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

Githal

Voeltz wrote: »

Githal wrote: »

friendly fire should do the job. As i wrote above - just make it so just coz you are in same guild, this doesnt make you friendly targets. In the open world only your party is not treated as your enemy. Anything outside the 40 man in your party is enemy. And ofc there are a lot other things that can be taken against zergs as a whole.

I think this would negatively hurt the game in many large scale encounters, but you raise a good point about friendly fire. There are already toggles to make your AOEs not hit non combatants and combatants. Affiliations could be one of the key limiting factors for zergs and I hadn't realized it. supposedly you're not able to damage allies in group guild and Alliance. So I'm thinking in certain pvp situations zergs will either have to not use AOEs or risk damaging their members. they'll likely also have a hard time finding the right targets in a sea of members as well. If alliances actually had reasonable restrictions instead of 1200 member caps, that would be another good way of limiting their zerg ball capabilities.

It wont impact large scale encounters, because in Sieges, node wars and anything that is intended to be large scale pvp - you will just be put in 1 group by the system (or threated as friendly targets).
This is measure that would apply only in the open world, where there is no limitations of how many players a zerg can bring,

Voeltz

Sure but I'm talking about Caravans, Dynamic events, naval battles and world bosses. There are likely large fights that lead up to wars too over resources, territory control, etc. they don't just happen at an instant, there is build up. Affiliations still serve a purpose in open world content. I think there are better solutions mentioned throughout this thread and others.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

There isnt going to be friendly fire in a mmo like this...

There's gonna be meta-friendly fire, where unallied sub-guilds will have to be careful with their aoes in huge open world fights.

Something like this. You can see the streamer's "blackhearts" guild and then there's 2 opposing ones: pacman and that blue shit. Those opposing guilds are not in an in-game alliance, but they're in the alliance of "enemy of my enemy", cause it seems that the blackhearts are the stronger guild here (they wiped a part of the blue bois right before this clip).
https://trovo.live/s/kyivstoner/549856071989?vid=vc-1397757895683121629&adtag=user.Ludullu.clip

And so, if both of the opposing guilds want to successfully wipe the hearts - they gotta be careful with their aoes, which is why they're positioned the way they are in that fight. The same would apply to sub-guilds that are not in a direct system-based alliance in Ashes.

And we already have the guild perks that suggest to megazergs that splitting their forces into smaller guilds might be good, but I do agree that we need probably 1-2 more soft pushes towards that goal.

Azherae wrote: »

This raises the serious question of if any 'target marking' or 'Target of my friendly Target' options are going to work when the 'Friendly Target' is stealthed.

Now that, is a cool and pretty hardcore function for Rogues in this type of game, especially if you can do it for Raid members and you're not just limited to the way it works in TL.

Iirc L2's rogues could be assist givers even through stealth, but I'd need to check that. I might finally kick myself in the ass and do my "AoC through the lens of L2" on rogues, that I've wanted to do for weeks now

Githal

Voeltz wrote: »

Sure but I'm talking about Caravans, Dynamic events, naval battles and world bosses. There are likely large fights that lead up to wars too over resources, territory control, etc. they don't just happen at an instant, there is build up. Affiliations still serve a purpose in open world content. I think there are better solutions mentioned throughout this thread and others.

Dynamic events and world bosses are meant for 40 man raid group. Not for 500.
Even some dynamic events are for 8 man party group.
We have no idea how the naval battles will work so wont talk about it.
But in general the build up should be trough 40 vs 40 groups for example.
And then you will get culmination of 250 vs 250 siege.

Lodrig

I think friendly fire AoE damge is good just because it's balancing effects on mages and the elimination of any need in the interface to distiqush 'safe' lakes-of-fire and such nonsense which rob the game of any sense of realism.

But I do NOT in any way belive it is a cure for mass vs quality in battle or zerg guilds. Look ELSEWHERE for that.

Githal

Lodrig wrote: »

I think friendly fire AoE damge is good just because it's balancing effects on mages and the elimination of any need in the interface to distiqush 'safe' lakes-of-fire and such nonsense which rob the game of any sense of realism.

But I do NOT in any way belive it is a cure for mass vs quality in battle or zerg guilds. Look ELSEWHERE for that.

