Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
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.
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%
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.
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.
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.
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.
but computers got faster as well xD
they mentioned that during sieges, players will have some default appearances. they will most likely make the sieges in a way that will force players to split to defend multiple things. so you will most likely not have 500 players in the exact same spot, plus your might only view those who are relevant to you.
I've done 300 vs 300 in the same area before. i had a potato PC back then (around 15 years ago?) but people with good computers were fine.