Closing the power gap between small and large groups in PvP

    Diese Seite verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Seite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen. Weitere Informationen

    • Closing the power gap between small and large groups in PvP

      Hi all,

      in forum discussions, the topic of zerging comes up frequently. In those discussions, it's often mentioned that we should introduce some form of friendly fire, or have a lower cap for the number of players who can be in a guild or alliance.

      In this post, we want to clarify our measures to close the power gap between smaller and larger groups, and also why we do not think friendly fire or a lower cap on the number of guild members would work.

      1. What is a zerg?
      How large a group of players has to be to be called zerg is widely subjective. Some players say it's groups larger than 5, others say it's 20 or more. Some people jokingly say that every group bigger than yours is a zerg. In reality, the largest groups we tend to see currently are around 20 players. On special occassions, we have seen battles with up to 70 or 80 players per side. Most groups in Albion, however, are usually in the 5-10 player range.

      2. Anti-Zerg Mechanics
      These are our mechanics to close the power gap between small and large groups. They work: with the right preparation and skill, it is possible to win group fights even if outnumbered 3 to 1.
      • Focus Fire Protection: if you get damaged by multiple players at once, you will get a % damage reduction that increases the more people are damaging you
      • Healing Sickness: if you are being healed by multiple healers at the same time, you will get a % healing reduction
      • Escalating AOE damage: if you hit multiple players, beyond a certain base number, at the same time with an AOE-Spell, the power of that spell will increase.
      • Crime System: in yellow and red zones, groups of people committing a crime all get the full crime penalty - it's not split up evenly.
      3. Fight or Flight
      Currently (31. August 2016), the fight or flight balance in Albion Online is not ideal. In general, if you notice an enemy group, it can be too hard to avoid the fight by running away. This of course does not mean that avoiding combat should be easy, however, it should be easier than it is right now. Once we have a better overall balance here, heavily outnumbered groups will be able to pick their fights more carefully, and we will see less instances of accidentially running into a situation where you cannot win, without any chance of avoiding the fight.

      4. Encouraging Smaller Groups
      We have various mechanics in the game that encourage people to split up into smaller groups. These are:
      • Hell Gates and Gateway Dungeons being limited to 5 players
      • Different treasure chests spawning at the same time, thus, encouraging larger groups to split up
      • GvG fights being 5v5 by design
      • Our fame bonus for playing in a group: it caps out at 5 players, so you get maximum efficiency in a group of 5
      • Upcoming: Mobs in Dungeons will get a focus fire protection if they are being hit by more than 5 players. (10 players in raid dungeons)
      5. Different Zone Types
      In open world sandbox MMORPGs, zones without restrictions on player interaction will always provide some advantage to larger groups. Therefore, we have designed our yellow and red zones in such a way that they are optimized for small group play.
      • Crime and reputation system heavily discourages zerging due to fully shared reputation losses
      • Lack of home territories means that larger guilds cannot have a base nearby. If they stick to the city, they can get locked out if their reputation drops too low
      • As a result of this, we are not seeing any zerging in the red or yellow zones right now
      6. Friendly Fire???
      Some people have suggested that we could further weaken larger groups by introducing friendly fire. We do not believe that this is the case.
      • Friendly fire does not hurt larger groups more than it hurts smaller groups. It's very easy to verify this by viewing various PvP videos - you will notice that the two groups fighting are usually well apart from each other
      • Friendly fire makes melee classes unviable in larger fights. But precisely smart melee play is needed to punish zergs to the maximum effect, and on top of that, Melee DPS roles are curerntly under-powered in group fights, which is something we plan to address soon.
      7. Reducing the member cap on guilds/alliances???
      It is often suggested that we should reduce the member cap on guilds and alliances to reduce zerging. Here is why this would not work:
      • The group sizes that people tend to call zergs (usually, groups of 15-20 players) are too small to be captured by any reasonable guild member cap. As a territory holding guilds needs multiple different professions, and given the fact that not everybody is online all the time, the lowest thinkable guild cap would probably be around 100 players. This would not catch any of the group sizes we are seeing in Albion.
      • The main impact of not being in the same guild or alliance would be friendly fire. However, friendly fire is not effective at weakening larger groups.
      • Even if there was an effective cap, it would be very easily played around. You can always set up alt guilds under the control of the main guild, circumventing any artificial restrictions set up. It's very likely that people who are asking for a cap on guild size would then be equally upset about guilds working around that cap.
      Best regards,
      Your Albion Online Team
    • I see constant complaints from new/small guilds about how dominant zergs are and how hard it is for those guilds to compete, but I do not see how the problem is on the zergs themselves or if the solution is on creating more and more virtual restrictions for players.

