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

Underdogs: Keeping Outnumbered Players In The Fight

Recommended Posts

And ladies & gentlemen, the correct answer of the day.

 

Make the skill-ceiling so rigorously high that a 10 vs. 100 fights can be stomps for the underdogs, if the 100 aren't as skilled as they are.

 

I have high hopes with a non-targetting combat system skill will rule the day. A good player in good gear should be able to take on 2-3 moderate players. Get a group of five good players and suddenly you're able to take on a small army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have high hopes with a non-targetting combat system skill will rule the day. A good player in good gear should be able to take on 2-3 moderate players. Get a group of five good players and suddenly you're able to take on a small army.

That reminds me of the movie Arthur.

They looked so awesome as skilled as they were!


"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A solid quote, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really doesn't make much sense think about it the next time you see a ballgame.  In pretty much all pvp sports competition the outright zerg is prevented in some way by the rule set moving the competition from quantity to quality. The Yankees never bring twice the players to a game with the Red Sox -- if they did they would be tossed out by the referee and rightly so since it would be viewed by all observers except maybe the home team as unfair.

 

This really gets back to if Crowfall is going to be some kind of a "semi-equal forces" strategy game between gods over dieing worlds resources or a zerg fest of "Uncle Bob" gangs vs the less established.

 

Human psychology being what it is if it is the later my guess is the outnumbered have little hope of fair/fun competition almost no chance at meaningful rewards and will just walk taking the hopes of extended pvp in Crowfall with them.. Ruining the fun for all.

There wont be rules set up to simulate sports.

 

The idea is to simulate a war.

 

The purpose of the development of the game, will be mainly focused on creating systems, whic we , the players, will learn to use to our advantages.

What we end up doing with them, is not certain. Neither from our side or the devs.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of the movie Arthur.

They looked so awesome as skilled as they were!

Sometimes you play the underdog. Sometimes there's no one at your back.

NmZS0SX.jpg

Sometimes it's you against the world. Relish the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you play the underdog. Sometimes there's no one at your back.NmZS0SX.jpg

Sometimes it's you against the world. Relish the challenge.

My one fond memory of GW2 WvW.

 

Being totally outnumbered whilst holding a keep against a massive zerg battering the gates without end.

Yet, against all odds, coming out on top. After a grueling battle that took atleast two hours of continues fighting we were able to beat them back with reinforcements.

 

I hope such a moment will show itself in this game as it did in GW2!


"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A solid quote, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My one fond memory of GW2 WvW.

 

Being totally outnumbered whilst holding a keep against a massive zerg battering the gates without end.

Yet, against all odds, coming out on top. After a grueling battle that took atleast two hours of continues fighting we were able to beat them back with reinforcements.

 

I hope such a moment will show itself in this game as it did in GW2!

 

now imagine those pixels you just defended, held actual meaning for you ingame...

Edited by freeze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now imagine those pixels you just defended, held actual meaning for you ingame...

They did though, at the time.

 

It was what made it awesome.

In the moment they seemed to matter, even though I knew they didn't.

 

It is what we tell ourselves that matters, good sir.


"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A solid quote, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Crowfall, if you lose your pixels, someone will come to your house and kill your family.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Crowfall, if you lose your pixels, someone will come to your house and kill your family.

Perhaps a Guild Master.

Yet I don't see what a personal loss of pixels would mean to another person safe for the fact that he will most likely get to own some of the said pixels.


"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A solid quote, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something has to be in place. What if the losers just join the winning side, and every single player in the campaign wins? That's nonsensical, so something has to prevent that. I realize that freely making alliances and such is great, but, if we're just gonna roll with the "Winning people will attract all the people" psychology, then there'd be nothing to prevent EVERYONE from joining the same team. Which, that, in and of itself, is sort of the cause of there being a huge population imbalance. So, there has to be some amount of control over "team" population in some fashion.

