Sheer Numbers Kills

Drastrath

I believe that there is a fundamental flaw with combat in Lusternia. The issue is that sheer numbers literally turns combat into glorified bashing. This is most certainly not fun to me whenever I am on either side of the equation. The issue is that kills should come from setup and tactics, in my opinion. No one should die from 10-15 damage attacks. 

However, I am not saying that pulp, meteor, new monk, or bards shouldn't be able to damage kill because it is in their kit. The damage from all these require setup. Population is not something that will or can be fixed because it will always fluctuate. However, combat is too skewed to the side with the most numbers, and not the side that uses the best skill or tactics. 

I would like to open up a discussion on how everyone else feels about this with some questions to get us started:

1. Do you feel this is even a problem? 

2. If yes, what do you think would be a good way to resolve the issue?

My answer: 1. Yes. 2. Option A: I believe combat should have diminishing returns when an individual is targeted by more than 3 individuals. This would require more discipline in targeting. It would split larger groups into targeting more individuals instead of just burning one down. The larger group would still have the advantage, but the smaller group would have at least a chance. An example, group A (9 people) is fighting group B (3 people). Group A would need to have groups of three attacking each person in group B to maximize lethality. Group B would need to focus on the priority targets in group A. Group B would likely lose, but they would at least have a fighting chance if their skill level and tactics are superior to group A.

Option B: Create a research skill (Nature) that calls up a shield for every 4th, 5th, 6th, etc attacker that attacks you within a 10 second window. An example, person A is attacked by person 1 then by person 2 then by person 3 then by person 4 which raises a shield then by person 5 which raises a shield, etc. Person 1-3's subsequent attacks would not raise shields. 

Xenthos

*3 people on melder's team kick melder.  Melder is now invulnerable*

This has come up a lot, but there has never been anything that would be both helpful and unabusable.  Idea 3 would let me enemy friends and do a crow AoE attack which does not hurt them but gives them defensive shields, etc.  Or you then exclude passive stuff, which undermines the purpose of your idea.

Drastrath

Xenthos said:

*3 people on melder's team kick melder.  Melder is now invulnerable*

This has come up a lot, but there has never been anything that would be both helpful and unabusable.  Idea 3 would let me enemy friends and do a crow AoE attack which does not hurt them but gives them defensive shields, etc.  Or you then exclude passive stuff, which undermines the purpose of your idea.

Easily solved by just having a system of which orgs are allied. Only enemied orgs would count in the ticks (Alliances don't shift very often). Also, this should be a shrubable offense since it would be blantant cheating. 

Edit: Definitely, a good point that would need to be addressed though. 

Nyana

Drastrath said:

Xenthos said:

*3 people on melder's team kick melder.  Melder is now invulnerable*

This has come up a lot, but there has never been anything that would be both helpful and unabusable.  Idea 3 would let me enemy friends and do a crow AoE attack which does not hurt them but gives them defensive shields, etc.  Or you then exclude passive stuff, which undermines the purpose of your idea.

Easily solved by just having a system of which orgs are allied. Only enemied orgs would count in the ticks (Alliances don't shift very often). Also, this should be a shrubable offense since it would be blantant cheating. 

Edit: Definitely, a good point that would need to be addressed though. 

They don't shift often, but I'm not sure this fixes the problem - how do you define an enemy org? If it's Magnagora-Hallifax-Serenwilde, then that'd need to be explicitly defined, and would require an internal system to track player alliances. That'd require it's own rules and ways of handling shifts. If it's anyone who is an org enemy, we'd have to mass-enemy everyone from X org. 

Of course, I like the idea, I've been trying to think of how to structure it so it couldn't be abused this way. 

Drastrath

Nyana said:

Drastrath said:

Xenthos said:

*3 people on melder's team kick melder.  Melder is now invulnerable*

This has come up a lot, but there has never been anything that would be both helpful and unabusable.  Idea 3 would let me enemy friends and do a crow AoE attack which does not hurt them but gives them defensive shields, etc.  Or you then exclude passive stuff, which undermines the purpose of your idea.

Easily solved by just having a system of which orgs are allied. Only enemied orgs would count in the ticks (Alliances don't shift very often). Also, this should be a shrubable offense since it would be blantant cheating. 

Edit: Definitely, a good point that would need to be addressed though. 

They don't shift often, but I'm not sure this fixes the problem - how do you define an enemy org? If it's Magnagora-Hallifax-Serenwilde, then that'd need to be explicitly defined, and would require an internal system to track player alliances. That'd require it's own rules and ways of handling shifts. If it's anyone who is an org enemy, we'd have to mass-enemy everyone from X org. 

Of course, I like the idea, I've been trying to think of how to structure it so it couldn't be abused this way. 

I would say it's past time to have an official alliance system. 

Nyana

The diminishing returns on attacking with multiple people could only be temporary, to avoid the urge to target allies. In the kick-the-melder scenario, you could do it, but you'd have to keep this up continually for them to stay safe, which means you're taking three people out of the fight to protect one little melder. So, say it wears off after ~10 seconds, then any other three people can be effective against that person.

Steingrim

Drastrath said:

I believe that there is a fundamental flaw with combat in Lusternia. The issue is that sheer numbers literally turns combat into glorified bashing. This is most certainly not fun to me whenever I am on either side of the equation. The issue is that kills should come from setup and tactics, in my opinion. No one should die from 10-15 damage attacks. 

Think it is bad now, just wait until half the group is a melder after the changes.

Makai

I don't think melders will be as popular or prominent when the changes happen. Though that is my opinion formed based on what we know of the system thus far.

Nyana

So melders will either suck or be amazing. Is there any merit to the idea in this post, or of balancing group combat generally?

Makai

There's merit it to it, just need to find a way that can't be gamed for an advantage, or just have it issueable for cheating. I don't think anybody likes just being focused down and damage killed in the least skilled manner possible, just because there's that many people in attendance. So if something could be done to mitigate that in some form, would probably go over well.

Enya

Might be helpful for critiques of specfic solutions to include a treatment of that essential question, question one. Especially ones pointing out potential obstacles, to clarify if it's an objection to the specific idea presented, or of the underlying premise.

I do think it's a problem, though not a balance problem exactly. My objection is that it tends to oversimplify combat and dramatically reduce the range of abilities, tactics, and strategies used in combat dramatically. It  does additionally impact balance where some setups are "good but different" in such a way that they work on paper but can't shine practically in the movement/damage meta. Conversely some abilities that are otherwise niche enjoy outsized influence even if taken holistically theyre alright on paper.

Basically there are three scales of combat, solo (never happens), small group (3ish), and big group (5-6+ per side) and they all behave totaldy differently. This more than anything else imo ir what makes "balancing combat" or making combat sustainably fun [NOT the same] so difficult.

Personally I don't think that "we all kick our own melder" is as much of a problem as it's made out to be. You've made your melder a percentage (let's say 30%) harder to kill in one way by... taking three of your own folks out of the combat, and the opponents can just swap targets or be spreading their fire anyways. This actually sounds... perfect, exactly what it'd be intended to do! Not a cure for combat but a solid step in the right direction if paired with other changes. [ I actually think this would be very bad if just dropped and left, but cross one bridge at a time!]

Nyana

Enya said:

Personally I don't think that "we all kick our own melder" is as much of a problem as it's made out to be. You've made your melder a percentage (let's say 30%) harder to kill in one way by... taking three of your own folks out of the combat, and the opponents can just swap targets or be spreading their fire anyways. This actually sounds... perfect, exactly what it'd be intended to do! Not a cure for combat but a solid step in the right direction if paired with other changes. [ I actually think this would be very bad if just dropped and left, but cross one bridge at a time!]

See, this is my thought on that as well. So long as the diminishing returns can't last the entire combat, you're  sacrificing a lot of offensive just for a bit more defense for one person. I'm sure there's something I'm not considering with that idea, but I don't think gaming it in that way would really be effective.

Keegan

Classes do not have anywhere near evenly distributed enough MTTK to make this work fairly.

