a fact, anyone can dec, if you don't want to sit on the bench and that goes for any guilds / groups they should dec so they can do the war. You just want to ignore a clear solution because you again expect handouts for casual which is very sus.
My answer to that was very clear. That's not an argument because hardcore guilds will have a monopoly on spamming the majority of sieges, by sheer manner of volume. "You get to participate in siege PvP twice a year" is not good enough to deal with the fact that this game design is alienating casual players from an entire portion of the game.
If someone really wants to do a siege they will join a guild to do it
Okay, now we're actually getting into the meat of things.
"Joining a guild" won't be good enough for casuals to circumvent this problem. Guilds and alliances will have access to too many willing & able hardcore members and hired blades than to let some filthy casual join their limited 250 man army just because they "joined a guild". As you've said, hardcore guilds will successfully control their armies. Declaring sieges will be expensive, so they won't let any chances get away in ensuring that only the most capable fighters will represent them. The people who will participate in a castle siege (or in your preference even node sieges) won't be the local citizens. It'll only be the most refined PvPers of the declaring guild and its allies, plus hired blades from all around the world. Anyone but the casuals.
THAT is the problem. That is what I mean by monopoly on content.
I'm not of that real-world political persuasion, but it's essentially the hypergamy argument. The same 10% of combatants on a server will serve 90% of the sieges on it.
You just used the argument that casuals can "just join a guild" that they can engage in sieges with, but that's just not an option that will exist. Except maybe once in a blue moon by paying extra for some sad "pay to play" guild that lets casuals break their piggy bank to be allowed to play with the big boys.
So either you're not thinking along, or you just don't care about casuals participating in the game, and you're just saying whatever you can think of to get out of addressing that issue.
I won't compromise on zerg gameplay its trash, if wars are meant to have 500v500 or 1000v1000 without running like dog crap (which i doubt) that is fine as long as its even.
What? Okay, that was easy? So then if wars are "meant to" (I assume that means "if wars can typically fill up participation up to that point"?) have 2k players, now you're okay with one side losing if they don't happen to amass their 1k? But with 250 it's immediately unacceptable if one side had more people and used them? What's the difference?
Not to look a gift horse in a mouth, I appreciate that you've essentially shown a willingness to compromise there, but it doesn't seem to be consistent with anything else you've said, so I'm wondering what exactly those hard limits are.
Additional compromise suggestion from my end: What if siege battlegrounds are unlimited, but only the 250v250 or 500v500 conscripted combatants can respawn or be revived in any way? Or any similar way of allowing people to participate in actively defending their allies, while limiting the severity of zerg advantages?
This way the outnumbering side would have an advantage due to its larger number of supporters, but the outnumbered side would have tangible tools to control and mitigate that advantage. Especially if the outnumbered side happens to have the economic superiority. And everyone would get to participate in using their ability to fight in order to support the side they are allied with. Through actual gameplay, not just sending gold like a sad real-world politics simulator.
Can we try to define what a casual is in terms of Ashes of Creation and why they should get access to the most rewarding content? Just throwing bodies at it will not be fun.
Node with +250 Citizens versus Node with +500 to +750 Citizens = * struggling to just survive/exist *
Enemy Node with +500 to +750 Citizens only like = * ambushing the Ressource Gatherers, murdering the NPC's like Blacksmith/Merchants inside targeted Node * , * participate in Monster Coin Sieges/Attacks en Masse, ambush all the "economical" Node Caravans * ,
can Ashes of Creation have a System that will forcefully shrink Attackers of an official Node Siege in a Node-War onto the Size of the Defenders ? Sure ? Why not ? Could be possible ?
Should Ashes of Creation simulate the Illusion of " Fairness ", OUTSIDE these official Node Siegs ? N~O !! It shouldn't.
Comments
You think " Hardcore(lol) Guilds " will stay in Power forever ?
Guess what, Mag7spy ... ... ... 😁 ... ... ... People WILL. NEED. - to band together - so they can take one or a few Elitist Guilds on.
You want the Game to live ?
And not to die ?
Then don't make Nodes where 500 Players can hold the Node against like 1200 to 2500.
Why making an MMO where like +9000(?) People can be on One Server - when You Nerf it at the same Time, when a significant Amount of these Players want to go to War for their Fantasy and Fun on that Server ?
This would be the only horrible Shot into the Knee i can imagine for the Game right now.
500 people? If a hardcore guild can have uncapped wars that only benefits them they will get more people and the best people to win all the wars easily. This isn't benefiting anyone you are trying to make a argument casuals players that won't care as much or put as much time in things are going to be more organized than a serious hardcore guild?
I'm sorry to say this will not be the case you are going to make the game worse and hardcore players getting the benefit of staying in power like a snowball effect.
If you go to war casuals players won't even know what to do waiting for someone to tell them what to do. I've seen this first hand in a war where people had no plan and were wondering what to do. And hardcore players take the reigns and they listen.
I'm sure you aren't fully suggesting this but 9000 people on a server do not need to be at s siege in anything around a fraction of that number in any war. We are talking about a node siege we are not talking about planetside levels where you have multiple nodes you are all fighting over...
