Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
What about Zerg mechanics?
Pendragxn
Member
I think it’s essential to have some kind of anti-Zerg strategies, redundancies, and player protection systems. The game should naturally push players toward forming guilds or alliances, but I always wonder—what happens when you’re stuck in an uneven fight? A 3 vs 6 or 2 vs 4 situation? Even when both sides are equal in gear and abilities, the larger group always seems to have the upper hand, mostly because they can rotate more cooldowns and abilities. That’s frustrating.
Focus fire reduction or disarray debuffs, like what Albion Online does, would really help. I hate it when a big group just gang up on one player and burn them down instantly. There should be diminishing damage if multiple players focus on one target, to make sure it’s more about skill and less about numbers. In fact, larger groups should be penalised for their size with a debuff that makes it harder for them to just steamroll smaller, well-coordinated teams.
On top of that, dynamic scaling should be a thing. If you’re outnumbered, you should get some kind of stat boost or temporary buffs to keep the fight balanced. I’d even like to see the environment play a role, like certain areas of the map offering advantages to smaller teams to even the odds.
Lastly, guilds and alliances should have ways to counter large group domination, like emergency summoning mechanics or group buffs that help during a skirmish when you’re at a disadvantage. It just makes the gameplay so much more strategic and fun, instead of being a numbers game all the time.
I also think we need to factor in the fact that not everyone is going to have a healer or off-heal class available at all times. Honestly, treat your healers right—they’re crucial, and not every fight is going to have that luxury.
Focus fire reduction or disarray debuffs, like what Albion Online does, would really help. I hate it when a big group just gang up on one player and burn them down instantly. There should be diminishing damage if multiple players focus on one target, to make sure it’s more about skill and less about numbers. In fact, larger groups should be penalised for their size with a debuff that makes it harder for them to just steamroll smaller, well-coordinated teams.
On top of that, dynamic scaling should be a thing. If you’re outnumbered, you should get some kind of stat boost or temporary buffs to keep the fight balanced. I’d even like to see the environment play a role, like certain areas of the map offering advantages to smaller teams to even the odds.
Lastly, guilds and alliances should have ways to counter large group domination, like emergency summoning mechanics or group buffs that help during a skirmish when you’re at a disadvantage. It just makes the gameplay so much more strategic and fun, instead of being a numbers game all the time.
I also think we need to factor in the fact that not everyone is going to have a healer or off-heal class available at all times. Honestly, treat your healers right—they’re crucial, and not every fight is going to have that luxury.
1
Comments
No. Hard No. That ruins the entire point of having a big guild for example in the first place. Furthermore a big guild already has to give up on (1) guild progression points to increase their size and (2) do more work to get their hands on more resources because they need... more of everything for their larger amount of players. If they put in that work then they should naturally be rewarded for it.
And I am saying that as someone aiming to play with a small group of friends to create a small guild, so I am not tooting my own horn here.
The way the environment accounts for big groups is by exploiting that WITHIN the game mechanics. Like for example Firebrand aiming his breath attack at the largest group in range = punishing big zerg armies rolling in.
Also weather events like the one from the comissions livestream where lighting insta kills unsuspecting travellers have a higher chance of hitting the faction that covers more ground... i.e. has more players.
They have. Since they do not need to invest the points of their guild levels into increasing the member size, they can choose other perks for their guild members.
Also if a given group worries about large groups - skill to max out AoE damage. There will probably also be skill options that maximize damage when hitting multiple targets.
So the worry that at this point Intrepid has not thought of limiting zergs, would be wrong.
To learn more about Zergs and Anti-Zerg mechanics in Ashes check out the Wiki!
I think that's fair to consider. However, you'd have to come up with a pretty convincing method, because Steven's stance so far has been very clear about the main countermeasures against zergs being very organic methods:
- Different guild buffs depending on size. Large guilds get boons benefitting management of large communities. Small guilds get battle buffs and bonuses for specific roles/captains.
- AoEs and reasonably low time-to-kill enabling decisive strikes for skilled small coordinated groups.
- Large map with spread out objectives, making it more difficult for zergs to take away objectives from smaller groups before the smaller group is already done.
- Limited rewards at any given location, punishing zergs by making their time spent inefficient for them.
