Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I used to play in BFA with my prot pala in arena, and the amount of hate when you win 1v2 is unreal. Oops, I guess we should disable arenas for tanks in Ashes. We would not want them "rouge" players getting angry. The thing is - SKILL SHOULD MATTER. And if you win 1v2 then you deserve the win. But in zerg fight, your skill means nothing. Even if 1 person is afk the whole fight this wont change anything Sadly, skill rarely affects a battle. Tactics do. Choke points, terrain, the high ground for them bowboys and dress-wearers. Most talented generals in history rarely were good in battle. If you fight the Mongol Horde in the open fields where their horseback archers can black ball you, you deserve the loss. You talking about modern wars tho.... In sword fights skill do matter, and yes tactics and position matters also, but skill is not less of an factor
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I used to play in BFA with my prot pala in arena, and the amount of hate when you win 1v2 is unreal. Oops, I guess we should disable arenas for tanks in Ashes. We would not want them "rouge" players getting angry. The thing is - SKILL SHOULD MATTER. And if you win 1v2 then you deserve the win. But in zerg fight, your skill means nothing. Even if 1 person is afk the whole fight this wont change anything Sadly, skill rarely affects a battle. Tactics do. Choke points, terrain, the high ground for them bowboys and dress-wearers. Most talented generals in history rarely were good in battle. If you fight the Mongol Horde in the open fields where their horseback archers can black ball you, you deserve the loss.
Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I used to play in BFA with my prot pala in arena, and the amount of hate when you win 1v2 is unreal. Oops, I guess we should disable arenas for tanks in Ashes. We would not want them "rouge" players getting angry. The thing is - SKILL SHOULD MATTER. And if you win 1v2 then you deserve the win. But in zerg fight, your skill means nothing. Even if 1 person is afk the whole fight this wont change anything
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I used to play in BFA with my prot pala in arena, and the amount of hate when you win 1v2 is unreal. Oops, I guess we should disable arenas for tanks in Ashes. We would not want them "rouge" players getting angry.
Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2
Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball.
Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I used to play in BFA with my prot pala in arena, and the amount of hate when you win 1v2 is unreal. Oops, I guess we should disable arenas for tanks in Ashes. We would not want them "rouge" players getting angry. The thing is - SKILL SHOULD MATTER. And if you win 1v2 then you deserve the win. But in zerg fight, your skill means nothing. Even if 1 person is afk the whole fight this wont change anything Sadly, skill rarely affects a battle. Tactics do. Choke points, terrain, the high ground for them bowboys and dress-wearers. Most talented generals in history rarely were good in battle. If you fight the Mongol Horde in the open fields where their horseback archers can black ball you, you deserve the loss. You talking about modern wars tho.... In sword fights skill do matter, and yes tactics and position matters also, but skill is not less of an factor You miss the point. At a certain size of combatants - like in the EVE Online 500v500, only tactics and target calling win you the fight. If a healer, has 1000 hp and 50% mitigation they have an estimated 2000 HP. If 1 player can deliver 100 damage on a hit, then 20 players will DELETE the healer in one coordinated attack. If the leader can actually do target calling, that wins the battle. If the tanks body block poking from archers, that wins the battle. If your raid leader cannot say "archers on the back, tanks on the front" ... then good luck with your mad skills in 1v1. 🤷♂️
Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I used to play in BFA with my prot pala in arena, and the amount of hate when you win 1v2 is unreal. Oops, I guess we should disable arenas for tanks in Ashes. We would not want them "rouge" players getting angry. The thing is - SKILL SHOULD MATTER. And if you win 1v2 then you deserve the win. But in zerg fight, your skill means nothing. Even if 1 person is afk the whole fight this wont change anything Sadly, skill rarely affects a battle. Tactics do. Choke points, terrain, the high ground for them bowboys and dress-wearers. Most talented generals in history rarely were good in battle. If you fight the Mongol Horde in the open fields where their horseback archers can black ball you, you deserve the loss. You talking about modern wars tho.... In sword fights skill do matter, and yes tactics and position matters also, but skill is not less of an factor You miss the point. At a certain size of combatants - like in the EVE Online 500v500, only tactics and target calling win you the fight. If a healer, has 1000 hp and 50% mitigation they have an estimated 2000 HP. If 1 player can deliver 100 damage on a hit, then 20 players will DELETE the healer in one coordinated attack. If the leader can actually do target calling, that wins the battle. If the tanks body block poking from archers, that wins the battle. If your raid leader cannot say "archers on the back, tanks on the front" ... then good luck with your mad skills in 1v1. 🤷♂️ In those 500 vs 500 only the shot caller can have some fun, and this is coz his action matters, all other 499 are sheep with no skill. And if i wanted to command an army - i would go play some strategy game like Command and Conquer / Empire Earth / starcraft or something like this. No reason to play MMO
Solid_Sneak wrote: » I wonder what is your opinion on people who will scout your turf for caravan protection detail, join caravans to scout routes and then live update their pirate or raider buddies on your location.
Solid_Sneak wrote: » As I said earlier, this whole thread reeks of people who cannot follow simple orders in a group. You are just before the "my subscription my game, don't tell me how to play" as an argument.
Solid_Sneak wrote: » If you want fair fights, Ashes has an Arena system planned afaik. Seems to me large scale PVP is not your cup of tea.