Capped numbers and balance between that is fine to make sure fights are strategic, optimized, balanced and are not a complete mess.
I want sieges and wars to feel fun and fair not turn into garbage that no one will care for and zergs massing up to auto win. Again this is not a movie, no one is a main character this is a game. And a game needs to paly well and be fun.
How you kill a game is by making it not fun and imbalanced + frustration of loss and destruction where you can't do anything about it in any capability. And obviously a node isn't holding to hold up 500 against 2500 people... Again which won't be fun for anyone.
It will not be or feel "fair" for +1000 People to not be able to put the Pressure of 1000 People onto a Node which has not enough Defenders to prevent becoming their Vassal.
You are quite right.
Nobody of us is the Main Character. This is not a Movie.
And hence, it should be ingame a lot like it is in Reallife. And War - is not fair. It never has been.
Vassal system has nothing to do with this...so any arguments around it really shouldn't be talking about being able to destroy a node from zerging...
There is a clear reason why games have balance in it from classes to gameplay. No one has interest in playing a game that isn't fun. Its only a select amount of people advocating they want to fight while being out numbered and lose everything in their storage and house they have been building up with a zerg attacking them. And have that be the norm to the point there is less competition on the server since everyone just goes to live at the same node in order to be apart of the zerg.
Well good thing we are playing a game where is is designed to be fun. Advocating for frustrating game design tied to loss of wealth and all the items in your storage sounds silly. Zerg and/or fight them in the open world if that is what you want to do.
You know ?
I am confident +1000 Players or so can STILL easily make the Life of a Node Population of +500 Players of an Enemy Node a living Hell, even if some Nonsense-System prevents them from just taking the Node in a Siege or Two.
You know what this is ?
They can lurk around the Node in Groups and target and repeatedly kill those Node Citizens of that Enemy Node as soon as those gathered some Ressources.
They can sack every - and i truly mean - EVERY. SINGLE. CARAVAN. that might start from the +500 Players Node.
They can support Monster Coin Raids onto the Node and leave massive Damage.
You are not truly as naive to think, that if +1000 Players want to pressure and "sack" a smaller Node, that some magical Nonsense-System/Magic will come and save the significantly outnumbered, smaller Faction of Players,
now do You ? 🙄
It seems there’s a common oversight in discussions about server balance and gameplay dynamics: the impact of zerg forces. Having witnessed servers transform into stagnant swamps under the weight of zerg domination, I feel compelled to shed light on this issue.
In theory, a server thrives on competition and skill, where any guild or coalition can rise to prominence through strategy and prowess. However, the reality often skews differently when one faction amasses a zerg—a vast number of players that can overwhelm any opposition, regardless of the skill level or tactical acumen of the smaller groups.
This imbalance leads to a one-sided gameplay experience, where a single guild or alliance dominates the server, effectively turning it into a monotonous bog. Opposition guilds, no matter how skilled or organized, find themselves incapable of standing against the sheer volume of players in the zerg. The result? A server where the competitive spirit is crushed under the weight of numbers, driving away players who seek a balanced and engaging competitive environment.
The dominance of a single faction due to zerg tactics removes the incentive for new or existing players to engage in server-wide events or conflicts. It leads to a game state that is unappealing to anyone not part of the ruling zerg, as their efforts seem futile against an insurmountable tide of players.
Addressing this issue is crucial for maintaining a healthy, vibrant server community. Game developers should consider mechanisms to balance power dynamics, such as limiting guild sizes, implementing mechanics that incentivize smaller group play, or devising penalties for zerg behaviors that discourage strategic diversity.
The goal should be to foster an environment where skill, strategy, and teamwork determine success, not merely the capacity to gather the largest mob.
Either way finding the right 250+ people isn't going to be as simple as people think.
You forgot Alliances.
Find - and - MAKE - Alliances.
Doesn't matter if you have to bribe People. Doesn't matter if you have to sell yours~... ... ... stuff ingame, to make it happen.
Just kidding. You don't need to sell your Freehold. Or Items. But if 250~ish Elite Players can rise a Node up to a Metropolis and hold it against all Assaults for Conquest and Supremacy against like +1000 Players,
than something will be wrong with the Game
In the End, one can not argue about Taste or Opinion. I think You seem concerned that You don't find Allies.
I could be as concerned as you as well, over this.
But i am more concerned about the few Freaks and 100.000% No-Lifers being able to act like Kings. While they are in fact, only a few.
It was already back like this in WoW -> Nobody cared about the so called "Kings".
Nobody cares about the Top 100 PvP'ers.
Or the Top 10.
Or who the best Team in the Arena is.
Or who has the best PvP Achievements. Or the rarest and most insane PvP-Mounts.
No matter PvP or PvE, i just run by and pass the People i don't know, need, respect, treasure, care for, whatever you call it.
Why should they be the Kings in Ashes ? They were not even the Kings in all the other MMO's i ever saw. And i don't even knew their Names.
