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

Implement more friendly fire please.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I haven't done a lot of pvp yet, but I have been thinking about this a bit. I personally would like to see them come up with more creative pvp situations through map and environment design. If you were to do something like create multiple objectives that require being captured and held in order to achieve what the zerg wants to do, then you could split the zerg. Maybe in the same zone, maybe through multiple zones.

For example, lets say a zone has a keep and 3 forts. The 3 forts provide some kind of barrier to the keep in that zone, so the keep can't be taken without capturing and holding say two of the forts. When the keep is up for siege all of the forts become available as well, but the forts also become available on their own timers before then. I'm not saying this is a perfect scenario, but you get the idea.

Edited by BelmontHalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leiloni said:

That would help but if people can run and gun almost nonstop it'll just turn into GW2 style roving zergs where they throw down AoEs and dodge out of them a second later as the zerg just keeps moving. It's stupid to watch and even stupider to participate in, and that game doesn't even have healers. Granted I'm glad we have healers here, but less mobility during combat and collision between friendlies in combat/not in towns are the sorts of things that typically make AoEs more impactful and help force people away from each other. I know they made an attempt at the former in an earlier iteration of combat, but the point still stands.

Portal bombing anyone 


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Are you implying that somehow having less people means you're better at a given game, or that the zerg you're fighting doesn't have just as many people just as good as you in it, with the added bonus of cannon fodder?

I think this statement is wrong, at least as far as DFO is concerned. While having less people in DFO doesn't automatically mean you are better, it was the norm. It actually was not the case that the casual/large clans had as many good players as the smaller clans; it was common for them to have maybe one or two players maximum as good as the top elitist clans - and they would often leave and go join the smaller elitist clans instead, eventually.

Having a bunch of excellent players and poorly made socksties in the same clan was a highly unstable environment in DFO especially as having even a few terrible players on the field could be detrimental. If you have a bunch of potatos who just blow up to back damage instantly and throw your force into a rout, most better groups slowly learned that it just wasn't worth having these players. You would think that truly intelligent groups would identify their poorly made socksties and just stick them on another group/flank and use them as fodder, and I do remember a few guilds doing something like this, but it was extraordinarily rare.

 Excellent players in DFO also tended to be extremely toxic, with little tolerance for incompetence. It was also hard to watch piles of amazing gear (that you may have helped farm or craft) be fed to your enemies by idiots (that you could be looting!) As such, and for many other reasons, groups tended to split along player skill lines fairly often in DFO, creating small elite clans and large potato clans. Of course there were mixed groups, and the ones that survived tended to be the most successful, but they were the exception.

It's a bit different in CF where fights seem pretty blobby with a lot of aoe healing. It's hard to imagine how having more people could be a detriment in a large CF fight. This is very, very, different from how a DF battle played out. I don't know, I've barely played CF at all in years, just what I've seen in various siege videos, and so I could be completely off about CF. But I definitely have been around the block in DF enough to know you're wrong about this particular point.

Edited by Effeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game doesnt need friendly fire to make the game better. They need to fix stuff like blocking people attacks that are behind them. Using rapid fire doing a 180 and every shot still hits the target, doesnt matter if you even los the channel it still hits. There best designed classes like myrm, druid, duelist classes that actually have to manage stuff (crashing, essence, placement of orbs, pips and self buffs) get totally eclipsed by face roll classes like ranger, cleric, confessor. With such a low bar, specially on some of the classes it doesnt take much to tip the scale where having like 5 more people now zerging the other team down. Having more should be a advantage but shouldnt be the only factor for victory.

Im pretty sure Jtodd big quote people loved from a video was "get good" it was not "get more." So it pretty concerning a ace partner is talking about a pvp game isnt about combat mechanics but about the size of your guild. So whats really in this patch?  Did the combat, abilities of classes, retaliate bug, fort timers. Did that stuff get a pass? Because if it did that would make a huge difference in smaller forces fighting bigger forces.

You want to bring up real world battle stuff. Alexander, greece vs persians, hannible, patton, ho chi minh all them are know for bringing down bigger forces. The most famous book on war is about better tactics, training, and discipline can over come any size force. Zerging down the other side never been glorified. 