      First of all, imposing restrictive rules on a sandbox MMO tends to remove the freedom it's based on, plain and simple. Players who enjoy sandboxish gameplay tend to prefer freedom of choice, be it on how to build a character or how to build a group.

      Second, virtual restrictions do not solve the problem in any shape or form. Limiting the guild/alliance size even further will not reduce zergs. As said over and over again, it is extremely easy to cheat any restriction imposed. Actually, there is already a limit and we "circumvent" it anyway. Then we'd have to create more and more rules endlessly which would make things over-complicated, still not get the result wanted and push players away. The GvG lockout system is a great example of that happening in-game: guilds don't understand it (specially new ones) and it generates tons and tons of complaints. Big guilds just make alts etc and circumvent it.

      Third, It should be obvious that a guild of 50 players shouldn't have the same resources of an alliance of 1500 players. There is no sense in expecting that. People want low effort (few people) and high rewards, now that's unobtainable.

      Fourth, the "zergs" everyone complains about are usually 15-30 people on the map. Limiting guilds from 300 to 250, 200, 150 would not change anything, as the game can't even handle that many people on the screen anyway.

      Fifth, I have to strongly disagree with people that complain they can't compete with large zergs. The main end-game in AO is GvGs and it's 5vs5. You can easily setup a team and beat anyone on your way. There are several examples of low population guilds being successful (finstack, chicken kiss, bom, etc). You just have to be competent. Also, gear is not a real issue on GvGs as people say. Most of GvGs I played (and I played with/against pretty much every big guild in the game right now) are done in 6.3/6.2 gear. You can get that stupidly easy. You rarely see a 6.4 and to this day I've only seen two people actually using 7.4 in GvGs.

      So, in the end, dying to 15 players is something that WILL NEVER CHANGE no matter how much you try to limit it. Reducing guild cap will do nothing about it. It's the nature of open-world sandbox MMOs. More, doing GvGs against an alliance of 1500 or a guild of 50 will hardly change anything. If you are good, you'll easily hold a town plot, a farm and maybe one or another territory. I don't see why a guild of 5 people would need/want more than that or should even deserve more than that when compared to 1k+ people.

      What we can do about it is create alternatives for solo and small group players. For that there are green dungeons, blue dungeons, hellgates, GvGs, etc. For large zergs there are castles and raids. Chests and warcamps can be a problem, I understand, as it depends a little on your luck. If a zerg controls it you won't ever touch it.
      Youtube channel (GvGs, OW-PvP etc): youtube.com/c/Nietz

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Nietz ()

    • The underlying problem of zerging is that when you see and engage X guys, you don't know if you're engaging a X-man group or a XY-man group. By the time you find out, it's already too late to disengage without losing a percentage of your group that gets focus-fired.

      Sometimes you want to fight outnumbered. Sometimes you want to outnumber. It's open world, that's fine but there's no information to base your decisions on besides gut feelings & past experiences.
    • And solo players just get shit on all around.
      A smart group of 20 can kill an extremely stupid "stand in bad" group of 60.
      Say that 45 of the 60 all stand directly in 10 blizzards while 10 of the other 20 are chain stunning them all there with warbow stun shots.
      not likely..... but possible theoretically.

      Now theoretically explain how one player is going to kill 3 on him?
      With resource management as it is 1 v 2 is even EXTREMELY unlikely, even when you heavily outgear but possible, add a 3rd in and theres no chance.
      Unless again 3 naked players are standing together afk letting you drop blizzards on them....

      Back to the topic title.

      A zerg, at-least in a functional definition, is any group that is larger enough to remove the possibility of victory from the smaller group.
      If you have 0 - 0.0001% (like the above naked guys example) of winning the fight, assuming equal gear and skill, then you are fighting a zerg.
      They have the i-win button(just by sheer numbers) and there is nothing you can do about it.

      The way to punish zerging???

      DONT PUNISH ZERGING!!!!

      Some players enjoy this playstyle.
      As each player is added it masks the individuals contribution and responsibility in that group.
      100 horrible players pushing 1 button each will always demolish the most eleite 20 players.
      Some people enjoy never being in danger and just winning all the time,
      let them have their sense of accomplishment because they enjoy it.

