If mega guilds become a problem it is the devs fault and only the devs fault since mega guilds are ok!
The players are never the problem, the problem is the devs at all times, they have all the power to fix anything and they still don't do it out of fear and lack of imaginagion (we don't get a lot of people with +130 IQ)
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
Mega guilds will dominate the area they choose to settle, that's a given. Making the world large enough will both spread resources and force population spread, limiting the ability to completely dominate a server. If small ball guilds are too stupid and too prideful to ally against a massive group, they deserve to be crushed.
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Well one is allowed to dream... I have seen this expectaion before. I will admit some might but for the well organised larger guilds this will not occur. I seen very successful larger guilds build out full factions within themselves that withstood any fracturing.
Yep. We shall see.
0
nanfoodleMember, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Well one is allowed to dream... I have seen this expectaion before. I will admit some might but for the well organised larger guilds this will not occur. I seen very successful larger guilds build out full factions within themselves that withstood any fracturing.
Yep. We shall see.
This not uncommon and has its roots in games as old as DAoC. I was in a guild that all chapters of the alliance was a chapter of the guild.
I find the comparison really strange. In real world we have corporations with billions of people and power and no one bats an eye, in here they all go crazy because of mega guilds.
In a capitalist society, consolidation of power and resources it's just a given.
Ashes is similar to this, only the strong with more power will achieve great things. Therefore big ass guilds is just the way the system works.
The difference here is that the consequences are not dire. I can betray my guild, fight against them and I won't live my livelihood or life, so that will create war and large guilds will fall apart.
0
KreedMember, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
I find the comparison really strange. In real world we have corporations with billions of people and power and no one bats an eye, in here they all go crazy because of mega guilds.
In a capitalist society, consolidation of power and resources it's just a given.
Ashes is similar to this, only the strong with more power will achieve great things. Therefore big ass guilds is just the way the system works.
The difference here is that the consequences are not dire. I can betray my guild, fight against them and I won't live my livelihood or life, so that will create war and large guilds will fall apart.
I dont have a problem with Mega guilds per say, I have a problem with Game design that limits the guild cap to low numbers that forces the Mega guild to divide into their limit capped factions. If such a guild has divided into 3 to 12 + guilds , the smaller guilds that band together will never be able to work through them.
I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.
Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.
If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.
Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.
This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.
Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.
Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.
Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.
Some general passives could be done with quest chains.
Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.
This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.
I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.
Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.
If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.
Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.
This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.
Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.
Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.
Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.
Some general passives could be done with quest chains.
Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.
This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.
All locking stuff behind tasks (gold, quests, etc) does is artificially limit the ability for small guilds. You could make it a percentage increase based on guild population, but that's easily gamed by pooling resources to one person letting them accomplish the task and then carrying on as normal.
I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.
Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.
If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.
Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.
This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.
Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.
Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.
Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.
Some general passives could be done with quest chains.
Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.
This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.
All locking stuff behind tasks (gold, quests, etc) does is artificially limit the ability for small guilds. You could make it a percentage increase based on guild population, but that's easily gamed by pooling resources to one person letting them accomplish the task and then carrying on as normal.
No it doesn't.
Besides, if they're not organized, and can't do stuff together to level up the guild, then do they deserve to level up and get the benefits?
The quests don't have to be something only a large group can do.
My example of a world boss drop, should only be for stuff that hardcore guilds will want, whether it's extra slots, or something similar.
A small 20 people guild can absolutely also level up with combined effort.
I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.
Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.
If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.
Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.
This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.
Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.
Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.
Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.
Some general passives could be done with quest chains.
Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.
This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.
All locking stuff behind tasks (gold, quests, etc) does is artificially limit the ability for small guilds. You could make it a percentage increase based on guild population, but that's easily gamed by pooling resources to one person letting them accomplish the task and then carrying on as normal.
No it doesn't.
Besides, if they're not organized, and can't do stuff together to level up the guild, then do they deserve to level up and get the benefits?
The quests don't have to be something only a large group can do.
My example of a world boss drop, should only be for stuff that hardcore guilds will want, whether it's extra slots, or something similar.
A small 20 people guild can absolutely also level up with combined effort.
It shouldn't just be given out for free.