TLDR. Friendly fire not needed to help balance larger forces vs smaller. Small tweaks to combat, some classes and disciplines will really help a lot with that. Also its concerning to me a ace development partner is saying this games not about skill what so ever. Just about zerging the other side. Because I feel this game has great potential and be quite the waste if that is the truth.

Can the Russians join guilds yet? If not they can probly give some solid feedback next patch on friendly fire.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Drewcifer said:

The game doesnt need friendly fire to make the game better. They need to fix stuff like blocking people attacks that are behind them. Using rapid fire doing a 180 and every shot still hits the target, doesnt matter if you even los the channel it still hits. There best designed classes like myrm, druid, duelist classes that actually have to manage stuff (crashing, essence, placement of orbs, pips and self buffs) get totally eclipsed by face roll classes like ranger, cleric, confessor. With such a low bar, specially on some of the classes it doesnt take much to tip the scale where having like 5 more people now zerging the other team down. Having more should be a advantage but shouldnt be the only factor for victory.

Im pretty sure Jtodd big quote people loved from a video was "get good" it was not "get more." So it pretty concerning a ace partner is talking about a pvp game isnt about combat mechanics but about the size of your guild. So whats really in this patch?  Did the combat, abilities of classes, retaliate bug, fort timers. Did that stuff get a pass? Because if it did that would make a huge difference in smaller forces fighting bigger forces.

You want to bring up real world battle stuff. Alexander, greece vs persians, hannible, patton, ho chi minh all them are know for bringing down bigger forces. The most famous book on war is about better tactics, training, and discipline can over come any size force. Zerging down the other side never been glorified. 

TLDR. Friendly fire not needed to help balance larger forces vs smaller. Small tweaks to combat, some classes and disciplines will really help a lot with that. Also its concerning to me a ace development partner is saying this games not about skill what so ever. Just about zerging the other side. Because I feel this game has great potential and be quite the waste if that is the truth.

Can the Russians join guilds yet? If not they can probly give some solid feedback next patch on friendly fire.

 

 

 

Interesting points so I'll run them down. Also in case you're unaware, the dev partner tag does not mean I have anything to do with development. It means my account own a really expensive kickstarter package and I have access to a forum where we complain about the same stuff as everyone else does, get the same answers to our questions as you get in streams and the public forums, and get banned if we dunk on each other too much. Now, on to your points:

1. I agree the game doesn't NEED friendly fire to be better, and that there are a ton of wonky mechanics that still need ironing out.

2. "Get good" means "get good at our game as we designed it" and we've been told multiple times that breaking up zergs isn't the way they want to handle small group viability. They're handling small group viability by creating objectives and perhaps certain campaign win conditions that are more varied and tuned for smaller groups as the idea isn't that you don't show up to a siege with every able body you can, but that between those sieges there's so much stuff going on you can do to support your faction/guild/alliance that just blobbing up would make it physically impossible to do them all, or that the victory metric involves many objective firing at once in a way it would be impossible for a single blob to defend or attack them all simultaneously.

3. Alexander, greece, persians, etc. are notable because they're exceptions to the rule. The Art of War specifically is about fighting without fighting, and does in fact recongize the impact of superior numbers in an open engagement. Sun Tzu's famous treatise on war doesn't tech you to fight outnumbered. It teaches you that if you're outnumbered you shouldn't be in that fight and do something to not be outnumbered. It teaches you that the most efficient way to win wars is what modern strategists call mutli-vector warfare that prioritizes doing everything in your power to make the engagement unfair for your opponent and ONLY THEN engage them. This strategy includes diplomacy, hygiene, logistics, a whole chapter on spycraft, how to make sure your enemies fight each other in stead of you, and how to surreptuously cripple a war machine by means other than direct engagements. The book is well loves among people in competitive fields for everything it says about creating unfair fights through whatever means you have access to. It is not a manual for winning a 20 V 100 in equal equipment and training as much as a book about how to get 80 of those people to not show up to the fight.

4. Russians, we've just been told, will be on their own separate regional servers inaccessible to the EU/NA cluster, like the chinese. They can't join guilds because the guild system is tied to the account system and the account system for russian players is on separate servers.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe a dev partner doesn't know more then I do and if that the case im wrong sorry. Also how i was taking what your saying maybe wrong. It sounds like the only way to make your guild good is to make it as big as possible. But Where im coming from is what is considered a zerg is a very small amount of people that making the critical amount where the other team can not win. It sounds like your saying what has come from ace(again assuming they talk more to you if thats not the case sorry). Ontop of that from past q and a nothing like that really been brought up. Expect for hard counter discs like scare crow disc.

