The KGB Oracle Forums The KGB Great Hall of History (ARCHIVE) Darkfall Members Forum To big or not too big, that is the question?

I have been thinking about this for a while, and discussing it with some - but for DFO, we have a couple options available to us on how we want to approach the game.

As I am sure everyone is aware, there will be a lot of guilds playing that are far larger than we are currently, in terms of active membership.

This will leave us, with 3 basic options -

1) stay smallish, work with allies to have/maintain a stable home base.

2) stay smallish, try and keep under the radar/on the fringes ( hope this is possible.. may well be.. KGB Island perhaps? )

3) Recruit our asses off. Attempt to raise a force and compete with the big dawgs.


Of course, what actually happens will likely involve something of a mix of all three -

But if you have any thoughts on the subject , now is the time to air them.

I think we should start small. We shouldn't compromise the integrity of our membership for the sake of being a Zerg. Because of the AOE friendly-fire/opponent-healing Zerging is supposedly discouraged in DF anyway.

So yeah, at least as far as I'm concerned, we should start with our current membership, slowly recruit people we find to be quality candidates, and establish our track of territory. Find nearby guilds to ally with, or maybe arrange to build next to PRX/Tao/CotP or whoever we've been having strong ties with in Vanguard and AoC, and we all expand outwards in opposite directions. By doing this, our alliance can surely dominate a huge portion of the map if we play our cards right, but we'll make sure our guild will still be composed of high-quality members.

This is the first real conquest mmo I've played in probably 5 or 6 years, but back in Neocron what I described above was a valid strategy. Sure, the servers only had about 400 people online at any given time, so things were far smaller scale, but our guild had probably 5-20 online at any time, as did a lot of our allies (some smaller, some larger.) Through the alliance, we could always count on having a strong showing to the defense of one of our fortresses, or the attack of one of our enemies'. The only catch was that the alliance was treated very seriously. ANY time an ally was to attack or defend, we had to be there for them, just like they were there for us (Given that we were online of course.) Through this system, the guild Bishop and I were in once controlled probably 2/3 of the fortresses in the game (about 40 forts I believe.) And even when our guild waned in military prowess, our alliance (about 3 or 4 guilds) was still able to dominate about 50% of the map, maybe a little bit less.

So you are suggesting the alliance track?

You do have some good points, just one thing to remember is Neocron wasnt a total sandbox game like DFO. Losing a fort may have been a blow to guild pride, but losing your home is a different matter altogether.

When dealing in high stakes environments, if you depend on your allies , that inherently gives your allies a good deal
of leverage in your dealings - or in other words, sometimes they want to get their way with various things.

While natural, and there nothing being inherently wrong with that, often times within our own guild alot of people tend to chafe at this. "nutcupping" is a term some like to use, sometimes appropriatly, sometimes not IMO. The point is, its different when the stakes are a lot higher and all the guilds have their own wants and desires, fears and aspirations. Things can become alot more difficult.

Now, dont get me wrong - I am not saying I dislike the idea
of playing with allies by any stretch, I am just discussing various aspects that we need to keep in mind, and sounding out what people are thinking.

If alliance guilds are truly relying on each other to keep their homes & etc, occasionally compromises must be made that dont sit well with everyone, and I am wondering how well we will deal with that.

Yeah I guess my vote goes for the alliance track.

I see your point, and you're right, there is a lot more at stake in this case. Maybe because of this we can plan ahead of time to set up some sort of checks and balances to the alliance members' powers before we step into one. Something like for any guild to make a declaration of war, there must be a majority vote amongst the alliance leaders. And I guess in the case of defending, then there's really no other choice but to help the allies.

I don't know, the solo track seems fine with me as well. I'm just saying, I've seen an alliance well-done take place before, and it was a highly effective tool for establishing superiority in the game. You definitely have a point though, and in the past the KGB has had many gripes with alliance members. And I'm not necessarily pointing fingers, because in WoW I was one of the biggest opponents of the Damage Networks alliance the second we started getting pushed to a side in the raids. I guess that's the thing though, we have to make sure not to take shit from our allies. The whole point is to actually make compromises and have everyone putting in a little bit for the good of the whole, rather than one guild reaping benefits and the rest just sort of stepped down upon.