      BUT

      Keep them separate from the people who want solo / small scale pvp.
      A solo player NEVER enjoys being piled and zerged down "by my above definition".
      We need our own content that is not part of the black zone zerg lands.
      Solo / small group players are typically more competitive players. We like an even playing field where skill is the deciding factor in a win or a loss. We are the ones that fight for position and ratings in modern MMO / MOBA arenas / rbg's / and leader-boards.
      The arena could be a good place for this but I have also suggested "Edgeville Pking" like orange zones in another thread:
      "Orange Zones" solo pvp content
      Which would act as a massive silver sink and constant 24/7 pvp action for anyone who does not want to roam or get zerged down.

      For small groups, hell gates and gvg are an awesome start but drops the small group / guild in the same spot as the zergs, mainly black zones.
      I think that bringing back red/yellow zone gvg may help this for awhile.
      Looking back in past betas though this may not be enough, as the zergs get bored or cant find anyone else to kill they tend to migrate back into red zones to grief or city camp and drive all of the small groups out of the game also, something should be implemented to keep these groups out of red / yellow.
    • Korn schrieb:

      2. Anti-Zerg Mechanics

      These are our mechanics to close the power gap between small and large groups. They work: with the right preparation and skill, it is possible to win group fights even if outnumbered 3 to 1.
      • Focus Fire Protection: if you get damaged by multiple players at once, you will get a % damage reduction that increases the more people are damaging you
      • Healing Sickness: if you are being healed by multiple healers at the same time, you will get a % healing reduction
      • Escalating AOE damage: if you hit multiple players, beyond a certain base number, at the same time with an AOE-Spell, the power of that spell will increase.
      • Crime System: in yellow and red zones, groups of people committing a crime all get the full crime penalty - it's not split up evenly.
      3. Fight or Flight
      Currently (31. August 2016), the fight or flight balance in Albion Online is not ideal. In general, if you notice an enemy group, it can be too hard to avoid the fight by running away. This of course does not mean that avoiding combat should be easy, however, it should be easier than it is right now. Once we have a better overall balance here, heavily outnumbered groups will be able to pick their fights more carefully, and we will see less instances of accidentially running into a situation where you cannot win, without any chance of avoiding the fight.
      1- Focus fire do not work as it was intended.

      Damage reduction doesn't mean anything when there's a huge ammount of CC to avoid your escape. Furthermore, it will be a good mechanic (along with execute) to avoid anybody who's in the zerg-bubble to die.

      Just rework it, give more armor and a CC imunity to a player who is being the focus of X players and just have Y players to help him.

      2- Healing sickness

      Just have meaning in ZvZ, i don't think it reduce the gap between small and big guilds...

      3- Escalating AOE damage

      In my point of view, one small group shouldn't have the possibility to kill one zerg-bubble, adding damage to a small group don't necessarialy help them. This mechanic just help ZvZ, when one of them split their group to do a good ammount of damage to the other (like happened before).

      4- Fight of flight

      THIS should be the main focus in this thread. The opportunity for small guilds to avoid the zerg-bubble. Without it, small guilds dont have the opportunity to gather T7~T8 resources (go to the black zone)without being slained.
    • Nietz schrieb:

      I see constant complaints from new/small guilds about how dominant zergs are and how hard it is for those guilds to compete, but I do not see how the problem is on the zergs themselves or if the solution is on creating more and more virtual restrictions for players.

      First of all, imposing restrictive rules on a sandbox MMO tends to remove the freedom it's based on, plain and simple. Players who enjoy sandboxish gameplay tend to prefer freedom of choice, be it on how to build a character or how to build a group.

      Second, virtual restrictions do not solve the problem in any shape or form. Limiting the guild/alliance size even further will not reduce zergs. As said over and over again, it is extremely easy to cheat any restriction imposed. Actually, there is already a limit and we "circumvent" it anyway. Then we'd have to create more and more rules endlessly which would make things over-complicated, still not get the result wanted and push players away. The GvG lockout system is a great example of that happening in-game: guilds don't understand it (specially new ones) and it generates tons and tons of complaints. Big guilds just make alts etc and circumvent it.

      Third, It should be obvious that a guild of 50 players shouldn't have the same resources of an alliance of 1500 players. There is no sense in expecting that. People want low effort (few people) and high rewards, now that's unobtainable.

      Fourth, the "zergs" everyone complains about are usually 15-30 people on the map. Limiting guilds from 300 to 250, 200, 150 would not change anything, as the game can't even handle that many people on the screen anyway.