People are always S~OOOOO worried about Unfairness. But never about the Unfairness of the No-Lifing Freaks with things like the best Bandwidth, ingame Gear, Reflexes and/or Teamspeak, Tactics and Swarm- and Hive-mind like Mindset and/or Co-Ordination.
Imagine +9000 Players on a whole Server,
and like a Group of +100 People or so stay the Rulers forever. No matter how many People challenge their Castles and/or Nodes.
Sounds kinda lame. A few shouldn't be able to overpower and dominate the many.
I'm unsure what you are talking about bringing up "find friends" and talking about alliance in this discussion, seeing as you have had this vibe in other parts of the convo.
I really don't want to bloat a post talking about who and how zergs form. A zerg isn't a random group of people should be enough to explain that and have you stop talking about finding friends.
When it comes to siege fights the best 250 vr 250 is should be the one that wins, that is the whole point....Won't i have more numbers so the node is destroyed. It is called balanced, that 1000 other players will have the befits else where in effecting he node outside of the war.
If it comes down to you wanting content around zerg numbers just destroying all nodes other points have already brought up how that is not good for the heath of the game and stagnates the server.
Yes we clearly have different taste where you want a group to lose do to numbers and i want strategic actual combat and wars. The thing is this is more than just about taste and opinion because wea re talking about node destruction which keep getting ignored and the effect on the server, and the overall effect zergs have on games. Which does not create a heathy atmosphere of pvp., the world and the economy.
So your main worry is people that play more being on top forever, and I'm trying to tell you that doesn't change by making it a zerg fest. You are making it easier for people to stay on top because now they will be the ones making the zergs not the casual player that doesn't care about that kind of work...
People invested into the game with a solid crew around them are going to be the top on AoC that isn't going to change. It takes a lot of work to make a guild like that and there is reasons why they are successful.
Honestly complaining other people are better than you so wanting to zerg them is a bit sad, even more so when you would end up being the first one to complain when those "no-lifers- are the ones that zerg you. This will be my issue people want to use zergs because they can't win a fight and want to be the ones to zerg and won't acknowledge it goes both ways.
Well the type of system i have in my mind (based on no real info or data and probably not the one they will implement) would not reward players for participating in the siege, in fact it could even penalize them with exp lost per death. But then the Castle owner should get big benefits, maybe even part if the taxes of the nearby towns or access to special dungeons or unique items that only the castle can craft, i don't know something he could distribute between the people that helped him take the castle. And then hopefully very difficult to capture with one guild alone so alliances are needed and deals have to be made.
So motivation for people to participate is either riches or wanting to take power away from the current owner. This makes the owner a powerful player in the region but still reliant on alliances or at least good relationships with other guilds and the citizens in general. This way big guilds have reasons to ally with small guilds and maybe even help the grow but in the other hand day to day activities can cause friction between guilds or even bring them closer if for example they get together to fight for bosses in the open world.
Now the profit for owning a castle is limited and probably not worth the hassle if split into too many players/guilds, the way you share the profits can also cause alliances to dissolve in my opinion, specially when egos get mixed in.
I see sieges not as a end game activity necessarily but instead something all guilds in different stages of development can participate even if they contribute very little at least they take focus away from important targets. when there is no cap every single body counts
Anyway i like to dream a little from time to time haha.
Regarding politics, in a system like this politics play a big role in bringing people to the battle but also to keep attackers away too, having good trading relationships with nearby towns is essential to reduce the number of people wanting to plunder your node. Getting to know in advance who is attacking you and bribing the right guild to pretend to join the attackers and instead defend would break the moral in the attacking side and potentially stop them from trying again in the near future. Having alliances with guild with high reputation as good siege fighters could make plunderers choose another node over yours
To your question about numbers, the way i see it, having more numbers only give you more "potential damage", "potential heals", etc. how much of that potential damage your team actually applies is a completely different thing and on top of that the damage can also get mitigated by heals and shields.
For example 10 of your range dps focus down 1 enemy when only 5 where necessary to ensure the kill, you wasted 5 people rotations and so half your potential damage. On the other hand of 4 people focused the enemy and the enemy survives for any reason you also wasted 4 people rotations and a big chunk of potential damage.
Now of course this has a limit and the more organized and experienced the other side is the harder it is to get an advantage from doing that.
But there is many levels at which you can apply this same way of thinking, of course you have the individual level where some key roles and important cooldowns that can make a difference. You also have the party level, even in tab target combat systems the ability of a party to maintain combat readiness during the engages and win even battle after even battle with no to few losses. You have what in my guild we used to call squads (2-5 parties with one shot caller acting as a single group), at this level you have things like when to engage and how, when to retreat, setting traps with big cooldowns, holding choke points. And finally the main shot caller coordinating the different squads to pull ambushes, timing attacks, etc. and thinking on the main objective, sometimes killing the enemy is not the only way to win.
Different games have different skill caps in each one of this levels, and it might be that a game doesn't have any room for outplay on one or more of this levels. I've seen siege battles won by decisive actions at each one of this levels.
