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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Aszkalon

Mag7spy wrote: »

The only convo around zergs is official node/castle siege anything else doesn't matter.

Very bold Words, Mag7spy.

You think it won't matter if huge Numbers of People will sack every single one of your Caravans ?

Or just bloody murder you ON THE SPOT for simply stepping outside your Node ?

Psychological Warfare was already a thing in Alterac Valley (BG) in WoW around 2006 ... ...

Mag7spy

Aszkalon wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

The only convo around zergs is official node/castle siege anything else doesn't matter.

Very bold Words, Mag7spy.

You think it won't matter if huge Numbers of People will sack every single one of your Caravans ?

Or just bloody murder you ON THE SPOT for simply stepping outside your Node ?

Psychological Warfare was already a thing in Alterac Valley (BG) in WoW around 2006 ... ...

Zergs will be very effective and have an effect but I believe in having multiple layers of pvp. Fighting zergs in the ow is unavoidable and it would ruin the experience to create rules against that (outside of the set ones liek war decs, etc) Because tis not really something you can stop.

OF course i could meta game and think of the worse case scenario of a zerg (ie camp a whole node and let no one respawn for hours if possible).

But generally the damaged cause from a node destruction will be much higher than the damage of a zerg killing a caravan even if it is repeated.

And like people say they want different elements of fun around politics and such and ow is generally the right place for it. And be less stressful since there is most likely going to be much less loss in relation to it (no xp loss or item drop) and people more so fighting over content / objectives.

Aszkalon

MartianApe wrote: »

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

Exactly.

Since Node Sieges are k~iiinda connected to Node Politics - it shouldn't be a Scenario in which like +250 People are just "magically allowed" to fend off +500 or +750 People.

This is not how War works.
And Castle Sieges are War between Nodes, right ?

Imagine not the Nodes with the most Players loyal to it rising to a Metropolis, but a single Node with around 250 Super-No-Life~ing(lol) Workaholic-Elitist Players who play the Game +12 Hours everyday if they must.

Pandering to the few and fxxx over the many is what has destroyed Planetside Two ... ...

A Game supposed to support MASSIVE BATTLES between MASSIVE Numbers of Players - and it is an almost completely empty Husk now. Despite all the Growth that happened after "Lattice*" made it into the Game ... ...

Imagine pissing off Hundreds of HUNDREDS of Players, by denying them to "ZERG" a Node they want to subdue into a Vassal to expand into a little Node-Empire,

(( which can/will ACTUALLY be important for "Empyrean" Elves who want to more or less enforce "their" ideal Empire on which Place ever on the World of Verra )),

simply denying them to back up their 250 Attackers against 250 Defenders who just happen to be Ultra-Psycho-Geared(lol) and who can fend off everyone endlessly more or less easily and forever, OR CONQUER everyone and every other Node,

despite being outnumbered One to Two - or One to Three.

Angering and pissing off the Masses ? To satisfy the Elitist Mindset of the fewer ? Not good. I can see THIS as the only thing, that can actually kill the Game in the long Run.

This is right now my only Worry and Concern.
I am not afraid and in fear of being zerged into Oblivion.

I am afraid of what happens when ONCE AGAIN - the great Masses - the great Majority of the Playerbase, is pissed off ONCE AGAIN, to satisfy the Illusion of the few that they matter more and are like Kings compared to everyone else - and everyone else is just a Pawn.

They are not.
They never were.
They never will be.

I never knew their Names in WoW and i never wanted to.
I never wanted to know who the Top 100 Players or Top 10 in PvP on a Server were.

Please Gods of Verra spare Ashes of Creation this Fate.

We could also have this Option of making SERVER-TYPES just for this ... ...

- The "Chastity-Belt"-Servers,
(Defenders and Attackers are always locked in equal Numbers, so there is no Ouwie in the Minds of People)

or the :
- Going in raw, prepare yourself/your an**/lol -TOTAL RISK and total Reward Servers for War/PvP.

