I guess I should have explained this initially.
Thanks for explanation, my English sometimes isn’t good enough for understanding difficult sentences.
Or it could be that your settlements alliance is being threatened and volunteers flood in wanting to help fight for the noble cause. There are many instances where someone needs to lead untrained green troops into battle. I guess you guys would have them just get slaughtered? Also unit combat has never been done well in a MMO so the majority of people's only experience with large scale battles are arena brawls where everyone is fighting solo.I don’t agree with you. Ability of making formation and time of making formation is important parameters of armies.
And these parameters don’t depend on the mastery of the commander. They depend only on level of training of personnel. Even militiaman must be trained to working in formation. it is not an innate ability. This is what we must learn if we want to use it.
That’s historically confirmed, logical and realistic. And of course non-combatant must not have that ability if he haven’t been trained.I will give an example of table, which shows time of making the formation dependence on skill of personnel:
Time of making the formation-----------Name group of character
Unable to make any formation at all----non-combatant or solo fighter
10-20min(only on the training ground)--Beginner
10min----------------------------------Rookie or militiaman
5min-----------------------------------Soldier (among his brothers in arms)
2-3min---------------------------------Experienced soldier (among his brothers in arms)
0,5-1min-------------------------------Veteran (among his brothers in arms)I wrote “(among his brothers in arms)” by the reason. Actions in a big group require knowledge of character's role in a group of fighters.
For example a veteran can not create a formation so quickly in an unfamiliar group.
I think that system can be realized someway....
Well I do see your point. And maybe dumbing the system down isn't a good idea. I've seen people say they doubt that MMO players of today will want to take the time to train how to function within a unit. I think some will not be able to, but if the benefits are.shown, many will take the time to learn.
I guess ultimately though my idea was just an addition to someone else's concept and the chances of it being implemented are unlikely. Though the formation graphic on the ground has been mentioned by Ryan, so that may see the light of day.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd be interested to hear more about how formations might influence the server load. It sounds to me like a fundamental place to start with any design of formations with respect to scaling battles towards larger & larger numbers of players and actions?
I don’t think that Formation Combat system should reduce the server load.
It’s much better to use Time Dilation system like in Eve, because the reducing of the server load requires a simplification. And simplification in general is a bad idea for battles.
I think Ryan mentioned Time Dilation would be unacceptable for players generally requesting real-time?
I'm not too sure I agree that with large scale-battles some form of simplification IS a bad idea after a certain size? You need to have units = players and those need to be stackable into formations that create different properties that interact in strategic ways. If you provide the unit with too much independence, you're just increasing the number of opportunities for a battle to turn into zerg vs zerg again?
I think it does depend on the numbers (rough figures):
Archeage: 50vs50 (instanced sieges
Guild Wars 2: WvWvW can go upwards to 2,000 ie about 500v500v500 (is fairly high)
DAOC: 1,000 or so
Lineage2: 300v300
WAR (city invasions): 60vs60
=
Below about 100 possibly, mobs might work, but when you start getting above 500, I think a different form of organising players is called for.
It depends perhaps on how large the battles are (will be) in PFO and how many different factions could all be fighting atst?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Add mounted combat and suddenly you have infantry forming squares against cavalry :) Add cannons with grapeshot and we are suddenly in the napoleonic period :)
On a more serious note I see two issues:
- even in real life historical medieval re-creation most battles deteriorate to one on one mini duels.
- to be at all realistic you may need to enforce stuff players will dislike. For example if a formation breaks your character has a penalty to AC and attack for being "disordered" and may even run.
However ---> I can see a game mechanic providing some level of benefits for holding realistic tactical formations being a good thing. Just not sure how it would cash out in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This would of course be harder to implement, you would need the ability to stop enemies from walking past you, reductions in the ability to defend against multiple people and/or from not your front.
There are teamwork feats for AoO bonuses and attack bonuses when your teamate is flanking the opponent!
You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill here but I don't blame you, this was a mistake by GW, hanging themselves with this rope and anouncing formations. Now all the war reenactment buffs have raging woodies for something that is not only undoable in an MMO, it's undesirable.
There are tons of wargame strategies to be played if you just tweak the teamwork and leadership feats from the TT game. I hope this gets nipped at the bud because as cool as it can be it will cause a sore spot for people expecting to do the turtle shell like Red Cliff
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the rewards are worth the effort the formation system will be used.
