Greetings, glorious testers!

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.

To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Why having content for everyone is important - Zergs are bad - Alliances?

iccericcer Member
edited October 15 in General Discussion
So I've been playing Throne and Liberty for almost two weeks now, and I have to say I enjoyed it more than I thought it would.

The first part will be focusing on that game, while the second part of my post will connect it all back to Ashes (please bear with me lol, it's going to be a long one - also T&L portion is done as a spoiler, as I realized that my post is getting way too long).

I'm not going to go into all things I like or dislike about T&L, but only some specific things, like endgame content.

What I realized quickly, is that if you are not a part of the best guilds on the server, or their alliances, your gameplay experience, enjoyment of the game, and simply "content" that you access changes A LOT.

If you are just a regular player, in a regular guild, I feel like you will quickly run out of things to do, or rather, you'll do the same thing over and over again, for nothing, and you'll get bored. Or at least that's my experience.

I know that a lot of people here are comparing Ashes to T&L, because on the surface level, they have many similar systems. So that's why I'm also going to compare it, but with a purpose of pointing out why those systems might not be the same in these two games.


As a regular player, your gameplay basically comes down to:
- doing contracts aka killing random mobs / doing the same quests over and over again
- tied to the previous example, killing mobs or doing contracts in open-world dungeons
- doing the same co-op dungeons for drops
- and maybe doing peace world bosses


This loop isn't a problem by itself. You can always expand on it, add more dungeons, maybe add raids, add more world bosses. It is there to increase your power level. The whole point of this game is to grind stuff in order to get stronger.
The problem is, there is no reason to do it, unless you are in a top guild/zerg.

As a regular player, you will just grind and grind, you'll improve your power level, and for what? Just so you can grind a bit easier and faster? This is not enough.
But for someone who's a part of the top guild/alliance, you do grind for something. You grind to be stronger in PvP against others, you grind in order to help your guild become stronger. You grind so you can beat other guilds, and secure that world boss. You grind so you can showcase that power level in something more difficult, more challenging, something other than your core loop that you do every day.


The thing with that is, that most people aren't a part of top alliances/zergs. Hell, another problem is that some servers are just dominated by a single guild/alliance. There's nobody to actually challenge them.
This in itself is a problem, because after a few weeks, people will realize that the game has nothing to offer, and they will quit. The only people left will be those in top guilds.
If they're lucky, they're on a server that has competition, where you have 2 or 3 guilds/alliances battling it out. This is great for them, they will still have content, they will stay and enjoy the game.
If they aren't, they will be stuck on a server, where they will have nobody standing up to them, and they themselves will get bored, and possibly quit due to lack of "content". (Or they will transfer servers if that's an option)


Here I also have to mention that the way PvP works in T&L is bad. You basically get PvP in a small circle around a world boss, which is just bad. The only good PvP might be inside Open-world dungeons during night, as there's at least way more space. Though that only lasts for 30min.
Then again, with this many players, and a map that small, having PvP across the entire map just wouldn't work at all.

Overall, some of the systems have similarities to what Ashes is going for, but I feel like they've been implemented without much depth, and in a really bad way, that they cannot be comparable at all.


Now we get into Ashes part of discussion.

What's important for Ashes to learn from this?

1. Your core gameplay loop needs to be defined. It needs to be interesting, it needs to have content for everyone to do, and it needs variety.
2. Vertical progression just for the sake of it is not enough.
3. More meaningful content needs to be accessible to majority of people, NOT just zergs or top guilds.


Core gameplay loop needs to be defined clearly.

Stuff like node/castle sieges is not a part of CORE gameplay loop.
Stuff like open-world dungeons, gathering, crafting, trading, general open world farming, even world bosses ARE a part of core gameplay loop.


Vertical progression needs to have a meaning. You have to grind for a reason other than just being more powerful.
The question is WHY do you want to be more powerful?

And this is an easy answer for Ashes: To give you an advantage in PvP against other groups/guild, so you can siege other's nodes or castles. Also, it's to allow you to take down even more powerful world bosses, and while at that, to be able to defend/attack against other players who are trying to do the same.
A key part of this should be that there is also a PvE incentive to increase your power. There need to be stronger "endgame" bosses, that you can't just kill as soon as you get to max level, or a few weeks after. Some of them should take months of grinding, before you can gather a strong enough party to take it down.

None of this really exists in T&L. Bosses are whatever, PvP is bad, and that's basically it.


I feel like Ashes' devs definitely have a chance now to see how a similar system shouldn't work, and to actually design it properly.

Ashes map is also going to be much, much larger, so it can allow PvP everywhere. The fact that there is PvP everywhere, immediately puts yet another reason why you might want to engage in that vertical progression system.

This also can mean that there's a lower chance of one zerg dominating the entire server. However, I feel that if you have 2-3 zergs on a server, they will still be able to do that. And that's where we come to a problem: I can easily see the same thing from T&L being replicated here.
If you have 2-3 zergs dominating the entire server, this automatically means they dominate all the content on that server, which means regular players are locked out from accessing that. Your regular guilds can't really do much against zergs that have several hundred if not thousands of players.

This is why there has to be something that will severely limit how large a zerg can actually get.
I know there's already going to be stuff in the guild system, where you have to choose between having a larger guild, or a smaller - stronger guild with perks/skills. But I don't think that's enough.

Judging by a few quotes I could find on wiki from Steven himself, I get a feeling like he himself doesn't see the problem, or rather doesn't think it is going to be a problem.
Q: How will you stop big mafia guilds from owning all the good dungeons and world bosses by camping them?
A: The real answer to that is going to be what traditionally happens in a non-faction-based game where politics drive player interaction... Over time you have betrayals in the mafia guild and they splinter off into two groups and join the other side or it's like weird things that can occur in that regard. So I think that's the important way that will solve itself. I don't think the developer necessarily has to step in there and say no, let's railroad this politics or let's hand hold this aspect. I think that any time you have a bully, you're going to have a counter bully and that's something that we try to encourage as part of the politics process.
- Here I just feel like that stuff takes a while - politics, backstabbing, drama is definitely going to happen, and guilds will implode, but the question is how long it's going to take, is it going to be too late, is half the server going to quit the game by the time it happens, etc. Why should someone play the game for 1-2 months at level 50, without really experiencing what the game is all about, waiting for that mega zerg to implode, so they might get a chance to experience some actual content?

One of the things that I think will naturally combat the risk that comes with one mega corp or one mega guild owning the server so-to-speak and killing off competition is that Ashes is constantly changing. So the way that nodes spawn and despawn and can be destroyed; and the castles exist to exert pressure; and these world events pop up. It's a massive world and it's constantly changing. Those two things naturally combat the opportunity for mega guilds to claw control over a particular server.
- Who is going to destroy those nodes, if only the mega guilds control them? Is world going to constantly change, if those mega guild control most of it? Is Steven undermining the size that some of these guilds will reach (some of them well into thousands of people)?

Naturally, having a massive world helps a lot. You can always try to pick a corner far away from those guilds, and play the game.
However, I'm not sure how that's going to be the case if you have 2 massive zergs competing on a server. It's definitely a better scenario than just one mega zerg controlling everything, but it's only better if they are fighting against each other. It's also far from perfect, as again, your regular guilds probably won't have access to content, due to either of those zergs controlling world bosses, possibly most of dungeons, maybe trade routes, nodes, etc.

I understand that not everyone can be on top, but it is a much better situation to have 3, 4, or 5 big guilds battling it out, changing enemies, etc. rather than 1 or 2 mega zergs controlling everything. With first example, the world can truly be dynamic, alliances will change, backstabbing will happen, those guilds will need allies often, so your "regular" guild can join them sometimes and help.


Of course a lot of this stuff is just theoretical, it might or it might not happen. What is important is that the devs recognize a potential problem, and hopefully come with solutions before it actually turns into a problem.
I feel like they have done so (but it could be improved).

Alliances for example are a huge topic that I haven't seen many people talk about. I feel that it is really important they nail this part of the game as well.


- Once created, the leader can invite up to three other guilds to this alliance, but this is subject to change.
- A guild may only be a member of one alliance.
- There is no member cap in an alliance, only a maximum of four guilds.


This means that an alliance can at most have 1200 members. However, I feel like there still should be a member cap.
4 guilds is fine, but I think the leader of an alliance can be a 300 player zerg, for example, but other allies should only be limited to a maximum of 300 people TOTAL. Meaning, each alliance guild can only have up to 100 members, or whatever other combination.
Or, a zerg leader might choose to only go with a 100 member guild as the main one, in order to get some key perks, while the alliance consists of guilds that might have more people than them. It's of course up to the leader to decide the best strategy to go for, but overall I think the maximum number of people in an alliance should be cut down to half - 600.

On top of that, content should be designed around this, so that you can't just have a mega zerg creating 4-5 main guilds, with 12-15 other allied guilds under them and still dominating everything. That might be the actually hard part, and at this moment I have no ideas on how that could be solvable (it's 2am, my brain is not working, and I should really go to sleep).

Let's also just mention castles. If there are 5 guild castles around the entire map, I'd expect that only one member of the alliance can get a castle. Which would mean, 5 different alliances each own a castle. Again, in theory this would bring more variety, more guilds, rather than 1 or 2, is always a positive.
Of course, mega zergs can always find a way around this, so I guess in the end, just count on luck to not pick a server they're on.



This all ties in with content being accessible to majority of people.
If the world is more dynamic, if there's more competition, if you have 5 powerful guilds, rather than 1-2, it means more opportunity for other regular guilds to join those alliances, and to actually have access to sieges, world bosses, etc. rather than 1-2 guilds/alliances controlling all of it. However, this can also mean that those 5 zerg alliances, are just 5 different mega zergs, that split their players into different guilds - which again, not great, but it's at least better than having 1 or 2 controlling everything.
All the game needs to try to do, is discourage and make it as hard as possible for single guild alliances to work (single mega guilds split into several), and not to allow them to be able to control servers and deny content to regular players.


