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

concern about the combat


rajah
 Share

Recommended Posts


Crowfall combat in no way shape or form removes twitch ability from the equation. It just layers in other considerations so twitch isn't the end-all-be-all decider of combat. Your positioning is now more important. When and why you choose the abilities you do are now more important. Knowing your enemy is now more important. Thinking ahead is more important.

 

​Nice esoteric post. It's always twitch and tactics, not twitch or tactics. What we got right now is slow and strategy (because the game is too slow for second-to-second tactics).

​​An average Q3 player makes more strategic and tactical decisions aside from his cognitive performance within 2 seconds than an average MMO player within 2 minutes.

​Now, obviously no one wants this game to be as fast as Quake, but it also shouldn't be as slow as custard counterstrike, minecraft or other games for players lacking fast cognition.

Edited by Qbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

​Nice esoteric post. It's always twitch and tactics, not twitch or tactics. What we got right now is slow and strategy (because the game is too slow for second-to-second tactics).

​​An average Q3 player makes more strategic and tactical decisions aside from his cognitive performance within 2 seconds than an average MMO player within 2 minutes.

 

 

I wouldn't consider the concept of "twitch gameplay" to be esoteric, as most people that are even remotely into gaming know what that means.  Anyhow, I think it's more about the equilibrium between twitch and tactics, like you say.  You can have a fast paced game that also requires a lot of tactics, but usually the focus is on group tactics in combat.  I think with Crowfall, there are going to be many more extraneous tactical decisions that can be made outside of just combat.  This is where I think the equilibrium could be found where you could have twitch combat and the more important tactical advantages will come from things like siege equipment, ambushing transports (die pig, and gimme my loot!), tunneling, terrain advantage, etc.  Ex: A pack pig group is ambushed by group 1, and group 2 has to go on the defensive, with the knight shielding people behind him as best he can until you can make it to your castle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people that just stand there and swing get wrecked.

 

Mechwarrior movement is a product of everything being server side atm. They are planning to push movement down to the client at some point during this phase.

 

I second this observation.  Anytime there is a 4v4 or 4v4v4 clash and a scrum of Champions using Whirling Pain or Confessors using Condemnation, the bodies drop quick.  Really quick. 

 

On the other hand, it does take some time to chase down a zigging enemy on the run.  My personal feeling is that it is due more to the sluggish movement (as a Knight pursuing it is hard to land melee attacks in this environment) than time-to-kill.  I'm forecasting that Ranger and other missile users will help chance that dynamic though.

 

Edited by ren

rSHxVEY.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

​Nice esoteric post. It's always twitch and tactics, not twitch or tactics. What we got right now is slow and strategy (because the game is too slow for second-to-second tactics).

​​An average Q3 player makes more strategic and tactical decisions aside from his cognitive performance within 2 seconds than an average MMO player within 2 minutes.

​Now, obviously no one wants this game to be as fast as Quake, but it also shouldn't be as slow as custard counterstrike, minecraft or other games for players lacking fast cognition.

 

Q3 is all bunnyhopping in a tight confined maze. Many of the split second tactical decisions you are talking about are based upon intimate map/item spawn knowledge. Knowing where your enemy is likely to be.

 

Crowfall is not intended to be anything like that style of play. Outside of the hungerdome, which is just for testing, virtually every fight is going to be in a different setting with different starting parameters. And many of those parameters are going to be unknowns at the beginning of the fight.

 

It is going to be about large combat engagements and siege warfare, so yes strategy should trump tactics. Also, politics will end up trumping strategy most of the time. 

 

In this type of game the hierarchy is and always will be: player skill < small group tactics < large group strategy < siege logistics < politics 

 

Arguing that player skill should trump something higher up the line is arguing that Crowfall should be a fundamentally different game.

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this type of game the hierarchy is and always will be: player skill < small group tactics < large group strategy < siege logistics < politics 

 

You just posted communism in a nutshell. Last time I've checked ACE isn't developing a working class revolution simulator.

 

You've revealed your power level too soon, comrade.

Edited by Qbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just posted communism in a nutshell. Last time I've checked ACE isn't developing a working class revolution simulator.

 

What exactly do you think they mean by thronewar simulator?

 

Some sort of single elimination tournament deathmatch?

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the Animation locks honestly. I know them from Tera combat and the way you have to commit to an attack gives a bigger strategy layer, instead of straving and floating all over the board without any kind of physical attachement to your surounding.

 

If this is not your playstyle, that is fine but give them at least time until they move to the Clientside and have everyone a chance to judge themself instead of inforcing change already.

 

Yes. I'm aware that I'm more sounding like a mindless Bio-Drone instead of a Player and thus my judgement and taste in combat has no merit at all against your arguments. Beep-Boop.

