Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Biggest concern: zerg nutcupping

2»

Comments

  • gamefreak565gamefreak565 Noyb, ONPosts: 11Member
    Originally posted by Tamanous

    Funny.

     

    If you subsitute the word "zerg" with "army" the game concept makes much more sense.

     

    This is the ultimate paradox when it comes to pvp mmos. The so called hardcore crowd screams and yells for open, real world objectives which is the defining reason behind why nations are built and armies are formed yet when that occurs in their so called "sandbox" game they wanted so much to play, they call them zergs and run off to the developers crying they can't solo kill these zerg armies.

     

    [mod edit]

    Couldn't agree with you more. It's completely ridiculous how people think that "zerging" is a problem. What do you expect people to do? Not form alliances and stick in groups of 4-5 the entire game?

    The whole point of creating a sandbox game is to have players influence the world in their own unique ways. It turns out that this is a PvP sandbox. So it makes sense that people create alliances to exert their dominance.[mod edit]

  • DracomonDracomon Alexandra HeadlandPosts: 29Member

    One way to reduce the "zergs" or very large alliances would be to stick to the original plan of penalising multi race clans / alliances outside of the Human / Dwarf / Elf and the Ork / Mahirim combo (Alfar were by themselves).

    For some reason after years of being told this is how it would be, they dropped the idea in the final hour because some hardcore pvprs cried about not being able to nutcup the boyfriends who played another race.

    image
  • KrashnerKrashner Noneyabidness, INPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by Tamanous

    Funny.

     

    If you subsitute the word "zerg" with "army" the game concept makes much more sense.

     

    This is the ultimate paradox when it comes to pvp mmos. The so called hardcore crowd screams and yells for open, real world objectives which is the defining reason behind why nations are built and armies are formed yet when that occurs in their so called "sandbox" game they wanted so much to play, they call them zergs and run off to the developers crying they can't solo kill these zerg armies.

     

    [mod edit]

    This has always puzzled me. Even in Guild Wars 2 people still cry about zergs in WvW...thats the point of large scale pvp. Literally the singular point. The only possible way to have large scale pvp is when two zergs hit each other. Of all the probles Darkfall had, zergs weren't one of them, and with the new role system small teams will be more viable for most players since nobody will be a master of everything.

  • thinktank001thinktank001 oasisPosts: 2,027Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by gamefreak565

    Couldn't agree with you more. It's completely ridiculous how people think that "zerging" is a problem. What do you expect people to do? Not form alliances and stick in groups of 4-5 the entire game?

    The whole point of creating a sandbox game is to have players influence the world in their own unique ways. It turns out that this is a PvP sandbox. So it makes sense that people create alliances to exert their dominance.

    [mod edit]

     

    Zerging is fine as a tactic if the risk is there.   In the original DF it wasn't, and there hasn't been any changes shown so far to prove that there will be drawbacks in UW.        

  • JupstoJupsto englandPosts: 2,087Member

    zergs are completely enevitable. why exactly is what you mention a bad thing? zergs in highly populated server are kind of fun to fight, its only a problem if 1 alliance completely owns the whole server.

    it got boring when population was low on eu1 and 50% of the vets were all in the same zerg called "sun". but there will always be massive outnumbering.

    we'd siege a clan larger than us with out ~20 and they would hire more clans just to treble our numbers, yeah its cheap and annoying such is the nature of the game.

    and not having a holding or being locked off a continent doesn't stop you playing the game or having fun.

    as a small clan you can join an alliance or get hired and fight in big battles.

    My blog: image

  • KrashnerKrashner Noneyabidness, INPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by psykobilly
    Originally posted by Krashner
    Originally posted by Tamanous

    Funny.

     

    If you subsitute the word "zerg" with "army" the game concept makes much more sense.

     

    This is the ultimate paradox when it comes to pvp mmos. The so called hardcore crowd screams and yells for open, real world objectives which is the defining reason behind why nations are built and armies are formed yet when that occurs in their so called "sandbox" game they wanted so much to play, they call them zergs and run off to the developers crying they can't solo kill these zerg armies.

     

    [mod edit]

    This has always puzzled me. Even in Guild Wars 2 people still cry about zergs in WvW...thats the point of large scale pvp. Literally the singular point. The only possible way to have large scale pvp is when two zergs hit each other. Of all the probles Darkfall had, zergs weren't one of them, and with the new role system small teams will be more viable for most players since nobody will be a master of everything.

