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

Reconsider Your Position On Incap/down States

Recommended Posts

Downed states only favor zergs and numbers, no matter how they work, if anyone in the team is able to ress, the team with more people rezzes more often and more efficiently. So basically, the more people you have in your team the more mistakes they can make, if they die (get downed), someone will just rezz them, if the smaller team tries to run in and finish off they will be picked out by the zerg and die, too much of a risk.

 

In EVE Online, the determining factor much of time when deciding to fight or not is based solely upon the number of logistic pilots are available.  Logistic ships are the clerics/healers, applying remote repair of armor or shields.  Those with more logistics, far more often than not, win.  Entire metas have arisen solely because of how logistics scale in power the more you have.

 

The same will be true in Crowfall if you include yet more more opportunity to keep an ally in a fight.  0HP = dead.  Who here remembers the term 'purple heart club' from back in EQ1 days?  Sometimes 0HP did not mean you were dead.  DAoC had you dead at 0HP but you maintain a 3rd person camera view of your body laying on the ground.  Yes you were dead, but yet you could still look around and pass on intelligence to your allies.

 

If you want this 'get out of jail free card' where dead is just mostly dead until someone makes you really dead then whoever ends up in the mostly dead state should only see a black screen.  No UI, no text, nothing.  They should be unable to see any actions going on around them.  I'll accept the mostly dead option if it is implemented with this caveat.


An old and grumpy gamer who should have grown up years ago.

uhvMkGn.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simply wrong. You assume that there is a. no skill difference and b. that there are no tactics. I've played games where full loot + down states were present. It almost always worked versus the Zerg. Small skilled groups can force a whole zerg to react, because as you mentioned, they will try to revive their allies asap + prevent looting. If this is done tactically, you might not win with 20 players vs 100 but you can force them to change tactics, divert or put down some serious handicap to their whole dynamic.

 

You simply assume that two groups are standing in front of each other, shooting the opposing team with spell and the team who is able to revive the fastest automatically win. This is a very one sided definition of group warfare.

 

Down states with the possibility to gank / revive simply add more depth to the whole combat mechanics and tactics, not the other way around.

None of this counters the statement that you quoted. Anecdotal evidence of "Well this one time we..." does not mean that it is a commonplace or consistently achievable occurrence. Point blank, downed state benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority. Edited by teerlys

pKWaYh4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eve is not really a reference for this type of mechanic, Eve has a "passive" type of fighting, it is not action based. People have more time to think, reposition, consider logistics. Action combat is defined in seconds and not minutes.

 

No matter how you try to say it "adds depth" it just adds an easy resurrection system. Where before you needed healers out of combat to come in and ress now any schmuck that is standing around can walk up to someone and pic them up. If you take terrain into account, walls, line of sight and all other mechanics that already favor defense this only adds to it and turtles fights artificially. It is a unnecessary mechanic that makes the fight last longer in a very lame and frustrating way, always favoring the side that controls the battlefield and has more people available to push while others resurrect. Normally, smaller skilled teams will capitalize on the zerg lack of coordination and isolated mistakes to kill a few and even up the numbers, then they will push for a real fight. A downed state system just makes that much harder, impossible depending on how close from the spawn point the zerg is. With a downed state you not only have people running back in the fight, you have those who custarded up and got exploded but manage to be resurrected by their piers quickly. Between one and the other you pretty much never thin up the numbers, which makes fights much more about numbers than skill.

Edited by LGAllastair

KjUVOZg.png


Guild Leader/ High Elder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point blank, downed state benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority.

 

We could replace "downed state' with quite a few fun dynamics and that sentence would still sound true.

 

"Point blank, looting benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, asset destruction benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, points of interest and caravans benefit the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, winnable campaigns benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, Play to Crush benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

et cetera.

 

So I wonder how useful that argument is against downed states.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could replace "downed state' with quite a few fun dynamics and that sentence would still sound true.

 

"Point blank, looting benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, asset destruction benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, points of interest and caravans benefit the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, winnable campaigns benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, Play to Crush benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

et cetera.

 

So I wonder how useful that argument is against downed states.

Exactly, don't think there are enough mechanics that favor numbers already? Why do you wanna add one more?


KjUVOZg.png


Guild Leader/ High Elder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, don't think there are enough mechanics that favor numbers already? Why do you wanna add one more?

