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

That sad zerg feeling

Recommended Posts

You guys assume way to much that friendly fire is gonna the the big difference in breaking apart a zerg and allowing for zergbust, but its not, it just means now you gotta fight a bunch of spread out enemies from all sides rather then them just balling up, them balling up is much easy to fight as a organized group then spread out,  In GW2 very often it was difficult to fight enemies that were spread out because you can only focus fire 1 or 2 of them vs the 20-50+ they had. When an enemy zerg was grouped up you can bomb the entire group in one go and destroy them.

 

I feel to many people assume zergs are going to be just 10-15, but honestly even more so at launch i imagine it will be much greater numbers, and these guilds with have alliances as well and even run together into a massive blob. Unless Crowfall is a dead game it will have giant zergs and its gonna be pretty easy for them to pick you guys apart when its 1v5 for all your team members, vs if you guys had 5 and the enemy group had 20 or 30+ grouped up together and you ambushed them you could destroy most of them pretty quickly with coordination and hard CC, assuming more skills like that end up in game. Think about the Trifaction system or the GvG worlds, its not all just Dregs. Friendly fire will only hurt you vs very large number, and will only help you if they barely outnumber you at best.

 

Skilled zergbust groups will do well in chokes and catching enemies by surprise and the best way to do that is to destroy them all at once rather then trying to have a 1vx which puts you at a disadvantage. Since it assumes top skill for every one of your group members and also you cant even selfheal for most part in this game so you NEED your support to be close by. A few really hard hits at the same time will severally weaken any zerg and that requires your group to be stacked.


krevra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys assume way to much that friendly fire is gonna the the big difference in breaking apart a zerg and allowing for zergbust, but its not, it just means now you gotta fight a bunch of spread out enemies from all sides rather then them just balling up, them balling up is much easy to fight as a organized group then spread out,  In GW2 very often it was difficult to fight enemies that were spread out because you can only focus fire 1 or 2 of them vs the 20-50+ they had. When an enemy zerg was grouped up you can bomb the entire group in one go and destroy them.

 

I feel to many people assume zergs are going to be just 10-15, but honestly even more so at launch i imagine it will be much greater numbers, and these guilds with have alliances as well and even run together into a massive blob. Unless Crowfall is a dead game it will have giant zergs and its gonna be pretty easy for them to pick you guys apart when its 1v5 for all your team members, vs if you guys had 5 and the enemy group had 20 or 30+ grouped up together and you ambushed them you could destroy most of them pretty quickly with coordination and hard CC, assuming more skills like that end up in game. Think about the Trifaction system or the GvG worlds, its not all just Dregs. Friendly fire will only hurt you vs very large number, and will only help you if they barely outnumber you at best.

 

Skilled zergbust groups will do well in chokes and catching enemies by surprise and the best way to do that is to destroy them all at once rather then trying to have a 1vx which puts you at a disadvantage. Since it assumes top skill for every one of your group members and also you cant even selfheal for most part in this game so you NEED your support to be close by. A few really hard hits at the same time will severally weaken any zerg and that requires your group to be stacked.

I just have to completely disagree here. This is only the case if they introduce massive hard hitting AoE, but any game I have ever played completely disagrees with you. In fact, as I mentioned above, Warhammer online was renown for zergs being an issue. So much so, they made siege engines that did MASSIVE AoE to try and break up zergs and even that didnt help. People just zerged from 1 "battle objective" to the other and it was VERY easy to just spam abilities on ANY "red" enemy you saw with little to no thought.

 

I think allowing FF outside of groups is fine. Making groups small, and forcing them to work together is fine. I actually think this makes MORE room for small groups to dominate a big uncoordinated one, because you wont have 20 people just "spamming away" ranged attacks at any red thing that moves within attack range. They will have to not only carefully AIM an ability to assist an ally who is outside group, they may determine its not worth the risk of firing off something that might hit their ally. Which means not everyone can just focus fire as easily. Which will mean more static fights, and longer "life time" in larger battles.

 

Also, assume it is a fight like a 20 vs 50. That group of 50 could easily start getting "picked off" by a smaller group who might be more coordinated. Like I said, outside group members wont risk "firing" on their allies so itll be up to that allies group to assist - where maybe FF is turned off in a group setting. Which means at most, you might have another 3-4 guys helping focus fire. 

