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

Zerg Restrictions

Recommended Posts

That's the magical word when it comes down to the sustainability of a zerg, which is another important thing.

 

Battles shouldn't just be about charging in, swinging left and right and that's it. Siege engines need to be moved from one place to another which will make a siege force extremely slow and vulnerable, scouts should be looking for incoming hostiles, the army need to shelter from bad weather and stay warm by making a campfire, tents need to be put up, the army needs to stay properly fed to prevent starvation. Once the battle is over things need to be looted, repaired and transported back with the usage of wagons.

 

All you have to do is look at how things go in real life, cut out the most tedious parts and make sure it fits in the game by introducing some artificial things.

The zerg strategically is all about hitting hard with everything, if the above (quote) is taken into account the the zerg itself isnt really a problem as there are counter strategies. (running gun, harrying etc.) however if the people killed can respond and be back in no time (allowing for game feasability) then it isn't so much as a zerg as it's just constant bombardment with infinite resources. As long as the person resource can be made finite, I don't see an issue with zergs (the cost of failure). Actually on that note, if the people who die merely go to a starting point near where they died, it won't solve the problem the drawback to the zerg is that your defenseless during and after. That is the price of the zerg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FPS aiming makes everything a lot harder and therefore more difficult for zergs. If 10 people can just click on 1 guy in the distance and unleash their abilities the guy would die much quicker. Also, if you'd have a tab targetting / selection system friendly fire would be a pretty weird mechanic I think.

 

I think there is a problem with you being able to visualize what I'm poorly attempting to explain.

 

I want a "soft-lock" targeting system.  Not a tab target system that cycles through enemies, and not a way to /target a player name.  The type of lock/targeting I envision is you're looking around with your mouse, ala Tera or ESO, controlled via WASD, and when your cursor is over a target you can hit your "target" hotkey, making that your active target.  Now you are "locked" to that character, with your camera being focused on them as you move around.  Any moves you trigger will be in the direction of that target.  If they are "auto hit" type spells, so be it.  Things will need to be balanced regardless.  Certain spells can be aimed, certain ones aoes with ground placement etc.

 

My point is that you can still allow friendly fire under such a system as I propose.  Just because you are "locked" onto a target, to display their info and direct your atacks, doesn't mean friendlies can't get in the way of the attacks, or be within their aoe ranges etc.


"Food for the crows..."    Nobuo Xa'el

cdinUTh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is

 

I think there is a problem with you being able to visualize what I'm poorly attempting to explain.

 

I want a "soft-lock" targeting system.  Not a tab target system that cycles through enemies, and not a way to /target a player name.  The type of lock/targeting I envision is you're looking around with your mouse, ala Tera or ESO, controlled via WASD, and when your cursor is over a target you can hit your "target" hotkey, making that your active target.  Now you are "locked" to that character, with your camera being focused on them as you move around.  Any moves you trigger will be in the direction of that target.  If they are "auto hit" type spells, so be it.  Things will need to be balanced regardless.  Certain spells can be aimed, certain ones aoes with ground placement etc.

 

My point is that you can still allow friendly fire under such a system as I propose.  Just because you are "locked" onto a target, to display their info and direct your atacks, doesn't mean friendlies can't get in the way of the attacks, or be within their aoe ranges etc.

The thing is when you have a locked target, you have to add the Dodge stat, when you do that you have to start balancing, when you start balancing something is going to be in favor, when that happens you can effectively stop a zerg with 4 or 5 people and that one spell/ability or create an unstoppable one. now to look at them, or keep them in your view sure, but when you go to attack you should still have to aim it. And on that subject, FF on paper seems good to have, however the coordination goes through the roof creating a higher skill floor. you don't want that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a problem with you being able to visualize what I'm poorly attempting to explain.

