AE mezzing? HERP DERP!?! i've seen 8 man groups wipe zergs in DAoC due to some fucking amazing crowd control
No modern game is going to allow players to cast MINUTE long crowd control spells.
Even the makers and majority of players in DAoC complain that Crowd Control is ridiculously long, and thus overpowered.
Also, I've played DAoC for years, and this rarely happens. What you probably remember isn't crowd control against 4+ full groups, but the group defeating one group at a time (using crowd contrl), as they feed themselves directly after the previous group was already killed.
I HAVE seen that a lot. One group fights another, and defeats it. That moment, another comes, and they beat that group too. Then two more come, and they beat those. Then another comes, and they beat that one. It's 1v1 several times, but NEVER 1v4 groups at once.
DAoC is rarely that cool. 90% of fights are lame, and 90% of playtime is roaming around without any action.
The other 9% aren't fights, but whoever hits a crowd control spell on the other first.
No doubt, DAoC can have some of the most amazing, fun, spectacular PvP fights in the history of gaming... but 99% of the time it's the exact opposite- the stupidest, lamest, most unbalanced, boring piece of crap in the history of gaming.
ZzzZzZzz... You've been hit by Captivating Lulliby for 3 minutes!
A lot of today's PvP games leave me feeling mostly frustrated when I play them. Especially when it seems like the game is for the most part just a zerg fest. I find myself a lot of times just standing there thinking, "WTF is going on". How you use any kind of strategy in a situation like that, I don't know. A lot of times when I start feeling that way I tend to just log off and play something else. I'm wondering what kinds of solutions you guys would propose for a game that suffers from this problem.
Zerg is only a problem wen Quanity > Quality.
If you made Quality > Quantity, it still exist, but stop behind a problem.
Instances. I don't care what "hardcore MMORPGers" say, instances are very good improvements for PvP, and WoW is a prime example of PvP instanced population balance. I've played MMO's since Ultima Online, so for over a decade. I am as hardcore and time-comitted as all the other "veterans" but completely disagree with most of what they believe. Ultima Online pre-trammel was cool, but it wasn't "the best" ever, and certainly wouldn't be worth my time today in 2009. Time sinks do not make games "harder", and Zerging small groups of players who CANNOT possibly win because you have sheer numbers is NOT fun. Death penalties are also ridiculously bad ideas- especially for adults who don't have unlimited free time. I am all for improvements on MMO's, because I have, and always will, love them. Instanced PvP is one of their best ideas, and WoW is rather revolutionary in the fact that Blizzard actually LISTENS to what the players want, and delivers it. As of 3.2, twinks are no longer a big problem.
actually wow pvp is what turned a lot of players off to pvp......
Instances. I don't care what "hardcore MMORPGers" say, instances are very good improvements for PvP, and WoW is a prime example of PvP instanced population balance. I've played MMO's since Ultima Online, so for over a decade. I am as hardcore and time-comitted as all the other "veterans" but completely disagree with most of what they believe. Ultima Online pre-trammel was cool, but it wasn't "the best" ever, and certainly wouldn't be worth my time today in 2009. Time sinks do not make games "harder", and Zerging small groups of players who CANNOT possibly win because you have sheer numbers is NOT fun. Death penalties are also ridiculously bad ideas- especially for adults who don't have unlimited free time. I am all for improvements on MMO's, because I have, and always will, love them. Instanced PvP is one of their best ideas, and WoW is rather revolutionary in the fact that Blizzard actually LISTENS to what the players want, and delivers it. As of 3.2, twinks are no longer a big problem.
actually wow pvp is what turned a lot of players off to pvp......
If you divide players into three rough groups of PvP centred, PvE centred, and 50/50 then the lack of any real sense of gain or loss will put PvP-centric players off battleground-style PvP. However the same lack of meaningful loss is what would make the game more appealing to the 50/50 segment. A workable compromise might be if the battlegrounds decided factional gain or loss i.e winning and losing actual regions of the game map bringing you one step closer to the enemy capital.
Then is there RvR involved? What happens if a zone/area changes hand and I wasn't able to fight due to the fact that no-one of the same skill bracket was on to fight me?
Let's say I was level 50 (just for arguments sake) and a zone changes hands and I find out later that 99% of the fighting was level 1-15?
I was online and ready to PvP but couldn't?
Say you had a map split into regions like Risk or Shogun : Total war and the regions were like EQ zones. Say the regions on RvR borders were "live" regions and open for PvP during the week - the usual thing. There'd be a point score tallied over the week for kills/objectives whatever.
Come saturday evening maybe the points scored over the week decide who's going to be the attacker/defender or maybe the game decides that based on other reasons and whoever got the most points over the week gets 100 added to their score for the coming contest which involves a bunch of instanced battles where the first side to 500 wins the region for their realm.
To answer your points specifically it doesn't have to be one big instance: the game could have multiple maps for each region e.g an 80v80 map, a 48v48, a 24v24, a 12v12 and the players could be divided into tiers and the game would allocate the players to the maps and each win would give 12, 24, 48, 80 points to your realms total. So when the game first opens the first saturday region-changing battle might have 5 separate 80v80 instances all tier 1 while after a few months there might be 3 x 80v80 Tier 4 battles and one 48v48 each for teirs 1, 2 and 3 with the points for winning each battle added up.
The main advantage I can see from something like this is not only guaranteeing players big battles but also battles that have consequences in the world.
(This is bit off the topic of making large scale PvP less of a zerg but semi-related imo).
I think the most recent solution to "The Zerg" was called the machine gun.
Of course that lead to Trench warfare. Which then lead to the creation of Tanks.
Which lead to the re-emergence of cavalry type tactics.
IMO, this is a great idea.
Problem solved.
1) Adding "Machine Guns" to defeat clunking, forcing players to solo or squad up and spread out.