I want you to look at this more as someone just putting their thoughts into a post, anything that came to mind, rather than something I'm truly behind that I'll defend to death. I'm open to change my mind if I'm wrong about any of this.

Anyways, I'm looking forward to the replies. Hopefully we get a discussion going, and you can point out what I missed, that could be added, or something you disagree with.

Bed.
«134

Comments

  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    iccer wrote: »
    So I've been playing Throne and Liberty for almost two weeks now, and I have to say I enjoyed it more than I thought it would.

    The first part will be focusing on that game, while the second part of my post will connect it all back to Ashes (please bear with me lol, it's going to be a long one - also T&L portion is done as a spoiler, as I realized that my post is getting way too long).

    I'm not going to go into all things I like or dislike about T&L, but only some specific things, like endgame content.

    What I realized quickly, is that if you are not a part of the best guilds on the server, or their alliances, your gameplay experience, enjoyment of the game, and simply "content" that you access changes A LOT.

    If you are just a regular player, in a regular guild, I feel like you will quickly run out of things to do, or rather, you'll do the same thing over and over again, for nothing, and you'll get bored. Or at least that's my experience.

    I know that a lot of people here are comparing Ashes to T&L, because on the surface level, they have many similar systems. So that's why I'm also going to compare it, but with a purpose of pointing out why those systems might not be the same in these two games.


    As a regular player, your gameplay basically comes down to:
    - doing contracts aka killing random mobs / doing the same quests over and over again
    - tied to the previous example, killing mobs or doing contracts in open-world dungeons
    - doing the same co-op dungeons for drops
    - and maybe doing peace world bosses


    This loop isn't a problem by itself. You can always expand on it, add more dungeons, maybe add raids, add more world bosses. It is there to increase your power level. The whole point of this game is to grind stuff in order to get stronger.
    The problem is, there is no reason to do it, unless you are in a top guild/zerg.

    As a regular player, you will just grind and grind, you'll improve your power level, and for what? Just so you can grind a bit easier and faster? This is not enough.
    But for someone who's a part of the top guild/alliance, you do grind for something. You grind to be stronger in PvP against others, you grind in order to help your guild become stronger. You grind so you can beat other guilds, and secure that world boss. You grind so you can showcase that power level in something more difficult, more challenging, something other than your core loop that you do every day.


    The thing with that is, that most people aren't a part of top alliances/zergs. Hell, another problem is that some servers are just dominated by a single guild/alliance. There's nobody to actually challenge them.
    This in itself is a problem, because after a few weeks, people will realize that the game has nothing to offer, and they will quit. The only people left will be those in top guilds.
    If they're lucky, they're on a server that has competition, where you have 2 or 3 guilds/alliances battling it out. This is great for them, they will still have content, they will stay and enjoy the game.
    If they aren't, they will be stuck on a server, where they will have nobody standing up to them, and they themselves will get bored, and possibly quit due to lack of "content". (Or they will transfer servers if that's an option)


    Here I also have to mention that the way PvP works in T&L is bad. You basically get PvP in a small circle around a world boss, which is just bad. The only good PvP might be inside Open-world dungeons during night, as there's at least way more space. Though that only lasts for 30min.
    Then again, with this many players, and a map that small, having PvP across the entire map just wouldn't work at all.

    Overall, some of the systems have similarities to what Ashes is going for, but I feel like they've been implemented without much depth, and in a really bad way, that they cannot be comparable at all.


    Now we get into Ashes part of discussion.

    What's important for Ashes to learn from this?

    1. Your core gameplay loop needs to be defined. It needs to be interesting, it needs to have content for everyone to do, and it needs variety.
    2. Vertical progression just for the sake of it is not enough.
    3. More meaningful content needs to be accessible to majority of people, NOT just zergs or top guilds.


    Core gameplay loop needs to be defined clearly.

    Stuff like node/castle sieges is not a part of CORE gameplay loop.
    Stuff like open-world dungeons, gathering, crafting, trading, general open world farming, even world bosses ARE a part of core gameplay loop.


    Vertical progression needs to have a meaning. You have to grind for a reason other than just being more powerful.
    The question is WHY do you want to be more powerful?

    And this is an easy answer for Ashes: To give you an advantage in PvP against other groups/guild, so you can siege other's nodes or castles. Also, it's to allow you to take down even more powerful world bosses, and while at that, to be able to defend/attack against other players who are trying to do the same.
    A key part of this should be that there is also a PvE incentive to increase your power. There need to be stronger "endgame" bosses, that you can't just kill as soon as you get to max level, or a few weeks after. Some of them should take months of grinding, before you can gather a strong enough party to take it down.

    None of this really exists in T&L. Bosses are whatever, PvP is bad, and that's basically it.


    I feel like Ashes' devs definitely have a chance now to see how a similar system shouldn't work, and to actually design it properly.

    Ashes map is also going to be much, much larger, so it can allow PvP everywhere. The fact that there is PvP everywhere, immediately puts yet another reason why you might want to engage in that vertical progression system.

    This also can mean that there's a lower chance of one zerg dominating the entire server. However, I feel that if you have 2-3 zergs on a server, they will still be able to do that. And that's where we come to a problem: I can easily see the same thing from T&L being replicated here.
    If you have 2-3 zergs dominating the entire server, this automatically means they dominate all the content on that server, which means regular players are locked out from accessing that. Your regular guilds can't really do much against zergs that have several hundred if not thousands of players.

    This is why there has to be something that will severely limit how large a zerg can actually get.
    I know there's already going to be stuff in the guild system, where you have to choose between having a larger guild, or a smaller - stronger guild with perks/skills. But I don't think that's enough.

    Judging by a few quotes I could find on wiki from Steven himself, I get a feeling like he himself doesn't see the problem, or rather doesn't think it is going to be a problem.
    Q: How will you stop big mafia guilds from owning all the good dungeons and world bosses by camping them?
    A: The real answer to that is going to be what traditionally happens in a non-faction-based game where politics drive player interaction... Over time you have betrayals in the mafia guild and they splinter off into two groups and join the other side or it's like weird things that can occur in that regard. So I think that's the important way that will solve itself. I don't think the developer necessarily has to step in there and say no, let's railroad this politics or let's hand hold this aspect. I think that any time you have a bully, you're going to have a counter bully and that's something that we try to encourage as part of the politics process.
    - Here I just feel like that stuff takes a while - politics, backstabbing, drama is definitely going to happen, and guilds will implode, but the question is how long it's going to take, is it going to be too late, is half the server going to quit the game by the time it happens, etc. Why should someone play the game for 1-2 months at level 50, without really experiencing what the game is all about, waiting for that mega zerg to implode, so they might get a chance to experience some actual content?

    One of the things that I think will naturally combat the risk that comes with one mega corp or one mega guild owning the server so-to-speak and killing off competition is that Ashes is constantly changing. So the way that nodes spawn and despawn and can be destroyed; and the castles exist to exert pressure; and these world events pop up. It's a massive world and it's constantly changing. Those two things naturally combat the opportunity for mega guilds to claw control over a particular server.
    - Who is going to destroy those nodes, if only the mega guilds control them? Is world going to constantly change, if those mega guild control most of it? Is Steven undermining the size that some of these guilds will reach (some of them well into thousands of people)?

    Naturally, having a massive world helps a lot. You can always try to pick a corner far away from those guilds, and play the game.
    However, I'm not sure how that's going to be the case if you have 2 massive zergs competing on a server. It's definitely a better scenario than just one mega zerg controlling everything, but it's only better if they are fighting against each other. It's also far from perfect, as again, your regular guilds probably won't have access to content, due to either of those zergs controlling world bosses, possibly most of dungeons, maybe trade routes, nodes, etc.

    I understand that not everyone can be on top, but it is a much better situation to have 3, 4, or 5 big guilds battling it out, changing enemies, etc. rather than 1 or 2 mega zergs controlling everything. With first example, the world can truly be dynamic, alliances will change, backstabbing will happen, those guilds will need allies often, so your "regular" guild can join them sometimes and help.


    Of course a lot of this stuff is just theoretical, it might or it might not happen. What is important is that the devs recognize a potential problem, and hopefully come with solutions before it actually turns into a problem.
    I feel like they have done so (but it could be improved).

    Alliances for example are a huge topic that I haven't seen many people talk about. I feel that it is really important they nail this part of the game as well.


    - Once created, the leader can invite up to three other guilds to this alliance, but this is subject to change.
    - A guild may only be a member of one alliance.
    - There is no member cap in an alliance, only a maximum of four guilds.


    This means that an alliance can at most have 1200 members. However, I feel like there still should be a member cap.
    4 guilds is fine, but I think the leader of an alliance can be a 300 player zerg, for example, but other allies should only be limited to a maximum of 300 people TOTAL. Meaning, each alliance guild can only have up to 100 members, or whatever other combination.
    Or, a zerg leader might choose to only go with a 100 member guild as the main one, in order to get some key perks, while the alliance consists of guilds that might have more people than them. It's of course up to the leader to decide the best strategy to go for, but overall I think the maximum number of people in an alliance should be cut down to half - 600.

    On top of that, content should be designed around this, so that you can't just have a mega zerg creating 4-5 main guilds, with 12-15 other allied guilds under them and still dominating everything. That might be the actually hard part, and at this moment I have no ideas on how that could be solvable (it's 2am, my brain is not working, and I should really go to sleep).

    Let's also just mention castles. If there are 5 guild castles around the entire map, I'd expect that only one member of the alliance can get a castle. Which would mean, 5 different alliances each own a castle. Again, in theory this would bring more variety, more guilds, rather than 1 or 2, is always a positive.
    Of course, mega zergs can always find a way around this, so I guess in the end, just count on luck to not pick a server they're on.



