Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Big Guilds Take Over

13

Comments

  • AszkalonAszkalon Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 29
    Ludullu wrote: »
    It'll happen.



    It's inevitable.




    lgc6xf0k9lbe.jpg

    a50whcz343yn.png
    ✓ Occasional Roleplayer
    ✓ Guild is " Balderag's Garde " for now. (German)
  • nsys wrote: »
    As long as there is an incentive to grow big, guilds will grow big. I'll give two personal examples.

    In the recent installment of season of discovery for WoW, I was the GM of the largest and one of the absolute top guilds of the EU realms (racing for World First, fighting for #1 on wclogs). I had about 80 ppl under my wing and the only reason I did not expand more, was because there was no reason to do so as I already had enough insane players. If I had even the slightest incentive to expand more, I would have.

    I lead the #1 guild/alliance on my server in the "dark crusade" (wh40k mobile game). There was an incentive to grow and while the limit for players was limited, creating sister-alliances was easy.

    Again, if peaceful conglomeration in one or more coordinated guilds will bring the players an advantage, that will happen. If you want players to fight, force them, incentivize them.
    There should be peace and stability in the microcosm (aka no perma ganking, random PK), but conflict in the macrocosm. Nobody wants to be the underdog and fight the "big guy". That's why all wow pvp servers sooner or later just "shed" one of the factions.

    This is why it is essentialy to provide enough content that it can not be monopolized. If any attempt to monopolize content is futile then folks will not try and one of the biggest incentives to zerg will be eliminated. This monopolization problem has been the death of every open world game which lacked either the equivilent of EVE high-sec or a map so large the monopolization was physically impossible.

    As for WoW, a big part of its problem is that it used a faction binary, such systems are doomed to collapse, like a ball at the top of a hill any purturbation is amplifed. But a Trinity is like a ball in a valley, just as in 1984 any one faction getting dominant will result in the other two teaming up against them. Planetside made good use of this teqnique. Having even more factions can get complex and it's not clear if Ashes psudo-factional gameplay will collapse or not but it's got far more potential then WoW's binary which was doomed right at the point of conception.

  • Lodrig wrote: »
    nsys wrote: »
    As long as there is an incentive to grow big, guilds will grow big. I'll give two personal examples.

    In the recent installment of season of discovery for WoW, I was the GM of the largest and one of the absolute top guilds of the EU realms (racing for World First, fighting for #1 on wclogs). I had about 80 ppl under my wing and the only reason I did not expand more, was because there was no reason to do so as I already had enough insane players. If I had even the slightest incentive to expand more, I would have.

    I lead the #1 guild/alliance on my server in the "dark crusade" (wh40k mobile game). There was an incentive to grow and while the limit for players was limited, creating sister-alliances was easy.

    Again, if peaceful conglomeration in one or more coordinated guilds will bring the players an advantage, that will happen. If you want players to fight, force them, incentivize them.
    There should be peace and stability in the microcosm (aka no perma ganking, random PK), but conflict in the macrocosm. Nobody wants to be the underdog and fight the "big guy". That's why all wow pvp servers sooner or later just "shed" one of the factions.

    This is why it is essentialy to provide enough content that it can not be monopolized. If any attempt to monopolize content is futile then folks will not try and one of the biggest incentives to zerg will be eliminated. This monopolization problem has been the death of every open world game which lacked either the equivilent of EVE high-sec or a map so large the monopolization was physically impossible.

    As for WoW, a big part of its problem is that it used a faction binary, such systems are doomed to collapse, like a ball at the top of a hill any purturbation is amplifed. But a Trinity is like a ball in a valley, just as in 1984 any one faction getting dominant will result in the other two teaming up against them. Planetside made good use of this teqnique. Having even more factions can get complex and it's not clear if Ashes psudo-factional gameplay will collapse or not but it's got far more potential then WoW's binary which was doomed right at the point of conception.