2) Adding Defenses
3) Adding Vehicles- that would be VERY fun!
You could do this via a WW2 / Modern MMO, or just fantasy and make the machine gun "Magic" and have fantasy vehicles.
You could even combine FPS, RPG, and RTS to make an MMORPG that has a lot of cool things.
If the idea of WoW's PvP didn't repulse you, imagine this...
Warsong gulch, everything is the same but.... one player gets to be a "Magician" who is limited where he can go, but spams AoE blasts like a Machine Gun. Tanks are good against focusing fire on themselves with a healer, while everyone else has to spread out and defeat him vs the enemy. Requires tactics to overcome.
or
A big fat orcish tank (like fantasy or 40k warhammer) pounds through the middleground of Warsong gulch, and players can get inside the vehicle as different weapons. The game acts the same as a normal MMO (WoW) but has tons more armor and hp, and it's a vehicle. AoE zerg killer. Dont group up!!! Fun Fun!
or
Bunkers or Defenses. Dont zerg up, because if you do the enemy will just form up in defense at a bunker and destroy you, or get on the defenses and AoE your group. Best to have someone distract them as another group sneaks around. No more zerging though. By the time group #2 gets to the group sneaking around, the fight is already over and it's time for another 1v1 Full Group instead of 1v2 unbalanced Groups.
IMO, it would be awesome to make a game that plays with the polish and MMORPG of WoW, but make it cartoon WW2, lol. Tanks, Halftrack, MG, Mortar, but they play like a Paladin, Warrior, Warlock, Mage. Hahahaha...
But really, there are solutions to Zerging, tons of them. IRL solutions are great ways to start, and it's so easy to explain, "Magic."
A lot of today's PvP games leave me feeling mostly frustrated when I play them. Especially when it seems like the game is for the most part just a zerg fest. I find myself a lot of times just standing there thinking, "WTF is going on". How you use any kind of strategy in a situation like that, I don't know. A lot of times when I start feeling that way I tend to just log off and play something else. I'm wondering what kinds of solutions you guys would propose for a game that suffers from this problem.
I have a real simple solution to zerging.
Impose a stiff death penalty.
If they start losing xp every time they die, the zerging will stop.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
In a game that is designed to be "massive" as most MMOs are, you cannot avoid having a "zerg" without some kind of instancing. Games that are designed around large numbers of people playing at once simply cannot avoid having a large pack of people running around in PvP.
The other trouble is most MMOs reward time in game with levels/abilities/gear. The game will automatically get stratified into the haves and the have nots. That leaves the "have nots" with a choice. Get repeatedly farmed or find a group big enough to compensate for the gap in levels/abilities/gear between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Truthfully I have not met too many MMO gamers that are really looking for good fights. What most really want is to get set up and have their enemies charge at them like extras in a Bruce Lee movie; preferably one at a time or in a small enough group that they can be killed. Somewhere out there is the magical number that represents the tipping point where there are too many attackers for the "hero'" to handle and that number is denoted by the word "Zerg". To someone who is solo, 4 enemies could be a zerg.
In the final analysis, be careful what you wish for. The Dark Age community tore itself appart along the lines of "8 Mans" and "Zergers". Eventually the "zergers" left and now the game can barely muster 3500 players at prime time. The game is so close to implosion that Mythic is merging all the servers and resorting to desparate measures to try and lure players back to the game. Once the "zergers" leave the game, there really isn't an MMO anymore since there isn't a population that can sustain the game without the "zergers". Then again no one is exactly sure who is a "zerger" just like no one is exactly sure what a "zerg" really is.
All in all, the oldest and most successful military tactic in human history is "firstest with the mostest." To expect people not to use it is unrealistic.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
I thought the same thing when I saw this thread title. I figured it would be about what weapons would be the best against the zerg and stuff like that.
Well, technically a proper zerg is a tactic. You've gotta be able to convince those three dimwits who think they can solo five enemies apiece to realize that the group is stronger than the individual. I hate to be the jerk of the thread, but perhaps you need to L2P. If you're lost in a group setting, there's something wrong with your ability to play a mmo and compute the information coming at you.
^^^ This is correct. MMO gamers are usually like children. Blame Star Wars and crap like that where you see Luke skywalker flying around by himself blowing up death stars. Real life don't work this way kids!
I also blame FPS games where you see nice even 20 vs 20 sides. So they got newbies thinking this is how real wars are fought.
Nope, in real life most of the time you will be outnumbered or you will outnumber the opposition. In situation #1, you do hit-and-run tactics. In Situation #2, your strategy is to blockade the enemy in and kill them.
Most MMOs have such stank pvp though you rarely see advanced tactics like this emerge. This is one area EVE online surpasses all the kiddie MMOs out there. We blockade our enemies all the time and it is great fun watching them suffer and their only escape is die, die, and die more
Originally posted by Gyrus Then is there RvR involved?
No.
Instanced PvP has been tried in a RvR / PvP MMO. That was PotBS and it is almost a dead game only a year and a bit from launch.
Let's back up a step. Have you never played WOW? Because it seems like the only instanced PVP you've experienced is POTBS which is absolutely not the type of instanced PVP I'm talking about at all.
Arenas. Battlegrounds. These things totally factor zerging out of the equation*.
Poof. Gone. Gameplay's about player skill and tactics now. PVP is enjoyable, serious, and competitive.
Again, if you value immersion more than gameplay you're going to play some niche game which sacrifices gameplay to improve immersion. Other people agree with you, and you'll have them to fight against.
But I get the impression the majority of players mostly just want a fun game where their decisions matter - and instanced PVP goes a long way to helping that be true.
(*as long as the population is capped appropriate to the map size and objective layout.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Okay, then instanced PvP might work. PvP without any real consequence. I call that 'dueling' myself.
