As a DAoC Vet and refugee, I have to say that both zergs and 8mans deserved to be in game, in fact it would not have been the game that it was pre and post NF without both gameplays.

Keep in mind that DAoC's groups were 8 players, there was no raid UI. Zergs were just friends, guildies or allies running together beyond the capacity of a group.  Regardless if it was 8man or zerg, the groups needed to be balanced enough to hold their own at any time, and we all withnessed more than once how a very strong group could dismantle a small zerg.

As long as there are guilds and alliances, there will be zergs.  Players join a guild to play with others, logically they will RvR together as well, as many as possible, the more the merrier right?

In DAoC it was understood that wherever the action was, a zerg (if not all three) would eventually show up, so 8mans would either steer away or roam specific circuits to pick off other groups or reinforcements.

Personally I was disgusted to see what RvR became after WAR released, it was elite 8man group or get out.  The point of RvR is to invade and defend, take relics, create bonuses for your realm...in the end it was called Realm vs Realm, not Your Eight vs My Eight.

As for the solo players, I don't mention them because they are the most flexible and most creative, they always found a way to get their solo fun regardless of what everyone else was doing.

SO you are running along in a Siege BattleGroup OTW to take a Keep and or Tower  When suddenly all 60 of your fellow zerglings stop dead in there tracks. You wonder  to yourself what just happened. And then Bang your dead. Oh shit it must have been an 8man grp with Warlocks. 8 men killing 60 in 3 secs? Yes it happens in DAOC everyday. Should it???

I wanna play a game were skill matters in PVP, not who gets the 60 sec mezz off first. You?

Originally posted by ninjapy

SO you are running along in a Siege BattleGroup OTW to take a Keep and or Tower  When suddenly all 60 of your fellow zerglings stop dead in there tracks. You wonder  to yourself what just happened. And then Bang your dead. Oh shit it must have been an 8man grp with Warlocks. 8 men killing 60 in 3 secs? Yes it happens in DAOC everyday. Should it???

 

I wanna play a game were skill matters in PVP, not who gets the 60 sec mezz off first. You?

 

 

Actually, because DAoC had no balance as all the classes were completely different, there were more than enough ways to avoid that, with a combination of class skills/RA/items.

Also just because you are in a zerg does not mean that you stick all together in a ball, it's tactically and trategically bad, specially when we all know about the AoE CC, you would think groups would run a bit separated in flanking distances.  So if a big zerg dies to AoE, it's their own fault.

Originally posted by ninjapy

SO you are running along in a Siege BattleGroup OTW to take a Keep and or Tower  When suddenly all 60 of your fellow zerglings stop dead in there tracks. You wonder  to yourself what just happened. And then Bang your dead. Oh shit it must have been an 8man grp with Warlocks. 8 men killing 60 in 3 secs? Yes it happens in DAOC everyday. Should it???

 

I wanna play a game were skill matters in PVP, not who gets the 60 sec mezz off first. You?

 

 

The players in that zerg should have been panning their cameras and keeping an eye out for incoming, and then communicating that to the rest of the group.

If they didn't, then yes, they should have got bombed.

Originally posted by Lore84

Originally posted by ninjapy

SO you are running along in a Siege BattleGroup OTW to take a Keep and or Tower  When suddenly all 60 of your fellow zerglings stop dead in there tracks. You wonder  to yourself what just happened. And then Bang your dead. Oh shit it must have been an 8man grp with Warlocks. 8 men killing 60 in 3 secs? Yes it happens in DAOC everyday. Should it???

 

I wanna play a game were skill matters in PVP, not who gets the 60 sec mezz off first. You?

 

 

The players in that zerg should have been panning their cameras and keeping an eye out for incoming, and then communicating that to the rest of the group.

If they didn't, then yes, they should have got bombed.

