Azherae wrote: » Githal wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Megaguilds and guild alliances are part of the design. This would fall into the risk vs reward category. And what is the risk there? For any individual guild member, it is technically the risk of not getting any direct material reward at all, for a longer time. Ashes does not simply hand out additional meaningful loot simply for participation, so it lowers the chance of any specific person getting something they want. As long as the overall chance of outsiders/smaller guilds getting something instead of the big guild isn't zero (basically, no true monopolization of content), then the guild members are risking slower growth in a particular aspect of the game.
Githal wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Megaguilds and guild alliances are part of the design. This would fall into the risk vs reward category. And what is the risk there?
Fantmx wrote: » Megaguilds and guild alliances are part of the design. This would fall into the risk vs reward category.
Zehlan wrote: » People want smaller guilds to unite against a zerg this can work but usually foolish because you will lack the coordination/experience of a mega guilds although this tactic would be good for eliminating nodes. The great thing about zergs even smaller ones is you hear about them long before they can get anywhere. The smart thing is to move out of the way unless it cannot be helped again node warfare because zergs are about rolling people and if they don't get action they will disappear quite quickly. Don't try to play a mega guilds game! Small guilds need to use small tactics avoid the zerg, attack their caravans, make raids into their territory strip their resources so they don't grow back for a long time forcing them to spread out thinning their numbers as they get further away from home making their groups more manageable and evening the odds. Good diplomacy will be important so will spying. A tactic i use is to friend every player in an enemy guild and find out when their members mainly play and when almost no one is online attack their infrastructure. You can also use hacks for their comms see who is online and what not if you really looking to get an edge that was huge in EvE. I believe if i remember correctly from worst to best for comms security was discord , ventrilo , teamspeak , mumble for anybody worried about that, I sure would be. You will never stop big guilds from forming it's human nature to ask intrepid to punish big guilds is unfair and selfish. It is also in people's nature to gang up against someone bigger! In DAoC it was always the two smaller realms vs the big one and it was constantly changing who was the big one. Even New World had big guilds and it quite quickly turned into organized smaller guilds attacking beating them back. I do agree it makes me nervous with 1k guilds but until I get some playtime in and see how some things work i am not going to stress over it.
warlordthetank wrote: » Mega guilds will always be on top, wondering how Intrepid will balance it out.
Githal wrote: » warlordthetank wrote: » Mega guilds will always be on top, wondering how Intrepid will balance it out. The real issue is that from all the interviews it seems like Steven dont realize how big of a problem this will be for AOC.
Austrinaut wrote: » I actually really like the idea of streamer servers on release, and they can certainly test it in the alpha. It becomes a roleplay heavy, drama ridden battlescape. Streamers will have feuds just for the roleplay fun of it, and their guilds will cause peak chaos. As part of an alpha test you couldn't ask for a better test group vs control group comparison.
Ludullu wrote: » Steven is the zerg ruler. To him zerg is not really an issue. I'm sure the crumbs of anti-zerg design that we do have didn't even come from Steven.
KingDDD wrote: » Make zergs not have power in objective based fights. You can do this through instancing specific objectives that can be won or lost and give advantages as the fight progresses. EX: In a castle siege there's a sewer complex with a capture the flag objective. Only 40 people per side can be in the sewer at once. If the objective is won by the attacker, there's a significant disadvantage applied to the defenders like less respawns available, guards doing less, siege weapons failing, etc. Zerg guilds are obnoxious, but losing fights is what causes them to splinter. Make them have the ability to lose and you will see less zergs. As for streamers, just stream snipe them.
Githal wrote: » The problem with zergs wont be in Castle sieges, because the numbers there are equal on both sides. 250 vs 250 is not a zerg problem. The problems with zerg come from the open world, World bosses, open world dungeons, farming spots, and ect.
Korela wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Githal wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Megaguilds and guild alliances are part of the design. This would fall into the risk vs reward category. And what is the risk there? For any individual guild member, it is technically the risk of not getting any direct material reward at all, for a longer time. Ashes does not simply hand out additional meaningful loot simply for participation, so it lowers the chance of any specific person getting something they want. As long as the overall chance of outsiders/smaller guilds getting something instead of the big guild isn't zero (basically, no true monopolization of content), then the guild members are risking slower growth in a particular aspect of the game. The zerg receives rare loot --> the zerg leader arranges an auction for this loot between the zerglings --> the highest bidder gets the loot, and the bid is divided equally among the zerglings. If the average bet share over the time of participation in an event with rare loot is equal to or greater than the other income of the zergling over the same time, the zergling will be happy to participate in such events. Given the low chance of losing, this can be considered an almost guaranteed profit. I saw this idea implemented in practice (from the opposite side) in L2 in battles for epic jewelry. I just wanted to share my experience and hear your thoughts on this matter
Githal wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Githal wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Megaguilds and guild alliances are part of the design. This would fall into the risk vs reward category. And what is the risk there? For any individual guild member, it is technically the risk of not getting any direct material reward at all, for a longer time. Ashes does not simply hand out additional meaningful loot simply for participation, so it lowers the chance of any specific person getting something they want. As long as the overall chance of outsiders/smaller guilds getting something instead of the big guild isn't zero (basically, no true monopolization of content), then the guild members are risking slower growth in a particular aspect of the game. Thats something you should put as a REWARD for zerg guilds, not risk. They will own most farming spots, Best Raid bosses and everything that drops best loot. The rest of the players outside the zerg guild will have equal equipment with those with worse gear in the zerg guild. And the top players in the zerg will have Insanely better gear than all other.
Ludullu wrote: » Githal wrote: » The problem with zergs wont be in Castle sieges, because the numbers there are equal on both sides. 250 vs 250 is not a zerg problem. The problems with zerg come from the open world, World bosses, open world dungeons, farming spots, and ect. But in both situations you need to get those 250 people. A 30-member guild that wants to get a castle would have to find friends to help them. The same is true for any other situation where the enemy has bigger numbers. Just seek help.
