'Want' might be a strong word. Parua is right, it behooves players in most situations to either bring the fight as hard as possible, which involves bringing as many friends as possible... or to not fight at all. If you're in org territory, expect the first option. If you're anywhere else, what would the point of engaging be? To 'kill' you for 30 seconds? To try and stop you doing a conflict quest (practically impossible)?
Again, it all comes down to personality and how much you enjoy the combat aspect of the game.
If I'm raiding by myself, then you bringing 15 people to defend isn't necessary, but unavoidable. If I bring 4 people with me, you bringing 27 is still overkill, but unavoidable.
Whereas numerous times I've defended by myself against 1-3 people. Somtimes due to lack of other options, but mostly due to the fact that I wanted to kill them, not make them run away. It's all about enjoyment, not how fast you can make them get out so you can go back to sitting afk at your nexus.
I can't change the way you think about lusternian combat, which is why this problem will never be resolved.
"But paradise is locked and bolted...
We must make a journey around the world
to see if a back door has perhaps been left open."
The motivations for engaging in actual conflict is always going to be geared toward groups both for very valid IC and OOC reasons. As Enyalida said, the very "roleplay" of raiding and org conflict is to win. If your character reacts to a raid or a domoth or a revolt by saying, "They have 1 person in there. I'll just sit here because someone else is going already, and if I join it, it'll be unfair." then you're roleplaying something wrong.
On the other hand, OOCly, the motivation of instigating any conflict is to get some action. I join ongoing raids not because I feel like grinding the opponent org into the ground (raids can't do that anyway), but because I want some PK. Who is anyone to tell me that I shouldn't join in because the "numbers" would then become "lop-sided"? Why should I feel morally or ethically compelled to deny myself conflict in a conflict game? If there is a sentiment that people should somehow guilt-trip themselves into staying out of conflict, then there's something very wrong with the mentality around org based combat. It's meant for numbers to participate, and so anyone who can, and who wants to, should be able to participate.
As far as I am concerned, 1v1 is not meant for outside the arena. Actual conflict in the game is built around org identity, and that's the way it should be. I have no interest in a game where people are supposed to count heads and take attendance or draw lots before they can participate in conflict.
On the other hand, if there were mechanics in place that helped lessen the impact of group ganking, or provided some reason for people to participate in small teams/groups instead of zerging together, I'd be all for it.
I had to agree with Lerad's post there, despite what was previous stated for the mere fact of the existence of that final sentence. It's another very valid point raised and sure, not everybody plays for the same reasons.
I had to agree with Lerad's post there, despite what was previous stated for the mere fact of the existence of that final sentence. It's another very valid point raised and sure, not everybody plays for the same reasons.
So, you made a thread complaining about the lack of single combat.. and in the end you changed your mind and ended up agreeing that it should only exist in the arena? Thus making this thread pointless?
"But paradise is locked and bolted...
We must make a journey around the world
to see if a back door has perhaps been left open."
It says he agrees with the entire post because of the final sentence. Not just the final sentence. And even if he agrees with the final sentence and just the final sentence he's still changed his mind from what was previously stated, which doesn't disprove my earlier statement. Read the entire thread. Thanks.
"But paradise is locked and bolted...
We must make a journey around the world
to see if a back door has perhaps been left open."
"Actual conflict in the game is built around org identity, and that's the way it should be. I have no interest in a game where people are supposed to count heads and take attendance or draw lots before they can participate in conflict."
The above statement is a mindset which sparks what some people like to call 'griefing'. If I bring 20 some odd people to Celestia and start tainting it up and you die 20 some odd times defending? People start crying "Help me, Estarra!" and make 'How to stop griefing' forum threads. All the while waving the 'Get some OOC moral standards' banner and telling people they should back off in the interest of everyone's enjoyment of the game. Telling me I should take into consideration how many people there are to defend and actually give them a chance. Telling me that I -should- count heads and draw lots.