Yes i intentionally want to mock this "SAFE-PLAY Mentality" regarding Nodes with the Chastity Belt Naming of the Servers and i admit i might be a bit to vulgar with the other Names.

Let's call it just the " TOTAL RISK and total Reward Servers for War/PvP " as a Second Type if we must. :-3

Mag7spy

Aszkalon wrote: »

MartianApe wrote: »

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

Exactly.

Since Node Sieges are k~iiinda connected to Node Politics - it shouldn't be a Scenario in which like +250 People are just "magically allowed" to fend off +500 or +750 People.

This is not how War works.
And Castle Sieges are War between Nodes, right ?

Imagine not the Nodes with the most Players loyal to it rising to a Metropolis, but a single Node with around 250 Super-No-Life~ing(lol) Workaholic-Elitist Players who play the Game +12 Hours everyday if they must.

Pandering to the few and fxxx over the many is what has destroyed Planetside Two ... ...

A Game supposed to support MASSIVE BATTLES between MASSIVE Numbers of Players - and it is an almost completely empty Husk now. Despite all the Growth that happened after "Lattice*" made it into the Game ... ...

Imagine pissing off Hundreds of HUNDREDS of Players, by denying them to "ZERG" a Node they want to subdue into a Vassal to expand into a little Node-Empire,

(( which can/will ACTUALLY be important for "Empyrean" Elves who want to more or less enforce "their" ideal Empire on which Place ever on the World of Verra )),

simply denying them to back up their 250 Attackers against 250 Defenders who just happen to be Ultra-Psycho-Geared(lol) and who can fend off everyone endlessly more or less easily and forever, OR CONQUER everyone and every other Node,

despite being outnumbered One to Two - or One to Three.

Angering and pissing off the Masses ? To satisfy the Elitist Mindset of the fewer ? Not good. I can see THIS as the only thing, that can actually kill the Game in the long Run.

This is right now my only Worry and Concern.
I am not afraid and in fear of being zerged into Oblivion.

I am afraid of what happens when ONCE AGAIN - the great Masses - the great Majority of the Playerbase, is pissed off ONCE AGAIN, to satisfy the Illusion of the few that they matter more and are like Kings compared to everyone else - and everyone else is just a Pawn.

They are not.
They never were.
They never will be.

I never knew their Names in WoW and i never wanted to.
I never wanted to know who the Top 100 Players or Top 10 in PvP on a Server were.

Please Gods of Verra spare Ashes of Creation this Fate.

We could also have this Option of making SERVER-TYPES just for this ... ...

- The "Chastity-Belt"-Servers,
(Defenders and Attackers are always locked in equal Numbers, so there is no Ouwie in the Minds of People)

or the :
- Going in raw, prepare yourself/your an**/lol -TOTAL RISK and total Reward Servers for War/PvP.

Yes i intentionally want to mock this "SAFE-PLAY Mentality" regarding Nodes with the Chastity Belt Naming of the Servers and i admit i might be a bit to vulgar with the other Names.

Let's call it just the " TOTAL RISK and total Reward Servers for War/PvP " as a Second Type if we must. :-3

Long story shot if i have more numbers you should lose and it should be like a real war.

I don't agree since this is a game, if we are talking about RL no one is going to war so everything doesn't get destroyed and we have nothing left.

Pushing for content to be about numbers to win is one of the worse designs you can do.

Aszkalon

Mag7spy wrote: »

I don't agree since this is a game, if we are talking about RL no one is going to war so everything doesn't get destroyed and we have nothing left.

Hence the Servers-Types.

You don't need to be afraid to lose it all, if you can "chose" if Node Sieges should always have equal Numbers, or if Zergs can decide the Fate of Nodes on a Server.

Aszkalon

NiKr wrote: »

And if the siege is for a metro - there'd be thousands of people registered as defenders, yet only 500 (if Intrepid even succeed at achieving that goal) can defend the node in a siege.

