Githal wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more". Yep they need to introduce either friendly fire. For example any group of 8 has friendly fire toward any other group no matter if they are from same guild. Or some mass spells that oneshot zergs Like the friendly fire wont apply in Node/guild wars, in sieges, between non combatant flagged players So if you want to do world boss you can be non combatants, and face the boss as 5 groups, but if you want to kill some other group there, then you will be combatant and friendly fire will apply just drag the "Deathball" into a choke point and throw all your groups AoE ontop of them at once if games do aoe properly it kinda demolishes the entire deathball, all that need to be done there is no aoe caps and no mass raid healing Obviously you never fought a zerg group before, or if you did - you were in another zerg group (maybe even bigger)
Veeshan wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more". Yep they need to introduce either friendly fire. For example any group of 8 has friendly fire toward any other group no matter if they are from same guild. Or some mass spells that oneshot zergs Like the friendly fire wont apply in Node/guild wars, in sieges, between non combatant flagged players So if you want to do world boss you can be non combatants, and face the boss as 5 groups, but if you want to kill some other group there, then you will be combatant and friendly fire will apply just drag the "Deathball" into a choke point and throw all your groups AoE ontop of them at once if games do aoe properly it kinda demolishes the entire deathball, all that need to be done there is no aoe caps and no mass raid healing
Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more". Yep they need to introduce either friendly fire. For example any group of 8 has friendly fire toward any other group no matter if they are from same guild. Or some mass spells that oneshot zergs Like the friendly fire wont apply in Node/guild wars, in sieges, between non combatant flagged players So if you want to do world boss you can be non combatants, and face the boss as 5 groups, but if you want to kill some other group there, then you will be combatant and friendly fire will apply
Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more".
Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2
Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball.
Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage
Veeshan wrote: » Githal wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more". Yep they need to introduce either friendly fire. For example any group of 8 has friendly fire toward any other group no matter if they are from same guild. Or some mass spells that oneshot zergs Like the friendly fire wont apply in Node/guild wars, in sieges, between non combatant flagged players So if you want to do world boss you can be non combatants, and face the boss as 5 groups, but if you want to kill some other group there, then you will be combatant and friendly fire will apply just drag the "Deathball" into a choke point and throw all your groups AoE ontop of them at once if games do aoe properly it kinda demolishes the entire deathball, all that need to be done there is no aoe caps and no mass raid healing Obviously you never fought a zerg group before, or if you did - you were in another zerg group (maybe even bigger) Every game i play is typicaly zerg pvp games and 90% of the time im on the smaller side cause if u make a zerg there less pvp options. Ive played Archage, Crowfall, Darkfall, Darkfall unholy war, Myth of Empire, Fractured, Albion online and much more and always in small/medium size guilds Archage out 25man guild dismanlted a 100+ streamer guild via hit and run tactics on there trade runs, espionage/spyies. We stole upwards fo 500+ tradepacks off their guild plot, stress got the the leader and he basicly just started kicking 70% of the guild out trying to find a spy and still failed In Crowfall our main enemy guild was the2 largest guild who decided to ally up together sop they could "Win" the alpha/beta i also played heavily in this game in 1-3 man groups and constantly fought 3-10+ groups at a decent success rate Darkfall faction were constantly changing due to player/guild politic alliances zergs tend to form then the other guild truced and allied up to knock them off there zerg pedistal and then disbanded alliance into the smaller guild again Myth of Empire: Chinese game that basicly became the whole server of chinese vs the in their word the dirty foreigners and out 10-15 man guild were constantly fighting off 25-50 chinese never lost our city until we quit the game Albion online 20-30 man guild where most guild ranged between 100-1500 held our own fairly well using choke points and AoE's So yes we vs zergs constantly we just use/emply stratergy like hit and run, choke points+ Synchronised AoE or ambush tactics to turn the odds instead of complaining about it we tend to see it as a challenge alot of the time, different player mentality i guess. Also when it comes to factions each player will typical be in 2 factions the node and their guild sometimes they might be fighting their own guild in node wars. Since nodes can only have so many building for crafting u cant do it all at once city so ull probaly have members in other nodes outside of your own.
Noaani wrote: » deathwish wrote: » Probably the most important feedback I will bring over to AoC. If you're not apart of the mega super multi guild that controls the server you are not allowed to play the game. Meaning you either get the benefits of being the #1 guild on the server and snowball or you become content to be farmed by the #1 guild and quit the game to do something more fun. This is kind of the design intent if Ashes. The game is built to appeal to the 1% at the top. It is built around a few people being able to shape what others can and can not do.
deathwish wrote: » Probably the most important feedback I will bring over to AoC. If you're not apart of the mega super multi guild that controls the server you are not allowed to play the game. Meaning you either get the benefits of being the #1 guild on the server and snowball or you become content to be farmed by the #1 guild and quit the game to do something more fun.