Veeshan wrote: » Saabynator wrote: » Maybe AOC already has some systems in place, that can stop a huge zergy guild. I know there is a limit in the guild, but you could make sister builds and ally up, i suppose. But I think we should have the question on a Q&A, before everyone runs amok. lack of fast travel kinda hamper them to a degree too it makes it so much harder for zerg guilds to react to anything that isnt close to their main force location
Saabynator wrote: » Maybe AOC already has some systems in place, that can stop a huge zergy guild. I know there is a limit in the guild, but you could make sister builds and ally up, i suppose. But I think we should have the question on a Q&A, before everyone runs amok.
Solid_Sneak wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I used to play in BFA with my prot pala in arena, and the amount of hate when you win 1v2 is unreal. Oops, I guess we should disable arenas for tanks in Ashes. We would not want them "rouge" players getting angry. The thing is - SKILL SHOULD MATTER. And if you win 1v2 then you deserve the win. But in zerg fight, your skill means nothing. Even if 1 person is afk the whole fight this wont change anything Sadly, skill rarely affects a battle. Tactics do. Choke points, terrain, the high ground for them bowboys and dress-wearers. Most talented generals in history rarely were good in battle. If you fight the Mongol Horde in the open fields where their horseback archers can black ball you, you deserve the loss. Do a china build a wall to stand on :P Cross fingers, Tank/Tank is like able to build 50 Walls in a row 🤣
Veeshan wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Solid_Sneak wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I used to play in BFA with my prot pala in arena, and the amount of hate when you win 1v2 is unreal. Oops, I guess we should disable arenas for tanks in Ashes. We would not want them "rouge" players getting angry. The thing is - SKILL SHOULD MATTER. And if you win 1v2 then you deserve the win. But in zerg fight, your skill means nothing. Even if 1 person is afk the whole fight this wont change anything Sadly, skill rarely affects a battle. Tactics do. Choke points, terrain, the high ground for them bowboys and dress-wearers. Most talented generals in history rarely were good in battle. If you fight the Mongol Horde in the open fields where their horseback archers can black ball you, you deserve the loss. Do a china build a wall to stand on :P
Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more".
Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more". Yep they need to introduce either friendly fire. For example any group of 8 has friendly fire toward any other group no matter if they are from same guild. Or some mass spells that oneshot zergs Like the friendly fire wont apply in Node/guild wars, in sieges, between non combatant flagged players So if you want to do world boss you can be non combatants, and face the boss as 5 groups, but if you want to kill some other group there, then you will be combatant and friendly fire will apply
Veeshan wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Githal wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 16 isn't a zerg. Its less than half of a raid. If that is the size you are thinking this.kind of thing is for, then I change my opinion from "it won't work" to "it won't work and it isn't needed". A zerg is 50 at a minimum. The 30 in the example above was enough to point out that it wouldn't work, but 30 is still less than a fill raid. If you have 8 and are going uo against 16, the appropriate solution is to get more people, not to expect the game to provide you with leverage And then we are back to square one and zergs remain the default instead of "hey we might be fewer, but if we are smart with our timing, positioning and abilities, we might have a fighting chance." And my example using numbers could be literally any number. I think in a scenario where its 2:1 numerical disadvantate, the only solutions should be "just get more". It should be A solution, sure, but not the only one. Thats boring. Something where you could leverage a handful of powerful AoEs + surprise + terrain/geography would be more interesting. Literally saying "just get more" is the logic of the zerg/deathball. I have had situations in WOW back in the days when i was playing it (Wotlk expansion) where in arena my partner disconnects at start of fight, and i win 1v2 (well they were 2 dps, no healers, but still both had better gear than me), and these fights are 1 of the most interesting things that can happen when you have chance even in 1v2 I played arena competitively in wotlk as well, I remember. But this is about zergs. I dont think there are *enough* counters to zerging/deathballing (yet) other than "just bring more". Yep they need to introduce either friendly fire. For example any group of 8 has friendly fire toward any other group no matter if they are from same guild. Or some mass spells that oneshot zergs Like the friendly fire wont apply in Node/guild wars, in sieges, between non combatant flagged players So if you want to do world boss you can be non combatants, and face the boss as 5 groups, but if you want to kill some other group there, then you will be combatant and friendly fire will apply just drag the "Deathball" into a choke point and throw all your groups AoE ontop of them at once if games do aoe properly it kinda demolishes the entire deathball, all that need to be done there is no aoe caps and no mass raid healing
KingDDD wrote: » DAoC had AoE CC to deal with zergs. Make them difficult to land with some form of defensive counter and it'll be fine.
tautau wrote: » 1. AoC should be different, not trying to imitate other games and thus split that part of the player base. 2. AoC's plan of having players create their own, voluntary, factions of node and guild-based player groups is both an innovative and much more fun approach 3. This one is just my opinion, but I find faction based games to be rather childish, as if the game company has to tell me who my friends and enemies are since they don't seem to think that I can make that decision myself 4. Some players would prefer not to have an innate in game enemy. While they may end up with enemies in AoC, at least they have a chance at not having enemies, while a faction-based game forces them to.
Githal wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » DAoC had AoE CC to deal with zergs. Make them difficult to land with some form of defensive counter and it'll be fine. this still requires you to have almost the same number as them. So its still zerg vs zerg fight