 

I want a "soft-lock" targeting system.  Not a tab target system that cycles through enemies, and not a way to /target a player name.  The type of lock/targeting I envision is you're looking around with your mouse, ala Tera or ESO, controlled via WASD, and when your cursor is over a target you can hit your "target" hotkey, making that your active target.  Now you are "locked" to that character, with your camera being focused on them as you move around.  Any moves you trigger will be in the direction of that target.  If they are "auto hit" type spells, so be it.  Things will need to be balanced regardless.  Certain spells can be aimed, certain ones aoes with ground placement etc.

 

My point is that you can still allow friendly fire under such a system as I propose.  Just because you are "locked" onto a target, to display their info and direct your atacks, doesn't mean friendlies can't get in the way of the attacks, or be within their aoe ranges etc.

That seems reasonable, Tera's combat and targeting system were smooth and intuitive.  You don't want to make your combat unintuitive just for the sake of squashing zergs.  But having body blocking and friendly fire on top of that might be a good idea, but it does lead to some potential problems with same side griefing.

Games like World of Tanks handles it by making you cover the costs of repair for any damage you inflict to allies.

This is largely an automated process.

 

 

Gauis does have a reasonable point however, one sided battles aren't fun and they can have dire long term consequences.

Interestingly from my time in EVE Online, this never really became a problem.  Sure you had guilds/corps like GoonSwarm, that had a huge number of players, but they couldn't take everything, not by a long shot.

 

Which really came down to resources.  Everything in EVE is built by the players, and if you die you lose what you have on you. 

Which in turn means war costs money, lots of it, which requires them to hold territory so they can mine materials and process them into the stuff they need.

Also, travelling takes time, nothing is instantaneous.  Building also takes time, as some ships can take days, weeks, even months to build.

Which in turn greatly limits how much power a large zerg can bring to a fight, and how often they can do that.

 

This means that in order to have a lot of players, you must have a lot of infrastructure to maintain thou's players, which in turn means a lot of territory spread over a large area in all likelihood.   And the more you have, the harder it is to manage and protect all of it.

 

Because also the game gives you lots of inexpensive means to do hit and run tactics, it is quite possible for several smaller group to gnaw away the large zerg, as being big also makes it slower to react and coordinate.  Eventually they hit a point where they can't expand and hold what they have at the same time.

And provided there is enough physical territory, no one guild can hold everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is

 

The thing is when you have a locked target, you have to add the Dodge stat, when you do that you have to start balancing, when you start balancing something is going to be in favor, when that happens you can effectively stop a zerg with 4 or 5 people and that one spell/ability or create an unstoppable one. now to look at them, or keep them in your view sure, but when you go to attack you should still have to aim it. And on that subject, FF on paper seems good to have, however the coordination goes through the roof creating a higher skill floor. you don't want that.

 

No.  We're having some form of disconnect.  You don't need a dodge stat at all with the system I'm describing, and dodging would be fully handled by either sidestepping moves, or short dash type moves, ala a fighting game.  Hell, maybe even a certain defensive ability giving an awesome backflip or something.  Point being, my vision doesn't require passive defense stats.

 

As for FF, I don't mind either way if they implement it, as long as it makes the gameplay better.  It's an undeniable counter to zergging getting out of control, however.  As you said, it would require more skill to effectively make use of a numbers advantage without slaughtering your own troops.  The gameplay itself should be what determines whether there is friendly fire.  Too many other unknowns about this game for me to decide which I'd prefer at this point.


"Food for the crows..."    Nobuo Xa'el

cdinUTh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so zergs were worse in SB, did you have a point?

 

The point is that a average player of Sb think that is superior to everyone else so he try to scare the hell out of everyone so the already little playerbase that a game like this can have will be cut down from forumbane before the game will even exist, than he want to remove a large part of the players (pacrim players) because they use a completely legit tactic (zerg) to win. Just check the forums of the 2 Shadowbane Emu's , They are full of whine and cry for the same ppl that in another thread here were calling Wiz101's players "carebears" that are asking to the developers of those Emus to ban asian IP , destroy all the perfectly legit city owned by Pacrim guilds or make separate servers to avoid to compete against players that are just doing what Shadowbane was created for: Play to crush

About the topic i don't think there is a need of zerg restriction but only skills / powers really effective against big numbers of players

Fo example in Warhammer Online there were the so called Bomb Group that were a destructive weapon against unskilled zerg


Se un uomo non è disposto a lottare per le proprie idee, o le sue idee non valgono nulla o non vale nulla lui. EZRA POUND

 

MEMENTO AUDERE SEMPER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that a average player of Sb think that is superior to everyone else so he try to scare the hell out of everyone so the already little playerbase that a game like this can have will be cut down from forumbane before the game will even exist, than he want to remove a large part of the players (pacrim players) because they use a completely legit tactic (zerg) to win. Just check the forums of the 2 Shadowbane Emu's , They are full of whine and cry for the same ppl that in another thread here were calling Wiz101's players "carebears" that are asking to the developers of those Emus to ban asian IP , destroy all the perfectly legit city owned by Pacrim guilds or make separate servers to avoid to compete against players that are just doing what Shadowbane was created for: Play to crush

......* shots fired.....*

 

Tql47Xd.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  We're having some form of disconnect.  You don't need a dodge stat at all with the system I'm describing, and dodging would be fully handled by either sidestepping moves, or short dash type moves, ala a fighting game.  Hell, maybe even a certain defensive ability giving an awesome backflip or something.  Point being, my vision doesn't require passive defense stats.

 

As for FF, I don't mind either way if they implement it, as long as it makes the gameplay better.  It's an undeniable counter to zergging getting out of control, however.  As you said, it would require more skill to effectively make use of a numbers advantage without slaughtering your own troops.  The gameplay itself should be what determines whether there is friendly fire.  Too many other unknowns about this game for me to decide which I'd prefer at this point.

Yeah I can sum it up for you, Dark Souls.

Has targeting, doesn't mean your going to hit squat.  Or not get your nipples cut off in the attempt.

It forces you to gauge your opponents and look for openings, and be constantly mindful of your positioning relative to theirs.

 

And while like in Dark Souls 2 you can have a dodge stat, it only actually works when you, well ya'know, dodge.  Actively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that a average player of Sb think that is superior to everyone else so he try to scare the hell out of everyone so the already little playerbase that a game like this can have will be cut down from forumbane before the game will even exist, than he want to remove a large part of the players (pacrim players) because they use a completely legit tactic (zerg) to win. Just check the forums of the 2 Shadowbane Emu's , They are full of whine and cry for the same ppl that in another thread here were calling Wiz101's players "carebears" that are asking to the developers of those Emus to ban asian IP , destroy all the perfectly legit city owned by Pacrim guilds or make separate servers to avoid to compete against players that are just doing what Shadowbane was created for: Play to crush

 

I only mainly saw the crying about 2 servers and getting rid of the Pacrim guilds on the Magicbane forums. They are also not very new player friendly as you run into a lot of crap on their forums with a lot of racist unfiltered posts. It ultimately steered me more toward the shadowbaneemulator. A lot more "professional atmosphere" but not as strict as here it seems. 

 

When I played on live Shadowbane there was always a guild that would rise up and fight against the zerg. Zerg's aren't just Pacrm Guilds. I think the major problem the North American Shadowbane players have is that their player base is split into two servers. The Pacrim player base isn't. 

 

Shadowbane players are not used to a large player base and bring their experiences here that most likely won't apply when it comes to this game due to the large population of players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not really, I don't think he read my follow up.

 

I don't think that his comment is related to the part of my answer related to your post.

