Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like it should be possible to disengage from a superior force as long as you're willing to cede ground.
I would expect there will be evasion skills or other means to break combat and beat feet. There may also be a skill or spell that shifts everyone's targeting to yourself (taunt aggro) and you sacrifice yourself so that others can escape. /Gandalf "Run away you fools!"
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The issue of alpha strikes is something we talk about a lot. The potential is clearly implied by the idea of high damage ranged magic spells. Frankly I don't like alpha strikes because I don't like game mechanics with no recovery potential.
With enough numbers, it stops being an alpha strike and becomes more of "we focus attack with so many that everyone only gets one hit or fewer before the target falls." I don't think that point will literally be at 8-1 odds, but I would be surprised if it was more than 50:1.
And that isn't really an alpha strike anymore- the battle has shifted to the point that knowing where 50 enemies are and not being there is the entire fight. The mob of 50 or so who can run over any one character they encounter will do so until the hit a big enough pocket of resistance to stop them. And I think that is the intended result of the combat system- that a big group will offer a tiny chance of escape when properly run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that in general what will happen is that any time a numerically superior force engages with a numerically smaller force the smaller force will lose.
Do you still hope to enable the utilization of formations to allow smaller well-trained forces to stand against larger zergs?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Formation combat should be a totally different kind of experience than what anyone has attempted in an MMO before. A well coordinated, cohesive unit acting in formation should be superior to almost any random force of zergs. The tradeoffs have to be significant though else everyone will try to do everything in formations. I suspect that the biggest tradeoff will be that we'll limit where formations can form and where they can move.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The tradeoffs have to be significant though else everyone will try to do everything in formations.
Assuming composition requirements (and a reputation/alignment restriction) for specific type and purposes on formations, why would this be a bad thing?
EDIT: Sounds to me like the epitome of meaningful player interaction...working together as a single unit to combat a foe.
EDIT2: If formation combat was so prevalent, it would add another layer of meaningful choices. People will always want the ability to do things solo, but there will be real choices about whether to specialize/train in formation roles or individual roles.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
It would be a bad thing because it would force all players to find very large cohesive social units and would force those units to all do the same things at the same time. It would be as if we mandated that the only form of transportation was the bus, and that the bus would only run when it was full.
As a business, it would fail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it'd also be really cool to give solo players and small groups the ability to mess with formations in a sort of "guerrilla warfare" style combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it'd also be really cool to give solo players and small groups the ability to mess with formations in a sort of "guerrilla warfare" style combat.
Wouldn't that sort of undo the point of meaningful choices? You choose to excel at soloing, AND you can counter the choice of others to invest in group work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it'd also be really cool to give solo players and small groups the ability to mess with formations in a sort of "guerrilla warfare" style combat.Wouldn't that sort of undo the point of meaningful choices? You choose to excel at soloing, AND you can counter the choice of others to invest in group work?
No, right there's the very definition of MAKING a meaningful choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could soloers reducing the effectiveness of formations, but not destroying them easily. That would incentivize having small groups as scouts to help protect the formation from guerrillas. Also, Formations shouldn't be able to do everything or do things quickly.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think it'd also be really cool to give solo players and small groups the ability to mess with formations in a sort of "guerrilla warfare" style combat.Wouldn't that sort of undo the point of meaningful choices? You choose to excel at soloing, AND you can counter the choice of others to invest in group work?
That would be limiting where formations can form and what they can do- the formation can hold the field vs skirmishers, but can't use formation tactics to root them using formation tactics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Qallz, I'd think guerilla tactics would have a use here, even if the objective has to shift from destroying the formation outright (as guerilla tactics shouldn't straight up win against a formation in ordinary circumstances or there's no point to adding formations). The formations will likely be strong in a stand-up fight, but more predictable and less maneuverable than a guerilla warfare composition. I'd expect that the formation-users would likely give significantly more damage than they take, but the guerilla-users would definitely be able to stall and harass them for a very long time, and bleed the enemy over a period of time if they accept heavier losses. They could employ many methods of ambush and attacks, run the formation away from its objective, and otherwise disrupt the enemy. All of this is just baseless speculation, however.
Guerilla or lite skirmisher activity could also play a nice role in denying troops, that it bleeds from the formation, the ability to re access that formation.
That's kind of how I envisioned it tbh. Or collapsing certain small areas with minimal losses of life on both sides.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Formation combat should be a totally different kind of experience than what anyone has attempted in an MMO before. A well coordinated, cohesive unit acting in formation should be superior to almost any random force of zergs. The tradeoffs have to be significant though else everyone will try to do everything in formations. I suspect that the biggest tradeoff will be that we'll limit where formations can form and where they can move.
I've always envisioned the biggest trade off being speed and maneuverability and the gain being a massive boost to defensive and offensive capabilities.
It makes sense when you consider how they will be applied. A little band running around trying to gank people in formation won't be able to catch them but when you're marching on an enemy city it's not going to run away, and so your enemies are likely to form a counter formation.
Beyond that I would just set a minimum number of players needed for a formation. If you make it 20-30+ then you'll never see it outside large group combat anyway. I'd like to see formations pop up unexpectedly in unexpected places sometimes though. The fight over an outpost or gusher escalating to the point that hundreds take the field on each side.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do not confuse 20th century Guerrilla capabilities or even 18th century with the lower tech situation in River Kingdoms. Ranks of archers are more effective than skirmishers (but skirmishers have their value).
In Rhand, there was actual value in ranks of 5 (or more) wide, provided they had trained and practiced together.
In SCA, a team of 3 may have value, if trained.
In this technology, I can not consider that a "bunch" of fighters fitting on their own will be better than a formation. However AoE magic may have similar effect to artillery.
I am not sure how one programs that in. THe failure to have algorithm that some how captures this is a challenge. WHy be a soldier if formation has no benefit?
This is part of questions about the crafter, admin, soldier alternatives to cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard. Will those other roles be playable or only for DT?
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say that, although real-world tactics can be applied in many ways, one also has to consider the implications of warfare in a fantasy setting. Heavily damaging ranged spells as well as spells to instantly mend wounds, tamed or allied magical beasts and aberrations, potential for limited firearms (muskets and flintlocks and such are an optional rule presented in one of the books), and other factors would likely make Golarion's battlefields look much different from what ours looked like at any time period.
Speaking strictly on nonmagical fighters and rogues, I would say that yes, a formation should always win against a guerrilla-style fighting force. But when other factors come into play, we may find that it becomes more of a game of rock, paper, scissors with formation, guerrilla, and artillery style group compositions, or more likely a lot more complicated than that.
