What about Zerg mechanics?

I think it’s essential to have some kind of anti-Zerg strategies, redundancies, and player protection systems. The game should naturally push players toward forming guilds or alliances, but I always wonder—what happens when you’re stuck in an uneven fight? A 3 vs 6 or 2 vs 4 situation? Even when both sides are equal in gear and abilities, the larger group always seems to have the upper hand, mostly because they can rotate more cooldowns and abilities. That’s frustrating.

Focus fire reduction or disarray debuffs, like what Albion Online does, would really help. I hate it when a big group just gang up on one player and burn them down instantly. There should be diminishing damage if multiple players focus on one target, to make sure it’s more about skill and less about numbers. In fact, larger groups should be penalised for their size with a debuff that makes it harder for them to just steamroll smaller, well-coordinated teams.

On top of that, dynamic scaling should be a thing. If you’re outnumbered, you should get some kind of stat boost or temporary buffs to keep the fight balanced. I’d even like to see the environment play a role, like certain areas of the map offering advantages to smaller teams to even the odds.

Lastly, guilds and alliances should have ways to counter large group domination, like emergency summoning mechanics or group buffs that help during a skirmish when you’re at a disadvantage. It just makes the gameplay so much more strategic and fun, instead of being a numbers game all the time.

I also think we need to factor in the fact that not everyone is going to have a healer or off-heal class available at all times. Honestly, treat your healers right—they’re crucial, and not every fight is going to have that luxury.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kilion

Pendragxn wrote: »

You mentioned how the AoE mechanics of bosses, like Firebrand, tend to target the largest group, or in the case of the lightning system (which I’m still a bit unsure about), it also targets larger groups. But what happens when you have a large group that's split into multiple parties or smaller, more tactical groups? Kind of like a guerrilla warfare style where they approach a raid boss from different angles or directions. How would the targeting mechanics handle a coordinated effort coming from separate positions?

If a large group manages to (1) farm enough resources, (2) produce enough gear and (3) manages to coordinate that higher amount of players to the point that they can mitigate all the risks and downsides of being a large group, then they 100% earned the to overpower others.

If that were not the case that would mean that raids in PvE are also "unfair" because more players "have an easier time" taking down a world boss than a group of 8.

IMO going against this principle would be to make the biggest mistake an MMORPG can make: PUNISH highly social gameplay.

Pendragxn wrote: »

Also, in my view, there's a noticeable difference between individual player skill and large group coordination. Sure, anyone can pull together a specific class composition or meta roster for certain content or scenarios. However what's stopping groups from just overwhelming others purely because they have more cooldowns available to them? This makes things a bit unfair for players who are outnumbered. And this isn't just about large groups or zergs—I’m also thinking about medium-sized or smaller tactical groups who rely more on coordination and skill than brute force or sheer numbers.

Individual player skill really boils down to the gameplay mechanics and skills available to that person. This includes having defensives, skill rotations, and dynamic play to counter multiple attackers when outnumbered.

See the issue here is that the core focus of Ashes of Creation is NOT individual player skill - its group game play. It's as simple as that. The better your group gameplay they better you are going to be at overcoming the challenges in Ashes of Creation. If someone does not like that, that doesn't mean Intrepid has to change, it means those people have to look at a different game that focuses on what these players want. Intrepid never said or indicated anything different from "Ashes of Creation is going to be a MMORPG that focuses on group game play." They informed us that there is still plenty of stuff to do with less social interaction, less group game play, but it has been clear at all times that more players would be able to organise to achieve more things.

Better group gameplay = Better at playing Ashes

And "better group gameplay" is not just throwing more players at the same problem.

murdergroupie

Voeltz wrote: »

Things that will help against zergs (some of this is already planned):
(...snip)
6. Level design that restricts large amounts of players with choke points like bridges, tunnels, doorways, gates, narrow cliff pathways, etc.
7. Player collision
8. Limited fast travel
(snip...)
Everything else should be skill, strategy, and social based. If you're struggling against a larger group than yours, figure out a way to outplay them, recruit more players to your side or form alliances. Keep in mind leaving the area or giving up a certain objective is also a valid strategy and is sometimes the reality of being apart of a small guild. There will be times when you're outnumbered 2 to 1, 3 to 1, whatever it is and there's nothing you can do, but there's nothing wrong with that. What's important is that the game has plenty of limitations on zergs and presents you with options to compete or get around them.