 

Not only that, but how many people would take part in month-long (or longer) campaigns if there were 7,000 people versus 1 person? How fun would that be for hardcore PvP people? "Wooohooo! Everyone just casually accrue victory points, gain resources, and craft/build! Maybe we can all race each other, and just have  bunch of duels in the courtyard?"

 

At some point, even a huge guild is going to say "Alright, let's split into two teams and see who wins." Boom. It's still a win-win. If either team wins, that guild gets stuff. Yet, the campaigns are still relatively even/competitive for all other players involved.

 

I don't think assuming just one force is at play (everyone wanting to just join the one team that keeps doing well) really covers all the factors involved.


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something has to be in place. What if the losers just join the winning side, and every single player in the campaign wins?

 

For the faction rulesets this could be prevented by not letting people join late in a campaign, and not letting people switch sides.

 

In the GvG and FFA rulesets this could be prevented by a mechanic that dilutes the "rewards" by the number of people on the winning side.  Winners won't want to share the rewards and so they won't let the masses join with them.

 

These aren't silver bullets, but they will help.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything you can do to the zerg, it can do to you.

 

CN war on vindication, FTP throws their lot in with the uh, well CN...basically just to piss folks off. Regardless of them being mostly asshats in game, they we're/are a pretty highly skilled unit, especially when their leadership structure was in tact. The addition of 2 groups of FTP to the 8-10 groups of CN was a force multiplier, as the CN hordes now had someone to follow/show them what to do.

 

I know it's common mmo wisdom that, "yo, the zerg sucks man, all the good players run small..." This does happen from time to time. What typically happens is good players, that win, attract players...and unless they are hell bent on staying small, see their core group, double triple, quadruple in size as everyone 'wants to be a winner. Does the general skill level (potentially) diminish as the numbers grow? Maybe. But not where you're going to (consistently) be able to take them out if you're outnumbered significantly.

 

any type of queue is stupid. that concept (gw2, aa, etc)...omg is for the lose. You bring what you bring. If you don't like what the other guy is bringing you can try to bring the server down on them via the global political system (ie. the game forums), or you can recruit/ally up to ge tthe numbers you need to compete.

 

As much as i hate the zerg, any type of 'coded solution' will fail...This is an area where the players need to police themselves. 

 

And if you want to be/stay in a small guild, that is your choice, your playstyle...in a meta sense it's no better or worse than the zergophiles...jjust a different choice...you can express yourself by making them pay for it one scalp at a time (or in bundles of 6).

If a zerg wants to have skilled players and a ton of fodder to the point where my group is outskilled then they clearly deserve to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There wont be rules set up to simulate sports.

 

The idea is to simulate a war.

 

The purpose of the development of the game, will be mainly focused on creating systems, whic we , the players, will learn to use to our advantages.

What we end up doing with them, is not certain. Neither from our side or the devs.

 

This may be true but my point remains the loser in a lopsided "war" doesn't fight to win or for glory they mostly have their stuff broken and get slaughtered pretty boring in a game context -- in a game players tend to walk after things are "decided" and start to snowball toward the victor usually very quickly. 

 

This thread is looking for victory conditions that allow people to care after they are the underdog because so far the whole pitch for Crowfall is when you lose you start over. I don't see any incentives yet for anyone to continue in an unfavorable situation quite the opposite most of the victory condition so far are winner take all in nature.   I suspect actively or passively  walking will be the norm as this thread implies. Certainly that was the case in GW2 and EVE in my experience.

 

An example of something that might help is guild level Stats, elo or victory conditions but that type of thing only works when/if team if guild size is caped and folks are on semi-even competitive footing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be true but my point remains the loser in a lopsided "war" doesn't fight to win or for glory they mostly have their stuff broken and get slaughtered pretty boring in a game context -- in a game players tend to walk after things are "decided" and start to snowball toward the victor usually very quickly. 

 

This thread is looking for victory conditions that allow people to care after they are the underdog because so far the whole pitch for Crowfall is when you lose you start over. I don't see any incentives yet for anyone to continue in an unfavorable situation quite the opposite most of the victory condition so far are winner take all in nature.   I suspect actively or passively  walking will be the norm as this thread implies. Certainly that was the case in GW2 and EVE in my experience.