Chaos won a campaign. It wasnt because we had more passive training. It wasnt because we had better armor. It wasnt because we had better players. It simple was because out numbered the other team by a small margin. Thats it. Then a lot of people i know stop playing including myself. Since really that a pretty sad achievement simply making yourself to big to fail. Since you already know the outcome before it even starts.

Sun Tzu perfect since he wrote that after winning from being out numbered. Dont engage the enemy when you number 20 vs 100.

You have to spread out the faction stacker . So ace fix was to put timers on forts, bane tree that you kill after 15mins. Which is forcing the smaller force having to engage with the larger. These issue are worth bringing up since the past changes (also things like spirit change again lowered the bar on healers specially clerics) to help address it completely did the opposite.  Basically what you say in 2 in your list im skeptical about from past changes they made. Hopefully again im wrong since we have very little information.

All in All we probably see more eye to eye then i first thought. I dont think beating 5 times your number is reasonable. But right now that crit amount of players your small force can take on is way to low in my opinion and its simply because skill ceiling way to low.  Since this is a open world game and where just a couple players make you hit that wall its pretty sad since you will rarely find a even number fight. ( Really i think its as easy making class manage their resources small changes not big things can make a huge difference. Like the cc version of classes getting the stam regain after retail instead of every spec. Would probably make those spec more desirable since they would also break cc more)

So really is the definition of a crowfall zerg going change?(Im not expecting you to know the answer to this) Because if it does I may be in line with what your saying.

 

Basically it was a joke that the Russians could't join guilds. If they still cant when the patch comes. In dregs they will be dealing with friendly fire.

 

Edited by Drewcifer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it was fun for Chaos. Basic math indicates that it was therefore fun for the majority of players on the server.

It is Chaos' fault that you lost. They outplayed you.

It is your friends fault that they chose to quit rather than determine what steps could be taken to remedy this situation.

Chaos didn't ruin your fun. You ruined your fun by constructing a narrative in your head that this shouldn't have happened, and by refusing to adapt when it did.

In any contest with winners and losers you are not going to win by refusing to learn from your mistakes.

 

Since you're a fan of eastern martial philosophy I'll leave you with a quote that might be a little more useful in your current predicament than Sun Tzu.

"Be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water my friend." -Bruce Lee

 

 


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Because they're mutually exclusive designs and this prevents them from sharing the same space. Either you have a spave in which players can form massive armies and zerg, or you have an environment where players are on limited arranged teams. You can have both environments in the same GAME, but not in the same SPACE within that game. They are literally incompatible designs. It has nothing to do with laziness.

This game was founded, day one, on being the first kind of game. That has never changed. It was marketed on the back of the creative director's previous game that was also that kind of game.

Furthermore, why does the team who sucks at recruiting, logistics, and basically every part of the game that isn't swinging a sword deserve a handicap? You showed up to play a game, you were bad at that game, and in stead of adjusting your behavior or finding a game that is a better fit for your talents you demand the game change to accommodate you because you DESERVE a chance at winning despite not having taken any of the steps required to win.

The game does not need to change to accommodate your ego. Your ego needs to take a back seat to the reality of both simulated and real warfare: Numbers is the first measure of force strength, and all else is a modifier on that number. Force multipliers are not force in and of themselves, and they scale just as well for the zerg as they do for you.

You totally missed my point. Yes you could zerg in Darkfall and yes it gave you and advantage, but it didn't necessitate a victory. For instance my clan holding a hamlet using choke points and using mage/archery perched on the rooftops beat the attacking force that held the numerical advantage 3:1. Zerg vs Zerg is always a lazy design because it means player skill and class really doesn't matter in those battles. I take it you never played Darkfall, but you KNEW you were better than other player in the same way you know a Global Elite in counter strike is better than a sliver 1(non smurf) and to think otherwise means you are just a stubborn ass, who only speaks your own rhetoric instead of what was proven. Your rant about finding another game is amusing when the orginal premise of this game would be campaigns with full loot and friendly fire. I mean if you want to just zerg and win there is always Guild wars 2 or Warhammer online private server for you. The most amusing part which comes off as meme-ish is how you compare a video game to real life warfare....I'll state my opinion on that once humans can cast magic spells and revive. The only one that seems to have an ego is you; from what you can discern from the forums everyone else agrees the combat and zerging is at a bad state but you are right and they are wrong because you are a developer partner.