Yeah, but will it be FUN? That's the question. Nobody wants to be the foot solidier in command and conquer. This doesn't sound like a lot of fun to anyone but the squad leaders. I'm pretty sure most of the people suggesting this, are imagining themselves as said squad leaders...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that teamwork feats are something different. They would work more like paladin auras in WoW, where if you're within the aura of someone else with the feat you both gain the bonus. Alternatively, it could work like the Shield Mate and you just have to be in the same group. Either way, that's a different discussion.
The Formation Combat system would be an optional way for large scale battles to occur and lighten the load on the server. Which it would, because there would be a lot less information passed from server to client. Instead of 400 (or 4000) characters' info being passed to each client in the battle, only 50-100 entities' data would be passed. This would go a long way toward helping the server deal with everything and everyone's clients staying up to date without lag. The problem then becomes the textures on the client end but that's a symptom of computer hardware and there are things that can be done to help that like loading low res textures etc.
The main problem I think people have with the Formation Combat system, from what I've seen in this thread, is that it takes away from your ability to control your character. That's not the aim at all, in fact you should be able to leave the formation at any time. At first I didn't think simply moving should take you out of formation but now I think that would be a good way to go, originally I thought you'd have to click something in the formation UI to leave. In PnP Pathfinder, characters can move and cast, so there's no reason that being essentially on autofollow would prevent you from doing things like that. Being in the formation would grant you defensive bonuses if there are defensive characters in the formation, and possibly offensive magic bonuses if you have multiple wizards casting or something. It's all up in the air, but the main focus was the mechanic behind Formation Combat that would help alleviate strain on the server while maintaining fun for everyone involved.
Think of it as a vehicle, imagine yourself riding on a cart that was moving and you can cast or shoot arrows or whatever you'd like from the cart. You wouldn't be moving yourself, the person driving the cart would be moving everyone together, but you'd still be useful and it would still be fun. When I was writing the OP I was thinking about a lot of things but one of them was the few games I've played where you could hop on a tank and take a ride while still providing cover fire and other support. If you prefer not to think of it that way then that's not a problem, just think about it like a unit sticking together and moving together and covering each others' backs. Being able to react to a flank quickly is easier under the Formation Combat system because the leader just has to select a different formation and everyone automatically falls into place. Each formation could give different bonuses and be useful for different situations.
I think in the case of the rogue sneaking up behind someone, they would just break formation for a second and go do that and then come back. Or, just not be in formation with everyone else and just keep sneaking around. Formations aren't for everyone, and they should be optional.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fine and dandy Uthreth (nice name btw). I'd like to see what this proposal is for formations that actually LIGHTENS the server load. Like I said at the outset, I have bad feeling that either the foot solider or the war afficcionadoes are not going to like it. I think GW has to tread carefully because this is a possible game breaker here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the rewards are worth the effort the formation system will be used.Yeah, but will it be FUN? That's the question. Nobody wants to be the foot solidier in command and conquer. This doesn't sound like a lot of fun to anyone but the squad leaders. I'm pretty sure most of the people suggesting this, are imagining themselves as said squad leaders...
It is fun to be an integral part of a tactical victory over worthy opposition whether I'mrunning and hopping like a madman or not.
What I am seeing here is people pronouncing a verdict before they have anything to base that verdict on. Nobody knows whether it might be fun or not.
In Star Wars the Old Republic they have space combat where you only slightly control your ship's movement and focus almost wholly on controlling your weaponry. And it is fun. Yes there are a few people who wail quite loudly for full freedom and sure it would also be fun to really use a joystick again but the system they have is still fun.
It is fun to act stupid too, but that doesn't make stupidity the best course of action.
The hilarious vid of LeeRoy charging into the lair of a Boss before the group is ready is an extreme example of 'fun' liberty resulting in a dungeon wipe. Just because everyone wants to be able to jump all over the dungeon whenever they want does not make it a good idea.
Formation combat would surely be optional: something that is available but not mandatory. If you are facing my group across the field of battle and your people don't want to take advantage of the system that is perfectly fine with me. We'll just kick your sorry behinds up one side and down the other and teach you better ingame.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed. This is one of the aspects of the game that has the best chance to kill the game if not done correctly. However, if it's done correctly it has the chance to greatly enhance the game. We should discuss it at length and then GW should step in and crowd forge it beyond that. They should spend a lot of time designing it and testing it so that it ends up as a pretty big positive rather than a devastating negative.