 

Also, like I posted before. You might have "stealthier" classes try and blend in with a large crowd, maybe do some "recon" and wait for an opportune time to assassinate a healer or something. Tactics like this are HUGE with FF enabled outside a small party where everyone would show as "red" or attackable.

 

So Im sorry, I see what you are saying, but I completely disagree. You are under the assumption a group of 50 people will be made up of 10 fully organized groups of 5. I highly doubt that, and while numbers will still be an advantage. If you can find some of the weaker groups, who might have newer players or not as coordinated players, you can start to "thin the herd" and level the playing field.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to completely disagree here. This is only the case if they introduce massive hard hitting AoE, but any game I have ever played completely disagrees with you. In fact, as I mentioned above, Warhammer online was renown for zergs being an issue. So much so, they made siege engines that did MASSIVE AoE to try and break up zergs and even that didnt help. People just zerged from 1 "battle objective" to the other and it was VERY easy to just spam abilities on ANY "red" enemy you saw with little to no thought.

 

I think allowing FF outside of groups is fine. Making groups small, and forcing them to work together is fine. I actually think this makes MORE room for small groups to dominate a big uncoordinated one, because you wont have 20 people just "spamming away" ranged attacks at any red thing that moves within attack range. They will have to not only carefully AIM an ability to assist an ally who is outside group, they may determine its not worth the risk of firing off something that might hit their ally. Which means not everyone can just focus fire as easily. Which will mean more static fights, and longer "life time" in larger battles.

 

Also, assume it is a fight like a 20 vs 50. That group of 50 could easily start getting "picked off" by a smaller group who might be more coordinated. Like I said, outside group members wont risk "firing" on their allies so itll be up to that allies group to assist - where maybe FF is turned off in a group setting. Which means at most, you might have another 3-4 guys helping focus fire. 

 

Also, like I posted before. You might have "stealthier" classes try and blend in with a large crowd, maybe do some "recon" and wait for an opportune time to assassinate a healer or something. Tactics like this are HUGE with FF enabled outside a small party where everyone would show as "red" or attackable.

 

So Im sorry, I see what you are saying, but I completely disagree. You are under the assumption a group of 50 people will be made up of 10 fully organized groups of 5. I highly doubt that, and while numbers will still be an advantage. If you can find some of the weaker groups, who might have newer players or not as coordinated players, you can start to "thin the herd" and level the playing field.  

 

Im talking about games that are not dinosaur nor dead and has a pretty active RvRish community, and sadly the only 2 games that are current are ESO and GW2. Also all i gotta say about Warhammer is Red Guard. While its possible to win outnumbered with roamer tactics its much more likely to win as a group with aoe pressure that stays together.

Edited by krevra

krevra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys assume way to much that friendly fire is gonna the the big difference in breaking apart a zerg and allowing for zergbust, but its not, it just means now you gotta fight a bunch of spread out enemies from all sides rather then them just balling up, them balling up is much easy to fight as a organized group then spread out,  In GW2 very often it was difficult to fight enemies that were spread out because you can only focus fire 1 or 2 of them vs the 20-50+ they had. When an enemy zerg was grouped up you can bomb the entire group in one go and destroy them.

 

I feel to many people assume zergs are going to be just 10-15, but honestly even more so at launch i imagine it will be much greater numbers, and these guilds with have alliances as well and even run together into a massive blob. Unless Crowfall is a dead game it will have giant zergs and its gonna be pretty easy for them to pick you guys apart when its 1v5 for all your team members, vs if you guys had 5 and the enemy group had 20 or 30+ grouped up together and you ambushed them you could destroy most of them pretty quickly with coordination and hard CC, assuming more skills like that end up in game. Think about the Trifaction system or the GvG worlds, its not all just Dregs. Friendly fire will only hurt you vs very large number, and will only help you if they barely outnumber you at best.

 

Skilled zergbust groups will do well in chokes and catching enemies by surprise and the best way to do that is to destroy them all at once rather then trying to have a 1vx which puts you at a disadvantage. Since it assumes top skill for every one of your group members and also you cant even selfheal for most part in this game so you NEED your support to be close by. A few really hard hits at the same time will severally weaken any zerg and that requires your group to be stacked.