You might say that the zergs don't have to care about the last 2 points, because as long as a few of these zergs control major parts of the realm as their zerg, others won't have many objectives to left to fight over, but at that point, so many players are wasting their time in zergs that other players are going to be more efficient than them by just farming regularly, and ostensibly at some point the zerg players will get bored.
And either way, the first 2 points apply:
If you're a well-coordinated 35-to-50 unit group against 75 sheeples who can't really do anything more complex than spam their strongest abilities against any group they see, and focus-fire the same target that their group leader spams in Discord...
then your skilled 35-to-50 unit group should be able to handle that situation without needing any buffs.
If you're a 10 unit group against those 75 sheeples...
you should either get better at recruiting people or allying with other guilds, or you should find a more efficient place on the map to use your manpower.
Define skill and lay out how it is superior to mid-to-large-sized group coordination, please.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you'll have to be more precise about what constitutes skill, because when I think more deeply about what I think you're describing, your request seems to revolve around rewarding players for mashing buttons faster than others and having top-tier gear that allows them to play like annoying one-man-army menaces without requiring anything I would consider actual skill in an MMO (such as (small) group coordination and role specialisation.)
Provoking thought processes, especially before testing phases, is key to taking a more in-depth look at the designs and making suggestions. Regardless of whether my opinion gets taken into account, as I’ve said before, I understand the game is very much under development, and some things won’t change based on everyone’s feedback.
You mentioned how the AoE mechanics of bosses, like Firebrand, tend to target the largest group, or in the case of the lightning system (which I’m still a bit unsure about), it also targets larger groups. But what happens when you have a large group that's split into multiple parties or smaller, more tactical groups? Kind of like a guerrilla warfare style where they approach a raid boss from different angles or directions. How would the targeting mechanics handle a coordinated effort coming from separate positions?
The idea behind the emergency summon button was just something that popped into my head. It wasn’t necessarily the perfect solution but more of a spark for generating conversation and brainstorming new ideas around these kinds of mechanics.
Also, in my view, there's a noticeable difference between individual player skill and large group coordination. Sure, anyone can pull together a specific class composition or meta roster for certain content or scenarios. However what's stopping groups from just overwhelming others purely because they have more cooldowns available to them? This makes things a bit unfair for players who are outnumbered. And this isn't just about large groups or zergs—I’m also thinking about medium-sized or smaller tactical groups who rely more on coordination and skill than brute force or sheer numbers.
Individual player skill really boils down to the gameplay mechanics and skills available to that person. This includes having defensives, skill rotations, and dynamic play to counter multiple attackers when outnumbered.
This isn't necessarily the goal anymore in Ashes' design though.
The idea is that generally, if you're in your coordinated group of 8, you should be able to stand up to some relative number of enemies by that coordination, but since fast travel is specifically not available, if you lose due to being outnumbered, 'being outnumbered' in the first place is considered to be the skill issue.
This might be entirely by design. That is, the design direction has shifted a little towards this over the years.
I'd even go so far as to argue that 'individual player skill' is less important in Ashes in any situation where 'anti-zerg mechanics' would start to kick in, and if it is, it would be closer to the timing of deciding when to engage and observing situations, not really any particularly dynamic method of countering greater numbers. Note, I'm saying this about any situation where a single non-tank is 'trying to survive/counter', and I'm not saying 'they can't do anything'. Just that their skill is going to be more 'do you understand your build at all', not 'dynamic play'.
For example in Aion, they have" Divine Skills" which are given at specific levels, sold by a vendor, some special
ones require max char level, and a special quest in order to buy them. Each special divine skill has it's own cooldown depending how powerful it is, to not be spammed. So no matter if your special bar is filled, you have to wait for cd to finish. Having long CD for use, creates a little strategy use, use it for grinding, or save it for dangerous encounters.
How it works: As you grind mobs in the world you gain " divine points", which slowly fills a special bar, for each mob you killed. When that bar is full, depending on which divine skill you bought (some require more points to fill the bar, some less), you can then use it.
This feature can help you escape a zerg situation or use it on mobs if the special skill is dmg based skill ( divine skills can be offensive or defensive). You can either consume it on mobs, or keep it in case you are in a risky zone.
