Daish 24 Posted February 18, 2019 (edited) if a server cap is 150 the limit of players in a single company should be 1/3 so 50 players if the server limit is ever increased past 150 increase the limit on company size if there is no limit placed on company size this will end up killing the official server over time maybe not right now but definitely over time there is zero incentive for zerg companies to engage with each other until they run out of smaller companies to destroy Edited February 18, 2019 by Daish Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Puppies4ever 856 Posted February 18, 2019 Then they will start with subfleets again. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BetoDS 6 Posted February 18, 2019 so instead of company "A" you will have company "A1+A2+A3" forming alliance... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizik 43 Posted February 18, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Daish said: ...there is zero incentive for zerg companies to engage with each other until they run out of smaller companies to destroy It seems you haven't played much or are not privy to what is happening among the bigger companies. There are fights among the big companies. I am not certain where you have gained your "information". Edited February 18, 2019 by Pizik Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shintai 117 Posted February 18, 2019 It is kinda funny a company can have 500 (That they want to increase), while a server really cant handle more than 75 maybe and even then performance is crap. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boomervoncannon 1,541 Posted February 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Daish said: if a server cap is 150 the limit of players in a single company should be 1/3 so 50 players if the server limit is ever increased past 150 increase the limit on company size if there is no limit placed on company size this will end up killing the official server over time maybe not right now but definitely over time there is zero incentive for zerg companies to engage with each other until they run out of smaller companies to destroy How did you arrive at the 1/3 ratio? Is it based on anything or just your personal take on how the game should be designed? Do you have any empirical data which suggests company size has been a factor in decline of official servers of other games or is this also just personal opinion? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daish 24 Posted February 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Pizik said: It seems you haven't played much or are not privy to what is happening among the bigger companies. There are fights among the big companies. I am not certain where you have gained your "information". the servers hold 150 if you want bigger clans you need bigger servers 1/3rd of the server is already massive you do not need more then that split off into smaller companies and use alliances 3 hours ago, BetoDS said: so instead of company "A" you will have company "A1+A2+A3" forming alliance... that's fine they will have the same restrictions as every other company allied with each other 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizik 43 Posted February 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Daish said: the servers hold 150 if you want bigger clans you need bigger servers 1/3rd of the server is already massive you do not need more then that split off into smaller companies and use alliances This is a multi-server game. I could be sailing to battle among a fleet of 10 ships in J8, compatriots can be sailing a similar fleet in J9, same for J7. If you have ever been in / seen a large company battle it normally ends up a battle of attrition. Using the format I mention above means you can rotate ships into combat that are fresh and retire ships from battle that have taken a beating and are fully stocked with their own ammo and repair materials. This is just a single scenario, without mentioning that while 50 are out fighting that battle there can be teams farming resources, people repairing and maintaining bases, people prepping ships for battle; and that is before considering that a decent coordinated attack on a big company will require you to hit multiple servers at the same time. I suspect you are part of a small company who is wanting to level the playing field. There are other ways to achieve that. Do you just want a game which offers nothing other than a staged battle, fleet against fleet with no thought to tactical situations and resource replenishment? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHeid 79 Posted February 18, 2019 In my opinion there the game would be a ton better if there was no alliances and clan size was 10-15 max. Small scale pvp is better both funwise and server stability wise. I wish they would have done this in ARK as well. If you have a 50v50 war the servers will explode let alone 500v500 which is like 10 servers worth of people. DUMB 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bad News Bear 59 Posted February 18, 2019 Harder to manage a bunch of alliances over a single mega company +1 for this post 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MeatSammich 214 Posted February 18, 2019 It does seem a design flaw that you can overload the server with a zerg that either stops any defenders from coming in, or starts kicking people at random. Limiting clan size would do nothing to fix that, tho. It would have the same effect if it was 150 people from the same company attacking, or 5 allied groups of 30 people each, or 6 unofficially allied groups of 25 coming in. This last would be slightly harder without the blue alliance names to know your target, but not exactly difficult to all paint your ships the same color, or run the same color lanterns for night attacks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ankhwearer 19 Posted February 18, 2019 If their model is companies from Eve, then the problem you cite is also a problem for Eve. One that they just accept as a limit of that design. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daish 24 Posted February 19, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, Pizik said: This is a multi-server game. I could be sailing to battle among a fleet of 10 ships in J8, compatriots can be sailing a similar fleet in J9, same for J7. If you have ever been in / seen a large company battle it normally ends up a battle of attrition. Using the format I mention above means you can rotate ships into combat that are fresh and retire ships from battle that have taken a beating and are fully stocked with their own ammo and repair materials. This is just a single scenario, without mentioning that while 50 are out fighting that battle there can be teams farming resources, people repairing and maintaining bases, people prepping ships for battle; and that is before considering that a decent coordinated attack on a big company will require you to hit multiple servers at the same time. I suspect you are part of a small company who is wanting to level the playing field. There are other ways to achieve that. Do you just want a game which offers nothing other than a staged battle, fleet against fleet with no thought to tactical situations and resource replenishment? nothing is stopping you from playing with those same people using the Alliance system the server only holds 150 players letting clans have 50 players is already a large number there needs to be a limitation on the company size or a massive nerf to fast travel i would rather company size be changed to reduce the abuse of fast travel to say limiting company's to 50 players will have any major issue other then making it harder for those clans to coordinate kinda makes you look like you are one of the people who wants the game to be easier instead of more complex Edited February 19, 2019 by Daish Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Talono 434 Posted February 19, 2019 Limit it to 1 please. That would make me happy. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kanwulf 43 Posted February 19, 2019 21 minutes ago, Talono said: Limit it to 1 please. That would make me happy. This makes as much sense as any other arbitrary number. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Writhes 29 Posted February 19, 2019 (edited) It doesn't matter. Players have discords and other methods or organization outside of companies. This can't stop external cooperation. It's better to just embrace large companies and I say this from the perspective of a sub 50 active player company. Hopefully, if you area company of at least 75 active players you can still have enough people to half cap any given server if needed. Edited February 19, 2019 by Writhes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizik 43 Posted February 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Daish said: nothing is stopping you from playing with those same people using the Alliance system the server only holds 150 players letting clans have 50 players is already a large number there needs to be a limitation on the company size or a massive nerf to fast travel i would rather company size be changed to reduce the abuse of fast travel to say limiting company's to 50 players will have any major issue other then making it harder for those clans to coordinate kinda makes you look like you are one of the people who wants the game to be easier instead of more complex I am still not seeing any argument for your proposed changes other than "I think..." or more accurately "It needs to be...". Can you provide some concrete reasons based on evidence? I am even happy to listen to anecdotal examples I will concede that I would very much like to see a tighter limitation on Fast Travel (I posted in a previous thread on the subject); maybe limit the server -> server fast travel to a much smaller figure but allow a higher amount of in-server fast travel so moving around your area is still efficient. I am not sure if you are aware but there is currently quite a severe limitation on Fast Travel into a region that always hits larger companies when they try to all zone into a region. As for me wanting the game to be easier - I started Atlas solo but then after a few weeks joined some other guys and eventually several mergers later I find myself in a large company by chance, not necessarily by choice. I played thousands of hours on Ark Official PVP as solo also. Survival games are something I love because of the difficulty involved. I build my own ships in Atlas without the use of animals tames because it is more satisfying. I like a challenge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Talono 434 Posted February 19, 2019 (edited) On the ARK NoTame server companies were limited to 10 people without alliances allowed...was great ! In theory you can organize more players on discord and work together, but in reality you have the intended effect : Small tribes fighting for dominance. Edited February 19, 2019 by Talono Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildbill 142 Posted February 19, 2019 37 minutes ago, Talono said: On the ARK NoTame server companies were limited to 10 people without alliances allowed...was great ! In theory you can organize more players on discord and work together, but in reality you have the intended effect : Small tribes fighting for dominance. Hmm, did you actually play on one of the NoTame servers? I played a few weeks. There was one tribe that was huge. I'll call it one tribe because it was a tribe name with slight changes repeated over and over. So that even though there was a 10 person limit and I think no alliances, there was effectively a tribe with over 100 members that dominated while I was playing. I've never actually seen tribe size and alliance limits work. People are going to do what they are going to do whether the game supports it or not. There are going to be mega tribes, it is what people do when that is the way to win the game. If you want to actually discourage mega tribes, you need to build some disadvantage into the game, and that I think would be very difficult to acheive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites