Ludullu wrote: » It'll happen. It's inevitable.
nsys wrote: » As long as there is an incentive to grow big, guilds will grow big. I'll give two personal examples. In the recent installment of season of discovery for WoW, I was the GM of the largest and one of the absolute top guilds of the EU realms (racing for World First, fighting for #1 on wclogs). I had about 80 ppl under my wing and the only reason I did not expand more, was because there was no reason to do so as I already had enough insane players. If I had even the slightest incentive to expand more, I would have. I lead the #1 guild/alliance on my server in the "dark crusade" (wh40k mobile game). There was an incentive to grow and while the limit for players was limited, creating sister-alliances was easy. Again, if peaceful conglomeration in one or more coordinated guilds will bring the players an advantage, that will happen. If you want players to fight, force them, incentivize them. There should be peace and stability in the microcosm (aka no perma ganking, random PK), but conflict in the macrocosm. Nobody wants to be the underdog and fight the "big guy". That's why all wow pvp servers sooner or later just "shed" one of the factions.
Lodrig wrote: » nsys wrote: » As long as there is an incentive to grow big, guilds will grow big. I'll give two personal examples. In the recent installment of season of discovery for WoW, I was the GM of the largest and one of the absolute top guilds of the EU realms (racing for World First, fighting for #1 on wclogs). I had about 80 ppl under my wing and the only reason I did not expand more, was because there was no reason to do so as I already had enough insane players. If I had even the slightest incentive to expand more, I would have. I lead the #1 guild/alliance on my server in the "dark crusade" (wh40k mobile game). There was an incentive to grow and while the limit for players was limited, creating sister-alliances was easy. Again, if peaceful conglomeration in one or more coordinated guilds will bring the players an advantage, that will happen. If you want players to fight, force them, incentivize them. There should be peace and stability in the microcosm (aka no perma ganking, random PK), but conflict in the macrocosm. Nobody wants to be the underdog and fight the "big guy". That's why all wow pvp servers sooner or later just "shed" one of the factions. This is why it is essentialy to provide enough content that it can not be monopolized. If any attempt to monopolize content is futile then folks will not try and one of the biggest incentives to zerg will be eliminated. This monopolization problem has been the death of every open world game which lacked either the equivilent of EVE high-sec or a map so large the monopolization was physically impossible. As for WoW, a big part of its problem is that it used a faction binary, such systems are doomed to collapse, like a ball at the top of a hill any purturbation is amplifed. But a Trinity is like a ball in a valley, just as in 1984 any one faction getting dominant will result in the other two teaming up against them. Planetside made good use of this teqnique. Having even more factions can get complex and it's not clear if Ashes psudo-factional gameplay will collapse or not but it's got far more potential then WoW's binary which was doomed right at the point of conception.
Githal wrote: » its not that simple.
Aszkalon wrote: »
Githal wrote: » The issue is that with more content available you will see more Zergs forming. If 1 zerg cant monopolize all points, then you will be seeing enough zergs to cover all spots (at at least most that are the best). Tho i agree that it may help a little, but the solution should be Drastic and destroy zerg groups whatsoever.
Ludullu wrote: » You simply look for other small guilds that are willing to fight against them together. I'm gonna be giving all the feedback I can about guild wars and their pricings, because those should be the main tool we use to fight against megaguilds. Small guilds should have an easier way of wardeccing big guilds and get good rewards if they manage to win the objectives. While big guilds should have huge costs and smaller rewards. You don't need a zerg guild to fight a zerg guild, but you can always create a zerg to fight their zerg. And if you approach the fight smartly enough - you'll win in the long run. Obviously the game's design should support that smart fight and imo that should come from proper content distribution and competiting content spawning. A ton of content will already be prime-time centered, so megaguilds will have to split their forces to try and control all of that. And split forces are easier to fight, cause, considering how loot works in Ashes - those split forces will not have good gear on them. In other words, people just need to be willing to fight. If everyone gives up as soon as they lose once - of course megaguilds will win.