If its a gold sink to unlock passives, more players = more gold. If its a quest chain more people = more ability to complete said quest. Large guilds are just (if not more) organized than smaller guilds. The limits created by population incentivized guild leveling lets larger guilds snowball significantly faster than smaller guilds. I did say you could make quests based on population of the guild but that's easily gamed.
I never said it should be given out for free or that small guilds cannot.
I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.
Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.
If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.
Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.
This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.
Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.
Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.
Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.
Some general passives could be done with quest chains.
Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.
This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.
All locking stuff behind tasks (gold, quests, etc) does is artificially limit the ability for small guilds. You could make it a percentage increase based on guild population, but that's easily gamed by pooling resources to one person letting them accomplish the task and then carrying on as normal.
No it doesn't.
Besides, if they're not organized, and can't do stuff together to level up the guild, then do they deserve to level up and get the benefits?
The quests don't have to be something only a large group can do.
My example of a world boss drop, should only be for stuff that hardcore guilds will want, whether it's extra slots, or something similar.
A small 20 people guild can absolutely also level up with combined effort.
It shouldn't just be given out for free.
If its a gold sink to unlock passives, more players = more gold. If its a quest chain more people = more ability to complete said quest. Large guilds are just (if not more) organized than smaller guilds. The limits created by population incentivized guild leveling lets larger guilds snowball significantly faster than smaller guilds. I did say you could make quests based on population of the guild but that's easily gamed.
I never said it should be given out for free or that small guilds cannot.
Yes, but you said it limits their ability.
It doesn't limit it, but yes, larger guilds will definitely level up faster and have a faster progression in general, which is normal.
Smaller guilds can still do it, but at a slower pace.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Steven wants those mega-guilds to fracture into smaller guilds.
By doing so they will then be able to completely dominate an entire section of the map and completely have a structure that insures they stay on top and protect the main guild node. Having alliances within each other will make it nearly impossible to have a successful raid against them. A complete buffer once setup if its done proper and well coordinated.
Obstensibly. Forcing mega guilds into smaller guilds creates defined fractures that allow for dissention and players going in different ways.
Even within a guild, there is a division of groups and bonuses - so you can clearly see that you aren't in the 'main group' and that others are getting more bonuses than you (unlike other games where they can string you along)
I don't think mega guilds will survive long with these mechanics - especially not 'zerg' guilds where the plebs get nothing and the core group gets everything.
1
KreedMember, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Steven wants those mega-guilds to fracture into smaller guilds.
By doing so they will then be able to completely dominate an entire section of the map and completely have a structure that insures they stay on top and protect the main guild node. Having alliances within each other will make it nearly impossible to have a successful raid against them. A complete buffer once setup if its done proper and well coordinated.
Obstensibly. Forcing mega guilds into smaller guilds creates defined fractures that allow for dissention and players going in different ways.
Even within a guild, there is a division of groups and bonuses - so you can clearly see that you aren't in the 'main group' and that others are getting more bonuses than you (unlike other games where they can string you along)
I don't think mega guilds will survive long with these mechanics - especially not 'zerg' guilds where the plebs get nothing and the core group gets everything.
Well organised Mega guilds forced to work around guild caps only become stronger and create self alliances with their splinted off groups , for the most part do not fracture and fall apart. Well managed ones do extremely well because they are only dealing with the themselves and dont have to worry about outside influence that outside guilds would potentially bring.
Essentually they are forced to create an Empire and well organised Empires last a long time... I have been a few Guilds over the years that have done exactly just that. They were all susccessful and well organised in the planning of their structures and goals. This game will give them exactly what they will need to accomplish this achievement.
Remember the game design the smaller portion guilds will have stronger stats, If the main guild max's capacity of 300 or 500 and its splinters are of 5 guilds allowed into an aliance that have 50 or 100 people within. This means that these splinter guilds can be used as buffers for each of the nodes they control. The main guild will be able to feed these guilds with players and the smaller guilds will be tougher and supplies will move back and forth between the alliance as a whole.
Depending the alliance size or cap will determine how the Mega guilds will setup their system. if a guild has 5000 players they can completely diversify and completely rule with and completely control sections of the map. with opportunities to have their Elite players harass and conquer surrounding area's keeping the non alliance occupied from attacking. The rest of the guild players will have the ability to work their way up the ladders of that guild to be moved to the splinter guilds. PvP amongst themselves will be fully controled.