It is an old story that put me vs the 99,99 % of the forumbaners on Shadowbane forums


Se un uomo non è disposto a lottare per le proprie idee, o le sue idee non valgono nulla o non vale nulla lui. EZRA POUND

 

MEMENTO AUDERE SEMPER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only mainly saw the crying about 2 servers and getting rid of the Pacrim guilds on the Magicbane forums. They are also not very new player friendly as you run into a lot of crap on their forums with a lot of racist unfiltered posts. It ultimately steered me more toward the shadowbaneemulator. A lot more "professional atmosphere" but not as strict as here it seems. 

 

When I played on live Shadowbane there was always a guild that would rise up and fight against the zerg. Zerg's aren't just Pacrm Guilds. I think the major problem the North American Shadowbane players have is that their player base is split into two servers. The Pacrim player base isn't. 

 

Shadowbane players are not used to a large player base and bring their experiences here that most likely won't apply when it comes to this game due to the large population of players. 

 

 

Zerg aren't only Pacrim gulds for sure, there were Na zerg also but for our different way to think ourself, any western zerg will split up sooner or later because every player in that zerg have a big epeeen and sooner or later there will be an inside fight that will destroy that zerg. This don't happen (usually at least for what i have seen playing for 3 year in a Korean guild in Shadowbane as one of the very few not korean in there) in Pacrim zerg but i can't see this like an excuse to banish players from a game...


Se un uomo non è disposto a lottare per le proprie idee, o le sue idee non valgono nulla o non vale nulla lui. EZRA POUND

 

MEMENTO AUDERE SEMPER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  We're having some form of disconnect.  You don't need a dodge stat at all with the system I'm describing, and dodging would be fully handled by either sidestepping moves, or short dash type moves, ala a fighting game.  Hell, maybe even a certain defensive ability giving an awesome backflip or something.  Point being, my vision doesn't require passive defense stats.

 

As for FF, I don't mind either way if they implement it, as long as it makes the gameplay better.  It's an undeniable counter to zergging getting out of control, however.  As you said, it would require more skill to effectively make use of a numbers advantage without slaughtering your own troops.  The gameplay itself should be what determines whether there is friendly fire.  Too many other unknowns about this game for me to decide which I'd prefer at this point.

I'll agree with you as far as gameply being formost. I wouldn't be against FF, I would worry that it would create the situation that isn't very "noob" friendly. of course if some guy is putting arrows in my back I would like to be able to turn and take his head. For the team of course.

 

As far as soft lock, I've never seen it implemented, from what yoh describes it does sound doable though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we will probably see empty servers because nobody likes fighting against super un-fair advantages and losing for very long. This is exactly how Shadowbane failed, I applaud your philosophy but in a practical sense, it doesn't work in games. People cannot be trusted to police them selves, this is the reason why we have so much corruption we have to deal with in our own real lives. 

A suggestion of compromise would be to have characters and/or guilds that may identify themselves as mercenaries for hire. If a city subject to siege has a server board that can be checked by such players/guilds they can commit to the city defense for the siege, that could even the playing field so it becomes a potentially even zerg fest. Also, it could notify guild leader, so a head count of those committed can be kept. The monies hiring these individuals would not release until after the siege completed to prevent scamming. But, good old fashioned alliances are good to have...politics matter


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may, what is the underlying goal? What are you fighting for? i think in any large scale pvp, logistics should play a part, if there is no logistics zergs are the norm and counterplay is minimal. if i can teleport to a nearby hub, rez nearby etc. then why not zerg? howver if I actually have to travel there, then my army is open to ambush, my numbers will deplete (unless rez'd, legit I believe) and there is counterplay. the key would be to not make zerging so easy.

 

Please explain how you make zerg play not easy. Imagine that it is extremely hard to rally offensively as all players who want to go on the offensive action have to travel 1 hour, have killed a fat mama and grabbed magic lettuce from the garden of the fluffy rabbits within the last 48 hours and this task takes 5 hours of active game play. More over, when you die, you must go to the fluffy rabbit garden again before you can participate in the offensive war again. Let's pretend group A has 100 players, you might have say 50 people who did bother with all this crap to go on the offensive against a group B of 50 people who will have managed to have 40 people logging in for the defensive moment as they didnt have all this crap to do (50% versus 80%).