Edited by IsilithTehroth
Wanted to reiterate how offputting, laughable using real life fights in the discussion and egotistically fueled rant this guy went on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, IsilithTehroth said:

You totally missed my point. Yes you could zerg in Darkfall and yes it gave you and advantage, but it didn't necessitate a victory. For instance my clan holding a hamlet using choke points and using mage/archery perched on the rooftops beat the attacking force that held the numerical advantage 3:1. Zerg vs Zerg is always a lazy design because it means player skill and class really doesn't matter in those battles. I take it you never played Darkfall, but you KNEW you were better than other player in the same way you know a Global Elite in counter strike is better than a sliver 1(non smurf) and to think otherwise means you are just a stubborn ass, who only speaks your own rhetoric instead of what was proven. Your rant about finding another game is amusing when the orginal premise of this game would be campaigns with full loot and friendly fire. I mean if you want to just zerg and win there is always Guild wars 2 or Warhammer online private server for you. The most amusing part which comes off as meme-ish is how you compare a video game to real life warfare....I'll state my opinion on that once humans can cast magic spells and revive. The only one that seems to have an ego is you; from what you can discern from the forums everyone else agrees the combat and zerging is at a bad state but you are right and they are wrong because you are a developer partner.

that worked great until they capped the amount of people aoe hit :P

friendly fire will not work in faction warefare, Darkfall wasnt a FFA game it basicly the dregs/shadows they couldnt even get the faction to work properly with the flagging system it wont work in a faction setting. No matter the system u put in place player will find a way to exploit it to grief.

Now in dregs and Shadows its possible but you do run the risk of somone coming from faction to shadow/dregs being wtf is happening kinda deal is it worth it i dunno but i feel there better alternative i would like to see dregs have friendly fire to everyone but group members tbh i think that would be interesting another different big difference between crowfall and Darkfall is the targeting it was much easier for range to hit target meleeing each other where with our current ray skill there a tad missleading and forgiving so ull probaly just hit the clostest person somewhat close to your recticle which isnt good however making it tighter like darkfall was your now on a slippery slop or making the game to difficult for the masses which was one problem with darkfall. It ended up having a too small of a player base as people due to population bleeding itself to death by being to hardcore/difficult in some regards along with other problems. They need to keep pvp game somewhat casual friendly to keep the population there for those who just want to kill people.
Tbh they need to put more emphasis in PvE imo to keep the pve crowd so pvpers like myself have people to find in the wild. most pvp atm is people randomly roaming into eachother at least open field is that way i ended up just sitting in a pve spawn twiddling my thumb waiting for someone to come down looking for pvp and that how i got most of my smal scale pvp because roaming looking for other people roaming was kinda pointless cause u missed each other constantly.

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Drewcifer said:

You want to bring up real world battle stuff. Alexander, greece vs persians, hannible, patton, ho chi minh all them are know for bringing down bigger forces. The most famous book on war is about better tactics, training, and discipline can over come any size force. Zerging down the other side never been glorified. 

Quite the contrary, in most of the examples you cite, the generals were famous for concentrating a superior  number of troops *in the right spot* to defeat the enemy. At the strategic level they may have had fewer troops, but at the point of contact they chose to focus on, they typically won that engagement through superior numbers.

Historically, the how & why of any single battle's outcome usually comes down to superior numbers at the right time & place, good or poor use of terrain, technological/logistical superiority, surprise, or morale.

The great generals were great because they could manipulate what happened at the strategic level to insure victory at the tactical level.

Edit: as a soldier on a battlefield between competent generals, you are either getting zerged, doing the zerging, or bored.

Edited by VaMei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Corvax stated, we tested group only green back awhile, it was fun and different but wouldn't make zergs go away.   From what I heard we will not have alliances so it IS somewhat FFA between allies as everyone not your guild will be red (unless they group into a guild led group?).  I know we could invite reds to group in eks with PVP turned on...  that is probably how allied guilds will run, mixed groups to minimize FF.

