Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
You could have a "100 company" Server and
a "200 company" Server, and
have a "50 company server" and
have a "25 company servers", etc...
So because they can have ruleset servers with more or less numbers, its not a guaranteed error. Having a server or two for the big-zerg guilds to make their "companies" in New World is acceptable, just like every sickness preference in design could have their own prison-server (like people who want open world player killing with full loot).
Every design choice has its pros and cons.
The con of companies with too many people is that it literally servers no purpose.
Structurally, human beings spirits and the broad range of human notions/"skills system" work in a certain way, meanings that the experience in a video game with a 100 people company will be trash, except for the big streamers centralizing, monopolizing, bloodsucking, and profiting from it. And their seconds in command, which are mainly serpent tongue, backstabbers, waiting the right moment. Nothing glorious in most cases. Because 100 people are not lead by light-leader and formed by 100 luminaries most of the time. So it breeds all kinds of negative things and its just a matter of time, before all the experience is wasted, when everything is disolved or abandoned. Because those that are light abandon the dark leaders and those that are dark will fight amongst themselves when there isnt enough prey.
Ive seen this sickness on many games. Big companies have fun OVER PREYING ON SMALLER COMPANIES. It is sickness.
Only sick people are likelly to be heading/leading these big companies, so its better to have more companies with less heavy weight influence from these sick people, which are majority. Only few are worth a little leadership of small groups, and that, in limited circunstances. So the overall healthy of a game with huge variety of players is in DIVIDING INTO SMALLER GROUPS, letting everyone find their niches, not EVER BREACHING THE THRESHOLD OF RETARDEDNESS: which is when every strategy/tactic is abandoned, because "we just have more people anyway", or "we just got the headstart anyway".
Its like they (developers in this case) dont have any idea what every design choice will affect in social, psychological/spiritual experiences/learning and the starting point or ending point of those. Where it is heading, what it could result.
Its obvious that a lot of people will be pushed aside and be offended and not have their best experience in New World, because big guilds are a cancer, its historical. Shadowbane ended up being who got the biggest alliance, you convert or be bullied/oppressed. This happened in real life. Why have this in a video game?
In one South America server Preview we had a big guild with some 4 companies. They ruin it for everyone, except a few of them inside and the few who yet have not perceived they have broken the game by reason of lack of design on how to control the numeric advantage/excess. What it should be done is TO DESIGN WAYS TO COUNTER this phenomn of massification, to keep the experience tight.
Ive played Life is Feudal and in the server I was playing, one day came hundreds of chinese players out of 50 servers, they chose mine, because I had alone built an entire mini-industrial complex, which was perceived by them as "a better starting point" for them, so they said "Mind if we bring our 1000 people community and use your stuff?" And then they did it. It was just a starting island server, before people move to the main game. And the game died (by the numeric superiority causing oppression wich leads to quitting) as soon as these moved into the main game. The end.
You (developer) have to control the social experience, from solo, duo, trio, to small groups, to a dozen, and know when and how more numbers of players together can be gathered, or it spirals out of control. It happened on Preview, 200 people farming Elite POI, all night macro-casting aoe-heals. It happened when 50 people decided to locust swarm each level 65 corrupt breach non stop. It happened when these 3+ companies of the same BIG GUILD in real life, decided to just do PVP faction missions with all the members, killing everyone in the path. GG
This was not fixed and now we got a backwards move to make it worse, even "legitimize" it.
"Oh, but in our game you have to work together". Yes, to fight the AI. Not to bully and oppress other players, which is what the sadistic target audience is being exalted with the gameplay changes pro-rape-no-escape. "kills for lulz". They are cattering to the wrong feedback. Dark feedback. I told them not to listen to redditors.
100 men company is sure to spiral out of control. People would have bypassed the 50 people limit, making many other guilds with similar name/heraldric and kept the same meta website/discord/social networks. YOU HAVE TO DESIGN TO COUNTER THAT.
Just like you counter cheats, hacks, p2w, blackmarket, multiaccounting.
If the developers say "But we invisioned armies fighting armies in our MMORPG". Ok, but the truth is that that vision is thrash and nobody wants that or care about that, so it will wither and die.
How? Because everyone who prefers solo, duo, trio, small groups, etc will be CONSTANTLY, AND INCREASINGLY displeased with the big companies ANTICS. Knowing human nature, thresholds of tolerance, expectations, etc, its a given only the most shallow, allienated, fool, target audience accepts these big companies and their systems for whatever little sugar they can extract from whatever little monopoly of one or another systems.