    The issue is that with more content available you will see more Zergs forming.
    If 1 zerg cant monopolize all points, then you will be seeing enough zergs to cover all spots (at at least most that are the best).
    Tho i agree that it may help a little, but the solution should be Drastic and destroy zerg groups whatsoever.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 30
    Githal wrote: »
    its not that simple.
    It is simple :) Unless the enemy has 5k people all in one spot - just bring more people to fight against them and win.

    If a zerg is growing and no other guilds on the server are preparing to face it by creating their own alliances - those guilds have fucked up their strategy and will lose to the zerg. It's a them problem, rather than a zerg one.
    Aszkalon wrote: »
    lgc6xf0k9lbe.jpg
    rwdwoivqgb7b.gif
  • Githal wrote: »

    The issue is that with more content available you will see more Zergs forming.
    If 1 zerg cant monopolize all points, then you will be seeing enough zergs to cover all spots (at at least most that are the best).
    Tho i agree that it may help a little, but the solution should be Drastic and destroy zerg groups whatsoever.

    No I'm saying you need enough content that ALL the players trying to monopolize ALL the content litteraly could not phsycially cover it all. That makes monopolization inherently impossible even if you had every concurrently online player trying to do it.

  • RuerikRuerik Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Ludullu wrote: »
    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.

    This idea is actually awesome, the entire game is more or less centered around the economy.

    If the cost is the same war dec both ways, the large guild can always shrug it off, but if the cost is proportional to size A vs size B it helps to influence the larger guild to be less aggressive and play ball politically with the rest of the server.

    Also having economic benefits to winning against large guilds is even more motivation, and emboldens small guilds to stay together instead of disbanding and being absorbed in to the zerg

    ptZBAr9.png
  • RedLeader1RedLeader1 Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 30
    Two points:
    1. I don't think any guild that is bigger than a single node is going to work very well.
    2. There is some evidence that the optimal population of a node is not, "As many as possible"

    The games challenge is really set as a team game with the citizens of each node being the teams. It would be bad for the game to turn it just into who has the most players, and it is easy to put a soft cap on node citizenship, and a soft or hard cap on node war participation.

    Also note than social organizations may be patrons of a node like religions, thieves guild, traders guilds and so on that function as guilds for players that would rather NPCs run the "Guild".

    I think the whole mechanics of Guilds and Nodes and social organizations are going to have a few twists in them that make the game more interesting than just ZERG!!!!!!

  • SteelerSteeler Member, Alpha Two
    Lineage2 was a zerg game.
    This will be the same.
    Otherwise,. its such a massive consideration, you would already have had exacting mechanics mentioned in detail and not just passing lip service.
  • GithalGithal Member
    edited October 30
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Githal wrote: »
    its not that simple.
    It is simple :) Unless the enemy has 5k people all in one spot - just bring more people to fight against them and win.

    If a zerg is growing and no other guilds on the server a preparing to face it by creating their own alliances - those guilds have fucked up their strategy and will lose to the zerg. It's a them problem, rather than a zerg one.
    Aszkalon wrote: »
    lgc6xf0k9lbe.jpg
    rwdwoivqgb7b.gif

    Castle sieges have cap of 250 players. So no, its not about who brings more players. So you bring better players to win
    And in the open world its the opposite - you bring more players to win.
  • NemesesNemeses Member
    edited October 30
    Belluccii wrote: »
    Hello everyone!

    i've been having this one thing in mind for long while now and since we're close to Alpha 2 and later on the launch of the game i think it's fair to see people's opinions and POVs regarding this particular matter.

    What do you think about mega guilds/streamer/youtuber guilds doing a complete take over on a server? baring in mind the possibly for ruining the node or the general experience like some other games that released over the recent years

    with all honesty this may or may not ruin the experience for people. since these guilds tend to sometimes be toxic or just a bunch of in game trolls or just because they're "celebs" they get away from most things.

    even smaller guilds end up being over shadowed in all events and they get nothing for participation or winning until they either join the bigger ones or quit playing.

    so yeah. i can't help but wonder about such thing. am i the only one thinking about these things here?
    i also have a few possible solutions for such thing if the devs ever want to know or have already an implemented system for such thing

    Once servers are controlled by a small section of players, it becomes the death knell for any game, if players can bar you progression, your more likely to quit.