Its group of many small solutions like the friendly fire that will fix the zerg problem.
This is just small step for it.
This just shows how big really the zerg problem is. And how important it is to be fixed

Depraved

Mag7spy wrote: »

Im here to rant, im so pissed the streamer server moved my my server, it is making my experience actual garbage on TnL right now. Legit zergs from 1pm - 1am.

Where do i find people that dont do anything but be on TnL 24/7 for my guild lmao. I cant even get a even fight.

but if those leave, then you become the new zerg xD

just quit tnl and play ashes T_T, few more days left hehe ;3

Mag7spy

Depraved wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Im here to rant, im so pissed the streamer server moved my my server, it is making my experience actual garbage on TnL right now. Legit zergs from 1pm - 1am.

Where do i find people that dont do anything but be on TnL 24/7 for my guild lmao. I cant even get a even fight.

but if those leave, then you become the new zerg xD

just quit tnl and play ashes T_T, few more days left hehe ;3

I'd believe it if the guilds we were working with brought numbers on this new server. We had more numbers when i was running 3 of our own guilds which makes 0 sense.

Mag7spy

Ludullu wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

There isnt going to be friendly fire in a mmo like this...

There's gonna be meta-friendly fire, where unallied sub-guilds will have to be careful with their aoes in huge open world fights.

Something like this. You can see the streamer's "blackhearts" guild and then there's 2 opposing ones: pacman and that blue shit. Those opposing guilds are not in an in-game alliance, but they're in the alliance of "enemy of my enemy", cause it seems that the blackhearts are the stronger guild here (they wiped a part of the blue bois right before this clip).
https://trovo.live/s/kyivstoner/549856071989?vid=vc-1397757895683121629&adtag=user.Ludullu.clip

And so, if both of the opposing guilds want to successfully wipe the hearts - they gotta be careful with their aoes, which is why they're positioned the way they are in that fight. The same would apply to sub-guilds that are not in a direct system-based alliance in Ashes.

And we already have the guild perks that suggest to megazergs that splitting their forces into smaller guilds might be good, but I do agree that we need probably 1-2 more soft pushes towards that goal.

Azherae wrote: »

This raises the serious question of if any 'target marking' or 'Target of my friendly Target' options are going to work when the 'Friendly Target' is stealthed.

Now that, is a cool and pretty hardcore function for Rogues in this type of game, especially if you can do it for Raid members and you're not just limited to the way it works in TL.

Iirc L2's rogues could be assist givers even through stealth, but I'd need to check that. I might finally kick myself in the ass and do my "AoC through the lens of L2" on rogues, that I've wanted to do for weeks now

No one is talking about unallied sub guilds right now. If by chance i missed that and people are, they are missing the actual point.

Lodrig

Githal wrote: »

Its group of many small solutions like the friendly fire that will fix the zerg problem.
This is just small step for it.
This just shows how big really the zerg problem is. And how important it is to be fixed

I'm not saying that friendly fire is not ENOUGH of a step and needs to be combined with others.
I'm saying it is IRRELIVENT entirely, it is litterally a lateral step having no effect at all on the topic at hand.

Think of ACTUALLY effective steps first and then try to combine them, we did a lot of that on the last page which were focused on the core topic of the thread, content monopolization, not battle clashes.

We should be far less concerned with zergs winning a castle siege then we should be with dungeon and mob spawn camping. Castle sieges are nich content for highly organized guilds to fight over and frankly allowing a zerg guild to actualy have a chance at winning is SPREADING content to more players vs only elite guilds having a chance at them.

If low tier content monopolization happens then the game is borked for everyone not in a guild and this will inevitably drive up zerg guild numbers as it's the only way for an individual to progress and result in these large guilds swamping all the higher tier content as well due to gear/exp monopolizing. If you don't stop content monopolization at the level of day to day grinding and farming then nothing you can do will stop it at higher tier and top tier content like a castle siege.

Githal

Lodrig wrote: »

Githal wrote: »

Its group of many small solutions like the friendly fire that will fix the zerg problem.
This is just small step for it.
This just shows how big really the zerg problem is. And how important it is to be fixed

I'm not saying that friendly fire is not ENOUGH of a step and needs to be combined with others.
I'm saying it is IRRELIVENT entirely, it is litterally a lateral step having no effect at all on the topic at hand.