Kistan

It just encourages optimised combat people with every artefact to go solo raiding for fun knowing only three people can ever deal with them

In group combat, there would be a general discouragement that if you are not one of the top three combatants on a side, you should not even bother fighting. At best, you are just filling in until your main combat trio finishes up their first target. This just encourages elitism and discourages combat

Drastrath

Kistan said:

It just encourages optimised combat people with every artefact to go solo raiding for fun knowing only three people can ever deal with them

In group combat, there would be a general discouragement that if you are not one of the top three combatants on a side, you should not even bother fighting. At best, you are just filling in until your main combat trio finishes up their first target. This just encourages elitism and discourages combat

This is a valid point, but I believe that people should be building a basic offense rather than just on alias. For example, going for toad kills, enlightenment kills, crux kills, absolve kills, etc. would still be very viable and since no one would really be burnt down because of SSC then people would have the chance to develop their understanding of combat more than just swinging a sword, pointing a staff, etc.. 

The point is we are using a fraction of a vast and interesting combat system. This won't change until we lengthen combat which in my opinion would make it less frustrating to jump into by non-top tier combatants. 

This would also make several kills like combustion and warrior attrition extremely valuable. I liken the sheer numbers killing to writing books if you removed prestige. There is really little reason to try to do good because you will be beat out by sheer length. 

Drastrath

Keegan said:

Classes do not have anywhere near evenly distributed enough MTTK to make this work fairly.

This is definitely an issue, but I would say there are few people that know to what extent because current combat ignores most kill methods. This would be the first step.

Kistan

Drastrath said:

Kistan said:

It just encourages optimised combat people with every artefact to go solo raiding for fun knowing only three people can ever deal with them

In group combat, there would be a general discouragement that if you are not one of the top three combatants on a side, you should not even bother fighting. At best, you are just filling in until your main combat trio finishes up their first target. This just encourages elitism and discourages combat

This is a valid point, but I believe that people should be building a basic offense rather than just on alias. For example, going for toad kills, enlightenment kills, crux kills, absolve kills, etc. would still be very viable and since no one would really be burnt down because of SSC then people would have the chance to develop their understanding of combat more than just swinging a sword, pointing a staff, etc.. 

The point is we are using a fraction of a vast and interesting combat system. This won't change until we lengthen combat which in my opinion would make it less frustrating to jump into by non-top tier combatants. 

This would also make several kills like combustion and warrior attrition extremely valuable. I liken the sheer numbers killing to writing books if you removed prestige. There is really little reason to try to do good because you will be beat out by sheer length. 

Its horses for courses though isn't it?

You would not dream of going for a damage kill if the combat were 1 vs 1

But I quite imagine that those going for toad kills, enlightenment kills, crux kills, absolve kills, etc. are still just pressing one key. That key just does a lot more...

Drastrath

Kistan said:

Drastrath said:

Kistan said:

It just encourages optimised combat people with every artefact to go solo raiding for fun knowing only three people can ever deal with them

In group combat, there would be a general discouragement that if you are not one of the top three combatants on a side, you should not even bother fighting. At best, you are just filling in until your main combat trio finishes up their first target. This just encourages elitism and discourages combat

This is a valid point, but I believe that people should be building a basic offense rather than just on alias. For example, going for toad kills, enlightenment kills, crux kills, absolve kills, etc. would still be very viable and since no one would really be burnt down because of SSC then people would have the chance to develop their understanding of combat more than just swinging a sword, pointing a staff, etc.. 

The point is we are using a fraction of a vast and interesting combat system. This won't change until we lengthen combat which in my opinion would make it less frustrating to jump into by non-top tier combatants. 

This would also make several kills like combustion and warrior attrition extremely valuable. I liken the sheer numbers killing to writing books if you removed prestige. There is really little reason to try to do good because you will be beat out by sheer length. 

Its horses for courses though isn't it?

You would not dream of going for a damage kill if the combat were 1 vs 1

But I quite imagine that those going for toad kills, enlightenment kills, crux kills, absolve kills, etc. are still just pressing one key. That key just does a lot more...

Reward mediocrity! C'est la guerre

Nyana

Kistan said:

But I quite imagine that those going for toad kills, enlightenment kills, crux kills, absolve kills, etc. are still just pressing one key. That key just does a lot more...

I don't press one key to toad people. That would not be an efficient way to set up a system. I can, however, press one key to do a damage attack...

Kar

(I tend to use single-button offense archetypes [eg I had dstab1, teamstab, puncture route, etc] with choices to govern behavior and stand-alones for other stuff but kinda off-topic)

IRE in general struggles with team-based combat because of the way 'range' works, the regenerative combat style, and frankly the poor mismatch of a paragraph of text or more per player every 3s meaning it's like praying to the wind until you have a good UI.

