Suggestion: Introducing Caravan Mechanics to Address Zerg Issues

Among other reasons why the concept of Zerg in real life is not realistic: In real life, resources such as food, water, tools, ammo, armaments, and other resources are finite, especially when in a foreign region far away from the origin of the departure. Unlike in MMORPGs, where players do not need to worry about resource constraints, real-life armies and populations have to consider the availability of resources and plan the logistics of moving a massive army. Maintaining a massive army or population without adequate resources would lead to famine, disease, and other issues.

I wanted to bring up a gameplay mechanic suggestion that could help address the potential "Zerg" issues in the game, following some aspects of the resource and logistics requirement above. We all know that zerging can sometimes take away from the strategic depth and enjoyment of large-scale battles, zergs often cause more grief on the defending side than the attacking side (but this is open to debate), so I'd like to propose a system that encourages more thoughtful coordination and strategy, especially on the aggressor side.

Introducing the Caravan Mechanic:

One of the unique features of Ashes of Creation is its minimal teleportation system, which makes logistics a significant concern. Additionally, the game already includes a caravan mechanic where players can transport resources. Leveraging these mechanics, I suggest introducing a new requirement for player raids when they venture outside their zone of origin (of the raid leaders; therefore, a raid is either an ally to the zone or not an ally).

Caravan Requirement: When a raid group decides to venture into enemy territory or outside their zone of origin for a raid, they must have a caravan accompany them. This caravan would serve as the primary source of supplies (armaments, reagents, food, water, etc) for the raid and perhaps even provide additional unique buffs to the raid based on the rarity of the resources stored in the caravan.

Vulnerability: The caravan, while crucial, would be vulnerable to attacks by opposing players. This adds an element of risk and strategic depth to the raid. If the opposing players manage to destroy the caravan, the raid group will face severe penalties that gradually get worse.

Proximity Matters: To sustain their default HP and energy, raid group members would need to remain close to the caravan. If they stray too far or the caravan is destroyed, they would accumulate penalties. These penalties could impact their combat effectiveness, speed, or other vital stats. If the caravan is destroyed and the players decide to leave the raid, they will lose the ability to track one another and see each other's health bars, etc.

Exemption for Node Citizens: Players who are citizens of a node (and therefore enjoy the protection of their node's defenses) may not need a caravan when participating in a raid within their node. This allows for a distinction between "home turf" and raids that take players into hostile territories for raiding or sieges. This exemption is up for debate as I can see how this exemption may award an unfair advantage to the defending players/raids, after all, the defending side may also resort to Zerg tactics themselves. An alternative suggestion/compromise could be that players of a raid while in their allied node still get penalties if their caravan is destroyed but the penalties would be less severe compared to the raids of other nodes of origin.

Why This Mechanic Helps:

Encourages Strategy: This system encourages raid groups to plan their attacks more strategically, considering logistics, protection of the caravan, and proximity to it during combat.

Reduces Zerging: By introducing these limitations, the game discourages the mindless Zerg rush tactic, promoting a more balanced and calculated approach to raids.

Adds Depth: It adds depth to raiding and caravan gameplay, making Ashes of Creation more engaging and immersive while utilizing two of its unique game features.

I believe that implementing such a system would enhance the overall experience in Ashes of Creation by fostering more dynamic and strategic gameplay. Of course, the specifics would need to be balanced carefully, but I think this idea has the potential to create exciting and memorable moments in the game.

What do you all think? Feel free to share your thoughts and suggestions on this proposed mechanic, and let's discuss how it might improve the game!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Stalwart

This seems awkward to me. I think I get the point, create an objective that can break up large groups. That might be an okay concept, I'm not sure. Creating and defending a caravan so we can group up to clear a dungeon is too much for me though. We might as well just go ungrouped.

I guess one way I could see it is if you need to haul the loot in a caravan after you clear it. So after clearing a dungeon your raid summons and waits for a caravan to escort the loot home. Feels a bit punishing but more in flow with the game. Don't know if that still achieves your original goal though.

Depraved

Galaturc wrote: »

To address a few points made:

1) Let me remind you that the traditional raids in other MMORPGs already offer additional organizational benefits to the existing advantage of having a large number of players on one side, such as the ability to track your raid members on the map, monitor their health bars, being able to auto-target their opponents, etc. These organizational "rewards" come with "no risk", however, and that's often the source of the problem with Zergs.

This suggestion post aims to add a layer of logistical strategy benefiting the prepared raids while punishing the raids if they are not prepared. Currently, this is not the case in any MMORPG out there; it's all gain, no pain with raids not accounting for the challenge of maintaining a big army. There may certainly be other ideas as to how you can add risks to the traditional raids, but AoC already offers a few very useful tools, and the caravan system certainly is one of them to utilize.

2) As Azherae points out, this suggestion would penalize the spontaneously formed raids without the needed preparation and logistics to buff or at least maintain the raid with protected caravans. I am a proponent of forming raids anywhere by anyone, but with a caveat, if the players are not forming this raid in their home nodes with a supply caravan, players will suffer penalties reflecting on their inability to maintain the logistics of the massive numbers in their group. If the players are well prepared, however, they instead benefit from the caravan's bonuses as long as they can protect it.

3) Again, I think it is a valid alternative (and I am now favoring this even more since I posted this suggestion) that ANY raid should suffer penalties if they can't protect their caravan regardless if they're in their home node or not. There would still be a "home turf" advantage such as reforming a new raid with a caravan quickly and continuing their fight while the aggressor raid will not be able to reform as quickly. However, if the aggressors organize a "supply line" of caravans waiting to replace the destroyed ones by forming additional caravans in a neighboring allied node they may be able to maintain their advantage. This adds additional strategy and resources as these other caravans in the "supply line" would need to be protected as well.