What ever happened to the lost art of good old fashioned tactical surprise?  Are these ridiculously overpowered mechanics (like long duration cc) really necessary for a smaller group to fight off a larger group?  Alexander the Great was outnumbered 8 to 1 at the battle of Issus and he STILL managed to pull off a victory without "the Gods" providing him with some special MEZZING ability.  To me, that would be FAR MORE satisfying as the victor than if you had some artificial, in-game boosting capability like long duration cc to aid you.  Farming mezzed players is a hollow victory at best, imho.  I rolled in those groups and our bard/enchanter was great at firing off the "I WIN" button while we all assist killed 1-3 at a time, but that gets old.

Originally posted by MarkJacobs

Originally posted by Axxar

As far as keeps are concerned I think there should be very slight or no immediate benefits in capturing a keep. It should be actually HOLDING the keep that makes it worth having.

I couldn't agree more. If we make it so that keep trading will reward players more than fighting, dying for and holding keeps then keep trading becomes a more viable way of earning renown/fame/rank/etc. We need to make the holding of key targets the way good things flow to the realm over time. The longer that the realm holds the objects of their desire, the better it is for the realm and we also have to make losing the objectives hurt too.

 

Cool. Of course there also needs to be incentive to assault more keeps so each Realm doesn't just sit on the keeps they have in an eternal truce... I think? :)

Originally posted by Satarious

What ever happened to the lost art of good old fashioned tactical surprise?  Are these ridiculously overpowered mechanics (like long duration cc) really necessary for a smaller group to fight off a larger group?  Alexander the Great was outnumbered 8 to 1 at the battle of Issus and he STILL managed to pull off a victory without "the Gods" providing him with some special MEZZING ability.  To me, that would be FAR MORE satisfying as the victor than if you had some artificial, in-game boosting capability like long duration cc to aid you.  Farming mezzed players is a hollow victory at best, imho.  I rolled in those groups and our bard/enchanter was great at firing off the "I WIN" button while we all assist killed 1-3 at a time, but that gets old.

first of all ench never had a ae mezz so ... scnd maybe in the old days when purge was on a 30 min timer(pre ra revamp so like 8(?) years ago) and your grp didnt even knew that you have demezz this ae mezz was a curse but all of this change dramatically today ... tanks now do have det(55% cc reduce) 50% resis(50% reduce+secundary resis) charge and purge so ... as a tank u are maybe like 6 seconds mezzed even if its a single target max lvl mezz (the longest in game) this for tank ... supps/Caster do stand longer in cc but realy if u grp gets fully mezzed on of your (with a normal grp setup) 2 demezzer purges(if its a def tank he can demezz the whole grp with 1 shout) and demzzes the whole grp within 5 secs wich means IN CASE you were stupid enough to mezz the whole enemy grp on inc u basically gave em 1min cc timer for nothing

today the cc'S still got this ae 72sec duration in its info put practically you have so many ways to escape the mezz(as long as you arent solo and hey this game is about grps) this whole to long cc duration isnt about the cc duration its ALL about the escape mechanics ...

Originally posted by Satarious

Originally posted by MarkJacobs

Originally posted by meddyck

We have plenty of proof that RvR based solely on zerging and keep taking fails (WAR, GW 2). I hope CU would support all types of playstyles from soloing, running a duo, running a full group, and zerging just like DAOC did.

Put keeps, towers, relics, etc. out there with reasons to take them (opening ports, gaining relic bonuses). Make player kills worth points that accumulate and grant the right to purchase powerful abilities. Then let players decide how they want to spend their play time.

Exactly. We don't want to stop zerging behavior entirely (couldn't really be done IMO)  but we want to give players the ability to fight the zerg and not just be rolled over by it time and time again. As another poster has pointed out, many players will take thte path of least resistance and its our job as designers to make sure that we present enough varieties of play that the players don't simply do the same thing every day because that's the quickest and easiest level to level.