 

An example of something that might help is guild level Stats, elo or victory conditions but that type of thing only works when/if team if guild size is caped and folks are on semi-even competitive footing.

I feel like one of the worst things that could happen to a game like this, would be to put in mechanics that would equal the field.

 

It is NOT about everyone having equal fun, or "winning" even when they are losing. It is not about a balanced field.

 

Will some people leave once they figure this out?

Yes. They will. That is that really.

 

The people that are left though, are the people this game will be made for.

It doesn't even have anything to do with being hardcore or something like that (stupid word).

It have something to do with wanting to play in a world where anything can happen (or more than most games).

 

Sure, there will be a TON of people that will be obsessed about winning a campaign.

This is one of the major reasons that I am always against the EK threads about making them more "meaningfull" when it comes to the campaigns.

It is also the reason that I would love a meaningless persistent campaign or throne war for the big dogs.

Let the the huge guilds get driven into campaigns against other huge guilds. Let them fight each other. 

 

There are already systems suggesting that the things you fear are going to be limited.

You can't just change sides in any of the campaigns.

Even the most open ones, suggest that you kneel to someone else, and they have to accept it to be in effect..

You can't just move your characters around, like you seem to think either.

 

This is not some mobo 40 minutes battles, or even some 2 weeks GW2 battles.

Sure, it is not Shadowbane either, which DID make people leave. 

But it the campaigns seems to be set long enough for people to actually stick around and see what happens, without them beeing so long that it becomes a drag and you quit.

 

This time factor WILL be tested in beta (maybe even alpha) and it WILL be modified once the game goes live also.

The trick will be to have the campaigns long enough, have the big guilds getting send somewhere else and making sure the least amount of players get bored and leave.

 

But in the end, people WILL leave because they get frustrated with losing. Be that in a campaign, their gear or just in fights.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people when it comes to fighting are usually very linear in their thinking. Attack said objective, kill said person. Even if they're fighting someone and they're being overwhelmed, they'll back away in a straight line instead of circling to the side to flank or find a way to trick them into thinking you're defenseless.

 

If you are all alone, or with a band of 10 against an army of 50+ why would you be direct? Why would you suicidly throw yourself against a wave of mutilation~ Maybe you should brush up on your Sun Tzu and find some way to make that problem an opportunity.

 

The one thing about Crowfall that pulled traction with me was the Bloodstone campaign description. That's just an example and the fact that it's apparently not hardcoded is amazing for an emergent gameplay perspective.

 

Personally, if I was alone and there was 5 players that showed up to kill me, I would take note of my surroundings and try to make that my advantage as well. I "retreat" into an obscure outline, a hill, a forest, a lake, bottleneck them in a canyon etc. I do this a lot in SMITE in the jungle. I pretend to retreat and force them to overextend themselves and punish them for it. And punish them hard if my teammates are smart enough to show up.

 

Being an underdog is just that. You lend finesse to an unfavorable situation to make it favorable. Brute strength for 10 players against 100 who will rely on brute strength is absurd. You're not some main character in some shonen who's gonna rip through players like they're trash mobs while shouting out move names and vanquishing them with your bankai. Engage some guerilla tactics, attack an unguarded resource. Mislead them, scatter them, lure them into a larger army. Use some imagination. If uninspired safe zerg tactics can actually genuinely be disrupted and crushed with some Battle of Teutoburg Forest-like tactics, I'd be gobsmacked if Crowfall can pull that off and silently rejoice.

 

I actually wonder if 10 players are being assaulted in a siege with 100 of players surrounding their fort and those 10 players take their safeguarded resources, and dig a tunnel out is a feasible possibility even. Or you set up a fort that looks unguarded but is linked to a main fort with a tunnel access and people can entrap attackers in it. Stuff like that would make for interesting strategies and tactics.