4) If the conflict is not happening on either of the sides' home nodes, then there are all sorts of strategies that both sides can use against each other. The point is, that the closer a raid is to your home node, the more advantage you have. This is logistics and resource management 101, observing the most foundational tenant of AoC - Risk and Reward.

you know the smallest raid in aoc is a 16 people group right? basically 2 parties. so anything from 16 people (actually 9, you dont even need both parties to be full) will need to move in slow motion every time they wanna go somewhere. so the big guild will be slowed down to get to any place, but the small guilds will also be slowed down.

a big guild could simply not form a raid group and go out in parties of 8 (maybe statics) and fight like that without the need to form a raid. why? because you cant already hit people in your guild. node wars are the same, you cant hit people in your node.

your suggestion only hurts players who casually group up to do something...ashes wants people to group up so u cant put these hurdles if they want to do so.

Arya_Yeshe

In essence, these ideas seem more like chores that excessively restrict gameplay. they are roadblocks instead of being engaging.

People who would be willing to do stuff would be too constrained.

BeOwningU

NiKr wrote: »

BeOwningU wrote: »

Max guild sizes will be 50 members.

Do you mean this in the context of "most guilds will go for better guild skills, rather than going for member slots"? Cause, just to make sure, 50 will not be max potential size of guilds.

What do you think the max guild size will be? Why will the alliance system not be able to overcome the size you think will be implemented?

Ludullu

BeOwningU wrote: »

What do you think the max guild size will be? Why will the alliance system not be able to overcome the size you think will be implemented?

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guilds#Guild_size
Guild size of 300 is currently the maximum cap that can be attained by leveling the guild and selecting the path of size as opposed to the path of guild skills.[7]

Alliance can have 4 guilds in them, so a maximum of 1200 people.
Once created, the leader can invite up to three other guilds to this alliance, but this is subject to change.[8][49][48]

Galaturc

MissionCreep wrote: »

When there is a raid in Ashes, what are the raiders' risk v rewards and what are the defenders'?

You've raised some genuinely insightful points here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

To me, it does seem like the rewards-versus-risk balance for players in raids, whether they're on the offensive or defensive side, should be fine-tuned.

Right now, it appears that joining a large raid group is a low-risk, high-reward endeavor. It simplifies the organization without introducing any meaningful additional challenges. This situation understandably encourages players to flock to the biggest groups, resulting in the dominance of Zerg-like tactics. Small teams, which should theoretically excel in coordination and communication, don't receive the advantages they should. This imbalance fosters the "bigger is always better" mentality, which isn't conducive to dynamic and strategic gameplay.

To address this, I suggest introducing some organizational challenges associated with larger groups. For instance, we could consider granting more buffs to smaller parties, incentivizing the formation of tighter-knit teams. In contrast, larger raid groups might receive fewer buffs. Additionally, requiring caravans for larger raids could serve as both a logistical challenge and an opportunity for reward. Those who can effectively protect their caravan could earn unique caravan buffs, but those who lose their caravan could face penalties, perhaps in the form of debuffs or other consequences if they continue their raid without a new caravan, discouraging reckless behavior.

Regarding defensive and offensive raids... Defensive raids often receive no tangible rewards and can only maintain their existing holdings while risking them, especially from a siege standpoint. Therefore a 10/90% or a 20/80% win ratio estimate for attacking versus defending raids makes sense to me, as well. The current system indeed needs to favor defenders, especially when they're near their node, so they can build their nodes without hesitation.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that the time commitment and logistics of moving large raid groups across the map, while an important factor, don't seem to be proportionate to the risks involved. There's a real need for more organization and planning when amassing large numbers for a raid, and it's an aspect that should be reflected in the game mechanics. It seems to me that the "supply caravan" for a raid addresses that problem well.

Ultimately, the issue seems to be that there's currently no real downside to having larger numbers in a guild or party. Smaller groups, meanwhile, bear more risk and aren't adequately rewarded for their efforts. This naturally pushes players toward adopting a zerging mentality, which we'd love to see balanced out for a more varied and strategic gameplay experience.

Are they greatly in favor of the raiders?

Yes, I think larger numbers are always favored in MMORPGs, and smaller numbers are rarely favored for the same reason, except for valid bragging rights of beating a larger group. Both larger and smaller parties receive the same benefits, which then equates to the more players you have in your group/raid/guild, the more likely you will win. This means the game is favoring more numbers... when in reality, there should be a risk and reward for larger numbers in a raid.

Or is this a solution in search of a problem?

The concept of Zergs in MMORPGs has always sparked a bit of cringe, but it's important to clarify that Zergs themselves aren't inherently problematic. They can serve a valid purpose in the realm of MMORPGs if only forming a Zerging guild or a raid poses some disadvantages as traditionally portrayed: disorganized and reliant on weaker units in massive numbers. Remember the original Zergs in Starcraft? If we are seeking a problem, it is not the Zergs.

The real problem isn't the existence of Zergs but rather the lack of alternative strategies that are undervalued due to a lack of game mechanics that reward them. In many games, both small and large groups are granted similar advantages, such as the ability to track each other on the map, auto-targeting features, and more. Unfortunately, this often leads to a straightforward equation: the bigger your numbers, the stronger your team, period. However, in reality, it should always be more challenging to control, supply, and manage a larger team. Simply amassing larger numbers shouldn't automatically make your group stronger than a smaller one, irrespective of player skills. This, indeed, lies at the heart of the Zerg problem.

To address this issue, there should be a trade-off for forming a large raid as opposed to remaining small. As it stands, the game mechanics don't adequately encourage such a trade-off. The lack of risk associated with large numbers is what renders the current situation unsustainable.