But the moment it's not convenient for them, they change their minds and we switch back to the 'everyone pile in' mindset until someone else feels personally offended. It's either one or the other. You either view this as a game and take people's feelings into consideration or you don't and you stick to your generic "This is my rp, back off" line. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
I will state my original point once more and be done. There will not be an increase in single combat, this is not because Twist is OP or because most people spam Inquisition. It's because why would I jump you by myself, when I can get blah1, blah2, blah3 and even tack on a blah4 to ensure that you're going to die. This is the mindset everyone has and it's not going to change unless there is a mechanic put into place to discourage it. This thread is pointless.
"But paradise is locked and bolted...
We must make a journey around the world
to see if a back door has perhaps been left open."
The short answer is the culture for 1v1 disappeared. Look at the old days:
Magnagora dueled at the gates to settle arguments, people like Thoros, Shamarah, myself, Revan, Talkan, etc would take duel requests anytime. You had solo raids more answered with small groups or single people moving in, instead of waiting for a huge group and then coming up.
Lusternia was founded on alot of combat culture, raids were fairly frequent, people liked to compare skill in combat, etc. Since then we have suffered a loss of that culture and there are many factors:
- Loss of individual skill. People are not trained to fight alone they are trained to do groups and teams, so there is a general lack of skill on a solo level.
- Disappearance of conflict. When I say conflict I mean meaningful RP based upon your org. Raiding Nil used to be common and a part of the day, but with high cost of death, free powers, some areas being terrible to raid (Continuum), and the general lack of meaning when mobs die since we now generate huge amounts of power passively.
- Shiney factor. We never balanced what we had, and we made it worse by continually adding new things to fix. Most envoys do not do their jobs, assuming things balance over time is a mistake without oversight.
- Population spread. There are less people than when it was only 3 orgs, and those fewer people are spread among more places. Used to see 25+ citizens on an org, not you see like 9.
We were counting on the overhaul to fix this. Did anyone think it would? I didnt. At most it would fix COMBAT, but most 1v1 was caused by player culture, not skills. Overhaul makes it easier to enter combat, it does not make people want to solo. The overhaul does not seem to fix anything, and only makes things worse. 10v10 will be over in under 10 seconds, as it will be smackdown of 1 person repeated to who has the most OP skills at the time.
So why don't we fix this? That takes you guys. The admin can't make you want to do it, unless they add something to encourage it, but then people will complain about encouraging ganking. This is what I mean, you cannot appease people because everyone has their own views and preferences. Jump me? Sure. Jump Thoros? Sure. Do it with 5 people? That is kind of pointless but sure. Jump a midbie? No.
So what would you all recommend? The only things I can suggest are things i've said before, and likely would be met with some disagreement.
- Kill an org or two, less orgs means more focus. Orgs exploding also perks interest.
- Hotfix the combat imbalances present. Overhaul the Overhaul to handle the issues listed.
- Get people to understand a sense of Honour for having skill and demonstrating it.
It is a difficult thing to fix because it is not done in code, it has to be done in people. All the balance in the world doesnt cause solo combat. At best we can expect more combatants with simpler combat, and smaller groups provided we take up scaling to groups.
Anyway, this post has run on for awhile, I will let it be.
Except not all of them are, see how Crucify/Sacrifice was changed, right down to being unable to stack Deathmarks, or how only one Shadowdancer can twist your shadow.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
There are instances where the same holds true right across the board. We can't nerf everything at once. Like I say, it's no worse than other cheese. How about we start off by nerfing destruction chains?
Personally, I'd be happy to see outlier damage go altogether. While previous concerns are valid (Inqui) - How is it any worse than enter room, aeon, destro, staffcast, destro, dead?
Honestly, extend it from there, mass spam of health or mana damage attacks should go the same way spam hackdown did, and have a diminishing returns effect.
It's entirely too easy to remove someone from the fight within seconds just by all piling on and entering a simple alias.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
Comments
Again, it all comes down to personality and how much you enjoy the combat aspect of the game.
