Mega Guilds

Hey guys, I was watching the Pirate Software Vlhadus video, and I had a thought. I think many people are worried about what’s going to happen when we get guilds that dominate a server. But hear me out—what if there were a few servers that allow a higher population and also permit larger guild sizes? This way, mega guilds would be forced to fight for power in a setting with real stakes, while smaller guilds wouldn’t get pushed aside.

If this is technically absurd or unreasonable, let me know. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

GoldenAbsolute

Aszkalon wrote: »

I see this as a social Experiment.

It would be a very interesting social experiment and maybe there is a place in the alpha to see how that works out.

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

I mean there is this game just doesn't do any of them.

What are some examples of techniques used in the past to help this problem.

Yoh wrote: »

The problem as I see it

I agree I also am of the opinion that people who would want to be in this mega guild type of community would find it much more fun to battle with an enemy of their own size.

George_Black wrote: »

How is it a minor annoyance when guild members have to perform tasks

I think you're kind of under estimating the sheer amount of influence these creators have on their audience. To a degree I think I agree with you and understand what you're saying, the creator is gonna have to put in the hard work to make the guild work. Which therefor means they deserve ability to dominate and own everything. But this isn't just some player this is an influencer with a mind boggling amount of people ready to fight at their whim. Most guilds that have those numbers and didn't start in content have worked very hard to get to that place. (not saying the content creator didn't work hard to form the structure of the guild but I think we can all agree that it is much easier to form a guild if you have 60k viewers on twitch every night)

I also don't think Yoh was talking about working with the guild leader to do stuff in the game I think he was more so referencing the ease in which a fragmented guild would be able to break the communication barrier of having a bunch of branches of the guild. Which essentially makes it one big guild anyway. (Let me know if I'm wrong Yoh)

I do also agree with the fact that if you are able to accumulate 10 generals with 300 members each you have achieved a great feat. However, with a mega guild right off the bat it feels inorganic. I would much prefer we allow Vera to grow and shift with all the new guilds that enter, see alliances fall, see new ones develop as the need arises, and watch them crumble as the members squabble amongst themselves. I worry that if we find ourselves in a situation where the only real option is join in on one of these branches or to be just absolutely demolished at every turn, will kill of a good few of the things that have made Ashes so appealing to us.

BlankReg

I like the idea of mega guilds if there are checks and balances. Study a game like EvE and see what they learned from their experiences of the good and bad of it. Test a mock up mega guild in Alpha to learn.

Can small guilds join powerful Alliances to counter the mega guild? Are there critical resources that small guilds can control that large guilds will have trouble dominating due to the distance issues? I don't see why there couldn't be a small guild bonus if it became necessary. Like a favorable small business loan for the "poor" in real life there could be some advantage.

I just see the mega guild as having to be something bad as a forgone conclusion. There could be something implemented to break up a monopoly. I'm just an optimist, I guess.

LaZzIsFree

this whole beeing scared of mega guild thing is wierd to me ... this game will reward coordinated and organized team play ... if you have a small team like 20 people and want it to keep it that way and dont want to interact with anyone else ... this is not your game .....

smaller guilds will be having some (i hope major) differences in what perks they can have though and so special teams will be in smaller "sub guilds" or "wing guilds" ...

even if you dont like the concept ..for me personally that is HUGE plus..... to actually benefit from the guild system as it is people NEED to form alliances and meta guilds ... so this game is set up in a way that 20 people guilds CANT compete with bigger guilds who have like a 100 people wing for siege pvp and a 300 people main for gathering and crafting and another 100 wing for travel/trading ....

this game wont be cuddling disorganized small groups of players to play a big role in the shaping of the world/content ... you wont be able to feel important on a big scale with just 20 people... you might even feel weak, bc bigger guilds will target you if you dont have formed an alliance at least

but you dont HAVE to ... ... you can be annoyed that your favorite metropolitan node gets destroyed before you were able to expecrience ALL content ... .....

or you can appreciate the effort that went into destroying it and enjoy the new content that gets unlocked and try to be a part of it ... its a choice imo

this game will cater to those who want to engage in community efforts and who want to be a part of something bigger and greater ... it is not catering to a group of like 10 people who want to play by themself in an instanced dungeon farming gear unbothered .... this game is not for everyone ...

i play a strategy mmo at the moment where we have a guild of 100 people as our main ... we have an academy that has 100 people ... and for Server vs server events... bigger more active players like me join our meta alliance strike team that has the 100 best players of our server .... this is what ashes is also supporting and seems to make it even more benefitial ... and i love it ...

