KRIPTIK

Run in Group Formation

Recommended Posts

But it would be cool if a group of confessors could convert their group to a "coven" and get more DPs but less defense as long as they are together.

A group of legionaries could form a "phalanx"

A full group of knights could form a "crusade"

Edited by KRIPTIK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I group leader should be able to direct people into position.  Physically moving another character is dumb.  All of these benefits that are pro-formation don't come from a leader doing all the work.  It comes from the benefit of training, coordination and discipline.

 

The only advantage to a formation in SB was the ability to drag automated characters around.

 

There is no need of a "ride on the bus" mechanic IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a formation of players controlled by a group leader would be incredibly useful and cool as heck, as long as we can break out of it.

In EvE you had a fleet hierarchy in which you would automatically follow leaders in fleet warps, but people had to align to their destinations before-hand in order to all warp together, otherwise the fleet fell apart. So there was always that certain level of coordination people had to have, regardless of fleet warps.

 

Even if group formation control wasn't implemented, some formation markers would be a good idea to show where you're supposed to be standing.

ArmA had a system like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with the idea of being able to do little click-target "markers" to signal your team where you want them to go, but I am opposed 100% to letting a leader control his group. It unnecessarily dumbs it down to be more zerg-like in that tons of people are just mindlessly following a single person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't see the need for leader controlled formations, it becomes really "hand holdy" for the other players and also makes changing things on the fly more difficult in my opinion. That is not to say that I don't think that formations are a bad idea in general, but I see them forming naturally and over time as gameplay develops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to control how other people move can turn into trolling or other people somehow planting members on other teams for easy wins. I would be completely against this idea reminds me of something for a RTS game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it would be cool if a group of confessors could convert their group to a "coven" and get more DPs but less defense as long as they are together.

A group of legionaries could form a "phalanx"

A full group of knights could form a "crusade"

 

Sounds easy to do as in it could be a passive that is activated when a certain number of particular archetypes are close together. However, controlling the movement of your fellow guild mates/randoms is strange and unique, but also unnecessary.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it would be cool if a group of confessors could convert their group to a "coven" and get more DPs but less defense as long as they are together.

A group of legionaries could form a "phalanx"

A full group of knights could form a "crusade"

I dislike this idea. Advantages should be organic, not manufactured. By this, I mean that the benefit of knights hanging together isn't a buff of any kind, but simply that connecting their shields offers stronger defense for their allies. Formations and formation planning should happen considering the natural abilities of archetypes, not created by systems given to us.

 

Plus, hasn't it been said that sometimes it isn't beneficial to have multiple of a single archetype together, to the point of being counter-productive such as the fact that Legionnaires give mana-regen but don't have mana themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These tactical group formations make other players their presence very significant on the battlefield,compared to other mmo's.

And it would require players to plan tactical counter attacks,stimulating interaction between players,planning& careful consideration.

Together players can be strong,but the choice to join a formation should be individual.Because in the end its a tactical consideration:

Continue in small strikegroups or start to collaborate with more players to achieve something on larger scale.

The plan might succeed or fail miserably depending on how well the formation is performed,in the right occasion?

As each tactical formation has ways to be countered.There would not only be advantages to forming formations,also risks/disadvantages.

 

As Dominhiho said,it is important that players can have the individual choice to break out of formation.

Will this weaken the formation?yes

XjNNWJV.jpg

But perhaps one player is more needed in the long distance outflank,or the counterattack attempt on a given moment.

The tactical choice should be individual.Yet,players will have to keep in mind what is happening on a larger scale when considering next moves.And because of these formations,tactical consideration will need to happen constantly.Because each counter action requires a response.

The group formation's benefits/buff should scale according to participants in the formation.(and these benfits should perhaps be separate/different from the archetype's benifits in coordinated battle on smaller scale)

This causes large scale warfare to be organic, a team effort.And makes tactical choice matter a lot.

Wouldn't it be awesome knowing what players could achieve by collaborating?

15d15fb.jpg

Even joining a formation or not might become an interesting choice players have to make on the go

All part of the "Allies. Enemies. Empires. Risk. Conquest."

