Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
silhaku

How to stop zurgfest

Recommended Posts

Not sure if a topic about this has been brought up but it is definitely needed. One thing that kills a open world pvp game is the dependence on zurging, not that zurging should be killed off completely. It should be a option for some situations but it shouldn't be the go to end all for any situation in the game. But how do we stop people from zurging?

 

I have a few ideas but i'm just as lost with this issue as the gaming community as a whole has been with this issue in open world pvp games so please put your honest input in on my suggestions and please place your own. I'm sure if we put our minds together as a community we can overcome this concept that has overrun many of the games that has been released up till now.

 

#1- my first idea is to make multiple important objectives pop up at multiple places at once and make the supply of the objective limited or put a time limit on the objectives so only way to get the most out of these moments you will have to split up your group and how many you send to each sight will be one of the many important decisions made during a campaign. If you are the smaller group at the time, they might want to zurg one point and settle for just one key resource. Or have a small team try to stall at one place while the main group secures one and move on to the second objective in hopes to capture both.  This idea can be applied to sieges too by making the attacking team have to hold multiple points at once to take a keep like how planetside 2 battles are. The larger side will have the advantage still but if the zurg sticks together nothing is stopping the defenders from just back capturing points at least.

 

#2- Make aoe scary. Simple right, the more people you have bunched up the more you can hit with one skill right? Problem with this is that if you buff the damage the zurg can use that to their advantage by letting out more aoe and letting out more unavoidable damage. So buffing the damage is a no go. But its not so much of one if you have a lot of aoe stuns. Zurgs can still use that to their advantage in the same way but I rather risk a better likelihood of being stunned than being obliterated. Another suggestion too. Make aoe skills do more damage based off how many people get caught in it. That is the best anti-zurg method imo.

 

#3- make a morale system. If a system is put into place that effects the team with the heaviest loses then even a map blob can lose their edge with one slip. It will also make leaders consider the quality of the players fighting with them over the numbers that they bring. Because the risk/impact that they would bring to the group could be devastating. I had a idea of a decent morale system that won't exile players if they don't make the cut but I'll go over that in the suggestion forums.

 

So anyone wanting to bring any ideas to the table or put your 2 cents on the ideas I placed so far please reply to this topic. I can't wait to see what other's come up with :3

 

And here is the morale system topic that I mentioned in #3

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/11476-bondmorale-system/

Edited by silhaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't so much to end hundreds of players gathering together, as this is perfectly okay as a playstyle. I don't like the idea of creating artificial objectives, instead creating incentives for wanting something and players will move on their own towards their own organic objectives without having to be told by the system.

 

AoE should be scary, I feel, and I would appreciate no-target-limit AoE, instead just space-oriented. If you can fit 10 players in your AoE circle, then the upper limit of the AoE should be 10. Perhaps if it was all Duelists, you could fit 20, at which point the upper limit of targets is 20 for the AoE. Perhaps there's a rendering problem with this that screws with the server, however, so I won't hold my breath for this.

 

I dislike the morale system, as it creates an artificial system rather than allow players to react in their own meta play.

 

What I do see affecting zergs are two things: Collision and Warmth/Hunger. Collision means a zerg will have to occupy space equal to its size, and thus makes it a large target instead of a blob of super-damage and super-survivability. This opens the way for geurrilla tactics and so forth. Warmth/food means the zerg needs to be fed and cared for, at which point small groups can severely cripple zerg-like armies by attacking their food supplies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't so much to end hundreds of players gathering together, as this is perfectly okay as a playstyle. I don't like the idea of creating artificial objectives, instead creating incentives for wanting something and players will move on their own towards their own organic objectives without having to be told by the system.

 

AoE should be scary, I feel, and I would appreciate no-target-limit AoE, instead just space-oriented. If you can fit 10 players in your AoE circle, then the upper limit of the AoE should be 10. Perhaps if it was all Duelists, you could fit 20, at which point the upper limit of targets is 20 for the AoE. Perhaps there's a rendering problem with this that screws with the server, however, so I won't hold my breath for this.

 

I dislike the morale system, as it creates an artificial system rather than allow players to react in their own meta play.