    Remember these guilds are normal filled with the jobless living off mommy or the state, so they can put in 18 hour days, no regular working person can compete

    I play maybe 4 hours an evening at the very most.so every 4 days of me playing = 1 for the jobless, no way you can keep up.

    Taking it that I run, a pretty large and mostly successful guild in PvP games, just look at our YouTube channel.

    If they don’t gate this, they will have empty servers a lot faster than they want.

    The Immortals
    • We Lived a Thousand Lives, United we Stand.
    • Recruitment
  • NemesesNemeses Member
    edited October 30
    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.
    You clearly have zero, I mean zero understanding of how these guild will operate, they will overcome this, with ease.
    The Immortals
    • We Lived a Thousand Lives, United we Stand.
    • Recruitment
  • For me, they need to set maybe 10 servers for streamers, and if caught streaming on a non streamer server, get banned, but they won’t as it’s very hard to police.

    Second, putting blocks on streaming won’t work either, as it will effect and piss off every small guild, I often stream my screen, to show people in the guild things, take this away, and I’d not be a happy bunny.

    It’s a hard fix, I’m not sure how, besides blocking them from severs not marked as streamer servers.
    The Immortals
    • We Lived a Thousand Lives, United we Stand.
    • Recruitment
  • Nemeses wrote: »
    For me, they need to set maybe 10 servers for streamers, and if caught streaming on a non streamer server, get banned, but they won’t as it’s very hard to police.

    Second, putting blocks on streaming won’t work either, as it will effect and piss off every small guild, I often stream my screen, to show people in the guild things, take this away, and I’d not be a happy bunny.

    It’s a hard fix, I’m not sure how, besides blocking them from severs not marked as streamer servers.

    The problem is not just streamers, but there are a lot of Zerg groups that are not connected to a streamer.
    The solution has to come from the gameplay, not from splitting the servers. The solution should make it impossible to have zerg groups in the open world.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Githal wrote: »
    Castle sieges have cap of 250 players. So no, its not about who brings more players. So you bring better players to win.
    We were past sieges here already
    Githal wrote: »
    The problem with zergs wont be in Castle sieges, because the numbers there are equal on both sides. 250 vs 250 is not a zerg problem.

    The problems with zerg come from the open world, World bosses, open world dungeons, farming spots, and ect.
    You said it's about open world, and I said that solution is easy, unless the zerg brings 5k people to the same location.

    So how exactly is it
    Githal wrote: »
    And in the open world its the opposite - you bring more players to win.
    When I literally said this in my post?
  • Ace1234Ace1234 Member
    edited October 30
    I don't really understand the problem, isn't one major point of the game to have content that rewards organized/social group play?

    If its a matter of concern that big groups can just easily blitz through content/smaller groups, that should only be possible as long as skill/strategy, and coordination is leveraged (ya know...actual gameplay), in which case the larger group wins- hense the social aspect of the game design.


    If the concern is that both groups are equally skilled in almost every way but your group size is too small to compete, well, that is still a skill issue. Leverage your social skills to coordinate with other guilds/groups and form alliances to combat other large guilds/alliances for balanced gameplay, as it should be imo.


    Smaller groups tend to naturally coordinate better so that can give you a built in way to combat larger groups providing the gameplay is well designed and skill based where numbers don't make things an easy button win.


    If you are skilled/coordinated enough to dominate the content then that is part of your risk or "skin in the game", and you should be rewarded for that.


    If you want everything to be completely balanced for small groups and solo play, then the game isn't soley focused on that, but there will be content and progression paths that exist to accomodate those players to an extent (hense having arena competitions at various scalings like 1v1, 3v3, etc., or small group pve content like events and such, etc.), but the biggest baddest content is focused on rewarding the biggest baddest groups.

