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

That sad zerg feeling

Recommended Posts

Yeah, it is really a niche....

First thank you all for the time spent reading (for those that really read) and good luck.

I just hope Crowfall can succeed where no other game before (and there were so many), that tried this out, did.

The fact is that, right now, in Crowfall, there is nothing different in this matter pointing otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I participated in group PvP the first night I played, It wasn't a blur and I was pretty much aware of what was going around me the entire time. The one thing that I think you're missing is that crowfall currently has a resources system and when the seasons change resources are going to get harder to find. I think the most powerful guilds are going to be around 50-75 people. Which if you played other mmo's is a 40man raid group with rotational replacements. So with that I just don't think your idea would fit crowfall, it would make this game kind of be like Albion and not it's own game.


VpYgscE.png


**** Sugoi ****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

Def not the game for you bub, just my 5 Canadian cents. This game is bigger the zerg wins but this is a tried and true formula.  Majority enjoy zergs, minority don't.  /shrug


 

THE CORRUPT FEAR  | THE HONEST SUPPORT  | THE HEROIC JOIN 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zergs are inevitable.  Attempting to program in a solution to a zerg goes against the freedom of choice and destiny that is the fabric of a game like this.  There are many things that make zerg warfare undesirable.  Zergs are often associated with game lag and system crashing.  A high priority would be to create the infrastructure to be able to handle a massive server load in the event of a zerg battle.  Additionally, it should be more difficult to mobilize and coordinate a large zerg.  I believe that friendly fire will help, though I did like that Shadowbane disabled friendly fire for those people in your immediate group.  Not exactly "hardcore" but it did allow for individual groups to group together move more as a unit. 

 

The nature of a zerg is that its inherently unstable.  The more people you enlist into your fight, the harder they are to inspire towards a common cause.  It takes very little to begin to fracture loose ties within a zerg.  If you attack these fractures the zerg will begin to crumble under its own weight and a cycle will begin again.  That's not to say that a zerg cannot be a plague to the game up until that point.  In traditional games it can do serious damage to a population as empires fall to overwhelming numbers.  It seems Crowfall is putting its money on the idea that if they can get people involved in two or more campaigns, getting crushed in one wont make them drop their subscription.

Edited by tsp_maj

Maj, Keeper of Da Plank - The Shipwrecked Pirates

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Shadowbane was any indicator there will be alliances of 4 to 5 guilds running servers.  So take your 40 man guild and multiple it 4 or 5 times.  Now imagine fighting that.  How big those large alliances get will be determined by the number of shards for people to play on.  

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.

You beat me to posting this. The BETTER system is creating a map that has "battle objective" locations that require coordination across the map - which moots the zerg.

 

Another idea in how to combat zergs is to make powerful "siege" engines that do mass AoE damage, again dispersing a zerg of players. 

 

Its a VERY tricky balancing act though... Make it too spread out, and it requires so much work/coordination that its not very "casual" friendly and you basically limit the game to "harcore/coordinated" PVP only.

 

Make it too easy, and casual zergs will win everytime.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

 

Its a VERY tricky balancing act though... Make it too spread out, and it requires so much work/coordination that its not very "casual" friendly and you basically limit the game to "harcore/coordinated" PVP only.

 

Make it too easy, and casual zergs will win everytime.

 

 

 

This is a good point. But CF has the answer because you can have different campaign worlds of varying sizes. So some of the larger campaigns (perhaps with greater rewards) may attract the more organised PvP guilds but the smaller worlds with less focused objectives could well attract the more casual players and groups.


o8WHnLc.png


THE most active European guild. Join us

now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good point. But CF has the answer because you can have different campaign worlds of varying sizes. So some of the larger campaigns (perhaps with greater rewards) may attract the more organised PvP guilds but the smaller worlds with less focused objectives could well attract the more casual players and groups.

And this can work, but brings up more balance issues.

 

Because not only do you still have to do as suggested above, balance around "BOs" in campaigns... Because you dont just want a guild or faction to zerg everything but now you have to balance those campaigns. 

 

Whats to stop a population imbalance from day 1. 1 faction or 1 guild has a majority of the population. GG. 