    This all ties in with content being accessible to majority of people.
    If the world is more dynamic, if there's more competition, if you have 5 powerful guilds, rather than 1-2, it means more opportunity for other regular guilds to join those alliances, and to actually have access to sieges, world bosses, etc. rather than 1-2 guilds/alliances controlling all of it. However, this can also mean that those 5 zerg alliances, are just 5 different mega zergs, that split their players into different guilds - which again, not great, but it's at least better than having 1 or 2 controlling everything.
    All the game needs to try to do, is discourage and make it as hard as possible for single guild alliances to work (single mega guilds split into several), and not to allow them to be able to control servers and deny content to regular players.


    I want you to look at this more as someone just putting their thoughts into a post, anything that came to mind, rather than something I'm truly behind that I'll defend to death. I'm open to change my mind if I'm wrong about any of this.

    Anyways, I'm looking forward to the replies. Hopefully we get a discussion going, and you can point out what I missed, that could be added, or something you disagree with.

    Bed.

    who says ashes doesn't have content for everyone?
  • iccer wrote: »
    So I've been playing Throne and Liberty for almost two weeks now, and I have to say I enjoyed it more than I thought it would.

    The first part will be focusing on that game, while the second part of my post will connect it all back to Ashes (please bear with me lol, it's going to be a long one - also T&L portion is done as a spoiler, as I realized that my post is getting way too long).

    I'm not going to go into all things I like or dislike about T&L, but only some specific things, like endgame content.

    What I realized quickly, is that if you are not a part of the best guilds on the server, or their alliances, your gameplay experience, enjoyment of the game, and simply "content" that you access changes A LOT.

    If you are just a regular player, in a regular guild, I feel like you will quickly run out of things to do, or rather, you'll do the same thing over and over again, for nothing, and you'll get bored. Or at least that's my experience.

    I know that a lot of people here are comparing Ashes to T&L, because on the surface level, they have many similar systems. So that's why I'm also going to compare it, but with a purpose of pointing out why those systems might not be the same in these two games.


    As a regular player, your gameplay basically comes down to:
    - doing contracts aka killing random mobs / doing the same quests over and over again
    - tied to the previous example, killing mobs or doing contracts in open-world dungeons
    - doing the same co-op dungeons for drops
    - and maybe doing peace world bosses


    This loop isn't a problem by itself. You can always expand on it, add more dungeons, maybe add raids, add more world bosses. It is there to increase your power level. The whole point of this game is to grind stuff in order to get stronger.
    The problem is, there is no reason to do it, unless you are in a top guild/zerg.

    As a regular player, you will just grind and grind, you'll improve your power level, and for what? Just so you can grind a bit easier and faster? This is not enough.
    But for someone who's a part of the top guild/alliance, you do grind for something. You grind to be stronger in PvP against others, you grind in order to help your guild become stronger. You grind so you can beat other guilds, and secure that world boss. You grind so you can showcase that power level in something more difficult, more challenging, something other than your core loop that you do every day.


    The thing with that is, that most people aren't a part of top alliances/zergs. Hell, another problem is that some servers are just dominated by a single guild/alliance. There's nobody to actually challenge them.
    This in itself is a problem, because after a few weeks, people will realize that the game has nothing to offer, and they will quit. The only people left will be those in top guilds.
    If they're lucky, they're on a server that has competition, where you have 2 or 3 guilds/alliances battling it out. This is great for them, they will still have content, they will stay and enjoy the game.
    If they aren't, they will be stuck on a server, where they will have nobody standing up to them, and they themselves will get bored, and possibly quit due to lack of "content". (Or they will transfer servers if that's an option)


    Here I also have to mention that the way PvP works in T&L is bad. You basically get PvP in a small circle around a world boss, which is just bad. The only good PvP might be inside Open-world dungeons during night, as there's at least way more space. Though that only lasts for 30min.
    Then again, with this many players, and a map that small, having PvP across the entire map just wouldn't work at all.

    Overall, some of the systems have similarities to what Ashes is going for, but I feel like they've been implemented without much depth, and in a really bad way, that they cannot be comparable at all.


    Now we get into Ashes part of discussion.

    What's important for Ashes to learn from this?

    1. Your core gameplay loop needs to be defined. It needs to be interesting, it needs to have content for everyone to do, and it needs variety.
    2. Vertical progression just for the sake of it is not enough.
    3. More meaningful content needs to be accessible to majority of people, NOT just zergs or top guilds.


    Core gameplay loop needs to be defined clearly.

    Stuff like node/castle sieges is not a part of CORE gameplay loop.
    Stuff like open-world dungeons, gathering, crafting, trading, general open world farming, even world bosses ARE a part of core gameplay loop.


    Vertical progression needs to have a meaning. You have to grind for a reason other than just being more powerful.
    The question is WHY do you want to be more powerful?

    And this is an easy answer for Ashes: To give you an advantage in PvP against other groups/guild, so you can siege other's nodes or castles. Also, it's to allow you to take down even more powerful world bosses, and while at that, to be able to defend/attack against other players who are trying to do the same.
    A key part of this should be that there is also a PvE incentive to increase your power. There need to be stronger "endgame" bosses, that you can't just kill as soon as you get to max level, or a few weeks after. Some of them should take months of grinding, before you can gather a strong enough party to take it down.

    None of this really exists in T&L. Bosses are whatever, PvP is bad, and that's basically it.


    I feel like Ashes' devs definitely have a chance now to see how a similar system shouldn't work, and to actually design it properly.

    Ashes map is also going to be much, much larger, so it can allow PvP everywhere. The fact that there is PvP everywhere, immediately puts yet another reason why you might want to engage in that vertical progression system.

    This also can mean that there's a lower chance of one zerg dominating the entire server. However, I feel that if you have 2-3 zergs on a server, they will still be able to do that. And that's where we come to a problem: I can easily see the same thing from T&L being replicated here.
    If you have 2-3 zergs dominating the entire server, this automatically means they dominate all the content on that server, which means regular players are locked out from accessing that. Your regular guilds can't really do much against zergs that have several hundred if not thousands of players.

    This is why there has to be something that will severely limit how large a zerg can actually get.
    I know there's already going to be stuff in the guild system, where you have to choose between having a larger guild, or a smaller - stronger guild with perks/skills. But I don't think that's enough.

    Judging by a few quotes I could find on wiki from Steven himself, I get a feeling like he himself doesn't see the problem, or rather doesn't think it is going to be a problem.
    Q: How will you stop big mafia guilds from owning all the good dungeons and world bosses by camping them?
    A: The real answer to that is going to be what traditionally happens in a non-faction-based game where politics drive player interaction... Over time you have betrayals in the mafia guild and they splinter off into two groups and join the other side or it's like weird things that can occur in that regard. So I think that's the important way that will solve itself. I don't think the developer necessarily has to step in there and say no, let's railroad this politics or let's hand hold this aspect. I think that any time you have a bully, you're going to have a counter bully and that's something that we try to encourage as part of the politics process.
    - Here I just feel like that stuff takes a while - politics, backstabbing, drama is definitely going to happen, and guilds will implode, but the question is how long it's going to take, is it going to be too late, is half the server going to quit the game by the time it happens, etc. Why should someone play the game for 1-2 months at level 50, without really experiencing what the game is all about, waiting for that mega zerg to implode, so they might get a chance to experience some actual content?

    One of the things that I think will naturally combat the risk that comes with one mega corp or one mega guild owning the server so-to-speak and killing off competition is that Ashes is constantly changing. So the way that nodes spawn and despawn and can be destroyed; and the castles exist to exert pressure; and these world events pop up. It's a massive world and it's constantly changing. Those two things naturally combat the opportunity for mega guilds to claw control over a particular server.
    - Who is going to destroy those nodes, if only the mega guilds control them? Is world going to constantly change, if those mega guild control most of it? Is Steven undermining the size that some of these guilds will reach (some of them well into thousands of people)?

    Naturally, having a massive world helps a lot. You can always try to pick a corner far away from those guilds, and play the game.
    However, I'm not sure how that's going to be the case if you have 2 massive zergs competing on a server. It's definitely a better scenario than just one mega zerg controlling everything, but it's only better if they are fighting against each other. It's also far from perfect, as again, your regular guilds probably won't have access to content, due to either of those zergs controlling world bosses, possibly most of dungeons, maybe trade routes, nodes, etc.

    I understand that not everyone can be on top, but it is a much better situation to have 3, 4, or 5 big guilds battling it out, changing enemies, etc. rather than 1 or 2 mega zergs controlling everything. With first example, the world can truly be dynamic, alliances will change, backstabbing will happen, those guilds will need allies often, so your "regular" guild can join them sometimes and help.


    Of course a lot of this stuff is just theoretical, it might or it might not happen. What is important is that the devs recognize a potential problem, and hopefully come with solutions before it actually turns into a problem.
    I feel like they have done so (but it could be improved).

    Alliances for example are a huge topic that I haven't seen many people talk about. I feel that it is really important they nail this part of the game as well.


    - Once created, the leader can invite up to three other guilds to this alliance, but this is subject to change.
    - A guild may only be a member of one alliance.
    - There is no member cap in an alliance, only a maximum of four guilds.


    This means that an alliance can at most have 1200 members. However, I feel like there still should be a member cap.
    4 guilds is fine, but I think the leader of an alliance can be a 300 player zerg, for example, but other allies should only be limited to a maximum of 300 people TOTAL. Meaning, each alliance guild can only have up to 100 members, or whatever other combination.
    Or, a zerg leader might choose to only go with a 100 member guild as the main one, in order to get some key perks, while the alliance consists of guilds that might have more people than them. It's of course up to the leader to decide the best strategy to go for, but overall I think the maximum number of people in an alliance should be cut down to half - 600.

    On top of that, content should be designed around this, so that you can't just have a mega zerg creating 4-5 main guilds, with 12-15 other allied guilds under them and still dominating everything. That might be the actually hard part, and at this moment I have no ideas on how that could be solvable (it's 2am, my brain is not working, and I should really go to sleep).