 


6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, IsilithTehroth said:

You totally missed my point. Yes you could zerg in Darkfall and yes it gave you and advantage, but it didn't necessitate a victory. For instance my clan holding a hamlet using choke points and using mage/archery perched on the rooftops beat the attacking force that held the numerical advantage 3:1. Zerg vs Zerg is always a lazy design because it means player skill and class really doesn't matter in those battles. I take it you never played Darkfall, but you KNEW you were better than other player in the same way you know a Global Elite in counter strike is better than a sliver 1(non smurf) and to think otherwise means you are just a stubborn ass, who only speaks your own rhetoric instead of what was proven. Your rant about finding another game is amusing when the orginal premise of this game would be campaigns with full loot and friendly fire. I mean if you want to just zerg and win there is always Guild wars 2 or Warhammer online private server for you. The most amusing part which comes off as meme-ish is how you compare a video game to real life warfare....I'll state my opinion on that once humans can cast magic spells and revive. The only one that seems to have an ego is you; from what you can discern from the forums everyone else agrees the combat and zerging is at a bad state but you are right and they are wrong because you are a developer partner.

Please refer to my previous post about how meaningless the developer partner tag is. It doesn't make me important, it just makes my bank account have less money in it. Please also refer to that post in which I'm using real world warfare examples in direct response to someone else making the comparison.

Your complaint is that you were good at one game but that skill hasn't transferred to another game.

I'd ask you to review the state of CF up to this point. Specifically the performance of Winterblades and HoA on the NA campaigns, in which they've consistently faced superior chaos numbers, employed better specs and more regimented group comps, and not only emerge victorious, but absolutely demoralize their enemies often very early in the campaign.

"But the zerg" is a cop out. It is the warcry of people who can't reconcile the fact that they didn't win with a self-assumed notion that they should have won.

I'll say this again, just to be clear:

Winners don't complain about zergs because they're either the zerg, or they're good enough that they've solved the problem.

You weren't complaining about the zerg in Darkfall because you figured out how to use the systems on offer to solve the problem at least one time.

You're complaining about the zerg in Crowfall because those strategies haven't transferred to a new environment, and you're upset about it.

You seem to think you deserve to win. You don't. Nobody deserves to win. You don't get grandfathered in to diamond pony or whatever rank in counterstrike because you obtained diamond sausage rank in starcraft. You don't deserve to win in Crowfall because you were winning at darkfall. You do the legwork, use the systems on offer, and play the game.

I should know. I run a famously bad guild. I am very bad at this game. I am frequently murdered by large groups of players, and by small groups of players.

The difference between me and you is that I have never once complained that the zerg was the problem, or claim that this game should change because I had more success in another game. I don't claim that I've only lost because the game is rigged against me, and I never will.

I'm not the one strutting around talking about how good I was in another game, and why that should mean I'm also good at this one. I don't care how good you are, how good you think you are, or how good you were at fifteen other games because it doesn't matter. In all likelihood you are better at every singe game that exists than me.

And yet, somehow, I'm not complaining that I need a handicap, and you are.

 

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Frykka said:

As Corvax stated, we tested group only green back awhile, it was fun and different but wouldn't make zergs go away.   From what I heard we will not have alliances so it IS somewhat FFA between allies as everyone not your guild will be red (unless they group into a guild led group?).  I know we could invite reds to group in eks with PVP turned on...  that is probably how allied guilds will run, mixed groups to minimize FF.

 

Won't have alliances YET.

Todd said on the stream that its in the pipeline for the future but there were a lot of design edge cases he had to work out in that system. Examples given were "What happens to the score if you sub under another guild, and then later want to betray them" and other questions of scoring alliance play that he hasn't arrived at satisfactory answers for yet.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Drewcifer said:

Sorry i wasn't clear i was on chaos

O and chaos did learn from there mistakes. we got more.

Its unfortunate that you don't find winning in this fashion fun, but until there's some kind of population balance or automatic assignment to factions there's a pretty simple answer to that problem.

Stop being part of the problem.

If you really believe that outnumbering the opponent isn't fun for you, you have the power to stop doing it by joining another team don't you?


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, corvax said:

Yes, yes, I know friendly fire Crowfall. We did it, check. We still won the majority of engagements, check. Go back to friendly fire we will still win, check. 