 

The fight is close as numbers are fairly similar, group B finally manage to win despite being outnumbered by 25%. Now, group B figures: let's retaliate... If we go with the same % of logistics issue of being on the offensive, group B should show up with 25 players on the offense versus the 80 players of group A to defend. You really think this fight will be any close?

 

A zerg doesn't mean less dedicated or worst players... This assumption is just wrong. It just means a group of players much bigger than the other group. The beauty of capped numbers (for the example 50 players per side) means that if you are part of a 100 player group and on average 75% of your players log in for events, you have 33% of your players at any moment 'benching'. Those players being benched will most likely be bored and eventually move on other guilds / groups of players with lesser numbers so that they aren't benching on average 33% of the time they log in for events, creating more and more groups of say 60-75 players instead of fewer and fewer groups of 100, 200, 500 players.

 

The opposite happens in uncapped numbers. A nation with 100 players is most likely going to have more player driven events than a 50 player group. More over, they are most likely going to be winning. Suddenly, the 100 player nation becomes even more attractive for players than the 50 player group. Hence, odds are, the 100 player group will increase in numbers as the 50 player group will probably diminish, leading to bigger and bigger zergs and less and less groups.

 

This is the biggest challenge of open PVP / number restrictions. If you leave it to the players to police themselves, I have to side with peeka, this is not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a mostly solo-player, I like fighting zergs, as long as I can have some mobility skills to kite them, and pick them off, or escape if I can use my skills better than the zerg.

 

If there are no ways of trying to escape, or the game combat doesn't allow for one player to take one multiple people (tab target is terrible at this because it is numbers based), then I wouldn't want to be fighting zergs.

 

In Darkfall, and Mount and Blade, and games like MO, with their combat systems, one good player could take on a ton of players of lesser SKILL, not level.


 EOWWuhQ.png 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a mostly solo-player, I like fighting zergs, as long as I can have some mobility skills to kite them, and pick them off, or escape if I can use my skills better than the zerg.

 

If there are no ways of trying to escape, or the game combat doesn't allow for one player to take one multiple people (tab target is terrible at this because it is numbers based), then I wouldn't want to be fighting zergs.

 

In Darkfall, and Mount and Blade, and games like MO, with their combat systems, one good player could take on a ton of players of lesser SKILL, not level.

What us SB players are talking about is what happens when you have fixed assets that you either have to have or is of such importance not having them puts you at a huge disadvantage and then having to fend off up to 5 times your number. Lets take a mine which gave resources in SB as an example where some mines are more valuable to own then others. What is called the CN guilds do not fight each other for these mines, instead they will group up to where you would find up to 100 of them defending the  mine from 10-20 man guilds. Since the object is to capture the mine no solo player is going to have a chance. When it came to the player built city sieges the CN players would show with 300+ in their off prime hours, heaven help you if you foolishly set it for their prime time. Look I'll link in a 12 min video of what was an 8 hr siege of one of towns being attacked by the Asians. In this video if you look at the upper right you will see a mini map and on that all the dark blue dots are enemies (20 of those dark blue was of another guild crashing in called Maquers). We had 20 casters on the wall and about 10 melee down on the ground, just watch how many dark blue dots stream in and this was on a lore restricted server that actually cut down on their numbers:

 

 

With the games built in defenders advantage our 30 (which was way more skilled than the Zerg) was able to beat them, now rinse and repeat that 8 hr fight every 3 days for 3 months (What happened on the Brailla server if memory serves right) and see if you would have the inclination to log in when RL interfere's