Edited by Lastboy

The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters. - Audrey Hepburn “:♡.•♬✧⁽⁽ଘ( ˊᵕˋ )ଓ⁾⁾*+:•*∴
Read more at brainyquote.com/search_results.html#KTJ4dHyeiltlKOTM.99

mz_Yr9k_I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people when it comes to fighting are usually very linear in their thinking. Attack said objective, kill said person. Even if they're fighting someone and they're being overwhelmed, they'll back away in a straight line instead of circling to the side to flank or find a way to trick them into thinking you're defenseless.

 

If you are all alone, or with a band of 10 against an army of 50+ why would you be direct? Why would you suicidly throw yourself against a wave of mutilation~ Maybe you should brush up on your Sun Tzu and find some way to make that problem an opportunity.

 

The one thing about Crowfall that pulled traction with me was the Bloodstone campaign description. That's just an example and the fact that it's apparently not hardcoded is amazing for an emergent gameplay perspective.

 

Personally, if I was alone and there was 5 players that showed up to kill me, I would take note of my surroundings and try to make that my advantage as well. I "retreat" into an obscure outline, a hill, a forest, a lake, bottleneck them in a canyon etc. I do this a lot in SMITE in the jungle. I pretend to retreat and force them to overextend themselves and punish them for it. And punish them hard if my teammates are smart enough to show up.

 

Being an underdog is just that. You lend finesse to an unfavorable situation to make it favorable. Brute strength for 10 players against 100 who will rely on brute strength is absurd. You're not some main character in some shonen who's gonna rip through players like they're trash mobs while shouting out move names and vanquishing them with your bankai. Engage some guerilla tactics, attack an unguarded resource. Mislead them, scatter them, lure them into a larger army. Use some imagination. If uninspired safe zerg tactics can actually genuinely be disrupted and crushed with some Battle of Teutoberg Forest-like tactics, I'd be gobsmacked if Crowfall can pull that off and silently rejoice.

 

I actually wonder if 10 players are being assaulted in a siege with 100 of players surrounding their fort and those 10 players take their safeguarded resources, and dig a tunnel out is a feasible possibility even. Or you set up a fort that looks unguarded but is linked to a main fort with a tunnel access and people can entrap attackers in it. Stuff like that would make for interesting strategies and tactics.

That is the thing though.

 

We are going to deal with a generation of "gamers" that have learned that it is all or nothing... every single fight.

You go straight ahead til you die and then respawn... with all you gear.

 

There is no loss in this setup.

 

We can't die, it is not perma death here.

But we CAN lose our things, or have them broken, when we die.

This might change the way some people play.

 

I am a little concerned that instead of making people play smarter, we will have a wave of outrage about changing the game to suit the usual pvp style of "All or nothing".

If enough people complain about it, it might slowly get changed into a meaninless pvp game, like we have seen so many times.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the thing though.

 

We are going to deal with a generation of "gamers" that have learned that it is all or nothing... every single fight.

You go straight ahead til you die and then respawn... with all you gear.

 

There is no loss in this setup.

 

We can't die, it is not perma death here.

But we CAN lose our things, or have them broken, when we die.

This might change the way some people play.

 

I am a little concerned that instead of making people play smarter, we will have a wave of outrage about changing the game to suit the usual pvp style of "All or nothing".

If enough people complain about it, it might slowly get changed into a meaninless pvp game, like we have seen so many times.

 

Sad but true, I've personally experienced this kind of thing in a sandbox sci-fi/cyberpunk MMOFPS that was politically and supposedly player-ran, but the shady CM twisted that into "player-driven". A lot of the forum inputs were cherrypicked and iterated(or ignored) into the game poorly contributing to its decline. "Too many chefs spoil the broth" is the best analogy for it. It had perma-death but you were insured with clones unless you had no funds to keep it maintained, very similar to EvE ships. There was friendly fire, items were dropped upon death as well.

 

However it still encouraged zerg tactics, where players would pretty much do the Imperial Japanese death charge to win an outcome on a world. An interesting phenomenon really, but apples and oranges. One particular thing would be that a faction leader would ensure his soldiers would carry the cheapest possible weapons and nothing but one or two medkits. This is strongly tied to the way the economy and crafting was poorly implemented. The crafting system was pretty borked in the way that you stood in front of a slot and queued up raw materials and they were stupid easy to get. Your faction could guard its workers from mercenaries and other things. Those eco-workers converted those tons of resources into cheap weapons, ammos, medkits over the duration of a couple hours. Cheap, and readymade vast stockpiles of guns and ammo encouraged zerg tactics with "nothing to lose" mentality. The one high point of that particular MMO was some of the level designs were decent in that you could bottleneck the zergs and utterly decimate them with no more than a handful of 30 people in a corridor. However, they would appear again and eventually win because it's really all about who had the more ammo, medkits, and guns while the 30 mercenaries would run out to resupply against a massive warlike megacorporation with drone workers. No one bothered to loot the weapons other than ammo or medkit because the weapons were all identical and mass produced. No special rare items or anything like that. There were a bunch of other factors that plagued the game, like unbalanced combat (those geniuses decided to add RNG to RECOIL much to the chagrin and protest of the community) as well but that is beside the point.

 

Essentially if you are to introduce weapon durabilty, armor durability penalties instead of perma-death, you would have to make sure that the economy is inextricably linked to it. How available are these weapons and armors? How available are these resources? Zergs gotta eat, otherwise they're just floating globs of flesh waiting to be blendered into a nice fine powder. You have to make sure that the warmachine is funded, just like real life scenario. Quality vs Quantity as well. Those sort of things you would have to balance out to make sure that they can be discouraged in SOME scenarios instead of a constant ongoing threat.

 

Side note: What if you went for resources and starved out the opposition and that caused their zerg to disappate because you had control over said resources that fund war machines. That sort of thing is why you want to lend finesse as a band of 10, thinking of the bigger picture. Just an example and thought. Economy is key.

Edited by Lastboy

The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters. - Audrey Hepburn “:♡.•♬✧⁽⁽ଘ( ˊᵕˋ )ଓ⁾⁾*+:•*∴
Read more at brainyquote.com/search_results.html#KTJ4dHyeiltlKOTM.99

mz_Yr9k_I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just need to make player skill matter a ton so that it doesn't matter how many you bring to the fight, but who you bring to the fight.

You can't do that alone and have it work. In any game if you can mob someone with a ton of players, the mob wins regardless of skill game almost universally.

 

What you need are mechanics that actively penalize people for playing poorly, and do so to a greater extent when playing poorly in a group.

 

Friendly fire is a great example, that has worked well in games like Shadowbane, Darkfall, and in the case of non-MMO's, shooters everywhere, Mount & Blade, etc.

 

Probably there is a lot of other stuff that could be done, but that's what occurs to me straight off. It doesn't even have to be a feature everywhere, just enabled for some campaigns.

 

Point is, we can't just make player skill matter to solve the problem of the underdogs getting unequivocally crushed. We need actual mechanics to reduce the effectiveness of mobs, and reduce further the effectiveness of unskilled disorganized mobs. Then perhaps include high risk high reward mechanics for use against large numbers of players by smaller groups of players.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't do that alone and have it work. In any game if you can mob someone with a ton of players, the mob wins regardless of skill game almost universally.

 

What you need are mechanics that actively penalize people for playing poorly, and do so to a greater extent when playing poorly in a group.

 

Friendly fire is a great example, that has worked well in games like Shadowbane, Darkfall, and in the case of non-MMO's, shooters everywhere, Mount & Blade, etc.

 

Probably there is a lot of other stuff that could be done, but that's what occurs to me straight off. It doesn't even have to be a feature everywhere, just enabled for some campaigns.

 

Point is, we can't just make player skill matter to solve the problem of the underdogs getting unequivocally crushed. We need actual mechanics to reduce the effectiveness of mobs, and reduce further the effectiveness of unskilled disorganized mobs. Then perhaps include high risk high reward mechanics for use against large numbers of players by smaller groups of players.

 

 

Not really...

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...