    [mod edit]

    [mod edit] It's literally impossible to prevent people from forming alliances without a rigid faction system. The only way to stop starter areas from getting camped is an EvE style safety area, since in current pvp there are no real consequences for killing people.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member

    the could copy the interference system from perpetuum

    e.g.  If wizards or priests stand to close to each other, their magical energies clash and they have more chance of misfiring, which increases by players in range

  • SysFailSysFail LondonPosts: 375Member
    It's a cert that there are already alliances being formed as we speak, with the goal of domination, creating safe havens and those who have played, will know who the culprits are.
  • XarnthalXarnthal Landenberg, PAPosts: 130Member
    Originally posted by psykobilly

     

    I'm a little worried we will see a repeat of DF release.  Basically what happened is that a zerg alliance formed on each sub-continent and completely locked it down.  Then you had maybe 3 big zerg alliances on the main continent each take a 3rd of the slice.  (there were some exceptions/resistance of course, but that's basically how it went down)

    The zerg attitude is: tough shit it's a sandbox.  But in the long run it hurt the population of the game because you had new groups coming into the game that couldn't do anything unless they joined into a zerg.   

    There is no way to prevent this from happening, but I really hope that the vet guilds coming back will keep their balls and not hand em out for everyone to cup.  

     

     

    Darkfall died when the zergs died.

    Sennheiser
    Assist
    Thage

  • VyethVyeth Fayetteville, NCPosts: 1,459Member

    It's usually always a game of numbers.. A smaller force may be able to put a dent in a zergs armor (maybe loot someone high up in command), but they will never completely destroy a zerg.. Most big guilds try to express their "mad skillz yo" anyway, so it's highly unlikely they are a bunch of baboons running around.. They probably are all split into teams on Teamspeak or Vent using some precise tactics and target calling..

    If all the big guilds team up and take over the world, well, you either join one of em or you lead a revolution to overthrow one of em.. Find you some freedom fighters and take a slice of land while forming a band yourself..

    image

  • KshahdooKshahdoo MoscowPosts: 553Member

    Well, if we look at EVE, we see there are a lot of zergs there. And zergs rule over 0.0 space. But not entirely because there are NPC systems where small pvp corporations and alliances can withstand any zerg. I think chaos cities play the same role in DF and will house many small pvp clans.

    As to small PvE clans... Well, there is always faction lands. With a lot of people playing faction lands can be very interesting place to live... The problem is there are alway people who want to have there own home. Like a small hamlet. And when they will lose it they leave. And, you can't fight this.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    This.
    perpetuum-online.com/Help:Interference

    But with magic, would work great I reckon,force players to spread out and add a new layer of tactic.
  • ZekiahZekiah Aurora, COPosts: 2,499Member

    I haven't read ANY changes to the PvP system in UW so you can rest assured the same a** hats will be present and doing their usual.

    Enjoy!

    "Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky

  • 123443211234123443211234 seattle, WAPosts: 244Member

    With a healthy population zergs will be alive and well in darkfall expect it and plan accordingly.  DF is created in such a way that although in a straight numbers vs. numbers matchup they could beat you there are many ways to even up the odds.  Like using a choke point to your advantage......i.e. 300 style works very well.  You can also attack the "zergs" holdings and farm grounds causing them to lose not only resources but also......players from the zerg when they realize they cannot be protected 24/7.  Quality of gear on zerg players will most likely be lower than nonzerg as they will have to share out limited higher end resources with many more people, people more likely to lose said gear at a faster rate as well.  Preperation and strategy will be key to fighting zergs, but obviously going head to head when you are outnumbered 2 to 1 or more is a very bad idea.

     

    PS. There are many more things ingame you can do but I won't list them here,  you will have to find them out for yourselves.

  • RaxeonRaxeon cedar falls, IAPosts: 2,090Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Zekiah

    I haven't read ANY changes to the PvP system in UW so you can rest assured the same a** hats will be present and doing their usual.

    Enjoy!

    that isnt what killed darkfall tho

  • itchmonitchmon west islip, NYPosts: 1,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kshahdoo

    Well, if we look at EVE, we see there are a lot of zergs there. And zergs rule over 0.0 space. But not entirely because there are NPC systems where small pvp corporations and alliances can withstand any zerg. I think chaos cities play the same role in DF and will house many small pvp clans.

    As to small PvE clans... Well, there is always faction lands. With a lot of people playing faction lands can be very interesting place to live... The problem is there are alway people who want to have there own home. Like a small hamlet. And when they will lose it they leave. And, you can't fight this.

    the main Zerg of eve, of course is Goons and their ClusterF**k coalition (CFC).  but i wouldnt say 0.0 is full of zergs.

