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

That sad zerg feeling

Recommended Posts

Almost everyone here already got that sad feeling being in a zerg, where you feel like just another one in a mass of people you barely know.When zergs fight zergs it is even worse: you see your screen blurred in every direction as you become taking hits from nowhere.

Additionally, if servers (and the path to your computer) aren't strong enough, calculations can't be delivered on time and you have a lot of lag. Specially when the servers additionally have to calculate colision detection and Friendly fire. This isn't the situation pvp players do like specially nowadays where e-sports games like dota, league, overwatch and a like are making success.

 

The idea of incorporating strategy games, making campaigns with a winner at the end followed by a reset was really nice and fixed so many things that appeared in recent MMO genre games. But i feel Crowfall must go beyond so i have an idea of a campaign type that could fix it (hopefully).

 

There are so many games that tried variations of this large scale combats and consistenly failed, that i am inclined to give up and rethink it, just like u did when u had the idea of campaigns.

Why not make the fight for cities and castles an instanced and balanced mini-game with different formats (e.g: 20x20, 10x10, 5x5)?

 

With it, you could also make some specific rules on challenging a captured castle or on maintaining the captured castle, like:

 

- When neutral, your guild needs to pay a tax to capture it;
- When captured by another guild, your guild must challenge them for a mini-game to capture it. The enemy guild must accept the challenge whithin a given time (e.g. 2h).
- If the enemy guild loses the game, it loses the castle and your guild claims it.
- If the enemy guild doesn't accept the challenge whithin the given time, it receives permanent and cumulative penalties in "whatever a guild wins while holding a castle".
- If the enemy guild wins the game, it receives permanent buff in "whatever a guild wins while holding a castle" and your guild wins a consolation prize.
- After the "mini-game" ends, whatever are the results, battles of your guild against this guild will have to obey a cooldown.

 

You could even balance the game separately, giving different abilities to the archetypes that only work inside the "mini-game";
This allied with the campaign idea could:

 

- Solve the zerg problem as numbers will only matter to gather resourcers in the open world which i presume will be non zerg efficiently since resources will be scattered through a big open world;
- Bring more balanced PvP fights and more fair encounters to the game (in terms of numbers and maps/objectives);
- Make it easier for the servers since they will do less calculations at the same time (also brings cost reduction on hardware);
- Make the game easier to balance;
- Make the game more appealing to a lot more players around the world (more income);

 

Just an idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better approach is to design world maps, territory objectives, and a scoring system that encourages players to disperse across the map in smaller squads.

 

I'm not saying instance all the map.

Only the castle battle GvG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the design focus on battles in narrow passages with obstacles between players and not on large open fields and have collision between players and have the attacks end their path when they collide with friendly players and you will not have any problems with zerging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always bring ideas.

 

The direction of the CWs at the moment is Open World though.

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

Instanced mini-games would kill the open-world concept of CF.

 

A better approach is to design world maps, territory objectives, and a scoring system that encourages players to disperse across the map in smaller squads.

 

Yes, I agree BUT they should allow for large battles as well.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  The first is that large, open world PvP battles in a game built on conquest seems to go without saying.  Iconic fantasy battles with large forces and real stakes is one of the reasons CF has so much potential. Also, I'd argue a zerg is a viable tactic (when not the only way to win), just like being geared or coordinated.  I can basically prove it, too.  If you have 50 players in an uncoordinated zerg ball vs 50 players in a coordinated, practiced force--who wins?  Yet, if team A is a large force of mediocre players and it defeats team B--a small well oiled arena team--team B cries "OMG Zerg!".  Bodies are just a variable like equipment, level or experience.  

 

CF will be a better game if we have both small and large engagements (neither totally dominating the other).   

Edited by Regulus

The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point and dislike giant zergs that squash competitive play, but there are other ways to solve that. First is Turn FF on (for heals too). When FF is on you see what zergs just absolutely suck and don't know how to play together. A bad zerg can easily lose a 20 v 10 with FF on.

 

The open world PVP is what a lot of this group thrives on and to kill it with instances makes it less exciting. Sure you will have your fair 10 v 10 which might make for better combat. That being said who doesn't remember that epic guild fight they had where on the brink of losing reinforcements arrive in the form of a friendly guild, hired mercs or an enemy who hates your enemy more than they hate you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite steps taken, I assume zerging in some form will happen no matter what. Which is what it is. However, the faction rulesets seem like a perfect way to avoid this to some degree. Make each faction have limited numbers and as time goes on, the factions join forces or not (no clue how this would work), with the "zerg" only getting as large as the faction limit. At it's worst, you know your team potentially has the same force.

 

Those that want to face risky odds, play in the more open rulesets (Dregs) and put your "skill" to the test, be it with FF/FFA or whatever options turned on or not. War isn't supposed to be fair and if they stick with the limited resources/seasons systems, someone is going to lose, actually many someones are going to along the way. Which is another set of issues that they'll have to figure out.

 

If everyone needs to stay fed and avoid the hunger, limited supplies are hopefully going to cut into zerg groups faster than smaller ones. Bring on the drama.

 

There is no cake and eat it too, but we do have potential multiple ways to play. Those wanting a "fair" system, but open world FFA, likely are going to need to go one way or the other.

Edited by APE

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...