      Fifth, I have to strongly disagree with people that complain they can't compete with large zergs. The main end-game in AO is GvGs and it's 5vs5. You can easily setup a team and beat anyone on your way. There are several examples of low population guilds being successful (finstack, chicken kiss, bom, etc). You just have to be competent. Also, gear is not a real issue on GvGs as people say. Most of GvGs I played (and I played with/against pretty much every big guild in the game right now) are done in 6.3/6.2 gear. You can get that stupidly easy. You rarely see a 6.4 and to this day I've only seen two people actually using 7.4 in GvGs.

      So, in the end, dying to 15 players is something that WILL NEVER CHANGE no matter how much you try to limit it. Reducing guild cap will do nothing about it. It's the nature of open-world sandbox MMOs. More, doing GvGs against an alliance of 1500 or a guild of 50 will hardly change anything. If you are good, you'll easily hold a town plot, a farm and maybe one or another territory. I don't see why a guild of 5 people would need/want more than that or should even deserve more than that when compared to 1k+ people.

      What we can do about it is create alternatives for solo and small group players. For that there are green dungeons, blue dungeons, hellgates, GvGs, etc. For large zergs there are castles and raids. Chests and warcamps can be a problem, I understand, as it depends a little on your luck. If a zerg controls it you won't ever touch it.
      1. imposing restrictive rules on a sandbox MMO tends to remove the freedom it's based on, plain and simple: If you do not want to restrict? Why are there alliances and guilds as game system? UO lacked these systems. Alliances and groups were talking.

      2. Second, virtual restrictions do not solve the problem in any shape or form. Limiting the guild/alliance size even further will not reduce zergs.: If the system removed alliance, I tell me who would dawn.
      With the alliance system, you force the smaller unions competing to join these great alliance to live in peace, not because of progress.
      If all the unions were 100 players, no alliances, there is more competition, more enemies and less abuse collectors players for their purposes, and individual fun. Ignore the number of players with skills dictator there for games.

      3. Third, It should be obvious that a guild of 50 players shouldn't have the same resources of an alliance of 1500 players. There is no sense in expecting that: What makes no sense is that the system allows you to perform an alliance of 1,500 players.

      4. Fourth, the "zergs" everyone complains about are usually 15-30 people on the map. Limiting guilds from 300 to 250, 200, 150 would not change anything, as the game can't even handle that many people on the screen anyway.: Nobody complains for 15-30 players on a map. I complain that everything I meet on the map is an enemy because I'm not in the alliance and they are allies. It is simple to understand.

      5. Fifth, I have to strongly disagree with people that complain they can't compete with large zergs. The main end-game in AO is GvGs and it's 5vs5: I agree with you.

      I want you to understand that the unions are trying not to recruit quality, quantity recruit. If you do not want to enter or not you accept the alliance you will be surrounded by enemies and allies them. I think it's not very hard to understand
    • vashangelarm schrieb:

      only way to solve this zerg problem is adding the Huv Radar to black zone also by showing groups of 7 or more on the map letting players chose to fight or run or hide, but the positive is that 2 zergs in a area will be able to see each other bringing each other to fight.
      I prefer to put a system of telescope or binoculars. So the radar can be used for the benefit if you're a bit clever.
    • Zfrenzy schrieb:

      Nietz schrieb:

      I see constant complaints from new/small guilds about how dominant zergs are and how hard it is for those guilds to compete, but I do not see how the problem is on the zergs themselves or if the solution is on creating more and more virtual restrictions for players.

      First of all, imposing restrictive rules on a sandbox MMO tends to remove the freedom it's based on, plain and simple. Players who enjoy sandboxish gameplay tend to prefer freedom of choice, be it on how to build a character or how to build a group.

      Second, virtual restrictions do not solve the problem in any shape or form. Limiting the guild/alliance size even further will not reduce zergs. As said over and over again, it is extremely easy to cheat any restriction imposed. Actually, there is already a limit and we "circumvent" it anyway. Then we'd have to create more and more rules endlessly which would make things over-complicated, still not get the result wanted and push players away. The GvG lockout system is a great example of that happening in-game: guilds don't understand it (specially new ones) and it generates tons and tons of complaints. Big guilds just make alts etc and circumvent it.

      Third, It should be obvious that a guild of 50 players shouldn't have the same resources of an alliance of 1500 players. There is no sense in expecting that. People want low effort (few people) and high rewards, now that's unobtainable.