I have seen first hand a number of Mega guilds that are successful and fully capable in doing this. So I dont agree that they will fracture and fall apart that easily.
0
novercalisMember, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
good old fashion bump
{UPK} United Player Killer - All your loot belongs to us.
0
h3llsing212Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
By doing so they will then be able to completely dominate an entire section of the map and completely have a structure that insures they stay on top and protect the main guild node. Having alliances within each other will make it nearly impossible to have a successful raid against them. A complete buffer once setup if its done proper and well coordinated.
Steven expects that splitting into smaller in-game Guilds will cause the leaders of those smaller to have separate goals that cause the Mega-Guilds to essentially fracture.
Well one is allowed to dream... I have seen this expectaion before. I will admit some might but for the well organised larger guilds this will not occur. I seen very successful larger guilds build out full factions within themselves that withstood any fracturing.
I used to be part of a mega guild called DROW. It didn't matter if a game had a limit on guilds, we found a way to stay organized.
By doing so they will then be able to completely dominate an entire section of the map and completely have a structure that insures they stay on top and protect the main guild node. Having alliances within each other will make it nearly impossible to have a successful raid against them. A complete buffer once setup if its done proper and well coordinated.
Steven expects that splitting into smaller in-game Guilds will cause the leaders of those smaller to have separate goals that cause the Mega-Guilds to essentially fracture.
Well one is allowed to dream... I have seen this expectaion before. I will admit some might but for the well organised larger guilds this will not occur. I seen very successful larger guilds build out full factions within themselves that withstood any fracturing.
I used to be part of a mega guild called DROW. It didn't matter if a game had a limit on guilds, we found a way to stay organized.
Thats why the solution should be focused around giving small guilds the opportunity to win vs Zergs.
Its really that simple. Put friendly fire (you get group of 40 players max, and anything outside this group is subject to friendly fire), Put scaling AOE spells with targets hit. Combined with the already intended Boss loot that is constant and not everyone from the group gets loot.
After a group of 8 players kill 500 players zerg and take all their mats (and potential items if the zerg are corrupted), you will never see zerg again.
These mega guilds are my biggest concern. It will be interesting to see how they are tamed. I cant see the fun in being in one as you will just be a number but at the same time not being in it may cause your game experience to be ruined. Its certainly something I will be providing feedback on once we get to see how it works in game.
I got the perfect idea.
Put some craftable item that CANT BE USED in sieges or node wars,
The item casts Chain lighting. That hits a target (only players), and transfers to a nearby target INFINITY amount of times, but cant hit the same target again. After the 40th target hit, any next target instantly dies if hit.
TADA. now you wont harm any groups with 40 or less players since the chain lighting dmg for first 40 hits wont be anything special. And in the same time you get rid of all Zergs,
I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.
Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.
If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.
Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.
This is for damn sure. I now have an extreme hatred for alliances after attempting to go hard in Throne and liberty (rank 16 on our server). With no protection from the developers the massive top guild alliance can freely keep everyone else from killing open world bosses, lock down any pvp zone they wish, and monopolize just whatever they want. Theres also a massive problem with targetting but i digress.
nanfoodleMember, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Steven has some designs to help deal with zurgs and large guilds. Look up guild buffs. You have to pick between having more members or buffs your members with more buffs. PvP events will also require raids to brek up into small groups to deal smaller events with in the bigger event. I think Steven is going in the right direction. It's his desire to give us tools to even the playing field. I'm sure he will keep things adjusting in that direction.
Steven has some designs to help deal with zurgs and large guilds. Look up guild buffs. You have to pick between having more members or buffs your members with more buffs. PvP events will also require raids to brek up into small groups to deal smaller events with in the bigger event. I think Steven is going in the right direction. It's his desire to give us tools to even the playing field. I'm sure he will keep things adjusting in that direction.
This changes nothing tho. The Zergs are not bound by in game constraints. The zerg exist in discord and they have been playing together few years in another game where they dominated the servers.
They can just make more smaller guilds if the Guild perks are that important.
Remember the game design the smaller portion guilds will have stronger stats, If the main guild max's capacity of 300 or 500 and its splinters are of 5 guilds allowed into an aliance that have 50 or 100 people within. This means that these splinter guilds can be used as buffers for each of the nodes they control. The main guild will be able to feed these guilds with players and the smaller guilds will be tougher and supplies will move back and forth between the alliance as a whole.
