Mer1in

I'm not arguing that uncoordinated guilds will be on the same playing field as coordinated zerg guilds split into smaller guilds. I'm assuming coordination either on all sides, or none.

Precisely... bringing zerg guilds who are split into smaller guilds, into the same playing field as smaller guilds (not allied and allied)... solved.

Because of the affect it will have on gameplay. Assuming team killing will exist, '"<Goon1>", "<Goon2>", "<Goon3>", etc...' won't be feasable. Unless they're split up, and then in effect they're not a zerg.

The issues we're talking about here mainly apply to GvG campaigns.... Zerging guilds in The Dregs seems highly unlikely due to team killing. For both The Infected and God's Reach, zerging guilds won't be an issue in the sense of; smaller guilds can be on the same side as zerging guilds... leading me to believe these realms will be very often used to ramp of guild power... It's possible that rewards (as someone earlier in the thread mentioned) could be based on the ratio of population/effect... 10% of the one side conquers 90% of the other side = high rewards, 90% of one side conquers 10% of the other side = low rewards... Actively discouraging zergs, and encouraging small, highly skilled groups.. which as you mentioned above could be a Large guild split into small groups, but as I said above, no practical difference than small guilds forming an alliance.

Large guilds splitting into small guilds, in practice is no different than small guilds who form alliances. I call that a solution.

I disagree. They'll be in the best position to gather it, IF they split up and are no longer a zerg ;-) As a zerg, they'll be severely hampered if they try to gather as a single unit... My rationale: resource nodes will be broadly scattered, meaning no resource gathering hubs where a zerg can flock in, consume everything, and have gathered enough resources to meet their needs. Why would 'your buddy' (who according to your example is NOT starving, I assume) not give you food to stop starving? If he has no food, he'll eventually starve himself meaning you'll have to take his gear while he respawns and takes it back... UNLESS, you haven't gathered any food, because food is RARE (it should be, particularly as the seasons change), and you both starve/lose your equipment. I expect that they'll make the starvation system punishing enough, and make food gathering difficult enough, that no such hold-your-buddy's-gear-while-he-respawns rinse-repeat nonsense will happen.

Here is your solution to zerging. Greater rewards and the zerg will implode if it tries to go into combat. In addition to any negative impacts the food system will have.

Keep in mind that it will most likely be PUBLIC knowledge whether or not there is a guild in any given campaign that smaller guilds have no chance of competing with. Leading only guilds of roughly the same amounts of power (atleast percievably the same or similar) to join these campaigns. In addition, I assume rewards will be directly linked to both winning the campaign, AND how well one side did, through calculating player kills/keeps sacked/keeps built/resources gathered/etc... directly discouraging large guilds from joining a campaign and sitting on their hands as the timer runs out. What this means is even if guilds stratify into 'classes' based on size and power, they will be still be competing against guilds within their same 'power class', and I assume will (depending on how influential a single campaign loss is regarding the overall survival of a guild) be VERY prone to falling in 'power' and being demoted to a lower 'power class'. Rather than discouraging the formation of large and powerful guilds through game mechanics and design, I would prefer them to either take no action with game mechanics/design, or encourage it through game mechanics/design... I personally like varying power strata, rather than singular stratum. More fun. More challenge.

The metaphysical is no issue, I appreciate it... but specifics will be needed to understand what you mean. I agree that those are very possible outcomes, but I don't see how they're 'unintended', I personally like the idea of tyrannical guilds... makes it more of a challenge to overthrow them (but that may just be me). Keep in mind, there is only one 'guild v. guild' campaign 'realm', in which what your claiming about NEEDing to be apart of powerful guilds will matter (in terms of winning the campaign). In all other 'realms' it will be a far less significant part of the campaign.. particularly when you get into the dregs (where, I plan on spending most of my in-game time). Additionally, in GvG campaigns were you enter without gear, the only advantage a guild will have are its relics/artifacts and its coordination. Another thing which should be pointed out is the dregs provide the highest rewards (most powerful relics/artifacts), which benefits highly skilled INDIVIDUALS... and guilds who seek out those highly skilled individuals (I see oportunity for a leaderboard system here)... but this is only just... the most skilled reap the most reward... If this conflicts with your desires, it might just be that we have incompatible desires for this game.

The concept of EK's further strengthens prospects for a guild like this, particularly if it can take root early in the game to project dominance over the economy long into the future. Reasoning: - Use merc. groups to block out rival merchant groups, through harassment in both campaigns and pvp-enabled EK worlds - Enough financial stability via investment/control over markets/etc., to ensure a guilds ability to buy out any competition, sell at the lowest competitive prices, and be a sole producer of any in-demand high-level items - EK control over taxes/tarrifs/entry-fees - Vertical integration... Additionally: - IF guilds get access to their own EK worlds, makes it much easier to maintain guild policy (ie. x fee upon arrival to 'The Trade Company' world, x% tax on all matieral goods trades, x% on all armor/weaponry trades, x% on all discipline trades, etc.), by making it the ONLY world were trading goods is allowed (all guild goods/funds are kept there), and keep individuals from exploiting their guilds resources to make private profits (sell guild goods, circumvent above fees by using their personal world, while turning a profit and stimulating interest by making prices lower than guild prices... a black market of sorts) One needs only look at the business history of Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, or Rockerfeller, (or go higher up... old wealth families of europe: Rothschilds, etc.) to see how to make any economic guild like this powerful...

"My concern is a matter of perspective, and where that perspective will lead the player base. I think Ellie is right in that this is giving choices, but with choice, it is almost inevitable that one side becomes the popular majority and pushes out the unpopular minority." Unclear what you mean by this. Specifics. "I do feel that no import/export campaigns will be rare, and even rarer now that EKs have more value." I would imagine that no import/export == no reward other than the 'experience' would automatically make this only attractive to a small niche... which is ok... but how does this system lead you to that conclusion? EK's only function [disregarding social and EK-pvp (being rewardless... which still needs confirmation/dis-confirmation... edit: perhaps, Ek-pvp rewards will be the mechanic which they have implicitely said will enable people to never enter campaigns, but still play the game...)] OUTSIDE campaigns is enabled from the resources gathered IN campaigns (whithout which there would be no economy). EK's only function INSIDE campaigns is from the bonuses given via artifacts/relics, which are limited by design (max 3 bonuses)(because there's no during-campaign resource funnelling FROM EK's; possibly you'll be able to enter with what your individual character can carry... but no more, giving yourself an advantage based on previous success in campaigns in camparison to other less successful characters... but not ultimately determining how you'll do in the current campaign, because of the degredation system...). "The majority of what the the player base wants will dictate what the game becomes..." Which is why we all want to play this game... or atleast why I do. "...and it might become something other than what was first envisioned." What is making you think that this system will have an unintended result...?

I have high hopes for the Eternal Kingdoms playing a major role in the socio-political-economic hierarchy of Crowfall's universe... Along the lines of the Black Sun in SnowCrash...

I have high hopes for Eternal Kingdoms playing a major role in the socio-political-economic hierarchy of Crowfall's universe... Along the lines of the Black Sun in SnowCrash...

Kill La Kill...?

^^^^