Realm Size vs World / Mega guilds / zerg

Hey, wasn't sure if this topic had been covered yet, and wanted to throw my two cents in on it.
basically, I want to know how Ashes will Handel realm populations vs what the world is designed for, not speaking about performance, but rather I believe that when servers become too large it can actually be a bad thing, and have a massive effect on the way the game is played, as often times these "Mega guilds" can form and run everything and I worry that Ashes' systems are extremely vulnerable to this sort of thing happening. and what others thoughts on it were.
I can give my personal experience in other games to show my perspective on the matter. In Classic WoW for example on my server during the AQ event (for those unfamiliar it is a server-wide event that is driven by player resources) our realm was basically controlled entirely by 1 "mega-guild" that had cross-faction ties. the amount of griefing and sheer degenerate behaviour that happened during this event was legendary. it was "Conform to the demands of the mega guild or be crushed" and with basically no hopes of fighting back against a literal army of players in a zone that was far too small to handle the amount that was added, it was impossible to avoid, also the event was driven by player contributions which were completely trivialized by such massive zerg efforts by these sorts of Mega-guilds.
I really want to know if ashes will draw a line saying "Hey our game isn't designed for this many players, even if our servers can technically handle it, the effect on gameplay is too great"

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Prieston wrote: »

as no matter what measures are put in place eventually by sheer numbers its possible to overwhelm and trivialize content and overrun the world.

The first thing that is required for this to happen, is for there to be enough players wanting to do it.

As I outlined, Intrepid have done a lot to make it so that there wont be a lot of people that want to do this.

The idea of limiting players isn't something that would work. If a server is home to 5000 players and 500 of them are in an alliance, that is functionally no different to a server that is home to 2000 players with an alliance of 200 players.

The difference is that if the game world were the same size, one would feel empty and the other would feel alive. You would be just as oppressed in either.

Rather than taking that clearly non-starter route that you think you want, Intrepid have put work in to eliminating the root cause of the problem. That root cause is not a large server population, it is the fact that players can be more successful when working together like this, even if it is to the detriment to others.

Since that is what the problem is, that is where Intrepid have taken aim.

As to you saying you have seen it go wrong in a serverwide event - well, yeah, that's my point. Events like that don't get the time and effort put in to them that the game as a whole does. They are literally developed based on the idea of "it would be cool if". They go wrong all the time.

What you are saying here is that you have not seen a developer put that effort in and fail, as you earlier claimed. Rather, you have seen a developer not put any effort in and fail, which obviously doesn't mean a whole lot.

Khronus

Mega guilds and zergs are trash. They do ruin games. Last Oasis could have been one of the best open world pvp games to date but died within the first week it blew up because of 100+ servers, a clan named OWO owned 75+ servers. The servers they didn't have the numbers for had large clans ally with them so if we messed with those clans, 40+ people would roll up and destroy us. The game was absolutely unplayable.

If AOC shapes up to be the type of game it seems it will be, giant zergs will destroy the game and people will simply cancel subs and move onto something playable. I hope this is not the case. I like the guild size cap and limitations to sieges. I like that there is no fast travel and I like the corruption system as all of these are ways to deter zergs from working. Now zergs vs PVE is another issue I have. I really hope I am not able to just bring 300 people to down end game content. This would be poor design. I know that this is a hot button topic but think about it, zerging any bosses in any mmos has never been "enjoyable". I want to earn my kills and loot.

MoGod

Khronus wrote: »

Mega guilds and zergs are trash. They do ruin games. Last Oasis could have been one of the best open world pvp games to date but died within the first week it blew up because of 100+ servers, a clan named OWO owned 75+ servers. The servers they didn't have the numbers for had large clans ally with them so if we messed with those clans, 40+ people would roll up and destroy us. The game was absolutely unplayable.

If AOC shapes up to be the type of game it seems it will be, giant zergs will destroy the game and people will simply cancel subs and move onto something playable. I hope this is not the case. I like the guild size cap and limitations to sieges. I like that there is no fast travel and I like the corruption system as all of these are ways to deter zergs from working. Now zergs vs PVE is another issue I have. I really hope I am not able to just bring 300 people to down end game content. This would be poor design. I know that this is a hot button topic but think about it, zerging any bosses in any mmos has never been "enjoyable". I want to earn my kills and loot.

You are so right seen way to many zergs in games and been a part of them to many times and they flat out ruin games GW2, BSG, Elite Dangerous just to name a few with over 100 players just rolling over maps, the zergs need to end.

Warth

Prieston wrote: »

no, you missed the point of the entire discussion. my point has nothing to do with how guilds function or how nodes work, just a simple question of if server populations should or should not be capped based around game design. t it

Server population really doesn't matter in this regard. The amount of concurrent players allowed to play on the server does.

With ~ 250km2 of habitable landmass an projected 10k players concurrent,

that would mean about 25,000 m2 of space per person. The current limitation seem to be just fine in this regard.