Its another death system. Bro-way, designed by bros(? why are you sympatethic to them?! Are you "bros"?), for bros. Watch how it unfolds, scathering people away from the game. Because thats not what people bought. Not the expectations people had.
The game is being hi-jacked. All the art, programming, ui, server enginneering, resources, etc, being wasted on these BRAIN DEAD RULESETS FOR A DUMBED DOWN TARGET AUDIENCE. That will buy the box, play for a month or two and quit. Its a vision problem. Its a target audience problem. Its not the MMORPG we were waiting. I was not waiting for Dark Ages of Camelot. I was not waiting for Lord of the Rings Online 2 the movies-series inspired MMO.
Somehow the rich guys at the top of Amazon management think the game was something else to all people. What they (developers) are actually designing with the gameplay mechanics and these changes are all passing under the radar. (the "pro-no-escape", the "pro-end-game-entitlement", the "oh, we have to get everyone to level 60 or else they cant experience Outpost Rush", NO. Just lower the Outpost Rush entry level to 30 or something, but dont remove OUGHT from the games time and effort required).
"Oh, but some people dont have time to play". Then make a specific server ruleset for these exceptional box-buyers-one-month-quitters. Dont ruin the game for the majority.
Until BETA and RELEASE comes and the veil from alpha is lifted and people will see the bro-way, the disguised griefing on "you have to fight to death", the "pro-rape-cant-get-away" VISION (sorry for the strong language, but being killed by another player in a MMORPG is very offensive to wise people who take pride in not losing). To me this is sickness. Dont design for 50% chance of loss. I put time and effort and skill/choices/awareness to make chance of loss 20% or 10% at most. I dont play those other games where its 50% chance of loss/death.
The richness and wellness of the range of human interactions, the nourishment value, the notions learned, is lost, diluted, beyond a certain point when it gets too many people in the same company. Its a "mass effect". Its a common social phenomn. WE WANT NONE OF IT IN A VIDEO GAME.
I didnt came to be another unit in an army. I came to be a hero, protagonist, semi-God. So everyone who is not military minded, brain-dead servant minded, and is not satisfied with being just a unit, following order, being useless alone, will just be the BOX-BUYERS-PLAY-A-MONTH-MOVE-ALONG, so much for the new MMORPG New World. Because a simple set of ruleset, tweaks and sliders PLEASING DEATH, FOOLS, SICK, SADISTIC PEOPLE.
"We are hearing our customers". You are hearing in part, but inwardly you are pleasing your own. You are not even choosing the people that would remain for longer, you are not even choosing the method that would bring more money to Amazon. You are just boycotting it, forcing your way, playing God with someone elses investment and a hundred team years of work and effort put into the garbagge, because it could be a success if only these sliders/tweaks/rulesets were to focus on the right target audiences, on the good people.
Its like the pilot and his buddies just decided to bring the plane down for some reason thinking they have parachutes and the bags of money. Thats what Im reading from the design changes. Change the design back to life, pro-long-term, pro-journey, pro-escape-if-wise designs and our reading of your game philosophy/ideology/effect changes. Nothing will change the Release success, everyone will buy the box, play for 1 to 3 months, but 3 months after that, the people that will remain and the overall success of the game is being decided now and they have chosen the worst path: try their luck with the gameplay pvp on its own with the target audience of how do I put it... "casuals" is not the word, the word is like "fornicators", people who dont care about MMORPG and the things of MMORPG at all, the people who just want to score kills, thats their sicksadistic delight.
They think people will play this as they would Chivalric II, or For Honor, or any MOBA, or BattleRoyale, or deathmatch or Dark Ages of Camelot of old. No, people wont. The game itself is not good enough to stand on its own to compete with those by gameplay, gameplay pvp and game modes. And since they have not focused on MMORPG things, they wont have MMORPG players and they wont have people playing it casually either.
Its a grievous misjudgement of own's game qualities/capabilities.
New World only works by the sum of all its parts, and the sum of its parts only work if the target audiences benefit from the sum of all its parts.
What we have is just a 10-15% target audience benefit from the entire potential of the MMORPG and this same 10-15% target audience are the ones RUINING EVERYTHING, from progression, longevity, competition aspects, monetization, now even to the actual gameplay pvp and pve experience.
It sure works very well, sure to receive an score of 75+/100 ---> for this 10-15% target audience, which is can only be the like-mindness behind these designs.
Under the radar: because like 1% of the people talking about seem to have perceived this direction.
