|
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 *****) |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:00:00 -
[2] - 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" |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:02:00 -
[3] - 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...... |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:04:00 -
[4] - 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. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:07:00 -
[5] - 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 -
[6] - 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. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:11:00 -
[7] - 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 -
[8] - 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..... |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
530
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 01:15:00 -
[9] - 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. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
531
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 02:09:00 -
[10] - 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 -
[11] - 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. |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
533
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 03:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
Leither Yiltron wrote:I am posting here because you are thinking of my clan tag.
I have no other comment, because you already know it.
what clan tag? |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
533
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 03:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:The counter to swarm tactics are explosives, and LLAV's with a gigantic shovel mounted on the front.
agreed, but this game cant handle much more boom fest...... |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
533
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 03:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
Dao Ferret wrote: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 *****) You do realize some (most? All?) ambush maps are all Zerg, all the time? ... Oddly, domination sometimes is, sometimes not so much.
1.) one game mode does not encompass the entire game 2.) the part of the game im more concerned with is planetary conquest 3.) I don't understand how any rush tactic on a one letter map could be considered zerging considering.... well..... where else is everyone supposed to go? |
Marston VC
Sver true blood Public Disorder.
533
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 03:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Absoliav wrote:As the game is right now, we can't do huge battles like MAG, because of the potential of Zerg tactics, but Dust will have something MAG didn't have, deploy able installations, like turrets and CRUs. Only problem is we haven't heard so much as a word about them, when ever we do get these things, chances are, well see an increase in match size.
do you mean an increase in map size? |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 13:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
Rogatien Merc wrote:There are many reasons massed line armies are no longer used irl some of which apply to dust. Given equalstarting numbers the point is to manage force ratios better than ur opponent. 60v10 win on one end of the map can mean 10x losses where its 5v10 elsewhere... so did u really need to commit those 60or would 20 have worked? No... and a bettercommander will defeat the zerg. Delaying, tanks, ob mass drivers chokepoints... all things need tobe taken into account. Its all part of the fun.
Pretty sound logic you have there! Your right it is pretty much about troop ratios when it comes to a game like this, but that implies that there is clear battle lines and yuck! It may come down to the commander, but at the end of the day its pretty hard to deal with a well commanded zerg force isn't it? I mean, if done properly they could do a clear sweep of the map! and it wouldn't be that hard to pull off (depending on the player cap). But its whatever, the point of the thread is to talk about it after all! |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 13:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar wrote:domination in MAG was epic and i can only hope that DUST will have the same amount of epicness x1000 due to all the posibilities of fittings, deployable structures, vehicles, and just overall badassness. i cant belive a member if the infamous SVER wouldnt be in favor of 128v128 man battles.
Lol, I didn't become a SVER until I got into this game 12 months ago. I played MAG but not with them, so maybe im missing the MAG OG blood, but that's fine! Im just worried about having so many people that small unit tactics get overshadowed. This concept might be irrelevant to CCP at the moment though, I mean were at 16 v 16 so 128 v 128 is a long ways down the road. For right now..... I say INCREASE THE CAP, INCREASE INCREASE INCREASE!!! 24 v 24 would be (in my opinion) a great place to be at! But even 32 v 32 would be acceptable! Its just that.... passed that number, the contributions of individual players starts to get less and less (and having corps that can withstand player counts like that also get less and less). |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 13:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Oso Peresoso wrote:these maps were very clearly designed for 32v32 or larger battles. The map that extends beyond the redzone is clearly designed for even more than that. Lets get that many people in a battle first before we start talking about zerging.
Just commented something about that actually! Your right, I agree that the maps currently are just too big for the amount of players in each match, 24 v 24 is when the matches ought to start feeling a bit more cozy. At 32 v 32 im hoping that pub stomps start to cut out because it will be harder for individual squads to have such a big influence on the outcome of the game (the most one well trained squad could do at that point is just move in a circle around the map...... in theory). I mean.... the future is bright, and based off a hint iron wolf saber posted, I suspect something big is coming within the next two to three months (hopefully). So will see then! |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 13:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
THIS IS THE SHORT VERSION OF WHAT I DONT WANT DUST 514 TO BECOME...... BEING ON THE HUMAN SIDE IS PRETTY ACCURATE I THINKS |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 13:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
ChromeBreaker wrote:New content will help with certain aspects of larger fights... transport vehicles, jets, AA tanks, new orbitals, Orbital deployed equiptment...