.... obviously its always the same that smaller guilds, with less people will be eaten by the bigger teams ... just for protection reasons ...

since in my strategy game i have similar to ashes partial loot pvp ... people will have an incentive to join stronger better guilds for protection... but you dont HAVE to ... we have some smaller guilds here too that stubbornly do their own thing ... you can do that too in ashes ... you can stubbornly NOT engage in siege wars ... you can do your own thing ... and have more risk to be targeted ... but its all a choice .... if you search for an experience that will be detached from other players ... this game wont be catering to you .... and that is great imo

... you can enjoy gathering and farming on your own .... but dont expect to be getting a castle for your guild if you have like 20 people who all just play on weekends for a few hours .... this game is not catering to you, and thats fine ... i really love to have an RPG style mmo that supports meta guilds/alliances by design .... really looking forward ....

Nemeses

Reading through here, I get the impression, none of you know what running even a mid sized guild is like.

Or how people behave in guilds.

One thing from looking at how Nodes work, it’s almost like this game is being built (incredibly suspiciously slowly) to actually create maga guilds.

Yoh

George_Black wrote: »

How is it a minor annoyance when guild members have to perform tasks with the individual guilds leader, in order to increase slots and gain access to benefits?
If these things dont get undertaken the streamer overlord cant have members (to join sieges and wars).
And if these things are undertaken by the small leaders and their members, wouldnt they feel pride in themselves and possibly look after themselves, instead of being the pupets of some streamer?

It's not like as long you have a discord channel to bark orders, people will be able to benefit what guild systems offer. Unless they all do the work.

And as I said, if somebody has 10 generals, who level up and increase their guilds sizes and perks, let that overlord dominate.

Mega guilds, definitionally are organized, super organized. They will systemize whatever guild system you put in front of them. They will not be deterred.
With clear hierarchy and organization, any of their small alliance guilds if they were to step out of line, esp over something as flimsy as 'pride', the leader would get replaced, or the entire alliance will come down on them like a ton of bricks. But as a general rule, you wouldn't promote somebody to leadership that has that kind of petty motivation. Anybody who doesn't tow the party line, would get eliminated long before they see power.

There isn't anything inherit to having smaller guild sizes that prevent them from organizing or working in tandem with each other. And there really isn't much I can see Intrepid can do to stop it.
Honestly, they'd probably be better off trying to get ahead of it by talking to the leadership of these mega guilds so that they either play nice with others, or at the very least take on others their own size.
And if that means separating them off into their own little play pen, so be it.

GoldenAbsolute

BlankReg wrote: »

I like the idea of mega guilds if there are checks and balances.

I'll for sure have to take a look at how mega guilds worked in EvE. I'll do some research on my own but if anyone happens to have a good article or reddit thread that pops into their mind let me know.

I think seeing how small guilds interact once were in the alpha will for sure give us some clarity on how powerful alliances will be. Hard to access resources is actually a really interesting idea to me. That sounds like a really cool concept giving the smaller guilds something that they could control.

I can see the appeal of large guilds having power it 100% appeals to an aspect of high fantasy that I think most of us are looking for. My main fear is just them being oppressive to the smaller guilds. However, I'm sure that if that becomes a problem in the alpha or the betas it'll be addressed.

LaZzIsFree wrote: »

this whole beeing scared of mega guild thing is wierd to me

I don't think anyone is trying to say they don't want to work with the community. I think 90% of the people who are interested in Ashes understand that this is a community based game. I think this is doubly true for anyone that is putting even a moderate amount of effort to interact on the forums. So predominantly I agree with you on most of this: The game should incentive working with other guilds, should 1000% not coddle disorganization, you very much so should expect the world of Verra to develop around you, and you 1000% should appreciate the efforts of the community members who put in the time to make the changes to Verra. Also what is the MMO that you are playing maybe I can get some info on how guild structures there are to better understand. But again I hope no one has thought that I was saying I want Ashes to allow small groups to just do their own thing. I want everyone to work together, I just also want to not have the game devolve into I have to go to either mega guild A. or mega guild B.

Nemeses wrote: »

Reading through here, I get the impression, none of you know what running even a mid sized guild is like.

I do know what being in a mid to smaller mid sized guild is like. But this would be a perfect place to give us some information on your perspective of how mid to mega guilds are. If you do have experience in running or being part of it. Not trying to be rude here but just saying none of you know what it's like isn't very helpful.

My goal with this thread is not to say that I am right, but to work though my thought and have it evolve as the community gives input.

Yoh wrote: »

Mega guilds, definitionally are organized, super organized. They will systemize whatever guild system you put in front of them.

Me and you pretty much have seen eye to eye on most of the ideas here so I dont have much to say here. I would like to say those of you have come to reply on the opposing side of my thought have made me less worried about the idea of just getting absolutely romple stomped into the ground by a mega guild. I am however excited to see how guilds interact in the alpha, and how the guild system evolves with the kinks. If anyone has any evolutions to my idea, or more arguments to the contrary I'm excited to see them. Thanks all

Oh also sorry for letting the thread go for a few days got busy working a stupid amount of overtime

Kreed

Aszkalon wrote: »

GoldenAbsolute wrote: »

many people are worried about what’s going to happen when we get guilds that dominate a server.