You asked specifically about server load. It's probably something I should have spent more time on in the OP, but the basic idea is that the server would only have to make calculations on one object per formation rather than a separate object for each character. By calculations I mean things like positioning, line of sight, movement, etc. Think of it like a hydra - it's a single creature but it has different heads that can each be targeted and each of those heads can take a separate action. Same with a beholder. These kinds of monsters can actually use aspects of the formation combat system as their normal function, though that's another separate discussion.
By only having to deal with one entity per formation, a mass combat of 1000 characters could be simplified down to something like 200 formations. Suddenly the server load is much less than before. Of course, people will be leaving and rejoining formations constantly but it'll still be better than having everyone separate. Instead of each player's client computer having to get locations and movement vectors for 1000 combatants from the server, they would only need 200 locations and movement vectors and whenever an action is being performed by a "head" that action would be sent immediately as a separate struct. The end result is drastically reduced traffic between the client and server and the bottleneck becomes the client's rendering rather than the server's communication and calculations. The rendering problem is one which is more easily solved using low res textures or even things like tactical views similar to Civ 5.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed. This is one of the aspects of the game that has the best chance to kill the game if not done correctly. However, if it's done correctly it has the chance to greatly enhance the game. We should discuss it at length and then GW should step in and crowd forge it beyond that. They should spend a lot of time designing it and testing it so that it ends up as a pretty big positive rather than a devastating negative...
Frankly it has to be tested ingame and reported on for crowdforging to be meaningful. The ONLY good decision is an informed decision. The only other kind of decision is a lucky one.
Everything else is just a mistake and not a decision at all.
I don't want to depend on luck.
I am strongly against any system which takes control of my character away from me.
I don't have a need to be in command I have done taking orders in online games a lot before and am fine with it. But quite frankly if I have to give up control of my character I just won't, and if anyone wants some mindless drones for there formations they can pay the bills for them themselves.
(possibly an overreaction but the sentiment is essentially true)
What's being talked about is an optional system. You can still be part of a unit, fighting in formation and be in full control of your character if you want. That's part of what makes this system appealing, that it works in more then one way.
For guilds, or groups that regularly train together, they can just continue as they have and be extremely effective in large scale battles. But those who are new to such a system can still participate in battles, this allows them to be useful in the war effort as they get acclimated to unit combat and formations. Eventually graduating to where they no longer need to rely on anything but their newly acquired combat skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am strongly against any system which takes control of my character away from me.
I don't have a need to be in command I have done taking orders in online games a lot before and am fine with it. But quite frankly if I have to give up control of my character I just won't, and if anyone wants some mindless drones for there formations they can pay the bills for them themselves.
(possibly an overreaction but the sentiment is essentially true)
2 responses: If your character were able to climb inside some vehicle or ship and players were required to perform different functions (one on the wheel steering, perhaps someone on the back wheels, someone calling the beat to speed/ramming speed etc, another calling LOS, another running the weapons and other running defences etc...
Suddenly being in a large team losing some of your avatar's functions to be replaced with a delegated role in a "super-avatar", sounds fairly reasonable - especially when such a combination could if orchestrated, wreak destruction on foes less well coordinated/organised, requiring different skills such as teamwork and overall a different avatar experience? Combine it with emergent battlefield tactics on a huge scale with other coordinations and timings and order...
The other response is an old (very old!) army joke: "A sergeant shouted to all the new rescruits: "A-Ten-SHN! Right who here is well educated and refined in manners in background to consider the daily domestics to be beneath them?" Several hands shoot up into the air. "RIGHT! You are the people who MOST need to learn to perform these duties!!"
The fact is the life of a soldier requires a lot of giving up personal freedoms and being shouted commands at etc. The Soldier Career will be suitable for some players and not for other, as it should be. You make that choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really didn't like the vehicle-based stuff in WoW, and would just as soon not base Formation/Unit Combat on that model. I expect it to be like Ryan originally described it, where each person in the Unit is expected to do what they need to do in order to maintain formation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am against auto controlled formations.
I think the challenge of formations should be exactly like what the challenge of formations is, getting a group of people to work together in the heat of battle.
