Ludullu wrote: » It'll happen. It's inevitable. I hope Intrepid implements a few soft pushes towards splitting up the guilds/alliances into smaller sub-guilds, which will definitely help fight them, but if people want to be passive and never even attempt to go against these megaguilds - nothing will change. And by the sounds of it, current player culture is passive as fuck.
Githal wrote: » In the end if Zergs dominate everything everywhere, and you cant do anything if not in zerg group. I will just end up quitting the game, same as i did with T&L. Since this is not my thing, and not what i search for in my MMO experience
Ludullu wrote: » Githal wrote: » In the end if Zergs dominate everything everywhere, and you cant do anything if not in zerg group. I will just end up quitting the game, same as i did with T&L. Since this is not my thing, and not what i search for in my MMO experience You simply look for other small guilds that are willing to fight against them together. I'm gonna be giving all the feedback I can about guild wars and their pricings, because those should be the main tool we use to fight against megaguilds. Small guilds should have an easier way of wardeccing big guilds and get good rewards if they manage to win the objectives. While big guilds should have huge costs and smaller rewards. You don't need a zerg guild to fight a zerg guild, but you can always create a zerg to fight their zerg. And if you approach the fight smartly enough - you'll win in the long run. Obviously the game's design should support that smart fight and imo that should come from proper content distribution and competiting content spawning. A ton of content will already be prime-time centered, so megaguilds will have to split their forces to try and control all of that. And split forces are easier to fight, cause, considering how loot works in Ashes - those split forces will not have good gear on them. In other words, people just need to be willing to fight. If everyone gives up as soon as they lose once - of course megaguilds will win.
Githal wrote: » If they control most of the map spawns you wont have good gear also, since everything will be going to the zerg. So even if only 10% of their members are good geared, Your gear wont be better than the bad geared members, because those guild will form from day 1. They wont wait you to get geared first and then dominate the map.
Ludullu wrote: » Githal wrote: » If they control most of the map spawns you wont have good gear also, since everything will be going to the zerg. So even if only 10% of their members are good geared, Your gear wont be better than the bad geared members, because those guild will form from day 1. They wont wait you to get geared first and then dominate the map. And if this is the situation on all servers and all to this extent - we come back to the first thing I said here. This will happen and it's inevitable.
Githal wrote: » It is not inevitable. Just needs Control from Intrepid. If they leave the solution in players hands - then yes, its inevitable. But there are enough measures Intrepid can put in order to make sure zerg guilds dont exist at all.
Kilion wrote: » Here are my thoughts on this: I refuse to play on a server where people with commercial interest are. Not only because I think that the worst motivation to play a game is commercial interest, but also because I refuse to be an unpaid participant of their show business. I did not consent to providing them with content for their program. That is why I have been advocating for (still doing it), that Intrepid will give me the tools to play the game on a server where only people who just want to play a good MMO are present (either by barring streaming and recording tools on these servers or by marking servers with big streamers so I can avoid them). I want to play the game for the sake of the game that Intrepid is putting painstakingly together, not because someone else is paying them to generate uninvolved third party entertainment. There still will be servers where big streamers will take control over a portion of the server. As long as I can avoid these servers, I am fine with that. And while I doubt that 1 streamer community can take over an entire server, I think that if they actually are able to achieve that, they will basically ruin themselves that way. Because with one person being basically the "gamemaster" of the server with everyone else in tow, conflicts as the driver of it all will be so heavily skewed that nothing will work right IMO.
Ludullu wrote: » Githal wrote: » It is not inevitable. Just needs Control from Intrepid. If they leave the solution in players hands - then yes, its inevitable. But there are enough measures Intrepid can put in order to make sure zerg guilds dont exist at all. The only way to prevent this is to do what, I believe, you suggested and to just make anyone outside of a raid group a full enemy. But imo that's simply broken and would ruin the point of the massiveness of the game. And even if this was implemented, this would just mean that those megaguilds will be running around with full raid groups and would still farm every spot, get all the loot and snowball from there. Because literally no one would be able to bring more people to fight them. If you have some other idea of how to stop zergs - do provide it, cause there's a small chance that Intrepid simply haven't thought of it yet.
DrAbriss wrote: » Kilion wrote: » Here are my thoughts on this: I refuse to play on a server where people with commercial interest are. Not only because I think that the worst motivation to play a game is commercial interest, but also because I refuse to be an unpaid participant of their show business. I did not consent to providing them with content for their program. That is why I have been advocating for (still doing it), that Intrepid will give me the tools to play the game on a server where only people who just want to play a good MMO are present (either by barring streaming and recording tools on these servers or by marking servers with big streamers so I can avoid them). I want to play the game for the sake of the game that Intrepid is putting painstakingly together, not because someone else is paying them to generate uninvolved third party entertainment. There still will be servers where big streamers will take control over a portion of the server. As long as I can avoid these servers, I am fine with that. And while I doubt that 1 streamer community can take over an entire server, I think that if they actually are able to achieve that, they will basically ruin themselves that way. Because with one person being basically the "gamemaster" of the server with everyone else in tow, conflicts as the driver of it all will be so heavily skewed that nothing will work right IMO. That whould be HUGE for me too! Marking "non-streaming Servers" or letting me somehow choose clearly if I want to participate with them. Maybe Intrepid should put all the "streamer guilds" on their own servers, so their audience can enjoy the spectacle of those Top-Tier-Streamer mega guilds battling each other and the streamers can have their commercial success there with each other...