Edited by Tipsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These tactical group formations make other players their presence very significant on the battlefield,compared to other mmo's.
And it would require players to plan tactical counter attacks,stimulating interaction between players,planning& careful consideration.
Together players can be strong,but the choice to join a formation should be individual.Because in the end its a tactical consideration:
Continue in small strikegroups or start to collaborate with more players to achieve something on larger scale.
The plan might succeed or fail miserably depending on how well the formation is performed,in the right occasion?
As each tactical formation has ways to be countered.There would not only be advantages to forming formations,also risks/disadvantages.
 
As Dominhiho said,it is important that players can have the individual choice to break out of formation.
Will this weaken the formation?yes
XjNNWJV.jpg
But perhaps one player is more needed in the long distance outflank,or the counterattack attempt on a given moment.
The tactical choice should be individual.Yet,players will have to keep in mind what is happening on a larger scale when considering next moves.And because of these formations,tactical consideration will need to happen constantly.Because each counter action requires a response.
The group formation's benefits/buff should scale according to participants in the formation.(and these benfits should perhaps be separate/different from the archetype's benifits in coordinated battle on smaller scale)
This causes large scale warfare to be organic, a team effort.And makes tactical choice matter a lot.
Wouldn't it be awesome knowing what players could achieve by collaborating?
15d15fb.jpg
Even joining a formation or not might become an interesting choice players have to make on the go
All part of the "Allies. Enemies. Empires. Risk. Conquest."

 

 

 

 

 

So all I basically got from this is. "i don't want to cooperate with others. I want a leader to handle it all for me."

 

 

 

ArtCraft doesn't need to waste resources for lazy people. You all need to step up your cooperation and coordination with each other. You can do all of these things without ArtCraft wasting dev time to put it in for lazy brainless antisocial mouth breathers. If you're unwilling to find or create a group willing to do formations. Then perhaps you shouldn't play an MMO. 

 

 

This suggestion doesn't have any merit and is basically a waste of time. This isn't Shadowbane. Kindly stop reliving your game memories and trying to foster it on us. Thanks. 

Edited by Muhrder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you missed the part where i said it should be individual choice.And it requires constant tactical consideration to stay in the formation or not, because the flow of battle changes constantly.

Its quite the contrary really:MMos have been fostering a lazy,antisocial,self sufficient nature all these years.

And formations are needed to 'step up' cooperation and coordination between players

Don't give me the antiquated 'then you shouldn't play mmo' nonsense.Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then you missed the part where i said it should be individual choice.And it requires constant tactical consideration to stay in the formation or not, because the flow of battle changes constantly.
Its quite the contrary really:MMos have been fostering a lazy,antisocial,self sufficient nature all these years.
And formations are needed to 'step up' cooperation and coordination between players
Don't give me the antiquated 'then you shouldn't play mmo' nonsense.Thanks

 

 

 

If I have the individual choice to play on my own. Then why have the feature in the first place? If you cannot find a way to cooperate and coordinate with others in a sandbox PvP MMO. Then you're doing it wrong. I'll give you a valid point. THEMEPARK MMOs have been fostering antisocial lazy self sufficient gameplay for years. Good thing this game isn't a theme park or meant to ever be. This game is a niche sandbox PvP MMO. Thus meaning that it's player base isn't the same as WoW, SWTOR, Rift, or any other Theme park you're attempting to base your opinion on. 

 

 

I'd love to pretend this feature isn't redundant. But thousands of players fighting in EVE Online and groups getting to the numbers of 25k plus completely disprove any notion that ArtCraft needs to create a mechanic where a leader can control others movements. That's what a voip is for. A fleet commander in EVE can coordinate a massive attack with a fleet hundreds of players strong with some simple commands. He doesn't control the fleet's movement in any such nature besides saying commands.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSziz-vtZKY

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9x8eYjUQzg

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLqb-m1ZZUA

 

 

Want me to continue? 12 years of EVE. I'm sure I can find atleast 200+ different videos of fleet commanders directing combat with hundreds if not thousands of players.

 

 

During massive ArcheAge raids. We used a commander to give commands and coordinate attacks on multiple merchant ships. Anarchy Online. We used multiple leaders in an overarching strategy to attack multiple land control towers. 

 

 

Multiple instances where a mechanic didn't exist for a leader to control movement and yet formations and tactics were put into effect. So you can continue about a bad feature suggestion for the lazy antisocials all you wish. But a multude of sandbox MMOs prove that gamers can work together to take objectives in a PvP setting. 