Ludullu wrote: » Githal wrote: » its not that simple. It is simple Unless the enemy has 5k people all in one spot - just bring more people to fight against them and win. If a zerg is growing and no other guilds on the server a preparing to face it by creating their own alliances - those guilds have fucked up their strategy and will lose to the zerg. It's a them problem, rather than a zerg one. Aszkalon wrote: »
Belluccii wrote: » Hello everyone! i've been having this one thing in mind for long while now and since we're close to Alpha 2 and later on the launch of the game i think it's fair to see people's opinions and POVs regarding this particular matter.What do you think about mega guilds/streamer/youtuber guilds doing a complete take over on a server? baring in mind the possibly for ruining the node or the general experience like some other games that released over the recent years with all honesty this may or may not ruin the experience for people. since these guilds tend to sometimes be toxic or just a bunch of in game trolls or just because they're "celebs" they get away from most things. even smaller guilds end up being over shadowed in all events and they get nothing for participation or winning until they either join the bigger ones or quit playing. so yeah. i can't help but wonder about such thing. am i the only one thinking about these things here? i also have a few possible solutions for such thing if the devs ever want to know or have already an implemented system for such thing
novercalis wrote: » I've made a post recently of a potential mechanics to fight off mega guilds. All guilds are subject to a passive tax that is either weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. Up to the dev to decide. These taxes are gold sinks. The tax are broken into brackets. For every X amount of guild members, the more tax you pay as a whole. Then there is also an alliance tax, for every X amount of alliances you have, there is a multiplier that affects your guild tax. example: A guild of 10 players will pay 100g in tax (10g per person basically) A guild of 200 players will pay 20,000g in tax (or 100g per person basically) A guild of 50 players will pay 2,000g in tax (or 50g per person) 4 guilds of 50 players in alliance will pay 7,500g per guild for a total of 30,000g every alliance is a multipler. 2,500x3 alliance = 7500 per guild in that alliance contributing for a total of 30,000 or 150g per person. If they are able to maintain that, through city taxes or whatnot, fair play. But it is going to require a great deal of teamwork and grind from everyone to pull their weight. This will cause stress/frictions for the non organized guilds and headaches for the organized ones. This will also benefits the normal guilds who can sustain themselves due to their sizes. Obviously the math formula can be adjust accordingly, as I am giving a framework solution.
Nemeses wrote: » For me, they need to set maybe 10 servers for streamers, and if caught streaming on a non streamer server, get banned, but they won’t as it’s very hard to police. Second, putting blocks on streaming won’t work either, as it will effect and piss off every small guild, I often stream my screen, to show people in the guild things, take this away, and I’d not be a happy bunny. It’s a hard fix, I’m not sure how, besides blocking them from severs not marked as streamer servers.
Githal wrote: » Castle sieges have cap of 250 players. So no, its not about who brings more players. So you bring better players to win.
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.
Githal wrote: » And in the open world its the opposite - you bring more players to win.
Ace1234 wrote: » I don't really understand the problem, isn't one major point of the game to have content that rewards organized/social group play? If its a matter of concern that big groups can just easily blitz through content/smaller groups, that should only be possible as long as skill/strategy, and coordination is leveraged (ya know...actual gameplay), in which case the larger group wins- hense the social aspect of the game design. If the concern is that both groups are equally skilled in almost every way but your group size is too small to compete, well, that is still a skill issue. Leverage your social skills to coordinate with other guilds/groups and form alliances to combat other large guilds/alliances for balanced gameplay, as it should be imo. Smaller groups tend to naturally coordinate better so that can give you a built in way to combat larger groups providing the gameplay is well designed and skill based where numbers don't make things an easy button win. If you are skilled/coordinated enough to dominate the content then that is part of your risk or "skin in the game", and you should be rewarded for that. If you want everything to be completely balanced for small groups and solo play, then the game isn't soley focused on that, but there will be content and progression paths that exist to accomodate those players to an extent (hense having arena competitions at various scalings like 1v1, 3v3, etc., or small group pve content like events and such, etc.), but the biggest baddest content is focused on rewarding the biggest baddest groups.
Mork wrote: » What if when you create a guild, you have to choose your guilde size (you can later change the guild size but you have to remake those alliances within the rules) and then impose alliance rules for determined different size guilds like: allow 1 alliance to Big guilds (any size) allow 2 alliances to Medium guilds (1 Big max) allow 3 alliances to Small guilds (1 Big max and 1 Medium max) allow 4 alliances to Tiny guilds (1 Big max and 1 Medium max) Change the numbers as you like ofc, but with something like this, even though you are a Tiny guild, you could make alliances and have the same numbers as the Big ones (more disorganized because its through much more different guilds)