Instanced PvP has been tried in a RvR / PvP MMO. That was PotBS and it is almost a dead game only a year and a bit from launch.
Let's back up a step. Have you never played WOW? Because it seems like the only instanced PVP you've experienced is POTBS which is absolutely not the type of instanced PVP I'm talking about at all.
Arenas. Battlegrounds. These things totally factor zerging out of the equation*.
Poof. Gone. Gameplay's about player skill and tactics now. PVP is enjoyable, serious, and competitive.
I have played WoW but never got into the PvP. It just wasn't really my thing (WoW I mean). I liked it... just not enough to subscribe. What you describe sounds more like a Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2 game. Fun, but with no real consequence. FWIW I am a long time WWIIoL subscriber.
Again, if you value immersion more than gameplay you're going to play some niche game which sacrifices gameplay to improve immersion. Other people agree with you, and you'll have them to fight against.
But I get the impression the majority of players mostly just want a fun game where their decisions matter - and instanced PVP goes a long way to helping that be true.
(*as long as the population is capped appropriate to the map size and objective layout.)
I think the fundamental place we disagree is in that Instanced PvP can 'matter' and still work in an MMO with a persistant world. I can only see it as becomming elitist and alienating the player base - or - being fun but not having any real effect on the long term game.
In the latter case it then becomes more like a game of Counter Strike within an MMO than part of the overall MMO experience?
Best instanced PvP by far is in Guild Wars. For those who haven't played GW. It is like WAR's scenarios with more sense and balance in the classes and skills. After talking with a long-time WoW player who was very thrilled about WoW's BGs and arenas, I found out that WoW has been slowly copying GW with its own PvP modes aswell.
After GW it is hard to find any appeal in massive battles where your single character is very insignificant part of the battle and there's not a whiff of tactic involved.
I can't think of any solution to "Zerg" apart from putting a limit to how many players can join the battle.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think you would have to put mechanics in game that decrease the incentive to bunch up. Collission detection for one. But also free targeting like in Tabula Rasa, where you can switch targets easily, meaning it is easier to fight multiple people, also meaning it isn't always good to huddle up in a big group. You could also try friendly fire coupled with free targeting, so you could accidently hurt your teammates if you are not careful.
And to further decrease conffusion in the battlefield, tone down massive bloom battle effects, where you don't see tons of sparkle and glow constantly, partical effects could be more subdued. Unless of course the ability is design to obsure player's vision.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Instanced PvP has been tried in a RvR / PvP MMO. That was PotBS and it is almost a dead game only a year and a bit from launch.
Let's back up a step. Have you never played WOW? Because it seems like the only instanced PVP you've experienced is POTBS which is absolutely not the type of instanced PVP I'm talking about at all.
Arenas. Battlegrounds. These things totally factor zerging out of the equation*.
Poof. Gone. Gameplay's about player skill and tactics now. PVP is enjoyable, serious, and competitive.
Again, if you value immersion more than gameplay you're going to play some niche game which sacrifices gameplay to improve immersion. Other people agree with you, and you'll have them to fight against.
But I get the impression the majority of players mostly just want a fun game where their decisions matter - and instanced PVP goes a long way to helping that be true.
(*as long as the population is capped appropriate to the map size and objective layout.)
There is only one instanced pvp game worth my money besides FPS/RTS and thats Guild Wars.
I'm not gonna pay a monthly sub for something I can get for free elsewhere.
This is why pure instanced pvp MMOs fail left & right unless they have a strong PVE backbone
One thing devs have to realize- PVPers are nothing like PVE'ers. PVPers love to group and wage huge battles. This is why many of us pay a subscription. I dont want to have to pay $15 a month for a portal into a laggy FPS!
For many pvpers, nothing is more fun being able to just decide on a whim they want to roam into a town and take it over. I dont want to have to wait in a line to get into a match? I dont want to have to be stuck looking at same exact terrain? What kind of nonsense is this----
PVE'ers on the other hand are much smarter than tradional instance pvpers. They wont stand for stagnant content. They demand new terrain and maps. Instanced pvpers on other hand are just happy to pwn each other in the same dull terrain everyday. That is not worth a subscription fee in my opinion. That's a ripoff, pure and simple
and why is that fun anyway- just pwning the same noobs over & over??? Thats not immersive. That's a pointless gank. You not changing the world. you not accomplishing anything. Just getting more pointless pixels (loot) and watching epeens get hard as ranks increase on pointless ladders
Originally posted by Gyrus I think the fundamental place we disagree is in that Instanced PvP can 'matter' and still work in an MMO with a persistant world.
Yeah we definitely disagree over what "matters".
PVP matters when players' decisions matter. And players' decisions matter when gameplay isn't overwhelmed by population imbalances and tedious death mechanics. Which necessitates instanced PVP.
I can only see it as becomming elitist and alienating the player base - or - being fun but not having any real effect on the long term game. In the latter case it then becomes more like a game of Counter Strike within an MMO than part of the overall MMO experience?
It's better for gameplay to revolve around whether you were more skilled than whether you were outnumbered. One factor you directly control. One you don't.
So sure it feels elitist. It's competition! But you always have direct control over improving your lot in life (which isn't true in world PVP-centric games.)
It's wrong to assume instanced PVP can't have a connection to a long term game. It's insanely easy to establish that connection actually. If winning WOW battlegrounds gained your faction 1 point, and a "war" was won by attaining 1000 points, suddenly you have a situation where each battle matters in your push to win the war. (and that's the Mindlessly Simple Version. Given more than 20 secs, I could come up with something considerably more interesting.)
It's right to say there's a disconnect from the game world. Sadly it's one of the unavoidable side effects of instanced PVP. But without balanced teams the game won't have meaning, so it's necessary. Nobody would watch a 11-man offensive team in american Football try to take on a 22-man defense team. It'd be boring; pointless.
(EDIT: I'm still sad that editing removes my markup language in the BBML editor.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
... PVP matters when players' decisions matter. And players' decisions matter when gameplay isn't overwhelmed by population imbalances and tedious death mechanics. Which necessitates instanced PVP. Woah there!... big fallacy in your logic there. I'm thinking 'Package deal fallacy'?
Who says that population imbalance and tedious death mechanics can only be solved by instanced gameplay?
I can only see it as becomming elitist and alienating the player base - or - being fun but not having any real effect on the long term game.
In the latter case it then becomes more like a game of Counter Strike within an MMO than part of the overall MMO experience?
It's better for gameplay to revolve around whether you were more skilled than whether you were outnumbered. One factor you directly control. One you don't.
Again, not always true. Read my earlier posts. There are ways to design games where players have the choice of spawning in and knowing that they are likely to be outnumbered or going somewhere else. WWIIoL (as an example) operates an EWS (Early Warning System) which gives players a pretty good idea where heavy concentrations of enemy players are. No instancing there.
So sure it feels elitist. It's competition! But you always have direct control over improving your lot in life (which isn't true in world PVP-centric games.)
Actually, there are articles on this (check the Broken Toys archive). 10% of players tend to dominate PvP all the time.
That's why many of the so-called 'hardcore PvPers' have no stomach when forced to fight one another. Because without the zerg most of them get pwned - all the time.
It's wrong to assume instanced PVP can't have a connection to a long term game. It's insanely easy to establish that connection actually. If winning WOW battlegrounds gained your faction 1 point, and a "war" was won by attaining 1000 points, suddenly you have a situation where each battle matters in your push to win the war. (and that's the Mindlessly Simple Version™. Given more than 20 secs, I could come up with something considerably more interesting.)
Again... WTF? I specifically asked if RvR was involved and you said "No." Now you are changing the terms of reference to suit your argument? You are now discribing an RvR scenario.
It's right to say there's a disconnect from the game world. Sadly it's one of the unavoidable side effects of instanced PVP. But without balanced teams the game won't have meaning, so it's necessary. Nobody would watch a 11-man offensive team in american Football try to take on a 22-man defense team. It'd be boring; pointless.
Yes. It is unavoidable that instanced anything disconnects from the game world. In MMOs this can really make a difference to continued subscriptions which is what many MMOs survive on.
As for your American Football example... I was under the impression that those team do have an Offensive line up and a Defensive line up which they rotate from play to play? Weird. Why not just have one 11 man team that plays for the whole game?
But sport is nothing like MMOs where there is a 24 hour 7 day a week presence. You cannot rely on your 'offensive specialists' all being on line together when you need them.
This is partly where PotBS fell apart. Pre-release I argued with the Fanbois that the instanced Port Battles did NOT guarentee balanced fights or that there would be enough players available to fill all the 'slots'.
The instancing is just a band aid for a design that was not properly thought through from first concept... and not a very good band aid at that.
Originally posted by Gyrus Woah there!... big fallacy in your logic there. I'm thinking 'Package deal fallacy'?
Who says that population imbalance and tedious death mechanics can only be solved by instanced gameplay?
I'm speaking mostly of ways which bring skill to the forefront of a game. (although realistically skill shares the same space as RPG progression mechanics in an MMORPG, so it's not purely about skill.)
You can have population bonuses (my faction has half the population, so I get a +300% damage bonus) but those inevitably make the game feel very arbitrary and unnecessarily gamey. It's a much better solution if population is forcibly balanced (because you'll always win/lose due to skill, instead of sometimes getting instagibbed by a bad player just because your side outnumbered them.)
Again, it's all about establishing a direct correction between the decisions you make in a game, and the outcome. That's at the heart of fun games. When my decisions get lost in a flurry of other mechanics, I start to question why I'm playing the game at all -- because I know the outcome before the fight even starts (much like the 11 vs. 22 Football game.)
Again, not always true. Read my earlier posts. There are ways to design games where players have the choice of spawning in and knowing that they are likely to be outnumbered or going somewhere else. WWIIoL (as an example) operates an EWS (Early Warning System) which gives players a pretty good idea where heavy concentrations of enemy players are. No instancing there.
Zerging is still a pretty big problem in games like that. Or at least it was in Planetside, which shared many similar mechanics.
And I admittedly loved the crap out of Planetside, so your argument cuts deep But it was guiltier than most games of the situation where sometimes I'd log on and my presence simply would not matter due to population imbalances.
Perhaps this is because they didn't listen to my (and other players') pleas for improving low population bonuses, but largely it's the result of the game basically being pure world PVP.
Actually, there are articles on this (check the Broken Toys archive). 10% of players tend to dominate PvP all the time. That's why many of the so-called 'hardcore PvPers' have no stomach when forced to fight one another. Because without the zerg most of them get pwned - all the time.
It doesn't matter if 10% of players dominate PVP (although typically it's described as the 80/20 Rule: 20% of players scoring 80% of the points.)
A game will fall somewhere between the two extremes of pure skill, and no skill. In a game decided purely by skill, you can improve your lot in life...and your decisions matter. In a game devoid of skill, you don't matter - no amount of clever decisionmaking will change the fact that you'll always win exactly 50% of the time.
And I'm not even asking for MMORPGs to be games of pure skill. I'm fine with the progression element which introduces a non-skill factor based on playtime. But the remainder of the game I prefer to have control over.
Again... WTF? I specifically asked if RvR was involved and you said "No." Now you are changing the terms of reference to suit your argument? You are now discribing an RvR scenario.
RVR is a very vague term, so forgive me for associating it with WAR's world PVP. DOAC forced me to play lackluster PVE to get to its RVR, so I never experienced RVR there.
