Company Player Limit needed

[rogander 0]

A company with 404 players in it with 172 active is ridiculous. They could literally occupy over a full server and wipe anything in it without needing to fight for it.

Please lower the max company player number, and perhaps add restrictions on alliances too. Because at the moment unless you're a large company you're gonna get wiped from your home, probably while you're asleep.

Edited December 29, 2018 by rogander
player amount fix

[Boredaholic 39]

you do realize that as a company grows that large they do tend to take over multiple islands spread across several zones... i mean... china no.1?

[rogander 0]

Isn't that part of the problem? If they're facing resistance in a zone couldn't they just have a large amount of people spawn in the one zone they want to take over and just wipe it?

[Percieval 1,067]

What’s the cap you would like to see? 

[rogander 0]

Some amount under 150. Maybe with some sort of flexible limit of how many players of a certain company can be in 1 zone at the same time depending on how much land they own in it.

[rogander 0]

And i know part of the game is to allow Companies to take over large portions of the map, and then duke it out with other large Companies. But maybe a better alternative to that is to have each Company choose 1 of like 5 pirate factions and reward factions for how much of the map they control, which would give you that ebb and flow of map ownership with other factions but still allow Companies in the same faction to fight.

[Percieval 1,067]

1 minute ago, rogander said:

And i know part of the game is to allow Companies to take over large portions of the map, and then duke it out with other large Companies. But maybe a better alternative to that is to have each Company choose 1 of like 5 pirate factions and reward factions for how much of the map they control, which would give you that ebb and flow of map ownership with other factions but still allow Companies in the same faction to fight.

There are more people with the same idea, but I believe that it suits a server alone better.

[Tarvald 34]

The name of the game is large organizations, they're attempting to make Ark + EvE. I see where you're coming from, but these groups can alos be destroyed by large groups that invade their servers and don't allow the other large group to spawn.

The problem isn't Clan size, expect to eventually see clans of thousands of people like you see Corps in EvE. The problem is poor server design.

The worst thing you can do for an MMO is start to shave back social aspects. Social building blocks aren't the problem, the servers are.

[rogander 0]

I disagree. It is a long process to wipe company bases in Eve. Eve also allows for large scale battles without player limits afaik, where as in Atlas a whole Company can sit in a server and have their way with whatever is on it. And Atlas will always have hard player limits in zones, there's nothing that can be done about that. Eve's gameplay also functions in a way that small to medium sized companies don't get steamrolled by big ones just for the hell of it.

[TheSzerdi 79]

You can't stop mega clans. They'll just split into smaller clans with a number on the end of their name.

EVE has high sec, low sec, and null sec and character progress is not limited by safe areas. 

Join a big group / alliance or go to a private server. The devs should make alliance more appealing. Maybe allow the alliance leader to set and collect the taxes for all alliance land. Give an incentive to mega clans to accept alliance instead of just killing everyone. 

[rogander 0]

But why have player run "big groups/alliances" that you have to join when game implemented ones would (i imagine) work better and be more fair?

 

I know people will always find a way to coordinate, so mega-companies can't be 100% prevented. But it would go a long way to balance the game imo if it were much more difficult for them to steamroll medium to small companies.

Edited December 29, 2018 by rogander
clarity

[TheSzerdi 79]

3 minutes ago, rogander said:

But why have player run "big groups/alliances" that you have to join when game implemented ones would (i imagine) work better and be more fair?

You want the Chinese swarm to be able to join your hard coded faction and grief you? Think about it for a minute. Ships and bases you can't damage and can't throw out of your company. 

[rogander 0]

Just now, TheSzerdi said:

You want the Chinese swarm to be able to join your hard coded faction and grief you? Think about it for a minute. Ships and bases you can't damage and can't throw out of your company. 

Not at all. The extent of game coded factions would be to give companies a common goal and incentive to work together while not forcing it. It wouldn't allow other companies in the same faction to access buildings or resources. I'm not sure how they could grief anymore than they do now.

[TheSzerdi 79]

You have no imagination. Rafts surrounding a ship holding it hostage for ransom. Just the first thing that came to mind. 

[rogander 0]

Just now, TheSzerdi said:

You have no imagination. Rafts surrounding a ship holding it hostage for ransom. Just the first thing that came to mind. 

But you'd still be able to destroy same faction rafts... or anything else belonging to a company in the same faction.