 

OK.  This bit of logic is shaking my confidence in the project a little.  The idea of "giving players the ability to fight the zerg" is code for a long cc (or the like)  that is difficult to break out of or has long duration.  Long CC is not about skill, it's about which Enchanter or Bard fires off the first mass mezz.  The rest of the classes don't much matter.  It's the "I WIN" gun.  The first enchanter to fire off the Zs WINS.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  And it's just ridiculous how a much smaller group can just take its time plowing down a group 5 times their size because of this ridiculously overpowered mechanic.  If this mechanic goes into CU and people aren't aware of it ahead of time, I can assure you that it is going to result in mass people complaining and quiting if nothing is done about it.  Making RvR about who fires off the MEZZ gun first is going to be a deal-breaker for me.  

Fundamentally, you cannot artificially put a small group on equal footing with a larger group.  You're just opening up a whole new can of worms that will bite you in the ass down the road.

This is where I truly find myself frustrated. If you ever played Dark Age of Camelot you know that it was not simply who got the first CC off and then just plowing through a group 5 times your size. DAoC had abilities like cure mezz, purge, determination, charge, group purge, etc etc etc. that prevented this from happening more than 90% of the time. Now, were there times when a player had to sit out a long duration CC because his friend was too busy zapping enemies to pay attention to his friend in need of a cure? Absolutely. Or, did a person simply use his purge too quickly on a 3 second stun that he could have simply waited out, just to get mezzed again by an enemy player actually paying attention? Again, absolutely. But that is the point of tactical combat and decision making and team work. It really turns me off when someone simply says "WHOEVER GOT THE CC FIRST WON" because that simply is a false statement and your spreading of these rumors and false accusations misleads people who have never played or are not experienced with Dark Age of Camelot.

The crowd control system of Dark Age of Camelot was extremely tactical and rewarding to those who paid attention and assisted each other. Please don't make it into something it was not.

EDIT: I also hope you realize that this kind of behavior and whining has to created these watered down, free from decision making PvP games. They didn't just come into being - they were created by the people.

Originally posted by Canan

Originally posted by Satarious

Originally posted by MarkJacobs

Originally posted by meddyck

 

 

This is where I truly find myself frustrated. If you ever played Dark Age of Camelot you know that it was not simply who got the first CC off and then just plowing through a group 5 times your size. DAoC had abilities like cure mezz, purge, determination, charge, group purge, etc etc etc. that prevented this from happening more than 90% of the time. Now, were there times when a player had to sit out a long duration CC because his friend was too busy zapping enemies to pay attention to his friend in need of a cure? Absolutely. Or, did a person simply use his purge too quickly on a 3 second stun that he could have simply waited out, just to get mezzed again by an enemy player actually paying attention? Again, absolutely. But that is the point of tactical combat and decision making and team work. It really turns me off when someone simply says "WHOEVER GOT THE CC FIRST WON" because that simply is a false statement and your spreading of these rumors and false accusations misleads people who have never played or are not experienced with Dark Age of Camelot.

The crowd control system of Dark Age of Camelot was extremely tactical and rewarding to those who paid attention and assisted each other. Please don't make it into something it was not.

 

EDIT: I also hope you realize that this kind of behavior and whining has to created these watered down, free from decision making PvP games. They didn't just come into being - they were created by the people.

 

 

 

I'm well aware of purge, determination, group purge, etc. etc.  My point is that the REASON those systems were put into place in the first place was because of the huge outcry the players had over being mezzed and taken out of combat for long stretches of time.  Also, it literally turned pvp into a game of who fires off the first mezz shot.  All the other non-mezzing classes were just a bunch of assist monkies when the mezz was in place.  I don't know about you, but that kind of takes the fun out of true pvp when everybody is mixing it up.

My whole point is why bother trying to implement a flawed system?  Det, purge, etc. is nothing but a bandaid on a sore.  I hope Mark Jacobs & company won't be afraid of a more innovative approach at handling the "extinction of small group" problem without the need for  long duration cc that will only open up a whole set of new problems.