I see this as a social Experiment.

No. No, honestly. Not trying to sound arrogant here. I see this as a "Ultimate-kind-of-Test" if People can band together against Someone.

Do they have the Willpower ?
The Willingness ?
The Motivation ?
The Strength of Character ?

How hard can it be to band together against Someone who might or might not - but "MIGHT" annoy the everliving crap out of You ?

Not all Megaguilds are nice.
Not all Megaguilds are friendly.

They might have quite a few Bullies in their Ranks. And MAYBE - intentionally. .

I have already seen this play out as a social experiment in several games. It usually doesnt end well, as I have seen guilds with good people be completely destoyed. Making people completely walk away from the game. All because they were organised and others became jealous of that.

The same can be said for the bad guilds that have terrible people in them with the sole purpose of just being mean to everyone because they can. These types usually drive people off the servers.

Banding together rarely produces a desired outcome, mainly if the guild they are targeting is to large to deal with. Although it produces PvP engaments the so called bad or terrible guild will still dominate and the others will eventually get tired of losing.

If the dominate guild is a decent guild and they are not blood thristy Pvp engaments tend to be better planned and for the most part they leave you alone if you leave them alone. Planned guild verses guild battles are much more organised and structured where everyone can enjoy the game.

Ever since the famous huge Eve online corperation take over occured where people inflitrated and schemed hostile take over. This has given a spot light on what people are capable of. This also effected people outside of the game mentally and physically.

They are devious
They can be conniving
They can become very toxic
They bring down everyone around them
Exteremly self destructive.
There is always a certain amount of infighting

In some other extreme cases, some of these people become the core person they really are, by letting their dark side take over they eventually bring it into their real life and act out. The line gets crossed , when this happens people in real life can get hurt.

Human nature is always interesting, some people want to nurture, be peacful and be productive while others want destroy, be evil and burn everything.

nanfoodle

Mega guilds are forming. I'm not sure it's a problem. But IS needs to plan for their participation in Ashes. Hail Genesis!!

Dygz

Kreed wrote: »

By doing so they will then be able to completely dominate an entire section of the map and completely have a structure that insures they stay on top and protect the main guild node. Having alliances within each other will make it nearly impossible to have a successful raid against them. A complete buffer once setup if its done proper and well coordinated.

Steven expects that splitting into smaller in-game Guilds will cause the leaders of those smaller to have separate goals that cause the Mega-Guilds to essentially fracture.

Kreed

Dygz wrote: »

Kreed wrote: »

By doing so they will then be able to completely dominate an entire section of the map and completely have a structure that insures they stay on top and protect the main guild node. Having alliances within each other will make it nearly impossible to have a successful raid against them. A complete buffer once setup if its done proper and well coordinated.

Steven expects that splitting into smaller in-game Guilds will cause the leaders of those smaller to have separate goals that cause the Mega-Guilds to essentially fracture.

Well one is allowed to dream... I have seen this expectaion before. I will admit some might but for the well organised larger guilds this will not occur. I seen very successful larger guilds build out full factions within themselves that withstood any fracturing.

Arya_Yeshe

If mega guilds become a problem it is the devs fault and only the devs fault since mega guilds are ok!

The players are never the problem, the problem is the devs at all times, they have all the power to fix anything and they still don't do it out of fear and lack of imaginagion (we don't get a lot of people with +130 IQ)

KingDDD

Mega guilds will dominate the area they choose to settle, that's a given. Making the world large enough will both spread resources and force population spread, limiting the ability to completely dominate a server. If small ball guilds are too stupid and too prideful to ally against a massive group, they deserve to be crushed.

Dygz

Kreed wrote: »

Well one is allowed to dream... I have seen this expectaion before. I will admit some might but for the well organised larger guilds this will not occur. I seen very successful larger guilds build out full factions within themselves that withstood any fracturing.

Yep. We shall see.

nanfoodle

Dygz wrote: »

Kreed wrote: »

Well one is allowed to dream... I have seen this expectaion before. I will admit some might but for the well organised larger guilds this will not occur. I seen very successful larger guilds build out full factions within themselves that withstood any fracturing.

Yep. We shall see.

This not uncommon and has its roots in games as old as DAoC. I was in a guild that all chapters of the alliance was a chapter of the guild.

BlackBrony

I find the comparison really strange. In real world we have corporations with billions of people and power and no one bats an eye, in here they all go crazy because of mega guilds.
In a capitalist society, consolidation of power and resources it's just a given.
Ashes is similar to this, only the strong with more power will achieve great things. Therefore big ass guilds is just the way the system works.
The difference here is that the consequences are not dire. I can betray my guild, fight against them and I won't live my livelihood or life, so that will create war and large guilds will fall apart.