I especially like your pts 6, 7, 8!

Player collision combined with physical terrain options on a map can go a long way to neutralizing advantages of a large group, getting them to make bad decisions.

I also like your point about making good decisions within your own group: Knowing when not to fight, knowing where to fight and where not to fight, playing to your strengths, using scouts to give yourself advance warning.

I would say that if given enough warning, then there should be means of escape or evasion.

All told though, like you say, sometimes you're just going to get murdered. On the other hand, sometimes you'll be in on the murdering!

Open world, lawless PvP rules!

xoxo

Arya_Yeshe

To me, an AoE should be like this:
-if that ability deals 1000 damage then it would split the damage between the targets, if its a spell that damages up to 5 thargets then each target takes 200 dmg

There could still be AoE that deals maximum damage for all the targets in that area, but probably use very small areas for example an AoE dealt by scythe (melee weapon)

Anyway, it's not hard being creative, it's just that the devs of the past were just too lazy

how hard is that?
this would force the casters to call their targets better and focus fire on relevant targets instead of just spamming

Pendragxn

I prefer AOE (Area of Effect) escalation, where the damage increases based on the number of targets hit, functioning like a multiplier. This discourages players from clumping together and forces them to be more mindful of their surroundings. It would break up large, chaotic Zerg fights into smaller, more organized skirmishes. As long as there’s an adequate wind-up time and casting period, it would resemble the impact of a meteorite, smiting a group of enemies off the face of the earth.

Alternatively, certain AOE abilities could be designed to deal significantly more damage, acting as a "big spell" that players save for special occasions. These powerful AOE spells would add a strategic element to gameplay, where players must decide the best moment to unleash them for maximum impact. This approach would add layers of tactical depth, ensuring these abilities feel impactful and rewarding when used at the right time.

Caeryl

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

To me, an AoE should be like this:
-if that ability deals 1000 damage then it would split the damage between the targets, if its a spell that damages up to 5 thargets then each target takes 200 dmg

There could still be AoE that deals maximum damage for all the targets in that area, but probably use very small areas for example an AoE dealt by scythe (melee weapon)

Anyway, it's not hard being creative, it's just that the devs of the past were just too lazy

how hard is that?
this would force the casters to call their targets better and focus fire on relevant targets instead of just spamming

That's a zerg-enabler so hard no. AoEs should excel when used on massive groups.

Arya_Yeshe

Caeryl wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

To me, an AoE should be like this:
-if that ability deals 1000 damage then it would split the damage between the targets, if its a spell that damages up to 5 thargets then each target takes 200 dmg

There could still be AoE that deals maximum damage for all the targets in that area, but probably use very small areas for example an AoE dealt by scythe (melee weapon)

Anyway, it's not hard being creative, it's just that the devs of the past were just too lazy

how hard is that?
this would force the casters to call their targets better and focus fire on relevant targets instead of just spamming

That's a zerg-enabler so hard no. AoEs should excel when used on massive groups.

so you think the zerg won't be spamming 5x more AoE? think again

Laetitian

Arya, you really need to stop having this discussion in every AoE thread. You play EVE. You don't get AoE. You've been run through this too often to speak so confidently on the issue.
(I'm being tongue-in-cheek, the point is I don't find your arguments very convincing on this subject.)

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

so you think the zerg won't be spamming 5x more AoE?

The non-zerg is less prone to standing in them as a group.

There is no game where zergs win harder because their AoEs are effective against a larger group of people. That's the absolute opposite of what happens.
There's an argument for making support AoEs less effective as the number of affected allies increases. That makes perfect sense. It's not always the right solution to counter zergs (max caps on each recipient of AoE support skills might be more appropriate, so there's a minimum amount of healers on the battlefield necessary (or all of them casting the same spell at the same time) before their heal efficiency declines), but at least it makes sense.

For hostile AoEs, this logic reverses.

If you split your AoE damage onto 10 targets against the zerg, while the zerg's damage gets split onto 5 damage against your group, your group is the one taking twice the damage per target per cast. So each target is closer to death twice as quickly. Even though you only had half the amount of targets clumped together.
You're actively punishing the non-zerg for having fewer numbers, and for being less clumped together. Your maths don't add up.

