KingDDD wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
nanfoodle wrote: » 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.
Kreed wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Steven wants those mega-guilds to fracture into smaller guilds. 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.
Dygz wrote: » Steven wants those mega-guilds to fracture into smaller guilds.
ShivaFang wrote: » Kreed wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Steven wants those mega-guilds to fracture into smaller guilds. 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. Obstensibly. Forcing mega guilds into smaller guilds creates defined fractures that allow for dissention and players going in different ways. Even within a guild, there is a division of groups and bonuses - so you can clearly see that you aren't in the 'main group' and that others are getting more bonuses than you (unlike other games where they can string you along) I don't think mega guilds will survive long with these mechanics - especially not 'zerg' guilds where the plebs get nothing and the core group gets everything.
Apok wrote: » people like that announce where they go, I just avoid servers where streamers are going and never deal with this.
Kreed wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
h3llsing212 wrote: » Kreed wrote: » 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. I used to be part of a mega guild called DROW. It didn't matter if a game had a limit on guilds, we found a way to stay organized.
nanfoodle wrote: » Steven has some designs to help deal with zurgs and large guilds. Look up guild buffs. You have to pick between having more members or buffs your members with more buffs. PvP events will also require raids to brek up into small groups to deal smaller events with in the bigger event. I think Steven is going in the right direction. It's his desire to give us tools to even the playing field. I'm sure he will keep things adjusting in that direction.
Kreed wrote: » Remember the game design the smaller portion guilds will have stronger stats, If the main guild max's capacity of 300 or 500 and its splinters are of 5 guilds allowed into an aliance that have 50 or 100 people within. This means that these splinter guilds can be used as buffers for each of the nodes they control. The main guild will be able to feed these guilds with players and the smaller guilds will be tougher and supplies will move back and forth between the alliance as a whole.
ShivaFang wrote: » Kreed wrote: » Remember the game design the smaller portion guilds will have stronger stats, If the main guild max's capacity of 300 or 500 and its splinters are of 5 guilds allowed into an aliance that have 50 or 100 people within. This means that these splinter guilds can be used as buffers for each of the nodes they control. The main guild will be able to feed these guilds with players and the smaller guilds will be tougher and supplies will move back and forth between the alliance as a whole. Steven has described that these perks are addigned to squads, and that there are enforced hierarchies of squads. It will be very clear to many guilds who is on the in group and out group based on where they are placed in the heirarchies, who gets the perks and who gets the rewards. Steven likes strife and conflict - and splintering megaguilds into smaller guilds create seams that are easy to create strife between as the 'main guild' gets rewards the others can't.
warlordthetank wrote: » Mega guilds will just make sister guilds and form alliances to control multiple zone either way, big guilds are already making alliances like the guild i'm in, at the end of the day those alliances will dominate the server unless a mega guild or another big guilds with alliances comes to the same server.