Teamwork is what separates a mob from an army. Players should have to practice being in formation, they should have to practice changing formations quickly and efficiently.
Whats the pay off for all of this work, well you are in a formation and you get bonuses for doing so. teamwork and formations is what will allow a smaller group of well disciplined players defeat a large rabble.
Staying in formation, changing formation should be based on player skill. Some skills should allow more leeway so that unit cohesion can be kept if small mistakes are made, but ultimately it should be the player who is responsible for maintaining the formation not the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am against auto controlled formations.
I think the challenge of formations should be exactly like what the challenge of formations is, getting a group of people to work together in the heat of battle.
Teamwork is what separates a mob from an army. Players should have to practice being in formation, they should have to practice changing formations quickly and efficiently.
Whats the pay off for all of this work, well you are in a formation and you get bonuses for doing so. teamwork and formations is what will allow a smaller group of well disciplined players defeat a large rabble.
Staying in formation, changing formation should be based on player skill. Some skills should allow more leeway so that unit cohesion can be kept if small mistakes are made, but ultimately it should be the player who is responsible for maintaining the formation not the game.
I'm not against this, it sounds equally awesome. But I'm more skeptical as to making it work. It sounds a lot like attempting to simulate formations in too granular detail, and then attempting to get that to work with the intended gameplay results of eg reducing zergs, armies consisting of various unit formations acting tactically in their 00's if not early 000's (?) with a lot of graphical effects going off and various contexts eg sieges, number of factions involved and potentially anywhere on the map (no instancing battleground, as far as I'm aware).
It's very ambitious - and very worth doing if possible!
The other way to look at formations is what problems does it solve, and is it worth developing this system to overcome those problems, whatever they may be? I think the mass zerg combat is a huge problem in massively multiplayer fantasy games, so definitely think it's worth solving.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well the thing is I dont think formations should be used to reduce zerging. I think formations should be put in to add another layer to PvP and combat. Formations should be added not because there is a problem with current pvp, but that it adds another dimension of play.
Formations could have all sorts of benefits. However those benefits dont come cheap, they come at a very high price. 1) you have to invest in a soldier archtype, rather than say going fighter and 2) it would require practice in order to function well.
At the end of the day I love the idea of being able to have a formal organized cooperative style of combat. Player Nations and Warlords moving their armies through out the River Kingdoms. Epic battles between good and evil!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good reason to ensure you know your leader and have the brass to recommend someone else for tactical leadership if their ability is better. Then again we probably don't need a whole lot more opportunities for drama queens either.
But I'd add to the discussion by pointing out that there could be other applications for the formations concept and it's code. If you have an invasion the maneuvering AI for only one NPC would have to be processed per formation, increasing the number of NPC invaders while minimizing the AI workload.
Further in time of need it might be an item in the GW Store permitting a player to make use of hirelings like men-at-arms, bandits, orc fighters, or what have you to flesh out your order of battle.
NPC defences might be strengthened by formations of guards and batteries of sorcerers or wizards or archers instead of lone defenders who can more easily be ganged up on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As @Being suggested, this issue is best resolved in game.
I suggest to the devs that a layer of hex escalation after the goblin tribe with chief could be a company of militaristic hobgoblins with a veteran leader, mass ranged fire, ranger scouts for early detection and snipping, healing and arcane support, and where they always fight in squads. It would be interesting to see how quickly it takes the soloists and loose parties start forming groups to do formation combat even if PFO doesn't have the mechanic turned up yet.
If you want to talk about having fun playing war, then lets see how fast the community can adapt to it when they have to face it in game. This can be done in early enrollment because the hobgoblin company need not attack NPC settlements. They can just be out to control the open areas for their own reasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seems like an obvious use for the mechanism to me. I have no ide whether they will want to do what I'm suggesting or if the tech they are using would even be able to. It doesn't seem like it would be terribly difficult if they are already coding for formations and our concept of formations is approximately accurate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill here but I don't blame you, this was a mistake by GW, hanging themselves with this rope and anouncing formations. Now all the war reenactment buffs have raging woodies for something that is not only undoable in an MMO, it's undesirable.
Have you read the "You're in the Army Now" blog, or the Generational Warfare thread I linked earlier? This is a core development aspect of the game, and Ryan has laid out pretty clear reasons why it's both doable and desirable in this MMO. What's your grounds for opposing GW making mass combat a designed feature, and specifically implementing cohesion?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Assuming that you will be able to create characters whose sole combat contribution is adding more people to a formation with things like summon monster, a bunch of hirelings, or cohorts and followers, would they be able to make their own formation with those things alone?
Unknown, but I see no reason why not. Might be a reason but I don't know what it would be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am against auto controlled formations.
I think the challenge of formations should be exactly like what the challenge of formations is, getting a group of people to work together in the heat of battle.
Teamwork is what separates a mob from an army. Players should have to practice being in formation, they should have to practice changing formations quickly and efficiently.
Whats the pay off for all of this work, well you are in a formation and you get bonuses for doing so. teamwork and formations is what will allow a smaller group of well disciplined players defeat a large rabble.
Staying in formation, changing formation should be based on player skill. Some skills should allow more leeway so that unit cohesion can be kept if small mistakes are made, but ultimately it should be the player who is responsible for maintaining the formation not the game.
I'm not against this, it sounds equally awesome. But I'm more skeptical as to making it work. It sounds a lot like attempting to simulate formations in too granular detail, and then attempting to get that to work with the intended gameplay results of eg reducing zergs, armies consisting of various unit formations acting tactically in their 00's if not early 000's (?) with a lot of graphical effects going off and various contexts eg sieges, number of factions involved and potentially anywhere on the map (no instancing battleground, as far as I'm aware).
It's very ambitious - and very worth doing if possible!
The other way to look at formations is what problems does it solve, and is it worth developing this system to overcome those problems, whatever they may be? I think the mass zerg combat is a huge problem in massively multiplayer fantasy games, so definitely think it's worth solving.
Could be just me but I fail to see the problem in implementing formation. With the different formations countering different enemy strategies you need a leader/follow structure contolled by a choice for every member of the formation to use their "fall in" ability. When used you will use whatever formation or strategy the leader decide if its, stand against incoming horses with spears, or shields up to protect from a mass rain of arrows. If your leader dies anyone with the proper skills can take lead or the members of the formation will have a harder time succeeding and keeping the formation.
There is always a way to counter another attack or strategy. From a giant's point of view people stacking just makes it a lot more fun to make a "strike" or for someone to soak them all in oil and light it.
When it comes to the reward it is important that it is as much rewarding to be part of a group as beeing the leader.
When it comes to the reward it is important that it is as much rewarding to be part of a group as beeing the leader.
This got me to thinking... In Rift you gained experience for participating in their instanced form of PvP. Being as large scale battles are military actions, what if there were a separate rank system beginning with PFOs version of a Private and ending with whatever the highest rank possible, and when your taking part in large scale battles you gain points that go toward leveling in rank? There could be factors like if your unit survives the battle without having to retreat and regroup, if your unit vanquishes another unit that's X times more trained then yours, extra ranking points could be assigned? There could even be pieces of gear that reflect your rank, or medals indicating either rank or accomplishments that can be worn to show a characters military prowess. .
What do you all think about that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If using the formation mechanic is optional and not required then if you choose to help buff your group by using the formation system that isn't removing you liberty it is having a potentially beneficial option.
Once you are in formation all you have to do to break formation is hit a movement key, just like you had been using a /follow mechanic on a cross-country run. The difference is that when you break formation the party loses the formation buff.
So if you are defending a town gate from marauders and choose to adopt the shieldwall formation with your party the marauders cannot break past you due to collision unless one of you fall in battle. But if you move out of formation the shieldwall is broken and when you leave your spot you open a way for the marauders to exploit the opening you made through the line because you've either fallen back or moved forward.
The formation system is a way to maintain your position relative to the rest of your party.
Sure you could form a shieldwall without using the formation tool: you would just be giving up the buff the formation tool provides, and if it is time to counter-attack your reaction time may not exactly match the reaction time of your shield brothers, where in formation the formation commander would cause everyone to charge simultaneously and keeping the formation buff(s). The formation commander might also be able to change the shield wall to a wedge formation to counter-attack which would be very difficult to do well in melee combat without the coordination of the formation tool.
I understand you don't want anyone infringing on your liberty. I'm trying to point out that it is also an expression of liberty to choose what is best for your team.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could be just me but I fail to see the problem in implementing formation. With the different formations countering different enemy strategies you need a leader/follow structure contolled...I am against auto controlled formations.
I think the challenge of formations should be exactly like what the challenge of formations is, getting a group of people to work together in the heat of battle.
Teamwork is what separates a mob from an army. Players should have to practice being in formation, they should have to practice changing formations quickly and efficiently.
Whats the pay off for all of this work, well you are in a formation and you get bonuses for doing so. teamwork and formations is what will allow a smaller group of well disciplined players defeat a large rabble.
Staying in formation, changing formation should be based on player skill. Some skills should allow more leeway so that unit cohesion can be kept if small mistakes are made, but ultimately it should be the player who is responsible for maintaining the formation not the game.
I'm not against this, it sounds equally awesome. But I'm more skeptical as to making it work. It sounds a lot like attempting to simulate formations in too granular detail, and then attempting to get that to work with the intended gameplay results of eg reducing zergs, armies consisting of various unit formations acting tactically in their 00's if not early 000's (?) with a lot of graphical effects going off and various contexts eg sieges, number of factions involved and potentially anywhere on the map (no instancing battleground, as far as I'm aware).
It's very ambitious - and very worth doing if possible!
The other way to look at formations is what problems does it solve, and is it worth developing this system to overcome those problems, whatever they may be? I think the mass zerg combat is a huge problem in massively multiplayer fantasy games, so definitely think it's worth solving.
Just re-reading the previous thread and discussion: There is a ton of information on how this could work and it comes across as very complicated to implement even some of the ideas!
Some of Ryan's previous comments in the discussion on the blog: "You're In The Army Now!":
"Syncing orders, players and their network latency"
As said, this is really revolutionary stuff for fantasy mass combat in mmorpgs! :D
In another thread I was expanding on this idea a bit. Figured I would bring part of that discussion over to this thread.
Aside from leaders of individual units, you have commanders of wings, or divisions (basically whatever the branches are called). Ultimately you reach the head of the whole force, The Lord General or whatever name they go by. I had thought that the overall commander would have the ability, based on their skill level, to see the formation icons that each unit sees. This would allow then to know at a glance which direction a unit is facing. If its moving, if its losing members etc..
Hopefully the commander will be in a position where he can observe both his forces and the enemy troops as well. By seeing each units formation icon he can direct different units movement and who they target so that the his forces are utilized in the most efficient manner. (This is very similar to Total War, which is where I got the idea).
I've still not worked out how the sergeants (the guys between the unit leaders and the overall commander would function, unless they could be given a veteran unit and float, going where needed depending on where the fighting is heaviest.
Another matter is how the general would relay his orders to the individual unit leaders, telling them where to move, who to fight or defend against. Obviously most units would be using some sort of voice chat but there really needs to be some method of relaying orders in game as well.
May as well stop here. But it gives an idea of where I'm going when I post about unit combat organization and tactics.
Thoughts, suggestions welcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
some ponderings. hoping for a proper crowdforging subforum for this with a bit of dev input - we are building some nice castles in the air right now but we'd prefer to discuss actual blueprints.
-The organized unit should not lose cohesion bonuses when engaging unorganized rabble. There should be an option to target "all rabble within 10' of the unit" rather than single units/targets only.
-Some formations will be very good against rabble (the business side of a phalanx or shield wall), others less good (the rear of the phalanx or shield wall).
-Idea: cavalry unit charge as "AoE effect" against rabble, plowing through everything in its path unless something stops it (spear wall, shield wall, stone wall). Not insta-death but automatic targeting and attacking all enemies in the path (who can defend normally).
-Armies should have a pre-defined hierarcy so that when the current commander dies/disconnects, the next one automatically takes over.
-The game for the foot soldiers should be like normal pvp but with significant buffs if you stay in formation and synchronize your attacks. Blocking two arrows or spear stabs at the same time is much harder than blocking two in a row.
-if the combat system is so that characters get debuffs/wounds in battle beyond simple hit point loss that cannot be healed instantly while fighting, there is an incentive for unit rotation, keeping fresh reserves and 'medic stations' behind the lines.