 

What I do see affecting zergs are two things: Collision and Warmth/Hunger. Collision means a zerg will have to occupy space equal to its size, and thus makes it a large target instead of a blob of super-damage and super-survivability. This opens the way for geurrilla tactics and so forth. Warmth/food means the zerg needs to be fed and cared for, at which point small groups can severely cripple zerg-like armies by attacking their food supplies.

I agree that Collision and hunger will help deter players from zurging but I don't think it will stop players from zerg balling all day. I don't want to take zurgs completely out of the picture either but I just don't want to see zurgs get overpowered like they do in every game. They're too few counters to zurgs in many games and I just think there needs to be more thought put into countering zurgs.

Edited by silhaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for the "zerg-fest" either.  But, as other's have pointed out (and they are correct) . . . gathering in larger groups is a valid play style.

 

In my mind the trick is:  Don't structure the virtual playing field in a manner that magnifies (for lack of a better way to put it) The Zerg Ball.

 

!) Friendly Fire (as others have mentioned, though I have my doubts still on this one lingering)

2) Sedate / light healing, not mobile life beam platforms packed through the zerg making it invincible.

 

and

 

3)  The CWs themselves need to be risky / uncertain / dangerous in and of themselves to mitigate the idea a rolling ball Of Zerg can simply, with utter impunity, roll around a map.

 

Number three is more difficult to articulate because, in my mind, it can be addressed in several areas in the virtual worlds.  Basically:

 

A)  Avoid predictability in resource spawns.  Gold farmers and zerg balls gain an assist from predictable and mappable patterns on a map.

B.)  To support avoidance of predictability, implement some form of randomization (in most cases, don't know if there will be "mines", like open mine shafts, in the game) for many resource type entities in the game, be it animals or plants or trees, etc.

  • This causes The Zerg, and everyone else, to have to work a bit more to Farm, instead of the routine being:  "Decrypt" how ACE has structured node spawns so we can drop-ship in with our zerg and camp them.  You find a node, then of course you have the upper hand, fair enough, but once depleted (say a Herd of Deer for skinning) - The Zerg, or anyone else, is going to need to send out scouts  / go scouting.
C) Light healing.  At this time I'm in favor of what I seem to be hearing, which is lighter levels of healing capability.
  • This also contributes to lessening the ability to lock-down predictability.  Meaning:  Stragglers from the Zerg are more likely to be killed because you don't have a mobile life beam platform nearby to just Beam them healthy whilst the zerg runs over to help them.  There's at least more a chance you can affect the Zerg through attrition and guerrilla tactics IMO.
D)  I would greatly like to see Mob AI be much more intelligent.  I would NOT want to see deaf / dumb / blind / stupid bowling ball pin mobs dotting the landscape.  Galaga was left behind a whole bunch of years ago, and the MMO dev houses need to let it die. :D
  • The intent is to contribute to "instability", and lack of predictability on the maps as outlined in A and B above.
  • I am not fond anymore of maps manicured clean and clear like a golf course "for the kiddies".  I want a more dangerous and uncertain environment to match wits with opponents in, not a rolled blacktop bumper car rink.
  • AI can take a lot of work, but there's a great payoff there if done well, even in a "PvP game" in the form of a diverse, and unpredictable forum for PvP to swim through.  In the end I'm not suggesting AI to the point it simulates a player for all those about to object, more the desire to NOT see flat out deaf-dumb-blind manikins that act no differently than a wind-up toy.
In the end I think all I'm saying is:

 

Avoiding predictable, mappable, static (and recurring static spawns) as much as possible on the maps all by itself goes a long way to altering dynamics that would otherwise be more favorable to gold farmers and even Zergs.

 

As a famous sci fi character once said:

 

" . . . Sauce for the Goose Mr. Saavik . . . the odds are even . . ."  - Spock

Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure collision and friendly fire will make zerging pretty uncomfortable.

 

No, it wont for sure.

 

WvW in Guild Wars 2 and TESO is just a zerging festival, because thats all there is to it, thats all the Open World PvP game concept of theirs is about.

Its far too simplistic and sterile, and they are totally not making fun, ask the people. These games are boring, uninspired and totally broken. Also the developers of GW 2 and TESO dont care about their WvW, its really so disappointing.

Crowfall needs much more creativity and complexity.

Because Open World PvP is all their game is about.

