There are enough content in the game for big groups, like sieges, wars and ect. The good thing about those contents is that they have cap of players that participate. And no bringing more player is not "SKILL". What skill is it to spam in discord groups or chat to invite players without knowing anything about them. Just invite 1k Randoms and gg. is this skill?
spiritss wrote: » Big guilds always take over. However there is small scale PvP in my opinion. There was in Darkfall and Mortal online at least.
Ace1234 wrote: » There are enough content in the game for big groups, like sieges, wars and ect. The good thing about those contents is that they have cap of players that participate. And no bringing more player is not "SKILL". What skill is it to spam in discord groups or chat to invite players without knowing anything about them. Just invite 1k Randoms and gg. is this skill? Yes, because there is supposed to be more to it than that. Its supposed to involve social dynamics of grouping with large amounts of players who may have conflicting interests and wants, as well as the aspects of dealing with intrigue, spying, etc. that may be present in large groups. As well as the idea of coordinating, communicating, and organizational skills that are involved with managing groups that are larger by comparison, as well as the planning aspects of having to deal with long travel times and how to strategiize the tactics revolving around all these factors and discussing them with the group. There is also the economic and political factors of maintaining a larger competitively viable group. Yes not all cases of grouping will involve the same intensity or combination of such factors but it is skill nonetheless compared to groups who dont utilize such aspects, and the higher the numbers advantage the more relevant these aspects become, meaning skill is a part of it (but that has to take into account the other things I mentioned in my last post, regarding the requirement of gameplay skill being neccessary even if you have a numbers advantage). Also, if there are cases where its that easy then you could just do the same thing so there shouldn't really be a problem in that case either.
Ludullu wrote: » It'll happen. It's inevitable. I hope Intrepid implements a few soft pushes towards splitting up the guilds/alliances into smaller sub-guilds, which will definitely help fight them, but if people want to be passive and never even attempt to go against these megaguilds - nothing will change. And by the sounds of it, current player culture is passive as fuck.
Well i get that there are a lot of things to organize a group. But if you gonna call this skill - then its skill of the leader + few officers. What about the 99% of the fodder in the group? Where is their skill? Why should some noobies have free wins over skilled players just coz they are in zerg group that invites everyone?
I wont join zerg group coz i dont like neither the idea of being 1 of the 1200, meaning my actions almost dont matter at all. nor do i like such zerg vs zerg fights where all you see is flashing effects everywhere, spamming mass spells and hoping that after 20 seconds your group is not with half members alive, coz then there is no turning the fight around no matter how good you are
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
ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: » Don't blame "passive" average players.
Lodrig wrote: » A guild having Patron status in multiple nodes should thus be discouraged but not outright banned, perhaps an upgrade perk needs to be spent to allow each additional patron status, thus presenting an opportunity cost.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » You people trying to fight the zerg by just clicking in the game are missing the point. The developers should be able to track the groups responsible for zerg behavior.
Ace1234 wrote: » To reiterate, it shouldn't be a "free win" if the gameplay is skill-based regardless of the number of players involved, meaning even larger groups should still have to leverage gameplay skill and combat tactics to overpower smaller groups, and the balance comes through the other side equalizing player numbers through their own organization, planning, and responses.
Ace1234 wrote: » Also, again, there should still be other content which doesn't specifically revolve around that kind of gameplay, such as content available for smaller groups and individual players. Please see my first post for clarity.
Ace1234 wrote: » If you haven't experienced the "cog in the machine" type of design, yes, individual player action is obviously "less" impactful on the overall battle, but that doesn't mean that it is "not" impactful. As long as the gameplay is skill-based (regardless of player numbers), then you could potentially still have a noticable influence on the battle even as a "cog", just like in a game series like Battlefield where heroic actions from individual players can turn the tide of the overall battle. There is also the incentive of becoming a leader/officer to where your actions will have even more of an impact through your oversight of other players.
If Intrepid manage to make it so small groups have chance vs zergs - then i wont have any problem with the game design.