  • Uncommon SenseUncommon Sense Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    You just have to have design elements in the game that form booms/busts exponentially with larger group dynamics.

    The tax pressure suggestion is a solid mechanic to prevent guild getting to megalomaniacal

    These issues will self regulate, either through outside Socioeconomic and environmental forces, or inner behavioral personality dynamics and infighting.

    If a massive group slips up or overreaches then the consequences of failure hit harder. more tax/more XP debt/more guild upkeep/more alliance fees/more resources per member etc
    If you suggest then that bigger guild will just break up into smaller offsets then this inevitably leads to infighting and transgressions/ego tensions.

    Which then form into smaller opposed guilds, which may or may not want to overthrow their previous overlords.


    Most of these mega guilds are like full time jobs with macro and micro management...So to say this is done 'with ease' is oversight.

    If a server ends up with 1 ultra guild and no other alternative then the server will serve as their private environment and the guild will have to decide weather to keep investing time in their server or move on and diversify...at this point the community will know that the server is (megaguilded) and players will either try and join or avoid it like the plague...

    All in all It's up to Intrepid to provide the mechanics and systems to promote healthy guild formation while also making enough server provision to accommodate the booms and busts of human group behavior




  • Ace1234 wrote: »
    I don't really understand the problem, isn't one major point of the game to have content that rewards organized/social group play?

    If its a matter of concern that big groups can just easily blitz through content/smaller groups, that should only be possible as long as skill/strategy, and coordination is leveraged (ya know...actual gameplay), in which case the larger group wins- hense the social aspect of the game design.


    If the concern is that both groups are equally skilled in almost every way but your group size is too small to compete, well, that is still a skill issue. Leverage your social skills to coordinate with other guilds/groups and form alliances to combat other large guilds/alliances for balanced gameplay, as it should be imo.


    Smaller groups tend to naturally coordinate better so that can give you a built in way to combat larger groups providing the gameplay is well designed and skill based where numbers don't make things an easy button win.


    If you are skilled/coordinated enough to dominate the content then that is part of your risk or "skin in the game", and you should be rewarded for that.


    If you want everything to be completely balanced for small groups and solo play, then the game isn't soley focused on that, but there will be content and progression paths that exist to accomodate those players to an extent (hense having arena competitions at various scalings like 1v1, 3v3, etc., or small group pve content like events and such, etc.), but the biggest baddest content is focused on rewarding the biggest baddest groups.

    There are enough content in the game for big groups, like sieges, wars and ect. The good thing about those contents is that they have cap of players that participate.
    And no bringing more player is not "SKILL". What skill is it to spam in discord groups or chat to invite players without knowing anything about them. Just invite 1k Randoms and gg. is this skill?
  • MorkMork Member
    edited November 2
    What if when you create a guild, you have to choose your guilde size
    (you can later change the guild size but you have to remake those alliances within the rules)

    and then impose alliance rules for determined different size guilds like:
    allow 1 alliance to Big guilds (any size)
    allow 2 alliances to Medium guilds (1 Big max)
    allow 3 alliances to Small guilds (1 Big max and 1 Medium max)
    allow 4 alliances to Tiny guilds (1 Big max and 1 Medium max)

    v9xaMbs.png

    Change the numbers as you like ofc, but with something like this, even though you are a Tiny guild, you could make alliances and have the same numbers as the Big ones (more disorganized because its through much more different guilds)
  • Mork wrote: »
    What if when you create a guild, you have to choose your guilde size
    (you can later change the guild size but you have to remake those alliances within the rules)

    and then impose alliance rules for determined different size guilds like:
    allow 1 alliance to Big guilds (any size)
    allow 2 alliances to Medium guilds (1 Big max)
    allow 3 alliances to Small guilds (1 Big max and 1 Medium max)
    allow 4 alliances to Tiny guilds (1 Big max and 1 Medium max)

    v9xaMbs.png

    Change the numbers as you like ofc, but with something like this, even though you are a Tiny guild, you could make alliances and have the same numbers as the Big ones (more disorganized because its through much more different guilds)

    if you make it: Big - 200 players with 1 medium (2 small) alliances = total 300
    medium 100 members with 2 medium (4 small) or 1 big alliances - total 300
    small 50 members with Big + small / small + 2 medium (4 small) - total 300
    would be agreeable