Examples for use in AoC: for summoner class, when that bar is full, one of the special divine skills could mass fear with longer time a large amount of enemies, which could potentially give you time to escape a zerg situation.
For tank class divine skill could give them a shield to be immune to incoming pve/pvp dmg for 30 sec, but without being able to attack during activation(unless is canceled with right click).
Cleric could either use a special divine skill which heals up to 30 players instantly full, or gain super speed to run away.
ETC ideas
This divine skill feature could potentially give you time to run towards closest safe point, or find help in the vicinity. ETC.
Each class had amazing divine skills in Aion, which helped either in pvp or for boss fights , i also escaped many Zergs situations with the help of this feature.
This also feels rewarding when you grind mobs and from time to time you can enjoy a nice burst of dmg earned when grinding for long periods.
Another idea: for example architect class, could build safe zones for grinding, but only if they are in a party(doesn't work for raids), and the safe zone bubble will only be applied to that party. This will give architects ways to earn money from players, but also create strategy for players and zerg groups.
So, if you are not an architect, you could call one from your guild members or in world chat " I need party safe bubble, i pay $$ amount, come at x,y". Architects can chose if they want to waste their resources and time to help a player to create them a safe zone area for grinding if the pay$ is good. Or they can use it for their own party.
This zone would stay active 10-20-30 minutes, depending on architect skill level. Also architect can only create one safe zone bubble every 90 minutes, so there is risky time in between. Safe zones cannot be create near bosses areas.
Another idea: Grinding mobs, can have a rare chance to drop "escape scroll" not tradable, maybe 1 in 1000 mobs drop chance. When used will teleport you to the nearest safe zone. You can only carry one. If you keep it and not consume it foolishly, it can potentially save your arse in a zerg situation.
Another idea: Grinding mobs, can have a chance to drop "guardian marks". These marks could be used to exchange them to a Guardian vendor, where you can buy a NPC mercenary scroll, which can spawn a npc to assist you in world for 30 minutes. You can either buy a pve npc guardian scroll, or pvp npc guardian scroll. You can only buy one every 4 hours, and cannot have more than 1 in inventory. Once activated stays up for 30 minutes. These guardians NPC can assist you in pve or pvp, and they have strong skills depending on how expensive in marks are.
This could potentially help you in a ganking situation. The marks should have a rare drop so it can't be spammed too often, and be kept for special situations. These guardians cannot be activated if a node war has started in the nearest area. Again, is up to player how they use it, they can waste it , or use them in special situations. Also not tradable
Most of these ideas are not original, but having a few similar systems like these implemented, will make you think twice in the actions you do, as the other side can have some of these time based/rare benefits on them, and will open new strategies for both sides. These systems are also enjoyable for solo/party experience, and grinding.
ps. excuse my engrish
If you can't use your strategic and mechanical ability to overcome that outnumbering force, what justification do you have to consider yourself, or the other members of your group, more skilled than that zerg in the first place?
I'd really like you to address my questions and points about the 70vs~40 and 70vs~10 argument I put forth above.
Or a relatively similar example of your preference.
You don't have to have the perfect answer to that particular hypothetical for your suggestion to be legitimate, but you should still be able to consider it and lay out how your general point roughly translates to that scenario.
At a certain point, no matter how strategically sound or mechanically proficient the smaller group is, they simply can't overcome the sheer volume of attacks and abilities the larger group can unleash. It's not about improving recruitment or positioning—there’s a natural ceiling to what skill alone can accomplish against superior numbers.
This is why anti-zerg mechanics or systems to mitigate the dominance of larger groups are crucial. Such systems could ensure that the strength of a group doesn't scale exponentially with its size, allowing skill, strategy, and coordination to remain the deciding factors in battles rather than sheer numerical advantage. Without such measures, larger groups can easily overpower smaller, more skilled teams purely by virtue of their numbers, undermining the importance of player ability.
Zerging is in the 15/20-30 plus group (several max parties running in a coordinated fashion) mow'em down scenario and that does need some check-balances.
No one has really answered my question about guerrilla warfare tactics and what happens when you split a larger group into smaller units. I’m curious about the impact of that strategy and how it plays out in practice.