Edited by gauis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What us SB players are talking about is what happens when you have fixed assets that you either have to have or is of such importance not having them puts you at a huge disadvantage and then having to fend off up to 5 times your number. Lets take a mine which gave resources in SB as an example where some mines are more valuable to own then others. What is called the CN guilds do not fight each other for these mines, instead they will group up to where you would find up to 100 of them defending the  mine from 10-20 man guilds. Since the object is to capture the mine no solo player is going to have a chance. When it came to the player built city sieges the CN players would show with 300+ in their off prime hours, heaven help you if you foolishly set it for their prime time. Look I'll link in a 12 min video of what was an 8 hr siege of one of towns being attacked by the Asians. In this video if you look at the upper right you will see a mini map and on that all the dark blue dots are enemies (20 of those dark blue was of another guild crashing in called Maquers). We had 20 casters on the wall and about 10 melee down on the ground, just watch how many dark blue dots stream in and this was on a lore restricted server that actually cut down on their numbers:

 

 

With the games built in defenders advantage our 30 (which was way more skilled than the Zerg) was able to beat them, now rinse and repeat that 8 hr fight every 3 days for 3 months (What happened on the Brailla server if memory serves right) and see if you would have the inclination to log in when RL interfere's

 

 

Just a info for you, in that video there isn't any Cn guild , i can see Arirang (korean) and KGB (korean) , no Chinese guild there if i'm not wrong and about the topic , if you didn't want to fight every 3 days for hours you could have just changed game.

Edited by cappaspada

Se un uomo non è disposto a lottare per le proprie idee, o le sue idee non valgono nulla o non vale nulla lui. EZRA POUND

 

MEMENTO AUDERE SEMPER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a info for you, in that video there isn't any Cn guild , i can see Arirang (korean) and KGB (korean) , no Chinese guild there if i'm not wrong

Reading comprehension is your friend... I never said that CN was in that video, I said Asian

 

 

 

Look I'll link in a 12 min video of what was an 8 hr siege of one of towns being attacked by the Asians

If it had not been Arirang and it had been CN there would have been twice the numbers but as an example of how large and out numbered you can get, it works. On the server right after Vindication, think it was Brialla, CS would fight against CN 300+ versus our 50 and we did that for 3 months straight. Skorp got to the point after we beat off the CN zerg for the umpteenth time that he had enough and disbanded CS, formed -X- and moved and I believe Kickit was still around at that time and can attest to this. Hell I know Fugger was there and so was Protonix, we were all burned out fighting that all the time and left, Lemures Bellicus (The guild I belonged to) went off to WoW after that, came back for new server start, went to the first bane, got the 300 man CN zerg lag death and left again.

Edited by gauis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading comprehension is your friend... I never said that CN was in that video, I said Asian

 

If it was not Arirang and it was CN there would have been twice the numbers.

All your post was based on the Cn argoument so asian to me was like you were just changing the word you were using for cn but ok point taken

 

About the numbers that can be true, still i don't see why you don't want to do fight like that. At least for me banes were the best part of the game (togheter with the forumbane politics) and been able to partecipate in bane like that was a privilege even on the losing side, but i know that there are ppl that like more going around solo pking lowbies or afkers pling groups...

Btw you guys had always the favor of the Woo (other than on Redemption) and still you are complaing ? Most of the players of Arirang were doing their banes during the night (offensive) or during their morning at school or from the job place and i was during all the banes (both offensive and defensive during the night mostly (eu here) but i never complained on the forum because of that.

I still remember a series of Banes that i fought on the same evening-night morning on different servers (Wrath, Braialla and Vindication) because even if was really hard to do (from my 9 pm to 8 am with no break) for me was amazing and for me it is one of the best memories of Shadowbane.

Seem that you must have a lot more of that glorious memories because of my Pacrim friends and you are complaining...

Edited by cappaspada

Se un uomo non è disposto a lottare per le proprie idee, o le sue idee non valgono nulla o non vale nulla lui. EZRA POUND

 

MEMENTO AUDERE SEMPER

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...