Spif wrote: » All that smaller groups need to be competitive (against lower skill zergs, don't try to tell me that 10 should beat 30 if skill levels are the same) is no AE caps for damage, and healing that works like we already saw in the Cleric video. Honestly, the groupwide healing we saw was fairly weak. I think that is a GOOD thing. Damage that scales up against a "zerg" (IE, you cast an AE debuff that explodes for X AE damage after a few seconds on every target caught by the debuff) is usually bad IMO, because it punishes anyone in a tight formation, even just 8 people. Factions? Lets see how A2 works. A large enough world means the whole thing will not be takable by one group. No fast travel makes the world very very large. As far as raid events getting zerged is concerned, this can maybe be fixed by setting friendly fire on between guild members and node members that are not in the same raid. Limiting raid-wide buffs/protections is another good way to hinder zergs. I'm not talking about long term buffs, I'm talking about short term stuff, chants, Tank protection auras, ground target heals, etc. Force every group in the zerg to have a bard, tank, cleric, etc.
Spif wrote: » Force every group in the zerg to have a bard, tank, cleric, etc.
Dimitraeos wrote: » That way the zerg cant utilize it against a smaller group as effectively as a smaller group against the large. It doesnt have to be a massive damage scaling ramp, but enough to make the zerg think twice about positioning/formation.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » That way the zerg cant utilize it against a smaller group as effectively as a smaller group against the large. It doesnt have to be a massive damage scaling ramp, but enough to make the zerg think twice about positioning/formation. I still feel like you're operating under the assumption that the game will only have truly small groups fighting somewhat bigger groups, rather than the quite likely reality that it'll be more like "a huge group fighting a ginormous one". Even if your preference of "an aoe hit 16+ people way harder" would immediately apply to any raid-sized group. And raid-sized groups would be barely even a start of a zerg. 40 people is nothing, yet 40 people would be hit for a ton with a scaled aoe.
arkileo wrote: » I disagree with the assessment that "because it didn't work in x game, it won't work in y game" Ashes is a systems-heavy game. If it devolves into 1-guild dominance, then I imagine they'll introduce some system to negate that. Just because x game didn't feel the need or spend the effort to find a solution, doesn't mean Intrepid won't. I'm not opposed to multiple factions, but like others have said, I think it's way too late. Plus, depending on how they're implemented, they can have the big downside requiring the devs to make content that only ~50% of the players will see, thereby reducing the amount of content available to everyone.
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Meanwhile the game is going for one continent to be 20 times the size of T&T's map. Good luck covering all that territory. The problem of coverage sorts dominion issues out.
Kilion wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Meanwhile the game is going for one continent to be 20 times the size of T&T's map. Good luck covering all that territory. The problem of coverage sorts dominion issues out. And with the mayor election processes not being subjected to gate keeping processes, the only way to maintain control would be to drive out any competition which basically would mean full demographic control over the server, basically 50k accounts registered for control over this ONE server. This isn't going to happen, if anything I'd expect maybe 1 guild per region being able to have maybe 50% control over a server and maybe 3-4 influencers for short amounts of times. But full control over the entire game, still sounds like a nightmare to me that is nothing more than that - a bad dream.
Githal wrote: » Kilion wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Meanwhile the game is going for one continent to be 20 times the size of T&T's map. Good luck covering all that territory. The problem of coverage sorts dominion issues out. And with the mayor election processes not being subjected to gate keeping processes, the only way to maintain control would be to drive out any competition which basically would mean full demographic control over the server, basically 50k accounts registered for control over this ONE server. This isn't going to happen, if anything I'd expect maybe 1 guild per region being able to have maybe 50% control over a server and maybe 3-4 influencers for short amounts of times. But full control over the entire game, still sounds like a nightmare to me that is nothing more than that - a bad dream. You will just have 5 ultra large guilds, each dominating 1 full region. So instead having 1 large guild you will have 5, but the end result will be the same- which is - smaller groups will get destroyed. And dont get high hopes, Those 5 large guilds wont fight each other needlessly. Why? Because the SOLE reason they formed this large guilds was to "feel great about destroying smaller guilds" . People like this dont search for fun fights.