In essence, what we need are game mechanics that not only acknowledge the benefits of Zergs but also introduce a level of difficulty and risk associated with their size. This would create a more balanced and strategic gaming environment, where players are encouraged to explore a variety of approaches, rather than defaulting to mass numbers as the go-to strategy.

Depraved

Galaturc wrote: »

MissionCreep wrote: »

When there is a raid in Ashes, what are the raiders' risk v rewards and what are the defenders'?

You've raised some genuinely insightful points here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

To me, it does seem like the rewards-versus-risk balance for players in raids, whether they're on the offensive or defensive side, should be fine-tuned.

Right now, it appears that joining a large raid group is a low-risk, high-reward endeavor. It simplifies the organization without introducing any meaningful additional challenges. This situation understandably encourages players to flock to the biggest groups, resulting in the dominance of Zerg-like tactics. Small teams, which should theoretically excel in coordination and communication, don't receive the advantages they should. This imbalance fosters the "bigger is always better" mentality, which isn't conducive to dynamic and strategic gameplay.

To address this, I suggest introducing some organizational challenges associated with larger groups. For instance, we could consider granting more buffs to smaller parties, incentivizing the formation of tighter-knit teams. In contrast, larger raid groups might receive fewer buffs. Additionally, requiring caravans for larger raids could serve as both a logistical challenge and an opportunity for reward. Those who can effectively protect their caravan could earn unique caravan buffs, but those who lose their caravan could face penalties, perhaps in the form of debuffs or other consequences if they continue their raid without a new caravan, discouraging reckless behavior.

Regarding defensive and offensive raids... Defensive raids often receive no tangible rewards and can only maintain their existing holdings while risking them. Therefore a 10/90% or a 20/80% win ratio estimate for attacking versus defending raids makes sense to me, as well. The current system indeed needs to favor defenders, especially when they're near their node, so they can build their nodes without hesitation.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that the time commitment and logistics of moving large raid groups across the map, while an important factor, don't seem to be proportionate to the risks involved. There's a real need for more organization and planning when amassing large numbers for a raid, and it's an aspect that should be reflected in the game mechanics. It seems to me that the "supply caravan" for a raid addresses that problem well.

Ultimately, the issue seems to be that there's currently no real downside to having larger numbers in a guild or party. Smaller groups, meanwhile, bear more risk and aren't adequately rewarded for their efforts. This naturally pushes players toward adopting a zerging mentality, which we'd love to see balanced out for a more varied and strategic gameplay experience.

Are they greatly in favor of the raiders?

Yes, I think larger numbers are always favored in MMORPGs, and smaller numbers are rarely favored for the same reason, except for valid bragging rights of beating a larger group. Both larger and smaller parties receive the same benefits, which then equates to the more players you have in your group/raid/guild, the more likely you will win. This means the game is favoring more numbers... when in reality, there should be a risk and reward for larger numbers in a raid.

Or is this a solution in search of a problem? (Again, not rhetorical!)

The concept of Zergs in MMORPGs has always sparked a bit of cringe, but it's important to clarify that Zergs themselves aren't inherently problematic. They can serve a valid purpose in the realm of MMORPGs if only forming a Zerging guild or a raid poses some disadvantages as traditionally portrayed: disorganized and reliant on weaker units in massive numbers. Remember the original Zergs in Starcraft?

The real problem isn't the existence of Zergs but rather the lack of alternative strategies that are undervalued due to a lack of game mechanics that reward them. In many games, both small and large groups are granted similar advantages, such as the ability to track each other on the map, auto-targeting features, and more. Unfortunately, this often leads to a straightforward equation: the bigger your numbers, the stronger your team, period. However, in reality, it should always be more challenging to control, supply, and manage a larger team. Simply amassing larger numbers shouldn't automatically make your group stronger than a smaller one, irrespective of player skills. This, indeed, lies at the heart of the Zerg problem.

To address this issue, there should be a trade-off for forming a large raid as opposed to remaining small. As it stands, the game mechanics don't adequately encourage such a trade-off. The lack of risk associated with large numbers is what renders the current situation unsustainable.

In essence, what we need are game mechanics that not only acknowledge the benefits of Zergs but also introduce a level of difficulty and risk associated with their size. This would create a more balanced and strategic gaming environment, where players are encouraged to explore a variety of approaches, rather than defaulting to mass numbers as the go-to strategy.

why do you want to keep punishin gplayers for socializing and grouping? if i have 100 friends and you only have 10, why should i get punished?

small guilds already get passives and stuff that big guilds cant get.

if you punish a large raid, guess what? i split my 100 friends in groups of 8 or 16, no debuff no disadvantage no nothing, problem solved. we are still in the same guild and wont be able to hurt each other...

also smaller groups arent always made of good players, they can be headless chickens too. the same instructions "go forward, go back dont chase, rotate right, roate left, kill X person" work for big and small groups as well. there is nothing inherently that makes a player better for being in a small group.

Galaturc

Depraved wrote: »

why do you want to keep punishin gplayers for socializing and grouping? if i have 100 friends and you only have 10, why should i get punished?

small guilds already get passives and stuff that big guilds cant get.

I do not quarrel about having large guilds or having many friends... I don't know what post you are reading, but those are not my statements. However, once you are organizing a party or a raid, how many are in your group should start to matter... because, the way it currently is, the larger you are, the stronger your group becomes. That is promoting a Zerg mentality.

I am starting to think you are in favor of Zergs, which is fine, as long as I know what you are proposing is to maintain the "no risk, more rewards for the Zergs" approach every other MMORPG has taken. I happen to think that this needs balancing.

I am proposing this suggestion not to punish the socializing, or having 100 friends, but to offer a risk element to that group to account for the organizational challenges or logistics that come with it.

if you punish a large raid, guess what? i split my 100 friends in groups of 8 or 16, no debuff no disadvantage no nothing, problem solved. we are still in the same guild and wont be able to hurt each other...

Yes, I would not have a problem with that, at least, now, you have 6 to 12 individual parties that are supposed to function better... This way, you are not managing all of them all at once with no repercussions. Do you see how that is a little more challenging than having a massive group of 40 or 100 players all at once? Currently, there is no advantage of having 5 parties of 8 players versus a raid of 40, by default, you'd prefer a raid of 40 because it is a numbers game, Zergs win.

The alternative is to make the following critical decision; do I get to have better functioning 5 parties of 8, with the caveat that they are all individual, or one raid of 40 but with weaker units and somewhat more challenging logistics - as it should be? Besides all that, I am proposing additional, unique caravan benefits if you can maintain the large group and protect your supplies... adding to the complexity and strategy element of this decision.

also smaller groups arent always made of good players, they can be headless chickens too. the same instructions "go forward, go back dont chase, rotate right, roate left, kill X person" work for big and small groups as well. there is nothing inherently that makes a player better for being in a small group.

Indeed, but this is irrelevant to the post. I never argued that smaller groups are made of good players or that raids are made out of bad players.

All I hear from you is incoherent opposition void of necessary evidence or alternatives. I even think that you have no issue with Zergs in MMORPGs. Again, that is fine as long as I know where you stand. If this is an issue for you as well, however, feel free to add constructively to the conversation and help us devise alternative solutions.

Also, it would help immensely to the clarity of your post if you did not quote my entire post every single time you reply to me.

Ludullu

Galaturc wrote: »

"no risk, more rewards for the Zergs"

I'm curious here. What are the "more rewards" you're foreseen here? Especially in the context of your presumed "random 40 dudes come to a place and make a raid together"?

Mobs/bosses won't give their rewards to all 40 people. There's gonna only be a single small amount of loot from any given encounter. And that zerg would have to be static across MONTHS, if they all want to receive equal amount of rewards for being a zerg.

So what exactly is the "more rewards" here?

Galaturc wrote: »

Yes, I would not have a problem with that, at least, now, you have 6 to 12 individual parties that are supposed to function better... This way, you are not managing all of them all at once with no repercussions. Do you see how that is a little more challenging than having a massive group of 40 or 100 players all at once? Currently, there is no advantage of having 5 parties of 8 players versus a raid of 40, by default, you'd prefer a raid of 40 because it is a numbers game, Zergs win.

Another point of confusion. So I'll just ask a somewhat dumb question. Have you ever played a game that has the concept of "parties"?

And if you have played such a game, have you ever played in a guild that had several such parties in their ranks, all of whom were controlled by a single person in Ventrilo/Team Speak/Discord?

Because your rebuttal here makes literal 0 sense to anyone who has played a game with the concept of parties and guild leaders who give orders to set parties.

5 parties of 8 are ALWAYS better than a crowd of 40 random people. Well, maybe not always. I'm sure that dumbed down soloable mmos benefit from those raids full of randos, because every damn aoe buff/heal goes to the entire fucking crowd. And god I hope this is not the case in Ashes.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Galaturc wrote: »

"no risk, more rewards for the Zergs"

I'm curious here. What are the "more rewards" you're foreseen here? Especially in the context of your presumed "random 40 dudes come to a place and make a raid together"?

Mobs/bosses won't give their rewards to all 40 people. There's gonna only be a single small amount of loot from any given encounter. And that zerg would have to be static across MONTHS, if they all want to receive equal amount of rewards for being a zerg.

So what exactly is the "more rewards" here?

Galaturc wrote: »

Yes, I would not have a problem with that, at least, now, you have 6 to 12 individual parties that are supposed to function better... This way, you are not managing all of them all at once with no repercussions. Do you see how that is a little more challenging than having a massive group of 40 or 100 players all at once? Currently, there is no advantage of having 5 parties of 8 players versus a raid of 40, by default, you'd prefer a raid of 40 because it is a numbers game, Zergs win.

Another point of confusion. So I'll just ask a somewhat dumb question. Have you ever played a game that has the concept of "parties"?

And if you have played such a game, have you ever played in a guild that had several such parties in their ranks, all of whom were controlled by a single person in Ventrilo/Team Speak/Discord?

Because your rebuttal here makes literal 0 sense to anyone who has played a game with the concept of parties and guild leaders who give orders to set parties.

5 parties of 8 are ALWAYS better than a crowd of 40 random people. Well, maybe not always. I'm sure that dumbed down soloable mmos benefit from those raids full of randos, because every damn aoe buff/heal goes to the entire fucking crowd. And god I hope this is not the case in Ashes.

There are really too many inconsistencies in how MMOs apply their benefits and grouping, for this conversation to go anywhere useful, as it is now, huh?

@Galaturc - I need the answer to this myself too. What exactly is a 'Raid' to you?

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

There are really too many inconsistencies in how MMOs apply their benefits and grouping, for this conversation to go anywhere useful, as it is now, huh?

Galaturc - I need the answer to this myself too. What exactly is a 'Raid' to you?

Yeah, I was just trying to see where the OP is coming from, cause it sure as hell seems like definitely not the place where I'm coming from, which usually results in way too many unneeded pages of forum discussions - all based on a misunderstanding.

I shoulda asked this from the start.

Galaturc

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

There are really too many inconsistencies in how MMOs apply their benefits and grouping, for this conversation to go anywhere useful, as it is now, huh?

Galaturc - I need the answer to this myself too. What exactly is a 'Raid' to you?