Spif wrote: » It's up to Intrepid to make a no streamer server (or two, or three). IE, content from that server is copyrighted. This includes other character names and likenesses, etc. I'm sure there's a legal way to make it happen. If streamers can't use the video, they'll pick a different server. But this won't stop all mega guilds. Some are in it for the domination, not the clicks. However, there shouldn't be zerg specific taxes or anything like that. Just don't make any special rules helping high pop guilds. Force guilds and nodes to spend resources on larger pop limits. We already don't have personal drops. When good rewards for an event go to the top 3 contributors, that feels ok when you have 20. Feels a lot worse when you have 100. Another thing we talked about before is to not have zerg-wide buffs. Keep it in the group. Tag certain heal skills with group only too. This makes zerg group management tougher
novercalis wrote: » I've made a post recently of a potential mechanics to fight off mega guilds. All guilds are subject to a passive tax that is either weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. Up to the dev to decide. These taxes are gold sinks. The tax are broken into brackets. For every X amount of guild members, the more tax you pay as a whole. Then there is also an alliance tax, for every X amount of alliances you have, there is a multiplier that affects your guild tax. example: A guild of 10 players will pay 100g in tax (10g per person basically) A guild of 200 players will pay 20,000g in tax (or 100g per person basically) A guild of 50 players will pay 2,000g in tax (or 50g per person) 4 guilds of 50 players in alliance will pay 7,500g per guild for a total of 30,000g every alliance is a multipler. 2,500x3 alliance = 7500 per guild in that alliance contributing for a total of 30,000 or 150g per person. If they are able to maintain that, through city taxes or whatnot, fair play. But it is going to require a great deal of teamwork and grind from everyone to pull their weight. This will cause stress/frictions for the non organized guilds and headaches for the organized ones. This will also benefits the normal guilds who can sustain themselves due to their sizes. Obviously the math formula can be adjust accordingly, as I am giving a framework solution.
Nickthefoxable wrote: » novercalis wrote: » I've made a post recently of a potential mechanics to fight off mega guilds. All guilds are subject to a passive tax that is either weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. Up to the dev to decide. These taxes are gold sinks. The tax are broken into brackets. For every X amount of guild members, the more tax you pay as a whole. Then there is also an alliance tax, for every X amount of alliances you have, there is a multiplier that affects your guild tax. example: A guild of 10 players will pay 100g in tax (10g per person basically) A guild of 200 players will pay 20,000g in tax (or 100g per person basically) A guild of 50 players will pay 2,000g in tax (or 50g per person) 4 guilds of 50 players in alliance will pay 7,500g per guild for a total of 30,000g every alliance is a multipler. 2,500x3 alliance = 7500 per guild in that alliance contributing for a total of 30,000 or 150g per person. If they are able to maintain that, through city taxes or whatnot, fair play. But it is going to require a great deal of teamwork and grind from everyone to pull their weight. This will cause stress/frictions for the non organized guilds and headaches for the organized ones. This will also benefits the normal guilds who can sustain themselves due to their sizes. Obviously the math formula can be adjust accordingly, as I am giving a framework solution. I honestly like this solution the best. I personally think it should be seasonal, every season change you get taxed. It forces large guilds to have active players and not just soldiers that log on when they need an extra sword. This is healthy in my opinion
Githal wrote: » Nickthefoxable wrote: » novercalis wrote: » I've made a post recently of a potential mechanics to fight off mega guilds. All guilds are subject to a passive tax that is either weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. Up to the dev to decide. These taxes are gold sinks. The tax are broken into brackets. For every X amount of guild members, the more tax you pay as a whole. Then there is also an alliance tax, for every X amount of alliances you have, there is a multiplier that affects your guild tax. example: A guild of 10 players will pay 100g in tax (10g per person basically) A guild of 200 players will pay 20,000g in tax (or 100g per person basically) A guild of 50 players will pay 2,000g in tax (or 50g per person) 4 guilds of 50 players in alliance will pay 7,500g per guild for a total of 30,000g every alliance is a multipler. 2,500x3 alliance = 7500 per guild in that alliance contributing for a total of 30,000 or 150g per person. If they are able to maintain that, through city taxes or whatnot, fair play. But it is going to require a great deal of teamwork and grind from everyone to pull their weight. This will cause stress/frictions for the non organized guilds and headaches for the organized ones. This will also benefits the normal guilds who can sustain themselves due to their sizes. Obviously the math formula can be adjust accordingly, as I am giving a framework solution. I honestly like this solution the best. I personally think it should be seasonal, every season change you get taxed. It forces large guilds to have active players and not just soldiers that log on when they need an extra sword. This is healthy in my opinion This solution is half as*ed solution. If taxes are too high you will just see how zergs split in many small guilds, which eventually will lead to my solution where every small guild of lets say 50 people is threated as enemy in the open world with the other small guilds. Or if taxes are too small it wont do anything. And if by any chance the taxes are just right, you will see Some zerg guilds that dominate the full server. And there wont by any other zerg guild to stand in their way, coz taxes. In the end. instead implementing this thing with uncertain outcome. just put the certain outcome.
Nickthefoxable wrote: » We WANT to break up the zergs into smaller guilds
