Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 00:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Pretty simple question guys, but ill elaborate more on what I mean. Back when Zipper interactive was releasing MAG the "revolutionary FPS" that featured 256 man battles, people got really hyped up for it. The overall chaos of this game was something people lived off of. However..... what a lot of people didn't recognize was the fact that "good" clans would always use "swarm" tactics. Swarm or "zerging" is the act of throwing so many people at one focal point that it just crushes and overwhelms defensive opposition.
To some people this is fun, but when you look at a game as deep as dust, you gotta say "well damn..... zerging pretty takes away all need for tactics huh?" and it does. Mindlessly following one order to "overwhelm a position" is a feet that's only truly possible once the player count has reached something I like to call "critical mass".
Critical mass meaning: The threshold in which once the game hits an X amount of players it becomes too zerg oriented.
The X variable in that definition is subject to player opinion, and so im asking you guys what you think about the topic.
Is 128 v 128 Too much for Dust???? What about 64 v 64? 32 v 32??
Does it not matter how many players are in this game?? Is the level of customization just sooooo deep that numbers wont matter?? or will numbers overshadow customization?? Because no matter how different your suit might be, you, as the player will still only be ONE player, and therefore you'll only be ONE of the MANY.
In my opinion 32 v 32 would be near perfect, possibly even 64 v 64, but past that the game starts to get excessive and I honestly don't think the PS3 could handle anything more then 32 v 32 anyway. I mean..... we don't even have 24 v 24 yet unfortunately. So what do you guys think??? I want to hear your opinions so if you read down to this far please feel free to post your opinion!!! (and if you feel super generous finger hump that like button cuz I like being a like *****) |
Surt gods end
Demon Ronin
622
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 00:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
You do know that's a tactic used by many well known corps on here. since day 1 in fact. |
Aero Yassavi
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
419
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 00:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Reason why zerging was so viable in MAG was because there really wasn't that big of a downside in completely abandoning one or two fronts. Plus in Dust we have these things called "Orbital Bombardment." Zerge at me, bro. |
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
4945
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 00:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
2000 vs 2000
Bring as many as you can muster or perish before the swarm. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
Surt gods end wrote:You do know that's a tactic used by many well known corps on here. since day 1 in fact.
Yes but given a well set up defensive position "swarming" can be countered. Because what is swarming on this game really? its 16 v 16 so how many people can you really send to one objective?? well 16 obviously..... but that's leaving you wide open for any sort of counter attack.
As the player cap is increased it becomes easier to say "ok will leave a squad to defend Letters A, B, and C each, every other squad come here and attack letter D" In short it becomes easier to swarm/zerg. Right now its easily counterable because 1.) both sides are on even footing coming into a match. 2.) if one side can capture three letters, they only need to have one squad defend each, and wait for reinforcements if a swarm is inbound.
Swarms on 128 v 128 matches are terribly hard to beat purely from a logistics standpoint "how do we reapportion our defense to cope with that many people hitting one spot while not leaving things totally open?" It causes chaos and while some people might like that sort of play, I enjoy the small skirmishes between groups of 2-6 because its much more focused and "intimate" |
Nebra Tene
Roaming Blades
115
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
It may not work as it is right now or on current maps, but later, with bigger maps, more vehicles and more variety, it may actually be pretty fun.
Heck some maps seem pretty empty as they are right now, and they're supposed to be the smaller ones, the bigger maps would be just a pain to play with with such small amount of players. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aero Yassavi wrote:Reason why zerging was so viable in MAG was because there really wasn't that big of a downside in completely abandoning one or two fronts. Plus in Dust we have these things called "Orbital Bombardment." Zerge at me, bro.
Not bad, not bad, I have to admit..... there really was no downside to abandon one front as the offender on MAG, but can you really feel comfortable relying on orbitals?? What if they deploy this tactic first thing in a match,
Swarm towards the objectives closest to the enemy and leave a squad or two back to capture the letters that they passed by. Hit the enemy so hard and shockingly that it really comes down to which side can run faster...... |
Krom Ganesh
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
166
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
However, Dust also has downsides to death that MAG may or may not have (never played). For one, there is the cost of fielding soldiers. Sure, you could "zerg" in free fits, but if the defenders are full proto, it is going to be a very uphill fight. Another downside is that even on objective based games, you have a clone limit. If you are sending wave after wave of enemies at a highly defended position, you may gain the objective but you could very easily lose the conflict. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
Nebra Tene wrote:It may not work as it is right now or on current maps, but later, with bigger maps, more vehicles and more variety, it may actually be pretty fun.
Heck some maps seem pretty empty as they are right now, and they're supposed to be the smaller ones, the bigger maps would be just a pain to play with with such small amount of players.