Yeah, I was just trying to see where the OP is coming from, cause it sure as hell seems like definitely not the place where I'm coming from, which usually results in way too many unneeded pages of forum discussions - all based on a misunderstanding.

I shoulda asked this from the start.

Absolutely, let's take a moment to clarify what we mean by a "raid" in the context of Ashes of Creation, as it's a term that can encompass various scenarios beyond the traditional 40-player dungeon raids.

As far as I'm aware, in Ashes of Creation, a raid isn't solely limited to dungeons; it encompasses a wide range of activities, including sieges and world PvP. What makes a raid special is that it offers advantages like the ability to track your raid mates, monitor their health and energy, and benefit from auto-targeting features—all of which contribute to seamless coordination and strategy through the user interface. As NiKr rightly pointed out, raids often come with buffs and other bonuses that benefit the entire raid group. Interestingly, many of these advantages are also extended to smaller parties in the game.

The crux of the matter, and one that might have been a bit overshadowed by other suggestions in this discussion, is that currently, there's little incentive to opt for a smaller party when you have access to a larger number of players. The coordination required for a large raid doesn't pose any additional difficulty, and organizing a larger number of players doesn't present any logistical challenges, as it ideally should.

To truly enhance the depth and authenticity of MMORPG battle strategies, moving beyond the simplistic approach of merely comparing army sizes (which often leads to Zerg-like tactics) is essential. To achieve this, we need to introduce logistical challenges that come with organizing larger groups of players, such as the necessity for supplies to maintain the morale and performance of a larger force.

Thankfully, Ashes of Creation (AoC) already has a caravan system in place, which presents a significant opportunity. By leveraging this system, AoC has the potential to create a more intricate and realistic representation of battle strategies that require nuanced planning and tactics, rather than relying on a straightforward numbers game. This shift would bring a new level of complexity and immersion to the game, moving beyond the simplicity of just clashing large numbers against each other.

Historically, MMORPGs have leaned toward promoting larger groups. Given the same quality level of 40 players, for instance, a raid of 40 tends to be favored over five parties of 8 players because the in-game tools provided for organization level the playing field. However, this tends to diminish the appeal of other viable tactics and strategies, such as guerrilla tactics, specialized groups for specific tasks like disrupting supply caravans, or a dedicated party for defending strategic locations like a hill or a flag. The current rule seems to be quite straightforward: the more players you have, the better your chances, which doesn't necessarily account for the logistical challenges that should naturally arise with larger armies.

In essence, what I am suggesting here is the introduction of a more balanced approach, where the size of a group isn't the sole determinant of success, and where players are incentivized to explore a wider range of tactics and strategies. This would add depth to the game and ensure that every player's contributions are meaningful, regardless of the size of their group.

What is your definition of a "raid"? And, what is your view on implementing logistical challenges for larger groups so we can have more diverse strategies on the world PvP and siege gameplay rather than every group of players aiming to be part of a Zerg so they can have a shot at protecting their node from other Zergs?

Azherae

My experience is that a 'Raid' is made up of Parties.

So it is never that you are choosing between 'Party' and 'Raid' per se. You are simply combining 3 or 5 Parties into a Raid.

The game I mainly play (and another I like) even has specific separate 'Raid level targeting options' that are entirely separate from the Party ones. There is no tradeoff. You form the Parties first, then the 'Raid'.

So, to me, from that perspective, you wouldn't have been discussing 'X or Y', and therefore the idea wouldn't matter until the 'Raid' was 'beyond the size of a 5x party, 40 person group', or for some reason not coordinated enough to bother even 'forming 5 parties before combining those into the Raid'.

Similarly, from the side of '40 players in a Raid composition defeating 5 groups of eight', the answer would always be simply 'join those 5 groups of 8 into a Raid' even if they don't work that well together.

So I only viewed your suggestions as relative to 'a mostly uncoordinated group of 60, or a 20+Raid40, vs a Raid40'. Which is a situation I can see happening when people just 'randomly converge with the same objective but no leader', and I agree that such things should not be able to win by raw numbers.

But as NiKr says, they generally don't.

Galaturc

Azherae wrote: »

My experience is that a 'Raid' is made up of Parties.

So it is never that you are choosing between 'Party' and 'Raid' per se. You are simply combining 3 or 5 Parties into a Raid.

The game I mainly play (and another I like) even has specific separate 'Raid level targeting options' that are entirely separate from the Party ones. There is no tradeoff. You form the Parties first, then the 'Raid'.

I think, we essentially define it similarly albeit with the contrasts; in other MMORPGs, raids and parties don't offer many different benefits, one allows more players into one group and when you have the option, you simply go with the larger group. There's no decision to be made here, unfortunately.

So, to me, from that perspective, you wouldn't have been discussing 'X or Y', and therefore the idea wouldn't matter until the 'Raid' was 'beyond the size of a 5x party, 40 person group', or for some reason not coordinated enough to bother even 'forming 5 parties before combining those into the Raid'.

Similarly, from the side of '40 players in a Raid composition defeating 5 groups of eight', the answer would always be simply 'join those 5 groups of 8 into a Raid' even if they don't work that well together.

That is my point that currently, there is no incentive to remain in a smaller party, say, during a world PvP event, for the fact that a larger raid offers the same benefits, except with added numbers advantage. In fact, there should be logistical and other strategic shortcomings to having too many in one large group. More numbers should not always equal stronger teams if we would like to implement a variety of tactics to AoC world PvP.

So I only viewed your suggestions as relative to 'a mostly uncoordinated group of 60, or a 20+Raid40, vs a Raid40'. Which is a situation I can see happening when people just 'randomly converge with the same objective but no leader', and I agree that such things should not be able to win by raw numbers.

