Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
NoSkill

Making small groups (10-50) viable

Recommended Posts

Right now in Atlas (and Albion, and Eve) many of the largest groups are allied to each other and hostile towards smaller groups. This means that a "pick up group" of internet friends is unlikely to be able to carve out an existence anywhere but the most hostile regions.

In Eve it is called the "Big Blue Doughnut"; an alliance of superpowers, content to set on their power until the bi-yearly war breaks out. The Big Blue Doughnut is bad content. Not only is space boring 1.9 out of every 2 years, but when the fight finally happens the result is nothing more than a laggy slug fest.

Atlas is headed in the same direction. The top 10 companies work their way across the map, fighting easy targets (small groups) while their equally large friends watch their back; all at the expense of small groups and good content. Every time a small group is wiped a few more people quit the game and the sandbox shrinks.

What can be done

Part 1: I believe alliances should be limited to one "mega company", based on number of players.

For example, if we define "mega company" as having more than 150 members, a company with 150 or more members would not be able to ally with a second company of more than 150 members.

Part 2: Remove the limit on companies per alliance.

Part 3: Create an alliance tax bank

This would encourage the large regional powers to take on more small group vassals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always said that caps on company crews etc will not work. Don’t get me wrong, I want the best claiming system possible, but large companies will always find a way to work around any of the changes. By making more smaller companies, more alliances.. Capping on amount of alliances or cap on total players per group of alliances won’t work aswell. It’s a shame but that’s the way it is. Giving too many huge benefits to smaller groups will make large companies split out in different groups and just continue. It is extremely hard to balance this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you patch out human behavior?  Many games do this and thats why they suck.  People like me flock to games with no rules, more options, but then human nature destroys it.  The balance here is on the tip of a needle the size of a single atom.   Good luck!

Edited by DocHolliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Percieval said:

I have always said that caps on company crews etc will not work. Don’t get me wrong, I want the best claiming system possible, but large companies will always find a way to work around any of the changes. By making more smaller companies, more alliances.. Capping on amount of alliances or cap on total players per group of alliances won’t work aswell. It’s a shame but that’s the way it is. Giving too many huge benefits to smaller groups will make large companies split out in different groups and just continue. It is extremely hard to balance this. 

You say it won't work because they will find a way around. So what? Their friends will still be read.

 

Are you suggesting that the only solution you will accept is a "silver bullet" fix? How is this not a step in the right direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Percieval said:

I have always said that caps on company crews etc will not work. Don’t get me wrong, I want the best claiming system possible, but large companies will always find a way to work around any of the changes. By making more smaller companies, more alliances.. Capping on amount of alliances or cap on total players per group of alliances won’t work aswell. It’s a shame but that’s the way it is. Giving too many huge benefits to smaller groups will make large companies split out in different groups and just continue. It is extremely hard to balance this. 

While large companies might always find ways to work around it, there’s no reason those ways can’t be ferreted out and measures put in place to make doing so taxing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DocHolliday said:

How do you patch out human behavior?  Many games do this and thats why they suck.  People like me flock to games with no rules, more options, but then human nature destroys it.  The balance here is on the tip of a needle the size of a single atom. 

I feel like you are disputing my idea but without saying why? Is this not a step in the right direction?

 

You are right, there isn't anything we can do about people cucking us in this game. It is part of what makes it fun. The question is how can we make it a little MORE fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small companies well always have the disadvantage in an MMO. It has to do with economy of scale. Let's say the devs try to make it so a group of 10 players can be successful (let's say that in this case it's make a gallon in one week) these means a group of 100 will have at least ten of those done in the same amount of time (assuming equal productivity). Any balance made for small groups only increases to inequality not decreases it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Royal Gamers said:

Small companies well always have the disadvantage in an MMO. It has to do with economy of scale. Let's say the devs try to make it so a group of 10 players can be successful (let's say that in this case it's make a gallon in one week) these means a group of 100 will have at least ten of those done in the same amount of time (assuming equal productivity). Any balance made for small groups only increases to inequality not decreases it

You are missing the point and disputing an idea with a something unrelated. I am not taking about making it easier to make a galleon or harder for a group of 150 to kill a group of 10. Economy of scale is just that.