     

    for instance Solar Fleet is, depending on the metrics you are looking at, the most successful alliance in 0.0.  (goons control more space, but solar controls more outposts.  or the other way around.  i forget.)  they are the opposite of a zerg, they only take the very best and they have about a 2500 player disadvantage in numbers compared to Goons.

     

    i would consider the alliance i'm in (intrepid crossing) to be somewhere between the two.

     

    also in goons' "defense"  they make for a great "villain" in eve.  someone for folks to rally around, even if they are really rallying against them!

    RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.

    Currently Playing EVE, DFUW

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

    Dwight D Eisenhower

    My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.

    Henry Rollins

  • LizardEgyptLizardEgypt Yarmouth, NSPosts: 337Member

    Massive pvp on a single server is one of the biggest appeals of Darkfall, there are a ton of games with more skilled 1:1 pvp than Darkfall, but no other game offered massive scale strategic territorial combat. The first few months of Darkfall on EU1 were some of the best MMO moments I've had. I think you guys are letting this illusion of grind + macros = skill blur out the fact that the game is designed around the sieging..

    Currently playing - FF14ARR
    Previous games - SWG, World of Warcraft, ShadowBane, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Darkfall, Planetside Asheron's Call, Everquest, Everquest 2, Too many.

  • XarnthalXarnthal Landenberg, PAPosts: 130Member
    Originally posted by LizardEgypt

    strategic territorial combat. The first few months of Darkfall on EU1 were some of the best MMO moments I've had.

    Agreed. The game is all about sieging and conquering opponents. It's about clan vs clan, alliance vs alliance. That's the kind of stuff that makes Darkfall amazing, no other game has come close to that kind of clan warfare in the traditional fantasy setting. It's not a game about server vs server, or realm vs realm. It's about your clan and the people you play with taking and defending what you have. If your clan is too small to defend what you have, then you lose it. If your clan is not strategic enough then you'll be pushed aside. If you're going into DF saying 'I'm not gonna zerg' that's fine, but the opposing zerg is still going to roll over you without hesitation. You can cry all you want about it in Darkfall but you're just going to be laughed at. It's also the only game I've played where role playing guilds have succeeded and are not looked down upon. It's not a walk in the park when you come up against a group of roleplayers defending their territory. 

     

    I think people don't get that the game is more than 1 on 1 dueling and instanced 'fair fight' pvp games. I think this is where the current/future players and the veterans of the game differ. Current and future players believe in fair fights and think that scheduled 3v3's are what matters in Darkfall. Veteran players remember the release of EU1 and the destruction of clans who didn't have enough allies to support them. Clans who thought they were billy badass and could take on the world on their own.

    In the simpliest form, Darkfall is a game of Risk. Similar to the board game, if you extend too far you're going to lose and if you turtle up you're going to lose. In the end the winner is the side who has more allies. My suggestion if you're a clan coming into Darkfall: Unholy Wars - set your ego aside because it's just going to get you stomped into the ground, if not by a giant zerg of RP'rs, then by clans who have been gaming together for more than a decade.

    Sennheiser
    Assist
    Thage

  • UzikUzik Jamaica, NYPosts: 280Member
    So long as they limit AoE and CC within certain roles I think we will see zerging as a less effective strategy in DFUW.

    (Uzik ibnYaraq in game. Always willing to help.)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/UzikAlJhamin

  • psykobillypsykobilly NYC, NYPosts: 338Member

     

    Once again as so many don't see the point of the thread...

    Zergs isn't the problem I am bringing up.  Zerg nutcupping is the problem I am bringing up.  This is when the big zergs on the server all sign off on non-siege pacts with one another to ensure no chance of losing holdings.  

    It was never a debate about zergs being good or bad.

     

  • psykobillypsykobilly NYC, NYPosts: 338Member
    Originally posted by Uzik
    So long as they limit AoE and CC within certain roles I think we will see zerging as a less effective strategy in DFUW.

    And we already see the skirmishers has at least 2 AOE's - explosive arrow and salvo.  And that is just one of 4 schools.  Something archers never had before.

    You can be sure that every role has AOE in DF:UW.

  • TamanousTamanous Edmonton, ABPosts: 2,126Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by psykobilly

     

    Once again as so many don't see the point of the thread...

    Zergs isn't the problem I am bringing up.  Zerg nutcupping is the problem I am bringing up.  This is when the big zergs on the server all sign off on non-siege pacts with one another to ensure no chance of losing holdings.  

    It was never a debate about zergs being good or bad.