The only way that your design option would slow down a zerg would be if you'd literally keep the original numbers from the static AoE design, and directly use them in your split-damage ability.
That wouldn't be an AoE ability. That would be a single target ability that becomes worthless if there are more than a few targets within it...which is the opposite of what an AoE, especially one with a larger radius, exists for? At that point just don't make AoE abilities. That has nothing to do with zergs, that's just you saying you don't like AoEs.

Alsoalsoalso. You're making gameplay even more braindead for the zerg by making their AoE abilities viable for single target combat, taking away yet another decision-making component necessary for efficient resource management. Because they can just spam the same abilities on everyone, and if they're fighting a large group, it'll be useful because they're spamming their AoEs together, and if it's a single enemy, it'll still be useful, because each of their abilities will deal more damage.

There are much more essential questions that Pendragxn still hasn't addressed. Like the significance of "skill" in specific group size A vs. group size B contexts, as laid out in my initial comments.
Without answering these questions, the fundamental demand of this thread ("Skilled players should be able to beat zergs") is meaningless.
We should be focusing on those.

Caeryl

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

To me, an AoE should be like this:
-if that ability deals 1000 damage then it would split the damage between the targets, if its a spell that damages up to 5 thargets then each target takes 200 dmg

There could still be AoE that deals maximum damage for all the targets in that area, but probably use very small areas for example an AoE dealt by scythe (melee weapon)

Anyway, it's not hard being creative, it's just that the devs of the past were just too lazy

how hard is that?
this would force the casters to call their targets better and focus fire on relevant targets instead of just spamming

That's a zerg-enabler so hard no. AoEs should excel when used on massive groups.

so you think the zerg won't be spamming 5x more AoE? think again

It's less effective for a zerg to use AoEs on a smaller group than it is for smaller groups to use AoE on a zerg. In your world, the zerg's AoE would be more effective than the smaller group's, which is backwards and nonsensical.

Pendragxn

In open-world PvP, group size heavily influences the impact of skill. A 60-player group holds a clear advantage over a 30-player group due to the ability to rotate crowd control (CC) abilities, healers to reset damage, and blanket the battlefield with AoE attacks. The larger group can effectively cycle through abilities, while the smaller group struggles to finish off targets due to healing and outnumbered cooldowns.

When facing two separate 30-player groups that cooperate without penalties (e.g., guild bonuses), the smaller group is disadvantaged, as these two allied groups avoid the drawbacks of being a single 60-player force.

To balance this, mechanics like focus fire mitigation, passive damage reduction for outnumbered players, or friendly fire could be implemented. These mechanics would allow smaller groups to better survive and showcase individual skill, making 1v2 or 1v3 engagements more feasible for skilled players.

Ultimately, while larger numbers provide an inherent advantage in terms of cooldowns, AoE, and healing, certain mechanics can mitigate this, enabling smaller groups to compete more effectively. Friendly fire could also add a layer of strategic caution for larger groups.

Again, this only accounts for open world PvP, not instanced content. In instanced scenarios, where players sign up for battles, I assume the sign-up process would require players to be in the same alliance or organized group. In that case, there would likely be some form of penalties or balancing mechanics applied to larger groups, ensuring they don’t have an overwhelming advantage purely due to their numbers. This would help level the playing field, unlike in open world PvP, where such balancing mechanisms might not be as strict or effective.

Again, I feel like the common response might be, "just recruit more players," but that’s not always the solution. Many players tend to gravitate toward larger groups, seeking recognition or a sense of belonging. However, these players often aren't part of the core group—they're just being used as a means to an end, working for these massive alliances without truly being involved.

Personally, I've always preferred to play in underdog guilds for two main reasons: first, I enjoy the challenge of fighting against the so-called strongest players, and second, I dislike the idea that overwhelming people with numbers makes them better players or more skilled at their roles. To me, numbers don’t equal skill.

Again, this is just my opinion, and I respect that everyone has their own perspectives or experiences in these situations. Take it as you will!

nanfoodle

Here's the thing I've been doing large-scale PVP battles since Dark Age of Camelot. This is 100% on a Intrepid Studio. You give players the tools to deal with zergs. Players will use them and will counter that playstyle. We used to take on groups four times our size and consistently win.