But as NiKr says, they generally don't.

The essential argument I am making in this post is... We all complain about Zergs in other MMORPGs, that when these games implemented battlefield mechanics, they did not consider the very real challenges of supplying food, water, ammo, and other resources to these larger number of players to maintain their morale and performance, and avoid attrition especially when they are outside in a foreign zone as invaders. In my opinion, as long as we don't account for these challenges that inhibited larger armies from traveling too far in actual human history no matter how well organized and professional they were (even for the Romans or the Mongolians), we will always have to live with Zergs in MMORPGs.

AoC has a real shot at implementing a system that somewhat simulates such challenges in a fun and engaging way while adding diverse gameplay strategies even when deciding to form a party or a raid... all while requiring little effort from a game development perspective as this raid supply caravan mechanic would piggyback on the systems already in place.

Depraved

Galaturc wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

why do you want to keep punishin gplayers for socializing and grouping? if i have 100 friends and you only have 10, why should i get punished?

small guilds already get passives and stuff that big guilds cant get.

I do not quarrel about having large guilds or having many friends... I don't know what post you are reading, but those are not my statements. However, once you are organizing a party or a raid, how many are in your group should start to matter... because, the way it currently is, the larger you are, the stronger your group becomes. That is promoting a Zerg mentality.

I am starting to think you are in favor of Zergs, which is fine, as long as I know what you are proposing is to maintain the "no risk, more rewards for the Zergs" approach every other MMORPG has taken. I happen to think that this needs balancing.

I am proposing this suggestion not to punish the socializing, or having 100 friends, but to offer a risk element to that group to account for the organizational challenges or logistics that come with it.

if you punish a large raid, guess what? i split my 100 friends in groups of 8 or 16, no debuff no disadvantage no nothing, problem solved. we are still in the same guild and wont be able to hurt each other...

Yes, I would not have a problem with that, at least, now, you have 6 to 12 individual parties that are supposed to function better... This way, you are not managing all of them all at once with no repercussions. Do you see how that is a little more challenging than having a massive group of 40 or 100 players all at once? Currently, there is no advantage of having 5 parties of 8 players versus a raid of 40, by default, you'd prefer a raid of 40 because it is a numbers game, Zergs win.

The alternative is to make the following critical decision; do I get to have better functioning 5 parties of 8, with the caveat that they are all individual, or one raid of 40 but with weaker units and somewhat more challenging logistics - as it should be? Besides all that, I am proposing additional, unique caravan benefits if you can maintain the large group and protect your supplies... adding to the complexity and strategy element of this decision.

also smaller groups arent always made of good players, they can be headless chickens too. the same instructions "go forward, go back dont chase, rotate right, roate left, kill X person" work for big and small groups as well. there is nothing inherently that makes a player better for being in a small group.

Indeed, but this is irrelevant to the post. I never argued that smaller groups are made of good players or that raids are made out of bad players.

All I hear from you is incoherent opposition void of necessary evidence or alternatives. I even think that you have no issue with Zergs in MMORPGs. Again, that is fine as long as I know where you stand. If this is an issue for you as well, however, feel free to add constructively to the conversation and help us devise alternative solutions.

Also, it would help immensely to the clarity of your post if you did not quote my entire post every single time you reply to me.

it seems that you have this idea because uve played solo mmorpg. the 2 mmorpg vie played the most (and yes ive played those solo mmorpgs as well) its way more beneficial to divide your guild in smaller groups rather than a big zerg (also 40 people isnt even a zerg). when you play a game where you have to cooperate with your party members to get shit done, rather than just solo players grouped in a party, then splitting in parties is best.

and yes, tis a punishing mechanic for having more friends, because now we are getting these random hurdles for playing together.

also, in node wars, you are kinda limited by the number of people in your node. thats your army. most people will be in the t6 nodes. numbers will be aorund equal. smaller nodes will fight other smaller nodes. big nodes attacking smaller nodes...sucks for them. try to talk to your parent node and get help instead of punishing people for playing together.

and in castle sieges, its 250 vs 250, so equal numbers.

out in the open, not a big reason to move your whole guild to one spot other than to kill a boss or to mass pvp for a spot. and again, you could just divide yourself in parties, which is what happens anyways. this isnt a game where every class can do everything. this is a game where you gonna need a healer, a bard, dps and a tank in each party, so naturally people are gonna group in parties that make sense. no one will want to make a party of 8 dps, or 7 bards and one tank...

the only thing your suggestion is punishing is random casuals who dont play in a cp and are just farming stuff then group together with other random people for an event or a boss, etc. now they are screwed by this caravan mechanic...

Azherae

Galaturc wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

My experience is that a 'Raid' is made up of Parties.

So it is never that you are choosing between 'Party' and 'Raid' per se. You are simply combining 3 or 5 Parties into a Raid.

The game I mainly play (and another I like) even has specific separate 'Raid level targeting options' that are entirely separate from the Party ones. There is no tradeoff. You form the Parties first, then the 'Raid'.

I think, we essentially define it similarly albeit with the contrasts; in other MMORPGs, raids and parties don't offer many different benefits, one allows more players into one group and when you have the option, you simply go with the larger group. There's no decision to be made here, unfortunately.

So, to me, from that perspective, you wouldn't have been discussing 'X or Y', and therefore the idea wouldn't matter until the 'Raid' was 'beyond the size of a 5x party, 40 person group', or for some reason not coordinated enough to bother even 'forming 5 parties before combining those into the Raid'.

Similarly, from the side of '40 players in a Raid composition defeating 5 groups of eight', the answer would always be simply 'join those 5 groups of 8 into a Raid' even if they don't work that well together.