And a metro falling is supposed to be a huge event on the server and impact a ton of people, so, once again, if majority of allies can do nothing about their metro falling - imo that's a pretty bad thing.

Ex~AAACTL~YYY !!!

Mag7spy

Aszkalon wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I don't agree since this is a game, if we are talking about RL no one is going to war so everything doesn't get destroyed and we have nothing left.

Hence the Servers-Types.

You don't need to be afraid to lose it all, if you can "chose" if Node Sieges should always have equal Numbers, or if Zergs can decide the Fate of Nodes on a Server.

THere is not going to be different server ty[pes with different siege rules what? I seriously can' believe you are trying to push for zergs to ruin servers its kind of insane.

Again your whole point is you think its casuals fighting hardcore guilds and the only way you can beat "sweat" When that isn't' going to happen. Its going to be "sweats" zerging you. Your overload is going to destroy your node in 5 min with a zerg.

Mag7spy

@Aszkalon Did you play T&L Kr?

Mag7spy

@Dripyula since you are the most reasonable one in this thread that has understood what I'm saying.
I'm going to offer literal game proof what happens when you allow players to use zergs for content. There is no casuals coming together to have stopped this to the point it ruined the server and the pvp scene (though they are broken up now do to drama but this could happen on a much larger scale)

Hardcore guilds with tools to zerg servers and content ,t with people with the time and skill to do it. Casuals are not the zergs its hardcore guilds getting even more power and control.

https://www.reddit.com/r/throneandliberty/comments/18vcyut/kanon_and_his_onehp_guild_with_17_alliances_have/

Dripyula

Okay, this link was gruesome. @Mag7spy convinced me. I saw this happening myself in Planetside2 too.

Although I would love to see players use zerging responsibly, after my own experience I just can't trust them.
Most ingame mechanics fail at the hands of the players if you allow them to screw it up even in one single way and this has proven true time & time again.

I can totally see sweat-guilds ally together for years on end to get all kinds of things for minimal effort, watch anime or whatever on another monitor while they effortlessly win every big battle in Ashes and have no real ambition or shame, instead of doing it the real way and making epic memorys which only authentic people can make.

Dayum. I had trust again. You never trust! You NEVER trust.

You always control! Trust is good, control is better.

Otr

Maybe one day this guy will want to make a video about an AoC siege

https://twitter.com/smartereveryday/status/1778528320910721343

Ludullu

Otr wrote: »

Maybe one day this guy will want to make a video about an AoC siege
https://twitter.com/smartereveryday/status/1778528320910721343

Oh shit, I'm hyped for his video on EVE stuff, if he's making one. I bet he'll talk about time dilation and shit. Noice

Aszkalon

Mag7spy wrote: »

@Dripyula since you are the most reasonable one in this thread that has understood what I'm saying.

Heheheheh.

Actually whenever Dripyula and i listen to your Concerns, we come to the same Conclusion. Apologies if i seem so dull and like i don't get anything of it.

Mag7spy wrote: »

I'm going to offer literal game proof what happens when you allow players to use zergs for content. There is no casuals coming together to have stopped this to the point it ruined the server and the pvp scene (though they are broken up now do to drama but this could happen on a much larger scale)

Hardcore guilds with tools to zerg servers and content ,t with people with the time and skill to do it. Casuals are not the zergs its hardcore guilds getting even more power and control.

https://www.reddit.com/r/throneandliberty/comments/18vcyut/kanon_and_his_onehp_guild_with_17_alliances_have/

So these "Hardcore Guilds" simply have the best Ability to band People together. I think i get it.

And then People are no longer motivated to try and stand up against a single, overwhelming Force. They don't try to "counter" this Force. They more like just go with the Flow, right ?

I can see where the Problem in this lies. If People will behave exactly the same in Ashes of Creation : a few Guilds will hold all the Power on a Server together.