Originally posted by Satarious

Originally posted by Canan

Originally posted by Satarious

Originally posted by MarkJacobs

Originally posted by meddyck

 

 

This is where I truly find myself frustrated. If you ever played Dark Age of Camelot you know that it was not simply who got the first CC off and then just plowing through a group 5 times your size. DAoC had abilities like cure mezz, purge, determination, charge, group purge, etc etc etc. that prevented this from happening more than 90% of the time. Now, were there times when a player had to sit out a long duration CC because his friend was too busy zapping enemies to pay attention to his friend in need of a cure? Absolutely. Or, did a person simply use his purge too quickly on a 3 second stun that he could have simply waited out, just to get mezzed again by an enemy player actually paying attention? Again, absolutely. But that is the point of tactical combat and decision making and team work. It really turns me off when someone simply says "WHOEVER GOT THE CC FIRST WON" because that simply is a false statement and your spreading of these rumors and false accusations misleads people who have never played or are not experienced with Dark Age of Camelot.

The crowd control system of Dark Age of Camelot was extremely tactical and rewarding to those who paid attention and assisted each other. Please don't make it into something it was not.

 

EDIT: I also hope you realize that this kind of behavior and whining has to created these watered down, free from decision making PvP games. They didn't just come into being - they were created by the people.

 

 

 

I'm well aware of purge, determination, group purge, etc. etc.  My point is that the REASON those systems were put into place in the first place was because of the huge outcry the players had over being mezzed and taken out of combat for long stretches of time.  Also, it literally turned pvp into a game of who fires off the first mezz shot.  All the other non-mezzing classes were just a bunch of assist monkies when the mezz was in place.  I don't know about you, but that kind of takes the fun out of true pvp when everybody is mixing it up.

My whole point is why bother trying to implement a flawed system?  Det, purge, etc. is nothing but a bandaid on a sore.  I hope Mark Jacobs & company won't be afraid of a more innovative approach at handling the "extinction of small group" problem without long duration cc that will only open up a whole set of new problems.

I understand that you did not like the system - I truly do indeed. However, you are making your opinion seem like it was everyone elses when in fact it was (and still is) not.  We all have the right to an opinion but you speak from a very opinionated place that really comes off wrong. Just because you didn't like the system doesn't mean it lacked innovation or was a mistake.

Originally posted by Canan

Originally posted by Satarious

Originally posted by MarkJacobs

Originally posted by meddyck

We have plenty of proof that RvR based solely on zerging and keep taking fails (WAR, GW 2). I hope CU would support all types of playstyles from soloing, running a duo, running a full group, and zerging just like DAOC did.

Put keeps, towers, relics, etc. out there with reasons to take them (opening ports, gaining relic bonuses). Make player kills worth points that accumulate and grant the right to purchase powerful abilities. Then let players decide how they want to spend their play time.

Exactly. We don't want to stop zerging behavior entirely (couldn't really be done IMO)  but we want to give players the ability to fight the zerg and not just be rolled over by it time and time again. As another poster has pointed out, many players will take thte path of least resistance and its our job as designers to make sure that we present enough varieties of play that the players don't simply do the same thing every day because that's the quickest and easiest level to level.

 

OK.  This bit of logic is shaking my confidence in the project a little.  The idea of "giving players the ability to fight the zerg" is code for a long cc (or the like)  that is difficult to break out of or has long duration.  Long CC is not about skill, it's about which Enchanter or Bard fires off the first mass mezz.  The rest of the classes don't much matter.  It's the "I WIN" gun.  The first enchanter to fire off the Zs WINS.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  And it's just ridiculous how a much smaller group can just take its time plowing down a group 5 times their size because of this ridiculously overpowered mechanic.  If this mechanic goes into CU and people aren't aware of it ahead of time, I can assure you that it is going to result in mass people complaining and quiting if nothing is done about it.  Making RvR about who fires off the MEZZ gun first is going to be a deal-breaker for me.  

Fundamentally, you cannot artificially put a small group on equal footing with a larger group.  You're just opening up a whole new can of worms that will bite you in the ass down the road.