@Randomwalker, good points! Hopefully GW will clue us in on what they have come up with so far in terms of large scale combat. I think it was the Forbes interview with Ryan that made me think they are pretty far along in their concept how large scale battles will function
I know Ryan has mentioned a fatigue mechanic for units who's effectiveness decreases the longer they remain in battle. This would force commanders to rotate troops out of action allowing them to rest up before reengaging. This could be tied to an individuals skill level as well, meaning that the higher a players unit combat skill, the longer they can go before becoming fatigued. Then the skill levels of an entire unit could be averaged which would give an amount of time that particular unit could fight before becoming fatigued.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder how loot will be handled in mass combat. If players suspect that an enemy has dropped good loot it would be tempting for the formation fighters to break rank and make a dash for it.
I seem to remember that there will be a certain amount of time before a body becomes lootable. If that's the case a formation may just be tempted to camp out and wait for the loot rather than doing it's objective (taking a hill or whatever).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Have you read the "You're in the Army Now" blog, or the Generational Warfare thread I linked earlier? This is a core development aspect of the game, and Ryan has laid out pretty clear reasons why it's both doable and desirable in this MMO. What's your grounds for opposing GW making mass combat a designed feature, and specifically implementing cohesion?
Yes I have read it and from day one I saw it as a potential pitfall I was going to keep an eye on for the reasons I have stated in this thread.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I wonder how loot will be handled in mass combat. If players suspect that an enemy has dropped good loot it would be tempting for the formation fighters to break rank and make a dash for it.
I seem to remember that there will be a certain amount of time before a body becomes lootable. If that's the case a formation may just be tempted to camp out and wait for the loot rather than doing it's objective (taking a hill or whatever).
I would hope for loot it maybe got auto-collected into a war chest that could be divided out at the end of the battle or something similar. This way, like you mentioned, the focus stays on the battle and not on running around getting loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In Star Wars the Old Republic they have space combat where you only slightly control your ship's movement and focus almost wholly on controlling your weaponry. And it is fun. Yes there are a few people who wail quite loudly for full freedom and sure it would also be fun to really use a joystick again but the system they have is still fun.
Yeah but space combat was something you could avoid if you wanted to (and most people did). It wasn't what broke SWTOR, but it was a contributor.
But take a look at AoC's seige combat if you want a good example of how dangerous this is. That was a core component and it was an essential part of "winning the game". The flaws in AoC seige combat are exactly what broke the game at launch. I wasn't there, but I understand Warhammer Online had the same implosion.
This is the system that will determine which of the River Kingdoms rises or falls. This is a mechanic that could have entire guilds rage quitting.
There is a 3 pronged problem here. First it must remain FUN for the common soldier. Second, the server must be able to handle it. Third, because you promised formations, it must be something the wargame lovers like.
I think that's a very tall order. I think instanced war zones and personal AoE's designed around teamwork feats is the tried and true method. I think this game is already out on a limb in it's mild PvP formula, its bottom up development strategy, paid beta, a rookie title for video games (Pathfinder), purposefully low growth and a bout a hlaf dozen other things I can name. So this is not an area I want to see GW reinvent the wheel.
If I am proven wrong, great. Wonderful. I hope I am.
I will be here crowdforging it either way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would hope for loot it maybe got auto-collected into a war chest that could be divided out at the end of the battle or something similar. This way, like you mentioned, the focus stays on the battle and not on running around getting loot.I wonder how loot will be handled in mass combat. If players suspect that an enemy has dropped good loot it would be tempting for the formation fighters to break rank and make a dash for it.
I seem to remember that there will be a certain amount of time before a body becomes lootable. If that's the case a formation may just be tempted to camp out and wait for the loot rather than doing it's objective (taking a hill or whatever).
That system could be in place and probably could work. On the other hand even if it that's how they do things, there could be times where players could be tempted to take something rather than letting it be swept away to the war chest. The thing is, if formations are going to add substantial bonuses, there needs to be enough temptations/difficulties to overcome to get them IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder how loot will be handled in mass combat. If players suspect that an enemy has dropped good loot it would be tempting for the formation fighters to break rank and make a dash for it.
I seem to remember that there will be a certain amount of time before a body becomes lootable. If that's the case a formation may just be tempted to camp out and wait for the loot rather than doing it's objective (taking a hill or whatever).
Camp followers.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
That system could be in place and probably could work. On the other hand even if it that's how they do things, there could be times where players could be tempted to take something rather than letting it be swept away to the war chest. The thing is, if formations are going to add substantial bonuses, there needs to be enough temptations/difficulties to overcome to get them IMO.