We have fought engagements seriously outnumbered where the opposing faction filled the zone to level cap two hours before siege, and we beat their Zerg without FF. The combat in Crowfall is solid.  

Several Campaign worlds where run under FF rule-set prior to siege mechanics. It wasn't a big deal, it wasn't a game changer. If your group has coordination and communication the available powers right now, will break numbers, if used right.  

There will be FF campaign world's in the Dregs band, JTodd said so, many times. Play those campaigns and have fun, but if you can't stand toe to toe with us in open field...  having 2X's ballista fire on your forces (ours and yours) ain't gonna help you win.

One beats the Zerg with diplomacy, lies, and propaganda.

I applaud your efforts to make Crowfall a better game and your ideas are not without merit if one just wants to play that type of rule-sets because one enjoys it, but FF is not a remedy for the state of Crowfall sieges.

Crowfall combat solid?  Is the combat fun? Better believe it but its far from solid.   The 3m range is currently a joke and doubt the 4m will remedy the situation until the netcode & boxes are tightened up & the same applies toward ranged.  You shouldn't be able to go 6s without damaging someone in melee that is reporting 1-2meters range.   The way retaliate and CC work is questionable.  Dregs no matter the state its in I'm sure will be amazing since we'll be able to move forward to balancing and tweaking things finally.

Sieges themselves are boring as hell forts & Keeps.  Its just wack a ballista until a new one goes up for keeps & forts its can you bum rush the circle and flip it while under fire.  I'm more curious how sieges will play out when spells can't pass through walls anymore.

The FF points are comical to say the least. Only thing we can hope for is a ruleset that has this & the way they talk how they can adjust for almost any ruleset will make sure everyone has a place they want to play in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MrErad said:

Crowfall combat solid?  Is the combat fun? Better believe it but its far from solid.   The 3m range is currently a joke and doubt the 4m will remedy the situation until the netcode & boxes are tightened up & the same applies toward ranged.  You shouldn't be able to go 6s without damaging someone in melee that is reporting 1-2meters range.   The way retaliate and CC work is questionable.  Dregs no matter the state its in I'm sure will be amazing since we'll be able to move forward to balancing and tweaking things finally.

Sieges themselves are boring as hell forts & Keeps.  Its just wack a ballista until a new one goes up for keeps & forts its can you bum rush the circle and flip it while under fire.  I'm more curious how sieges will play out when spells can't pass through walls anymore.

The FF points are comical to say the least. Only thing we can hope for is a ruleset that has this & the way they talk how they can adjust for almost any ruleset will make sure everyone has a place they want to play in.

Yeah retaliate realy need a nerf its to spammable and pretyy much make CC based classes practically useless, the classes that specialised in pvp should have some way to reduce or negate the effectivness of retaliate so those classes are better at it and actually able to do there job, either have specilisation classes for CC put retailiate on CD for 2 seconds when they CC somone or reduce a player stamina bar by x amount for each CC or so on.

I would actually like to see WoW control point method used tbh click on a flag/object any dmg interrupts the channel on flipping it and it goes nuetral for a minute or so to allow for the defender to defend it and flip it back intime before it get taken.


Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PopeUrban said:

Please refer to my previous post about how meaningless the developer partner tag is. It doesn't make me important, it just makes my bank account have less money in it. Please also refer to that post in which I'm using real world warfare examples in direct response to someone else making the comparison.

Your complaint is that you were good at one game but that skill hasn't transferred to another game.

I'd ask you to review the state of CF up to this point. Specifically the performance of Winterblades and HoA on the NA campaigns, in which they've consistently faced superior chaos numbers, employed better specs and more regimented group comps, and not only emerge victorious, but absolutely demoralize their enemies often very early in the campaign.

"But the zerg" is a cop out. It is the warcry of people who can't reconcile the fact that they didn't win with a self-assumed notion that they should have won.

I'll say this again, just to be clear:

Winners don't complain about zergs because they're either the zerg, or they're good enough that they've solved the problem.

You weren't complaining about the zerg in Darkfall because you figured out how to use the systems on offer to solve the problem at least one time.

You're complaining about the zerg in Crowfall because those strategies haven't transferred to a new environment, and you're upset about it.