This is where I truly find myself frustrated. If you ever played Dark Age of Camelot you know that it was not simply who got the first CC off and then just plowing through a group 5 times your size. DAoC had abilities like cure mezz, purge, determination, charge, group purge, etc etc etc. that prevented this from happening more than 90% of the time. Now, were there times when a player had to sit out a long duration CC because his friend was too busy zapping enemies to pay attention to his friend in need of a cure? Absolutely. Or, did a person simply use his purge too quickly on a 3 second stun that he could have simply waited out, just to get mezzed again by an enemy player actually paying attention? Again, absolutely. But that is the point of tactical combat and decision making and team work. It really turns me off when someone simply says "WHOEVER GOT THE CC FIRST WON" because that simply is a false statement and your spreading of these rumors and false accusations misleads people who have never played or are not experienced with Dark Age of Camelot.

The crowd control system of Dark Age of Camelot was extremely tactical and rewarding to those who paid attention and assisted each other. Please don't make it into something it was not.

 

EDIT: I also hope you realize that this kind of behavior and whining has to created these watered down, free from decision making PvP games. They didn't just come into being - they were created by the people.

 

 

 

Like Zod said before... If you had a problem with long duration CC ... you didnt really play the game

Originally posted by Axxar

Originally posted by MarkJacobs

Originally posted by Axxar

As far as keeps are concerned I think there should be very slight or no immediate benefits in capturing a keep. It should be actually HOLDING the keep that makes it worth having.

I couldn't agree more. If we make it so that keep trading will reward players more than fighting, dying for and holding keeps then keep trading becomes a more viable way of earning renown/fame/rank/etc. We need to make the holding of key targets the way good things flow to the realm over time. The longer that the realm holds the objects of their desire, the better it is for the realm and we also have to make losing the objectives hurt too.

 

Cool. Of course there also needs to be incentive to assault more keeps so each Realm doesn't just sit on the keeps they have in an eternal truce... I think? :)

LOL, of course. Keep squatting, the next big revolution in RvR gameplay! :)

Originally posted by MarkJacobs

Originally posted by Axxar

Originally posted by MarkJacobs

Originally posted by Axxar

As far as keeps are concerned I think there should be very slight or no immediate benefits in capturing a keep. It should be actually HOLDING the keep that makes it worth having.

I couldn't agree more. If we make it so that keep trading will reward players more than fighting, dying for and holding keeps then keep trading becomes a more viable way of earning renown/fame/rank/etc. We need to make the holding of key targets the way good things flow to the realm over time. The longer that the realm holds the objects of their desire, the better it is for the realm and we also have to make losing the objectives hurt too.

 

Cool. Of course there also needs to be incentive to assault more keeps so each Realm doesn't just sit on the keeps they have in an eternal truce... I think? :)

LOL, of course. Keep squatting, the next big revolution in RvR gameplay! :)

I think there should definitely be high incentive to take keeps, otherwise, people won't invest the time and pain to take them. The answer could be to make the incentive high and worth the effort, just make it harder to take.  

Personally, I think the biggest problem to tackle is how to handle the "empty keep taking" problem that was prevalent in WAR.  There should be zero reward (in terms of experience... there should probably be some other incentive for owning a keep even though it's not being attacked) for  taking an empty, undefended keep.  It only encourages people to flow down the path of least resistance because it's so much harder to fight a defended keep.

Ok so i am gonna post this in yet another thread asking for some consideration from Mark... collision detection. CD is integral to zerg reduction and control, but as i asked (no reply yet) is it viable in a game like CU, or any other MMO for that matter ?

CD allows the use of fortifications, allows the use of foot soldiers holding choke points with ranged providing support. Instead of relying on CC abilities to try to counter a zerg why not implement CD and allow it to be the strategic change we need in RvR centric gameplay.

Am i so far off base here ? 

Originally posted by Axxar
I think it would be pretty weird if the best strategy to avoid losing a keep ended up being to leave it undefended.