Spreading out and coordinating requires a lot more skill than walking in as a blob.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spreading out and coordinating requires a lot more skill than walking in as a blob.

It sounds ideal but bombing a group at the same time will yield better results. Again this game doesnt have much in terms of selfheals. You will lose most of your fights if its 5 vs 20+ with just friendly fire, but without it at least outside the dregs you will be more consistent with your victories. You can talk about max skill on a player who can do well but in Crowfall more then most games you need a group to do good. Its not about what takes the most skill or not, its about mechanics that work and support fighting outnumbered. Zergs generally do have less skill as a whole and unless you want zergs to dominate the game needs to support fighting them and having a real chance at winning vs some luck or just fighting a bunch of under geared scrubs

 

Also im not saying you HAVE to ball up all time, im saying you need the enemy to, you can attack from all angles or bomb them all together but for that to happen a enemy group has to be together. You have what is generally called a pain train then you got a more roamer style where you and your team are spread out and focus fire targets, or focus fire a location with many grouped enemies. These are the 2 predominate tactics in both ESO and GW2's version of RvR

Edited by krevra

krevra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds ideal but bombing a group at the same time will yield better results. Again this game doesnt have much in terms of selfheals. You will lose most of your fights if its 5 vs 20+ with just friendly fire, but without it at least outside the dregs you will be more consistent with your victories. You can talk about max skill on a player who can do well but in Crowfall more then most games you need a group to do good. Its not about what takes the most skill or not, its about mechanics that work and support fighting outnumbered. Zergs generally do have less skill as a whole and unless you want zergs to dominate the game needs to support fighting them and having a real chance at winning vs some luck or just fighting a bunch of under geared scrubs

But friendly fire creates a higher skill-ceiling for not only individual play but group play. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys assume way to much that friendly fire is gonna the the big difference in breaking apart a zerg and allowing for zergbust, but its not, it just means now you gotta fight a bunch of spread out enemies from all sides rather then them just balling up, them balling up is much easy to fight as a organized group then spread out,  In GW2 very often it was difficult to fight enemies that were spread out because you can only focus fire 1 or 2 of them vs the 20-50+ they had. When an enemy zerg was grouped up you can bomb the entire group in one go and destroy them.

Do you even believe this balled up theory? Even if you think that a giant zerg of 40 can ball up and a group of 20 can easily take them down (current skills don't prove this theory to be true at all). Why wouldn't people just stop doing this dumb ball up as a zerg maneuver? FF being on does nothing to hurt your balled up strategy either.

 

FF plays an important role because say the fight is 2 v 1 for simplicity. Lets even make it more simple, the 2 has one melee and one caster. The 1 is a melee class. The two melee classes are exchanging blows on another and the caster is throwing in nukes. If FF is off the caster just spams in nukes with no fear of hitting his team mate. If FF is on hitting his team mate becomes a concern and he could possibly be doing more dmg to his team mate than he is the enemy. This forces the caster to make his moves more wisely or risk killing his partner.

 

Replace the above example with 2 melee vs 1 melee. Now both melee characters on the team have to worry about doing friendly fire dmg. The 1 melee has a better chance as any hit for him is a good hit. Any hit for the group of 2 runs the risk of damaging a friendly.

 

When it is put in simple forms like this, how do you not see FF as helping the smaller group?

 

I keep seeing examples like GW2 and ESO. Do those games even have FF? I don't remember them having it and to reference a bad PVP game without FF to prove that FF is not necessary doesn't really make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even believe this balled up theory? Even if you think that a giant zerg of 40 can ball up and a group of 20 can easily take them down (current skills don't prove this theory to be true at all). Why wouldn't people just stop doing this dumb ball up as a zerg maneuver? FF being on does nothing to hurt your balled up strategy either.

 

FF plays an important role because say the fight is 2 v 1 for simplicity. Lets even make it more simple, the 2 has one melee and one caster. The 1 is a melee class. The two melee classes are exchanging blows on another and the caster is throwing in nukes. If FF is off the caster just spams in nukes with no fear of hitting his team mate. If FF is on hitting his team mate becomes a concern and he could possibly be doing more dmg to his team mate than he is the enemy. This forces the caster to make his moves more wisely or risk killing his partner.