On top of that you have trickery and quick thinking, you can trick your enemies into splitting or even not defending entirely by just deceiving your enemy. In one instance convinced our allies (that were attacking a castle at the same time we were defending ours) to borrow their scout party and post it right outside of the siege area where the enemies had their respawn flag so the enemies fearing and attack from our allies had to keep a considerable amount of forces defending their flag since loosing the flag meant a lot longer cooldowns on death, so we had a easier time holding the castle just by bluffing a backdoor attack to their flag.
On top of all of this I believe a castle should give the owner a significant advantage in the battle, that is the whole point of a castle, so defending while outnumbered should be more commonly achieved while attacking even with equal numbers should be fairly difficult.
Also I believe attacking a castle siege should have a big cost, not only in time but also in resources, maybe even greater cost the bigger your army is, after all that is true in real life and it would deter zergs looking only for loot. Following the idea that pvp should be meaningful and affect the state of the world, node sieges and castle sieges should be sparse in my opinion and drain the resources of both sides.
BTW: Sorry for the delay i was away for the holidays.. and Ren'Kai fighter hype !!
You're wrong though. I've been the guy who kept having to rally people together when the enemy was zerging, or the enemy tryhard guilds were controlling everything and taking everything uncontested. And without fail, once the losing side has been rallied together in spite of the disadvantage, and once they've started fighting the enemy off and realised that they can win again (could be for multiple reasons; distracted enemies or because the losing side recruited so many people who were fed up with the tryhard guilds' dominance) - they're staying around for hours longer than they initially intended to play that night. And they log back on more than they have been the previous month.
People absolutely love banding together against the odds. They act demotivated and passionless when they've been beaten by a majority a few times, but if you keep encouraging them to try again and recruit more people for their purpose, the war spirit in them lights up and they have more fun than they've ever had in any fair battles in their entire lives.
It's a question of quality over quantity. Fair fights are more consistent, but they're boring. Lifeless. A job.
if you want fair fights, play a MOBA. MMOs should get their group dynamics from players' decisions, not the game design.
Not necessarily just the People from possible Friendlists of Course.
Does it really matter if you team up with complete, random Strangers - or People one has known for Decades of VideoGaming ?
I know just one thing -> when People are not allowed to attack a Node with ALL THEY HAVE - saying as in ALL their Members available to attack a Node,
only so that a minor Group of Defenders has a Chance and can actually defend a Node against a bigger Group of People that would normally overwhelm them,
then that leaves the Enemies with superior Numbers with nothing but to terrorise the Node-Citizens of the Node they want to subdue outside the Sieges. Like sacking all the Caravans. Like Assassinating all the Ressource Gatherers.
And so on - and so on.
As douchy as this sounds - > i am just saying what i can easily expect People to do, as someone who played Planetside 2 and experienced People from the OTHER FACTIONS log out and in again as "Soldiers on our Side" and then C4-bombing us from behind into our own Vehicles to breach our Positions as Engineer's from our Side, so that our Sunderers blow up and give the Enemy Lines a Chance to push forward in Stalemate-Situations.
( As annoying as this was -> People took the WAR-ASPECT of Planetside Two very, VERY seriously back then.
I am superconfident Mag7 and Please mark my Words - > if the System will be INTENTIONALLY designed to give a Leg-up to normally inferior Numbers of Players against superior Numbers of their Opponents,
THESE OPPONENTS - WILL - find a Way to still put the Pressure on their outnumbered Enemies.
I won't even argue against this anymore. Do as you want then, if the System will be like this,
☝️👆 <- but ... ... ...
Remember the upper Paragraph, Please ... ...
PvP-Flagging and/or Corruption-Flagging be damned. " IF " People will be same as stubborn, serious and determined as in Planetside Two,
there WILL be one Hell of a Conflict even outside the official Sieges.
You are mixing rp with what will actually happen.
You will e trying to rally when most the people have already joined the zerg guilds, a few people will show up maybe you get a bit lucky. And half those people leaving during mid stomp and voice coms quiet as you can't do anything but get rushed down and end up losing quickly.
People annoyed at you all their crap got destroyed and go find the zerg guild nodes to live in or quit the game tired of dealing with this over and over again.
You may be find losing all your stuff and being weak over and over again. That is not most people.
Did you describe what You think will happen TO YOURSELF, Mag7spy ?
You think when the Game is not as you want, the Game will die and People will constantly lose their Nodes ?
I can only say it again and again,
if a huuuge, bigger Number of Players want to Expand their little Empire of a Node, made their own Node into a Metropolis - and subdue the Nodes around themself and turn then into their Vassals,
no Mechanic will stop them. No possible Siege-Limitations who shrink their Number of who can attack their targeted Node to the same Number as those who will defend the Node, will stop them.
They can attack and ambush EVERY. SINGLE. CARAVAN. that leaves that Node, with significant Numbers of Players.
Doesn't matter if it's economical Caravans, or Player Caravans. <- This last Statement is only wrong in Case Players can not attack "PvE-spawned" Caravans who are more or less(?) economical.