But if "persistant faction warring" is how you define it, then yes...a game can be instanced and still have persistant faction wars. As long as teams are balanced.
POTBS allows population-imbalanced instances (such as late-night fights where only one team is present,) so again it's a terrible example of instanced PVP. It's an extreme rarity for WOW to allow instanced PVP with imbalanced teams (although it can happen if one team simply doesn't accept its queue.)
It is unavoidable that instanced anything disconnects from the game world. In MMOs this can really make a difference to continued subscriptions which is what many MMOs survive on.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but instanced games dominate the marketplace.
As for your American Football example... I was under the impression that those team do have an Offensive line up and a Defensive line up which they rotate from play to play?
Yes, but the point is PVP by nature is useless without some form of population policing. And of the population policing methods, instancing typically results in the best gameplay; the least disadvantages, and the strongest advantages.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you're that confused on the battle field that you're in trouble. Sounds like your team had no plan or leadership so everyone just did their own thing.
In open PvP zergs are going to happen as others have said. Depending on how the mechanics of the game are implemented it maybe worse than others. For example the PvP lakes in WAR were simply an endurance contest, whoever got bored first, lost. Since death was meaningless and you were back in action in mere seconds nobody cared if they walked into certain death. On the other hand, in EvE after you lose your first carrier in battle you may heistate for a minute before jumping into a new one and rushing back into battle since they cost a pretty penny.
I really dislike instanced PvP. It eliminates a lot of strategies that open world PvP allows. In instanced PvP the setup is the same every time, the objective is the same every time, the odds are even, the terrain is the same every time, everybody starts in the same place, every body is around the same skill level and it has little to no impact on the outside game world. This is supposed to be war not checkers!
So people don't like that they're out numbered. Then don't charge into a larger force head on! Change your tactics a little, try to split them up and pick off stragglers. Play cat and mouse games and frustrate them into doing something stupid. Call for backup and even the odds a little. If a battle cannot be won, don't fight it. Deny them the satisfaction of beating you.
I'm sure most people would consider the logistics side of battle to be boring and an inconvience but I think its adds a lot of depth and possibilities. Nobody wants to be the guy who brings ammo from the base to the front lines but when one side runs out of bullets the course of the battle will change fast. Getting a large force from point A to point B can be a hassle while a small group is much more mobile.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
I will never PvP for a single reason, it is too easy to create third party PvP bots. And if someone can afford the bot then they can probably also afford the plat/item farmers. I don't like losing because I refuse to cheat.
I will never PvP for a single reason, it is too easy to create third party PvP bots. And if someone can afford the bot then they can probably also afford the plat/item farmers. I don't like losing because I refuse to cheat.
Comments
No modern game is going to allow players to cast MINUTE long crowd control spells.
Even the makers and majority of players in DAoC complain that Crowd Control is ridiculously long, and thus overpowered.
Also, I've played DAoC for years, and this rarely happens. What you probably remember isn't crowd control against 4+ full groups, but the group defeating one group at a time (using crowd contrl), as they feed themselves directly after the previous group was already killed.
I HAVE seen that a lot. One group fights another, and defeats it. That moment, another comes, and they beat that group too. Then two more come, and they beat those. Then another comes, and they beat that one. It's 1v1 several times, but NEVER 1v4 groups at once.
DAoC is rarely that cool. 90% of fights are lame, and 90% of playtime is roaming around without any action.
The other 9% aren't fights, but whoever hits a crowd control spell on the other first.
No doubt, DAoC can have some of the most amazing, fun, spectacular PvP fights in the history of gaming... but 99% of the time it's the exact opposite- the stupidest, lamest, most unbalanced, boring piece of crap in the history of gaming.
ZzzZzZzz... You've been hit by Captivating Lulliby for 3 minutes!
You are Dead.
I think the most recent solution to "The Zerg" was called the machine gun.
Of course that lead to Trench warfare. Which then lead to the creation of Tanks.
Which lead to the re-emergence of cavalry type tactics.
Zerg is only a problem wen Quanity > Quality.
If you made Quality > Quantity, it still exist, but stop behind a problem.
actually wow pvp is what turned a lot of players off to pvp......
I think if players work together to orgonize a way to defeat the Zerg it can be stopped.
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
actually wow pvp is what turned a lot of players off to pvp......
If you divide players into three rough groups of PvP centred, PvE centred, and 50/50 then the lack of any real sense of gain or loss will put PvP-centric players off battleground-style PvP. However the same lack of meaningful loss is what would make the game more appealing to the 50/50 segment. A workable compromise might be if the battlegrounds decided factional gain or loss i.e winning and losing actual regions of the game map bringing you one step closer to the enemy capital.
Say you had a map split into regions like Risk or Shogun : Total war and the regions were like EQ zones. Say the regions on RvR borders were "live" regions and open for PvP during the week - the usual thing. There'd be a point score tallied over the week for kills/objectives whatever.
Come saturday evening maybe the points scored over the week decide who's going to be the attacker/defender or maybe the game decides that based on other reasons and whoever got the most points over the week gets 100 added to their score for the coming contest which involves a bunch of instanced battles where the first side to 500 wins the region for their realm.
To answer your points specifically it doesn't have to be one big instance: the game could have multiple maps for each region e.g an 80v80 map, a 48v48, a 24v24, a 12v12 and the players could be divided into tiers and the game would allocate the players to the maps and each win would give 12, 24, 48, 80 points to your realms total. So when the game first opens the first saturday region-changing battle might have 5 separate 80v80 instances all tier 1 while after a few months there might be 3 x 80v80 Tier 4 battles and one 48v48 each for teirs 1, 2 and 3 with the points for winning each battle added up.