Possibly..... I think the current size maps could handle 32 v 32 matches (before things start feeling cluttered). Sometimes the map feels empty..... which is why I would like 32 v 32. But Im not sure. How much bigger can we make the cap on this system? That's the big question I think. |
Surt gods end
Demon Ronin
622
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
You zerg to break the moral. Skip objectives to your side or leave just one to get it, now bum rush across to the enemy's NEAREST objective. Red line them.
That was the goal with many clans in MAG. After your red lined, then 1 or 2 blokes can cap objectives. prevent you from getting out. spawn camping, red lining, hold hostage, all kinda same. |
|
FATPrincess - XOXO
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
169
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
On PS4....coming early 2016.
-XOXO |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
Krom Ganesh wrote:However, Dust also has downsides to death that MAG may or may not have (never played). For one, there is the cost of fielding soldiers. Sure, you could "zerg" in free fits, but if the defenders are full proto, it is going to be a very uphill fight. Another downside is that even on objective based games, you have a clone limit. If you are sending wave after wave of enemies at a highly defended position, you may gain the objective but you could very easily lose the conflict.
Ever heard of glass tanking? It means "high DPH, Low health" its easy to fit, and depending on the gun you want to use its relatively cheap to fit, were talking 30k suits here.
I don't care how "proto" your suit is, Id like to see you win a 1 v 4....... or a 5 v 20, because that's what zerging is. Sure the initial wave will suffer, and by initial I mean the front runners who get shot at first, but as uplinks get dropped closer and closer its going to be harder and harder to stop odds like that. At-least not without reinforcements. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Surt gods end wrote:You zerg to break the moral. Skip objectives to your side or leave just one to get it, now bum rush across to the enemy's NEAREST objective. Red line them.
That was the goal with many clans in MAG. After your red lined, then 1 or 2 blokes can cap objectives. prevent you from getting out. spawn camping, red lining, hold hostage, all kinda same.
EDIT: The HMG reign of MAG. My clan would push the enemy all the way back. break moral, and have some of them rage quit. lol
THIS ^ is exactly what I don't want to happen....... I mean the only time zerging is epic, is if two sides using the same tactics slam into each other, otherwise it turns into a one sided fight where whoever can mobilize troops faster wins. |
BatKing Deltor
Tank Bros. DARKSTAR ARMY
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
*resoonding to thread title-------> yes, givin its a different mode ( other than ambush domination or skirmish ) and redline is removed. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
and thinking about it..... zerging could potentially get even easier with the addition of those mobile shield equipment things..... Could you imagine just half a team of 64 people sprinting up and deploying tons of those shields everywhere out in the open. Flux grenades or not, that amount of cover would make sprinting across open fields easy mode. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:12:00 -
[16] - Quote
BatKing Deltor wrote:*resoonding to thread title-------> yes, givin its a different mode ( other than ambush domination or skirmish ) and redline is removed.
Well I mean..... I don't know how you "remove the redline" because if you do that it just makes it so that your MCC is the new redline...... OR you get spawn killed in your ground base..... unless your talking like this is planet side two fashioned and the whole planet is just a persistant world, but that sounds like it would be kind of tought to pull off..... |
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
4822
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:13:00 -
[17] - Quote
I don't see zerg as a problem; if you have the numbers, and a cooperative team, then why not use it to your advantage.
I'd personally be satisfied with a 64 player count, I don't need anything higher than that, though more would be nice. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:15:00 -
[18] - Quote
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:I don't see zerg as a problem; if you have the numbers, and a cooperative team, then why not use it to your advantage.
I'd personally be satisfied with a 64 player count, I don't need anything higher than that, though more would be nice.
Well organized doesn't count for **** compared to raw numbers..... I mean, it would take a mastermind FC to organize a logistics line that could reapportion their defense fast enough to counter zerg tactics. |
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
4822
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
Marston VC wrote:KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:I don't see zerg as a problem; if you have the numbers, and a cooperative team, then why not use it to your advantage.
I'd personally be satisfied with a 64 player count, I don't need anything higher than that, though more would be nice. Well organized doesn't count for **** compared to raw numbers..... I mean, it would take a mastermind FC to organize a logistics line that could reapportion their defense fast enough to counter zerg tactics. If both sides have the same raw numbers, then it isn't a balance issue. You can zerg, and they can zerg back just as easily; seems fair. Its pretty fun to see everyone rushing together. Corp battles specifically shouldn't exceed 64. |
hooc order
Deep Space Republic Top Men.
