bloodprophet wrote: » You can't. In any game that allows players to group this will happen. Doesn't mean it will or won't. I keep asking the question how can anyone stop players from grouping in a game that promotes group play?
Asgerr wrote: » I don't believe there should be anything preventing player agency. If players want to ally and form massive Alliances controlling most of the server, it is their prerogative and they should deal with their own particular challenges that will appear before them for it. However here are a few things to keep in mind: - Large scale PVP like sieges, is capped when it comes to players participating. Therefore you can't get absolutely overpowered by half the server fighting you. - There are different skill paths for Guilds. Extending the guild player cap past the initial 30 or 50, will get a guild to up to 300 members, but they will have fewer skills. Thus it balances out using buffs/skills VS larger size: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guilds#Guild_size. It is possible that a guild of 50 could be stronger in terms of damage output and resource gathering, than one of 300 (where possibly not all 300 will be playing every day) - Raid, dungeon and resource availability, will be dependent on Node development level and placement. This means, that if a large guild wants to try a different raid, they will essentially have to destroy their own progress to experiment with a new node, and see how that one develops/what it unlocks. This poses a number of conundrums and generates internal friction. And internal issues are always the downfall of large guild/alliances - Proper Alliances (as the game mechanic) is possible only between 4 guilds. This means that at best, if 4 guilds -- who all decide to spec into the size skill tree for their guild --join forces, we'll have a force of 1200 players at best. In a world that can allow 10.000 concurrent players initially (and later on up to 50.000 as per this: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Ashes_of_Creation#Server_population) this does not give them as much power as many seem to imagine. Tried to make it as readable as possible with what the forums allow, hope it's not too bad.
Eathan wrote: » So the things you just mentioned are indeed hindering player to an extent. Do you agree with those? If so then you do indeed agree with some form of limitation, and while I am very much in favor of all the things you listed there are still work arounds and that's without the knowledge we will have upon launch. For example sure you can only ally with 4 other guilds officially but what about sister alliance etc. etc. To sum up what I'm saying, the things implemented into the game thus far help but I don't think they are enough and if you can agree with the things listed above then you have to understand, at least to an extent, where others are coming from by offering up ideas to lessen the possibility of massive groups of players overtaking the game based off sheer number and size.
Eathan wrote: » Alright so after catching up on everything I have come to this conclusion. There is nobody that I have spoke with both inside and out of this thread that believes a mega guild takeover is not extremely possible which means one thing. There has to be some kind of limitation in the game from preventing this, but it can't be so defining that it completely kills PvP altogether because as much as I love PvE I love smashing some people with the gear I get doing it. I think there needs to be a true limit on capacity to begin with, but as people have mentioned you can just make sister guilds, so they need to make it to where when guilds team up only one can truly benefit from any given outcome, which makes it pointless for other guilds to help out. Is it not already set up that only the group that did something benefits? They also need to make there be some kind of penalty for a short period of time upon leaving a guild so that you cannot instantly join another and reap rewards of an event that took place prior to your joining of the new guild. Agreed there should be a cool down on leaving and joining a guild. However a lot of people guild hop from a guild that no longer suits them to one that does for a great many reasons. If you leave a guild that fell a part to join another how long would you like to wait to start in the new guild? I have never heard of a game that allows retroactive rewards. Would be interesting. Now the Corruption system is ofc going to help aid in random zerging/ganking, but it isn't perfect. Even without fast travel stopping zergs. What is to stop a player form getting on their mount and riding across the server? Is it how many people are also going the same way? If someone gets on their mount and goes across the map and 499 of their friends go with them how could this be stopped? A live GM banning them for riding across the map? There needs to be some kind of system in place that prevents zerging, for example in another mmo that I had mentioned previously "Albion Online' (Which isn't a great game but had great ideas) made it to where when more than 1 person contributed to a kill the loot a person dropped would be partially destroyed in the process. These large groups don't care about your 10 cabbages or 20 logs. Now I can already hear someone in this thread slamming there computer keyboard screaming that I am against group PvP Which couldn't be further away from the truth. This same system could potentially determine the number of people given in a set area that are engaged in active PvP and then decide accordingly how much loot would be destroyed. Now take note I say destroyed and not dropped. I think the players death should still result in full resource/loot drop but some of the items could be destroyed in the process so the guy dying still loses but the guys winning don't get as much loot. This could also solve an issue which many mmo's face which is item sinks. Lmk what you guys think. I think some of the comments on this thread are arguing whether or not zerging/mega guilds can or cannot be a thing and the truth is that they undeniably are very real and very possible for the games future, especially in it's very early stages. So, instead of telling me it won't happen, because it most certainly can especially if you have any real mmo experience, tell me how we can avoid this and make the game stand out from everything other mmo in the last 15 years