 

Replace the above example with 2 melee vs 1 melee. Now both melee characters on the team have to worry about doing friendly fire dmg. The 1 melee has a better chance as any hit for him is a good hit. Any hit for the group of 2 runs the risk of damaging a friendly.

 

When it is put in simple forms like this, how do you not see FF as helping the smaller group?

 

I keep seeing examples like GW2 and ESO. Do those games even have FF? I don't remember them having it and to reference a bad PVP game without FF to prove that FF is not necessary doesn't really make a point.

Thanks you. No GW2 and ESO (from my reading) do not. I played ESO at launch, the game is very zerg heavy and there are many complaints against it currently. Even a google search "friendly fire solves zerg" - or some rendition of those words, will take you over TO an ESO forum where they are complaining about zergs and how ESO could benefit from FF. I didnt check the date on the posts, but assumed they were recent.

 

I completely agree with the above, you can say FF this or FF that, but look at a real situation, like a 2v1 as explained above.

 

You can claim "aoe and choke points" but this STILL holds true with FF on. A good small group can nuke a choke point with AOE and break up a zerg. At first, I was pretty against this FF idea. My initial reaction was "woah, no way man" but then I chewed on it some more, thought about its context in other games I have played and yeah, I really think it would work wonders. Having more in number would mean MUCH less if that caster, is afraid to start spamming LMB at a target his melee buddy is also hitting. Heck you could even USE LOS to an advantage then and "hide" behind the enemy while beating him, preventing the caster from attacking. You could form a WALL at a choke point and their ranged wouldnt be able to rain down AoE on you, if their guys were in melee range.

 

Every concept has liabilities. So you risk possible griefing, but this could be eliminated with some "self-policing" ability within guilds or factions etc. So a player could, in theory, get booted from a campaign if caught doing this.

 

So I really think given the campaign system in this game, I think FF (outside a small group of 5) would be a BRILLIANT idea. This would literally force small groups to stick together and creates a very high skill ceiling for this game.

 

I DONT advocate for 100% FF on at all times - inside groups.

Where I think it does play a role, is if you keep groups @ 5 man parties and eliminate FF within just that group, but thats it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even believe this balled up theory? Even if you think that a giant zerg of 40 can ball up and a group of 20 can easily take them down (current skills don't prove this theory to be true at all). Why wouldn't people just stop doing this dumb ball up as a zerg maneuver? FF being on does nothing to hurt your balled up strategy either.

 

FF plays an important role because say the fight is 2 v 1 for simplicity. Lets even make it more simple, the 2 has one melee and one caster. The 1 is a melee class. The two melee classes are exchanging blows on another and the caster is throwing in nukes. If FF is off the caster just spams in nukes with no fear of hitting his team mate. If FF is on hitting his team mate becomes a concern and he could possibly be doing more dmg to his team mate than he is the enemy. This forces the caster to make his moves more wisely or risk killing his partner.

 

Replace the above example with 2 melee vs 1 melee. Now both melee characters on the team have to worry about doing friendly fire dmg. The 1 melee has a better chance as any hit for him is a good hit. Any hit for the group of 2 runs the risk of damaging a friendly.

 

When it is put in simple forms like this, how do you not see FF as helping the smaller group?

 

I keep seeing examples like GW2 and ESO. Do those games even have FF? I don't remember them having it and to reference a bad PVP game without FF to prove that FF is not necessary doesn't really make a point.

 

The theory is what your stating, what i have said is what is actually happening. Also to note again im not against friendly fire, im against friendly fire inside your group/ or raid group(15-20). You have nothing to back claims, so what you state is a theory. It was the same case in Warhammer Online, guilds groups up and fought vs zergs.

 

Darkfall one of the few games with friendly fire, most battles dilute to spamming range skills till someone just falls behind, or just running around tagging anything you can and never really focus firing, and i refer to large battles. Same thing with Mortal Online. Crowfall requires groups to fight in close proximity so to be able to hit your own party or raid group would be pretty detrimental to the game i feel.


krevra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darkfall one of the few games with friendly fire, most battles dilute to spamming range skills till someone just falls behind, or just running around tagging anything you can and never really focus firing, and i refer to large battles. Same thing with Mortal Online. Crowfall requires groups to fight in close proximity so to be able to hit your own party or raid group would be pretty detrimental to the game i feel.