591
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:27:00 -
[20] - Quote
Marston VC wrote:Pretty simple question guys, but ill elaborate more on what I mean. Back when Zipper interactive was releasing MAG the "revolutionary FPS" that featured 256 man battles, people got really hyped up for it. The overall chaos of this game was something people lived off of. However..... what a lot of people didn't recognize was the fact that "good" clans would always use "swarm" tactics. Swarm or "zerging" is the act of throwing so many people at one focal point that it just crushes and overwhelms defensive opposition. To some people this is fun, but when you look at a game as deep as dust, you gotta say "well damn..... zerging pretty takes away all need for tactics huh?" and it does. Mindlessly following one order to "overwhelm a position" is a feet that's only truly possible once the player count has reached something I like to call "critical mass". Critical mass meaning: The threshold in which once the game hits an X amount of players it becomes too zerg oriented. The X variable in that definition is subject to player opinion, and so im asking you guys what you think about the topic. Is 128 v 128 Too much for Dust???? What about 64 v 64? 32 v 32?? Does it not matter how many players are in this game?? Is the level of customization just sooooo deep that numbers wont matter?? or will numbers overshadow customization?? Because no matter how different your suit might be, you, as the player will still only be ONE player, and therefore you'll only be ONE of the MANY. In my opinion 32 v 32 would be near perfect, possibly even 64 v 64, but past that the game starts to get excessive and I honestly don't think the PS3 could handle anything more then 32 v 32 anyway. I mean..... we don't even have 24 v 24 yet unfortunately. So what do you guys think??? I want to hear your opinions so if you read down to this far please feel free to post your opinion!!! (and if you feel super generous finger hump that like button cuz I like being a like *****)
Zerging is a tactic...and when combined with flanking and setting up cross fire is pretty much the tactical game i want to play. especially considering the tactics you can employ to stop a zerg. Fun stuff really.
One thing to make zerging a more controlled tactic rather then a mob pointed in one direction would be that in 256v256 battles you only get one life. |
|
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
881
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
I would love to see 128v128 public contract matches.
Jesus Christ, that's all they'd need to implement for players to be drawn back to the game. The sheer scale is awesome, who gives a damn if I lose to pubstompers.
If I were in the academy playing 16v16 matches, then suddenly I'm out into the 'real world' and the battle sizes just increased by 5-6 times, I wouldn't give two kittens that I was being roflstomped or zerged. I'd just lay on the ground, bleeding out, watching the kill feed with my mouth agape, staring at the countless pairs of boots sprinting across my vision, lights everywhere, dropships exploding (as per usual), HAVs running over mercs, LAVs murder taxiing through ten to twenty mercs at a time, swarms everywhere, orbitals destroying half the team.... sheesh.
Redlining is a mechanic which itself must be changed to be avoided. Keeping battle sizes their current way doesn't stop it from occuring.
Zerging, however... it may get frustrating to some, but personally I find the idea thrilling. I've never played MAG, but for hundreds of people to storm through every available entrance to an objective I'm guarding? I'd be furious that I die but I'd just burst out laughing if the enemies just kept coming... and coming... and coming...
Not to mention the increase in map sizes and vehicle limits if this were the case, which is good enough reason for me. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
5968
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:40:00 -
[22] - Quote
Dunno 1v1 games have been a long time classic of fun. |
Soldiersaint
Reaper Galactic
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:57:00 -
[23] - Quote
Surt gods end wrote:You do know that's a tactic used by many well known corps on here. since day 1 in fact. You do know thats a tactic that has been used since war itself right? |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
531
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 02:09:00 -
[24] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Dunno 1v1 games have been a long time classic of fun.
That would go with the "gladiator" matches CCP has mentioned a few times right??? Lol, imagine EVE players watching us fight for entertainment, and betting on us accordingly. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
531
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 02:12:00 -
[25] - Quote
Soldiersaint wrote:Surt gods end wrote:You do know that's a tactic used by many well known corps on here. since day 1 in fact. You do know thats a tactic that has been used since war itself right?
It's a bit easier to counter in real life I think...... no limit on tank numbers, trenches, mine fields, machine gun nests, bunkers..... things that just make rushing a bit more difficult to achieve. |
Soldiersaint
Reaper Galactic
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 02:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
True but it makes you wonder.....^^^^^^^WILL WE GET ALL OF THIS IN DUST^^^^^^^^^^^ |
Phantom Vaxer
The Generals EoN.
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 02:26:00 -
[27] - Quote
Obviously you don't know the complications of Planetside 2 with thousands of players... |
Garth Mandra
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
33
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 02:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
They should aim to make it so that you need to hold multiple objectives simultaneously.
Sure you can try zerging but you are at risk of one guy sneaking behind your lines and by taking your objectives.
This would encourage more diverse tactics and spread out the players which would probably reduce server/client/network load. |
Leither Yiltron
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
607
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 03:25:00 -
[29] - Quote
I am posting here because you are thinking of my clan tag.
I have no other comment, because you already know it.
|
Himiko Kuronaga
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
808
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 03:30:00 -
[30] - Quote
The counter to swarm tactics are explosives, and LLAV's with a gigantic shovel mounted on the front. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |