Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Arkade

Guild Size Limits

Recommended Posts

People will find a way around artificial barriers like that. Zerging must be discouraged by implementing gameplay mechanisms that make it inefficient and a pain in the ass to manage. For example implement friendly fire and zergs will kill themselves, make in game chat proximity only etc.

 

Define zerging.


Shadowbane - House Avari/Hy'shen
"Gimp elves get good elves killed." - Belina

Avari Discord - https://discord.gg/Bch24PV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

limit zergs ............. In the Shadow and Dregs 

 

Thoughts?

 

No. 

 

If you want a more "balanced" option, play one of the multiple faction based rulesets (hopefully some variety) that should set limits by default.

 

Cross faction guild play is an issue, but hopefully ACE can think something up.

 

If the Dregs are supposed to be the harshest rulesets, it should be win at all costs (except you rule breakers, you know who you are).

 

As has been pointed out, there is no way to stop groups from gaming the system. Any time spent attempted to prevent it is wasted time.

 

Now for faction CW, I could see guild cross play being against the rules and punishable, but that's a another topic.

 

We need more information about the guild/sub-guild system and how it interacts with the campaign mechanics (win/loss, import/export, kneeling, factions, building ownership).

 

Yes.

 

We have a pretty vague outline of how any of this will work.

 

My understanding is that the worlds become harsher and smaller groups will need to team up to take on larger groups. Although at the same time, smaller skilled groups likely will need others to form up to gain at least a numbers advantage and become the evil "zerg."

 

Win/lose conditions can be so many things that will really determine how guilds approach CWs. Could be a complete waste to send 500 into one CW instead of spreading across multiple ones.

 

CF is supposed to be about risk vs reward and be it a guild of 300 or an alliance of 6 guilds of 50, their effort and reward should look different than a group of 75 doing it alone.

 

Like most things, we need a lot more info.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a no limit at all? There will be just one huge guild with organizational problems against which an alliance of dozen may be formed. Or a political infiltration may be done to disassemble this big guild, bring them false information related to attack & defense times and these things. Isn't it more fun if there are no limits?


Mercenary guild is recruiting. Send me a message if you are interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're worried about picking a fight with a guild that has twice your numbers, then there's are a whole host of MMOs with pvp minigames for you to enjoy.

 

There should be no hardcoded limit on the number of people who can band together politically. If you get in over your head against a numerically superior opponent, you need to back off, recruit more soldiers, or form an alliance with other guilds to bridge the gap. There are already organizational and social limitations on having a large guild or alliance which anyone who has played a game like this (SB/EVE/Darkfall) is more than familiar with.


Shadowbane - House Avari/Hy'shen
"Gimp elves get good elves killed." - Belina

Avari Discord - https://discord.gg/Bch24PV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will find a way around artificial barriers like that. Zerging must be discouraged by implementing gameplay mechanisms that make it inefficient and a pain in the ass to manage. For example implement friendly fire and zergs will kill themselves, make in game chat proximity only etc.

 

100% agree on the friendly fire, but I haven't gotten many other people to.

 

This is by far the best way to make numbers less meaningful. If Friendly Fire is on numbers alone don't make up the fight, skill does. There has been a strong objection to raising the skill ceiling by turning FF on. People don't want to have to play well apparently.

 

I also heard some stupid argument like nobody likes FF and you can't have FF in competitive games. CS, CS:Source and CS:GO prove this to be wrong.

Edited by mastakane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are already organizational and social limitations on having a large guild or alliance which anyone who has played a game like this (SB/EVE/Darkfall) is more than familiar with.

 

the zerg meta was pretty bad in darkfall and sb...


 

Crowfall Wiki

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agree on the friendly fire, but I haven't gotten many other people to.

 

This is by far the best way to make numbers less meaningful. If Friendly Fire is on numbers alone don't make up the fight, skill does. There has been a strong objection to raising the skill ceiling by turning FF on. People don't want to have to play well apparently.