    Let's also just mention castles. If there are 5 guild castles around the entire map, I'd expect that only one member of the alliance can get a castle. Which would mean, 5 different alliances each own a castle. Again, in theory this would bring more variety, more guilds, rather than 1 or 2, is always a positive.
    Of course, mega zergs can always find a way around this, so I guess in the end, just count on luck to not pick a server they're on.



    This all ties in with content being accessible to majority of people.
    If the world is more dynamic, if there's more competition, if you have 5 powerful guilds, rather than 1-2, it means more opportunity for other regular guilds to join those alliances, and to actually have access to sieges, world bosses, etc. rather than 1-2 guilds/alliances controlling all of it. However, this can also mean that those 5 zerg alliances, are just 5 different mega zergs, that split their players into different guilds - which again, not great, but it's at least better than having 1 or 2 controlling everything.
    All the game needs to try to do, is discourage and make it as hard as possible for single guild alliances to work (single mega guilds split into several), and not to allow them to be able to control servers and deny content to regular players.


    I want you to look at this more as someone just putting their thoughts into a post, anything that came to mind, rather than something I'm truly behind that I'll defend to death. I'm open to change my mind if I'm wrong about any of this.

    Anyways, I'm looking forward to the replies. Hopefully we get a discussion going, and you can point out what I missed, that could be added, or something you disagree with.

    Bed.

    You make some reasonable points I like what you said and agree there should be a cap on alliances to limit the whole mega zerg mentality. Regardless people will still have alt guilds or NAP but having mechanisms in place to limit that and spread guilds plus competition out is going to be a lot healthier for the game.

    We should encourage guilds with smaller amounts of players making alliances and limit the alliance cap. This way more guilds will interact with each other creating individual alliances and it will create more competition.

    I’m pretty sure a lot of mega guilds will cry about this or try to find a work around for it. However if people are locked out of content the games going to die out in certain areas, and instead of breeding healthy competition it’s like putting the whole server in a chokehold.




  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    iccer wrote: »
    This is why there has to be something that will severely limit how large a zerg can actually get.

    Gods throwing down comets onto them. Or using a sandal as a flyswatter.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    ME literally WATCHING and fighting Epherium as they dominate every server on EA lmao. I said it before ill say it again, certain content needs to be number capped so zerging does not = a win.

    Owpvp nothing can really be done about it if a group is coordinated and zergs, and why its important to do research on the server you are going to be picking.
  • iccericcer Member
    edited October 15
    Depraved wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    So I've been playing Throne and Liberty for almost two weeks now, and I have to say I enjoyed it more than I thought it would.

    The first part will be focusing on that game, while the second part of my post will connect it all back to Ashes (please bear with me lol, it's going to be a long one - also T&L portion is done as a spoiler, as I realized that my post is getting way too long).

    I'm not going to go into all things I like or dislike about T&L, but only some specific things, like endgame content.

    What I realized quickly, is that if you are not a part of the best guilds on the server, or their alliances, your gameplay experience, enjoyment of the game, and simply "content" that you access changes A LOT.

    If you are just a regular player, in a regular guild, I feel like you will quickly run out of things to do, or rather, you'll do the same thing over and over again, for nothing, and you'll get bored. Or at least that's my experience.

    I know that a lot of people here are comparing Ashes to T&L, because on the surface level, they have many similar systems. So that's why I'm also going to compare it, but with a purpose of pointing out why those systems might not be the same in these two games.


    As a regular player, your gameplay basically comes down to:
    - doing contracts aka killing random mobs / doing the same quests over and over again
    - tied to the previous example, killing mobs or doing contracts in open-world dungeons
    - doing the same co-op dungeons for drops
    - and maybe doing peace world bosses


    This loop isn't a problem by itself. You can always expand on it, add more dungeons, maybe add raids, add more world bosses. It is there to increase your power level. The whole point of this game is to grind stuff in order to get stronger.
    The problem is, there is no reason to do it, unless you are in a top guild/zerg.

    As a regular player, you will just grind and grind, you'll improve your power level, and for what? Just so you can grind a bit easier and faster? This is not enough.
    But for someone who's a part of the top guild/alliance, you do grind for something. You grind to be stronger in PvP against others, you grind in order to help your guild become stronger. You grind so you can beat other guilds, and secure that world boss. You grind so you can showcase that power level in something more difficult, more challenging, something other than your core loop that you do every day.


    The thing with that is, that most people aren't a part of top alliances/zergs. Hell, another problem is that some servers are just dominated by a single guild/alliance. There's nobody to actually challenge them.
    This in itself is a problem, because after a few weeks, people will realize that the game has nothing to offer, and they will quit. The only people left will be those in top guilds.
    If they're lucky, they're on a server that has competition, where you have 2 or 3 guilds/alliances battling it out. This is great for them, they will still have content, they will stay and enjoy the game.
    If they aren't, they will be stuck on a server, where they will have nobody standing up to them, and they themselves will get bored, and possibly quit due to lack of "content". (Or they will transfer servers if that's an option)


    Here I also have to mention that the way PvP works in T&L is bad. You basically get PvP in a small circle around a world boss, which is just bad. The only good PvP might be inside Open-world dungeons during night, as there's at least way more space. Though that only lasts for 30min.
    Then again, with this many players, and a map that small, having PvP across the entire map just wouldn't work at all.

    Overall, some of the systems have similarities to what Ashes is going for, but I feel like they've been implemented without much depth, and in a really bad way, that they cannot be comparable at all.


    Now we get into Ashes part of discussion.

    What's important for Ashes to learn from this?

    1. Your core gameplay loop needs to be defined. It needs to be interesting, it needs to have content for everyone to do, and it needs variety.
    2. Vertical progression just for the sake of it is not enough.
    3. More meaningful content needs to be accessible to majority of people, NOT just zergs or top guilds.


    Core gameplay loop needs to be defined clearly.

    Stuff like node/castle sieges is not a part of CORE gameplay loop.
    Stuff like open-world dungeons, gathering, crafting, trading, general open world farming, even world bosses ARE a part of core gameplay loop.


    Vertical progression needs to have a meaning. You have to grind for a reason other than just being more powerful.
    The question is WHY do you want to be more powerful?

    And this is an easy answer for Ashes: To give you an advantage in PvP against other groups/guild, so you can siege other's nodes or castles. Also, it's to allow you to take down even more powerful world bosses, and while at that, to be able to defend/attack against other players who are trying to do the same.
    A key part of this should be that there is also a PvE incentive to increase your power. There need to be stronger "endgame" bosses, that you can't just kill as soon as you get to max level, or a few weeks after. Some of them should take months of grinding, before you can gather a strong enough party to take it down.

    None of this really exists in T&L. Bosses are whatever, PvP is bad, and that's basically it.


    I feel like Ashes' devs definitely have a chance now to see how a similar system shouldn't work, and to actually design it properly.

    Ashes map is also going to be much, much larger, so it can allow PvP everywhere. The fact that there is PvP everywhere, immediately puts yet another reason why you might want to engage in that vertical progression system.

    This also can mean that there's a lower chance of one zerg dominating the entire server. However, I feel that if you have 2-3 zergs on a server, they will still be able to do that. And that's where we come to a problem: I can easily see the same thing from T&L being replicated here.
    If you have 2-3 zergs dominating the entire server, this automatically means they dominate all the content on that server, which means regular players are locked out from accessing that. Your regular guilds can't really do much against zergs that have several hundred if not thousands of players.

    This is why there has to be something that will severely limit how large a zerg can actually get.
    I know there's already going to be stuff in the guild system, where you have to choose between having a larger guild, or a smaller - stronger guild with perks/skills. But I don't think that's enough.

    Judging by a few quotes I could find on wiki from Steven himself, I get a feeling like he himself doesn't see the problem, or rather doesn't think it is going to be a problem.
    Q: How will you stop big mafia guilds from owning all the good dungeons and world bosses by camping them?
    A: The real answer to that is going to be what traditionally happens in a non-faction-based game where politics drive player interaction... Over time you have betrayals in the mafia guild and they splinter off into two groups and join the other side or it's like weird things that can occur in that regard. So I think that's the important way that will solve itself. I don't think the developer necessarily has to step in there and say no, let's railroad this politics or let's hand hold this aspect. I think that any time you have a bully, you're going to have a counter bully and that's something that we try to encourage as part of the politics process.
    - Here I just feel like that stuff takes a while - politics, backstabbing, drama is definitely going to happen, and guilds will implode, but the question is how long it's going to take, is it going to be too late, is half the server going to quit the game by the time it happens, etc. Why should someone play the game for 1-2 months at level 50, without really experiencing what the game is all about, waiting for that mega zerg to implode, so they might get a chance to experience some actual content?

    One of the things that I think will naturally combat the risk that comes with one mega corp or one mega guild owning the server so-to-speak and killing off competition is that Ashes is constantly changing. So the way that nodes spawn and despawn and can be destroyed; and the castles exist to exert pressure; and these world events pop up. It's a massive world and it's constantly changing. Those two things naturally combat the opportunity for mega guilds to claw control over a particular server.
    - Who is going to destroy those nodes, if only the mega guilds control them? Is world going to constantly change, if those mega guild control most of it? Is Steven undermining the size that some of these guilds will reach (some of them well into thousands of people)?

    Naturally, having a massive world helps a lot. You can always try to pick a corner far away from those guilds, and play the game.
    However, I'm not sure how that's going to be the case if you have 2 massive zergs competing on a server. It's definitely a better scenario than just one mega zerg controlling everything, but it's only better if they are fighting against each other. It's also far from perfect, as again, your regular guilds probably won't have access to content, due to either of those zergs controlling world bosses, possibly most of dungeons, maybe trade routes, nodes, etc.

    I understand that not everyone can be on top, but it is a much better situation to have 3, 4, or 5 big guilds battling it out, changing enemies, etc. rather than 1 or 2 mega zergs controlling everything. With first example, the world can truly be dynamic, alliances will change, backstabbing will happen, those guilds will need allies often, so your "regular" guild can join them sometimes and help.