Crowfall only got Open World PvP.

GW 2 and TESO got other game modes.

Edited by Urahara

After EverQuest Next is gone, its Star Citizen for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some things to keep in mind are that the campaign worlds are objective based, a "zerg" horde would have to consistently gather at the right times to take these objectives in order for it to have a real impact. There's also the embargo, resource, and caravan systems, players can only bring so many resources into a campaign world at the start to sustain their faction, outside of that they have to collect resources, so constant guerilla attacks to weaken structures and siege equipment so that the other faction either wastes resources repairing them or goes into battle pre weakened is valid, and the caravan system where controlling a mine or stand of trees isn't enough, you actually have to move those materials to where you need them, opens up the field for "banditry". Hitting a group of ten guys moving a shipment of ore prevents 50 tanks from marching on you in fully repaired, high tier plate at the same time while improving your own for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wont for sure.

 

WvW in Guild Wars 2 and TESO is just a zerging festival, because thats all there is to it, thats all the Open World PvP game concept of theirs is about.

Its far too simplistic and sterile, and they are totally not making fun, ask the people. These games are boring, uninspired and totally broken. Also the developers of GW 2 and TESO dont care about their WvW, its really so disappointing.

Crowfall needs much more creativity and complexity.

Because Open World PvP is all their game is about.

Crowfall only got Open World PvP.

GW 2 and TESO got other game modes.

 

You didn't really address why collision/friendly fire wouldn't make zerging uncomfortable. GW2's WvW had no friendly fire or collision, allowing plenty of mindless play. With collision and FF, at least zergs will have to be intelligent to some degree to avoid killing themselves, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't really address why collision/friendly fire wouldn't make zerging uncomfortable. GW2's WvW had no friendly fire or collision, allowing plenty of mindless play. With collision and FF, at least zergs will have to be intelligent to some degree to avoid killing themselves, I believe.

 

Yes, but it wont change anything meaningful.

All that would change is that the zerg isnt concentrated so much in one spot, and thats all.

It would still be the same.

There just needs to be more complexity and creativity to the creation of an Open World PvP game.

Or all you do is running down castlewalls all day long in a zerg, more or less concentrated/scattered or not.


After EverQuest Next is gone, its Star Citizen for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but it wont change anything meaningful.

All that would change is that the zerg isnt concentrated so much in one spot, and thats all.

It would still be the same.

There just needs to be more complexity and creativity to the creation of an Open World PvP game.

Or all you do is running down castlewalls all day long in a zerg, more or less concentrated/scattered or not.

It changes the efficiency of the zerg. A zerg might self-destruct or lose to smaller tactical groups given their size becoming a liability in terms of mobility and disorganization becoming lethal.

 

What complexities are you asking for? The most I see happening is food mechanics which will definitely make zerging harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It changes the efficiency of the zerg. A zerg might self-destruct or lose to smaller tactical groups given their size becoming a liability in terms of mobility and disorganization becoming lethal.

 

What complexities are you asking for? The most I see happening is food mechanics which will definitely make zerging harder.

 

Every Stronghold could have trong backup of NPC Fractions which they builded up overtime, ans it will be very hard to overcome this combined force, it would take time and effort to either beat, seperate or convince these NPC Fractions for joining you, therecould be very different ways to weaken these defences.

A political/fraction system or such could do this. Like with sidefactions in Endless Legend or Citystates in Civilization 5.

 

Also harsh survival zones between the major strongholds could work.


After EverQuest Next is gone, its Star Citizen for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still confused on where this friendly fire thing came from. I agree that FF would make a large zerg hazardous to itself but I can see that taking away from combat in general. Trolls will have a field day if FF is implemented and nothing makes me want to rage quit more in planetside than to be killed over and over by friendly fire. Add the fact the your gear losing durability everytime it happens too and now I can't even shrug it off. I can see myself flipping my computer now the first time a item actually breaks because of FF. I'm not completely against the idea by any means but I haven't seen any post from the devs about adding FF to the game... maybe in the dregs..... but I can see this causing just as many problems as solutions tbh.

Edited by silhaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Stronghold could have trong backup of NPC Fractions which they builded up overtime, ans it will be very hard to overcome this combined force, it would take time and effort to either beat, seperate or convince these NPC Fractions for joining you, therecould be very different ways to weaken these defences.