 

I am taking about limiting how much large groups can work together. I am talking about making it more difficult to manage large alliances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what the OP is saying is that a critical mechanic for the game is not being applied because of the way large companies work. Ideally, the game would work well in PvP if these large companies actually had incentive to fight eachother. They don’t, they can each do a lot of damage to eachother, but they don’t want to risk losing it all to someone who is equal or greater. So instead of large territories owned and protected by a mega, with multiple small companies under their wing, contributing their taxes so the mega can spend those resources building ports, or defending their territories or attacking an enemy. 

The concept initially was just that, be a part of the mega’s who govern, or do your own thing with your ‘faction’ of choice, but contribute to their economy. Essentially creating a player driven environment with the sandbox they provided. Of course you could venture out on your own, but we see how this is actually working for those that do.

Instead we have a bunch of land grubby normies who are too afraid to fight eachother, so they swallow and absorb every small company they can, because it’s a guaranteed victory in the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big group will always beat small group in term of everything .

The problem is the unbalance grinding vs reward . You grind so much just to gain a few and then all will be lost in a single raid .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NoSkill said:

Right now in Atlas (and Albion, and Eve) many of the largest groups are allied to each other and hostile towards smaller groups. This means that a "pick up group" of internet friends is unlikely to be able to carve out an existence anywhere but the most hostile regions.

In Eve it is called the "Big Blue Doughnut"; an alliance of superpowers, content to set on their power until the bi-yearly war breaks out. The Big Blue Doughnut is bad content. Not only is space boring 1.9 out of every 2 years, but when the fight finally happens the result is nothing more than a laggy slug fest.

Atlas is headed in the same direction. The top 10 companies work their way across the map, fighting easy targets (small groups) while their equally large friends watch their back; all at the expense of small groups and good content. Every time a small group is wiped a few more people quit the game and the sandbox shrinks.

What can be done

Part 1: I believe alliances should be limited to one "mega company", based on number of players.

For example, if we define "mega company" as having more than 150 members, a company with 150 or more members would not be able to ally with a second company of more than 150 members.

Part 2: Remove the limit on companies per alliance.

Part 3: Create an alliance tax bank

This would encourage the large regional powers to take on more small group vassals.

In game limits don't work.  We literally use a google doc spreadsheet to manage all the tribes in our alliance because the game doesn't allow that many.  Obviously it's not stopping us and no matter how you try to limit it in game it won't stop people from just doing the management side outside of the game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mndfreeze said:

In game limits don't work.  We literally use a google doc spreadsheet to manage all the tribes in our alliance because the game doesn't allow that many.  Obviously it's not stopping us and no matter how you try to limit it in game it won't stop people from just doing the management side outside of the game.

 

 

There are ways around it, sure. But at least it will make things more difficult.

 

Right now there is no reason for top 10's to be red to each other. The game has given these companies a tool they are foolish not to use. I want to take that tool away.

 

58 minutes ago, kampfer91 said:

Big group will always beat small group in term of everything .

The problem is the unbalance grinding vs reward . You grind so much just to gain a few and then all will be lost in a single raid .

This is not the problem, this is the main feature of a PVP game like this. There is nothing wrong with being able to get wiped by a larger group.

A problem these types of game have is that it benefits the big groups to ally each other and fight weaker groups instead of fighting each other. This will happen regardless of the game mechanics but right now it is far too easy for these groups to work together.

 

If they are red to each other mistakes will happen and distrust will grow aka, content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NoSkill said:

You say it won't work because they will find a way around. So what? Their friends will still be read.

 

Are you suggesting that the only solution you will accept is a "silver bullet" fix? How is this not a step in the right direction?

Oh I’m purely talking about caps on companies. And yes, from my experience with groups in many other games, they will always find a way. You can put any cap or restriction on member cap, alliance caps or how big they are, that won’t change a thing. That’s all. 

9 hours ago, boomervoncannon said:

While large companies might always find ways to work around it, there’s no reason those ways can’t be ferreted out and measures put in place to make doing so taxing.

Purely talking about the first point. 

Edited by Percieval

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Percieval said:

Oh I’m purely talking about caps on companies. And yes, from my experience with groups in many other games, they will always find a way. You can put any cap or restriction on member cap, alliance caps or how big they are, that won’t change a thing. That’s all. 

Purely talking about the first point. 

Ah okay, sorry for the confusion.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...