    Of course a lot of this stuff is just theoretical, it might or it might not happen. What is important is that the devs recognize a potential problem, and hopefully come with solutions before it actually turns into a problem.
    I feel like they have done so (but it could be improved).

    Alliances for example are a huge topic that I haven't seen many people talk about. I feel that it is really important they nail this part of the game as well.


    - Once created, the leader can invite up to three other guilds to this alliance, but this is subject to change.
    - A guild may only be a member of one alliance.
    - There is no member cap in an alliance, only a maximum of four guilds.


    This means that an alliance can at most have 1200 members. However, I feel like there still should be a member cap.
    4 guilds is fine, but I think the leader of an alliance can be a 300 player zerg, for example, but other allies should only be limited to a maximum of 300 people TOTAL. Meaning, each alliance guild can only have up to 100 members, or whatever other combination.
    Or, a zerg leader might choose to only go with a 100 member guild as the main one, in order to get some key perks, while the alliance consists of guilds that might have more people than them. It's of course up to the leader to decide the best strategy to go for, but overall I think the maximum number of people in an alliance should be cut down to half - 600.

    On top of that, content should be designed around this, so that you can't just have a mega zerg creating 4-5 main guilds, with 12-15 other allied guilds under them and still dominating everything. That might be the actually hard part, and at this moment I have no ideas on how that could be solvable (it's 2am, my brain is not working, and I should really go to sleep).

    Let's also just mention castles. If there are 5 guild castles around the entire map, I'd expect that only one member of the alliance can get a castle. Which would mean, 5 different alliances each own a castle. Again, in theory this would bring more variety, more guilds, rather than 1 or 2, is always a positive.
    Of course, mega zergs can always find a way around this, so I guess in the end, just count on luck to not pick a server they're on.



    This all ties in with content being accessible to majority of people.
    If the world is more dynamic, if there's more competition, if you have 5 powerful guilds, rather than 1-2, it means more opportunity for other regular guilds to join those alliances, and to actually have access to sieges, world bosses, etc. rather than 1-2 guilds/alliances controlling all of it. However, this can also mean that those 5 zerg alliances, are just 5 different mega zergs, that split their players into different guilds - which again, not great, but it's at least better than having 1 or 2 controlling everything.
    All the game needs to try to do, is discourage and make it as hard as possible for single guild alliances to work (single mega guilds split into several), and not to allow them to be able to control servers and deny content to regular players.


    I want you to look at this more as someone just putting their thoughts into a post, anything that came to mind, rather than something I'm truly behind that I'll defend to death. I'm open to change my mind if I'm wrong about any of this.

    Anyways, I'm looking forward to the replies. Hopefully we get a discussion going, and you can point out what I missed, that could be added, or something you disagree with.

    Bed.

    who says ashes doesn't have content for everyone?

    Are you that type of a person to just read the title and then get mad about an article, without actually reading the article itself?

    Otr wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    This is why there has to be something that will severely limit how large a zerg can actually get.

    Gods throwing down comets onto them. Or using a sandal as a flyswatter.

    I mean, pretty much, there's no way to stop it. However, there could be things in place, to at least make it as inconvenient as possible.



    I'm not saying Ashes absolutely will have all of this. Maybe even if there are such massive zergs around, there is still going to be enough content for everyone, and they simply cannot block you from doing your own world bosses, open-world dungeons, etc. But I feel it is still a valid topic to bring up, so people can discuss, disagree or agree with it.

    The main thing that could be a difference maker is the PvP nature of the game, and the corruption system. Maybe, it could also be one of the solutions, as in T&L for example, there's no way to fight against these zergs. In T&L, as mentioned, PvP only happens in a small area around certain world bosses, and in open-world dungeons. It's basically really unfavorable for everyone other than a zerg that's "controlling" the boss.

    Just the fact that there's PvP everywhere in Ashes, could mean that these guilds can be fought against in smaller skirmishes, when they aren't all gathered up in large numbers. That however doesn't directly impact the fact that they can just claim world bosses, and that no one can do anything about it, but indirectly, it does impact them.
    You can harass them, attack their caravans, attack their smaller groups in dungeons, in the open seas, etc. You know, at least it's something you can use to fight back, in a way.

    But my point still stands, that they should try to limit the sizes of these mega zergs to half of what is theoretically possible now. Obviously, these guilds will find workarounds, but it should be made as inconvenient as possible to do so. And that would be something for game designers, devs, etc. to think about, as I'm not really coming up with other solutions.
  • iccericcer Member
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    ME literally WATCHING and fighting Epherium as they dominate every server on EA lmao. I said it before ill say it again, certain content needs to be number capped so zerging does not = a win.

    Owpvp nothing can really be done about it if a group is coordinated and zergs, and why its important to do research on the server you are going to be picking.

    Yeah, I'm on Starfall EU, and basically one guild is controlling everything. They have like 5-6 guilds, nobody is really standing up to them, people are "afraid". There is another strong-ish guild (2-3 guilds), but it doesn't seem they're challenging that main zerg, probably afraid as well, and probably will ally with them at some point.

    It's just not fun playing on such a server, and there really is no way to just find out what server doesn't have that, especially if you are a new player who just started playing.
  • PendragxnPendragxn Member
    edited October 15
    I think my biggest fear is there won’t be enough conflict to breed healthy competition. If all nodes decide to work together and the strongest guild gets control of the castle and nobody contests. Hopefully people make PvP/PK guilds and lean into the whole RP villain side of things. Also being locked out of content by mega guilds with multiple guilds under them. What breeds conflict apart from messing with other nodes or guilds transports and sieging their node or castle? Will it be enough to make people want to butt heads all the time and team up or compete for objectives. Otherwise if there’s no real agency to strife between guilds we will just have zergs going around farming PvE content.

    k4xy83t42fg3.gif
  • GithalGithal Member
    edited October 15
    For me the pvp should be all about skill. (skill as player, and skill to play with your group).
    Zerg vs Zerg fights require no skill at all. You just spam spells. Not to mention all the harm Zergs bring to the average players. So for me this gameplay should be buried in the ground. Friendly fire, scaling aoe spells with players hit and ect. Implement it all to make no Zerg exist at all.

    The gameplay should be focused around 8v8 groups. Anything more than 8 players should be penalized harshly.
  • iccericcer Member
    Githal wrote: »
    For me the pvp should be all about skill. (skill as player, and skill to play with your group).
    Zerg vs Zerg fights require no skill at all. You just spam spells. Not to mention all the harm Zergs bring to the average players. So for me this gameplay should be buried in the ground. Friendly fire, scaling aoe spells with players hit and ect. Implement it all to make no Zerg exist at all.

    The gameplay should be focused around 8v8 groups. Anything more than 8 players should be penalized harshly.

    I think the "skill to play with your group" part is also very important, and the lines can easily become blurry between that, and a zerg vs zerg fight.

    I disagree that zerg vs zerg is just spamming abilities, without any skill required. The skill there however isn't the same skill that you use in small scale fights.
    Large scale fights are more about coordination, tactics, and commanding the zerg, as well as zerg being able to follow those commands.

    Both have a place in the game for sure.

    For some people though, even a 50v50 fight is just zerg vs zerg. Imagine when we get 250v250 guild battles.

    The most important thing is not to allow zergs to get too big. You touched upon combat itself, which also could be a way to do it. Mechanics could be designed in order to not make it viable to field 200 people just to secure a world boss, for example. And again, I think Intrepid already has something in place, where a fight would scale, based off of number of people fighting the boss.
    The level or stats of bosses will not scale due to player levels or numbers, however boss AI is able to adapt to player numbers through the selection of mechanics and behaviors.

    The thing is, that alone isn't enough. They can always have 50-100 people on the world boss, while the rest will be nearby to defend those who are actually killing the boss, and they don't have to interact with the boss at all.
    One way you can do it, is to have multiple bosses at the same time, on different parts of the map. So one mega guild/alliance maybe cannot do all of them at the same time.

  • iccer wrote: »
    Githal wrote: »
    For me the pvp should be all about skill. (skill as player, and skill to play with your group).
    Zerg vs Zerg fights require no skill at all. You just spam spells. Not to mention all the harm Zergs bring to the average players. So for me this gameplay should be buried in the ground. Friendly fire, scaling aoe spells with players hit and ect. Implement it all to make no Zerg exist at all.

    The gameplay should be focused around 8v8 groups. Anything more than 8 players should be penalized harshly.

    I think the "skill to play with your group" part is also very important, and the lines can easily become blurry between that, and a zerg vs zerg fight.

    I disagree that zerg vs zerg is just spamming abilities, without any skill required. The skill there however isn't the same skill that you use in small scale fights.
    Large scale fights are more about coordination, tactics, and commanding the zerg, as well as zerg being able to follow those commands.

    Both have a place in the game for sure.

    For some people though, even a 50v50 fight is just zerg vs zerg. Imagine when we get 250v250 guild battles.

    The most important thing is not to allow zergs to get too big. You touched upon combat itself, which also could be a way to do it. Mechanics could be designed in order to not make it viable to field 200 people just to secure a world boss, for example. And again, I think Intrepid already has something in place, where a fight would scale, based off of number of people fighting the boss.
    The level or stats of bosses will not scale due to player levels or numbers, however boss AI is able to adapt to player numbers through the selection of mechanics and behaviors.

    The thing is, that alone isn't enough. They can always have 50-100 people on the world boss, while the rest will be nearby to defend those who are actually killing the boss, and they don't have to interact with the boss at all.
    One way you can do it, is to have multiple bosses at the same time, on different parts of the map. So one mega guild/alliance maybe cannot do all of them at the same time.

    The last part about multiple bosses all around the world wont work. Since with map as big as AOC, you will have 1 BIG guild in every ZOI.