Laetitian

I appreciate it! 60-to-30 is a hypothetical I can work with.
Not so outnumbered that wanting a chance to win would be outrageously arrogant/entitled, but too outnumbered to have any realistic chance at winning, if the enemies put up some amount of coordinated effort, and the underdogs don't have massively superior gear.

I will say right away:
- If it was 45 against 60 instead, I wouldn't want those 45 to get any buffs. There we're talking about a level of imbalance that proud, skilled players should either be able to overcome through strategic and mechanical superiority, or they should accept the consequences of being 15 people less, if they can't manage to get that win.
- (For context, 45v60 is the same ratio as 30vs39).

With this general scale in mind, I think the sum of the balance buffs we'd want to consider here should be somewhere in the effective 10-20% boost range, and not exceed this total effectiveness regardless of how they are implemented or split up into various bonusses (so if you get a damage mitigation bonus of 20% at a massive numbers disadvantage, you shouldn't also get a damage increase.)

They should scale with the number of opponents and opponents' allies you're surrounded or attacked by, and the bottom end of the buff shouldn't start before your enemies have roughly a 30% numbers advantage (taking average player level on each side into account)

What do you think about my rationale for this distinction between 30v60 and 45v60?

- And for the group of 30 I also think it's important to say that already:
If they are mechanically superior, and they get a strong ambush, and the 60 aren't very careful or well-equipped;
the 30 still have a semi-decent chance of being successful.
Part of the disadvantage of being a zerg is that it's easy to be inefficient. Throw the same 10 heals on the same warrior that's already running away, and you'll have fewer heals ready for the opponent's rush. Multiply the effect of that by every defensive ablity used by a player the enemy won't focus first, and every high burst ability cast on an enemy that was already going to die.

All of which is to say: 60 and 30 is a solid advantage, but it's not yet easy-mode. Be a little careless, and the enemy can absolutely turn your false sense of security into their advantage.
And that's something a group of 30 who prides itself as strong underdogs should excel at.

Pendragxn wrote:

To balance this, mechanics like focus fire mitigation, passive damage reduction for outnumbered players, or friendly fire could be implemented.

I'm in favour of *some* of these measures, if their balance is very carefully considered. You'll understand why it's so important to me, if you keep reading for a few paragraphs.

I don't know what to think about focus fire mitigation. It sounds lazy. Focus fire isn't some sort of free advantage for the enemy. If the enemy calls out two groups to each focus a single player - those groups are doing nothing but focus those 2 players. That leaves everyone else in your group to rush and reposition.

So you bait out the enemy's attention a few times, then you send 2 bait units to eat some critical cooldowns, and rush the opponent. The opponent might have some mages reserved for crowd control specifically to account for those eventualities. But that's what you have to recognise and take care of in advance, by suppressing those units with archer fire and silences at the right time,

That is what I consider skill. Identifying what your enemy is doing, calling out the weak spots (in this example their focus-fire tunnelvision, and their AoE mages to suppress and silence) and outmaneuvering their strategy.
In my 45v60 scenario, these few precise sources of skill expression would easily suffice for a group of individually and coordinatedly skilled underdogs to take out an outnumbering force. It might even be close to be enough for a 30v60.

(Please don't just stoop to calling this idealised and naive. Obviously this exact description is simplified, and the individual players will have to make these decisions smoothly, with some successes and some failures.
But I've seen these sort of 45v60 and 30v60 engagements often enough to guarantee you that this is exactly how it works out when one side is relying on its zerg advantage too much, or when the underdogs are particularly skilled players - usually, but not always, also bolstered by some amount of gear advantage, which they've also earned through their superior player skill...)

And that's why I dislike it when the game artificially dictates a right or wrong (such as discouraged focus fire in a zerg) way to play. Because now the game is telling players that focus fire beyond a certain number is objectively wrong, so they won't make that mistake for you to exploit. Now everyone in the zerg just plays for themselves, and you'll ultimately have fewer flaws in your opponent's gameplay to punish.
Not because they're playing better, but because everyone's options are so limited that everyone automatically ends up playing the same way; Including you.

You're also, critically, taking out one tool from the toolbox of the underdog by weakening their access to coordinated focus fire, too, since it would most likely be determined by a flat value of concurrent attackers.