     

    So you are saying alliances aren't allowed?

     

    So in order to bring down players who take the time to organize guilds and control areas in the game there are two options:

     

    1. Organize your own guilds into an alliance that can compete. This takes time and effort and 100% driven by player effort.

     

    or...

     

    2. Whine to the devs to place limitations in game to prop up players no willing to put time and effort into the game.

     

    Sort of seems like you prefer # 2 by these posts.  You can't make a 100% open ended sandbox pvp game and then place artificial caps on what players can do. Go out and find a way to communicate to these guilds and see if actual gameplay can limit super powers forming. It is inevitable anyway.

     

    You seriously have to stop the whine fest though with calling guilds "zergs" and making up stupid terms nobody else uses to sound special like "zerg nutcupping" ... "big zergs on the server " is just a phrase used by small timers when describing organized guilds.

     

    It is sounding like you DF simply isn't the game for you. Perhaps a little too hardcore outside of balanced battlegrounds where "zerg nutcuppers" can't be used to describe players better than you. When a game is built to simulate army level battles you can't continue stomping around the room calling them "zergs" when you should be finding ways to defend yourself on the same scale. Either defend your noob areas or hope they are off limits entirely from the sandbox world. If part of the sandbox ... everything is up for grabs by anyone.

    You stay sassy!

  • psykobillypsykobilly NYC, NYPosts: 338Member
    Originally posted by Tamanous

    So you are saying alliances aren't allowed?

     

    So in order to bring down players who take the time to organize guilds and control areas in the game there are two options:

     

    1. Organize your own guilds into an alliance that can compete. This takes time and effort and 100% driven by player effort.

    2. Whine to the devs to place limitations in game to prop up players no willing to put time and effort into the game.

     

    Sort of seems like you prefer # 2 by these posts.  You can't make a 100% open ended sandbox pvp game and then place artificial caps on what players can do. Go out and find a way to communicate to these guilds and see if actual gameplay can limit super powers forming. It is inevitable anyway.

     

    You seriously have to stop the whine fest though with calling guilds "zergs" and making up stupid terms nobody else uses to sound special like "zerg nutcupping" ... "big zergs on the server " is just a phrase used by small timers when describing organized guilds.

     

    It is sounding like you DF simply isn't the game for you. Perhaps a little too hardcore outside of balanced battlegrounds where "zerg nutcuppers" can't be used to describe players better than you.

    Wow you obviously don't read much so let's break it down.

    No I am not saying alliances, large groups of players, or anything like that is bad.  I am not 'whining' in the least, especially not to the devs who I know don't listen to their players from the last 3-4 years of DF experience.  I do not believe in artificial caps on anything.

    It is painfully obvious you did not play Darkfall at EU release because I did not make up the term 'zerg nutcupping' in fact it was common back then.  The zerg nutcups are a historical fact of the game that everyone who played at release can remember.   While any form of alliance is allowed - it was very detrimental to the overall game when 80% of the server was de-facto allied.  If you weren't there - you don't understand.

    I don't want devs to do anything about it... I want the vet players who care about the game to do something about it.  In fact, the players in DF1 did something about it - they formed groups like CotC on the mainland and Stasis on Yssam to fight against the non-agression pact forming nutcuppers (and had limited success, but lots of fun).

    And if you think DF was hardcore with features like 3rd person, global banking, instant teleport, then you don't know what you are talking about.  DF1 is not nearly as hardcore as I would like.

     

  • HancakesHancakes flint, MIPosts: 1,045Member
    Originally posted by psykobilly

    It is painfully obvious you did not play Darkfall at EU release because I did not make up the term 'zerg nutcupping' in fact it was common back then.

     

     

    The term is nutcupping and was pervalent in Shadowbane.  The addition of "zerg"  is rather redundant as group is already implied.

  • kaiser3282kaiser3282 Phoenix, AZPosts: 2,660Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by psykobilly
    Originally posted by Uzik
    So long as they limit AoE and CC within certain roles I think we will see zerging as a less effective strategy in DFUW.

    And we already see the skirmishers has at least 2 AOE's - explosive arrow and salvo.  And that is just one of 4 schools.  Something archers never had before.

    You can be sure that every role has AOE in DF:UW.

    The big question is not so much, who will have AoEs, but how effective will they be. For all we know these AoEs, like Salvo, could do like 1/5 of the damage of single target shots. If they are just as poweful as single target skills, then yeah theres going to be some major balance issues, but I doubt that will be the case. We may end up with a few classes that have some pretty devastating AoEs, but also classes that are even more devastating vs individual targets.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.