When you get bigger you have to have the tools to manage it. Atm coms break down after about 30 people... Commander rolls, multiple MCC's.... squad, team, platoons, company, brigades?
When your fighting larger numbers, the game has to match it... I would LOVE to see a 64 v 64 domination match
Wait...... common sense???? WAHHHHHHHHH????? |
|
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 14:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
ChromeBreaker wrote:Marston VC wrote:ChromeBreaker wrote:New content will help with certain aspects of larger fights... transport vehicles, jets, AA tanks, new orbitals, Orbital deployed equiptment...
When you get bigger you have to have the tools to manage it. Atm coms break down after about 30 people... Commander rolls, multiple MCC's.... squad, team, platoons, company, brigades?
When your fighting larger numbers, the game has to match it... I would LOVE to see a 64 v 64 domination match Wait...... common sense???? WAHHHHHHHHH????? I dance too
dance like these GUYS??? |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 14:30:00 -
[22] - Quote
ChromeBreaker wrote:Marston VC wrote:ChromeBreaker wrote:Marston VC wrote:ChromeBreaker wrote:New content will help with certain aspects of larger fights... transport vehicles, jets, AA tanks, new orbitals, Orbital deployed equiptment...
When you get bigger you have to have the tools to manage it. Atm coms break down after about 30 people... Commander rolls, multiple MCC's.... squad, team, platoons, company, brigades?
When your fighting larger numbers, the game has to match it... I would LOVE to see a 64 v 64 domination match Wait...... common sense???? WAHHHHHHHHH????? I dance too dance like these GUYS??? I just feel the GrooveAnyway.... *cough*....On topic... When it gets to Zerg levels i am a firm believer that the game and map layout are key, the objective of the match has to be such as to break up the blob, force them to split up. Unless of course the IDEA is just a massive mash up crash... but then everyones expecting it lol
Lol fair enough, im not sure how exactly one breaks up a zerg fest without high explosives though...... (and any more boomfesting in this game would break it) so yeah.... |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 14:40:00 -
[23] - Quote
Quote:Well a kill the base type of objective concentraits eveything into a specic area... what if it was "like" skirmish but instead of 5 null cannons, there were 5 areas of 5 null cannons? sure you could zerg but you'd leave the other objectives open... [/quote]
again..... that implies the knowledge of science is known to the development team! No.... your right, hopefully they make a better PC game mode eventually, cuz right now its not good :/ having equal footing as someone who supposed to be defending compared to the attacker is just silly in my opinion! |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 14:58:00 -
[24] - Quote
D Avenue wrote:This post should have been named "i don't like big game battles where legit zerging is possible"
In a game like new eden where you are suppose to ADAPT you think any kind of strategy should be used
If you want to play small squad warfare there are games that do that.
Wow, that's pretty useful information right there..... You totally misinterpreted the post. I don't mind the game having the capability to allow zerging, But what I do mind is that becoming the only viable tactic. Whats the point of all this "deep customization" if everything just gets overshadowed in big zergfests? There is none, because no matter how good you are, the more people there are in a match the less and less your contribution actually matters.
That's fine for some people, some people like all the chaos and to them its fun just mindlessly swarming places with people, but I personally enjoy the small squad action. Not long ago (towards the end of one of the build cycles) a full squad of STB went up against a full squad of Zion TCD in a pub match. We were all wearing straight proto gear, and that 4 v 4 confrontation was amazing.... I couldn't have asked for something more fun.
