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

Infected has become a poor reflection of GW2 Zerg warfare


Recommended Posts

Hey Devs - the infected has become a very poor reflection of the Zerg vs Zerg warfare hated by those of us that grew up on ShadowBane, and not a part of the original kickstarter marketing material. 

If the intent for infected is Zerg warfare (numbers not skill), then we have truly missed the mark. If that is not the intent of Infected, then please take a look at the overall mechanics. 

ShadowBane - Former IC of Societas Daemonica (2005 -2014)

ShadowBane - Former IC Nordic Chapter SB (2004)

ShadowBane -  Former IC / NL of House of Atreides, Damnation (2003-2004)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Yoink said:

Isn't that what Faction v Faction v Faction would be though?

CF and its predecessor SB we never intended to be Zerg versus Zerg. matter of fact, that is what killed the game (remember CN? and their farmers?) 

ShadowBane - Former IC of Societas Daemonica (2005 -2014)

ShadowBane - Former IC Nordic Chapter SB (2004)

ShadowBane -  Former IC / NL of House of Atreides, Damnation (2003-2004)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Padishah said:

Hey Devs - the infected has become a very poor reflection of the Zerg vs Zerg warfare hated by those of us that grew up on ShadowBane, and not a part of the original kickstarter marketing material. 

If the intent for infected is Zerg warfare (numbers not skill), then we have truly missed the mark. If that is not the intent of Infected, then please take a look at the overall mechanics. 

We might just kill this game ourselves.

When I get jumped by group roaming in 4 out of prime time in Infected when there is NOTHING to gain by doing so I start to worry about how the game will play out after Launch when the gloves come out and everyone starts 'playing to win'.

I gotta be honest, sometimes this community looks a bit cheap. You can toot and thump your chest all you want, if all you are doing is zerg, zerg and zerg that is moot. When the very first day we are testing Equipped drop and a bunch of people start camping the gates. Or when a not so famous player is the one to bring forward a exploit that all guilds were apparently using.

I will keep saying, if the Devs dont work on stopping us from ruining the game we will do so.

Out of group Friendly Fire. Multiple objective that REQUIRE mobility and spreading out.

Working on minimizing Zerging doesnt mean using heavy handed solutions.

And before someone comes, yes, there is no perfect solution that will stop zerging completely. Doesnt mean we cant try to minimize it whenever we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alot said:

Isn't the premise of the game ZvZ for control of Castles. Keeps, and Forts?

What's the alternative? Instanced fights? 

No. This game is NOT Zerg Vs Zerg. It is Guild warfare involving Tactics and Strategy. Some dude with a pink tag that every one (the mobs) follows and then pounds out a bunch of AOEs is not this game. 

ShadowBane - Former IC of Societas Daemonica (2005 -2014)

ShadowBane - Former IC Nordic Chapter SB (2004)

ShadowBane -  Former IC / NL of House of Atreides, Damnation (2003-2004)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, francis101 said:

Well 3-faction campaigns were always planned for Crowfall, and most of the time (always?) FvF means zergs.

do people that think this is all there is take time to actually read things like the Kickstarter, and game concept - or do you just post the first totally uniformed thought that takes shape in your brain? Imagine that something actually exist before you think it into being. 

yes I'm frustrated. ZvZ it is  not. 

ShadowBane - Former IC of Societas Daemonica (2005 -2014)

ShadowBane - Former IC Nordic Chapter SB (2004)

ShadowBane -  Former IC / NL of House of Atreides, Damnation (2003-2004)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Padishah said:

do people that think this is all there is take time to actually read things like the Kickstarter, and game concept - or do you just post the first totally uniformed thought that takes shape in your brain? Imagine that something actually exist before you think it into being. 

yes I'm frustrated. ZvZ it is  not. 

Can you point out a MMO where the Faction vs. Faction was correctly implemented and didn't end up as a ZvZ? What mechanics helped achieve that?

Edited by francis101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, francis101 said:

Can you point out a MMO where the Faction vs. Faction was correctly implemented and didn't end up as a ZvZ? How did they achieve that?

ummm... yes, I can. And, how they achieved it depends on more than I write about here. Lots has been written on this topic on this very forum. 

 

ShadowBane - Former IC of Societas Daemonica (2005 -2014)

ShadowBane - Former IC Nordic Chapter SB (2004)

ShadowBane -  Former IC / NL of House of Atreides, Damnation (2003-2004)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Padishah said:

No. This game is NOT Zerg Vs Zerg. It is Guild warfare involving Tactics and Strategy.

I've read your post several times and it's still unclear to me how Guild Warfare is different from ZvZ. Perhaps you have a unique definition of the term ZvZ? 

21 minutes ago, Padishah said:

do people that think this is all there is take time to actually read things like the Kickstarter, and game concept - or do you just post the first totally uniformed thought that takes shape in your brain? Imagine that something actually exist before you think it into being. 

tbh, it's difficult to follow what you're saying. The lack of punctuation and sentence structure is one thing, but you also aren't expressing complete thoughts. What is the actual issue you're unhappy with? That the one PvP zone in Infected is seeing a lot of large fights? Why is this a bad thing? Almost everyone I know that is participating is having a blast. There are constantly fights and control over the map shifts as different factions bulk up or log off throughout the day. 