Maybe we don't need my Idea and Suggestion for Server-Types then. But then a few People will hold all the Nodes with a few Elitist Guilds ... ... ...

Jam21

Aszkalon wrote: »

So these "Hardcore Guilds" simply have the best Ability to band People together. I think i get it.

And then People are no longer motivated to try and stand up against a single, overwhelming Force. They don't try to "counter" this Force. They more like just go with the Flow, right ?

I can see where the Problem in this lies. If People will behave exactly the same in Ashes of Creation : a few Guilds will hold all the Power on a Server together.

It is like this, yes, but there are 2 things:

1) If there are at least 2 different "top" guilds on a server (like really different in organization, principles & having a lot of beef with each other), there will always be action for even smaller guilds, because in the shadow of bigwar a lot of things happen on a populated server....
Trust me in games of old I've seen A LOT of scenarios where at some point because of various reasons "dominant" guilds collapsed and unlikely underdogs grabbed the remains.

2) The problem really can be if there is either one dominant guild (or 2, but they are only "mock/fake enemies" , while in fact their leaders and top officers are good friends and their goals in the game much aligned). Such situation is called "swamp" and is bad for server, yes - because they grab all goodies and smaller fish cannot even dream of competing with them.
However, even in these cases this swamp is often drained...from the inside. There are always people inside the dominant guild who don't like the leadership or think they have been wronged or whatever...and when enough people think this way they strike out on their own,. Being well geared, experienced & organized on par with their former guildmates, and they often rely on support from smaller guilds as meatshield - everyone is interestred in the downfall of dominant scum....

3) BONUS: The most fun servers are of course those where are 3 different sides competing...if they all hate each other so much that 2 will never ally against the remaining 1, that is when the most fun & epic things happen.. But this is super rare - usually 2 eventually merge and ally against the remaining one & they form 2 sides eventually, even if participating guilds are more than 20.

I still remember the 600 vs 90 Coalition rush vs dominant guilds alliance on my old Lineage II server. Ascent across 12 floors of the Tower of Insolence, epic hours long fight on 13th floor....and in the end despite the dominant guild eventually won & got the contested epic boss, it was the beginning of their end. And server lived and was fun many years after their collapse.

If you never played old games like Lineage II(pre-GoD), DaOC, early BDO, ArcheAge (pre-2.0) or Age of Wulin - then you need to look no further than Albion Online (it is pretty active even nowadays) to see how this works.

Aszkalon

Jam21 wrote: »

It is like this, yes, but there are 2 things:

1) If there are at least 2 different "top" guilds on a server (like really different in organization, principles & having a lot of beef with each other), there will always be action for even smaller guilds, because in the shadow of bigwar a lot of things happen on a populated server....
Trust me in games of old I've seen A LOT of scenarios where at some point because of various reasons "dominant" guilds collapsed and unlikely underdogs grabbed the remains.

2) The problem really can be if there is either one dominant guild (or 2, but they are only "mock/fake enemies" , while in fact their leaders and top officers are good friends and their goals in the game much aligned). Such situation is called "swamp" and is bad for server, yes - because they grab all goodies and smaller fish cannot even dream of competing with them.
However, even in these cases this swamp is often drained...from the inside. There are always people inside the dominant guild who don't like the leadership or think they have been wronged or whatever...and when enough people think this way they strike out on their own,. Being well geared, experienced & organized on par with their former guildmates, and they often rely on support from smaller guilds as meatshield - everyone is interestred in the downfall of dominant scum...

Some things stay eternal and current no matter what.

I know i am asking RRRRREEEEEAAAAAALLLLLYYYYYYY MUCH of the Developers when i ask this,

but wouldn't it be funny to hilarious,
if for Example the Attack AND DEFENCE of a Node is "FORCEFULLY" switched to People of different Accounts every Week to a few Weeks or so,

So You have in Week 1 :
-> Guild One of PSYCHO's who can fend off even the Gods (Pun, but i mean it)

Week 2 :
-> People who can fend off #98% of ALL THE SERVER (overdone Example but please go with it)

Week 3 :
-> People who have an "ACTUAL/REAL" Chance to get beaten by an Enemy Force on their own Node.