The main advantage I can see from something like this is not only guaranteeing players big battles but also battles that have consequences in the world.
(This is bit off the topic of making large scale PvP less of a zerg but semi-related imo).
IMO, this is a great idea.
Problem solved.
1) Adding "Machine Guns" to defeat clunking, forcing players to solo or squad up and spread out.
2) Adding Defenses
3) Adding Vehicles- that would be VERY fun!
You could do this via a WW2 / Modern MMO, or just fantasy and make the machine gun "Magic" and have fantasy vehicles.
You could even combine FPS, RPG, and RTS to make an MMORPG that has a lot of cool things.
If the idea of WoW's PvP didn't repulse you, imagine this...
Warsong gulch, everything is the same but.... one player gets to be a "Magician" who is limited where he can go, but spams AoE blasts like a Machine Gun. Tanks are good against focusing fire on themselves with a healer, while everyone else has to spread out and defeat him vs the enemy. Requires tactics to overcome.
or
A big fat orcish tank (like fantasy or 40k warhammer) pounds through the middleground of Warsong gulch, and players can get inside the vehicle as different weapons. The game acts the same as a normal MMO (WoW) but has tons more armor and hp, and it's a vehicle. AoE zerg killer. Dont group up!!! Fun Fun!
or
Bunkers or Defenses. Dont zerg up, because if you do the enemy will just form up in defense at a bunker and destroy you, or get on the defenses and AoE your group. Best to have someone distract them as another group sneaks around. No more zerging though. By the time group #2 gets to the group sneaking around, the fight is already over and it's time for another 1v1 Full Group instead of 1v2 unbalanced Groups.
IMO, it would be awesome to make a game that plays with the polish and MMORPG of WoW, but make it cartoon WW2, lol. Tanks, Halftrack, MG, Mortar, but they play like a Paladin, Warrior, Warlock, Mage. Hahahaha...
But really, there are solutions to Zerging, tons of them. IRL solutions are great ways to start, and it's so easy to explain, "Magic."
I have a real simple solution to zerging.
Impose a stiff death penalty.
If they start losing xp every time they die, the zerging will stop.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
In a game that is designed to be "massive" as most MMOs are, you cannot avoid having a "zerg" without some kind of instancing. Games that are designed around large numbers of people playing at once simply cannot avoid having a large pack of people running around in PvP.
The other trouble is most MMOs reward time in game with levels/abilities/gear. The game will automatically get stratified into the haves and the have nots. That leaves the "have nots" with a choice. Get repeatedly farmed or find a group big enough to compensate for the gap in levels/abilities/gear between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Truthfully I have not met too many MMO gamers that are really looking for good fights. What most really want is to get set up and have their enemies charge at them like extras in a Bruce Lee movie; preferably one at a time or in a small enough group that they can be killed. Somewhere out there is the magical number that represents the tipping point where there are too many attackers for the "hero'" to handle and that number is denoted by the word "Zerg". To someone who is solo, 4 enemies could be a zerg.
In the final analysis, be careful what you wish for. The Dark Age community tore itself appart along the lines of "8 Mans" and "Zergers". Eventually the "zergers" left and now the game can barely muster 3500 players at prime time. The game is so close to implosion that Mythic is merging all the servers and resorting to desparate measures to try and lure players back to the game. Once the "zergers" leave the game, there really isn't an MMO anymore since there isn't a population that can sustain the game without the "zergers". Then again no one is exactly sure who is a "zerger" just like no one is exactly sure what a "zerg" really is.
All in all, the oldest and most successful military tactic in human history is "firstest with the mostest." To expect people not to use it is unrealistic.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
Bring some terrans.. they are good against zergs
If you watch The Karate Kid backwards it's about this karate champ that just kinda slowly becomes a pussy and ends up moving back to Jersey
I thought the same thing when I saw this thread title. I figured it would be about what weapons would be the best against the zerg and stuff like that.
^^^ This is correct. MMO gamers are usually like children. Blame Star Wars and crap like that where you see Luke skywalker flying around by himself blowing up death stars. Real life don't work this way kids!
I also blame FPS games where you see nice even 20 vs 20 sides. So they got newbies thinking this is how real wars are fought.
Nope, in real life most of the time you will be outnumbered or you will outnumber the opposition. In situation #1, you do hit-and-run tactics. In Situation #2, your strategy is to blockade the enemy in and kill them.
Most MMOs have such stank pvp though you rarely see advanced tactics like this emerge. This is one area EVE online surpasses all the kiddie MMOs out there. We blockade our enemies all the time and it is great fun watching them suffer and their only escape is die, die, and die more
No.
Let's back up a step. Have you never played WOW? Because it seems like the only instanced PVP you've experienced is POTBS which is absolutely not the type of instanced PVP I'm talking about at all.
Arenas. Battlegrounds. These things totally factor zerging out of the equation*.
Poof. Gone. Gameplay's about player skill and tactics now. PVP is enjoyable, serious, and competitive.
Again, if you value immersion more than gameplay you're going to play some niche game which sacrifices gameplay to improve immersion. Other people agree with you, and you'll have them to fight against.
But I get the impression the majority of players mostly just want a fun game where their decisions matter - and instanced PVP goes a long way to helping that be true.
(*as long as the population is capped appropriate to the map size and objective layout.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No.
Okay, then instanced PvP might work. PvP without any real consequence. I call that 'dueling' myself.
Let's back up a step. Have you never played WOW? Because it seems like the only instanced PVP you've experienced is POTBS which is absolutely not the type of instanced PVP I'm talking about at all.
Arenas. Battlegrounds. These things totally factor zerging out of the equation*.
Poof. Gone. Gameplay's about player skill and tactics now. PVP is enjoyable, serious, and competitive.