It would benefit the game. Darkfall Unholy Wars was almost entirely a melee game as everyone chose to play the warrior class. There was plenty of Melee in Darkfall Online as well as stickybacking was a common. FF worked just fine in this aspect and again forced players to be better by carefully choosing when to attack and when not to. It also makes placement much more important. As th3gatekeeper mentioned above, you can hide behind an enemy so his friend hits him when trying to attack you.

 

Allowing raid groups to roll around in 15-20 without FF allows for stupid game mechanics which highly favors numbers. I can already imagine the 5 Druid/15 Myrm combo of Whirlwind plus AOE Heal in a moving ball and press C if any group gets too close.

 

The only acceptable group size to allow FF immunity is about 5 and even then.... I DON'T LIKE IT  :angry:

 

I really don't understand why you would want to put no FF. I play a game for the challenge and FF adds to that challenge for me. FF adds a higher skill ceiling and I haven't heard any argument that proves otherwise.

 

I am passionate about this subject and I am not trying to offend anyone for having a different opinion.... even if its wrong :P .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW They DID talk about this a little in the ACE Q&A in June: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbHO7vu-M-o

The answer was the physics and AoE abilities + siege weapons are deadly vs zergs. 

I am still a fan of FF under certain conditions.

For instance. The Dregs. I would encourage 100% FF - including within party. This would be to give less incentive to people from guilds who team up during Dregs. Itll still be an advantage, but not AS much with FF on.

For Guild vs Guild rule sets. I would probably DISABLE FF.

Faction vs Faction. I would encourage disabling FF inside a Party (5-10?) and MAYBE a warband (20?) but enable you to attack anyone else - even if within your own faction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW They DID talk about this a little in the ACE Q&A in June: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbHO7vu-M-o

 

The answer was the physics and AoE abilities + siege weapons are deadly vs zergs. 

 

I am still a fan of FF under certain conditions.

 

For instance. The Dregs. I would encourage 100% FF - including within party. This would be to give less incentive to people from guilds who team up during Dregs. Itll still be an advantage, but not AS much with FF on.

 

For Guild vs Guild rule sets. I would probably DISABLE FF.

 

Faction vs Faction. I would encourage disabling FF inside a Party (5-10?) and MAYBE a warband (20?) but enable you to attack anyone else - even if within your own faction. 

 

This is what i 100 percent agree with. Thx for the video

It would benefit the game. Darkfall Unholy Wars was almost entirely a melee game as everyone chose to play the warrior class. There was plenty of Melee in Darkfall Online as well as stickybacking was a common. FF worked just fine in this aspect and again forced players to be better by carefully choosing when to attack and when not to. It also makes placement much more important. As th3gatekeeper mentioned above, you can hide behind an enemy so his friend hits him when trying to attack you.

 

Allowing raid groups to roll around in 15-20 without FF allows for stupid game mechanics which highly favors numbers. I can already imagine the 5 Druid/15 Myrm combo of Whirlwind plus AOE Heal in a moving ball and press C if any group gets too close.

 

The only acceptable group size to allow FF immunity is about 5 and even then.... I DON'T LIKE IT  :angry:

 

I really don't understand why you would want to put no FF. I play a game for the challenge and FF adds to that challenge for me. FF adds a higher skill ceiling and I haven't heard any argument that proves otherwise.

 

I am passionate about this subject and I am not trying to offend anyone for having a different opinion.... even if its wrong :P .

 

Its good to have these discussions, and i dont think anyone is really offended, good to see where the games community is on certain aspects, ACE does listen combat was proof of that. I just feel this game would benifit from running in guild groups of 15-20 and roaming groups of 5 and zergs should be penalized by running more then 20. The statement by th3gatekeeper is what i would want to see, tho ACE please give us fighting groups a chance to fight these zergs with out siege viably. Siege imo is for less skilled groups or pugs defending. Which is great but fight guilds want to fight with skill.