[TheSzerdi 79]

Then what's the point? 

[rogander 0]

To provide a common goal you can choose to work towards (that would yield rewards if certain conditions were met). Is there a point to alliances that extend beyond having common goals but with protection against accidental damage?

[TheSzerdi 79]

What are you talking about? You want to stop mega clans. You can't. 

RainbowMurderHordeClan

RainbowMurderHordeClan2

RainbowMurderHordeClan3

RainbowMurderHordeClan4

All using the same TeamSpeak or discord or whatever. 

I think it's better to give them more management tools like alliance taxes so they have a reason to work with smaller groups rather than just kill them. 

If you want to talk about game factions created by devs for regional quest goals, that's a whole different thread. It has nothing to do with mega clans. 

[rogander 0]

26 minutes ago, rogander said:

But why have player run "big groups/alliances" that you have to join when game implemented ones would (i imagine) work better and be more fair?

 

I know people will always find a way to coordinate, so mega-companies can't be 100% prevented. But it would go a long way to balance the game imo if it were much more difficult for them to steamroll medium to small companies.

I know (see above). I was just providing factions as an alternative to alliances as a way to curb megas from dominating. Just because mega-companies can't be 100% prevented doesn't mean there's no point in trying to do so at all. It's not about fully stopping them, it's about making it much more difficult so that smaller companies have a fighting chance.

[TheSzerdi 79]

1 minute ago, rogander said:

I know (see above). I was just providing factions as an alternative to alliances as a way to curb megas from dominating. Just because mega-companies can't be 100% prevented doesn't mean there's no point in trying to do so at all. It's not about fully stopping them, it's about making it much more difficult so that smaller companies have a fighting chance.

I think you're underestimating the difficulty. Even without alliances a mega clan won't be slowed down at all. You could remove the clan system entirely and it wouldn't really matter. They have their own infrastructure. Their own communications. They don't need game mechanics to be a mega clan. We need game mechanics that appeal to the mega clans to ally with us. 

[rogander 0]

Easy communication isn't the issue, it's the mechanics. I cannot imagine the logistics, or safety, of having pin-coded doors and inventories between many companies and hundreds of players, so resource sharing would be very hard. Could it be done? I guess.. but it'd be a nightmare, especially if those pin codes got out.

Also not having access to hundreds of beds on various islands and ships would go a long way. The way claiming territory works would also be effected since multiple companies can't occupy a claim and have it the claim change owners.

I fully disagree that it wouldn't hinder mega-companies.

Edited December 29, 2018 by rogander

[TheSzerdi 79]

Each sub company takes an island. Every other sub company has one claim on the island with only a barracks full of beds in the claim. 

Edit to add: They should already be doing something like this. It prevents spies from destroying or stealing too much in one go. 

Edited December 29, 2018 by TheSzerdi

[rogander 0]

8 minutes ago, TheSzerdi said:

Each sub company takes an island. Every other sub company has one claim on the island with only a barracks full of beds in the claim. 

I don't see the issue with that. "Only a barracks" sounds easier to destroy than a mega-fortress owned and operated by several hundred players. A side benefit is if an "ally" company comes to aid, they won't know who is who, since there wouldn't be green or blue text highlighting friendlies.

And even if you don't agree with that there's still the advantage with not being able to spawn on ally company boats.

Edited December 29, 2018 by rogander

[TheSzerdi 79]

There's still going to be a mega fortress on each island operated by the same people. There's still going to be the same number of people. It would make ships slightly easier to fight, but not much unless you drop clan size to like ten. It's an open world pvp game. The mega clans will rule no matter what. We're better off coming up with mechanics that offer them incentive to ally with small groups. 

Ideas like:

Alliance leader setting taxes on allies. 

Claim flag settings to set specific flags as shared to specific allies. 

Building and storage settings to share with specific allies. 

Ship settings to share with specific allies and specific ranks. 

All of these allow mega clans to absorb small clans without the small clans losing their identities. 

[rogander 0]

But then you're still forcing smaller companies to join alliances AND pay taxes and do whatever else they are told to do, or else they will be wiped. It'll basically turn into extortion. So you'd get smaller companies doing harvesting work and not having fun so that those in charge of the alliance can take their work to battle and have fun.

And at that point there would only be a handful of alliances since any smaller ones would either be absorbed or stomped out.