That is my point that currently, there is currently no incentive to remain in a smaller party, say, during a world PvP event, for the fact that a larger raid offers the same benefits, except with added numbers advantage, when in fact there should be logistical and other strategical shortcomings to having too many in one large group. More numbers should not always equal stronger teams if we would like to implement a variety of tactics to AoC world PvP.

So I only viewed your suggestions as relative to 'a mostly uncoordinated group of 60, or a 20+Raid40, vs a Raid40'. Which is a situation I can see happening when people just 'randomly converge with the same objective but no leader', and I agree that such things should not be able to win by raw numbers.

But as NiKr says, they generally don't.

The essential argument I am making in this post is... We all complain about Zergs in other MMORPGs, that when these games implemented battlefield mechanics, they did not consider the very real challenges of supplying food, water, ammo, and other resources to these larger number of players to maintain their morale and performance, and avoid attrition especially when they are outside in a foreign zone as invaders. In my opinion, as long as we don't account for these challenges that inhibited larger armies from traveling too far in actual human history no matter how organized and professional they are (even for the Romans or the Mongolians), we will always have to live with Zergs in MMORPGs.

AoC has a real shot at implementing a system that somewhat simulates such challenges in a fun and engaging way while adding diverse gameplay strategies even when deciding to form a party or a raid... all while requiring little effort from a game development perspective as this raid supply caravan mechanic would piggyback on the systems already in place.

But that's part of MMORPGs that differentiates them from strategy games. It takes an entirely different approach, to cause these to feel even remotely realistic. And even in games where that different approach exists, it wouldn't really be Caravan based, it would be entirely based on the specific things you mentioned.

MMO characters have no hunger (usually), no thirst, no fatigue (at least not for fighting for 5 straight ingame hours, unless you count MP), no oversaturation, no sickness, and sometimes no Ammunition requirements or weight limits.

Adding back even half of those still doesn't change anything, because as long as no character 'must camp out overnight and had to carry their food in a very limited inventory', the Zerg 'win' by simply having everyone bring their own. Which, honestly, is how it works all the time.

Zergs in MMORPGs work moreso because MMORPG characters (and even players) just tend to be more coordinated and serious for these things. You tell a few people 'make sure to bring Steak to boost your Attack', they'll bring Steak. You tell them 'bring stuff to craft ammo for the Rangers', they'll bring the stuff. Those that don't are already 'the unorganized masses'.

In short, at least for me, the challenges 'aren't real', or rather, they're already being simulated as well as they can reasonably be.

I'm probably just not experienced enough to have the benefit of 'being an a Raid group vs a smaller party'. Why do we care if 'smaller parties' have advantages against Raids anyway? It's just 40 people. It's not THAT hard to manage 40 people for 2 days, particularly if they know their roles and required supplies.

Depraved

Azherae wrote: »

Galaturc wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

My experience is that a 'Raid' is made up of Parties.

So it is never that you are choosing between 'Party' and 'Raid' per se. You are simply combining 3 or 5 Parties into a Raid.

The game I mainly play (and another I like) even has specific separate 'Raid level targeting options' that are entirely separate from the Party ones. There is no tradeoff. You form the Parties first, then the 'Raid'.

I think, we essentially define it similarly albeit with the contrasts; in other MMORPGs, raids and parties don't offer many different benefits, one allows more players into one group and when you have the option, you simply go with the larger group. There's no decision to be made here, unfortunately.

So, to me, from that perspective, you wouldn't have been discussing 'X or Y', and therefore the idea wouldn't matter until the 'Raid' was 'beyond the size of a 5x party, 40 person group', or for some reason not coordinated enough to bother even 'forming 5 parties before combining those into the Raid'.

Similarly, from the side of '40 players in a Raid composition defeating 5 groups of eight', the answer would always be simply 'join those 5 groups of 8 into a Raid' even if they don't work that well together.

That is my point that currently, there is currently no incentive to remain in a smaller party, say, during a world PvP event, for the fact that a larger raid offers the same benefits, except with added numbers advantage, when in fact there should be logistical and other strategical shortcomings to having too many in one large group. More numbers should not always equal stronger teams if we would like to implement a variety of tactics to AoC world PvP.

So I only viewed your suggestions as relative to 'a mostly uncoordinated group of 60, or a 20+Raid40, vs a Raid40'. Which is a situation I can see happening when people just 'randomly converge with the same objective but no leader', and I agree that such things should not be able to win by raw numbers.

But as NiKr says, they generally don't.

The essential argument I am making in this post is... We all complain about Zergs in other MMORPGs, that when these games implemented battlefield mechanics, they did not consider the very real challenges of supplying food, water, ammo, and other resources to these larger number of players to maintain their morale and performance, and avoid attrition especially when they are outside in a foreign zone as invaders. In my opinion, as long as we don't account for these challenges that inhibited larger armies from traveling too far in actual human history no matter how organized and professional they are (even for the Romans or the Mongolians), we will always have to live with Zergs in MMORPGs.

AoC has a real shot at implementing a system that somewhat simulates such challenges in a fun and engaging way while adding diverse gameplay strategies even when deciding to form a party or a raid... all while requiring little effort from a game development perspective as this raid supply caravan mechanic would piggyback on the systems already in place.

But that's part of MMORPGs that differentiates them from strategy games. It takes an entirely different approach, to cause these to feel even remotely realistic. And even in games where that different approach exists, it wouldn't really be Caravan based, it would be entirely based on the specific things you mentioned.

MMO characters have no hunger (usually), no thirst, no fatigue (at least not for fighting for 5 straight ingame hours, unless you count MP), no oversaturation, no sickness, and sometimes no Ammunition requirements or weight limits.