Steven has described that these perks are addigned to squads, and that there are enforced hierarchies of squads. It will be very clear to many guilds who is on the in group and out group based on where they are placed in the heirarchies, who gets the perks and who gets the rewards.
Steven likes strife and conflict - and splintering megaguilds into smaller guilds create seams that are easy to create strife between as the 'main guild' gets rewards the others can't.
Remember the game design the smaller portion guilds will have stronger stats, If the main guild max's capacity of 300 or 500 and its splinters are of 5 guilds allowed into an aliance that have 50 or 100 people within. This means that these splinter guilds can be used as buffers for each of the nodes they control. The main guild will be able to feed these guilds with players and the smaller guilds will be tougher and supplies will move back and forth between the alliance as a whole.
Steven has described that these perks are addigned to squads, and that there are enforced hierarchies of squads. It will be very clear to many guilds who is on the in group and out group based on where they are placed in the heirarchies, who gets the perks and who gets the rewards.
Steven likes strife and conflict - and splintering megaguilds into smaller guilds create seams that are easy to create strife between as the 'main guild' gets rewards the others can't.
These guilds have been together for years. Even if this make internal conflicts, the guild will last at least half year before actual signs of disbanding start showing. For this half year you will already be seeing dead servers, since players will be transferring to other servers because of the zergs.
Intrepid should fix this problem before it actually destroy their servers, and not after. This is something that they know from now that it will be BIG problem. So they have enough time.
Mega guilds will just make sister guilds and form alliances to control multiple zone either way, big guilds are already making alliances like the guild i'm in, at the end of the day those alliances will dominate the server unless a mega guild or another big guilds with alliances comes to the same server.
Mega guilds will just make sister guilds and form alliances to control multiple zone either way, big guilds are already making alliances like the guild i'm in, at the end of the day those alliances will dominate the server unless a mega guild or another big guilds with alliances comes to the same server.
Atm guild size is max 30 players, so in alpha we wont be seeing mega guilds. And this is problem coz it wont be tested.
Comments
The players are never the problem, the problem is the devs at all times, they have all the power to fix anything and they still don't do it out of fear and lack of imaginagion (we don't get a lot of people with +130 IQ)
This not uncommon and has its roots in games as old as DAoC. I was in a guild that all chapters of the alliance was a chapter of the guild.
In a capitalist society, consolidation of power and resources it's just a given.
Ashes is similar to this, only the strong with more power will achieve great things. Therefore big ass guilds is just the way the system works.
The difference here is that the consequences are not dire. I can betray my guild, fight against them and I won't live my livelihood or life, so that will create war and large guilds will fall apart.
I dont have a problem with Mega guilds per say, I have a problem with Game design that limits the guild cap to low numbers that forces the Mega guild to divide into their limit capped factions. If such a guild has divided into 3 to 12 + guilds , the smaller guilds that band together will never be able to work through them.
This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.
Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.
Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.
Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.
Some general passives could be done with quest chains.
Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.
This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.
All locking stuff behind tasks (gold, quests, etc) does is artificially limit the ability for small guilds. You could make it a percentage increase based on guild population, but that's easily gamed by pooling resources to one person letting them accomplish the task and then carrying on as normal.
No it doesn't.
Besides, if they're not organized, and can't do stuff together to level up the guild, then do they deserve to level up and get the benefits?
The quests don't have to be something only a large group can do.
My example of a world boss drop, should only be for stuff that hardcore guilds will want, whether it's extra slots, or something similar.
A small 20 people guild can absolutely also level up with combined effort.
It shouldn't just be given out for free.
If its a gold sink to unlock passives, more players = more gold. If its a quest chain more people = more ability to complete said quest. Large guilds are just (if not more) organized than smaller guilds. The limits created by population incentivized guild leveling lets larger guilds snowball significantly faster than smaller guilds. I did say you could make quests based on population of the guild but that's easily gamed.
I never said it should be given out for free or that small guilds cannot.
Yes, but you said it limits their ability.
It doesn't limit it, but yes, larger guilds will definitely level up faster and have a faster progression in general, which is normal.