    But then there wont be any point in making BIG guild, because small ones have guild perks. So everyone will be just in small guilds

  • MorkMork Member
    edited November 2
    with everyone in small guilds with 4 max alliances, they will be 250 players
    a big guild allied to other big one would be 1000

    if you check discords guild recruitment, theres a ton of huge guilds with 500+ players already, NA and EU, I think you are underestimating how much big guilds dominate in these types of games. Thats why we need to find ways of pushing small guilds to some point, the perks are good but will not be enough against a thousand player guild.

    The rules in the above post limits a bit more the alliances the big ones can make, so they do not get huge while giving the small guilds the opoortunity to have the same amount of players in a siege for example through alliances, more disorganized but still the opportunity to have the same numbers.

    there will always be BIG guilds in games like these
  • Ace1234Ace1234 Member
    edited November 2
    There are enough content in the game for big groups, like sieges, wars and ect. The good thing about those contents is that they have cap of players that participate.
    And no bringing more player is not "SKILL". What skill is it to spam in discord groups or chat to invite players without knowing anything about them. Just invite 1k Randoms and gg. is this skill?


    Yes, because there is supposed to be more to it than that. Its supposed to involve social dynamics of grouping with large amounts of players who may have conflicting interests and wants, as well as the aspects of dealing with intrigue, spying, etc. that may be present in large groups. As well as the idea of coordinating, communicating, and organizational skills that are involved with managing groups that are larger by comparison, as well as the planning aspects of having to deal with long travel times and how to strategiize the tactics revolving around all these factors and discussing them with the group. There is also the economic and political factors of maintaining a larger competitively viable group. Yes not all cases of grouping will involve the same intensity or combination of such factors but it is skill nonetheless compared to groups who dont utilize such aspects, and the higher the numbers advantage the more relevant these aspects become, meaning skill is a part of it (but that has to take into account the other things I mentioned in my last post, regarding the requirement of gameplay skill being neccessary even if you have a numbers advantage).



    Also, if there are cases where its that easy then you could just do the same thing so there shouldn't really be a problem in that case either.
  • LodrigLodrig Member
    edited November 2
    I think it might be usefull to think of containing a zerg guild SPACIALLY rather then focusing only on it's player count. If a guild finds itself spacially contained to one node then it will never really threaten the whole world with domination.

    Currently in Alpha testing we are seeing guilds concentrate their members citizenship in a single node for mayorship control. This is good but in the future if guilds get big enough to dominate multiple nodes mayorships they are likely to try to do so. Discouringing this would be key.

    Patron Guild status could be used as key factor. Allow a Patron guild citizens to pay lower rent and service fees in a node, that will tend to pull members in to the node and discourage attempts to flood members into other nodes to conduct take over attempts. Vertical growth of the guild should be rewarded and horizontal growth discouraged.

    A guild having Patron status in multiple nodes should thus be discouraged but not outright banned, perhapse an upgrade perk needs to be spent to allow each additional patron status, thus presenting an oportunity cost.

    Allow guilds which are both patrons in the same node to ally more easily so that alliances are more often composed of the guilds that share a node, thus allowing the 'higher allegence' of the node to dominate the system more often. Something like a signing fee in gold which is proportional to the distance between Patron nodes could work, that would make long distance alliances very expensive but an in-node alliance free. Cost would be applied for each guild already in the alliance too.
  • spiritssspiritss Member, Alpha Two
    Big guilds always take over. However there is small scale PvP in my opinion. There was in Darkfall and Mortal online at least.
    0vwn2u8zlksw.gif
  • ruxaruxa Member
    spiritss wrote: »
    Big guilds always take over. However there is small scale PvP in my opinion. There was in Darkfall and Mortal online at least.