 

I played a lot with Animation locked combat and done right, it is my highest preference to play with honestly.

 

Yes, absolutely. While there are a lot of people who are very vocally opposed to animation locks, I want to make it clear that I am absolutely in favor of them, I think the system works very well in games like Tera, and I believe Crowfall is absolutely headed in the right direction combat-wise with them. Is it perfect yet? Certainly not. But the lack of polish is just that, and the core underlying philosophy is (in my opinion) on the right track. Also I think the client-predicted (or client-auth? Hope not!) character controller will make a huge difference in the feel of the game in terms of input lag and reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do you think they mean by thronewar simulator?

 

Some sort of single elimination tournament deathmatch?

 

The sort of game where you win a battle due to superior player skill and therefore exercise authority and reap the benefits, not the other way around.

 

Crazy concept, I know. What was I thinking when suggesting that players actually need to win?! Silly me.

Edited by Qbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sort of game where you win a battle due to superior player skill and therefore exercise authority and reap the benefits, not the other way around.

 

Crazy concept, I know. What was I thinking when suggesting that players actually need to win?! Silly me.

I guess you were not in the test because almost the same people each time were at the end of a match BECAUSE they had superior player skill and teamwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you were not in the test because almost the same people each time were at the end of a match BECAUSE they had superior player skill and teamwork.

 

I was referring to comrade Stubb's suggestion to turn this game into a communist simulator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In this type of game the hierarchy is and always will be: player skill < small group tactics < large group strategy < siege logistics < politics 

 

Arguing that player skill should trump something higher up the line is arguing that Crowfall should be a fundamentally different game.

 

This hierarchy is why, already, there are people who want to see large groups penalized just for being large groups.  The more people you have, the less critical each individual becomes until the individual is meaningless, just a body and the only 'skill' needed is just being with the group.

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

uhvMkGn.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sort of game where you win a battle due to superior player skill and therefore exercise authority and reap the benefits, not the other way around.

 

Crazy concept, I know. What was I thinking when suggesting that players actually need to win?! Silly me.

 

Are you under the impression that The Dregs are going to be a lone wolf's paradise with everybody taking their turns to 1v1 until only one man is left standing?

 

People banding together and zerging in The Dregs is absolutely going to happen. And those people will band together through politics.

 

It doesn't matter how good you and your 3 buddies are when 200 people come to burn your house down. Some of those 200 are going to be at least decent. You just plain won't win.

 

Do I think an elite group of 4 should be able to wipe the map with a team of 10 scrubs? Absolutely.

 

40 vs 100 gets a lot harder. Some of those 100 are going to be at least decent. Some of the 40 aren't going to be elite.

 

400 vs 1000 gets almost impossible.

 

The people who play politics the best and amass huge armies are the ones that always dominate servers when there is actually a population playing the game.

 

A bunch of RPer's that did silly crap like practice infantry line formation tactics 100% wrecked shop and dominated DFO in the early going because they politiced their way into a huge alliance before the game even started.

 

It wasn't until the Goons organized an equally large zerg that they started getting pushed back.

 

It isn't until a server has died and there are 50 people online at a time that the lone wolf try-hards "dominate" 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bunch of RPer's that did silly crap like practice infantry line formation tactics 100% wrecked shop and dominated DFO in the early going because they politiced their way into a huge alliance before the game even started.

 

It wasn't until the Goons organized an equally large zerg that they started getting pushed back.

 

oh my :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh my :wub:

 

Am I wrong?

 

Were Hyperion a bunch of elite players, tacticians, or strategists? Not really. A few were. What they were good at was politics.

 

They controlled something like 26 holdings at one point.

 

Has anybody ever matched that?

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I wrong?

 

Were Hyperion a bunch of elite players, tacticians, or strategists? Not really. A few were. What they were good at was politics.

 

They controlled something like 26 holdings at one point.

 

Has anybody ever matched that?

 

​Comrade Stubbs, I fully understand your line of thinking. Let's pause this working class revolution for a moment and ask yourself what someone considers "winning a game".

​As a matter of fact, a lot people don't give a rat's ass about politics but PvP itself, no matter if they get zerged in the end or not. That's what people gain from gameplay. The other spectrum considers "winning" by amassing zerg A to roll over B and have some political meta-larping in the process of doing so . Both are valid in FFA PvP mmo's.

​Your problem is assuming that option a does not matter just because there is option b, and therefore a highly skill based combat mechanic is not needed. In reality, FFA PvP sandbox mmos consist of both elements forming into a final "product". Not more, not less.