And they can bloody murder (lol) EVERY Ressource Gatherer, Farmer, Animal/Meat-Hunter, Mineral-Miner etc. when those leave their Node. Their Pals can even "murder" their Comrades to punch the Corruption out of them, should their Victims not fight back and die green.
Lastly,
there is the Possibility of Sabotage possible.
Just plant/smuggle +10 to +80 oft the own People into the "Defender Ranks" as seemingly harmless Node Citizens - and then do some Afk Stuff or stand there jerking off (
Then, the smuggled in "Defenders" help their Attacker-Friends by intentionally losing -> BOOM Node sacked.
NOTHING will stop the Rise of our evil Empire. Muahahahahaahah.
I also think that if a defending side has lets say... 200 people in their guild and they are attacked by +4 guilds who also have around 200 people... and the defenders could not motivate even more people to defend their node then welp... they have all the right in the world to lose it.
Because diplomacy, bribery and charisma are also stats and arts that should not be underestimated.
Since Ashes is going in on all that realism stuff, why not truly go all out and make a charismatic and highly manipulative mastermind hold the power they deserve?
But I think no matter how a node-siege for example turns out and one sides "loses it all", that the defenders still have a timewindow to evacuate their node and safe about 90% to 80% of their belongings, if their bags are just big and deep enough, it that makes sense.
And that defenders who are overwhelmed in numbers but still dare to stand courageously against impossible odds will impress maybe some ancient old deity of combat & valor, who then blesses them for a unique buff that might also last a month of active playtime, which only ticks down outside a node.
So that even being zerged has its smalltime benefits.
Because...
To myself, no I'm talking about being realistic on what is actually going to happen in the game. I don't talk about myself I talk about situation people will do in general.
Literarily you already stated your point is you want to zerg try hard guilds because they play more than you. Without realizing those try hard guilds will be the ones that zerg you.
That is not how it works, all stuff in storages are locked the moment your guild is dec'd. You don't get to take out your items and run away....This meta with casual players thinking gameplay should be more numbers = i win is kind of sad.
I get a lot of you have not done any kind of pvp in mmorpgs recently or have come from more casual mmorpgs. But casuals are not going to be the ones zerging, that is a meta hardcore guilds will be able to use and actually organize / control people. You are simply asking to make the bar impossible for people to overcome it.
I feel you all really are thinking a node is dec's so anyone can just jump in it as well meaning to just destruction of the economy.
"Things shouldn't be fair" anytime i hear that around a siege sounds like people that can't actually win any fight and wanting gameplay of 0 mechanics and just numbers to win fights. But they want to be the ones with the advantage and no one else or they end up complaining.
*edit this idea of casuals raising up to beat a zerg or having better skills than hardcore players is kind of silly. Casuals aren't going to be trying to do diplomacy, bribery and charisma in any real kind of capacity. That is the power hardcore guilds are going to have obviously.
I played Lineage 2 for 10 years and I faced zergs all the time, usually fought outnumbered as a Saggi because I enjoyed it. The fights vs zergs are literally determined in the first 15 seconds. You got their healerS and somehow outplayed their numbers? You didn't? No? Well then you lost and its over cause half the people aren't coming back to that fight. At least 50% of the people who fight a zerg will die once and never come back to the siege if they're aware they're against massive numbers unless they are part of a highly coordinated group of players.
IMO, just add +1.5 seconds respawn timer per surplus player on the zerg side.
Attacking side has 100. Defending Zerg has 300?
Okay, each defending player has a 300 seconds respawn timer during the siege because they have 200 more players than the Attacking side. They still have the numbers advantage, should be fine, right?
Actually you kinda convinced me.
I think it will probably be just as You said - and no matter how many "THOUSAND" Players might want to take down one or two specific Nodes,
if none of them can manage to get 250 to 500 People standing which will be able to beat the 250 to 500 Defenders of said Node/s,
then those Nodes will be undefeated forever no matter how much the superior Numbers of hostile Players make the Life of those Node Citizens a living Hell - now won't it ?
I am quite aware since Moment 1 that i myself and everyone i see myself allied with - can also become caught up and Cannonfodder for those Zergs.
But here is the interesting Part, Mag7.
When i mean more People than the usual "Limit" should be able to participate into Node Sieges,
then this is not just meant by "joining the Attackers" and simply crush every single Node in Existence where the Leaders of the gigantic Zerg are in the Mood to do so,
but it also means that People can also freely decide to join and team up with the Defenders.
Of Course this might be tricky when the Defenders are all entrenched in the Node behind the Walls - and everyone hostile "AND" friendly might be Outside.
Some People would need to attack the Attackers from other Directions of the Outside, instead of being able to join the usual Defenders inside the Node/City Walls.
I dont have issues with zergs outside of siege because that isn't really somethin you are going to prevent at the end of the day. And id rather not see weird systems in the OW to make things awkward if it makes the game worse. That is why i say this is a thing for sieges and such to be capped (as castle siege already is). Its still not going to be easy to find the right amount of people be it the cap for highest node siege be 500 players or whatever the number might be.