If there's any way possible, I lean towards option 2. Our experience in SB would tell us that, at best, it won't be easy, but it won't be any fun if it isn't a challenge. If it turns out that going it alone is completely out of the question for whatever reason, then I would prefer option 1 to option 3. Mass recruiting more or less keeps the overall power in the hands of our leadership but is not without serious drawbacks.

In my mind the thing to consider when making this decision is what do we stand to lose if things go sour. In an alliance, big or small, loose or tight, ties can be cut with minimal fuss. Sure, you may make a few more enemies in the worst cases, but the damage would be small and controllable. In a mass zerg that turns into something like the goonswarm, you make a LOT of enemies simply because if you are too successful the entire server will hate you, and if you fail miserably, then all the asshats that leave the guild will spread their discontent into scores of other guilds.

Again, thats dealing with worst case scenarios. In all likelihood neither would happen, but that kind of foresight is the thing leaders have to be burndened with.

Besides that, do we have a stated goal in DFO? Are we out to carve a niche or conquer a continent? Do we want to rub every PK guild the wrong way or just sorta fly low and police our own lands? I'm open to just about anything in this regard, so long as we don't overreach. If we can keep it in the family, so much the better, but if our goals are lofty then its almost a certainty that we either have to recruit or make alliances.

Well, as for goals.... the changing face of KGB over the past years and even months has forced me to re-evaluate my plans and take a hard look at what I think we can do with today's KGB. Lets face it, we might not have the numbers participating that we would have had 3 years ago.

The strategies and plans I would have liked to put into effect are no longer viable, and thus as a consequence either the goals have to change, or the methods need to be changed.

So, the bottom line is I have basically scrapped everything , and am trying to figure it all out again from scratch.

The goal initially, was to become/lead a tier1 political/military faction on the server with multiple cities, subguilds and basically create the most badass empire we could, if we could.

But that was 2 and 3 years ago, and though it would have been rough to do then - as things stand today I do not deem it wise to even attempt such a feat, without at least knowing and advising the membership ahead of time exactly what it would entail, and unless KGB participation and motivation far exceeds my current expectations , the reality is that we would have to make some possibly painfull adjustments... either in terms or recruiting speed, alliance ties, or both.

So while thinking through some scenarios, and chatting random with a few people - it became clear that there was a definate sentiment among people that maybe the majority of the players who are active now, might not want to pursue that path at all.

Instead of arbitrarily picking the new path, I decided that maybe a better policy would be to open it up for discussion and let people air their thoughts.

And that, is basically where we stand.

I think we need to recruit, but recruit wisely. There are going to be a lot of guilds playing this game from SB. WE made a lot of enemies, so i can almost guarantee that there is going to be targets on us. I think, recruiting smartly, getting in our traditional alliances, and go from there.

I know UDA wants to be with us, so we can go from there. Build, but build smartly

Well, let me say that I think the old, "If we build it, they will come" is relevant here. We just have never had a game that will have the appeal like this one. Look how many people we picked up in AOC.

We have got recruitment down to a science. Lets do all three of what Derid suggested. We can grow KGB into a monster if we have enough time.

I think Jet is right, we will start our guild, and things will start rolling, It is our destiny/fate !!

I would, however, enjoy a small core guild for fun, to hang out with some of the people from the good ole' days. Be an elite small group of pvp'ers.

Game mechanics are going to be important too, is the game geared for castle sieges which require a 40 man raid? Well then we would need to get 40 people... etc...

Just FYI, yes, sieging will require a LOT of people.. for the simple fact that there is no limit.

In DFO the devs swear that skill and etc will make a huge difference and that a smaller group can beat a larger group.

However, I tend to think they are talking about 20 people beating 40 people not 20 people beating 4000 people.

But bindstones limited capacity + no summon = you need a lot of logistic to pull 200+ players for a siege. And they won't come from all over Agon.

Yeah, that's something that we have to wait and see though. They say there won't be summons across the map to a location of your choice like in other games... but they also can't just make travel across the map tedious. Travel may take a good half hour though... we'll see.