​As for your pseudo-analysis of what went down in DF during both world wars, you're absolutely delusional about the fact that it was the small facemelter guilds who carried the goon zerg. I was literally running behind 20 guys who steamrolled around 100 hyperion baddies while I combat looted as much as my two little over encumbered alfar-legs could carry. Good times!

Edited by Qbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

​Comrade Stubbs, I fully understand your line of thinking. Let's pause this working class revolution for a moment and ask yourself what someone considers "winning a game".

​As a matter of fact, a lot people don't give a rat's ass about politics but PvP itself, no matter if they get zerged in the end or not. That's what people gain from gameplay. The other spectrum considers "winning" by amassing zerg A to roll over B and have some political meta-larping in the process of doing so . Both are valid in FFA PvP mmo's.

​Your problem is assuming that option a does not matter just because there is option b, and therefore a highly skill based combat mechanic is not needed. In reality, FFA PvP sandbox mmos consist of both elements forming into a final "product". Not more, not less.

​As for your pseudo-analysis of what went down in DF during both world wars, you're absolutely delusional about the fact that it was the small facemelter guilds who carried the goon zerg. I was literally running behind 20 guys who steamrolled around 100 hyperion baddies while I combat looted as much as my two little over encumbered alfar-legs could carry. Good times!

 

I was also on the goon side of things. Once the numbers were relatively equal Hyperion got their crap pushed in and collapsed fast. But up to that point they dominated the map in a way nobody else ever came close to.

 

Do you think the official win conditions are going to be taken right out of Call of Duty? Highest individual Kill/Death ratio? Most headshots?

 

Game of Thrones meets Eve Online.

 

Thronewar Simulator.

 

Politics.

 

As for individual player skill, if the cap is so low right now, why are the same names showing up time and time again at the end of the match?

 

Oberon was winning matches consistently in 1.0 when the team queues were totally random, so you can't even say that was due to organized groups vs pugs.

Edited by Stubbs

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your way of "domination" is really weird...

 

 

they captured those holdings during the first few days and then started being walking lootbags.

Were they even able to defend a single holding? I didn't participate during WW1 and basically just farmed the human area. Their gear certainly "dominated" my bank, can't deny that.

 

 

Same with goons... you kids were so afraid, that you doubled your alliance size by nutcupping with DUSK... it was embarrassing to say the least. That ally spam lasted for straight 4h or so. poorly made socks just kept poppin up.

I'll never forget the waves and waves of players trying to enter Erinthel :wub:

And in the end the guy leading your alliance asked to join ours.

 

 

"Politics" in your opinion seems to be equal to handholding. As soon as that fails you're all out of ideas...

Numbers isn't the be all end all solution.

You will not succeed in the long run with that mentality, as has been proven over and over and over again. Dominating a game, like you call it, is done via other means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your way of "domination" is really weird...

 

 

they captured those holdings during the first few days and then started being walking lootbags.

Were they even able to defend a single holding? I didn't participate during WW1 and basically just farmed the human area. Their gear certainly "dominated" my bank, can't deny that.

 

 

Same with goons... you kids were so afraid, that you doubled your alliance size by nutcupping with DUSK... it was embarrassing to say the least. That ally spam lasted for straight 4h or so. poorly made socks just kept poppin up.

I'll never forget the waves and waves of players trying to enter Erinthel :wub:

And in the end the guy leading your alliance asked to join ours.

 

 

"Politics" in your opinion seems to be equal to handholding. As soon as that fails you're all out of ideas...

Numbers isn't the be all end all solution.

You will not succeed in the long run with that mentality, as has been proven over and over and over again. Dominating a game, like you call it, is done via other means.

 

They not only defended successfully, they acquired more through some sieges and bullied more into joining them. They certainly didn't sneak 26 holdings on the first day. It was more like 10-12 for their whole alliance.

 

Everybody thought their on the field fighting skills (outside like SotA) were a joke, and just kind of laughed at them. But despite that they weren't just surviving but were growing.

 

Nothing else would have gotten the rest of the server to band together against them. A lot of the clans that did weren't exactly best buds. The fact that they did proves that people saw them as a threat.

 

My group joined the goon led coalition to help bring Hyperion down, and left pretty much as soon as that was accomplished. We then moved to NA as soon as it opened instead of waiting to transfer, so we didn't really participate in world war 2.

 

Crowfall servers are going to have win conditions or expiration dates. If DFO had a win condition of 20 holdings (which was a huge chunk of all available ones) Hyperion would have officially won. If the time ran out before WWII had started, the goons probably would have officially won.

 

There isn't going to be a long tail where the server pop breaks 100 on a good day, and a big siege is 20 vs 30.

   

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...