Politics and such can all play a role with nodes being able to offer help to other nodes through sieges machines, defenses, maybe special buffs for certain fights, etc. The use of politics and such can easily have a large effect on wars without simply making node wars a zerg fest.
It's very simple: All players should be able to have agency and impact on developments in the game. Tryhards should have more impact. But a tryhard shouldn't have 100% of potential impact on the state of the map, while casuals get to...farm siege weapons for them. There's a limit to how much a tryhard should be able to expect for their mastery and dedication, and "all the most meaningful siege action, while casuals sit on the bench" is not it.
I've been in fairly exclusive, dedicated guilds in the games I've played. Solid coordination, regular dominance, often while outnumbered, often while fighting equally dedicated guilds on the opposing side. I know what it feels like to win through dedication and expertise. You can save the ad hominems and just argue your point about the system, thank you. I just don't want to see people get bored of not getting to be involved in core gameplay elements because the hardcore guilds reserve that space for themselves.
Especially not if the system is designed that way because people like you convinced themselves that players would be less likely to leave the game if they get to watch "fair" fights fought by their friendly hardcore guild representatives than if they lose "unbalanced" fights that they actually get to participate in.
In an unrestricted siege army variety of the game, who are these hardcore players who are going around crushing casual-but-emotionally-invested fragile players but simultaneously magically charismatic enough to be winning the diplomacy wars? Who are they allying with? If their diplomacy was as persuasive as you make it out to be, wouldn't they be allied with most of the citizens in their surrounding territories? (Otherwise they'd be outnumbered, which you're saying can't happen to the hardcore alliances.)
And if I'm right that they are allied with those people - who are their enemies who you're claiming they will frustrate with the inevitable losses they will cause them to suffer?
Those opponents who are so devastated about having their stuff taken away by the unlimited tryhard zergs - how would their life be better in a game with restricted siege instances? Wouldn't they have exactly the same problems in either game, except in yours they don't even get to show up on the battlefield in the first place, because it's all decided by proxy wars controlled by the hardcore guilds of their region?
The math outlining the supposed advantages of the restrictions just isn't mathing for me.
You are missing the difference between a casual and a try hard player. It gives me the vibe you are expecting casuals to get a "handout" in a sense. If a casual player wants to use their resources to dec a area and bring it into war, all the power to them and not having to sit on the bench. The whole point is who is pushing places into war and defending it. Generally it is going to be more motivated players and such to get that going as casuals don't have as much time to do it because they play or progress less. There is no difference what both of players can accomplish as it is a time thing.
If a casual wants to lead a war they can fully do it but is clear if it takes a lot effort and materials to make the scroll they won't be as motivated to do it using their time elsewhere. Or perhaps you might see them go for small nodes that use less resources to dec.
Either way siege should be the highest levels as they are more so once in while, if siege is what makes people bored from not doing it game has a bunch of other issues as siege isn't something that happens as often for everyone. Other elements of pvp should be what keeps people entertaining at not biweek / monthly gated content.
You think its going to be hardcore vrs casuals players when that isn't the case its going to be hardcore players controlling things and a few groups of them. Casual players will be going to nodes where the hardcore players are at to be safe and be part of the zergs to destroy other nodes.
There life will be better because instead of losing instantly they actually can put up a fight and force ZERGS to have to use a even number of people instead of an automatic win in a siege. People do not have fun in a 1v3 1v5 situation, people will be even more emotionally charged losing to bs reasons when it cost them actual progress with the game (loss of all items in storage and house).
So ya the math is pretty simple 30v65 is not fun its not really high level math or anything. Unless you are talking about being over geared and one shooting groups of people. Every one has power fantasies.
You're pretending you're protecting casuals from tryhard guilds overrunning them with the zergs that they are supposedly guaranteed to control, but look how scared you are of casuals choosing to defend the poor diligent hardcore guilds' opposing side and ruining their oh-so-well-earned economic superiority, just by showing up and "voting with their PvP" instead of their time / (ingame) money.
Which is it? Do the most powerful hardcore guilds control the masses, or can the masses ruin the hardcore guilds' investments and compromise their power?
No they couldn't. Their hardcore player overlords and their preferred allied recruits could. The casuals would be left on the benches.
You're removing interesting gameplay, community, and PvP prowess dynamics, and replacing them with e-peen measurement contests won by whoever sinks more of their time into the game. You're ignoring the main point of my first paragraph: I'm all for hardcore players getting the advantage. But you're not giving casuals the disadvantage, you're straight-up removing them from the PVP equation portion of the outcome of the siege.
Again you arent' getting it "handouts" is about you thinking casuals can't dec a node, that is equal to anyone if they put the effort into it. Of course casuals will have less everything though. Anyway your point casuals sit on the bench isn't true they just have to dec the war themselves
Don't bloat the post about someone being scared please this has nothing to do with the conversation even more so if you are reading out of any fact to bring.