A political/fraction system or such could do this. Like with sidefactions in Endless Legend or Citystates in Civilization 5.

 

Also harsh survival zones between the major strongholds could work.

 

This does not help. You say you want to prevent zergfest, but all these NPC factions will do is counter the zerg with another zerg. Actually, worse: It counters a zerg with a zerg of NPC. This does not help the situation.

 

As I see it, the goal should be to dissuade zerging as a mindless viable playstyle. The option should exist, for those who have the logistical and organizational skills to move massive groups of players while evading the risks.

 

Thus, three mechanics which complicate zerging in an all-around fair way, each still applicable to small groups:

  1. Collision, making large groups more difficult to manuever inside and thus their entire strength not concentrated in a single invincible blob, AKA allowing flanking and geurrilla warfare to "injure" zergs.
  2. Friendly fire, creating risk of players who aren't organized within the zerg to harm the zerg's self, thus a certain level of discipline is necessary within the ranks.
  3. Hunger/Warmth, requiring the zerg to feed all of its members or else risk weakening themselves to an uncertain degree. This means resources such as farms would need to be secured and guarded via supply route or pillaging for the zerg to survive. Cutting off supply trains and "salting the land" ahead are now ways for small mobile groups to make a difference against the zerg indirectly.

All these are risks which small groups face as well. However, the amount of risk the zerg faces scales with the reward of its strength-in-numbers tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does not help. You say you want to prevent zergfest, but all these NPC factions will do is counter the zerg with another zerg. Actually, worse: It counters a zerg with a zerg of NPC. This does not help the situation.

 

As I see it, the goal should be to dissuade zerging as a mindless viable playstyle. The option should exist, for those who have the logistical and organizational skills to move massive groups of players while evading the risks.

 

Thus, three mechanics which complicate zerging in an all-around fair way, each still applicable to small groups:

  1. Collision, making large groups more difficult to manuever inside and thus their entire strength not concentrated in a single invincible blob, AKA allowing flanking and geurrilla warfare to "injure" zergs.
  2. Friendly fire, creating risk of players who aren't organized within the zerg to harm the zerg's self, thus a certain level of discipline is necessary within the ranks.
  3. Hunger/Warmth, requiring the zerg to feed all of its members or else risk weakening themselves to an uncertain degree. This means resources such as farms would need to be secured and guarded via supply route or pillaging for the zerg to survive. Cutting off supply trains and "salting the land" ahead are now ways for small mobile groups to make a difference against the zerg indirectly.

All these are risks which small groups face as well. However, the amount of risk the zerg faces scales with the reward of its strength-in-numbers tactic.

 

I also thought of a happiness mechanic like in Civilization or Endless Legend.

That if you go and conquer to many strongholds too fast, and dont take care of the strongholds and villages you hold, they will get upset with you and revolt eventually.

 

As well as making it a strategic risk to concentrate all your troops in one spot, leaving the rest of your territory unguarded. For this to work of course the time needed to take an enemy stronghold must be considerable high enough.

 

Also you could have to restore and rebuild the stronghold and area you just devasted, or it can be taken by an enemy easily. And you have to make the villagers and people living there happy.

Edited by Urahara

After EverQuest Next is gone, its Star Citizen for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still confused on where this friendly fire thing came from. I agree that FF would make a large zerg hazardous to itself but I can see that taking away from combat in general. Trolls will have a field day if FF is implemented and nothing makes me want to rage quit more in planetside than to be killed over and over by friendly fire. Add the fact the your gear losing durability everytime it happens too and now I can't even shrug it off. I can see myself flipping my computer now the first time a item actually breaks because of FF. I'm not completely against the idea by any means but I haven't seen any post from the devs about adding FF to the game... maybe in the dregs..... but I can see this causing just as many problems as solutions tbh.

 

I am sure you're new, but Friendly Fire has always been a key point of Crowfall.

And by the look of it, you're not familiar with the mechanic.

 

You're talking about factions, so I presume you're a God's Reach kind of player, in that case don't worry, because Friendly Fire will be diminished in easy campaigns, while it will be (hopefully) important in hard campaigns like the shadow or the dregs, unless the devs really changed idea about it.

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...