I have played WoW but never got into the PvP. It just wasn't really my thing (WoW I mean). I liked it... just not enough to subscribe. What you describe sounds more like a Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2 game. Fun, but with no real consequence. FWIW I am a long time WWIIoL subscriber.
Again, if you value immersion more than gameplay you're going to play some niche game which sacrifices gameplay to improve immersion. Other people agree with you, and you'll have them to fight against.
But I get the impression the majority of players mostly just want a fun game where their decisions matter - and instanced PVP goes a long way to helping that be true.
(*as long as the population is capped appropriate to the map size and objective layout.)
I think the fundamental place we disagree is in that Instanced PvP can 'matter' and still work in an MMO with a persistant world. I can only see it as becomming elitist and alienating the player base - or - being fun but not having any real effect on the long term game.
In the latter case it then becomes more like a game of Counter Strike within an MMO than part of the overall MMO experience?
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
Best instanced PvP by far is in Guild Wars. For those who haven't played GW. It is like WAR's scenarios with more sense and balance in the classes and skills. After talking with a long-time WoW player who was very thrilled about WoW's BGs and arenas, I found out that WoW has been slowly copying GW with its own PvP modes aswell.
After GW it is hard to find any appeal in massive battles where your single character is very insignificant part of the battle and there's not a whiff of tactic involved.
I can't think of any solution to "Zerg" apart from putting a limit to how many players can join the battle.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think you would have to put mechanics in game that decrease the incentive to bunch up. Collission detection for one. But also free targeting like in Tabula Rasa, where you can switch targets easily, meaning it is easier to fight multiple people, also meaning it isn't always good to huddle up in a big group. You could also try friendly fire coupled with free targeting, so you could accidently hurt your teammates if you are not careful.
And to further decrease conffusion in the battlefield, tone down massive bloom battle effects, where you don't see tons of sparkle and glow constantly, partical effects could be more subdued. Unless of course the ability is design to obsure player's vision.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
No.
Let's back up a step. Have you never played WOW? Because it seems like the only instanced PVP you've experienced is POTBS which is absolutely not the type of instanced PVP I'm talking about at all.
Arenas. Battlegrounds. These things totally factor zerging out of the equation*.
Poof. Gone. Gameplay's about player skill and tactics now. PVP is enjoyable, serious, and competitive.
Again, if you value immersion more than gameplay you're going to play some niche game which sacrifices gameplay to improve immersion. Other people agree with you, and you'll have them to fight against.
But I get the impression the majority of players mostly just want a fun game where their decisions matter - and instanced PVP goes a long way to helping that be true.
(*as long as the population is capped appropriate to the map size and objective layout.)
There is only one instanced pvp game worth my money besides FPS/RTS and thats Guild Wars.
I'm not gonna pay a monthly sub for something I can get for free elsewhere.
This is why pure instanced pvp MMOs fail left & right unless they have a strong PVE backbone
One thing devs have to realize- PVPers are nothing like PVE'ers. PVPers love to group and wage huge battles. This is why many of us pay a subscription. I dont want to have to pay $15 a month for a portal into a laggy FPS!
For many pvpers, nothing is more fun being able to just decide on a whim they want to roam into a town and take it over. I dont want to have to wait in a line to get into a match? I dont want to have to be stuck looking at same exact terrain? What kind of nonsense is this----
PVE'ers on the other hand are much smarter than tradional instance pvpers. They wont stand for stagnant content. They demand new terrain and maps. Instanced pvpers on other hand are just happy to pwn each other in the same dull terrain everyday. That is not worth a subscription fee in my opinion. That's a ripoff, pure and simple
and why is that fun anyway- just pwning the same noobs over & over??? Thats not immersive. That's a pointless gank. You not changing the world. you not accomplishing anything. Just getting more pointless pixels (loot) and watching epeens get hard as ranks increase on pointless ladders
Yeah we definitely disagree over what "matters".
PVP matters when players' decisions matter. And players' decisions matter when gameplay isn't overwhelmed by population imbalances and tedious death mechanics. Which necessitates instanced PVP.
It's better for gameplay to revolve around whether you were more skilled than whether you were outnumbered. One factor you directly control. One you don't.
So sure it feels elitist. It's competition! But you always have direct control over improving your lot in life (which isn't true in world PVP-centric games.)
It's wrong to assume instanced PVP can't have a connection to a long term game. It's insanely easy to establish that connection actually. If winning WOW battlegrounds gained your faction 1 point, and a "war" was won by attaining 1000 points, suddenly you have a situation where each battle matters in your push to win the war. (and that's the Mindlessly Simple Version. Given more than 20 secs, I could come up with something considerably more interesting.)
It's right to say there's a disconnect from the game world. Sadly it's one of the unavoidable side effects of instanced PVP. But without balanced teams the game won't have meaning, so it's necessary. Nobody would watch a 11-man offensive team in american Football try to take on a 22-man defense team. It'd be boring; pointless.
(EDIT: I'm still sad that editing removes my markup language in the BBML editor.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's better for gameplay to revolve around whether you were more skilled than whether you were outnumbered. One factor you directly control. One you don't.
Again, not always true. Read my earlier posts. There are ways to design games where players have the choice of spawning in and knowing that they are likely to be outnumbered or going somewhere else. WWIIoL (as an example) operates an EWS (Early Warning System) which gives players a pretty good idea where heavy concentrations of enemy players are. No instancing there.
So sure it feels elitist. It's competition! But you always have direct control over improving your lot in life (which isn't true in world PVP-centric games.)
Actually, there are articles on this (check the Broken Toys archive). 10% of players tend to dominate PvP all the time.
That's why many of the so-called 'hardcore PvPers' have no stomach when forced to fight one another. Because without the zerg most of them get pwned - all the time.