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Kilion wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Meanwhile the game is going for one continent to be 20 times the size of T&T's map. Good luck covering all that territory. The problem of coverage sorts dominion issues out. And with the mayor election processes not being subjected to gate keeping processes, the only way to maintain control would be to drive out any competition which basically would mean full demographic control over the server, basically 50k accounts registered for control over this ONE server. This isn't going to happen, if anything I'd expect maybe 1 guild per region being able to have maybe 50% control over a server and maybe 3-4 influencers for short amounts of times. But full control over the entire game, still sounds like a nightmare to me that is nothing more than that - a bad dream. You will just have 5 ultra large guilds, each dominating 1 full region. So instead having 1 large guild you will have 5, but the end result will be the same- which is - smaller groups will get destroyed. And dont get high hopes, Those 5 large guilds wont fight each other needlessly. Why? Because the SOLE reason they formed this large guilds was to "feel great about destroying smaller guilds" . People like this dont search for fun fights. Those are some Jungian demons that haunt you dear. EVE had alliances in the tens of thousands. Composed by corporations (guilds) of 30-100 , each one patrolling their front lines. Also, those large ass Alliances had people dismantling them from the inside due to petty rivalries. One guy threw under the bus a large alliance in EVE cause someone told them "stop whining about your KDR" And I won't cover how many "contracts" for PK i took part in because of said petty rivalries. People would tell us where someone they hated - FROM THEIR OWN GUILD, like the GM's GF - and we would show up to gank them. Yes, spooky spooky cloak and dagger stuff goes down in such guilds. And that is why they fall apart. Especially if the Leader is not charismatic. Those "smaller guilds", those are the guys hitting caravans at random and vanishing. Or should I say "totally not random, the guy you pissed off leaked your route and protection detail numbers to a third party in order to cause grief to you". 🤷♂️
Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Kilion wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Meanwhile the game is going for one continent to be 20 times the size of T&T's map. Good luck covering all that territory. The problem of coverage sorts dominion issues out. And with the mayor election processes not being subjected to gate keeping processes, the only way to maintain control would be to drive out any competition which basically would mean full demographic control over the server, basically 50k accounts registered for control over this ONE server. This isn't going to happen, if anything I'd expect maybe 1 guild per region being able to have maybe 50% control over a server and maybe 3-4 influencers for short amounts of times. But full control over the entire game, still sounds like a nightmare to me that is nothing more than that - a bad dream. You will just have 5 ultra large guilds, each dominating 1 full region. So instead having 1 large guild you will have 5, but the end result will be the same- which is - smaller groups will get destroyed. And dont get high hopes, Those 5 large guilds wont fight each other needlessly. Why? Because the SOLE reason they formed this large guilds was to "feel great about destroying smaller guilds" . People like this dont search for fun fights. Those are some Jungian demons that haunt you dear. EVE had alliances in the tens of thousands. Composed by corporations (guilds) of 30-100 , each one patrolling their front lines. Also, those large ass Alliances had people dismantling them from the inside due to petty rivalries. One guy threw under the bus a large alliance in EVE cause someone told them "stop whining about your KDR" And I won't cover how many "contracts" for PK i took part in because of said petty rivalries. People would tell us where someone they hated - FROM THEIR OWN GUILD, like the GM's GF - and we would show up to gank them. Yes, spooky spooky cloak and dagger stuff goes down in such guilds. And that is why they fall apart. Especially if the Leader is not charismatic. Those "smaller guilds", those are the guys hitting caravans at random and vanishing. Or should I say "totally not random, the guy you pissed off leaked your route and protection detail numbers to a third party in order to cause grief to you". 🤷♂️ i have no doubt that the guilds will fall. This doesnt mean they wont ruin the experience of other players f or several months before this.
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Kilion wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Meanwhile the game is going for one continent to be 20 times the size of T&T's map. Good luck covering all that territory. The problem of coverage sorts dominion issues out. And with the mayor election processes not being subjected to gate keeping processes, the only way to maintain control would be to drive out any competition which basically would mean full demographic control over the server, basically 50k accounts registered for control over this ONE server. This isn't going to happen, if anything I'd expect maybe 1 guild per region being able to have maybe 50% control over a server and maybe 3-4 influencers for short amounts of times. But full control over the entire game, still sounds like a nightmare to me that is nothing more than that - a bad dream. You will just have 5 ultra large guilds, each dominating 1 full region. So instead having 1 large guild you will have 5, but the end result will be the same- which is - smaller groups will get destroyed. And dont get high hopes, Those 5 large guilds wont fight each other needlessly. Why? Because the SOLE reason they formed this large guilds was to "feel great about destroying smaller guilds" . People like this dont search for fun fights. Those are some Jungian demons that haunt you dear. EVE had alliances in the tens of thousands. Composed by corporations (guilds) of 30-100 , each one patrolling their front lines. Also, those large ass Alliances had people dismantling them from the inside due to petty rivalries. One guy threw under the bus a large alliance in EVE cause someone told them "stop whining about your KDR" And I won't cover how many "contracts" for PK i took part in because of said petty rivalries. People would tell us where someone they hated - FROM THEIR OWN GUILD, like the GM's GF - and we would show up to gank them. Yes, spooky spooky cloak and dagger stuff goes down in such guilds. And that is why they fall apart. Especially if the Leader is not charismatic. Those "smaller guilds", those are the guys hitting caravans at random and vanishing. Or should I say "totally not random, the guy you pissed off leaked your route and protection detail numbers to a third party in order to cause grief to you". 🤷♂️ i have no doubt that the guilds will fall. This doesnt mean they wont ruin the experience of other players f or several months before this. Ruin the game? Uhm, they ARE the game. Your arguement about small guilds holds as much water as "small businesses are the backbone of the economy". Nope, Amazon is, you just get to be a seller in it at best 🤷♂️