So if focus fire mitigation would be the balance tool of choice, it would have to be thoroughly thought out, in a way that doesn't intrinsically make focus fire something armies avoid, and also in a way that
It also can't have any loopholes like DoTs, because then it just becomes an armsrace for zergs to ignore the countermeasures best, which defeats the purpose of the mechanic.

In summary, I think out of your suggestions, passive damage reduction scaling from 1% to 20% as your local enemy numbers advantage increases from 30% (=30vs39) to 100% (=30vs60) sounds best.
Additionally AoE effectiveness increases for particularly lazy clumping (Shouldn't exceed a certain level though, so you can't just two-shot a ton of people during large events where clumping is unavoidable.)

The best way to determine surrounding opponents would yet have to be considered, and would leave some room for exploits, but I think it could work as something like
"Ratio of [Number of players in the largest local group of players, of whom at least one has whose direct allies have fought the player character's node allies, guild members, or raid members, within the last 5 minutes, and who are not currently allied with the player]
compared to
[Number of players currently allied with the player.]"

If no such formula can be found that doesn't leave room for exploits, it might have to be a system that applies only on major objectives where an official allegiance is declared.
I do think it should be possible to determine enemies in the open world in a way that doesn't allow people to switch sides spontaneously though.

One important thing to keep track of will be multi-side battles. Just because there are two 30 man enemy groups shouldn't mean you get damage mitigation against them, if they're also enemies with each other.
Or perhaps that would even be fine; could help to reduce the passive third-party's advantage.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think it's probably better just to group all hostiles together regardless of whether they're also hostile with each other. If everyone's hostile against everyone, it's fine if everyone gets the full outnumbered bonus. That makes it a lot easier to avoid exploits through intentionally attacking inofficial allies.
Whereas it's unlikely that an outnumbering force will be able to convince the game that they're also outnumbered, because they'd have to regularly poke multiple subgroups of unofficial allies. If it does become too easy for everyone to get the bonus, the 5 minutes could be lowered to 1 minute or 30 seconds.

Hm...but while that makes it easier to define hostiles, it makes it harder to define allies. And then as long as you'd consistently poke your unofficial allies, you'd be classified as an outnumbered.
Perhaps scaling with surrounding players doesn't work on its own. Perhaps does have to be a form of focus fire, in order to determine threat to the player.
Perhaps it doesn't have to be foolproof though. Most zergs will probably be connected across parties, guilds, and alliances.
On top of the barrier of having to damage an ally every 30 seconds, that might be good enough.

I'd still maintain that whatever the method, the zerg shouldn't get nerfed by substantially more than -20%

Pendragxn wrote:

Again, I feel like the common response might be, "just recruit more players," but that’s not always the solution. Many players tend to gravitate toward larger groups, seeking recognition or a sense of belonging.

1) I wouldn't say "recruit more players," I would say "ally up with more other groups. If your realm only has one or two massive guilds in your surrounding node chains, amd barely any small-scale opposition, you're not drumming up enough of a political resistance to the status quo. If other guilds do exist, you need to ally them more effectively against the biggest players.
2) I wouldn't actually say you need more players at all, however sometimes what you do have to realise is that when you're the underdog, you have to pick your battles, and can't contest all the biggest objectives. You have to be mobile and commit to certain smaller enemy groups to contest, and accept that you can't have everything.

Pendragxn

In a 30 vs 60 battle, the group of 60 has the advantage with more abilities, AoE, healing, and crowd control (CC), making it easier for them to overwhelm the smaller group of 30. The question is how to help the smaller group survive and fight effectively, even when they are outnumbered.

Goal:To introduce a system that reduces damage for a player being attacked by multiple enemies, giving skilled players in smaller groups a fairer chance.

Key Points:

- The 60-player group has more cooldowns, heals, and AoE, while the 30-player group is outnumbered.
- A damage reduction system should kick in when a player is attacked by 2 or more enemies.

Damage Mitigation:

1. When Mitigation Starts:
- Damage reduction begins when 2 or more enemies attack a player.

2. How Mitigation Works:
- For each additional attacker, damage is reduced further:
- 2 attackers: 30% reduction.
- 3 attackers: 40% reduction.
- 4 attackers: 50% reduction.
- 5+ attackers: 60% or more.