 

But I think you are right in that it provides an avenue to split the player base. So a more casual friendly system may be a larger campaign where the more hardcore players might opt for the guild vs guild.

 

BTW this system only works with high enough population... So I hope there is enough interest to get people going. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zergs are inevitable, however there are things you can do to mitigate the advantages Zergs have. Anyone who has played Rust knows that zergs are powerful, but they also understand the limitations of zergs.

 

The first one is Friendly Fire. Being unable to hurt your allies means you can spam attacks willy nilly. If you have the potential to damage your allies then you must take the time to differentiate between enemies and allies which gives an advantage to smaller groups because of statistics. 2 guys vs 5 guys randomly hitting each other, the smaller are statistically less likely to hit their allies and therefore the bigger group has to spend more effort in identifying friend or foe. [JUMP-CHECK] This small thing helps close the gap between big and small groups by simple mechanics. It also increases the skill ceiling[and floor] for groups because in order to work together you have to develop a cohesive relationship with your peer and strategies to mitigate friendly fire and it's consequences. 

 

The second one is friend/foe identification which ties into friendly fire. If I am easily able to identify an enemy from a distance large groups are inherently buffed. Identifying a friend should require getting close and wearing a uniform or some action in-game[E.G saying "Jump check" in voice coms and everyone jumping]. Those uniforms should also be able to be stolen in the midst of a battle which creates even more chaos for the larger group that the smaller group can exploit. I have lost track of the amount of times we would be raiding in Rust and then we all have to rip our uniforms off and go full delta force because a couple enemies stole the uniforms off our dead comrades and were shredding us from within our own group. I have also ifiltrated enemy groups by using their uniforms and psychological gameplay movement even though I wasn't in their voice communication to gain access to their base and perform espionage such as recon, theft and sabotage.

 

There is also another disadvantage of large groups that as the group grows in size the less cohesive the relationships and familiarity between individual members are. You might be able to perform sabotage just by looking similar and behaving similar to them if they are large enough and don't have the tools to instantly and easily identify who friend and foe is. 

 

Instancing interactions between groups is absolutely not the way to go about things as the most interesting part of gameplay is unexpected and assymetric combat where the doctrine of your group and the discipline of it should decide who wins or loses.

 

I personally prefer subtle game mechanics that directly influence player behavior[Friendly Fire, Friend or Foe identification etc.] over what I perceive to be heavy handed misguided game mechanics [Debuffs for groups, instanced combat] that are the "easy way out" solutions.

Edited by potatomcwhiskey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zergs are inevitable, however there are things you can do to mitigate the advantages Zergs have. Anyone who has played Rust knows that zergs are powerful, but they also understand the limitations of zergs.

 

The first one is Friendly Fire. Being unable to hurt your allies means you can spam attacks willy nilly. If you have the potential to damage your allies then you must take the time to differentiate between enemies and allies which gives an advantage to smaller groups because of statistics. 2 guys vs 5 guys randomly hitting each other, the smaller are statistically less likely to hit their allies and therefore the bigger group has to spend more effort in identifying friend or foe. [JUMP-CHECK] This small thing helps close the gap between big and small groups by simple mechanics. It also increases the skill ceiling[and floor] for groups because in order to work together you have to develop a cohesive relationship with your peer and strategies to mitigate friendly fire and it's consequences. 

 

The second one is friend/foe identification which ties into friendly fire. If I am easily able to identify an enemy from a distance large groups are inherently buffed. Identifying a friend should require getting close and wearing a uniform or some action in-game[E.G saying "Jump check" in voice coms and everyone jumping]. Those uniforms should also be able to be stolen in the midst of a battle which creates even more chaos for the larger group that the smaller group can exploit. I have lost track of the amount of times we would be raiding in Rust and then we all have to rip our uniforms off and go full delta force because a couple enemies stole the uniforms off our dead comrades and were shredding us from within our own group. I have also ifiltrated enemy groups by using their uniforms and psychological gameplay movement even though I wasn't in their voice communication to gain access to their base and perform espionage such as recon, theft and sabotage.