You seem to think you deserve to win. You don't. Nobody deserves to win. You don't get grandfathered in to diamond pony or whatever rank in counterstrike because you obtained diamond sausage rank in starcraft. You don't deserve to win in Crowfall because you were winning at darkfall. You do the legwork, use the systems on offer, and play the game.

I should know. I run a famously bad guild. I am very bad at this game. I am frequently murdered by large groups of players, and by small groups of players.

The difference between me and you is that I have never once complained that the zerg was the problem, or claim that this game should change because I had more success in another game. I don't claim that I've only lost because the game is rigged against me, and I never will.

I'm not the one strutting around talking about how good I was in another game, and why that should mean I'm also good at this one. I don't care how good you are, how good you think you are, or how good you were at fifteen other games because it doesn't matter. In all likelihood you are better at every singe game that exists than me.

And yet, somehow, I'm not complaining that I need a handicap, and you are.

 

Where did I say I was good at Darkfall? I ended up quiting Rise of agon because all the best players consolidated under 1 clan and you can't compete. Everyone complains about zerg vs zerg which is why no one plays WvW in guild wars 2. Anyone that is pro zerg mechanics needs a handicap period. Of course you don't want the mechanics to change in game because then you couldn't crutch on numbers. Fyi I don't even play crowfall because I think it is an all around terrible game at this point so I don't lose at all in it, but I do watch videos and can ascertain that its zerg vs zerg. I like how you seem to think because I bring up relevant games that somehow I am gloating about my playerskill in them...that is called an ad-hominem because you have no valid points. The issue I was discussion is how zerg vs zerg games always end up dying due to player attrition. One thing I know for sure though is if I win in crowfall it isn't because my own accomplishments or my guilds....its because we followed the mindless blob of players fighting over the flip flopping capture points because in games like this people will always switch to the side that has more players and/or wins more.

As they say in chess(I am a grandmaster online /s) checkmate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2020 at 1:12 PM, PopeUrban said:

I hate to break it to you, but friendly fire existing won't suddenly make everyone show up in tight formations and do a headcount to ensure a fair contest before every fight.

No but it would change how people play if they have any intention of winning. I assume bad players would simply be worse at the game with FF but good players would be able to accomplish more vs larger groups of bad players. Of course there is nothing stopping high skilled players from alsorunning large numbers. Seems many believe zerg and skill are mutually exclusive. CF wasn't designed with FF or FFA in mind so I don't see it working beyond a limited joke experience.

On 3/6/2020 at 1:35 PM, PopeUrban said:

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are two kinds of PvP games. Open world games that encourage and reward forming zergs, and arena games that limit teams to small sporting contests....Because they're mutually exclusive designs and this prevents them from sharing the same space....

This is not exactly true and ignores other possibilities.

I assume you mean "reward forming zergs" in that numbers will secure a victory because 2 > 1. If however the actual take away rewards were a goal, scarcity of rewards would likely impact team size.

If a campaign only gave out 10 apples and everyone wanted/needed apples, then running 500 guild members on a server probably wouldn't be very efficient.

Guild upkeep costs could keep size down as well with padding the numbers with meat shields not being cost effective.

There are ways to work around mechanics and it isn't fun to limit who we can play with, but such mechanics could decrease the mindless aspect of zerging and stacking teams until the server melts when they meet in one spot.

For me, everything should have cost/benefit, risk/reward. If there is no cost or risk to running with 10000 players 24/7, then the balance is missing. Everyone isn't going to want to be a part of such thing and eventually the game will bleed until it is running on fumes.

Other games that have come before have had or allowed higher skill ceiling of both the individual and teams along with mechanics that allow smaller numbers to accomplish more be it they are god like or not at a game.

Ex: DAoC. A single player could CC a group in various ways. Doing so allowed a small group to take out much larger forces if they caught them off guard or simply out played them. While playing the meta and what not was part of it, much of it came to actual player/team skill and communication and not just pick XYZ and profit because they are so broke they give a large advantage. This is good players vs good players, not a highly organized experienced group mowing down chickens missing their heads. Other games were like this as well, but DAoC always sicks out in my mind.

Tab targeting allowed for precision targeting and carefully not breaking CC, there was a decent amount of pre attack and reactive powers that require people to pay attention and not just stack in a pile and click at the nearest enemy, long cast time on spells, melee having positionals and reactionary attacks (back/front/side, if they parry you can do X), a separate PVP talent system that wasn't just a freebie for leveling vs mobs, long cooldowns on powerful abilities.