Ashes could have Systems that allow the TOP OF THE TOP of Psycho-Elitist Players to participate only One every Two Months.

Meaning if the Node gets overhwelmed in the Meantime,
-> well then "TEEHEE" it just happened and the Supersaiya-Psycho's should just suck it up.

Please don't get me wrong. I was part of the Supersaiya-Psycho's for over +14 Years. This is why i know how shitty and boring and unfair this System is. x'D

akabear

NiKr wrote: »

akabear wrote: »

Actually, if Ashes does follow a similar castle mechanic as L2 as they appear to be doing, it might just be possible but rare for a small inconsequential guild to ninja in at the right time to take ownership during the siege.

That small guild would have to somehow get into the siege though. Which, right now, I don't think they'll be able to do.

Isn`t the ability to enter a siege by signup in advance, in which case it is a first in first served basis?

Ludullu

akabear wrote: »

Isn`t the ability to enter a siege by signup in advance, in which case it is a first in first served basis?

Yep. You gotta come to the castle and cast a sieging scroll. And there'll be a cap on siege members so the big guilds can just have their sub-guilds sign up first, while they PK any other scroll bearer. The member list gets filled and, supposedly, no one else will be able to attend the siege.

akabear

NiKr wrote: »

akabear wrote: »

Isn`t the ability to enter a siege by signup in advance, in which case it is a first in first served basis?

Yep. You gotta come to the castle and cast a sieging scroll. And there'll be a cap on siege members so the big guilds can just have their sub-guilds sign up first, while they PK any other scroll bearer. The member list gets filled and, supposedly, no one else will be able to attend the siege.

I guess two parts to this then.

A) A small guild or big guild will have equal chance IF the signup is limited to an individual guild leader only.. where as if I guess signup is by anyone within a guild on behalf of the guild, then numbers matter.

Then

I guess, if the guild is a mega guild, it is a first in first served as the quantity of signups will be met.. however I still think that a mega guild will still be made of multiple guilds..

Might be a good question to pose for the monthly Q&A.

Ludullu

akabear wrote: »

A) A small guild or big guild will have equal chance IF the signup is limited to an individual guild leader only.. where as if I guess signup is by anyone within a guild on behalf of the guild, then numbers matter.

This is already the case and is exactly why small guilds will never get into a siege.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges#Declaring_a_castle_siege
The siege scroll deployment is a 5 min rooted cast that alerts the region at the cast initiation and names the caster that must be the guild leader.[42][43]

akabear wrote: »

I guess, if the guild is a mega guild, it is a first in first served as the quantity of signups will be met.. however I still think that a mega guild will still be made of multiple guilds..

Multiple guilds may register to attack and the first to complete the scroll and lay down the declaration may begin to have their members register to attack (there will be a cap).[42]

Aszkalon

NiKr wrote: »

Yep. You gotta come to the castle and cast a sieging scroll. And there'll be a cap on siege members so the big guilds can just have their sub-guilds sign up first, while they PK any other scroll bearer. The member list gets filled and, supposedly, no one else will be able to attend the siege.

But how will that be enforced Engine-wise, if i may ask ?

Will there be a "Phasing", like in WoW ? Will there be an invisible Wall that prevents everyone else than the Attackers from coming close to the Node ?

Will the Attackers be the only Ones who can attack the Node Infrastructure,
the Node-NPC's - and Node-Citizens/Players ?

And what should prevent any other Player nearby then from just running to the Node and start trying to steal, plunder and murder (lol) while the Node-Citizens and Node-NPC's are busy trying to fend off the Attackers ?
Hence the Question with the invisible Wall and so on.

Child Item