That's why there should be some sort of reward (monetary, perhaps?)  for owning a keep OUTSIDE of experience.  The key here is to prevent situations where people do nothing but take empty keeps to farm experience to avoid the pain of taking defended keeps.  I don't know if you've ever played WAR, but that was pretty common practice.

Actually, I just thought of another perk for owning a Keep:  CRAFTING.  This would fit right in with Mark's emphasis on Crafting in the game.  I think it would definitely put a prize value on taking a keep even though it's not defended and you get no experience from taking it.  This would be healthy for the game overall since people will have to fight each other (since that's the only way to gain experience outside of crafting.. not sure of what Mark has in mind) and the value of taking empty keeps will still be there if they want better equipment.  Win win.

The idea is to remove the mentality that you can just farm empty Keeps for experience.  It fits RPG-wise since a person doesn't exactly improve him/herself in ability & experience by just taking empty keeps.

The zerg is how untrained humans have fought for thousands of years. Extreme military organization is a relatively modern technique. As long as people play pvp, zergs will happen. I dont hate them, in truth nothing helps me imagine fighting on a dark age battlefield more than being in a giant zerg fight. With that said most of the time my small band of friends and I use a wolf pack technique to fight zergs. We move in and out, poke prod and harass and usually we get a few newblings to stray away from the herd and fall to our blades. Sometimes we get zerged, some times we just end up running away, but almost all of the time we have fun with them. Do I think we need systems to help us stay competitive in small vs large group fights? sure, but like in real life, 200 vs 10, it is and should be a mauling. 300 was the exception, not the norm, but like King Leo I always go down swinging.

Originally posted by boxsnd

Originally posted by Nibs

It's up to players how they play, surely.

The devs will provide us with an area to play in. They will put in trees and hills and keeps and other stuff.

Whether you personally zerg it up or go the 8-man route, or both, is entirely up to you.

It is not that simple for sure. Players will do whatever is more effective. 

 

In daoc the veterans/high RR players preferred 8v8 because that is that gave them the most rps. The newbies/low RR players preferred zerging because they couldn't win many 8v8s and zerging was giving them more rps.

 

In WAR at launch players didn't even RvR because scenarios gave them more renown points. A bit after launch they just traded keeps because that became more effective.

 

In GW2 they zerg because only keep takes matter. Killing enemy players is almost worthless.

 

If they want many different playstyles in CU they will need 1) to balance zerging rps with 8v8 rps, 2) aoe long duration CC so veteran 8mans can take on newbie zergs, 3) player kills being much more effective progression than keep takes/crafting etc, 4) perma-stealth stealthers that aren't wanted in group RvR and have to solo/stealthzerg to progress(this is important if they want soloing and small group rvr too).

Well said. In summary most players will go the route of higher reward in a shorter time frame, human nature. Hopefully the game is balance in such ways that there are many options for equal reward while maintaining its original integrity. 

Originally posted by Xobdnas

The zerg is how untrained humans have fought for thousands of years. Extreme military organization is a relatively modern technique. 

And don't you think it would be awesome if there were an in-game mechanic that made "extreme military organization" a breeze?  My dream is to play in an mmo in which being a  part of (or leading) a well organized army  against another well organized army (or 2) is the norm.  I think this is probably the most overlooked problem in mmos.  Well organized campaigns is so much more fun than roaming the countryside in an aimless zerg.

I've talked about this idea before

In a nutshell, I think it would be cool if there were an ingame, built-in tiered leadership structure for the Army.  Each tier would have his own map and those under his command would be able to see the drawings he makes on the map.  Such a mechanic could quickly convey the strategy without trying to bark orders in chat.  Also, it nicely segments the levels from each other to reduce noise & distraction.  Sure, you could probably do this with teamspeak or something, but this would be a really nice feature for those who don't wish to or can't jump onto teamspeak.  The idea is to make organized combat more commonplace.