      Fourth, the "zergs" everyone complains about are usually 15-30 people on the map. Limiting guilds from 300 to 250, 200, 150 would not change anything, as the game can't even handle that many people on the screen anyway.

      Fifth, I have to strongly disagree with people that complain they can't compete with large zergs. The main end-game in AO is GvGs and it's 5vs5. You can easily setup a team and beat anyone on your way. There are several examples of low population guilds being successful (finstack, chicken kiss, bom, etc). You just have to be competent. Also, gear is not a real issue on GvGs as people say. Most of GvGs I played (and I played with/against pretty much every big guild in the game right now) are done in 6.3/6.2 gear. You can get that stupidly easy. You rarely see a 6.4 and to this day I've only seen two people actually using 7.4 in GvGs.

      So, in the end, dying to 15 players is something that WILL NEVER CHANGE no matter how much you try to limit it. Reducing guild cap will do nothing about it. It's the nature of open-world sandbox MMOs. More, doing GvGs against an alliance of 1500 or a guild of 50 will hardly change anything. If you are good, you'll easily hold a town plot, a farm and maybe one or another territory. I don't see why a guild of 5 people would need/want more than that or should even deserve more than that when compared to 1k+ people.

      What we can do about it is create alternatives for solo and small group players. For that there are green dungeons, blue dungeons, hellgates, GvGs, etc. For large zergs there are castles and raids. Chests and warcamps can be a problem, I understand, as it depends a little on your luck. If a zerg controls it you won't ever touch it.
      1. imposing restrictive rules on a sandbox MMO tends to remove the freedom it's based on, plain and simple: If you do not want to restrict? Why are there alliances and guilds as game system? UO lacked these systems. Alliances and groups were talking.
      2. Second, virtual restrictions do not solve the problem in any shape or form. Limiting the guild/alliance size even further will not reduce zergs.: If the system removed alliance, I tell me who would dawn.
      With the alliance system, you force the smaller unions competing to join these great alliance to live in peace, not because of progress.
      If all the unions were 100 players, no alliances, there is more competition, more enemies and less abuse collectors players for their purposes, and individual fun. Ignore the number of players with skills dictator there for games.

      3. Third, It should be obvious that a guild of 50 players shouldn't have the same resources of an alliance of 1500 players. There is no sense in expecting that: What makes no sense is that the system allows you to perform an alliance of 1,500 players.

      4. Fourth, the "zergs" everyone complains about are usually 15-30 people on the map. Limiting guilds from 300 to 250, 200, 150 would not change anything, as the game can't even handle that many people on the screen anyway.: Nobody complains for 15-30 players on a map. I complain that everything I meet on the map is an enemy because I'm not in the alliance and they are allies. It is simple to understand.

      5. Fifth, I have to strongly disagree with people that complain they can't compete with large zergs. The main end-game in AO is GvGs and it's 5vs5: I agree with you.

      I want you to understand that the unions are trying not to recruit quality, quantity recruit. If you do not want to enter or not you accept the alliance you will be surrounded by enemies and allies them. I think it's not very hard to understand
      I agree it's easy to understand. It's also easy to see it as a an excuse for own incompetence. Bom did just fine alone. So did finstack on top continent, chicken kiss for a long while and several other examples.

      You can get on the black zone right now with 5 people and take 3-4 territories EASILY. I don't see what else would be a problem to do. Raids and castles perhaps, but that's not intended for few people anyway. What, right now, can't you do in 5 people besides that?

      Bud I come from a guild that had 10 people and we had 10 territories on last beta. Eventually we joined a big alliance because we conquered that. We did just fine by our own. The only thing that ever bothered me was the PK zergs. I do agree there should be a way to spot those.

      I'm sorry but zergs became the scapegoat for all the whining. So what if the alliance has a 100 territories? The clusters are so empty that chance of you facing someone is near zero, and then there's flee + gallop mode. I can't recall in almost 3 months of beta actually seeing my guild/alliance even worried with gatherers.

      So what if an alliance has 100+ territories? What does it change to you? You can get yours and gvg just fine against them.
      Youtube channel (GvGs, OW-PvP etc): youtube.com/c/Nietz

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 3 mal editiert, zuletzt von Nietz ()

    • Nietz schrieb:

      Zfrenzy schrieb:

      Nietz schrieb:

      I see constant complaints from new/small guilds about how dominant zergs are and how hard it is for those guilds to compete, but I do not see how the problem is on the zergs themselves or if the solution is on creating more and more virtual restrictions for players.