But the other target audiences will despise it. Some will tolerate up to three months. This is a many year old game, why are you not designing gameplay/progression/server rulesets to PLEASE THE PLAYERS WHO INTEND TO PLAY NEW WORLD FOR MANY YEARS?
But this will only become evident after release.
Because in Beta there wont be enough time, because they wont give enough time.
Just like they shut the doors of Alpha, to not be judged before time and forced to change, so they continue pushing these. We accept the Alpha being hermetically closed, because we want the game to be PROTECTED from outside, but not for the game to be steered in a way that some dont want it to be perceived before its too late.
"Legion, for we are many"
sorry to say that after such a long text you wrote but you seem to have no clue how NW and PVP in NW works. you can chose to flag yourself pvp in the open world, so massive harasment??? i dont see that dude.
PVP around settlements are 50 vs 50. every faction will chose the best ppl to fight for them. yes the company who ownes the territory is geting a nice buff, but all of your faction is getting a buff as well.
Companies are not as important and responsible of failure of this game or your game experience as you describe it. the Faction is... In my view, the faction that works together the best will dominate the server. not the company with 100 ppl...
Please start reading the pachnotes and inform your self before posting 100 pages of things that are not even close to be true.
Oh, that's interesting, and potentially changes my approach to my Company. I was under the impression that it reserved 10 slots for the "vanguard" company, then randomly selected 40 additional people.
We typically keep our guild/company small (20 or fewer), but if it's a guaranteed 50 company slots for wars, that makes a big difference.
I can understand that, because they gather a lot of people.
But some of them later, also enjoyed better the small fights, with only 4 or 5 players, saying that the PvE with 30-40 players on corrupted breaches were not really fun... (I agree)
---
I'm also scared of zerg companies bullying small ones.
"Turn off your PvP flag", seems to NOT be an healthy "solution".
How can we try to "counter" zergs bullying? Maybe with a NERF when you group? Maybe something like -0.5% damage and health per players in the company? (if you are 100, all players will have -50% damage/health ; and if you are 50, all players will have -25% damage/health).
-0.5% is just an example.
---
Maybe a solution could be "asking help for another big company" on your faction.
"FACTION CHAT : Hey guys, we need help in Windsward! Come fast!"
---
I actually don't know how to limit zergs bullying, but it definitely could be an issue.
But I think the community will provide feedbacks, and "balance/fix" will come.
Eh that's what I thought too. Seems I missed a change on it.
Nope, that kills MMOs. Especially when you don't have 10s of millions of players. And even then it just causes issues in the long haul.
You don't want to maintain a ton of different rulesets for populations that shrink. It adds a ton of work and just divides people even more.
I understand that MMO's are all about that escapism, that imagination, but they exist in a real world. So yeah, have to balance reality into the equation.
---
Hum... One issue I can see is :
when you are doing a war, maybe you want your friends at your side. It's easier to make "tactical moves" with the member of your COMPANY instead of the members of your FACTION.
Is that the reason why you want 100 players on a company? To have better WAR's exeprience?
(I can understand that)
Pretty much that will create elitism.
You two are just on too different of a wavelength. But that can be easily fixed, a server for either of you ;).
Bear in mind that the 1000 figure is concurrent player numbers, not the total number of players on a server.
Looking at my own guild statistics from the past decade, that primarily being larger scale social PvE guilds with two, at most 3 hardcore raiding teams on an average game night only roughly 15% of the guild members would be online out of e.g. about 400 FC members in FFXIV. Throughout the week, roughly 80% would have logged in at least once. And since we had a rather strict policy on inactive accounts being booted after 4 weeks of inactivity if no notice of prolonged leave was given, roughly 90% logged in at least once every 2 weeks.
In other words, based on my own experience at least, 1000 players in peaktime would only be roughly 15% of the total playerbase. That would put the total server population, by approximation, on 6666 and two-thirds of a player.
If we then even consider that the goal is 10000 concurrent player numbers in the long run, which isn't inconceivable really, wouldn't be the first MMO to pull this off and Amazon most certainly has sufficient hardware resources for this task. It's also far from the world record of concurrent users to a single MMO server, held by World of Tanks with a whopping 190.5k. Software optimization is what remains here. Then you're looking at a long term expectation of over 60k active players per server, who would play at least once every 2 weeks.
A single company of 100 is then just a small fraction of this total playerbase.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how some of these dynamics play out. Humans tends to gravitate toward the people they most identify with, and it's no different in gaming, maybe just a bit more ambiguous.
I think the best you can do is either go in with a group of friends, or look for a Company that has people with a similar view on how to play the game.