- In Fractions:
- 2 attackers: Player takes 7/10 of the damage.
- 3 attackers: Player takes 6/10 of the damage.
- 4 attackers: Player takes 5/10 of the damage.
- 5 attackers: Player takes 4/10 of the damage.

3. Example:
- If 3 enemies deal 300 damage total, and there’s a 40% reduction, the player takes 180 damage instead of 300.

AoE Scaling:

You also have to factor in how AoE attacks will work. Will they have damage escalation based on the number of targets hit, or will AoE spells just deal more damage overall? For instance, AoE could scale up its damage the more enemies it hits, or it could be balanced to avoid becoming too powerful in large fights.

Class Dynamics and Roles:

Another key factor is the class dynamics. Different classes have different roles, and this should be considered in damage mitigation and AoE scaling. For instance:

• DPS classes naturally deal more damage, so their attacks should remain impactful even with focus fire mitigation.
• Tanks or support classes focus more on crowd control or healing, so their damage output is lower but they could potentially absorb or negate more damage.

Summary:

- Focus fire mitigation should start when 2 enemies attack, and the damage reduction increases as more attackers pile on. However, balancing both focus fire mitigation and AoE scaling is key to ensuring battles are fair and rewarding for both small and large groups.

Though, to be honest, I’m not 100% sure on the exact math here. There are other factors at play that would need to be balanced as well. This is just my opinion and viewpoint to give an example about how this type of situation or loophole could be handled.

Caww

So, PUG 60 vs Guild 30 negates a lot of the PUG 60 advantages, a lot of oversized zergs are just that, oversized PUGs thrown together on the fly and then tend to fall apart, I suspect we will see a lot of that action, which will be fun all on it's own.

Pendragxn

One significant challenge with large guilds or alliances, especially when forming alliances on the fly or creating new ones, is the risk of espionage. Players may be incentivized to leak critical information, such as your guild's composition or game strategy, to rival factions.

While this type of political maneuvering is an inherent aspect of many PvP games, it adds a layer of complexity to alliance-building and can disrupt trust. Personally, I'd prefer to fight alongside a smaller, more reliable group where I know each player can be trusted to execute their role effectively.

This isn’t necessarily a negative aspect of guild or alliance dynamics—it’s simply something to be mindful of in the future. Not everyone who appears to be playing along has your best in-game interests at heart. As the saying goes, "A king has followers... and foes." This dynamic is an integral part of how alliances, guilds, and even broader node politics may play out in the game.

Laetitian

You've ignored everything I've said about the disadvantage of focus-fire mitigation, and you're now using the term interchangeably with "passive damage reduction," which you were the one to list as two separate things in the first place...?

Why should it start when 2 players attack? What's unfair about 2 players focusing one target? That's just basic combat decision-making. If anything, it should start at 6 players.
And I don't want to consider focus-fire mitigation at all, but if it's the only tool that works, I'd implement it at 10 people and scale it gradually until 50 players attack the same target.

Again, please read the paragraphs after "I don't know what to think about focus fire mitigation..."

What you're describing has nothing to do with anti-zerg measures.

Effah

they should be a cap on how many guild members are allowed in each zone/server.

Pendragxn

I’ve never been a fan of capping the number of guild members per zone or server. In my experience, players tend to form unofficial alliances or non-aggression pacts (NAPs) outside their guild or alliance anyway. This allows them to gain small guild buffs while still locking out reinforcements for the defending guild or target. It creates an imbalance, as these unofficial groups can work around the limitations intended by the cap, undermining the game’s mechanics. Again, this only applies to open-world PvP or PvX situations where there might be a contest for a world boss or highly sought-after objectives such as materials, etc.

Laetitian

P0GG0 wrote: »

they should be a cap on how many guild members are allowed in each zone/server.

That sounds...excessive, but regardless, with any solution of that type, you have to keep in mind that people will just have unofficial guilds to circumvent the problem.

Smaashley

Honestly, I don't think zerging will be a problem on release of the game. Content is king. If there is enough content, people will do other things while the zerg fest is going on and those other things may be even more profitable than the content being zerged.

Caww

if the AoC network/back-end stuff which allows hundreds of players on-screen at a time works smoothly then zerging could become a popular play-style, for most MMO games it's a bust due to technical restrictions and poor performance

Child Item