Best Of
Re: Artifact Review
When you don't have scent like tool you just move around and follow the target as they move. To some extent you have to read the map and do a bit of ground work. The most of the other IRE's don't have an instant track to someone so people just get used to it and move about by themselves.
Re: Targeting Malus
The first step before considering combat malus or forced “even” fights in certain areas would be to mechanically register alliances. Not doing so makes it ripe for abuse.
The largest problem I have with combat malus as proposed here is that it actually discourages new players from fighting as the main hitters would be the experienced PvPer with the favoured class. Cause if I get x players I sure am going to stack my deck as powerful as possible.
The largest problem I have with combat malus as proposed here is that it actually discourages new players from fighting as the main hitters would be the experienced PvPer with the favoured class. Cause if I get x players I sure am going to stack my deck as powerful as possible.
Re: Idea to help increase interaction
We've already seen how static 3v3 can be. I would expect 2v2v2 would actually encourage shifting because there are less orgs involved in the decision process.Devora said:The escalating costs I proposed earlier would make 4v2 unappealing in the long run. The point is more that it opens up space for a transition period, where 3v3 (for example, H/Gl/S vs M/C/Ga) can change to 4v2 (eg, H/Gl vs M/C/Ga/S) and then shift back to 3v3 (eg, H/Gl/M vs C/Ga/S). Currently, the alliance system tends to work like this - periods of 2v2v2 or 3v3 interrupted by unstable periods of 4v2 or 3v2v1 that then rearrange themselves. With a max 3 or max 2 limit, these transition periods become much less feasible, which discourages shifting alliances.Saran said:
what does a max of 4 actually look like? In the ideal even split of population that's two thirds of the game against the other third with the system mechanically encouraging it.How is that different from 2v2v2? When 4 orgs pair off together, the last 2 are stuck with each other.Saran said:
stuff like the four forcing an org pairing which is entirely unfun for the two that are stuck together.
In 2v2v2, if Seren is unhappy with say Celest and Halli us unhappy with Mag, then Seren can just go to Halli and group up leaving Mag and Celest to sort themselves out with Gaudi and Glom.
There's no need to go and have talks with a third member of the alliance and negotiate around their preferences, in the above example Halli could also look for allies in Celest or Glom.
As far as how it's different, in 2v2v2 the last two could also chose to not ally and give us 2v2v1v1. It's also, in theory, easier to break up a 2 than a 4.
Your idea encourages a certain dynamic in org v org conflict and provides a potential incentive for the strongest orgs to mechanically ally so they can dominate the various objectives. (Because, at the end of the day, if the strongest can capture enough objectives to offset the sharing why should they work with weaker orgs?)Kaindor said:The idea isnt designed for more dynamic combat it's designed to maintain what we have while making the slower orgs more noob friendly. I've been starting and restarting characters for 12 years and have never seen it this dead. My character was already completely self sufficient and I had been playing for about a week before I got to talk to anyone in my own city. That is what drives people away. If I had never played this game or a game like it before I would have left after twenty minutes.Saran said:2v2v2, in theory, offers more dynamic combat because you don't have two sides facing off but instead have to be aware of your two enemy groups and capitalise on the openings you can find or create.
This would, in theory, hurt retention on the weaker side of the 3v3 because a decent amount of people would either transfer to the stronger side or get fed up with losing and quit. Which seems liable to hurt retention on the stronger side as well should PVP become stale and easy.
Limiting it down to two means, in theory, even if the two strongest orgs grouped up, the other four are still in the other two alliances and fighting them everywhere.
Saran
2
Re: Targeting Malus
Yes, I've been playing IRE games for well over twenty years, and Lusternia had a time period where skill actually mattered in combat, when a specialization had multiple viable kill methods. There's not going to be any fixing of group combat unless specializations and classes are given a fair shake to thrive again. Artifacts are not required to be helpful in combat, though they can help. We have something that is competitive for 1v1s, practice, etc. It's called the Arena and Combat Rankings system that has gone so under utilized, I actually forgot it existed until I read the comment. There is no way to directly 'nerf' group combat to make it seem more fair to the smaller battle force ... nor should we. The whole point of conquest and dominion is to flat out assert dominance. Instead, I'd rather see more skill be returned to combat, instead of just the dull 'rotation' we have.