You understand that Dregs is not Infected, right? Infected was always going to be faction based. 

5 hours ago, Padishah said:

If the intent for infected is Zerg warfare (numbers not skill), then we have truly missed the mark.

Crowfall is, unfortunately, very numbers-driven. It's difficult to mechanically outplay opponents because there are so few skill shots and ways to dodge or mitigate damage, which means punching up is never going to be easy. That also means most of the "skill" comes in the form of organization, preparation, and shot-calling. This is to be expected based on the game they pitched in Kickstarter.

Edited by Alot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't recall anything about making the game not incorporate zerg vs zerg, unless the meaning behind this distinction by Padishah is for the combat to be more meaningful than just blob and spam abilities.

 

Certainly if the AoE cap was removed and small groups could nuke larger groups, or if friendly fire was enabled, it would require much more tactical behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DocHollidaze said:

unless the meaning behind this distinction by Padishah is for the combat to be more meaningful than just blob and spam abilities.

I think it is exactly that.

i mean, the game was advertised as a STRATEGY mmo game. That is the opposite in my opinion of ZvZ.

Sure, numbers will always matter. But can we at least require people to use those numbers smartly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

I think it is exactly that.

i mean, the game was advertised as a STRATEGY mmo game. That is the opposite in my opinion of ZvZ.

Sure, numbers will always matter. But can we at least require people to use those numbers smartly?

Needs:

  • No AoE caps - if you're in the radius, you get hit or healed.
  • More & higher single target damage abilities
  • No offensive ults with damage mitigation
  • Stronger, rarer ults that need very good timing
  • Friendly fire outside of group

Without some or all of these things, combat above group v group (which rarely happens) will look and feel boring and stupid, and the battles will be determined before they even start. Please, for the love of god, stop allowing numbers to water down well aimed and coordinated aoe hits. If I manage to land an aoe root circle that hits 15 people, all 15 should be rooted. If they are any good, they will spread out, which then allows people to call targets and coordinate attacks better. It also allows people to build for turtle groups, if healing also scales appropriately.

This is never going to happen though, and Uncle Bob will win bc 60 v 40 will end with the 60 winning every time and then the 40 will be 35 then 30 in a few weeks. Rinse and repeat in a downward population spiral.

If, however, the 40 beat the 60 here and there? Good game design alert! Battle not determined a priori alert!

Edited by McTan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, McTan said:

Needs:

  • No AoE caps - if you're in the radius, you get hit or healed.
  • More & higher single target damage abilities
  • No offensive ults with damage mitigation
  • Stronger, rarer ults that need very good timing
  • Friendly fire outside of group

Without some or all of these things, combat above group v group (which rarely happens) will look and feel boring and stupid, and the battles will be determined before they even start. Please, for the love of god, stop allowing numbers to water down well aimed and coordinated aoe hits. If I manage to land an aoe root circle that hits 15 people, all 15 should be rooted. If they are any good, they will spread out, which then allows people to call targets and coordinate attacks better. It also allows people to build for turtle groups, if healing also scales appropriately.

This is never going to happen though, and Uncle Bob will win bc 60 v 40 will end with the 60 winning every time and then the 40 will be 35 then 30 in a few weeks. Rinse and repeat in a downward population spiral.

If, however, the 40 beat the 60 here and there? Good game design alert! Battle not determined a priori alert!

I like a lot of these suggestions, but to play devil's advocate, don't they drastically change which classes will be effective and therefore desired in group combat?

Eg.

  • If there are no AoE caps, high-AoE classes like Frostweaver or Confessor have their effectiveness multiplied by the number of people. If they're doing 1000 dps or hps to 5 people and AoE caps are removed completely, now they're doing 10,000 dps or hps when hitting a group of 50. Their effectiveness just got multiplied by 10! Meanwhile an Archer can still only hit one target at a time with most of its skills, so its effectiveness does not scale. So what do you do about that? Accept that Confessor/Frostweaver is just 10x(+?) more effective than Archer in a big fight? Rebalance Archer to do more single target damage? Rebalance Confessor/Frostweaver to do less damage with the expectation that they will only be used in big fights? To me, it seems difficult to balance classes in small-scale fights as well as large unless there is an AoE cap.
  • Removing damage mitigation on offensive ults sounds right but .. there are precious few ways to mitigate damage in the game already. If you don't have block on your class and you're not near any obstacles to hide behind, your ult is probably the only mitigation you've got. Dodge doesn't dodge. It just moves you. Movement doesn't avoid damage most of the time. What else is there?
  • Friendly fire outside of group would be fun, but what effect that would have on the meta. Why play a melee dps that is at risk of friendly fire when you can bomb at range without that risk?