 

If you don't like the mechanics I listed you won't like this game.  Adding "more" of the stuff that sets this game apart does not sound like a bad thing to me.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like the mechanics I listed you won't like this game.  Adding "more" of the stuff that sets this game apart does not sound like a bad thing to me.

It's not a matter of liking, it harms the combat meta objectively. If they want to make combat last longer they have a lot of other things they can add IN the combat, giving players tools to stay alive if they are good enough to use them correctly, rewarding skill, cooldown management, reflexes and prediction of the enemy movements. Downed states do none of that, you just have one guy lying there, doing absolutely nothing because he is already dead and for some reason is immune to being killed by regular damage. Now his allies (who should have worked with the victim while he was still alive, peeling from him, shielding and positioning properly) will do all that while the target is essentially immune to being killed by ranged. The downed state is just giving the group a chance when they failed to do it right the first time and allowed that person to die.

 

Having too many mechanics that make things easier for zergs and groups with higher numbers makes combat more simple and shallow not deeper. People defend less when they notice the are outnumbered, they give up more often and overall avoid fights when numbers are uneven because they know that even if they take down a few the penalty is meaningless, people will just raise them up quickly. Downed states makes death less risky and lowers it's consequences. Therefore, making the fight longer with this mechanic of bringing people up after they were already defeated is an artificial inflation of the fights. I say artificial because it is not based on skill and coordination between players, it is something most people will figure out how to do efficiently within a month or so and then have to live with this meta of having to kill the same person 3-4 times in a single fight simply because you didn't get close enough to finish them. Downed mechanics can turn fights into masturbatory exercises of push and pull where none of the teams really loses a person.

Edited by LGAllastair

KjUVOZg.png


Guild Leader/ High Elder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This? Still? Why are we even taking about it when ppl bring in so much bias that they won't even acknowledge evolution.

 

It's really just lazy, anything you don't life can be altered, it's annoying to listen to ppl whine about what doesn't work or they don't like as if it is an inflexible function that only exist in binary states.

 

Binary logic is disgusting, stop doing it.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This? Still? Why are we even taking about it when ppl bring in so much bias that they won't even acknowledge evolution.

 

It's really just lazy, anything you don't life can be altered, it's annoying to listen to ppl whine about what doesn't work or they don't like as if it is an inflexible function that only exist in binary states.

 

Binary logic is disgusting, stop doing it.

Well ACE themselves have talked about the concept of moving past ideas that don't work quickly and not getting stuck on them.

 

Some people think certain ideas are good, some do not, some have the experience to determine whether an idea is good or not, some do not... some of those that do not often think they do have the experience...


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they can add IN the combat, giving players tools to stay alive if they are good enough to use them correctly, rewarding skill, cooldown management, reflexes and prediction of the enemy movements. Downed states do none of that, you just have one guy lying there, doing absolutely nothing because he is already dead and for some reason is immune to being killed by regular damage. Now his allies (who should have worked with the victim while he was still alive, peeling from him, shielding and positioning properly) will do all that while the target is essentially immune to being killed by ranged. The downed state is just giving the group a chance when they failed to do it right the first time and allowed that person to die.

 

  1. Revival from a downed state is an in combat tool players can use to stay alive.
  2. Most of us will agree we do not want a copy/pasted downed mechanic
  3. Most of us will agree a downed person shouldn't be immune to being killed by regular damage.
  4. I didn't see if you had a point of reference game, but you should post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could replace "downed state' with quite a few fun dynamics and that sentence would still sound true.

 

"Point blank, looting benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, asset destruction benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, points of interest and caravans benefit the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, winnable campaigns benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

"Point blank, Play to Crush benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

 

et cetera.

 

So I wonder how useful that argument is against downed states.

Those items are rewards for controlling the field. Downed state assists with controlling the field.


pKWaYh4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other things to consider are:

 

What if every Archetype has an execute that takes skill to achieve, for example at the end of an ability chain. Something other than "right click your enemy to take 5s to finish them with magic instead of the sword in your hand."

 

What if only a few Archetypes could bring people back from being down.

 

Maybe there should be a limit to the number of times you can be saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ACE themselves have talked about the concept of moving past ideas that don't work quickly and not getting stuck on them.

 

Some people think certain ideas are good, some do not, some have the experience to determine whether an idea is good or not, some do not... some of those that do not often think they do have the experience...