Kreed

BlackBrony wrote: »

I find the comparison really strange. In real world we have corporations with billions of people and power and no one bats an eye, in here they all go crazy because of mega guilds.
In a capitalist society, consolidation of power and resources it's just a given.
Ashes is similar to this, only the strong with more power will achieve great things. Therefore big ass guilds is just the way the system works.
The difference here is that the consequences are not dire. I can betray my guild, fight against them and I won't live my livelihood or life, so that will create war and large guilds will fall apart.

I dont have a problem with Mega guilds per say, I have a problem with Game design that limits the guild cap to low numbers that forces the Mega guild to divide into their limit capped factions. If such a guild has divided into 3 to 12 + guilds , the smaller guilds that band together will never be able to work through them.

iccer

George_Black wrote: »

I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.

Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.

If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.

Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.

This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.

Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.

Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.

Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.

Some general passives could be done with quest chains.

Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.

This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.

KingDDD

iccer wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.

Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.

If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.

Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.

This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.

Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.

Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.

Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.

Some general passives could be done with quest chains.

Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.

This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.

All locking stuff behind tasks (gold, quests, etc) does is artificially limit the ability for small guilds. You could make it a percentage increase based on guild population, but that's easily gamed by pooling resources to one person letting them accomplish the task and then carrying on as normal.

iccer

KingDDD wrote: »

iccer wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.

Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.

If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.

Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.

This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.

Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.

Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.

Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.

Some general passives could be done with quest chains.

Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.

This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.

All locking stuff behind tasks (gold, quests, etc) does is artificially limit the ability for small guilds. You could make it a percentage increase based on guild population, but that's easily gamed by pooling resources to one person letting them accomplish the task and then carrying on as normal.

No it doesn't.

Besides, if they're not organized, and can't do stuff together to level up the guild, then do they deserve to level up and get the benefits?

The quests don't have to be something only a large group can do.

My example of a world boss drop, should only be for stuff that hardcore guilds will want, whether it's extra slots, or something similar.

A small 20 people guild can absolutely also level up with combined effort.

It shouldn't just be given out for free.

KingDDD

iccer wrote: »

KingDDD wrote: »

iccer wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

I dont think mega guilds are good for mmos. I think that Devs should protect the game from zergs, by making sure that guilds are formed from people that have bonded together and that can be done by:
Requiring guild members to complete hards quests and sink gold to unlock more slots
Require owpvp raiding and questing at the low guild Lv to unlock the option for guild passives.
Further tasks to unlock each guild passive.
Further quests to allow the guild to participate in castle ownership and alliance decleration.
Less ingame tools to manage large number of people with no effort.

Wars should be between individual guilds vs other players, or true guild alliances with distinct leaders and flags vs rival alliances.

If somebody is dedicated enough to Lv up 10 or so guilds, to provide thousands of members (stranfers to each other as they will be..) with benefits, let them dominate.

Your conversation should aim at finding ways to protect servers from mega guilds. Not how to spend money and development to accomodate mega guilds, which may quit playing as soon as their streamer tells them to.
Unless you like mega guilds and you are here to lobby for them.

This is one of the rare occasions on these forums where I'll absolutely agree with you.

Guild levels and the ability to unlock slots, and other perks should be locked behind actual tasks/achievements.

Whether it is killing a certain boss/obtaining a certain loot drop that allows you to unlock certain guild perk, series of quests or a hard quest chain that allows you to level up, actual gold sink in order to level up, etc.

Archeage required some gold sink once you got to your max xp for the level, and you can only level up once you collect certain items.

Some general passives could be done with quest chains.

Some powerful passives/perks should require a certain hard objective. World boss drop, hard quest, tons of materials/gold, etc.

This also makes it so there's even more competition around stuff early on, while the guilds are still trying to level up.

All locking stuff behind tasks (gold, quests, etc) does is artificially limit the ability for small guilds. You could make it a percentage increase based on guild population, but that's easily gamed by pooling resources to one person letting them accomplish the task and then carrying on as normal.

No it doesn't.

Besides, if they're not organized, and can't do stuff together to level up the guild, then do they deserve to level up and get the benefits?

The quests don't have to be something only a large group can do.

My example of a world boss drop, should only be for stuff that hardcore guilds will want, whether it's extra slots, or something similar.

A small 20 people guild can absolutely also level up with combined effort.

It shouldn't just be given out for free.

If its a gold sink to unlock passives, more players = more gold. If its a quest chain more people = more ability to complete said quest. Large guilds are just (if not more) organized than smaller guilds. The limits created by population incentivized guild leveling lets larger guilds snowball significantly faster than smaller guilds. I did say you could make quests based on population of the guild but that's easily gamed.

I never said it should be given out for free or that small guilds cannot.

Child Item