Right now, there's really nothing I can respond to all this that I haven't already said. ^ Here's the prompt again, for your convenience. ^
Because that's not supposed to be a bad thing. Having a shared goal and showing up for it is part of the game.
Again, I don't mind measures to make mindless zerging less effective, but you'll have to go into details if you want to come up with a solution that doesn't just make combat a meaningless coinflip of who happens to benefit from the right game mechanic scale-adjustment-buff more efficiently at any given point.
While reading this I was tempted to dismiss it but as I advanced and finished, I understand the suggestion and think it could work well against those who otherwise will enjoy the game as it will be.
Now that you mention that, I remember Dune Awakening also plans to help small groups to notice and flee zergs in the desert and also trigger the destruction of resources to deny them the loot.
Apply to HoTs, DoTs, buffs etc.
The reason zergs have such a prevalence is because effects can be stacked. Take that away and suddenly they're not nearly so annoying to deal with.
Mega guilds will be zerging with multiple smaller sub-guilds anyway, so they'll still have small guild perks on top of sheer numbers. Basing balance on group size just isn't going to do much.
My understanding was that Steven's anti-zerg goals are more about Mega-Guilds racing to attack discovered Caravans or to dominate and lock-down discovered Bosses.
I think it was always about Group v Group, rather than anything to do with an individual player.
Some content (sieges and such) shouldnt be about bringing more numbers but should be a even fight with set numbers. So types of cotnent are balanced out between owpvp being more zergy but other forms of competitive fights being a bit more set rules (numbers, etc).
This is why Nodes from Level Three on (Village-State), have Walls ... ...
First it is just a kinda cute to kinda effective Palisade. Later on it becomes an incredible Wall.
Retreat if you can. Ask for help if you can. And most importantly ... ... ..
" ALWAYS " - shout/warn your fellow Node Citizens that there are People outside the City Gate which gank/kill any unsuspecting Player out there.
I think it gets super-annoying when it's some People from your own Node who do the Playerkilling, though. (lol)
I am undecided about this. Because i can see Plus AND Minus Points with that happening.
When i think about it closely - i think i am more against it. Because Yes it can help People to prevent being ganked easily. But it can also help People who for Example hold a Relic -> to get away against a clearly superior Number of Players.
And Everyone should know - > Ashes of Creation is - and SHOULD be - about Players gathering Numbers of Allies. Be it calling Zerging or not - Ashes is supposed to make People form huge Groups and conquer whatever they can this way.
Not 24/7 every single Day in the Year probably -> but at SOME POINT. All the really important Battles and Moments will be decided by if Players can gather HUUUGE Numbers of Allies - won't they not ?
If Thirty People - > "steamroll" Twenty People - then it is what it is. As a certain Texan Streamer would say.
If FOURTY People - steamroll Twenty People - it also is what it is.
People can get weakened somehow for a bit, " IF " the Player-Group inferior in Numbers has some Mats, Items, Spells or whatever for it, that would justify them being able to debuff a larger Group of Players somewhat,
but they should not be able to overcome their Disadvantage in Numbers. They should at Maximum only be able to slow the other Group down a bit from slaughtering them easily.
Otherwise - it will go against the Ability of People being able to apply social Skills and gather many Allies. Usually this is not as easy a Task as some People always make it think it is.
Should People get " punished " for successfully bringing Fifty to Hundred People together and rock/steamroll a whole Biome of scattered Players who refuse to band together against them ?
No Group which is "clearly" inferior in Numbers - should be able to fight even closely "equal" in Battlepower against a Group which significantly outnumbers them.
This "temporary Boost or Buff" - must be tactical Cunning and Knowledge of the Players then.
If you are NOT as strong as your Opponents - be at least smart. You may sacrifice your Life anyway if you go against them : but do it in a way that hinders them as much as possible.
Ohhhh. I like that.
Like do some really RARE Summons by for Example Items. Like Summoning some Golems. Or Siege/War Vehicles. Anything that can help somewhat.
But this sh~ooouuuld be expensive. >;-)
And the Cooldowns of such things should be high. Something like 12 Hours per Use.
Something that People can see is somewhat powerful - but balanced because You can not do it constantly.
I liked the " somewhat powerful Goblin Shredder " in Alterac Valley in WoW Vanilla.