      First of all, imposing restrictive rules on a sandbox MMO tends to remove the freedom it's based on, plain and simple. Players who enjoy sandboxish gameplay tend to prefer freedom of choice, be it on how to build a character or how to build a group.

      Second, virtual restrictions do not solve the problem in any shape or form. Limiting the guild/alliance size even further will not reduce zergs. As said over and over again, it is extremely easy to cheat any restriction imposed. Actually, there is already a limit and we "circumvent" it anyway. Then we'd have to create more and more rules endlessly which would make things over-complicated, still not get the result wanted and push players away. The GvG lockout system is a great example of that happening in-game: guilds don't understand it (specially new ones) and it generates tons and tons of complaints. Big guilds just make alts etc and circumvent it.

      Third, It should be obvious that a guild of 50 players shouldn't have the same resources of an alliance of 1500 players. There is no sense in expecting that. People want low effort (few people) and high rewards, now that's unobtainable.

      Fourth, the "zergs" everyone complains about are usually 15-30 people on the map. Limiting guilds from 300 to 250, 200, 150 would not change anything, as the game can't even handle that many people on the screen anyway.

      Fifth, I have to strongly disagree with people that complain they can't compete with large zergs. The main end-game in AO is GvGs and it's 5vs5. You can easily setup a team and beat anyone on your way. There are several examples of low population guilds being successful (finstack, chicken kiss, bom, etc). You just have to be competent. Also, gear is not a real issue on GvGs as people say. Most of GvGs I played (and I played with/against pretty much every big guild in the game right now) are done in 6.3/6.2 gear. You can get that stupidly easy. You rarely see a 6.4 and to this day I've only seen two people actually using 7.4 in GvGs.

      So, in the end, dying to 15 players is something that WILL NEVER CHANGE no matter how much you try to limit it. Reducing guild cap will do nothing about it. It's the nature of open-world sandbox MMOs. More, doing GvGs against an alliance of 1500 or a guild of 50 will hardly change anything. If you are good, you'll easily hold a town plot, a farm and maybe one or another territory. I don't see why a guild of 5 people would need/want more than that or should even deserve more than that when compared to 1k+ people.

      What we can do about it is create alternatives for solo and small group players. For that there are green dungeons, blue dungeons, hellgates, GvGs, etc. For large zergs there are castles and raids. Chests and warcamps can be a problem, I understand, as it depends a little on your luck. If a zerg controls it you won't ever touch it.
      1. imposing restrictive rules on a sandbox MMO tends to remove the freedom it's based on, plain and simple: If you do not want to restrict? Why are there alliances and guilds as game system? UO lacked these systems. Alliances and groups were talking.2. Second, virtual restrictions do not solve the problem in any shape or form. Limiting the guild/alliance size even further will not reduce zergs.: If the system removed alliance, I tell me who would dawn.
      With the alliance system, you force the smaller unions competing to join these great alliance to live in peace, not because of progress.
      If all the unions were 100 players, no alliances, there is more competition, more enemies and less abuse collectors players for their purposes, and individual fun. Ignore the number of players with skills dictator there for games.

      3. Third, It should be obvious that a guild of 50 players shouldn't have the same resources of an alliance of 1500 players. There is no sense in expecting that: What makes no sense is that the system allows you to perform an alliance of 1,500 players.

      4. Fourth, the "zergs" everyone complains about are usually 15-30 people on the map. Limiting guilds from 300 to 250, 200, 150 would not change anything, as the game can't even handle that many people on the screen anyway.: Nobody complains for 15-30 players on a map. I complain that everything I meet on the map is an enemy because I'm not in the alliance and they are allies. It is simple to understand.

      5. Fifth, I have to strongly disagree with people that complain they can't compete with large zergs. The main end-game in AO is GvGs and it's 5vs5: I agree with you.

      I want you to understand that the unions are trying not to recruit quality, quantity recruit. If you do not want to enter or not you accept the alliance you will be surrounded by enemies and allies them. I think it's not very hard to understand
      I agree it's easy to understand. It's also easy to see it as a an excuse for own incompetence. Bom did just fine alone. So did finstack on top continent, chicken kiss for a long while and several other examples.
      You can get on the black zone right now with 5 people and takes 3-4 territories EASILY. I don't see what else would be a problem to do. Raids and castles perhaps, but that's not intended for few people anyway. What, right now, can't you do in 5 people besides that?