I think @Alot has the right idea about what could be added to make the game more skillful.

42 minutes ago, Alot said:

It's difficult to mechanically outplay opponents because there are so few skill shots and ways to dodge or mitigate damage, which means punching up is never going to be easy.

That's what I want to see: More skill shots, iframe dodges, better counterplay to abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infected isn't a campaign. It has no rewards and no meaningful objectives. Its a training map and a preparation map for real campaigns. When there are no real campaigns active, it also happens to be the only place to go for PvP so people that would otherwise no be roaming infected are roaming infected. Its unfortunate, but we're going to keep seeing this throughout testing, and after release we'll probably see this state any time there's a major patch. They don't like to make big balance changes while campaigns are in progress as those changes can disrupt the outcome of campaigns, and right now the game is still in heavy development so big changes happen often.

Also keep in mind that Faction campaigns are not currently ingame, but ARE an intended feature. These ARE intended to work like any other faction based game and create 3 giant zergs. The difference is that faction campaigns are real campaigns with rewards.

Finally, any complaints about zergs are silly. This is a video game that allows any number of players (within the zone cap) to show up anywhere. It is literally designed to promote and reward zerging, just like every other sandbox PvP game. Raising a giant army and using it to crush your enemies is not a bug. It is a feature. It is THE central feature of this type of MMO. No matter what you do to mess with the combat system this will always be true in any game that is not a numbers balanced arena.

You can not have a game that both gives you the freedom to raise armies, make alliances, and betray them and also expect that game to not reward the eternally optimal strategy of "just bring more players" No matter how you mess with friendly fire, skillshots, or other aspects of the combat system this will still be true in every sandbox MMO forever.

Pick one, either you have a sandbox, or you have a game that creates fair fights. These are mutually exclusive design paradigms. You either have freedom and politics or you have limitations to ensure a fair fight.

Campaigns were designed to create spaces where players can self select their level of interaction with each other. Don't have a big enough alliance to stack up to the other alliances in Dregs? That's why faction campaigns exist, to automatically put you in a large alliance. Get stomped? You have a fallback position in a less challenging, less rewarding arena with players more on your level.

Campaigns were designed to create options so players aren't stuck getting farmed forever or lose their progress as they would be in a traditional server system, but they aren't there to prevent efficient and populous entities from winning by being efficient and populous.

Edited by PopeUrban

LMAO my website is broken please click this to apply to Flames of Exile (maybe, if that's not busted too)

On 5/11/2015 at 1:48 PM, CAWCAWCAW said:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

Raising a giant army and using it to druch your enemies is not a bug. It is a feature. It is THE central feature of this type of MMO. No matter what you do to mess with the combat system this will always be true in any game that is not a numbers balanced arena.

I think folks are talking about balling up and facerolling the keyboard without concern while watching youtube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mystafyi said:

I think folks are talking about balling up and facerolling the keyboard without concern while watching youtube.

That is a concern entirely unrelated to zerging is my point. Putting it in the context of "we have a zerg v zerg game" doesn't appropriately addess the issue there.

We've already seen several guilds successfully punch up against greater numbers in the combat system we have.

If the concern is "I find large scale combat boring" that's one thing, but if the concern is "I feel like I should be able to win a 10v20 and I can't because the game is badly designed" people are kidding themselves. Anyone who loses at a 2:1 numbers advantage does not repeat that loss very often in a balanced combat system. The assumption that because your enemy has more people than you they must also be worse at the game is a fiction that people tell themselves to feel better. In the majority of cases the people outnumbering you are just as good at the game as you are in addition to outnumbering you, and you will continue to lose no matter how that system is balanced.

LMAO my website is broken please click this to apply to Flames of Exile (maybe, if that's not busted too)

On 5/11/2015 at 1:48 PM, CAWCAWCAW said:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mystafyi said:

I think folks are talking about balling up and facerolling the keyboard without concern while watching youtube.

Aren't we supposed to be watching Twitch (not youtube)? That's how we find the next fight. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Padishah said:

Hey Devs - the infected has become a very poor reflection of the Zerg vs Zerg warfare hated by those of us that grew up on ShadowBane, and not a part of the original kickstarter marketing material. 

Just so we're looking at a concrete example of larger fights in infected, take this video from @Quig

For all my complaining about dodges and counterplay, I still think there is a lot of skill, a lot of higher level tactical complexity in a fight like this.

  • at 1:00, CC is bunkering down in a tight cluster with their templars blocking. Tyrannicall, Psicoh, and I catch a player out of position and almost finish them but they jump to safety behind their line. Ty ults and goes beast mode, jumping in to try to finish them, but takes tons of damage and has to back off.
  • at 6:27, DIS tries to move around W on the upper side of the hill. W counters with a hard push on that spot and almost pinches 5 or 6 DIS against a rock. They scramble to get back and barely make it. W gains momentum and starts pushing DIS to retreat south.

If you think this is 'too zergy' or whatever, I'd be interested to hear what you think should be different.

Edited by nihilsupernum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...