Ive played MAG, and ive had fun playing it, but I want this game to find a balance where theres enough people to enjoy the chaos of MAG, but not soooo many people that the game feels like planetside 2 and you just feel overwhelmed and useless. |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 15:00:00 -
[25] - Quote
ChromeBreaker wrote:Marston VC wrote:Quote:Well a kill the base type of objective concentraits eveything into a specic area... what if it was "like" skirmish but instead of 5 null cannons, there were 5 areas of 5 null cannons? sure you could zerg but you'd leave the other objectives open... again..... that implies the knowledge of science is known to the development team! No.... your right, hopefully they make a better PC game mode eventually, cuz right now its not good :/ having equal footing as someone who supposed to be defending compared to the attacker is just silly in my opinion!
Attacking/Defending means nothing if its all equal lol. Give the defenders a big wall to hide behind, a load of emplacements and half clones
Or 128 v 128... you only get 1 clone...
DOmination with multiple MCC's that are controlled...
[/quote]
Lol, I mean..... I would like domination to be more like the MAG domination (once player count is higher) I just want CCP to do it in a way where platoons have to complete overarching objectives before they can go ahead and help out another platoon. This way, at-least in the beginning zerging would be limited to what the individual platoons can manage. But that's big scale right there, and I wouldn't worry about that until they try and make the matches bigger then 32 v 32. |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 15:09:00 -
[26] - Quote
Brasidas Kriegen wrote:Marston VC wrote: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. Haha that would be awesome...great way to incorporate more features into the Captain's Quarters, EVE/Dust TV. Instead of spinning ships I could chill out on the couch and watch some mercs mess each other up. Even just a 6v6 Arena mode that can be broadcast :)
OoooooooOOOOOOO what your talking about is INNOVATION!!!! ME LIKE!!! yeah man, nothing like sitting down in real life, controlling a character that then sits down and watches TV while your watching him watch TV on a TV. Lol, it would be cool though, if you could just tap into any sort of live match and have it go full screen (on your TV) while it passive plays while your not sitting on the couch or something. CCP has something like this already in their playstation Home section. You walk around the bar and you can see all these TV's with past trailers on them. its pretty cool actually. |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
582
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 07:53:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ryan Mauler wrote:I whole heartedly think DUST deserves larger battles. You look at their epic game trailers and hear the words "one battle could cause the fall of an empire" and you think "frick yeah! Epiiiiic!" And then you realize that empires are being fought over by about 16 dudes on each side.... Wat... No no no. I think 64 vs 64 would make things MUCH more enjoyable. We're talking about armies coming against armies to fight for control in New Eden, not squads against squads. There are a few problems that CCP would run into if they wanted to appease our desire for more war like encounters.
Before I get into that, here are a few things I wanna go over real fast. You can skip if you want.
1) The definition of swarming: Swarming is having such a massive amount of combatants running hap-hazardly at a position, that the defenders simply cannot fill them with enough bullets. Not gonna happen in MAG or DUST... ever. Obviously a swarm like tactic is used, but it is not nearly as "zombie" like as Zerg. It is running between covers and overwhelming a defensive position with cover fire in order to move more combatants into the objective area.
2) Difference between Strategy and Tactic. Strategy is the answer to the question "What are we trying to accomplish". It is a very broad term that encompasses long term or over all goals and how to achieve them. Tactic is the answer to the question "How and who?" This is much more specific. In order to distinguish the two terms, take a general and a squad leader. The general uses Strategy when thinking of his campaign fronts, resource gathering, transportation, etc. a squad leader uses Tactic when thinking of the specialties of the individuals of his squad and the unique scenarios in which they find themselves.
Alright, so here is what CCP will have to overcome in order to create a more war like experience.
1) Higher Leadership. Right now, DUST is based on tactics more than Strategy. In order to facilitate the growth in game size, players will need someone leading the campaign. They will need someone with an overall Strategic plan that will command squad leaders to fulfill objectives. Right now, the squad leaders have strategy based commands and not tactic based commands. This is all well and good for small time battles, but for larger/more intense battles, you can't have a ton of groups running around without having a good idea of what every other group is doing. Having a higher leadership role will solve this problem. Strategic commands are: Capture Obj A, Defend Obj C, Aide Squad 3 etc. These commands would belong to the Commander. Tactic based commands would belong to the Squad leader, and they would be used to facilitate the completion of the Commander's objectives. They would be: Provide cover fire along this wall, Escourt/repair this vehicle, Set up defensive positions behind this rubble, etc. Application for this kind of battle would be based on a WP min and then selection would be random or selecting the individual who has played the most games without being selected. Also, battles this big would require everyone to be in a squad.