You are getting things confused with what you have been saying or the others about using Zergs to beat hardcore guilds when that isn't what is going to happen as I've already said. Hardcore guilds will use the zerg mechanics to the fullest in pvp.
again stop bring up benches its a stupid point, first off sieges is the end game of PvP that is liek saying casuals are sitting on the benches and can't do end game raids. Second Casuals can dec and choose who fights in the war if they want to. Stop making up air to try to use as a point.
Zergs give hardcore players the advantage you just don't want to accept that because you think casuals are suddenly going to become more skilled and invested than hardcore players.
You saying interesting gameplay is an actual meme, you want to remove interesting gameplay and mechanics in siege that can be balanced out and just have it being a zerg fest. Where the only mechanicals is about how any numbers you can bring to win a fight. Removing the idea of rotations and such and just having tons of numbers everywhere every second until you win.
You try to make it sounds like community isn't a thing, the idea you think if you can't zerg there is no community, politics, etc its pretty incorrect. There is tons of ways to have an influence on a node outside of war which should be a thing, as well as ways to support wars without being there between different nodes.
Which brings me back to my point you want casuals to have free hand-outs to be in siege without actually putting in the effort to dec themselves or make connections to be placed into wars.
That's just not an argument. "They get to do it twice a year too, it's fine." is not a good reason to sacrifice access to a gameplay mode for a whole group of players, when there could be other solutions that allow for more dynamic interaction where every player has some say in what happens on the server (and the tryhards still get a big chunk of the advantage anyway.)
"End game raids" are a small subsection of the category "raid." Casuals can still run "raids."
Whereas what you're advocating for is to have the entire category "siege pvp" (Currently it's only castles, you've been arguing in favour of extending it to nodes - I think it's too drastic either way.) be locked behind highest bidder auctions based on time investment, completely locking out some players from a large proportion of the potential activities.
Do you see the flaw with the difference in your comparison? "Small subsection" versus "entire category"? Do you see how that's a completely different scale?
No, I'm not saying other community/politics/territory control interactions are not a thing, I'm saying it's dumb to lock out a large player group from an aspect of the game as vast as siege PVP, and being able to take up arms to directly influence how the territory around them is controlled. The hardcore guilds are already getting their advantages for their investments, why do you have to fully remove the rest of the casual's influence on the outcome of the battle?
How do you not see that alienating the entire casual community from that part of the game would be a problem?
You completely ignored my counter-point to that (2nd and 3rd paragraph.)
Which is it? Do the most powerful hardcore guilds control the masses, or can the masses ruin the hardcore guilds' investments and compromise their power?
Your perfect rotations and optimal coordination would still help. Just like your economic investments will grant you significant advantages. They just wouldn't completely overrule a massive numbers disadvantage.
How dare you tell us we're trying to be the protagonists in 300 while you're literally trying to exclude a large portion of the player base from being relevant on the battleground entirely, so a few players can earn the right to let their amazing feats in their grand battles take centre stage, btw? Who's the real wannabe protagonist?
If we're being completely honest, we're both asking for the same type of thing: For the thing we're advocating for not to be overridden by the thing the other person is advocating for. It's just that for some reason you can't be satisfied with the compromise of allowing each aspect to be a factor, and instead insist that a numbers advantage should just be a complete non-factor by denying some of those players the right to participate.
Again you don't get it you are talk "sacrifice enjoyment" nothing is being sacrificed the experience is being made better because fights will be more fair and not won through zerging where people can't play because of zerg gameplay. That is the first step (and the most obvious one) among other steps to ensure things are balanced and everyone can enjoy content at different tiers. This is the most important step else everything else doesn't matter because zerging wins.
This point makes no sense
You re clearly trying to ignore a fact, anyone can dec, if you don't want to sit on the bench and that goes for any guilds / groups they should dec so they can do the war. You just want to ignore a clear solution because you again expect handouts for casual which is very sus.
Ya a casual can go to a pve raid and get one shot at the entrance i don't see that as playing it.
Anyone can do siege but it still requires investment as you are talking about end game pvp. But there are ways to split it up, regardless into different tiers based on nodes (not really going to get intot hat in this convo as that be blaot). Zerging ruins that and numbers just become the ultimate weapon. Either way we are talking about node destruction the bar to entry isn't going to be small because of the effect it has that is end game pvp. This is what i mean by you are trying to give people free handouts you want people to do it with the effects it brings without having to put effort to getting to that point. If someone really wants to do a siege they will join a guild to do it, or if they have a decent guild will put effort into making the dec scroll.
I've already talked about this and you ignore the fact you can have multiple systems that allow different groups to have a influence on nodes. You are literally trying to weaponize casuals because you want to zerg a node and trying to dictate what they want to do. When they will be far more annoyed when their node is destroyed and all those items they had spent with their limited time gets wiped do to losing to zerg. Hense why i keeps saying nodes will be dead and people will just live at zerg nodes.
You can't see a potential issue because you want to tarnish a lot of elements of gameplay to zerg nodes not realizing the many levels of damage it would cause to players and the economy.