Smaller guilds can still do it, but at a slower pace.
Obstensibly. Forcing mega guilds into smaller guilds creates defined fractures that allow for dissention and players going in different ways.
Even within a guild, there is a division of groups and bonuses - so you can clearly see that you aren't in the 'main group' and that others are getting more bonuses than you (unlike other games where they can string you along)
I don't think mega guilds will survive long with these mechanics - especially not 'zerg' guilds where the plebs get nothing and the core group gets everything.
Well organised Mega guilds forced to work around guild caps only become stronger and create self alliances with their splinted off groups , for the most part do not fracture and fall apart. Well managed ones do extremely well because they are only dealing with the themselves and dont have to worry about outside influence that outside guilds would potentially bring.
Essentually they are forced to create an Empire and well organised Empires last a long time... I have been a few Guilds over the years that have done exactly just that. They were all susccessful and well organised in the planning of their structures and goals. This game will give them exactly what they will need to accomplish this achievement.
Remember the game design the smaller portion guilds will have stronger stats, If the main guild max's capacity of 300 or 500 and its splinters are of 5 guilds allowed into an aliance that have 50 or 100 people within. This means that these splinter guilds can be used as buffers for each of the nodes they control. The main guild will be able to feed these guilds with players and the smaller guilds will be tougher and supplies will move back and forth between the alliance as a whole.
Depending the alliance size or cap will determine how the Mega guilds will setup their system. if a guild has 5000 players they can completely diversify and completely rule with and completely control sections of the map. with opportunities to have their Elite players harass and conquer surrounding area's keeping the non alliance occupied from attacking. The rest of the guild players will have the ability to work their way up the ladders of that guild to be moved to the splinter guilds. PvP amongst themselves will be fully controled.
I have seen first hand a number of Mega guilds that are successful and fully capable in doing this. So I dont agree that they will fracture and fall apart that easily.
Streamer servers are always the first to die. Streamers are the first to abandon a game as soon as it's no longer popular to their crowd.
I used to be part of a mega guild called DROW. It didn't matter if a game had a limit on guilds, we found a way to stay organized.
Thats why the solution should be focused around giving small guilds the opportunity to win vs Zergs.
Its really that simple. Put friendly fire (you get group of 40 players max, and anything outside this group is subject to friendly fire), Put scaling AOE spells with targets hit. Combined with the already intended Boss loot that is constant and not everyone from the group gets loot.
After a group of 8 players kill 500 players zerg and take all their mats (and potential items if the zerg are corrupted), you will never see zerg again.
Put some craftable item that CANT BE USED in sieges or node wars,
The item casts Chain lighting. That hits a target (only players), and transfers to a nearby target INFINITY amount of times, but cant hit the same target again. After the 40th target hit, any next target instantly dies if hit.
TADA. now you wont harm any groups with 40 or less players since the chain lighting dmg for first 40 hits wont be anything special. And in the same time you get rid of all Zergs,
This is for damn sure. I now have an extreme hatred for alliances after attempting to go hard in Throne and liberty (rank 16 on our server). With no protection from the developers the massive top guild alliance can freely keep everyone else from killing open world bosses, lock down any pvp zone they wish, and monopolize just whatever they want. Theres also a massive problem with targetting but i digress.
This changes nothing tho. The Zergs are not bound by in game constraints. The zerg exist in discord and they have been playing together few years in another game where they dominated the servers.
They can just make more smaller guilds if the Guild perks are that important.
Steven has described that these perks are addigned to squads, and that there are enforced hierarchies of squads. It will be very clear to many guilds who is on the in group and out group based on where they are placed in the heirarchies, who gets the perks and who gets the rewards.
Steven likes strife and conflict - and splintering megaguilds into smaller guilds create seams that are easy to create strife between as the 'main guild' gets rewards the others can't.
These guilds have been together for years. Even if this make internal conflicts, the guild will last at least half year before actual signs of disbanding start showing. For this half year you will already be seeing dead servers, since players will be transferring to other servers because of the zergs.
Intrepid should fix this problem before it actually destroy their servers, and not after. This is something that they know from now that it will be BIG problem. So they have enough time.
Atm guild size is max 30 players, so in alpha we wont be seeing mega guilds. And this is problem coz it wont be tested.