I still wouldn't put it past people to bring 19237812093 members to a siege even without something as simple as summons. It would just take a little bit more preparation for the siege.

The Few. The Proud. The KGB.

Hmmm, catchy, but it does sounds really familiar, for some reason.

I think that it would be best for us NOT to to bite off more than we can chew. We have been guilty of that in the past, and it has bitten us in the ass. I would much rather that we go into the game and develop a reputation as the best, the toughest, the meanest, most elite unit in the game, regardless of size.

If we demonstrate that we can not only succeed, but that we can thrive through superior tactics and concentration of force, then although we may not the biggest dog in the fight, we will still gain recruits at a rate that is supportable and sustainable. Grow too large, too fast, and we will only be asking for problems.

If it becomes known that the KGB can field a force of effective shock troops, alliances with larger guilds will not be a problem. If we cannot, then it doesn't matter how big we are, we will be ineffective.

Before we can get big, we first need to demonstrate that we are good.

I think we need to constantly promote practice. Solo PVP is great and all, but I think the key will be smaller groups of skilled players that can pick enemies off slowly but surely.

Our first goals should be figuring out how to stay alive longer than anyone else and perfecting a hit and run tactic that will pull enemies away from their zerg so we can chop them into tiny little cubes 1 at a time. Smaller groups have the benefit of quicker organization, so replenishing our forces after a wipe won't take 10 times longer than it should (like we saw in SB). As long as we practice team organization off the field and give everyone the chance to practice leading teams then we should never lack leaders and we'll be able to maintain focus.

We should recruit as fast as we can train members to understand and utilize out tactics, but no faster than that.

I wouldnt assume to much, also there are always time constraints.

In any case, this is a strategic discussion so lets not get to bogged down on tactical issues. Really what it boils down to, is are people looking and willing to play with new people in larger quantities - like allies or recruits, or do people want to keep the group small , and have less allies/recruits.

The tactical and gameplay issues will come up, but its dangerous to assume to much or put to much thought into that aspect , because any assumptions made about how the mechanics play out could end up being wrong.

So, we dont know what is realistically possible or not possible yet as far as tactics.

So far, most people are appearing to be against heavy recruiting or getting to entertwined in alliances.

Derid one thing that I can tell you is that since Warhammer has released we've had a ton of people come out of the cracks that use to roll with or against KGB back in the Pac days. I am astonished on the applications we've had and we have not even officially began to recruit. I am excited for you guys and wish you the best of luck!

Ahh...but we are just about to release a recruiting campaign of semi-not epic scale! Who knows who might trickle over to DFO after WAR has lost it's luster!

I dunno what we think is small

Whats a goal Number to start off with is my question ?

Now, this figure could be wrong - it is hard to predict exactly, but based on my best estimation we will likely have
vary between 15 and 25 people online during afternoon/evening hours, and a handfull during the day. During KGB's historic heavy-play nights like Sunday , we might break 30 - but the average guild participation I am projecting as things currently stand is having 1 or 2 FG during primetime hours and between 5-10ppl during off times.

The most important and immediate goal, is to secure and build a home somewhere , because noone wants to live out of the NPC Capitol.

My gut tells me, based on what I know of the game mechanics and other organizations coming to play, that to have a reasonably secure home in many areas of the map , an organization will require an ability to organize about 8 FG (about 80 people) at any given primetime hour, and have 2 FG or so actively protecting interests off-peak, and spread
itself between 3 Clan Stones, which upgraded will probably allow binding of 100~150 people each. ( base is 50, but I am hearing that number rises as you upgrade the city, and will likely be revised upward during beta.)

Now, a lot will depend on serverpop \ number of clanstones. Also, the spacing, and availability of stones far away from the quick-transport portals that are said to be in game. However, other clans arent dumb either - and I am guessing the clanstones furthest out will be prime real-estate, unless the flow of the game makes it so much more convenient to be closer to NPC towns/portals/etc that the powerhouse guilds really settle closer to the core.... but I am suspecting, that everyone will settle near the frontier for defensive reasons. Hopefully I am wrong in that regard.