THere is no counter point you are not understanding what will actually happen in game. no one is going to live at a node that is going to be destroyed instantly by a zerg period. Casuals will be in nodes with hardcore guilds and part of the zerg.
Stop talking about social dynamic casuals are not going to be doing anything hardcore guilds will be picking and rallying people up to zerg down nodes its not any deeper than that. Even more so since its kingdoms as u can't attack nodes you are vassaled to from the parent. Casuals are not putting the time in to organize these kinds of things, I've already seen how they play first hand.
Siege needs to be about the GAMEPLAY not you are zerging a node and making all elements not matter, as well as bringing imbalance to different tiers of nodes when zergs show up at lower tiers. The only thing you have right is morale where casuals will leave at zerg nodes or quit the game.
Again this is another argument that boils down to "THOSE players are BETTER than me." If i have a ZERG i will win for sure! Mean while the reality is those players are better but now can use zerg mechanics on top of their other skills.
I won't compromise on zerg gameplay its trash, if wars are meant to have 500v500 or 1000v1000 without running like dog crap (which i doubt) that is fine as long as its even. There are other ways to allow more players to experience siege and have different tiers of sieges to avoid having war loggers.
Sieges should be competitive, should actually push the gameplay and be the first mmorpg to have good sieges where weapons, defensives, support items, etc actually matter and have a influence on the war. Adding that element of pveing and finding rare items, or people doing elements of life skilling to support the node to build these items. And not have everything interested be muted because people just zerg down a node.
All element of politics can have a large impact on nodes / wars without being reduced to the most bare bones primitive gameplay of zerging.
If one side has 300 supporters and the other has 250, that will *have an impact.* It *won't decide who wins.* If the 250 side has the advantage in gear, siege or defence funds, or fighting skill, the 250 side will probably still win. If the side that has all the advantages also happens to have the zerg advantage, that side will win. Which is fine, because clearly no one's strong enough to justify winning in the smaller side, then.
My answer to that was very clear. That's not an argument because hardcore guilds will have a monopoly on spamming the majority of sieges, by sheer manner of volume. "You get to participate in siege PvP twice a year" is not good enough to deal with the fact that this game design is alienating casual players from an entire portion of the game.
Okay, now we're actually getting into the meat of things.
"Joining a guild" won't be good enough for casuals to circumvent this problem. Guilds and alliances will have access to too many willing & able hardcore members and hired blades than to let some filthy casual join their limited 250 man army just because they "joined a guild". As you've said, hardcore guilds will successfully control their armies. Declaring sieges will be expensive, so they won't let any chances get away in ensuring that only the most capable fighters will represent them. The people who will participate in a castle siege (or in your preference even node sieges) won't be the local citizens. It'll only be the most refined PvPers of the declaring guild and its allies, plus hired blades from all around the world. Anyone but the casuals.
THAT is the problem. That is what I mean by monopoly on content.
I'm not of that real-world political persuasion, but it's essentially the hypergamy argument. The same 10% of combatants on a server will serve 90% of the sieges on it.
You just used the argument that casuals can "just join a guild" that they can engage in sieges with, but that's just not an option that will exist. Except maybe once in a blue moon by paying extra for some sad "pay to play" guild that lets casuals break their piggy bank to be allowed to play with the big boys.
So either you're not thinking along, or you just don't care about casuals participating in the game, and you're just saying whatever you can think of to get out of addressing that issue.
What? Okay, that was easy? So then if wars are "meant to" (I assume that means "if wars can typically fill up participation up to that point"?) have 2k players, now you're okay with one side losing if they don't happen to amass their 1k? But with 250 it's immediately unacceptable if one side had more people and used them? What's the difference?
Not to look a gift horse in a mouth, I appreciate that you've essentially shown a willingness to compromise there, but it doesn't seem to be consistent with anything else you've said, so I'm wondering what exactly those hard limits are.
Additional compromise suggestion from my end: What if siege battlegrounds are unlimited, but only the 250v250 or 500v500 conscripted combatants can respawn or be revived in any way? Or any similar way of allowing people to participate in actively defending their allies, while limiting the severity of zerg advantages?
This way the outnumbering side would have an advantage due to its larger number of supporters, but the outnumbered side would have tangible tools to control and mitigate that advantage. Especially if the outnumbered side happens to have the economic superiority. And everyone would get to participate in using their ability to fight in order to support the side they are allied with. Through actual gameplay, not just sending gold like a sad real-world politics simulator.
Enemy Node with +500 to +750 Citizens only like =
* ambushing the Ressource Gatherers, murdering the NPC's like Blacksmith/Merchants inside targeted Node * ,
* participate in Monster Coin Sieges/Attacks en Masse, ambush all the "economical" Node Caravans * ,
can Ashes of Creation have a System that will forcefully shrink Attackers of an official Node Siege in a Node-War onto the Size of the Defenders ? Sure ? Why not ? Could be possible ?
Should Ashes of Creation simulate the Illusion of " Fairness ",
OUTSIDE these official Node Siegs ? N~O !! It shouldn't.