It's wrong to assume instanced PVP can't have a connection to a long term game. It's insanely easy to establish that connection actually. If winning WOW battlegrounds gained your faction 1 point, and a "war" was won by attaining 1000 points, suddenly you have a situation where each battle matters in your push to win the war. (and that's the Mindlessly Simple Version™. Given more than 20 secs, I could come up with something considerably more interesting.)
Again... WTF? I specifically asked if RvR was involved and you said "No." Now you are changing the terms of reference to suit your argument? You are now discribing an RvR scenario.
It's right to say there's a disconnect from the game world. Sadly it's one of the unavoidable side effects of instanced PVP. But without balanced teams the game won't have meaning, so it's necessary. Nobody would watch a 11-man offensive team in american Football try to take on a 22-man defense team. It'd be boring; pointless.
Yes. It is unavoidable that instanced anything disconnects from the game world. In MMOs this can really make a difference to continued subscriptions which is what many MMOs survive on.
As for your American Football example... I was under the impression that those team do have an Offensive line up and a Defensive line up which they rotate from play to play? Weird. Why not just have one 11 man team that plays for the whole game?
But sport is nothing like MMOs where there is a 24 hour 7 day a week presence. You cannot rely on your 'offensive specialists' all being on line together when you need them.
This is partly where PotBS fell apart. Pre-release I argued with the Fanbois that the instanced Port Battles did NOT guarentee balanced fights or that there would be enough players available to fill all the 'slots'.
The instancing is just a band aid for a design that was not properly thought through from first concept... and not a very good band aid at that.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I'm speaking mostly of ways which bring skill to the forefront of a game. (although realistically skill shares the same space as RPG progression mechanics in an MMORPG, so it's not purely about skill.)
You can have population bonuses (my faction has half the population, so I get a +300% damage bonus) but those inevitably make the game feel very arbitrary and unnecessarily gamey. It's a much better solution if population is forcibly balanced (because you'll always win/lose due to skill, instead of sometimes getting instagibbed by a bad player just because your side outnumbered them.)
Again, it's all about establishing a direct correction between the decisions you make in a game, and the outcome. That's at the heart of fun games. When my decisions get lost in a flurry of other mechanics, I start to question why I'm playing the game at all -- because I know the outcome before the fight even starts (much like the 11 vs. 22 Football game.)
Zerging is still a pretty big problem in games like that. Or at least it was in Planetside, which shared many similar mechanics.
And I admittedly loved the crap out of Planetside, so your argument cuts deep
But it was guiltier than most games of the situation where sometimes I'd log on and my presence simply would not matter due to population imbalances.
Perhaps this is because they didn't listen to my (and other players') pleas for improving low population bonuses, but largely it's the result of the game basically being pure world PVP.
It doesn't matter if 10% of players dominate PVP (although typically it's described as the 80/20 Rule: 20% of players scoring 80% of the points.)
A game will fall somewhere between the two extremes of pure skill, and no skill. In a game decided purely by skill, you can improve your lot in life...and your decisions matter. In a game devoid of skill, you don't matter - no amount of clever decisionmaking will change the fact that you'll always win exactly 50% of the time.
And I'm not even asking for MMORPGs to be games of pure skill. I'm fine with the progression element which introduces a non-skill factor based on playtime. But the remainder of the game I prefer to have control over.
RVR is a very vague term, so forgive me for associating it with WAR's world PVP. DOAC forced me to play lackluster PVE to get to its RVR, so I never experienced RVR there.
But if "persistant faction warring" is how you define it, then yes...a game can be instanced and still have persistant faction wars. As long as teams are balanced.
POTBS allows population-imbalanced instances (such as late-night fights where only one team is present,) so again it's a terrible example of instanced PVP. It's an extreme rarity for WOW to allow instanced PVP with imbalanced teams (although it can happen if one team simply doesn't accept its queue.)
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but instanced games dominate the marketplace.
Yes, but the point is PVP by nature is useless without some form of population policing. And of the population policing methods, instancing typically results in the best gameplay; the least disadvantages, and the strongest advantages.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you're that confused on the battle field that you're in trouble. Sounds like your team had no plan or leadership so everyone just did their own thing.
In open PvP zergs are going to happen as others have said. Depending on how the mechanics of the game are implemented it maybe worse than others. For example the PvP lakes in WAR were simply an endurance contest, whoever got bored first, lost. Since death was meaningless and you were back in action in mere seconds nobody cared if they walked into certain death. On the other hand, in EvE after you lose your first carrier in battle you may heistate for a minute before jumping into a new one and rushing back into battle since they cost a pretty penny.
I really dislike instanced PvP. It eliminates a lot of strategies that open world PvP allows. In instanced PvP the setup is the same every time, the objective is the same every time, the odds are even, the terrain is the same every time, everybody starts in the same place, every body is around the same skill level and it has little to no impact on the outside game world. This is supposed to be war not checkers!
So people don't like that they're out numbered. Then don't charge into a larger force head on! Change your tactics a little, try to split them up and pick off stragglers. Play cat and mouse games and frustrate them into doing something stupid. Call for backup and even the odds a little. If a battle cannot be won, don't fight it. Deny them the satisfaction of beating you.
I'm sure most people would consider the logistics side of battle to be boring and an inconvience but I think its adds a lot of depth and possibilities. Nobody wants to be the guy who brings ammo from the base to the front lines but when one side runs out of bullets the course of the battle will change fast. Getting a large force from point A to point B can be a hassle while a small group is much more mobile.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
When I play Fifa, NHL or other sports games I appreciate if the numbers are even
When I play MMOs I really dont care as long as the "Zerg" doesn't completely ruin the playability.
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan
I will never PvP for a single reason, it is too easy to create third party PvP bots. And if someone can afford the bot then they can probably also afford the plat/item farmers. I don't like losing because I refuse to cheat.
.......what are you talking about?