Better question would be if they were able to populate this massive world with interesting content to a sufficient degree

Blandmarrow

Well, if we take a look at the vanilla WoW private server Nostalrius we have a good example of when there is not enough world for everyone. The server had over 10k players online on a single realm most of the time which I experienced and let me tell you, it was too crowded.

The world should have tons of players for sure, it's a MMO after all, but when you could not go anywhere in any zone without always having another player on your screen you'll have to ask yourself if capping a server is for the greater good.

WoW is not directly applicable to Ashes systems, but with how the game was designed for vanilla, it was clearly too much.

Prieston

Blandmarrow wrote: »

Well, if we take a look at the vanilla WoW private server Nostalrius we have a good example of when there is not enough world for everyone. The server had over 10k players online on a single server most of the time which I experienced and let me tell you, it was too crowded.

The world should have tons of players for sure, it's a MMO after all, but when you could not go anywhere in any zone without always having another player on your screen you'll have to ask yourself if capping a server is for the greater good.

WoW is not directly applicable to Ashes systems, but with how the game was designed for vanilla, it was clearly too much.

this is exactly what I meant. and my concern, while I understand that Ashes is a very different game I wonder if player realm sizes should be capped to fit the needs of the game. instead of just what the technical side will allow

Warth

Prieston wrote: »

Blandmarrow wrote: »

Well, if we take a look at the vanilla WoW private server Nostalrius we have a good example of when there is not enough world for everyone. The server had over 10k players online on a single server most of the time which I experienced and let me tell you, it was too crowded.

The world should have tons of players for sure, it's a MMO after all, but when you could not go anywhere in any zone without always having another player on your screen you'll have to ask yourself if capping a server is for the greater good.

WoW is not directly applicable to Ashes systems, but with how the game was designed for vanilla, it was clearly too much.

this is exactly what I meant. and my concern, while I understand that Ashes is a very different game I wonder if player realm sizes should be capped to fit the needs of the game. instead of just what the technical side will allow

player realm size is capped.
We have receiced infos about that like 3 years ago.

Noaani

Blandmarrow wrote: »

Well, if we take a look at the vanilla WoW private server Nostalrius we have a good example of when there is not enough world for everyone. The server had over 10k players online on a single realm most of the time which I experienced and let me tell you, it was too crowded.

The world should have tons of players for sure, it's a MMO after all, but when you could not go anywhere in any zone without always having another player on your screen you'll have to ask yourself if capping a server is for the greater good.

WoW is not directly applicable to Ashes systems, but with how the game was designed for vanilla, it was clearly too much.

While WoW isn't directly applicable, a private server of WoW is even less so.

I mean, the people running it specifically allowed for more people to log in to the server at the same time than Blizzard allow for, and did so without any thought as to what would happen.

If anyone thinks Intrepid would make this same mistake as this, they clearly haven't looked in to who is on the team.

Voidwalkers

I'd say it's density, not population, that causes problems. Given the currently proposed ideal server population (~50k, with 10k concurrent login) , the sheer size of Verra, and the lack of means for fast travel, I don't see how a mega guild of a few hundred ppl will be able to ruin the gameplay of an entire server, unless somehow you can organize & run a mega guild consisting thousands of ppl.

In your wow example, the root of the problem is the whole server at that point was being tunneled into a single location for content - AQ, which makes it relatively easy for a zerg to dominate. This hopefully will not be the case in Ashes, as high-end PvE contents are unlocked as nodes progress, and eventually there should be enough contents spread through-out Verra, eliminating the need for the whole server to gather in one place.

And if you want to see an example of a game-world so huge that even multiple mega alliance cannot dominate, check out Eve Online. Mega alliances are a thing in Eve (the top 5 alliances have 10k ~ 29k members each, although that number include alts & inactive players). But even the largest alliance (Goons) cannot dominate the server. The most they could do is bullying, but New Eden is so vast that you can always move to somewhere & avoid them. In recent years ppl also periodically band together to start wars against them too.

insomnia

There is a cap on the guild size and the guild would have to focus on size, so it would require some guilds to work together. Or if they want the buffs, then they would need to be even more guilds working together

maouw

The idea of one guild controlling everything is not sustainable. Eventually, people get drunk on power, there's an internal struggle and it falls to pieces. Especially on the internet where anonymity brings out the darker side of most people.

But I'm with Nagash - hats off to any guild that can set up an empire that conquers Verra - even for a day.

Asgerr

If a large guild forms on your server it's honestly fine. I think they said that at max size a guild can be around 350-500 (i forget exactly) so no chance of something like 2K players out of 10K concurrent ones being in control of all.

However I would predict that a single mega guild would ultimately be ok.

Imagine you achieve Metropolis level of development by being the dominant guild in the area. At some point you'll have run out of dungeons and raids to run within the influence of that node. You would then have to dismantle your own Node in a siege.
To do so, a number of players would have to change their residency to a different Node (preferably not a Vassal Node) and attack themselves.

So really they would keep the game flowing for everyone, and you wouldn't have to stress too much about it and reap the rewards.

There are ways they can hog or gate keep content, but that is the Risk vs Reward philosophy at play. If people group up and are successful - reward them for it. Up to you and others to band together to form a counter.

Chances are there will be internal turmoil at some points and splits will occur, new powers will emerge and it will go down in the annals of that server. Hopefully to be reported on these forums for all to read the delightfully entertaining drama.

Ehrgeiz

Voidwalkers wrote: »

I'd say it's density, not population, that causes problems. Given the currently proposed ideal server population (~50k, with 10k concurrent login) , the sheer size of Verra, and the lack of means for fast travel, I don't see how a mega guild of a few hundred ppl will be able to ruin the gameplay of an entire server, unless somehow you can organize & run a mega guild consisting thousands of ppl.

In your wow example, the root of the problem is the whole server at that point was being tunneled into a single location for content - AQ, which makes it relatively easy for a zerg to dominate. This hopefully will not be the case in Ashes, as high-end PvE contents are unlocked as nodes progress, and eventually there should be enough contents spread through-out Verra, eliminating the need for the whole server to gather in one place.

And if you want to see an example of a game-world so huge that even multiple mega alliance cannot dominate, check out Eve Online. Mega alliances are a thing in Eve (the top 5 alliances have 10k ~ 29k members each, although that number include alts & inactive players). But even the largest alliance (Goons) cannot dominate the server. The most they could do is bullying, but New Eden is so vast that you can always move to somewhere & avoid them. In recent years ppl also periodically band together to start wars against them too.

were are right now at a bloodbath war with PAPI forces. Its said that about 50k goons (and friends) vs 150k PAPI players (of course never at the same time lol).

but anyway you cant compare eve to any mmo since eve is truelly unique and the only game that deserve called "mmo"

akabear

Should a clan wish to make alliances and build strength beyond what the game mechanics allow then really they are doing their members and other players on the server a disservice as by creating a mega clan would diminish what value the gameplay might bring overall..Perhaps win the battle every time, but really just lose war.

Haemosu

Has there been any talk on what the servers will be like? Mega-server? Channels per server? Hopping Servers?

Warth

@Voidwalkers

Haemosu wrote: »

Has there been any talk on what the servers will be like? Mega-server? Channels per server? Hopping Servers?

@Haemosu
no server hopping.
no channels
no mega server, but (by our latest info from 2017) 50k accounts per server with 8-10k playing concurrently.

akabear

I think the numbers need to be that or more as less and it gets way too personal, dry and incestuous.

rikardp98

Noaani wrote: »

Prieston wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

Prieston wrote: »

My basic concerns:
1. Players being able to trivialize content via zerging
2. there simply not being enough world to go around if server populations are too high

With the lack of fast travel and guilds sizes being linked to bonuses Zerging should have less of an impact on ashes than other games, as for the size of the world I don't think will be a problem with how the nodes work and how content works around them.

I could be wrong, but from what the devs have said, they want to prevent mass zergs. Yet like everything we will have to wait and see.

I hope you're right. guess I've just seen it fail before so I'm worried lol

You cant really look at WoW and then claim to have seen a competent game developer that has put actual effort in to making a good game has failed in a specific aspect of that.

Blizzard have not been competent or interested in making a good game for almost 15 years now.

So, what is it exactly that you have seen fail?

Sorry for going little off topic, but it's funny to see all these wow haters, as soon as someone even mention wow they turn their back and ignore the whole point/concern.

And I do think that the original developers of world of warcraft really cared and believed in their game, and tried to make it as good as possible. Now, I don't think wow is the perfect game, especially the newer expansions. But you also have to realize that WoW classic is still extremely popular, even after 15-16 years. They did something right that's for sure.

I also think that wow is in the past and developers shou strife to make wow 2.0, they should have it as a good example of a decent game made in 2005.

Noaani

rikardp98 wrote: »

And I do think that the original developers of world of warcraft really cared and believed in their game, and tried to make it as good as possible.

So do I, which is why I said Blizzard haven't been interested in making a good game for almost 15 years. If I wated to say the original developers of WoW weren't interested in making a good game, I would have said that Blizzard haven't been interested in making a good game for almost 20 years.

Also, WoW wasn't made in 2005, it was released in 2004, and largely "made" between 2001 - 2003.

rikardp98

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

And I do think that the original developers of world of warcraft really cared and believed in their game, and tried to make it as good as possible.

So do I, which is why I said Blizzard haven't been interested in making a good game for almost 15 years. If I wated to say the original developers of WoW weren't interested in making a good game, I would have said that Blizzard haven't been interested in making a good game for almost 20 years.

Also, WoW wasn't made in 2005, it was released in 2004, and largely "made" between 2001 - 2003.

Yeah that's true, I always get them mixed up since it was released in EU 2005.

Child Item