 

 

We could get some DAoC folks in here? SWG perhaps? 

 

 

 

Again. If you can't figure out how to coordinate and cooperate in an MMORPG. Maybe you need a different genre. 

Edited by Muhrder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why have this feature if you have the individual choice to play on your own?

Because it decorates the game's warfare with more tactical considerations,risks that come with conquest,consequences for your own actions,..;

-Do you venture alone in the swamp to flee an army and accept the risks of venturing through a swamp?In the worst case you might be swallowed up,in the best case regroup with allies..

-Do you move in a small group so the enemy won't notice you?

-Do you join the counter formation because you have good estimations of success?

-Do you abandon your formation because you feel you are more needed elsewhere,or you feel that responding to a counter move of the enemy is more important than remaining in the formation?

-Continue in small strikegroups or start to collaborate with more players in formations to achieve something on larger scale.

 

In mmo's we only have seen cooperation and coordination in small groups,over voips,..

The scale of collaboration formations would require goes well beyond that;

each ally of your faction can come to your aid.Each faction member is worth approaching.

Formations might even have a positive effect on socializing and making allies in the game.

 

This isn't about leaders that can control others movement.At least not the way I see it

The game might register the formation patterns and grant boons accordingly.Each formation can be broken,has weak points (for example see the pic of wedge formation)

Why would a player mount a catapult?why would several players mount a war elephant?what advantage/disadvantage would that bring with it?

Cooperation and coordination are present in small scale battles we are used to.

(Like the knight shields ranged units so they get behind it..Some might call this "formation")

But then my initial question in this topic;does this reach deep enough to have truly epic tactical warfare in large scale battles?

I never played EVE,but I don't know if you can really compare that with crowfall.

It doesn't matter if this is themepark or sandbox.

What matters is what the game setup fosters and what is put in place for the players to utilize during gameplay.

 

It is not about me,not about you ..ofcourse there is coordination and cooperating with skillful teams.

But for all past mmo's ,they didn't offer enough when it came to terms of collaboration opportunities(not only with guild/group where you base your opinion of coordination and cooperation on,but for every same faction player you encounter;what can they mean to each other?Imo a lot more than in mmo's we've seen in the past)

Edited by Tipsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aren't capable of controlling your own character to create a formation with your allies, you don't deserve to create a formation with your allies. 

 

 

I think its a good idea to support the people not as skilled as yourself.

Not everyone is a HC PvP'er, and we have to help them get to an equal level to the rest.

Letting guild leaders control large groups of players will help with the overall skillgap in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a good idea to support the people not as skilled as yourself.

Not everyone is a HC PvP'er, and we have to help them get to an equal level to the rest.

Letting guild leaders control large groups of players will help with the overall skillgap in the game.

 

 

 

 

But it doesn't. Why should we hold their hands? It should be the community's prerogative to assist newbies. ArtCraft shouldn't create a mechanic for a multiboxer and for massive groups to easily exploit. You don't learn from someone else doing it for you. You learn from doing. I don't need a guild leader holding my hooligan for me. Simply let me practice and I'll pick it up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it doesn't. Why should we hold their hands? It should be the community's prerogative to assist newbies. ArtCraft shouldn't create a mechanic for a multiboxer and for massive groups to easily exploit. You don't learn from someone else doing it for you. You learn from doing. I don't need a guild leader holding my hooligan for me. Simply let me practice and I'll pick it up.  

 

 

 

@Pann due to the langauge filter in place here. I'll be talking about my hooligan quite frequently. Any wife aggro this produces will be directly responsible of ACE. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or when en you aren't capable of creating formations with your allies,the game simply does not support it Vikingnail

In reality synergies are ony supported on a very superficial and limited level:it happens over voicecalls with a select group of friends.(lets call em synergy between archetypes in battles with few players)

Its when you talk about the scale of the whole empire that games miss the strategical depth,misses the features that will make players act together,hand in hand with people outside of their friendlist/guild.

Thus large scale battles become a chaotic mess with little strategical depth."Oh they will simply use voice chat because the game does not have any features to support it"  ...No.

Thats like saying "Leave the game in greybox,it is working fine as it is, is it not!?"

 

I think it would be more of a multiboxer's nightmare.

Because formations can be countered,and if the game assignes boons according to how players line up,theirs won't last for long.

And when other players have broken through their formation they'll be birds for the cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.