 

I also heard some stupid argument like nobody likes FF and you can't have FF in competitive games. CS, CS:Source and CS:GO prove this to be wrong.

 

If only there was a game with multiple rulesets so everyone didn't have to play the same way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that you don't understand what I was saying. The assumptions you are making about what I said are so out-of-whack that I don't know where to start to "elaborate" on how your responses are nonsense.

 

I said nothing about forbidding cooperation. I said nothing about enforcement. I said nothing about changing the kneel mechanic.

 

All I was saying is that it would be possible to have game mechanics that distinguish between a "guild" and an association of "sub-guilds." I didn't propose any specific mechanics because I was just talking about general concept. Perhaps you can't heal sub-guildies in certain campaigns, perhaps sub-guilds of winning guilds can't export as much as the guild proper. Lots of perhaps. I'm talking about an open-ended concept for how mechanics could be tinkered with.

 

There is nothing that can really prevent people from cooperating in game. But you can control what sorts of synergies are available to groups of players in many ways.

 

It's an interesting idea and actually Black Desert does something like that. I believe the guild account limit in BDO is 100 accounts (so any alts you have are all in the same guild). Outside of guild you will hit everyone else in a siege or when flagged and there's too many AoEs in BDO combat so you can't work literally side by side with any "ally" guilds because you'd kill them. There are no formal ways to ally with other guilds (no alliances, only grouping), and of course without trade or anything you can't give things to other players outside your guild, although there are ways to work together in guild. So it does limit things a bit. Sure people can and have found other ways to help each other, but it's not the same. Not sure how it would work here - you'd have to do more than just limit guild size, but I always like the idea of limiting mega guilds.

Edited by Leiloni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the zerg meta was pretty bad in darkfall and sb...

 

I remember being in a 300 man Alliance taking on a 1000 man alliance on EU1 in Darkfall. I also spent years fighting off the CN horde on multiple servers. When someone zergs [brings dramatically more players than you to a fight] the proper response is to zerg back. When CN got a foothold on a server, the entire NA community would band together and bane them off the map. Big server wars like that are just part of the server lifespan. True, they are usually followed by periods of stagnation, but that's why we have the Campaign System.


Shadowbane - House Avari/Hy'shen
"Gimp elves get good elves killed." - Belina

Avari Discord - https://discord.gg/Bch24PV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO for CW there should be a limit, not sure what that is but it maybe part of the campaign ruleset. With the kneel mechanic other guilds can ally with another guild, albeit in a subordinate relationship.

 

Overall in the game there shouldn't be a limit so the EKs can act as a hub for the large guilds.

 

This means there must be someway to create CW guilds that players then join in the campaigns.

 

Large guilds will probably play in several CW simultaneously and in the DREGS there may not be a concept of guilds just ad-hoc groups like in Big World.


o8WHnLc.png


THE most active European guild. Join us

now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember being in a 300 man Alliance taking on a 1000 man alliance on EU1 in Darkfall. I also spent years fighting off the CN horde on multiple servers. When someone zergs [brings dramatically more players than you to a fight] the proper response is to zerg back. When CN got a foothold on a server, the entire NA community would band together and bane them off the map. Big server wars like that are just part of the server lifespan. True, they are usually followed by periods of stagnation, but that's why we have the Campaign System.

 

i remember:

 

  • alot of uneven sieges where the outnumbered force did not show. Spending 2-3h for nothing gets boring pretty fast.
  • endless talks about who had more numbers after every fight in chat and the forums.
  • 'roamers' who had more numbers than both siegeforces combined and interfering in every single siege on the server. (and thus deciding who wins the siege)
  • putting german, russian and french clans in one ally to fight back the zerg does not work.
  • people leaving EU1 for NA1 because they could not stand this in Darkfall as well as Dfuw.

 

some people sure like this "bring more numbers" meta

I certainly do not like it.