Edited by krevra

krevra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys assume way to much that friendly fire is gonna the the big difference in breaking apart a zerg and allowing for zergbust, but its not, it just means now you gotta fight a bunch of spread out enemies from all sides rather then them just balling up, them balling up is much easy to fight as a organized group then spread out,  In GW2 very often it was difficult to fight enemies that were spread out because you can only focus fire 1 or 2 of them vs the 20-50+ they had. When an enemy zerg was grouped up you can bomb the entire group in one go and destroy them.

 

In GW2 and ESO this is pretty much the truth. When sorcs and dragon knights were op, we'd run into zergs that were 2 to 3 times our size and dismantle them with aoe.

 

With friendly fire, smart zergs won't ball up and let you aoe them, they'll spread out and pick your small group apart with focus fire. They also won't let themselves getting bottlenecked.

Edited by izkimar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In GW2 and ESO this is pretty much the truth. When sorcs and dragon knights were op, we'd run into zergs that were 2 to 3 times our size and dismantle them with aoe.

 

With friendly fire, smart zergs won't ball up and let you aoe them, they'll spread out and pick your small group apart with focus fire. They also won't let themselves getting bottlenecked.

You give zergs to much credit. ESO and GW2 did have alot of zergs, things like chokes cant be avoided you gotta get into that keep or gate. I still deal with zergs years later in GW2 and they still fall for the same ol thing. whether in real history or ingames. A zerg can only accomplish so much.Skilled guilds generally still dominate.


krevra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Overall, it has some fun parts: is it's highly active, and relies very heavily on movement and timing.  But it's completely imbalanced, and rewards certain really boring play-styles, which is not fun.

 

There is a massive availability of very potent AOE in the game, but there is a limit to the number of people any given AOE attack can hit (it's usually 5, or at least it was).  So that means if you stack 10 people in the same space that your enemy stacks 5 people, only half of your team takes the damage.  It's a ridiculous system (intended to counter server load/lag from what I understand), and aside from encouraging zegs, it directly leads to "balling up," or stacking.  The game design not only actively favors zergs, it also encourages this "balling" tactic.

 

This "balling" tactic further reinforced two things: emphasis on ranged skills, and further emphasis on aoe.  Ranged because you can stay on your stack and still dish out damage, and especially ranged AoE because those skills require less aiming, so you concentrate on sticking with the stack while still more than likely hitting the same target as someone else on your team.  This is one really huge failure of the game, and one reason I like the idea of less AoE.  ArenaNet's solution to the technical problems caused by massive AoE in huge battles (huge as in 60v60v60) was half-assed, and it would be better if there was just less AoE in the game. 

 

But on top of that, the skills themselves were "balanced" to work in 5v5 PvP modes, PvE modes, and then open world PvP as an afterthought.  Same skills in all three modes, and generally speaking, the devs seemed to favor 5v5 and PvE balance, so that skills were often simply not balanced for large-scale battles.  This is one reason I'm in favor of having only one game mode.  Addressing the OP, this is my main aversion towards instanced GvG or the like.  ANet tried something similar, and balancing was apparently beyond their capabilities.

 

Class-wise, anyone can do anything to one degree or another, and sustain is pretty high across the board on most reasonably good builds.  Actually, every character has at least one heal skill, by design.  Time to kill is fairly short under ideal circumstances; if you catch someone out, alone without support, no stun-breaks (there are a lot of these too), and no immunities active, you can spike them down on a scale of seconds.  Damage levels are usually pretty high proportional to health bars.  But active defense like evades, stun-breaks, temporary CC immunity skills, sustain, blocks, and active mitigation is so prevalent that in reality, even a marginally good fight lasts a good deal longer, and really good matches can last much longer.  I've had some duels last over 10 minutes, though that was kind of rare for me.

 

Active defense is a big part of the game, and GW2 fights often include relatively high levels of evades, mobility, interrupts, blinds, blocks, and probably some I'm forgetting.  The equivalent of "stamina" is a very important resource, as it allows for more dodges.  There is no mana (though there are a couple of other class-specific resources in some cases), but skills are all limited by cooldowns.  Most are fairly short (the equivalent of CF's ranger 1 melee would not be anywhere near 45s), but the highest-impact skills (like elites) have CDs sometimes in excess of 1m.  Landing a big skill-shot (they do exist in the game) can be a fight-changer, and likewise timing a dodge/block/interrupt or whatever against a big skill can do the same.  Fights rely heavily on good movement/mobility, and managing cooldowns on your active defense and escapes.  I guess this is particularly true when you're outnumbered.  I guess zergs don't worry as much about this stuff.