Take a look at your own class in reflection, what kill methods are offered in your skills? You should see one in your Primary and one in Tertiary of choice. Sometimes you'll find one in your Secondary, but most of the times that is your utility skillset. This is how it should be, but instead if you ask for combat advice, and this happens more frequently than not, you get told one thing to do and that is your assigned job. Sometimes you'll find someone actually knowledgeable about each specialization and class you have access to, but more likely than not, they really don't and just want you to use one or two abilities ever. I honestly miss the days where your understanding and execution of your skills made you exceptional and worth fearing. But then group combat got larger and larger, and more things were made to make skill mean less and less. No amount of skill, artifacts, anything is going to keep you standing and fighting when you are the target of multiple people working as an assembly line. When Mooks 1, 2, and 3 are told to siphon mana and Killer 1 is told to insta kill ... you begin to see what I'm talking about.
Group combat was an organized business, people actually trained, planned, and worked together to make combinations that were so good, they got nerfed. As time went on, more and more nerfs kept hitting, and now we're at where we are. Point of all this, unless we make these classes and specializations fleshed out and attractive to play again, we're going to be on repeat. Eventually people are going to get bored of winning or lack of competition and they'll hop borders or try to mix up alliances to give the facade of balance. I like the idea and the passion to want to make group combat better, but it will yield no fruit because there just isn't a good way to balance it. Heck, I've already stated that four people working in tandem can drop a person in a blink, and that's a true scenario. Ramble made short, make the classes and specializations viable again, then let's revisit group combat.
Lycidas
1
Re: Targeting Malus
I agree we should bring the conversation back to the topic; however, neither of these two comments actually help things. The first comment basically says "Suck it up, and go to tournaments that doesn't have an impact in the game. ", and the second comment is in my opinion a cop out to any real suggestion. It would make targeting more complex, but everyone should get a chat window if they don't have one and/or call out alias for clans. These are common on both sides. Therefore, there is very little added complexity unless you take the fact that having the current losing side actually have a chance due to numbers then in that case it would be more complex than just standing around. These two comments are literally the comments that derailed the thread.Devora said:Can we refocus on the targeting malus / targeting def suggestions?This is a cool idea. As someone who's trying to learn pvp and is intimidated by all the artied-out big fish and all you need to learn to be effective for your group, I think more competitive events that allow for 1v1 and/or lower stakes practice that still serves your commune instead of distracting your mentors away from their important duties elsewhere would be A+.Deichtine said:Maybe just look at more events with fixed numbers if theres a big issue with numbers imbalance.
Like more wargame tournament type things.Xenthos said:This plus @Deichtine's point that a malus/def wouldn't necessarily change group dynamics are great insights from folks who have seen a lot of similar suggestions come and go. Have people played other games/MUDs where the mechanics of group combat were handled elegantly?In the past this kind of thing has been brought up, but never really has taken off. In the end the suggestions end up making combat harder to get into for people, need to end up having different groups / command channels, ignore some calls and prioritize others, etc.
However, any suggestions on a solution to the current problem or any enhancements or flaws identified within the proposal would be appreciated. Also, anyone is welcome to come up with their own idea. I actually really liked the shield idea.
For anyone that doesn't have a chat window, Reysgui is a great starting point, and I will gladly create anyone a call out if needed.
Innon
1
Re: Simple questions?
dih-lish-uhsTylwyth said:So, how do you pronounce Merian?
Is it like mermaid/merfolk? Murrian?
Or like Mary-Anne?
Shaddus
6
Re: Artifact Review
I don't feel like anyone is severely hindered by scent. I also feel like the idea to remove scent was only to distract from more serious issues. I feel like it's been an if this gets changed then this which is most certainly not constructive or beneficial. If you remove scent then we need to remove tumble, ss, backflip, carry, tackle, gust, summon, beckon, tiphat, centre, etc. I would also say that if you remove scent then you would need to remove gem of cloaking as well. This is a slippery slope because balancing has already been made with scent in mind.
Innon
1
Re: Cement Socks/Featherweight Charm
15s was a bit long to my thinking but somewhat fair...30s is yeesh :x
Shango
2
Re: Artifact Review
NITPICK: 1/2 of orgs can access scent without noses. Transmology for Gaudiguch.
(c) Iron Realms Entertainment 2012.