 

There is also another disadvantage of large groups that as the group grows in size the less cohesive the relationships and familiarity between individual members are. You might be able to perform sabotage just by looking similar and behaving similar to them if they are large enough and don't have the tools to instantly and easily identify who friend and foe is. 

 

Instancing interactions between groups is absolutely not the way to go about things as the most interesting part of gameplay is unexpected and assymetric combat where the doctrine of your group and the discipline of it should decide who wins or loses.

 

I personally prefer subtle game mechanics that directly influence player behavior[Friendly Fire, Friend or Foe identification etc.] over what I perceive to be heavy handed misguided game mechanics [Debuffs for groups, instanced combat] that are the "easy way out" solutions.

This is a great point and I agree. This system would be unique and I wonder how it would do in large scale battles. You would have your "core" of 5 (or 10) that were grouped and easily identifiable, but after that I think FF would be a great idea personally. But when you do this, you need to re-tool many abilities. For instance a Myrm using C hits a massive aoe CC. You couldnt control NOT hitting an ally if he were next to you. 

 

But I actually think this is brilliant IMO. It would allow someone to truly be a "stealth" infiltrator, posing as an ally when indeed is not. It would force guilds/factions to start wearing tabbards to identify themselves, think of the possibilities too! If you could kill someone and steal a tabbard, you could blend in and attack at just the right moment, etc. 

 

You are correct though, having game mechanics that make zergs much more chaotic, would be preferred to some other type of "balance" approach. I really like the idea of forcing people into using comms though. 

 

I dont know how plausible this is. But what if they allowed FF only on direct attacks, not AoE attacks. So take that Myrm "C". He would need to be aimed at his ally and use C to hit him, if not, it would skip over him. 

 

This way you cant just button mash, as you might aim and hit an ally, but there could be some layer of code that prevents accidentally hitting allies. Maybe thats the best approach. 

 

This idea really excites me though. I think it would require some tweaking but would be the perfect "organic" solution to zergs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly fire is not necessary in order for a smaller team to stand against zergs.

GW2 has some very zerg-friendly rules, but despite that there are and always have been people who play in small groups and consistently win against larger numbers.  Would FF have helped?  Probably in the long run, yeah.  But adding FF wouldn't end zergs, it would just make it easier to bust them up.  I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I've always found zerg-busting to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of open-world pvp, but it's largely because of the challenge it presents.  Basically, if zerg-busting were easy, then it probably wouldn't feel as rewarding.  It should be earned through superior kiting, baiting, mutual support, management of team cooldowns (chaining cc, timing big spikes, not over-healing etc) and accurate "reading" of the fight.  It should push the limits of the players' skills as individuals and as a team.

There shouldn't be efforts taken to "statistically" re-balance in favor of the out-numbered players.  Let's not cheapen the experience of a good zerg bust.

As for IFF, I'm not convinced this innately helps a zerg in the first place.  Readily identifying whether that large group coming over that hill is hostile or not will allow the smaller group to position/react appropriately.  Often, it's a split second difference between a successful kite or a cc-chain death, and the small group usually has the finer margin of error.

 

Also mentioned in this thread were siege engines w/ massive AoE.  From my experience, all this really accomplishes is an arms race (siege leads to counter-siege), which means that it in fact favors zergs.  They're likely to have resources to be able to withstand the siege engines; a small group can be stopped cold by a single person with a siege engine in a good position, while a zerg can absorb the damage and/or simply overwhelm the position.  It's also not interesting game-play at all.

Edited by Cejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly fire is not necessary in order for a smaller team to stand against zergs.

It really is. Friendly Fire is a huge factor when numbers are at play. If you have played games like Darkfall or Rust you would understand how much FF hurts zergs and helps those with fewer numbers.

 

 

GW2 has some very zerg-friendly rules, but despite that there are and always have been people who play in small groups and consistently win against larger numbers.  Would FF have helped?  Probably in the long run, yeah.  But adding FF wouldn't end zergs, it would just make it easier to bust them up.  I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Alright this may come off harsh, but GW2 PVP was garbage and should only be used as a lesson of what not to do. Where I would like to focus is on the end of your comment where you admit that adding FF would make it easier to bust up zergs. This is a good thing. No one can or even wants to end zergs. I really don't mind the fact that large groups of people want to play together (well that is unless they are using 30 to kill groups smaller than 5. That is just poor game play.) You just need to add other ideas like FF to ensure that numbers isn't everything and that there are some drawbacks to numbers.