If I'm raiding by myself, then you bringing 15 people to defend isn't necessary, but unavoidable. If I bring 4 people with me, you bringing 27 is still overkill, but unavoidable.
Whereas numerous times I've defended by myself against 1-3 people. Somtimes due to lack of other options, but mostly due to the fact that I wanted to kill them, not make them run away. It's all about enjoyment, not how fast you can make them get out so you can go back to sitting afk at your nexus.
I can't change the way you think about lusternian combat, which is why this problem will never be resolved.
"But paradise is locked and bolted...
We must make a journey around the world
to see if a back door has perhaps been left open."
-Heinrich Von Kleist, "On the Puppet Theater"
On the other hand, OOCly, the motivation of instigating any conflict is to get some action. I join ongoing raids not because I feel like grinding the opponent org into the ground (raids can't do that anyway), but because I want some PK. Who is anyone to tell me that I shouldn't join in because the "numbers" would then become "lop-sided"? Why should I feel morally or ethically compelled to deny myself conflict in a conflict game? If there is a sentiment that people should somehow guilt-trip themselves into staying out of conflict, then there's something very wrong with the mentality around org based combat. It's meant for numbers to participate, and so anyone who can, and who wants to, should be able to participate.
As far as I am concerned, 1v1 is not meant for outside the arena. Actual conflict in the game is built around org identity, and that's the way it should be. I have no interest in a game where people are supposed to count heads and take attendance or draw lots before they can participate in conflict.
So, you made a thread complaining about the lack of single combat.. and in the end you changed your mind and ended up agreeing that it should only exist in the arena? Thus making this thread pointless?
"But paradise is locked and bolted...
We must make a journey around the world
to see if a back door has perhaps been left open."
-Heinrich Von Kleist, "On the Puppet Theater"
"But paradise is locked and bolted...
We must make a journey around the world
to see if a back door has perhaps been left open."
-Heinrich Von Kleist, "On the Puppet Theater"
"Actual conflict in the game is built around org identity, and that's the way it should be. I have no interest in a game where people are supposed to count heads and take attendance or draw lots before they can participate in conflict."
The above statement is a mindset which sparks what some people like to call 'griefing'. If I bring 20 some odd people to Celestia and start tainting it up and you die 20 some odd times defending? People start crying "Help me, Estarra!" and make 'How to stop griefing' forum threads. All the while waving the 'Get some OOC moral standards' banner and telling people they should back off in the interest of everyone's enjoyment of the game. Telling me I should take into consideration how many people there are to defend and actually give them a chance. Telling me that I -should- count heads and draw lots.
But the moment it's not convenient for them, they change their minds and we switch back to the 'everyone pile in' mindset until someone else feels personally offended. It's either one or the other. You either view this as a game and take people's feelings into consideration or you don't and you stick to your generic "This is my rp, back off" line. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
I will state my original point once more and be done. There will not be an increase in single combat, this is not because Twist is OP or because most people spam Inquisition. It's because why would I jump you by myself, when I can get blah1, blah2, blah3 and even tack on a blah4 to ensure that you're going to die. This is the mindset everyone has and it's not going to change unless there is a mechanic put into place to discourage it. This thread is pointless.
"But paradise is locked and bolted...
We must make a journey around the world
to see if a back door has perhaps been left open."
-Heinrich Von Kleist, "On the Puppet Theater"
This! So very much this.
Truth is, in groups, things like this -are- going to be silly when stacked with other such things as aeon and stun.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
It's entirely too easy to remove someone from the fight within seconds just by all piling on and entering a simple alias.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
It's annoying as hell and there -are- other methods.
You know, I can honestly say that I have not used my super silly OP damage stack in actual combat -at all- at this stage.
I think Mal hit the nail right on the head when he said about change needing to come mostly from players.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
We clearly need to just nerf combat altogether, heh.
/joins the outlier damage train.