    This coordination that you speak of, that you include in the "Skill" of players. In 90% of the times its just 1 guy talking in the mic some "tactics" while 200 players do whatever they want.
    But even when the group is really well organized, and lets say all 200 players do exactly what the leader tells. This again is skill of 1 guy... the leader... And where is the skill of all other 199? Dont tell me that following orders like a sheep can be considered skill...

    And ye i think even 50 vs 50 is too big of a group, still not zerg. but pvp fights should be with less players at 1 place. And yes while the sieges will be with 250 vs 250. Or even 500vs500 if the Server meshing technology makes wonders. Even then the fight wont be 250 players at 1 place fighting other 250 in front of the gate.
    There will be many small objectives all around the siege. And to complete them you need to split your 250 players army in many small groups. And yes maybe the main army of lets say 100 players will be in the main entrance fighting, but all other will have great small scale pvp. And the 100 wont fight mindlessly as zerg also, You will have to defend siege machines, take out some points of interest and ect.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 15
    iccer wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    ME literally WATCHING and fighting Epherium as they dominate every server on EA lmao. I said it before ill say it again, certain content needs to be number capped so zerging does not = a win.

    Owpvp nothing can really be done about it if a group is coordinated and zergs, and why its important to do research on the server you are going to be picking.

    Yeah, I'm on Starfall EU, and basically one guild is controlling everything. They have like 5-6 guilds, nobody is really standing up to them, people are "afraid". There is another strong-ish guild (2-3 guilds), but it doesn't seem they're challenging that main zerg, probably afraid as well, and probably will ally with them at some point.

    It's just not fun playing on such a server, and there really is no way to just find out what server doesn't have that, especially if you are a new player who just started playing.

    Before EPH came it was my 2 guild alliance (granted i had 3 other guilds though one was a sister guild), agaisnt another 3 group alliance. Other guilds pretty much didn't show up (except for solo brickt) so no one else on the server was doing conflict bosses and our zergs grew to a full 4 man guild alliance.

    So we were slowly snow balling with gear, and then you have EPH who si snow balling every server, and then the server dies (though partly do to server transfers of course) as people try to avoid them since they get 0 content lol.

    My main point being with this is some guilds if they can do this on MULTIPLE SERVER. Will have an ability to do this on AoC on a single world atleast. Granted its only a few guilds that have an ability to pull from their thousand of member discords.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    ME literally WATCHING and fighting Epherium as they dominate every server on EA lmao. I said it before ill say it again, certain content needs to be number capped so zerging does not = a win.

    Owpvp nothing can really be done about it if a group is coordinated and zergs, and why its important to do research on the server you are going to be picking.

    Yeah, I'm on Starfall EU, and basically one guild is controlling everything. They have like 5-6 guilds, nobody is really standing up to them, people are "afraid". There is another strong-ish guild (2-3 guilds), but it doesn't seem they're challenging that main zerg, probably afraid as well, and probably will ally with them at some point.

    It's just not fun playing on such a server, and there really is no way to just find out what server doesn't have that, especially if you are a new player who just started playing.

    Before RPH came it was my 2 guild alliance (granted i had 3 other guilds though one was a sister guild), agaisnt another 3 group alliance. Other guilds pretty much didn't show up (except for solo brickt) so no one else on the server was doing conflict bosses and our zergs grew to a full 4 man guild alliance.

    I'm curious, why'd you let your zerg get so big? People just kept asking to join?
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • The pressense or absence of zerg guilds is really immaterial to the question of if people are getting 'locked out' of content by other players. A bunch of small guilds which each lockdown and monopolize 1 location or piece of content have the exact same effect as a huge guild which locks down whole continents. Hell it might be worse because zerg guilds generally have open enrolment and you can thus access the content by joining the zerg, small guilds tend to be more selective.

    The only cure for content lock out issues is content to player ratio and travel times.

    If their is more content then can be reasonably locked down by the player population then their will always be some unprotected content to go out and farm.

    If travel times to content are too low then a group can lock it down by threat of attack rather then direct occupation. Travel times thus tax the efficiency of content monopolization tactics, though they also tax all players access to content, it's better to pay a time tax then to be locked out.

    So it really just comes down to 3 factors, how many individual content points dose the map end up having, how many concurrent players dose a server end up having, and how many players dose it take to monopolize a content point (not how many it could accomadate if they tried to share, but how many it takes to block it intentionally by say blockading the entrance).

    At the present goal of 10K concurrent and 85 nodes your lookint at 117.6 players per node. If at ony one time half are adventuring and their are 5 content locations per node then that 11.7 players per content point. So you need to make it impractical to block/monopolize the content with that many players.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    ME literally WATCHING and fighting Epherium as they dominate every server on EA lmao. I said it before ill say it again, certain content needs to be number capped so zerging does not = a win.

    Owpvp nothing can really be done about it if a group is coordinated and zergs, and why its important to do research on the server you are going to be picking.

    Yeah, I'm on Starfall EU, and basically one guild is controlling everything. They have like 5-6 guilds, nobody is really standing up to them, people are "afraid". There is another strong-ish guild (2-3 guilds), but it doesn't seem they're challenging that main zerg, probably afraid as well, and probably will ally with them at some point.

    It's just not fun playing on such a server, and there really is no way to just find out what server doesn't have that, especially if you are a new player who just started playing.

    Before RPH came it was my 2 guild alliance (granted i had 3 other guilds though one was a sister guild), agaisnt another 3 group alliance. Other guilds pretty much didn't show up (except for solo brickt) so no one else on the server was doing conflict bosses and our zergs grew to a full 4 man guild alliance.

    I'm curious, why'd you let your zerg get so big? People just kept asking to join?

    We have our guild and then guilds we work with. Strong guilds = more loot + castle siege. Game is designed around 4 guild alliance at the end of the day. Do to our numbers other guild alliance tried to get more numbers so we also get another guild into our alliance.

    Then it gets worse from there by them calling EPH, and then server is dead.
  • iccericcer Member
    edited October 15
    Lodrig wrote: »
    The pressense or absence of zerg guilds is really immaterial to the question of if people are getting 'locked out' of content by other players. A bunch of small guilds which each lockdown and monopolize 1 location or piece of content have the exact same effect as a huge guild which locks down whole continents. Hell it might be worse because zerg guilds generally have open enrolment and you can thus access the content by joining the zerg, small guilds tend to be more selective.

    I disagree with this.

    A bunch of small guilds each can lockdown a location, yes. But a small guild that holds 1 location is easier to deal with, because there can always be another small guild that will take over from them next time. You know, competition, PvP, dynamic world, etc.
    I really don't think 1 small guild can just lock down and monopolize anything for a longer period of time.

    The problem with zergs is that they just claim everything around them, and there's no easy way to deal with them, other than to somehow make your own zerg with a few hundred people.

    You can obviously see here which one is easier to do, and more realistic.

  • iccericcer Member
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    ME literally WATCHING and fighting Epherium as they dominate every server on EA lmao. I said it before ill say it again, certain content needs to be number capped so zerging does not = a win.

    Owpvp nothing can really be done about it if a group is coordinated and zergs, and why its important to do research on the server you are going to be picking.

    Yeah, I'm on Starfall EU, and basically one guild is controlling everything. They have like 5-6 guilds, nobody is really standing up to them, people are "afraid". There is another strong-ish guild (2-3 guilds), but it doesn't seem they're challenging that main zerg, probably afraid as well, and probably will ally with them at some point.

    It's just not fun playing on such a server, and there really is no way to just find out what server doesn't have that, especially if you are a new player who just started playing.

    Before EPH came it was my 2 guild alliance (granted i had 3 other guilds though one was a sister guild), agaisnt another 3 group alliance. Other guilds pretty much didn't show up (except for solo brickt) so no one else on the server was doing conflict bosses and our zergs grew to a full 4 man guild alliance.

    So we were slowly snow balling with gear, and then you have EPH who si snow balling every server, and then the server dies (though partly do to server transfers of course) as people try to avoid them since they get 0 content lol.

    My main point being with this is some guilds if they can do this on MULTIPLE SERVER. Will have an ability to do this on AoC on a single world atleast. Granted its only a few guilds that have an ability to pull from their thousand of member discords.

    It's funny, because the guild I'm in has been trying to get people to be more active, and to build some alliances, yet it appears like the whole server doesn't care.

    And what's the point, there are free transfers until the 17th, players can just switch servers 2 times per day. We've seen entire servers being taken over by massive zergs, who just transfer in to a server. Usually the loser guild transfers themselves to a different server, because they don't want to compete, they want free farm on another server. Which is obviously an issue.

  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    iccer wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    ME literally WATCHING and fighting Epherium as they dominate every server on EA lmao. I said it before ill say it again, certain content needs to be number capped so zerging does not = a win.

    Owpvp nothing can really be done about it if a group is coordinated and zergs, and why its important to do research on the server you are going to be picking.

    Yeah, I'm on Starfall EU, and basically one guild is controlling everything. They have like 5-6 guilds, nobody is really standing up to them, people are "afraid". There is another strong-ish guild (2-3 guilds), but it doesn't seem they're challenging that main zerg, probably afraid as well, and probably will ally with them at some point.

    It's just not fun playing on such a server, and there really is no way to just find out what server doesn't have that, especially if you are a new player who just started playing.

    Before EPH came it was my 2 guild alliance (granted i had 3 other guilds though one was a sister guild), agaisnt another 3 group alliance. Other guilds pretty much didn't show up (except for solo brickt) so no one else on the server was doing conflict bosses and our zergs grew to a full 4 man guild alliance.

    So we were slowly snow balling with gear, and then you have EPH who si snow balling every server, and then the server dies (though partly do to server transfers of course) as people try to avoid them since they get 0 content lol.

    My main point being with this is some guilds if they can do this on MULTIPLE SERVER. Will have an ability to do this on AoC on a single world atleast. Granted its only a few guilds that have an ability to pull from their thousand of member discords.

    It's funny, because the guild I'm in has been trying to get people to be more active, and to build some alliances, yet it appears like the whole server doesn't care.