 

My personal opinion is that FF is very important. I will be rather upset if this game doesn't incorporate FF. I really hope it allows FF within groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is. Friendly Fire is a huge factor when numbers are at play. If you have played games like Darkfall or Rust you would understand how much FF hurts zergs and helps those with fewer numbers.

 

 

Alright this may come off harsh, but GW2 PVP was garbage and should only be used as a lesson of what not to do. Where I would like to focus is on the end of your comment where you admit that adding FF would make it easier to bust up zergs. This is a good thing. No one can or even wants to end zergs. I really don't mind the fact that large groups of people want to play together (well that is unless they are using 30 to kill groups smaller than 5. That is just poor game play.) You just need to add other ideas like FF to ensure that numbers isn't everything and that there are some drawbacks to numbers.

 

My personal opinion is that FF is very important. I will be rather upset if this game doesn't incorporate FF. I really hope it allows FF within groups.

This guy gets it.  FF really does impact the game in a lot of ways that I don't think a lot of users on these forums can truly understand because they don't have the reference points.

 

And I really hope they add full friendly fire and don't ignore it just because it is too hard for some folks.  Those people can play on bands that suit their personal preferences more, but please give those of us that want that more hardcore pvp experience our pool to play in as well.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the GW2 PvP isn't very good.  My point is that despite everything being setup to favor zergs, it was still possible to bust them up without FF.  Yes, I do think it would have been easier with FF, but I don't necessarily think that's a good thing. 

 

I have seen some good arguments put forth for FF, but this isn't really one of them. 

 

And I have played games other than GW2.  I'm not entirely lacking in reference points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the GW2 PvP isn't very good.  My point is that despite everything being setup to favor zergs, it was still possible to bust them up without FF.  Yes, I do think it would have been easier with FF, but I don't necessarily think that's a good thing. 

 

I have seen some good arguments put forth for FF, but this isn't really one of them. 

 

And I have played games other than GW2.  I'm not entirely lacking in reference points.

I never played GW2, but how was the combat? Time to kill? AOE? things like this all make a difference.

 

All I imagine right now are a group of 20 Myrmidons constantly chaining "C" over and over in a zerg and winning. Heck Warhammer Online had a great system that heavily favored coordinated groups over zergs, but it was due to the combat mechanics. A good Bright Wiz or Sorc could nuke a squishy person in a few seconds. Classes were VERY "specialized" and there was extremely heavy reliance on everyone else. DPS needed tanks needed healers etc. 

 

What strikes me about Crowfall thus far, is that it isnt the same type of game. In Warhammer, the squishy cloth classes literally died in 1-2 seconds if not protected, the tanks could take a HUGE beating but didnt dish out much damage. This game seems like its more of "everyone can do everything" type of game. Where multiple classes get sustainability. While I get "if you FF they drop in 2 seconds" in Warhammer it would take only 2 people to focus, maybe 3 and that person would drop in 2 seconds if a tank wants guarding them.

 

I mean just to give THAT mechanic, Guard would split ALL damage your "guarded" target takes with them. So if a Knight was "guarding" a confessor in this game, Any damage directed at that confessor would be split with the Knight. So this is how they "alleviated" focus fire in warbands/raids and allowed healers to keep people alive during FF. 

 

As far as I know, there isnt any mechanic like this in Crowfall for the tanks. I guess Standing behind shield block is the closest thing... But its not a tank-wide thing and situational. 

 

So this is why I think mechanics like friendly fire, would be a good idea. OR merely just allowing groups of 5 as the max allowable group size, with FF turned OFF - but this means ANYONE not in your group, you could attack. So if we went to the guild vs guild campaigns, you could literally hit someone outside your party, but inside your guild if not careful.

 

This would make the game much less zergy and more "coordinated" since now you WOULDNT want to just get 40 people to zerg 1 spot, you would "divide" up attack points by 5 man party sizes which I think would be a good thing because it allows for more skillful play.

Edited by th3gatekeeper

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...