It was awesome.
It didn't went down quickly. It could take a LOOOT of Damage before it got destroyed.
And i was always to pester and somewhat "intimidate" my Enemy Players with it, very much.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Guild is " Balderag's Garde " for now. (German)
1. AOEs that do not deal reduced dmg once it effects X amount of players. It should actually be the opposite. Some abilities should deal amplified damage if it hits a certain number of targets.
2. AOE builds that are stronger vs a large amount of enemies
3. Limited Guild and Alliance Size
4. Guild perks that favor small Guilds vs ones that increase Guild size
5. Limited or no loot scaling
6. Level design that restricts large amounts of players with choke points like bridges, tunnels, doorways, gates, narrow cliff pathways, etc.
7. Player collision
8. Limited fast travel
9. Boss lockout mechanics. A temporary barrier rises at the beginning or a certain stage of the boss fight that prevents players from leaving or entering for some time.
10. Node siege player caps based on node level. The higher the node level, the more players can participate.
Everything else should be skill, strategy, and social based. If you're struggling against a larger group than yours, figure out a way to outplay them, recruit more players to your side or form alliances. Keep in mind leaving the area or giving up a certain objective is also a valid strategy and is sometimes the reality of being apart of a small guild. There will be times when you're outnumbered 2 to 1, 3 to 1, whatever it is and there's nothing you can do, but there's nothing wrong with that. What's important is that the game has plenty of limitations on zergs and presents you with options to compete or get around them.
But, even with that advantage it should still require thought and skillful gameplay and should be just enough of an advantage to tip the scale towards the side with more players though, which would help ensure that it is both fun and strategic. Same thing goes for gear, and other mechanics that interact with combat, after its all said and done the integrity of the gameplay should still be in tact, regardless of your advantages (assuming combat being fun and relevant is the goal).
If a large group manages to (1) farm enough resources, (2) produce enough gear and (3) manages to coordinate that higher amount of players to the point that they can mitigate all the risks and downsides of being a large group, then they 100% earned the to overpower others.
If that were not the case that would mean that raids in PvE are also "unfair" because more players "have an easier time" taking down a world boss than a group of 8.
IMO going against this principle would be to make the biggest mistake an MMORPG can make: PUNISH highly social gameplay.
See the issue here is that the core focus of Ashes of Creation is NOT individual player skill - its group game play. It's as simple as that. The better your group gameplay they better you are going to be at overcoming the challenges in Ashes of Creation. If someone does not like that, that doesn't mean Intrepid has to change, it means those people have to look at a different game that focuses on what these players want. Intrepid never said or indicated anything different from "Ashes of Creation is going to be a MMORPG that focuses on group game play." They informed us that there is still plenty of stuff to do with less social interaction, less group game play, but it has been clear at all times that more players would be able to organise to achieve more things.
Better group gameplay = Better at playing Ashes
And "better group gameplay" is not just throwing more players at the same problem.
I especially like your pts 6, 7, 8!
Player collision combined with physical terrain options on a map can go a long way to neutralizing advantages of a large group, getting them to make bad decisions.
I also like your point about making good decisions within your own group: Knowing when not to fight, knowing where to fight and where not to fight, playing to your strengths, using scouts to give yourself advance warning.
I would say that if given enough warning, then there should be means of escape or evasion.
All told though, like you say, sometimes you're just going to get murdered. On the other hand, sometimes you'll be in on the murdering!
Open world, lawless PvP rules!
xoxo
LFG: Open World, tight knit coordination, multiple roles, will travel.
-if that ability deals 1000 damage then it would split the damage between the targets, if its a spell that damages up to 5 thargets then each target takes 200 dmg
There could still be AoE that deals maximum damage for all the targets in that area, but probably use very small areas for example an AoE dealt by scythe (melee weapon)
Anyway, it's not hard being creative, it's just that the devs of the past were just too lazy
how hard is that?
this would force the casters to call their targets better and focus fire on relevant targets instead of just spamming
Alternatively, certain AOE abilities could be designed to deal significantly more damage, acting as a "big spell" that players save for special occasions. These powerful AOE spells would add a strategic element to gameplay, where players must decide the best moment to unleash them for maximum impact. This approach would add layers of tactical depth, ensuring these abilities feel impactful and rewarding when used at the right time.