    And what's the point, there are free transfers until the 17th, players can just switch servers 2 times per day. We've seen entire servers being taken over by massive zergs, who just transfer in to a server. Usually the loser guild transfers themselves to a different server, because they don't want to compete, they want free farm on another server. Which is obviously an issue.

    Unfortunately though (also, thanks Mag, I saw your stuff too), that's like, the design of this game type.

    At least TL limits the alliance to 280 'officially Allied' now. Ashes is 1200. The Conflict content is specifically designed for this to happen, it's not going to change.

    I understand that's why Mag has 'said' in the past that strong Combat Res is not a good fit for Ashes, because at least in TL you generally need to either put up the Guild Res thing, or make it back to the fight, but my point is, this is how this type of game always starts.

    Whether or not it remains this way is the question, so I asked about incentives. I hope it's not offensive to imply/say that in a way, the modus operandi that Mag applied is 'the problem' (but also absolutely the correct thing to do, in every game, almost independent of the mechanics of guilds).

    No one wants to 'lose by being outnumbered' and the answer to this is to recruit numbers, and for some people, if possible, to want those recruits to 'be strong'. If you want them to break up you need boredom or drama, more actual content for 'more people' just gives the big guild incentive to get bigger and spread out.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    @iccer - to your point w/T&L

    https://www.pcgamesn.com/throne-and-liberty/guild-problem

    I've seen this first hand as well.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    iccer wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    This is why there has to be something that will severely limit how large a zerg can actually get.

    Gods throwing down comets onto them. Or using a sandal as a flyswatter.

    I mean, pretty much, there's no way to stop it. However, there could be things in place, to at least make it as inconvenient as possible.

    Maybe the resource scarcity will do the job.
    Players in big guilds who want resources faster, might secretly create alts outside of the guilds, to be able to fight and attempt to get them faster, competing for farming spots or looting caravans rather than waiting for their turn.
    Same for freeholds, mayor position, flying mounts, castles...
    Divide and conquer.
  • LodrigLodrig Member
    edited October 15
    iccer wrote: »

    I disagree with this.

    A bunch of small guilds each can lockdown a location, yes. But a small guild that holds 1 location is easier to deal with, because there can always be another small guild that will take over from them next time. You know, competition, PvP, dynamic world, etc.
    I really don't think 1 small guild can just lock down and monopolize anything for a longer period of time.

    The problem with zergs is that they just claim everything around them, and there's no easy way to deal with them, other than to somehow make your own zerg with a few hundred people.

    You can obviously see here which one is easier to do, and more realistic.

    Not surprizing you would say that, the problem is your considering lockout to ONLY be illegitimate when it's done against you, and your in a non-zerg guild. If that small guild camping the dungeon is something you can potentially push off the content then you percive no problem, and rather a fair fight and challenge.

    But to a party of 5 casual friends a guild that camping a camping a location with 20 people might as well be a zerg guild. If the only thing that displaces the group of 20 is another DIFFERENT group of 20 one after another this is not a 'changing dynamic world' from the perspective of the casuals. It is a perpetual lockout.

    That's why you need enough content so that monopolizing it is simply not viable for the player base REDARDLESS of how they choose to divide themselves up in small, medium or huge guilds. Zerg guilds are just the inevitable byproduct of a content/player ratio which makes monopolization possible, and if it is possible then doing at SCALE will always be attactive. You failing to see or attack the root of the problem and only see the branches.

  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    Lodrig wrote: »
    Zerg guilds are just the inevitable byproduct of a content/player ratio which makes monopolization possible, and if it is possible then doing at SCALE will always be attactive. You failing to see or attack the root of the problem and only see the branches.

    That content/player ratio is definitely a factor in T&L, and is deepened by how item progression relies so heavily on farming small ow geographic areas (either bosses or dungeons) that are open to PvP at random times. This is exacerbated in T&L because there just isn't a ton of content past 50 beyond vertical item progression.

    Ashes will have similar problems because of raw resource limitations and the pressure cooker of node citizenship while having various sized guilds competing for dominance in a given node. Ashes offers a number of 'ways out' that T&L doesn't, but I'm curious to see what other options the devs present beyond: get squashed, join the borg-guild, or leave the node.

    In T&L, it's free so idc and just log when it becomes a slog. That may be different at $15/month.

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • iccericcer Member
    Azherae wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    ME literally WATCHING and fighting Epherium as they dominate every server on EA lmao. I said it before ill say it again, certain content needs to be number capped so zerging does not = a win.

    Owpvp nothing can really be done about it if a group is coordinated and zergs, and why its important to do research on the server you are going to be picking.

    Yeah, I'm on Starfall EU, and basically one guild is controlling everything. They have like 5-6 guilds, nobody is really standing up to them, people are "afraid". There is another strong-ish guild (2-3 guilds), but it doesn't seem they're challenging that main zerg, probably afraid as well, and probably will ally with them at some point.

    It's just not fun playing on such a server, and there really is no way to just find out what server doesn't have that, especially if you are a new player who just started playing.

    Before EPH came it was my 2 guild alliance (granted i had 3 other guilds though one was a sister guild), agaisnt another 3 group alliance. Other guilds pretty much didn't show up (except for solo brickt) so no one else on the server was doing conflict bosses and our zergs grew to a full 4 man guild alliance.

    So we were slowly snow balling with gear, and then you have EPH who si snow balling every server, and then the server dies (though partly do to server transfers of course) as people try to avoid them since they get 0 content lol.

    My main point being with this is some guilds if they can do this on MULTIPLE SERVER. Will have an ability to do this on AoC on a single world atleast. Granted its only a few guilds that have an ability to pull from their thousand of member discords.

    It's funny, because the guild I'm in has been trying to get people to be more active, and to build some alliances, yet it appears like the whole server doesn't care.

    And what's the point, there are free transfers until the 17th, players can just switch servers 2 times per day. We've seen entire servers being taken over by massive zergs, who just transfer in to a server. Usually the loser guild transfers themselves to a different server, because they don't want to compete, they want free farm on another server. Which is obviously an issue.

    Unfortunately though (also, thanks Mag, I saw your stuff too), that's like, the design of this game type.

    At least TL limits the alliance to 280 'officially Allied' now. Ashes is 1200. The Conflict content is specifically designed for this to happen, it's not going to change.

    I understand that's why Mag has 'said' in the past that strong Combat Res is not a good fit for Ashes, because at least in TL you generally need to either put up the Guild Res thing, or make it back to the fight, but my point is, this is how this type of game always starts.

    Whether or not it remains this way is the question, so I asked about incentives. I hope it's not offensive to imply/say that in a way, the modus operandi that Mag applied is 'the problem' (but also absolutely the correct thing to do, in every game, almost independent of the mechanics of guilds).

    No one wants to 'lose by being outnumbered' and the answer to this is to recruit numbers, and for some people, if possible, to want those recruits to 'be strong'. If you want them to break up you need boredom or drama, more actual content for 'more people' just gives the big guild incentive to get bigger and spread out.

    To be fair, one of the issues is the server transfers, but that's only temporary? I think.

    If it wasn't so easy to just transfer to a different server that you can free farm on, guild might be more incentivized to actually toughen up and put up a challenge.

    Right now, one guild seems to dominate, another stronger guild comes in and beats them a few times, that first guild transfers to a different server where they can dominate, and the cycle goes on.

    Regarding your last point, I think it's important to not only have more content for everyone, but specifically more content available where regular players will be able to participate, rather than zergs taking that over as well.
    - But that whole content part is also more to do with current state of T&L, we already have some kind of a roadmap, and new content is coming (though it's more of the same).

    Maybe the problem is made bigger just by the fact that people can instantly teleport anywhere on the map, and there are tp points everywhere, so it's easy for zergs to control the entire map.

    CROW3 wrote: »
    @iccer - to your point w/T&L

    https://www.pcgamesn.com/throne-and-liberty/guild-problem

    I've seen this first hand as well.

    Yep, I'm still thinking about using a transfer. The issue is, I don't know what's the story like on other servers, so I'm basically going in blind, and hoping I find a right server - which is not fun to do.

  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    edited October 15
    I'm grateful that people's experiences in TL is putting the zerging problem on full display but for those of us who have already played games built around large scale open world pvp already know how it goes. Zergs ARE unhealthy for MMOs because they lock out the average player from experiencing parts of the game and some people will just quit if they can't find a solution or the solution means the game is no longer fun for them. It will only be amplified in Ashes because the stakes are much higher and PvP is always on vs. being restricted to a small circle around a raid boss or dungeon at scheduled times. It's kinda like the cheating/RMT problem in a way, it's probably going to happen to an extent no matter what, but the best thing you can do is restrict it and make it as inconvenient as possible for them to rig the game if you want the game to succeed. The biggest thing is limited or no fast travel which is great because they cannot instantly amass their zerglings at any moment like TL. The next would be spreading out content appropriately across the map to force players to spread out rather than hundreds and hundreds of players concentrated on one point of interest for the best gear. This is only reasonable considering the huge map size and the limited travel factor. The next is player collision, map design that restricts zergs in certain areas and AOEs that do increased dmg if X amount of players are hit rather than reducing. Other things Intrepid are doing help like no loot scaling, restrictions on guild size, etc. I'm in agreement with the OP that a 1200 limit is to high, it should be about half that. Another thing I would do is have player caps for city/castle sieges based on node level so zergs can't overwhelm with sheer numbers and have boss lockout mechanics for higher level content.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    iccer wrote: »
    Maybe the problem is made bigger just by the fact that people can instantly teleport anywhere on the map, and there are tp points everywhere, so it's easy for zergs to control the entire map.

    That definitely doesn't help the situation. There's also very little opportunity cost in TL for 400 people to show up to a world boss, because there's nothing else to do in the game at that moment. Other than the 1 or 2 other world bosses that are running simultaneously. But the decision of which to go to is made easier by the loot tables of individual bosses. Some of them suck compared to others. So the decision of which to go to is often fairly easy. Aside from that, you can try to go to multiple back to back. Or you can split your forces from the get go and go to multiple from the start. But all in all, there's just not enough opportunity cost.