In Crowfall things happen so fast and easily that very little requires a lot of moment to moment thought. I got knocked down, oh well, I'll pop whatever oh crap button as it will be back in a few seconds or I'll be dead quickly with so much AOE and easy mode "aim" focused on me. I remember waiting out LONG CC in DAoC because I didn't want to blow a particular cooldown. While breaking CC on someone was a big no no and could be a deciding factor in a fight. Not that I want that copied but there is more then 2 ways to design a PVP game. Be it macro or micro elements.

Zergs will always happen but they don't need to be the default and easiest win condition.

18 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

there are a ton of wonky mechanics that still need ironing out.

Which is a big part of the issue I have with the game.

There are so many little things that make the whole less enjoyable then it could be.

Collision and overall lack of decent physics, easy mode targeting only out done by tab without any compensation like number/variety of spells, so much AOE and CC, speed of combat allowing mistakes to be erased almost instantly, etc.

Not sure what exactly got a pass this update beyond racials, but classes as a whole, promos, disciplines could use work which I know ACE knows. Metas will always exist, but there should be room for creativity and not just cut n dry this is good and that is bad because of poor design choices. Having 1000000 options and only 5 being good is such a waste of company resources.

18 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

2. "Get good" means "get good at our game as we designed it" and we've been told multiple times that breaking up zergs isn't the way they want to handle small group viability. They're handling small group viability by creating objectives and perhaps certain campaign win conditions that are more varied and tuned for smaller groups as the idea isn't that you don't show up to a siege with every able body you can, but that between those sieges there's so much stuff going on you can do to support your faction/guild/alliance that just blobbing up would make it physically impossible to do them all, or that the victory metric involves many objective firing at once in a way it would be impossible for a single blob to defend or attack them all simultaneously.

I really hope this is true and if this update doesn't show this design goal, I doubt it will ever fully come to be. The more they hype up the patch and pat themselves on the back, the more I expect. A lackluster experience with more "XYZ are still coming, then the real game will happen" can only fly so long.

18 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

3. Real World comparisons

I get the value in such things but so much of "real" tactics have no place in a world of pixels. Games should be about having fun win or lose. When players focus on eliminating their enemies they are eliminating themselves as well. It is no surprise that competitive games are filled with toxic people and the less structure in place the less longevity a game seems to have. This is why MMOs pale in comparison to other competitive genres.

50 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

I'd ask you to review the state of CF up to this point. Specifically the performance of Winterblades and HoA on the NA campaigns, in which they've consistently faced superior chaos numbers, employed better specs and more regimented group comps, and not only emerge victorious, but absolutely demoralize their enemies often very early in the campaign.

"But the zerg" is a cop out.

I agree using "zerg" is a cop out but it isn't something to ignore or trivialize completely.

My gripe is Crowfall's combat and character design seem rather low hanging fruit and clearly more established guilds/players that came in with pre-built step stools know which fruit to grab. Not to take away anything from their success as they should be winning, but I wouldn't use pre-alpha's "game" experience to represent the launch version or justify anything. Laughable that people even call pre-alpha numbers "zergs." 

49 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

Won't have alliances YET.

Todd said on the stream that its in the pipeline for the future but there were a lot of design edge cases he had to work out in that system. Examples given were "What happens to the score if you sub under another guild, and then later want to betray them" and other questions of scoring alliance play that he hasn't arrived at satisfactory answers for yet.

IMO these things should be in prior to launch. Hyping this up as a "Throne War" should have some actual mechanics in place beyond hoping players create their own experience because "sandbox" is a term that exists. If politics are posting memes on the locked down forums, I don't see them getting too crazy.

30 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

If you really believe that outnumbering the opponent isn't fun for you, you have the power to stop doing it by joining another team don't you?

Yes and I usually do when I can without entirely removing my fun. I find it a lot more entertaining, challenging, thrilling to win against the odds. The view of winning at all costs or when victory is assured sounds nice on paper and might be good in real life, but might as well just sell a "WIN" button in the store and let me buy it if that is the depth of the game. Path of least resistance is the path to me uninstalling. 

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...