Edited by drunk

 

Crowfall Wiki

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember being in a 300 man Alliance taking on a 1000 man alliance on EU1 in Darkfall. I also spent years fighting off the CN horde on multiple servers. When someone zergs [brings dramatically more players than you to a fight] the proper response is to zerg back. When CN got a foothold on a server, the entire NA community would band together and bane them off the map. Big server wars like that are just part of the server lifespan. True, they are usually followed by periods of stagnation, but that's why we have the Campaign System.

 

Huge fights are a problem for every game that has them currently. I'd like to avoid them as much as we can here simply because the lag fest will be intolerable. Sure it'll happen occasionally, but I'd prefer gameplay encourages people to separate a bit during things like siege fights or whatever else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge fights are a problem for every game that has them currently. I'd like to avoid them as much as we can here simply because the lag fest will be intolerable. Sure it'll happen occasionally, but I'd prefer gameplay encourages people to separate a bit during things like siege fights or whatever else.

Yep. Having several objectives and POIs you need to hold during a siege is key I think. If holding a keep, castle, city make it so have to hold local POIs to keep supplied and fortified. When attacking have to maintain base camps and such. Supply lines and caravans need to be a constant need and not just the build up to a siege. With what we know from the game so far seems like thats the direction they are going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define zerging.

Zerging - making everything necessary to gain advantage in player numbers to significally alter the chances of winning up to the point of making it impossible to win for the opponents. Reducing the random element inherent to pvp conflict to a minimum, thus absolutely substituting the fun that comes with uncertainty of winning with fun that comes with actually winning. Even if that means that very little fun is going to be obtained in the course of the pvp conflict.

Edited by rajah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zerging - making everything necessary to gain advantage in player numbers to significally alter the chances of winning up to the point of making it impossible to win for the opponents. Reducing the random element inherent to pvp conflict to a minimum, thus absolutely substituting the fun that comes with uncertainty of winning with fun that comes with actually winning. Even if that means that very little fun is going to be obtained in the course of the pvp conflict.

 

that definition is pretty good


 

Crowfall Wiki

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Having several objectives and POIs you need to hold during a siege is key I think. If holding a keep, castle, city make it so have to hold local POIs to keep supplied and fortified. When attacking have to maintain base camps and such. Supply lines and caravans need to be a constant need and not just the build up to a siege. With what we know from the game so far seems like thats the direction they are going.

 

And if my friends and I have 6 accounts each and the systems to take advantage of them, is there anything preventing me from leaving 6 accounts logged in (or out) at 6 of those PoIs at a time and just alt+tabbing or even switching accounts to hold them all, simultaneously? I bet it takes longer to run between them than to simply alt+tab or even relog.

 

Alt accounts will be an issue if something isn't put in to limit the clear advantage to them. It happened daily in Shadowbane. I've seen nothing in CF so far that's going to change that.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only there was a game with multiple rulesets so everyone didn't have to play the same way...

 

I'll believe it when I see it. Right now with current ACE development time, I see squash hardcore rulesets to get the game launched.

 

Not to mention the way skills are being implemented right now (mainly heals) there will never be a real FF system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if my friends and I have 6 accounts each and the systems to take advantage of them, is there anything preventing me from leaving 6 accounts logged in (or out) at 6 of those PoIs at a time and just alt+tabbing or even switching accounts to hold them all, simultaneously? I bet it takes longer to run between them than to simply alt+tab or even relog.

 

Alt accounts will be an issue if something isn't put in to limit the clear advantage to them. It happened daily in Shadowbane. I've seen nothing in CF so far that's going to change that.

Yes because every topic ever comes down to alt accounts... :rolleyes:

 

Was talking about zergs and trying to avoid the zerg ball mentality not how the bane of all life on earth ie alt accounts can be stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because every topic ever comes down to alt accounts... :rolleyes:

 

Was talking about zergs and trying to avoid the zerg ball mentality not how the bane of all life on earth ie alt accounts can be stopped.

 

you never had a  second enemy siegeforce logged into your healers or got your siege objective sniped by alt accounts logging in next to it...

Edited by drunk

 

Crowfall Wiki

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...