    For instance in Ashes, a world boss being up might be a great time to run a caravan, while your enemies are distracted. Or even just doing whatever you were already doing, making money, farming gold. Why spend an hour plus on a contested world boss, that you usually don't win, when you could spend that hour making money, and at least keeping the gap narrowed between you and that guild who does ultimately win the world boss.

    TL has shown us that 400 people will show up for a world boss that sometimes drops only 1 item. I think they can even sometimes drop none. 400 people will show up. Including 200+ people from the same alliance. So 200 people will show up, knowing that even if they win, they could only have a 1 in 200 chance of getting an item. I say this in relation to Steven talking about how loot tables will be structured in a way that it's not efficient to overly zerg content in Ashes. People will zerg it in anyway, at least in TL. But again, that's because in TL there's nothing else to do at that moment, so there's no opportunity cost. And of course it's scheduled, everyone knows that at 12pm, the world boss is coming. And as you said Iccer, you can insta teleport to it.

    So TL is definitely a different beast than Ashes. But I'm not convinced Ashes will be free from zerg problems. I think they'll still be a problem and whatever is possible to curtail them should be seriously looked at.

    The main thing I hope Steven realizes is that this isn't 2014 Archeage anymore. And it's certainly not 2000 Lineage. These mega guilds and their mega zergs are different beasts than what was back then. They've almost become institutionalized. The tools to keep these mega guilds/zergs together and cohesive are much better than they were back then. I'm talking about things like Discord, software apps to handle DKP/loot auctions for hundreds or thousands of people, and many other guild management issues....it's all much easier now than it was back then.

    We have mega guilds now that are having to self regulate, break themselves up so they don't destroy servers, entire games. That lasts for about as long as until they start getting beaten. Then you're going to go back to getting zerged down by them.

    It's a real problem. I think Ashes has some solutions for it. I just hope Steven is willing to take the problem seriously and continue to look for designs that alleviate the issue.
  • iccericcer Member
    @Okeydoke

    That's actually a very well put together post, and it does expand even more on my original points, while providing some additional context.

    The fact that there is "nothing else to do" really does make this issue even worse, where they can just tp at any time to contest the boss.

    And you did point out how all of that differs from what Ashes is going for. I think (and hope) that world bosses won't necessarily all be on a timer, where you know when exactly they will spawn. And there will also be other stuff to do, that you can't just drop, and go do a world boss. Travel time is also there, because you cannot just tp close to a boss necessarily, it might take you 10-15 min to get there.

    I really hope that world bosses, and the way they are spawned is more dynamic. Whether you have to complete certain events to do it, or it spawns only during certain conditions of the world.
    The main thing I hope Steven realizes is that this isn't 2014 Archeage anymore. And it's certainly not 2000 Lineage. These mega guilds and their mega zergs are different beasts than what was back then. They've almost become institutionalized. The tools to keep these mega guilds/zergs together and cohesive are much better than they were back then. I'm talking about things like Discord, software apps to handle DKP/loot auctions for hundreds or thousands of people, and many other guild management issues....it's all much easier now than it was back then.

    We have mega guilds now that are having to self regulate, break themselves up so they don't destroy servers, entire games. That lasts for about as long as until they start getting beaten. Then you're going to go back to getting zerged down by them.

    It's a real problem. I think Ashes has some solutions for it. I just hope Steven is willing to take the problem seriously and continue to look for designs that alleviate the issue.

    Also a great point, as servers are going to be bigger, meaning more players, and it's much easier for these zergs to exist nowadays.

    I think they do realize the problem, but how much of a problem they think it's going to be, remains to be seen.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I'll add a little experience from player behaviour 'tests' in one of my own projects.

    The reason it becomes 'Megaguild vs Disinterested Others' is because of 'specialization'.

    I disagree that TL doesn't have other things to do as a whole but in the end, the problem is the difference in the mindsets of the players that want to do them.

    Players who want to fight, and especially to win, in my experience don't care about the rewards. Winning like that is the reason they play the game, so they show up to everything. There's other content. People are off doing it, but it's not content that other people of the same mindset care about.

    Because it's 'content that isn't worth doing' to them, or it's 'borig' to them. This would mean, again, in my experience, that if you ran caravans during a world boss, it could work, but only if the megaguild doesn't care that you're running the caravan.

    It's a similar process for people who 'won't go to PvP events unless they are part of a strong enough guild to win'. And the main thing that separates Ashes from TL in terms of incentives is a thing that would make it worse, not better.

    For a while, I was doubting that all my experience would translate into this outcome, because of what the L2 players were saying, I just assumed that what happened in New World was because it had only 2k CCU, and that was the thing a few people told me.

    Those people were really wrong.

    I think I'm gonna stop doubting myself now and just embrace this outcome fully, but that's my 2c as the 'Econ player who actually does just go to PvP world bosses alone for the experience of it'. Travel time is not going to curtail this. It is going to be worse.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • iccericcer Member
    edited October 15
    Lodrig wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »

    I disagree with this.

    A bunch of small guilds each can lockdown a location, yes. But a small guild that holds 1 location is easier to deal with, because there can always be another small guild that will take over from them next time. You know, competition, PvP, dynamic world, etc.
    I really don't think 1 small guild can just lock down and monopolize anything for a longer period of time.

    The problem with zergs is that they just claim everything around them, and there's no easy way to deal with them, other than to somehow make your own zerg with a few hundred people.

    You can obviously see here which one is easier to do, and more realistic.

    Not surprizing you would say that, the problem is your considering lockout to ONLY be illegitimate when it's done against you, and your in a non-zerg guild. If that small guild camping the dungeon is something you can potentially push off the content then you percive no problem, and rather a fair fight and challenge.

    But to a party of 5 casual friends a guild that camping a camping a location with 20 people might as well be a zerg guild. If the only thing that displaces the group of 20 is another DIFFERENT group of 20 one after another this is not a 'changing dynamic world' from the perspective of the casuals. It is a perpetual lockout.

    That's why you need enough content so that monopolizing it is simply not viable for the player base REDARDLESS of how they choose to divide themselves up in small, medium or huge guilds. Zerg guilds are just the inevitable byproduct of a content/player ratio which makes monopolization possible, and if it is possible then doing at SCALE will always be attactive. You failing to see or attack the root of the problem and only see the branches.

    I mean, yeah?

    Not just because it's done against me, but because any somewhat organized guild can gather up and challenge them.
    When you are fighting against a zerg, you cannot just casually gather up hundreds of people, unless you are in a zerg guild yourself. It's a scale issue, you can easily gather 20-30 people if you are a part of a guild and alliance, but you cannot casually gather hundreds of people to push off a zerg like that, unless you are in a zerg yourself.

    Those 5 casual friends have to be realistic, and realize that they cannot just do everything as a party of 5, as guilds are an important part of the game.

    You have to see the difference between the two, because one is far easier and more realistic to do, while the other one is basically impossible.

    I do not necessarily disagree with the rest.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    iccer wrote: »
    To be fair, one of the issues is the server transfers, but that's only temporary? I think.

    If it wasn't so easy to just transfer to a different server that you can free farm on, guild might be more incentivized to actually toughen up and put up a challenge.

    I have not seen this 'toughen up and put up a challenge' thing actually work since 2008.

    I definitely had my doubts that it still worked based on the way certain things went when they made specific changes in BDO, and outright abandoned some others because it was clearly not going to.

    The New World thing was based on that. The reasoning then was 'New World servers are too small', but that makes no sense. The small server size was supposed to SOLVE the problem. You can 'gather more people, when the total amount you need to gather is smaller. Why didn't it work?

    I believe it didn't work because that just 'isn't how it works' anymore.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    So, @Azherae - at scale does this translate to massive guilds not only owning a single node & metro, but multiple metros on a server? Anyone else hear the Imperial March?
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • iccericcer Member
    edited October 15
    Azherae wrote: »
    I'll add a little experience from player behaviour 'tests' in one of my own projects.

    The reason it becomes 'Megaguild vs Disinterested Others' is because of 'specialization'.

    I disagree that TL doesn't have other things to do as a whole but in the end, the problem is the difference in the mindsets of the players that want to do them.

    Players who want to fight, and especially to win, in my experience don't care about the rewards. Winning like that is the reason they play the game, so they show up to everything. There's other content. People are off doing it, but it's not content that other people of the same mindset care about.

    Because it's 'content that isn't worth doing' to them, or it's 'borig' to them. This would mean, again, in my experience, that if you ran caravans during a world boss, it could work, but only if the megaguild doesn't care that you're running the caravan.

    I mean, yes, it does have things to do, depending on what your goal is, and what you enjoy.

    I for example enjoy variety of content, and something meaningful to work towards, or rather some challenges that I have to work towards accessing and beating.
    Someone else only wants to get stronger and stronger, to max out their gear, etc.
    It's a similar process for people who 'won't go to PvP events unless they are part of a strong enough guild to win'. And the main thing that separates Ashes from TL in terms of incentives is a thing that would make it worse, not better.

    We can obviously disagree with that mentality, but that doesn't make it not true.

    I, for example would be happy with more even fights, or even fights that are slightly more unbalanced in enemies favor. These fights are probably the most engaging and fun, to me at least.

    To me, if you always get free farm on a boss, it might be enjoyable the first few times, but after a while it gets boring.

    Competition is key, I guess?

    So yes, I do agree with what you said, however I guess what I don't agree with, is that it should be like that. I guess trying to change the game isn't going to produce result, but you have to change the people? Or rather, the people you attract in your game.

    I have not seen this 'toughen up and put up a challenge' thing actually work since 2008.

    If that is true, and I'm going to believe it is, then what's the solution?

    Switching servers constantly isn't a good solution either. It's free right now, but I'm assuming you will only be able to do it later if you spend money.

Sign In or Register to comment.