Think of ACTUALLY effective steps first and then try to combine them, we did a lot of that on the last page which were focused on the core topic of the thread, content monopolization, not battle clashes.

We should be far less concerned with zergs winning a castle siege then we should be with dungeon and mob spawn camping. Castle sieges are nich content for highly organized guilds to fight over and frankly allowing a zerg guild to actualy have a chance at winning is SPREADING content to more players vs only elite guilds having a chance at them.

If low tier content monopolization happens then the game is borked for everyone not in a guild and this will inevitably drive up zerg guild numbers as it's the only way for an individual to progress and result in these large guilds swamping all the higher tier content as well due to gear/exp monopolizing. If you don't stop content monopolization at the level of day to day grinding and farming then nothing you can do will stop it at higher tier and top tier content like a castle siege.

Kinda dont get what you trying to say.
You talking about zergs in Castle sieges. But in reality there are no zerg in castle sieges since its 250 vs 250, or 500 vs 500. Its by design, and No one have problem with content that has equal amount of players on both sides.

This whole discussion is for Zergs in the open world. And if you think that friendly fire wont affect zergs at all - then we have nothing to talk about, because obviously your knowledge about zergs is 0.

ShivaFang

Balancing for zergs is not currently in a good place. Currently meta for raid groups to go around killing enemies 10+ levels above them. Sure they only get 60xp per kills, but they can farm quantities in a few seconds. This basically forces people there to actually do the content to either kill the zerg (which is easy to do) or move somewhere else.

More open world bosses should have the ability to btfo squishy people who are significantly lower level than the content, regardless of how much survivability the tank has. (Ursine caves is lousy for this at the moment)

Lodrig

ShivaFang wrote: »

Balancing for zergs is not currently in a good place. Currently meta for raid groups to go around killing enemies 10+ levels above them. Sure they only get 60xp per kills, but they can farm quantities in a few seconds. This basically forces people there to actually do the content to either kill the zerg (which is easy to do) or move somewhere else.

More open world bosses should have the ability to btfo squishy people who are significantly lower level than the content, regardless of how much survivability the tank has. (Ursine caves is lousy for this at the moment)

That's why upscaling mobs dynamically in response to higher level and higher NUMBERS of players is essential. It both punishes the zerg mobing of content by making thouse mobs able to start AoE nuking the zerg, while also reducing the bottlenecking on high content problem as high levl players can simply level up mid tier mobs into appropriate challenge levels and get a good fight. Such mob leveling is temporary mind you, fading away in mere minutes once high level players leave an area.

On the other hand it is good that going somewhere else is an option. The game has plentiful open world mob spawns so their is always one open and your never faced with a situation where all the content is being camped and you have to fight a player to fight a goblin, stronger groups can push you off a spot but it's not musical chairs where someone gets nothing. At least at low levels, I'm still concerned that high tier content locations are going to be too few in number as the playerbase gradually levels up and moves past the low and mid content.

So again dynamic mob leveling solves this, the player are not static, they are going to go from being all under level 10 that first day to mostly level 50 a the game gets mature, only a dynamic system can acomadate that, and I don't think all that dynamism can fall upon the shoulders of nodes and their hand crafted upgrading of specific spawns with narrative tie-ins. A universal dynamic scaling mechanism should exist which node and narrative dynamism complement and enhances.

Blrrgh

I have been thinking this over, and it occurred to me that a good way to mitigate the meta guild problem would be to take away some of the incentive of zone control. I am sure a mechanism could be developed to penalize server control beyond a defined threshold. Megaguilds could dominate any zone that they wanted and carry the economic burden of maintaining it, instead of double dipping and gathering the taxes of other players. There will still be large and powerful guilds and alliances, but only the most dedicated maniacs will be able to maintain control over content for any significant duration if they have to, for example, repair bridges and roads etc. This is an idle thought experiment but I think it could be developed into a viable system and would actually encourage the existence of more numerous mid sized guilds, resulting in way more player generated gameplay content. Dozens and dozens of mid sized guilds on a server, all constantly interacting, is peak potential Ashes gameplay imo.

Cheers;
Blrrgh