Thats another problem with the Zerg groups. Content that should be hard to do even for raid groups will become just TRIVIAL for the zerg to kill. Yes there is the reward splitting i know, but doesnt matter because the loot is still in the zerg while other groups get nothing. And yes ofc smaller groups will do other content, BUT the content with BEST rewards in the game will be all taken by Zergs.
99% of the times is just you thinking you are contributing A LOT for the zerg fight. In reality even if you were not there at all the result would be same. And yes there is 1% of the fights where the fight is actually close win, and some individual actions would matter. Already explained why i wont join zerg group, And this includes creating my own zerg group also. If i want to lead i would lead small group.
Ace1234 wrote: » @Githal If Intrepid manage to make it so small groups have chance vs zergs - then i wont have any problem with the game design. Agreed. Thats another problem with the Zerg groups. Content that should be hard to do even for raid groups will become just TRIVIAL for the zerg to kill. Yes there is the reward splitting i know, but doesnt matter because the loot is still in the zerg while other groups get nothing. And yes ofc smaller groups will do other content, BUT the content with BEST rewards in the game will be all taken by Zergs. Well, this goes back to the skill based aspect. It shouldn't be trivial, providing the combat is strategic, and that the adaptive a.i. kicks in when a large number of players is present, to at least challenge those players. Regardless, the pve aspect isn't as big of a deal as long as players have other ways to engage with the content of their choice, which is where world size, travel times, and dedicated content (like instances or arenas) come into play, so the idea of zergs mowing through easier content wouldn't be that big of a deal (and again, it should still be engaging providing the a.i. is good and the combat design requires skill). Regarding the best rewards being taken by zergs, or the "problem" of zergs dominating specific areas and driving smaller groups away: this goes back to our first response regarding the skill of managing larger groups. The hardest content in the game should require the largest groups, and the largest group content should require the most planning, strategy, skill, and coordination. This added level of investment and engagement should be rewarded, so I think it is reasonable for those groups to have an advantage over smaller groups from both combat gameplay and territorial/resource control perspectives. Why should a smaller group doing easier content be able to get the same rewards as a larger group taking on the hardest content? Just like arena pvp probably shouldn't reward the best gear for the open world. The rewards should reflect the level of challenge and investment by the players, but that doesn't mean different playstyles can't be rewarded with rewards that are relevant to their style of play. If a large group pushes smaller players out of an areas, maybe smaller groups running smaller content in other parts of the open world can get gear that is relevant to that type of content so they can progess within that, or get gear that specializes in small group content that the harder content might not provide to the bigger groups, or is maybe a side grade to what the bigger groups can get from their better rewards (as far as that better gear's performance specifically relevant to smaller group content). So, even if larger groups can get "better rewards", those rewards might be more relevant to that harder content, and even if its not then I think its well earned. The playstyle/gameplay choice should be the focus rather than the rewards themselves. As long as smaller groups can still have a healthy amount of content to enjoy, and a reliable way of engaging with that content, then it shouldn't matter that larger groups get better stuff and can get an advantage because of higher level of investment and complexity that comes with those efforts. Just try to avoid challenging those larger groups unless you think you can outskill them, or unless you bring more people with you. 99% of the times is just you thinking you are contributing A LOT for the zerg fight. In reality even if you were not there at all the result would be same. And yes there is 1% of the fights where the fight is actually close win, and some individual actions would matter. Already explained why i wont join zerg group, And this includes creating my own zerg group also. If i want to lead i would lead small group. Well I think thats a bit of a generalization, it just depends on the design and the situation/context in the game. But if you prefer to have more of an impact in battle and to lead a smaller group that should be satisfied through smaller group content (providing it is designed well) as previously discussed. I don't think that warrants thinking of this idea of larger group content as a "problem" though, its just more about coexisting alongside other types of players as long as you don't repeatedly make stupid mistakes in the game. There is give and take with anything in game design but I think it is reasonable to design different player types to live in relative harmony, at least for the most part, nothing is ever perfect. The good thing about that is that you could always change your mind and try something new, and maybe even like it a bit more once you get tired of smaller group stuff (depending on the execution obviously). Ya know, choice and all that.