Adding back even half of those still doesn't change anything, because as long as no character 'must camp out overnight and had to carry their food in a very limited inventory', the Zerg 'win' by simply having everyone bring their own. Which, honestly, is how it works all the time.

Zergs in MMORPGs work moreso because MMORPG characters (and even players) just tend to be more coordinated and serious for these things. You tell a few people 'make sure to bring Steak to boost your Attack', they'll bring Steak. You tell them 'bring stuff to craft ammo for the Rangers', they'll bring the stuff. Those that don't are already 'the unorganized masses'.

In short, at least for me, the challenges 'aren't real', or rather, they're already being simulated as well as they can reasonably be.

I'm probably just not experienced enough to have the benefit of 'being an a Raid group vs a smaller party'. Why do we care if 'smaller parties' have advantages against Raids anyway? It's just 40 people. It's not THAT hard to manage 40 people for 2 days, particularly if they know their roles and required supplies.

well, chronicles of elyria's sieges were going to be like that. players had to bring their resources, camp outside / near the siege area, survive out in the wild, etc. sieges were supposed to last for days in real time. but the game was designed that way...kind of like a survival mmorpg (you could perma die in that game but you could reincarnate into another character of your family). sadly, the game became vaporware.

the idea was really cool tbh, but the game was designed with that in mind. its a bad idea for ashes.

Azherae

Actually I think I know how to make my point clearer @Galaturc .

The suggestion simulates the wrong thing.

If you look at a MOBA or team shooter, the character respawns when defeated and has to run back to the fight. This isn't actually meant to simulate 'dying in combat', despite also doing that. It's just its own balance thing, because the 'rules of the world' are different. It's arbitrary.

Adding the Caravan is also arbitrary in the same way, so I'm not really saying 'this is a bad idea', just pointing out that it's not really going to achieve what people want.

If a professional 'Mercenary' shows up to a battle, fully geared, with their own food and ammo, and yells out 'I'll join the side that pays me the most', then you pay them and they help you.

16 Mercs? You pay them and now you have a 'Zerg'. By MMO standards, it's fine because the game is designed around those Mercs 'walking for 4 days straight without rest carrying 55lb of food each'. MMOs introduce those limitations in a different SECTOR of the game (when they bother).

Galaturc

Azherae wrote: »

But that's part of MMORPGs that differentiates them from strategy games. It takes an entirely different approach, to cause these to feel even remotely realistic. And even in games where that different approach exists, it wouldn't really be Caravan based, it would be entirely based on the specific things you mentioned.

MMO characters have no hunger (usually), no thirst, no fatigue (at least not for fighting for 5 straight ingame hours, unless you count MP), no oversaturation, no sickness, and sometimes no Ammunition requirements or weight limits.

Adding back even half of those still doesn't change anything, because as long as no character 'must camp out overnight and had to carry their food in a very limited inventory', the Zerg 'win' by simply having everyone bring their own. Which, honestly, is how it works all the time.

Zergs in MMORPGs work moreso because MMORPG characters (and even players) just tend to be more coordinated and serious for these things. You tell a few people 'make sure to bring Steak to boost your Attack', they'll bring Steak. You tell them 'bring stuff to craft ammo for the Rangers', they'll bring the stuff. Those that don't are already 'the unorganized masses'.

In short, at least for me, the challenges 'aren't real', or rather, they're already being simulated as well as they can reasonably be.

I'm probably just not experienced enough to have the benefit of 'being an a Raid group vs a smaller party'. Why do we care if 'smaller parties' have advantages against Raids anyway? It's just 40 people. It's not THAT hard to manage 40 people for 2 days, particularly if they know their roles and required supplies.

Absolutely, I completely agree. When it comes to dungeon raids, organization indeed plays a crucial role in determining success. However, where my suggestion truly shines is during sieges or world PvP, especially those with the potential for 250 vs. 250 or 500 vs. 500 battles (whichever limit AoC ultimately decides upon). This is where I believe we should introduce different strategic considerations when players form their groups.

Your point about the contrast between MMO characters and real-world scenarios is spot on. At their core, these MMORPGs are attempting to simulate battles, albeit not always as realistically as they could. While it might not be practical or enjoyable to implement every aspect of survival maintenance into the game, introducing a debuff when players stray too far from a supply caravan is a straightforward and effective way to address some of these challenges. It adds a layer of realism without making the game overly complicated, making it a valuable addition to enhance the overall gaming experience.

Galaturc

Azherae wrote: »

Actually I think I know how to make my point clearer @Galaturc .

The suggestion simulates the wrong thing.

If you look at a MOBA or team shooter, the character respawns when defeated and has to run back to the fight. This isn't actually meant to simulate 'dying in combat', despite also doing that. It's just its own balance thing, because the 'rules of the world' are different. It's arbitrary.

Adding the Caravan is also arbitrary in the same way, so I'm not really saying 'this is a bad idea', just pointing out that it's not really going to achieve what people want.

If a professional 'Mercenary' shows up to a battle, fully geared, with their own food and ammo, and yells out 'I'll join the side that pays me the most', then you pay them and they help you.

16 Mercs? You pay them and now you have a 'Zerg'. By MMO standards, it's fine because the game is designed around those Mercs 'walking for 4 days straight without rest carrying 55lb of food each'. MMOs introduce those limitations in a different SECTOR of the game (when they bother).

On that point, I wish there were different strategic weights to having a party of 8, a small raid of 16, or a large raid of 40 when someone forms their players into groups. Currently, if you have 1-8 players, you form a party, if you have 9 to 16, form a small raid, 16+, form a large raid. Am I missing a point here?

I wish different party sizes offer various benefits so there is more to it than just the numbers...

Child Item