      Bud I come from a guild that had 10 people and we had 10 territories on last beta. Eventually we joined a big alliance because we conquered that. We did just fine by our own. The only thing that ever bothered me was the PK zergs. I do agree there should be a way to spot those.
      Bud I come from a guild that had 10 people and we had 10 territories on last beta. Eventually we joined a big alliance because we conquered that.: Explain to me the real reason you joined a grand alliance if so good and competent you think. Expects I tell you. Because you could no longer continue to cover more territory or to be quiet without being disturbed.

      If the End Game is to have more and more territories, go bad.

      All guilds that have set an example are in great alliances

      As you noted you're part of a Zerg and love dominate by number not quality.

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 3 mal editiert, zuletzt von Zfrenzy ()

    • Those of you guys who suggest visibility-based stuff, you do know that anything like that can and will be used against you as well?

      The current minimap visibility that shows groups larger than 10 on map -> Groups of 10 roaming around until they see somebody on the map as if it was a maphack and rush them. Didn't we just observe this for a whole year already? As for any radar spells, it would be even worse. A solo player having a miniscule chance of accidentally spotting a large group in a cluster using one spell, vs a zerg scanning through the whole cluster and having 100% chance to spot everybody? The outcome would just be beyond predictable.

    • Zfrenzy schrieb:

      Nietz schrieb:

      Zfrenzy schrieb:

      Nietz schrieb:

      I see constant complaints from new/small guilds about how dominant zergs are and how hard it is for those guilds to compete, but I do not see how the problem is on the zergs themselves or if the solution is on creating more and more virtual restrictions for players.

      First of all, imposing restrictive rules on a sandbox MMO tends to remove the freedom it's based on, plain and simple. Players who enjoy sandboxish gameplay tend to prefer freedom of choice, be it on how to build a character or how to build a group.

      Second, virtual restrictions do not solve the problem in any shape or form. Limiting the guild/alliance size even further will not reduce zergs. As said over and over again, it is extremely easy to cheat any restriction imposed. Actually, there is already a limit and we "circumvent" it anyway. Then we'd have to create more and more rules endlessly which would make things over-complicated, still not get the result wanted and push players away. The GvG lockout system is a great example of that happening in-game: guilds don't understand it (specially new ones) and it generates tons and tons of complaints. Big guilds just make alts etc and circumvent it.

      Third, It should be obvious that a guild of 50 players shouldn't have the same resources of an alliance of 1500 players. There is no sense in expecting that. People want low effort (few people) and high rewards, now that's unobtainable.

      Fourth, the "zergs" everyone complains about are usually 15-30 people on the map. Limiting guilds from 300 to 250, 200, 150 would not change anything, as the game can't even handle that many people on the screen anyway.

      Fifth, I have to strongly disagree with people that complain they can't compete with large zergs. The main end-game in AO is GvGs and it's 5vs5. You can easily setup a team and beat anyone on your way. There are several examples of low population guilds being successful (finstack, chicken kiss, bom, etc). You just have to be competent. Also, gear is not a real issue on GvGs as people say. Most of GvGs I played (and I played with/against pretty much every big guild in the game right now) are done in 6.3/6.2 gear. You can get that stupidly easy. You rarely see a 6.4 and to this day I've only seen two people actually using 7.4 in GvGs.

      So, in the end, dying to 15 players is something that WILL NEVER CHANGE no matter how much you try to limit it. Reducing guild cap will do nothing about it. It's the nature of open-world sandbox MMOs. More, doing GvGs against an alliance of 1500 or a guild of 50 will hardly change anything. If you are good, you'll easily hold a town plot, a farm and maybe one or another territory. I don't see why a guild of 5 people would need/want more than that or should even deserve more than that when compared to 1k+ people.

      What we can do about it is create alternatives for solo and small group players. For that there are green dungeons, blue dungeons, hellgates, GvGs, etc. For large zergs there are castles and raids. Chests and warcamps can be a problem, I understand, as it depends a little on your luck. If a zerg controls it you won't ever touch it.
      1. imposing restrictive rules on a sandbox MMO tends to remove the freedom it's based on, plain and simple: If you do not want to restrict? Why are there alliances and guilds as game system? UO lacked these systems. Alliances and groups were talking.2. Second, virtual restrictions do not solve the problem in any shape or form. Limiting the guild/alliance size even further will not reduce zergs.: If the system removed alliance, I tell me who would dawn.With the alliance system, you force the smaller unions competing to join these great alliance to live in peace, not because of progress.
      If all the unions were 100 players, no alliances, there is more competition, more enemies and less abuse collectors players for their purposes, and individual fun. Ignore the number of players with skills dictator there for games.