That's a zerg-enabler so hard no. AoEs should excel when used on massive groups.
so you think the zerg won't be spamming 5x more AoE? think again
(I'm being tongue-in-cheek, the point is I don't find your arguments very convincing on this subject.)
The non-zerg is less prone to standing in them as a group.
There is no game where zergs win harder because their AoEs are effective against a larger group of people. That's the absolute opposite of what happens.
There's an argument for making support AoEs less effective as the number of affected allies increases. That makes perfect sense. It's not always the right solution to counter zergs (max caps on each recipient of AoE support skills might be more appropriate, so there's a minimum amount of healers on the battlefield necessary (or all of them casting the same spell at the same time) before their heal efficiency declines), but at least it makes sense.
For hostile AoEs, this logic reverses.
If you split your AoE damage onto 10 targets against the zerg, while the zerg's damage gets split onto 5 damage against your group, your group is the one taking twice the damage per target per cast. So each target is closer to death twice as quickly. Even though you only had half the amount of targets clumped together.
You're actively punishing the non-zerg for having fewer numbers, and for being less clumped together. Your maths don't add up.
The only way that your design option would slow down a zerg would be if you'd literally keep the original numbers from the static AoE design, and directly use them in your split-damage ability.
That wouldn't be an AoE ability. That would be a single target ability that becomes worthless if there are more than a few targets within it...which is the opposite of what an AoE, especially one with a larger radius, exists for? At that point just don't make AoE abilities. That has nothing to do with zergs, that's just you saying you don't like AoEs.
Alsoalsoalso. You're making gameplay even more braindead for the zerg by making their AoE abilities viable for single target combat, taking away yet another decision-making component necessary for efficient resource management. Because they can just spam the same abilities on everyone, and if they're fighting a large group, it'll be useful because they're spamming their AoEs together, and if it's a single enemy, it'll still be useful, because each of their abilities will deal more damage.
There are much more essential questions that Pendragxn still hasn't addressed. Like the significance of "skill" in specific group size A vs. group size B contexts, as laid out in my initial comments.
Without answering these questions, the fundamental demand of this thread ("Skilled players should be able to beat zergs") is meaningless.
We should be focusing on those.
It's less effective for a zerg to use AoEs on a smaller group than it is for smaller groups to use AoE on a zerg. In your world, the zerg's AoE would be more effective than the smaller group's, which is backwards and nonsensical.
When facing two separate 30-player groups that cooperate without penalties (e.g., guild bonuses), the smaller group is disadvantaged, as these two allied groups avoid the drawbacks of being a single 60-player force.
To balance this, mechanics like focus fire mitigation, passive damage reduction for outnumbered players, or friendly fire could be implemented. These mechanics would allow smaller groups to better survive and showcase individual skill, making 1v2 or 1v3 engagements more feasible for skilled players.
Ultimately, while larger numbers provide an inherent advantage in terms of cooldowns, AoE, and healing, certain mechanics can mitigate this, enabling smaller groups to compete more effectively. Friendly fire could also add a layer of strategic caution for larger groups.
Again, this only accounts for open world PvP, not instanced content. In instanced scenarios, where players sign up for battles, I assume the sign-up process would require players to be in the same alliance or organized group. In that case, there would likely be some form of penalties or balancing mechanics applied to larger groups, ensuring they don’t have an overwhelming advantage purely due to their numbers. This would help level the playing field, unlike in open world PvP, where such balancing mechanisms might not be as strict or effective.
Again, I feel like the common response might be, "just recruit more players," but that’s not always the solution. Many players tend to gravitate toward larger groups, seeking recognition or a sense of belonging. However, these players often aren't part of the core group—they're just being used as a means to an end, working for these massive alliances without truly being involved.
Personally, I've always preferred to play in underdog guilds for two main reasons: first, I enjoy the challenge of fighting against the so-called strongest players, and second, I dislike the idea that overwhelming people with numbers makes them better players or more skilled at their roles. To me, numbers don’t equal skill.
Again, this is just my opinion, and I respect that everyone has their own perspectives or experiences in these situations. Take it as you will!