2) The current map layouts are not condusive to the war-like encounter that you'd expect from a 64 vs 64 game. I'm not talking about size, I'm talking about front lines. MAG defined the fronts with Bunkers where each squad had dominion over a single bunker. This spread the battle over a long space and made objectives pretty obvious. DUST, however, is much larger than MAG. Obviously the objectives are not quite so obvious (because each squad in DUST is not given a specific bunker) but they are pretty straight forward. The adaptability in DUST strategy is much greater than MAG, because the frontlies are always changing dramatically. We just need to be able to spread the battle out more. One of the biggest parts of the current maps that would inhibit this spreading out is the bottle neck spawning, but since the beta, CCP seems to have done better with that.
My answer to you is RIGHT HERE Never gonna happen in MAG huh? Sureeeeee |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
583
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 08:08:00 -
[28] - Quote
Ryan Mauler wrote:Marston VC wrote:My answer to you is RIGHT HERE Never gonna happen in MAG huh? Sureeeeee Sorry, here's a clarification. Swarming like a bunch of Zerglings is never gonna happen. Never. Swarm tactics are obviously ver viable, but you of all people (being a SVER True Blood) should know that swarm tactics can be countered with Heavy Armor, and crowd control tactics
(shhhhhhh my past is what drives me to keep this from happening again!) No.... what you said was thoughtful and very relevant. Your right, its just another tactic, and CAN be countered. But just because i CAN kill a logistics LAV doesn't mean its very do-able. Heavy armor and area denial weapons are good to counter this tactic, however its tough to say "everyone do this" when you have no guarantee the other side is going to swarm at all. I only posted this thread with the hopes of seeing everyones opinion on it. My opinion is that, "yes, swarming is a good and viable tactic, HOWEVER i don't want it to be the ONLY tactic...... Nor do i want it to be "all that" convenient to use" Because if you want to think of it on a tactical level...... swarming is pretty simple compared to other things you could be doing. |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
583
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 08:09:00 -
[29] - Quote
Johnny Guilt wrote:24v24 or 30v30(tops) wouldn't be too chaotic for the current maps but we'd need to teaek them a bit to accommodate the larger player count
The maps are huge as it is..... the higher player count would make them feel actually..... alive, lol |
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
595
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 05:50:00 -
[30] - Quote
CoD isAIDS wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:2000 vs 2000
Bring as many as you can muster or perish before the swarm. Maybe if CCP builds a smaller scale supercluster for supersized Dust battles separate from Tranquility, a couple of years down the line, then I could see massive Dust battles taking place, possibly with some slots reserved for EVE pilots in the skies, who would also have to bring a few buddies along if they want their orb-capable ship to survive and drop its armament. I know Tranquility is a supercluster, but I've heard of battles in EVE causing the game's built-in time dilation to kick in, both before the battle while everyone is getting acquainted with what's going on, and who has what, and who's going to do this and that, as well as while the battle is going on, so I'd imagine future battles like that would end up with locking in all the gear you're going to use hours beforehand, so CCP can do whatever it is programmers do on their end to clean up everything before the giant clusterparty begins. I got the bug from previous PC and console MMOs. I'd be great to know beforehand that again I'll have that kind of massive fun without needing to buy a PS4 and the upcoming game that's endlessly spammed on here that I won't mention because I don't want the banhammer for a week or two.
Ehhhh well the difference between this game and EVE is that 256 players is nothing compared to 600 man fleet battles...... That's when time dialation kicks in, and 256 is a bit of an extreme number as well because well..... it's the same number as MAG. Nowhere has it been said that the game needs to be that size! I was just using it as an example. I don't know the technical side of it though..... so I mean, im not sure how far they can push it honestly, but I guess will see in time right!? |
|
|
|
|