I think you are guessing low. I bet we have 50 on nights. This is Darkfall, and you know everyone will want in.

Quite possible, its also possible my estimations in other areas may well be off. However, it is important to keep expectations realistic - and make sure that people know ahead of time the type of scenarios we might be facing.

No matter what route you take, you always give up something. There are always trade offs. Being relatively small is not something I am against, in fact there are many advantages to growing slowly and working to keep top-notch discipline at all stages. However, early siezing, holding and conquering swatchs of prime real-estate is not one of them.

Under a small,elite, slow-growth plan that type of thing comes later. As long as this is understood and accepted by the general member, and the general member still wishes to adhere to a similar type policy I am perfectly fine with it.

Getting entertwines with, and relying heavily on allies means we wouldnt be in "sole control" of our destiny, and would have to make compromises with others in regards to politics, access, etc.... pre-recruiting and heavy public recruiting would mean a flood of new faces , more issues with new members... more conflict internally to be resolved due to higher membership, and a more difficult time creating and maintaining flexible field response and discipline.

Like I said previously, we will be engaging in all 3 aspects to one degree or another - but the degree and direction was and is open to some discussion.

Like I mentioned before...I much more prefer a smaller, more disciplined unit. However, there is nothing to say that this smaller elite group couldn't be it's own sub faction of sorts (still KGB obviously).

I love to siege, and I hope it's a large part of our PVP in Darkfall. However, if we can't maintain a strict form of discipline in order to pull off the sieges then we invite severe frustration on us all....especially whomever the G5 is in the faction.

Not to compare , but maybe to show you how much people will draw to KGB.

We are not even openly recruiting yet. We have at this time 60-62 individual members of Warhammer. This includes our current candidates with applications as well.


We anticipated 20-25 at max,. I know we'll lose some to Darkfall because many are using warhammer as a passing time. I think for two weeks out of release its a pretty good start.

Whats your average number of folk online at any given time?

I usually see between 10 and 20 in Vent warhammer related rooms, occasionally peaking a bit above that on like Sunday eve etc

I am anticipating similar total numbers in the guild, but the most important benchmark in a sandbox game, is how many people can you muster for organized military activity.

Yeah, I have taken it into account.

Like I said previously, my estimates may end up being off -
but I do think they will be relatively ballpark. I also
think that at first, especially - between WoW expansion
and WH, that there will be some people that dont jump
on the DFO bandwagon as it heads out the starting gate.

How many? Impossible to say exactly.

Anyhow, I will divest my full ramblings on the matter
at some other time or find me in Vent, but I sure wouldnt
mind if there was a higher level of activity at the start
than I am currently anticipating. I do think, that if the
servers dont blow up and the game pwns, that we will see
some more people coming back to play over a period of 2-4
months... but thats a different matter.

Well since there are a lot of people who play alts and are changing chars, waiting on others to catch up etc. I haven't really been on too much during peak times. Daytime on average we can have anywhere from 5-15, this is work hours. At night there have been loads of people online. I honestly haven't payed attention to the numbers. Majority of our new people are using vent almost as soon as they are getting tagged. Its been really great for rvr, since warhammer is totally geared towards rvr

150 Active players

Are you ready ?

You know, there are quite a few folks who are using Warhammer to pass the time. But, there is probably an equal number of folks that are just waiting for DFO. I know that Brutal is one of those, he's been watching Warhammer over my shoulder but isn't interested in another MMO until DFO releases. Is there an easy way to poll active members to see where we stand with who all is just waiting in the wings for DFO to hit the stores? Or do you already have that info, Derid, and that's what your assumptions are based on?

Just based on my gut, I'd say that Jet is likely right. I would think that folks would come crawling out of the woodwork as soon as the game releases.

I mostly already have that info, but things change....

Another thing to keep in mind, is.. typically you have between 20 and 35% of your active playerbase on during guild primetime hours , and will typically average about 10% off-peak. Of course there are exceptions and fluctuations based on day of the week, how hardcore people get about the game, what time it is exactly.. and so on.

But generally speaking, unless you are recruiting specifically for off-peak hours, if you want one more FG of military during your average evening, you need to recruit at least 25 more people, and to maintain that extra group you need to recruit about 35 more people over a moderate period of time to maintain for dropoff.

One of the biggest factors I am anticipating, is a large dropoff in "harcore" players over the past few years... now, this could be very wrong and I hop eit is, but the sense I get is that the number of people in the guild who will play super hardcore hours has dropped dramatically over the past few years.

So where 2 years ago say, we might have had 40 hardcore peeps that produced 25 players ave during a 12 hour 4pm-4am EST stretch and 10 during the off hours might now only equate to 20 or less hardcore of which maybe 8~12 will be garunteed to be on during the 4pm-4am stretch with a handfull on during off hours.

It has been a long time, and peoples RL situations have changed, some have simply gotten into the WoW routine and might not even play DFO, or WH, or are chilling more with other guilds and may or may not come back to KGB for DFO....
there are a lot of variables.

What I am trying to gauge, is how the people who will be playing DFO for sure, think about the overall tone of how we handle a sub-optimal situation, if we find ourselves in one.. and conversely, impart the message to those that are sitting on the fence - that in DFO, if KGB is going to have a shot at tier1 status you need to come on day one with your game face on and be prepared for some highly disciplined powergaming.

We will see how it turns out, but people do need to know ahead of time that whether the server is stable or shit, a commitment to kicking ass with KGB in DFO from day one is needed.

I remain very optimistic, I think there are alot of fringe folks that have been waiting for a "Real Game" to come along. As the date approaches, we will see people come out of the wood work.

Quote:

---

some have simply gotten into the WoW routine and might not even play DFO, or WH, or are chilling more with other guilds and may or may not come back to KGB for DFO....

---

I'll be talking with the guys about that matter come december if WOTLK blows up it could be another yr cycle easily for the guys if it leads to breaks etc frustration sets in fast and hello DFO lol

In all honesty tho if DFO doesn't hold attention in the first 45 days and is laced with bugs etc expect the mass exodus once again

I've read over everything posted and I agree with a lot of the points made above.

I really think that a lot of KGB'ers are going to be of the 5-15 hour a week variety (myself included), more then the hardcore 25+ hour a week kind.

That's not to say that someone who plays 10 hours a week can't contribute or be productive... but it does mean that we'll need more members to cover off peak hours.


The way I look at it... here's how I see it going:

1) Game launches and you have a ton of guilds out there... you'll have your zerg guilds who build their gigantic cities right off the bat and look for every exploit possible to pass on to their members, you'll also have your little 5-7 group of friend guilds who have no idea what they're getting into.

2) First wave of repose patches from the dev's hit and you see some guilds disband due to fighting, others break off because half their members are pissed that the other half aren't listening to them. You'll also start to see the little 5-7 man guilds band together. Some of the zerg guilds will still persist during this time, but it won't be as prevelant as it was at launch.

3) The boredom factor hits (about 45-60 days into the game) and you see the gigantic zerg guilds implode due to squabbling and dropouts. This is the time where KGB generally rises from the cusp of the middle of the pack to the middle of the top.

---

It just always seems to happen this way... the medium sized guilds that stay the course and have a good mix of hardcore and casual players who are all treated fairly always end up doing better then the zerg guilds in the long run.

I'd much rather have a guild of 80 people who are somewhat dependale in terms of logging on and working together, then a guild of 240 people who come and go as they please and only show up for the "glory" parts of the guild.

I really think KGB had a great approach to AoC... had things continued the way they were before the entire "gem duping/nerfing" issue, I think that KGB was poised to be one of the top 8 guilds on the server.

Bottom line is that regardless which path you decide to take. If you want to be any force you will need numbers.

Not only do you need numbers, you need a solid core of hard/semi hardcore players.

If you stick to being too small you limit yourself to being not much more than a group of a few people roaming around looking for fights to jump into. Now that isnt a bad option if that is what the game in fact turns into. I have no qualms about mercing out to other guilds.

I think you should initiate a roll call and start from there. Solid player base is the first step to anything.

We picked up a lot of new recruits in AoC and even in WAR we are picking up several people. A few of them are solid players but we have a ton of casuals that our core is working on training up.

The biggest thing we lack in KGB overall is dedicated healers.

/salute

Ya with WAR we have a ton of casual players, which is fine, but the number of hardcore players in war is not nearly as high in past games. I don't think that we lack dedicated healers in KGB. Other games then WAR we've had plenty of them. We even have plenty in WAR but those who are Shaman and DOK's can't be full on healers and their healer classes aren't really a blow out healer like in past games. Mixed with Dots, group heals and not very many DD heals makes for hard work on the healers in War..I do think you guys will get a big turn out, but I also agree with Derid, KGB's hardcore playing days are not like they were years ago. Many of us longterm KGB'ers have started to have families, careers etc that doesn't allow for playtime as much as we use to.


Overall though, barring any issues with the game, I think you will find a good amount of people who've just been sitting waiting on Darkfall, like Brutal, there are several of them who don't want to invest in hold over games such as WAR. Although I did a poll in the Warhammer forums trying to see who was going to be jumping ship when Darkfall comes out and there seems to be an equal amount of folks who will go to darkfall compared to who will stay in War

I guess though... Elph brings up a valid point. The KGB is going on what... 11 years this coming year? We're getting old. I guess a lot of the old timers especially may have been in high school or college when they joined, but are now struggling to find time to game.

But I guess that means we can just recruit a new wave of hardcore players. Although maybe this maturing will make us less tolerant of playing with kids, I'm sure there are still fantastic people out there to play with (hell, I know for a fact there are, there are 2 kids I used to play WoW with when I returned the second time around that were Juniors in High School, and were both great players, kind people... one was really mature, the other not so much, but was so funny you could forgive it.) So yeah, although I don't want to compromise the integrity of our guild for the sake of being a zerg, I think selective recruitment could be pretty healthy and add very needed and welcome additions to the guild roster.

The thing with recruiting is that it's essential to know what you have to work with so you know what you need to get.

What is the current active status of the guild either on the forums or in game? Anyone know? Who is accountable for this information and that of who our new players are?

I think that for recruitment to be effective you have to know where your organization stands in relation to how much recruiting you need to do and what specifics need to be covered in that recruiting program.

I think a sponsorship process is required making people responsible and giving them a form of ownership in the guild structure so that you can both recruit specifically and accurately track the process and get to know those you recruit.

If you recruit willy-nilly not only will you not be able to recruit specifically needed class/race/builds but you also invite mass confusion and lack of acknowledgement. You will constantly be performing membership maintinence deleting alts, adding mains, deleting mains, adding alts, deleting absent players or inactives, trying to find out who is who and what new guy is with this other new guy etc. Nobody will ever get to know anybody, and in the end your warm body count continues to get cold because people join for a day fall through the cracks and leave without ever telling anyone they left, and while guild jumping has unfortunately become common with all guilds this sort of thing can and should be addressed.

Just because you keep track of every name that has ever logged into the site does not mean you know who is here and who is not.

In DFO you can hit the ground running with recruitment like you have in every game for the last couple but it does not mean you have any more of a idea of how much and what type of recruiting you need any more then we did in the prievious games.

While recruiting will undoubtedly play a major role in DFO it will be equally important to have some sort of control on it so that with time you will be able to account for it.

2 boons in DFO regarding this, are one character per server per account- most people will not have 5 alts in DFO - and UO type skill-based system, enabling constant and unlimited respec.

If we have to many dps mages, and not enough tanks.. will probably be able to find someone bored with playing dps mage and they can just switch the skill set. Besides, open warfare often revolves around making best use of what you have, unlike PvE set scenarios which revolve more strongly around filling certain roles.

Still, its kind of a wait-and-see type of deal. I have an idea of how things could play out in several different scenarios, but seeing the actual game for the 2 weeks or so of open beta we will have... is going to have quite an impact.

I have 3 different recruiting models in mind at the moment, but will need more data on how the game will play and clan management features as well as who and how many KGB initially show up to make a call on what model we ultimately go with.