Maybe make it so all loot in a *warzone* goes to a factions war chest and have some sort of distribution model on how much activity you had in the war. Of course this would only apply to factions at war in the war zone (and thus those involved in formations) where other players not directly involved in the war would follow normal looting mechanics.
I think the difficulties aspect is going to simply be in maintaining the formation through whatever player interaction is involved with actually coordinating the formation and keeping it cohesive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Risk management counsels to check whether the game can survive without a high risk subsystem, and then rank the other subsystems similarly.
If there is too high a risk on multiple critical systems, examine what the consequences of any solution might be.
Decide your course of action by which solutions of those problems will be more practical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That system could be in place and probably could work. On the other hand even if it that's how they do things, there could be times where players could be tempted to take something rather than letting it be swept away to the war chest. The thing is, if formations are going to add substantial bonuses, there needs to be enough temptations/difficulties to overcome to get them IMO.Maybe make it so all loot in a *warzone* goes to a factions war chest and have some sort of distribution model on how much activity you had in the war. Of course this would only apply to factions at war in the war zone (and thus those involved in formations) where other players not directly involved in the war would follow normal looting mechanics.
I think the difficulties aspect is going to simply be in maintaining the formation through whatever player interaction is involved with actually coordinating the formation and keeping it cohesive.
In this case would the non formation players take potential loot from the war chests of the waring factions? I could imagine small stealth units from other parties swooping in to collect loot from the armies while they are required to stick to a formation/battle plan and ignore the loot and looters. It would add more room for tactics. Would the armies have their reserves fight of potential looters making them less available to support the front lines? It would be an interesting complication IMO.
As for you second point, I'm sure that would be a compication and not a trivial one either. I just think loot could be another complication, that wouldn't take up a lot of computer power to add to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Camp followers.I wonder how loot will be handled in mass combat. If players suspect that an enemy has dropped good loot it would be tempting for the formation fighters to break rank and make a dash for it.
I seem to remember that there will be a certain amount of time before a body becomes lootable. If that's the case a formation may just be tempted to camp out and wait for the loot rather than doing it's objective (taking a hill or whatever).
That could work. It would be cool if other PCs could disquise themselves like members of your factions camp followers and then walk off with a bunch of the loot for themselves. It would add more strategy to the game IMO.
That system could be in place and probably could work. On the other hand even if it that's how they do things, there could be times where players could be tempted to take something rather than letting it be swept away to the war chest. The thing is, if formations are going to add substantial bonuses, there needs to be enough temptations/difficulties to overcome to get them IMO.I would hope for loot it maybe got auto-collected into a war chest that could be divided out at the end of the battle or something similar. This way, like you mentioned, the focus stays on the battle and not on running around getting loot.I wonder how loot will be handled in mass combat. If players suspect that an enemy has dropped good loot it would be tempting for the formation fighters to break rank and make a dash for it.
I seem to remember that there will be a certain amount of time before a body becomes lootable. If that's the case a formation may just be tempted to camp out and wait for the loot rather than doing it's objective (taking a hill or whatever).
Well I figure that large scale battles will have to have a different type of loot system then PvE or even small scale PvP. i don't think killed players will drop the normal husks that contain all their gear .requiring them to loot their husk or risk losing everything they had on them. That just wouldn't work amidst an ongoing battle. I'm leaning toward the war chest type of loot distribution system for the victors as opposed to them individually looting corpses. It just wouldn't make sense to have that many corpses laying around and people trying to figure out who's kills are who's.
It would actually make more sense to have separate war chests for individual units as opposed to lumping all e loot into one chest. They have to make large scale combat fun for everyone. Hopefully they will give extra loot over and above what a normal PvP encounter would bring as a bonus.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Valandur: A simplified system of loot like you mention is probably better. On the other hand I think that having armies work in formation with no danger of losing loot is something I would rather not see. I hope that there would be at least one advantage for large scale combats to not use rigid formations. Better looting could be a benifit to more loosely bound formations/armies.
I think that even with a simplified war chest idea having a soldier break formation to head over to the vague war chest area to get better loot for themselves could work. I would imagine that in real world battle practices to prevent soldier looting are in place. I see it as a way to not have armies in tight formation get all rewards and no drawbacks.