bloodprophet wrote: » Eathan wrote: » Alright so after catching up on everything I have come to this conclusion. There is nobody that I have spoke with both inside and out of this thread that believes a mega guild takeover is not extremely possible which means one thing. There has to be some kind of limitation in the game from preventing this, but it can't be so defining that it completely kills PvP altogether because as much as I love PvE I love smashing some people with the gear I get doing it. I think there needs to be a true limit on capacity to begin with, but as people have mentioned you can just make sister guilds, so they need to make it to where when guilds team up only one can truly benefit from any given outcome, which makes it pointless for other guilds to help out. Is it not already set up that only the group that did something benefits? They also need to make there be some kind of penalty for a short period of time upon leaving a guild so that you cannot instantly join another and reap rewards of an event that took place prior to your joining of the new guild. Agreed there should be a cool down on leaving and joining a guild. However a lot of people guild hop from a guild that no longer suits them to one that does for a great many reasons. If you leave a guild that fell a part to join another how long would you like to wait to start in the new guild? I have never heard of a game that allows retroactive rewards. Would be interesting. Now the Corruption system is ofc going to help aid in random zerging/ganking, but it isn't perfect. Even without fast travel stopping zergs. What is to stop a player form getting on their mount and riding across the server? Is it how many people are also going the same way? If someone gets on their mount and goes across the map and 499 of their friends go with them how could this be stopped? A live GM banning them for riding across the map? There needs to be some kind of system in place that prevents zerging, for example in another mmo that I had mentioned previously "Albion Online' (Which isn't a great game but had great ideas) made it to where when more than 1 person contributed to a kill the loot a person dropped would be partially destroyed in the process. These large groups don't care about your 10 cabbages or 20 logs. Now I can already hear someone in this thread slamming there computer keyboard screaming that I am against group PvP Which couldn't be further away from the truth. This same system could potentially determine the number of people given in a set area that are engaged in active PvP and then decide accordingly how much loot would be destroyed. Now take note I say destroyed and not dropped. I think the players death should still result in full resource/loot drop but some of the items could be destroyed in the process so the guy dying still loses but the guys winning don't get as much loot. This could also solve an issue which many mmo's face which is item sinks. Lmk what you guys think. I think some of the comments on this thread are arguing whether or not zerging/mega guilds can or cannot be a thing and the truth is that they undeniably are very real and very possible for the games future, especially in it's very early stages. So, instead of telling me it won't happen, because it most certainly can especially if you have any real mmo experience, tell me how we can avoid this and make the game stand out from everything other mmo in the last 15 years Never dealt with large mega guilds only heard about them. How big is to big? 8, 16 , 40? If they set max guild size to 50 and remove alliances. Do you think these large groups would not find another way. You think they won't use discord, twiter, reddit to form and communicate. How big of a group can be done in a conference call on a cell phone? They can and will find away to organize. Instead of trying to find creative ways to punish people for succeeding at organizing a large group. Why don't look at ways to work past them?
Nagash wrote: » Like I said before if a guild and its alliance can fight off ever other guild and win every war against them and still hold the map then the deserve to have it in my opinion
Eathan wrote: » Nagash wrote: » Like I said before if a guild and its alliance can fight off every other guild and win every war against them and still hold the map then they deserve to have it in my opinion Yea nobody ever said otherwise
Nagash wrote: » Like I said before if a guild and its alliance can fight off every other guild and win every war against them and still hold the map then they deserve to have it in my opinion
Nagash wrote: » If a guild and its alliance can take other the whole of Verra and keep it like that for a month then I would be super impressed and they deserve it
nilv wrote: » Nagash wrote: » If a guild and its alliance can take other the whole of Verra and keep it like that for a month then I would be super impressed and they deserve it ^ this! I don’t really see a problem with this. I saw this happen a lot in my years with L2 where one side is having all the raid bosses, castles and majority of control over the game. After a while the game gets so freaking boring that someone will switch sides and backstab the controlling side. Which will cause lots of drama and that’s awesome! It will be pretty much up to the players to deal with it, and isn't that exactly what we want to see?
Nagash wrote: » Eathan wrote: » Nagash wrote: » Like I said before if a guild and its alliance can fight off every other guild and win every war against them and still hold the map then they deserve to have it in my opinion Yea nobody ever said otherwise Looks at title "Preventing Guild Alliances" are you sure?