You mean like real physics? Voxilized destructible environments? Fools like to cherry pick what's acceptable and not to themselves and apply moderation liberally to anything they don't approve of. And it's more disgusting when you try to imply some quality you clearly lack while pretending someone else is wanting.

 

Even the advanced are subject to error, and genuinely smart ppl wouldn't struggle at all to adjust a system to meet their expectations.

 

But I wouldn't expect such an obstinate fool to exercise effective creativity.

 

Those items are rewards for controlling the field. Downed state assists with controlling the field.

Does it?

Edited by bahamutkaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those items are rewards for controlling the field. Downed state assists with controlling the field.

 

"Point blank, weapons and magic spells benefit the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like real physics? Voxilized destructible environments? Fools like to cherry pick what's acceptable and not to themselves and apply moderation liberally to anything they don't approve of. And it's more disgusting when you try to imply some quality you clearly lack while pretending someone else is wanting.

 

Even the advanced are subject to error, and genuinely smart ppl wouldn't struggle at all to adjust a system to meet their expectations.

 

But I wouldn't expect such an obstinate fool to exercise effective creativity.

 

 

Does it?

Actually I think really experienced people cherry pick what is acceptable based on what is practical and what isn't.  Kinda like a professional football coach might pick and choose the right plays and schemes based on what will work in the context of the game as it unfolds.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Point blank, weapons and magic spells benefit the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority."

I get what you're trying to do, but your examples are not achieving that goal.

 

Edit: Now that I'm not on mobile, the full text of what I wanted to say was:

 

This is a combat came. What you're referencing there is a core mechanic required for the game to function. It applies to this discussion no more than would walking, jumping, or inventory management. Downed state is not a required mechanic, and it's under fire here because it is an optional mechanic that directly benefits the forces that least need the assist. I get what you're trying to do, but your examples are not achieving that goal. 

Edited by teerlys

pKWaYh4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think incapacitated players and finishing moves sounds kinda cool. Some thoughts:

 

-If there's an incapacitated state then is actual death lead to respawning with no option to rez?

-I think reviving/rezzing someone from an incapacitated state should be archetype/promotion/discipline specific. I'm very against everyone can do everything/anything mechanics. This skill should also be hard to get off in the battlefield.

-This is no where near important enough to delay the launch of the game.


gCWxS8u.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends how the mechanic is used during the campaings.

 

I'm not sure how to put a downed mechaninc on this game without knowing future plans for pvp, what if you can be good to go from a spawn if you die or having other features that makes uncessessary having a downed?

 

On the other hand i like "downed" mechanics such as table RPG, where you reach 0 life points, you are unconscious and can't do anything, you bleed out to -10 until you die. i think that would be cool if you can stabilize your 'dead' friend, but in the end he's still on that state, so you could only get him up if you killed all enemies and carefully help him get up by any mean you find reasonable (a crafted medical kit, support class, etc) and if he bleed out to -10, he can't get up by any means.

 

Is pretty ok having this mechanic in table RPG's because you are playing with friends, i don't know if this should work on Crowfall.

 

I'm pretty neutral in having it or not, for me is a question of adaptability.

Edited by altair

Ples don mind me bed gremmer, i'm Apollo Gise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other things to consider are:

 

What if every Archetype has an execute that takes skill to achieve, for example at the end of an ability chain. Something other than "right click your enemy to take 5s to finish them with magic instead of the sword in your hand."

 

What if only a few Archetypes could bring people back from being down.

 

Maybe there should be a limit to the number of times you can be saved.

 

You also have to remember TTK. For quick TTK's, downed states are completely appropriate, especially in cases with friendly fire. I would say though that making executes convoluted are counter to what most people are saying. Downed states really only need to be implemented in special circumstances to remedy mistakes or offer a chance at counterplay while still being punishing.

 

I definitely say that limiting the number of revives is also totally appropriate: once is an accident; twice is on purpose.

Edited by RKNM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this counters the statement that you quoted. Anecdotal evidence of "Well this one time we..." does not mean that it is a commonplace or consistently achievable occurrence. Point blank, downed state benefits the group controlling the field. The vast majority of the time, that will be the side with the vast numerical superiority.

Can you actally prove what you've said or is that anecdotal evidence as well? Sources? Data?

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...