      3. Third, It should be obvious that a guild of 50 players shouldn't have the same resources of an alliance of 1500 players. There is no sense in expecting that: What makes no sense is that the system allows you to perform an alliance of 1,500 players.

      4. Fourth, the "zergs" everyone complains about are usually 15-30 people on the map. Limiting guilds from 300 to 250, 200, 150 would not change anything, as the game can't even handle that many people on the screen anyway.: Nobody complains for 15-30 players on a map. I complain that everything I meet on the map is an enemy because I'm not in the alliance and they are allies. It is simple to understand.

      5. Fifth, I have to strongly disagree with people that complain they can't compete with large zergs. The main end-game in AO is GvGs and it's 5vs5: I agree with you.

      I want you to understand that the unions are trying not to recruit quality, quantity recruit. If you do not want to enter or not you accept the alliance you will be surrounded by enemies and allies them. I think it's not very hard to understand
      I agree it's easy to understand. It's also easy to see it as a an excuse for own incompetence. Bom did just fine alone. So did finstack on top continent, chicken kiss for a long while and several other examples.You can get on the black zone right now with 5 people and takes 3-4 territories EASILY. I don't see what else would be a problem to do. Raids and castles perhaps, but that's not intended for few people anyway. What, right now, can't you do in 5 people besides that?

      Bud I come from a guild that had 10 people and we had 10 territories on last beta. Eventually we joined a big alliance because we conquered that. We did just fine by our own. The only thing that ever bothered me was the PK zergs. I do agree there should be a way to spot those.
      Bud I come from a guild that had 10 people and we had 10 territories on last beta. Eventually we joined a big alliance because we conquered that.: Explain to me the real reason you joined a grand alliance if so good and competent you think. Expects I tell you. Because you could no longer continue to cover more territory or to be quiet without being disturbed.
      If the End Game is to have more and more territories, go bad.

      All guilds that have set an example are in great alliances

      As you noted you're part of a Zerg and love dominate by number not quality.

      Yeah sorry but you'll keep repeating that childish excuse for the rest of your life and blaming the zergs for your lack of competence. You'll be stuck where you are now for the rest of your AO's life.

      Dear lord BOM complained but at least they were actually good. Keep blaming the numbers. Meanwhile we get everything.

      Finstack started without an alliance and got 10+ territories easily without even bothering. BOM played solo. CK joined an alliance reaaaaally late. It's a matter of knowing how to play the game.

      Now, if this was BETA1 I would agree, because you HAD to gather those high tier stuff that only existed in a couple maps controlled by two alliances, But right now? People don't even use t7. You can get t6 in yellow zone.

      There is literally NOTHING stopping you from getting territories. NOTHING stopping you from gathering in any territory (there is virtually zero risk in doing that, trust me). With 10 competent people you can easily hold an entire biome for yourself, not even kidding.
      Youtube channel (GvGs, OW-PvP etc): youtube.com/c/Nietz

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Nietz ()

    • Very nice your accomplishments. I keep saying, what if 10 people you do all that ?, you want unions to 300 people and alliances?

      Need your workers generates gold behind, right?
      You have 300 people in a guild, plus alliance for your group of 10 colleagues play the GvG funded by other poor people who have not yet realized or like to play as slaves.


      Come boy already going that stick :P

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Zfrenzy ()

    • Yeah, keep believe that and good luck little dude. Our guild has hardly 50 active people, like hardly. If I needed people giving me 6.2/6.3 I should just quit lol. Any idiot can do that and GvG, but most are afraid and blame something else. Honestly, I doubt you even tried to gvg or even faced any real issue against zergs for yourself. It's usually complaints without even trying due to fear.


      -----------------------------

      kronsky_ schrieb:

      @Nietz the main problem here is the size of the new outland, i doubt one guild with 10 active players will get at least 1 territory

      That I agree man. I complained about it two or three times already but they don't answer. I hope the new map gets smaller than the current one but not THAT smaller you know. Smaller guilds need to have a fighting chance and stay far from big alliances to get settled.
      Youtube channel (GvGs, OW-PvP etc): youtube.com/c/Nietz