 

I'm not arguing that this design is good; it has some terrible parts that spoil it overall, and overpower the truly enjoyable aspects (highly active and fluid, tight, movement-oriented combat - it "feels" good).  I agree that GW2 provides a lot of examples of what not to do.  I'm just saying that despite having almost everything stacked in favor of zergs, they were beatable even in GW2.  In other words you don't NEED friendly fire to beat a zerg.  This is a true statement. 

 

FF would shift odds more in favor of the outnumbered squad.  I'm not disputing that.  What I'm saying is that I think that might not be a good thing.  The thrill for me is when it is quite hard to do.  In an open-world pvp game, there has to be some kind of end-game for the person who doesn't really care about the scoreboard, or the in-game rewards like better loot, and who might in fact care less about how many fights they win, but rather more about HOW they win them.  When a team gets pretty good, they can fight against other good players (which is awesome fun), but sometimes it's also fun to try your hand at a little 5v30+.  They should lose most of the time, so if they do win it should be pretty epic.

 

I'm not as passionate about it as the pro-FF side seems to be, for sure.  I think I'd really enjoy FF "on" in a good 5v5 or 10v10, for example.  I think there would still be challenges out there for a good team to find, and even with FF, zergs won't be completely gimped (and they certainly won't disappear).  If anything it might just change their nature. 

 

Anyway, that's more than enough from me; just sharing the perspective of a recovering zerg-busting addict.

 

If you really want an idea of GW2 game-play, here's a couple videos.  Please excuse the video quality, and the player.  (This was done without comms).

 

https://youtu.be/gpnShbi9aME?list=PLzWKhydiiL05UDzwRhsIGAB_elXU0B-21

 

https://youtu.be/e6Mf5_e30PI?list=PLzWKhydiiL07Eu_hviwlAZQg9KMKNn5XL

Edited by Cejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combat in GW2 def felt good and yea its far from perfect, the game isnt balanced around WvW and thus has alot of issues with that as well as neglect from Anet to fix WvW but thats a diff topic. Far as AOE, i think its whats needed to counter these huge zergs, whether in DAOC or Warhammer ESO or GW2, AOE is what allows small groups to counter these huge zergs and for me this is the biggest key and i still feel friendly fire has no real place outside dregs, in GW2 we were limited to 5 players which was a horrible design. Im not saying we need a billion AOE skills but they def need to be available including in CC. A knockback alone by a horse isnt gonna really do much to stop a zerg, it can help but a stun is whats needed or knock down. And atm we lack these aoe hard CC's.

 

To fight roam style like your first video Cejo you need self sustain, otherwise you need 1 of your guys to go support meaning if they zerg just pushes that one person they are dead, you were near your spawn they can only try to push you so far before the legendary NPC 1 shots them thats why they stand back. If you were in the open you would be surrounded, im not saying you could not win, just saying it would be much harder to do even more so since it seemed your group lacked aoe cc on a short enough cool down. In Crowfall unless you all plan to roll rangers and myrms your gonna need a support with you, and if they kill them off your chances are extremely tiny if you dont have the ability to CC the zerg. Even in GW2 you could 1v3+ because you had aoe CC and aoe damage.


krevra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this game attracts the skill I think it will. You are not giving zergs enough credit. I personally feel these type of PVP full loot games bring high quality gamers.

 

What's a "high quality gamer"?


“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

If you are arguing against FF you most likely never even played a ff game or are just part of the zerg mentality...it has been proven game and game to help fighting outnumbered and against zergs. without  friendly fire the huge blob just blows everything in their kit at you without any afterthought. if they might actually hit their  teammates its gonna be a complete different tactic.  I cant see how anyone can argue against it not helping outnumbered fights.


                          Grief-super-small.png

https://twitch.TV/Badatron  

https://www.GriefGaming.pro

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...