    The reason they take over is because there have never been any substantial factors forcing big guilds to break up.

    Ideally, it should be increasingly difficult to maintain a large organization.

    Maybe the bigger the guild/organization the worse debuffs they have in pvp.
  • Uncommon SenseUncommon Sense Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    If the guild also shared XP debt with its members then the incentive to just add as many players as possible stops.

    So the old throw bodies and dominate strategy is now a liability...

    It's really not that difficult to suppress mega guilds.

    As for alliances just add a financial burden/upkeep...If they want to arrange/plan outside of game then you are allowing for subterfuge and back stabbing to occur...which will also regulate mega guilds...
  • Ace1234 wrote: »
    There are enough content in the game for big groups, like sieges, wars and ect. The good thing about those contents is that they have cap of players that participate.
    And no bringing more player is not "SKILL". What skill is it to spam in discord groups or chat to invite players without knowing anything about them. Just invite 1k Randoms and gg. is this skill?


    Yes, because there is supposed to be more to it than that. Its supposed to involve social dynamics of grouping with large amounts of players who may have conflicting interests and wants, as well as the aspects of dealing with intrigue, spying, etc. that may be present in large groups. As well as the idea of coordinating, communicating, and organizational skills that are involved with managing groups that are larger by comparison, as well as the planning aspects of having to deal with long travel times and how to strategiize the tactics revolving around all these factors and discussing them with the group. There is also the economic and political factors of maintaining a larger competitively viable group. Yes not all cases of grouping will involve the same intensity or combination of such factors but it is skill nonetheless compared to groups who dont utilize such aspects, and the higher the numbers advantage the more relevant these aspects become, meaning skill is a part of it (but that has to take into account the other things I mentioned in my last post, regarding the requirement of gameplay skill being neccessary even if you have a numbers advantage).



    Also, if there are cases where its that easy then you could just do the same thing so there shouldn't really be a problem in that case either.

    Well i get that there are a lot of things to organize a group. But if you gonna call this skill - then its skill of the leader + few officers. What about the 99% of the fodder in the group? Where is their skill? Why should some noobies have free wins over skilled players just coz they are in zerg group that invites everyone?

    I wont join zerg group coz i dont like neither the idea of being 1 of the 1200, meaning my actions almost dont matter at all. nor do i like such zerg vs zerg fights where all you see is flashing effects everywhere, spamming mass spells and hoping that after 20 seconds your group is not with half members alive, coz then there is no turning the fight around no matter how good you are
  • ThevoicestHeVoIcEsThevoicestHeVoIcEs Member, Alpha Two
    edited November 3
    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.
    Don't blame "passive" average players. Average Joes of the MMO world don't have time in their life to play in-game politics. Most of people are busy with real lives and have some limited time for their hobbies. As much as I like competitive games, it tends to be the sweatiest of the sweats which destroy the game balance, especially they often do nothing to close the loopholes they actively abuse.

    If the more organised and "serious" guilds want more interesting gameplay experience, then I suggest you don't rig the game with all those plays we regularly see across multiple games:
    * game exploits and mechanics abuse to gain unfair levelling / gear / economic advantage
    * often under table non-aggression pacts and alliances
    * overt massive alliances, this just leads to disappearance of any real competition, and what I call Pax Banana, where part of the playerbase tired of imbalance leaves and more followed due to boredom.
    My lungs taste the air of Time,
    Blown past falling sands…
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited November 3
    The solution to zergs is my tried-and-true idea about tracking the gold losses spent on repairs after deaths. This way, you can monitor zerg activity and take appropriate action if they become a problem

    You people trying to fight the zerg by just clicking in the game are missing the point. The developers should be able to track the groups responsible for zerg behavior. This is why games like EVE have third-party tools called battle report generators. The solution isn't even new; it's just that fantasy game developers often miss the mark. If you can generate a battle report you can conglomerate people and apply actions
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
Sign In or Register to comment.