Having played what was essentially an IRE-clone with a positioning system to manage group aggro, I can give a breakdown of how it played out.
-------------------------------

The rules were: every attacker gets added to the defenders positioning list. After 2 people are on, the ratio of damage (and afflictions all had strengths instead of binary on/off) was reduced to keep the effective rate around 200% (it may have creeped up slightly, it's been a few years). Adding occurred after the attack, so there was an opening round where the first hitters could get in full power strikes. Some skills shimmied things around (rogues could relegate 1/3 of their combo to a +1 effective attackers boost, for example).

Before fights, we would put 1-2 people on each opponent and adjust as need be. As numbers fell off, overflow people could secure objectives, support, use position decrementers, etc, just not  (always) directly attack with their primary offense. Sometimes, it was worth it for an aff spread or kill condition.

We had almost no instances of 'kick ally' to trigger positioning boosts, since attacking through the debuff or doing support stuff was more useful. I say 'almost no' cause I don't remember any but someone probably tried it for the lulz.

The issues we did have were one afeared in this thread and another that was the only real downside of the system imo.

1. Certain classes who were already tanky could become literally unkillable as the last target if they couldn't be dueled out by someone on your team (*shakefist Templar*), but that wasn't directly positioning's fault. Tweaking the skills handled that, plus there were ways to decrement positioning or do weaker attacks that worked around it.

2. It creates more intrateam stress. Certain folks would go ballistic if someone triggered positioning. It wasn't pervasive, but it was an additional layer of ick that came up on top of the usual teamplay personality problems.

Despite the downsides, it helped make teamfights a little longer and less alpha-strike heavy without any impact on 1v1 and minimal impact on small-scale fights.

--------------

So, can it be done in an IRE game? Straight number reduction doesn't work without being lopsided towards affliction offenses (and straight damage is easier to endure here, from my observation). A balance/eq malus has been the best I can think of to simulate it, and that would need a quick position-judging skill so you don't walk in and put yourself off-bal for 10s (unintentionally). The aim-point would be higher here (300%, imo). I'd probably apply the +1 to attackers before the attack instead of after, just to take a little more edge off the alpha. Ranged might need a chance to miss or mistarget, and AoE/loyal attacks that aren't like trample (taking your bal too) shouldn't add an attacker. So, 4 attackers would hit at 1.33x bal/eq costs. 6 would be at 1.5x. 12 would be at 2x.


(It also worked on NPCs, but I wouldn't do that with IRE's basic af mobs)

Should it be done?

Pros - Longer teamfights, more fun metagaming to work out your best 3-man offenses, slowing things down a little cuts back on spam a bit (either through less things showing on combatfocus or fewer attacks per second overall). Focus fire is also still an option, just something you need to calculate if you're going to be getting fewer attacks in relative to a team spreading their hits.

Cons - I've survived longer in Lusternian fights with way more people attacking than would be possible in Imperian without gimmicks like ritual reflections. Lusternian ttks are also longer in general. Artifact disparity is somewhat of an issue, since the Other Place had far more accessible 'artifacts' available through xp grinding and generally lower price points. And of course, there would be significant balancing needed for defensive skills, adding in skills to play around with positioning, etc.

So, sure, but it's always fallen down my priority lists for things to push despite my love of the idea.

Nyana

Kar said:

So, can it be done in an IRE game? Straight number reduction doesn't work without being lopsided towards affliction offenses (and straight damage is easier to endure here, from my observation). A balance/eq malus has been the best I can think of to simulate it, and that would need a quick position-judging skill so you don't walk in and put yourself off-bal for 10s (unintentionally). The aim-point would be higher here (300%, imo). I'd probably apply the +1 to attackers before the attack instead of after, just to take a little more edge off the alpha. Ranged might need a chance to miss or mistarget, and AoE/loyal attacks that aren't like trample (taking your bal too) shouldn't add an attacker. So, 4 attackers would hit at 1.33x bal/eq costs. 6 would be at 1.5x. 12 would be at 2x.


(It also worked on NPCs, but I wouldn't do that with IRE's basic af mobs)

Should it be done?

Pros - Longer teamfights, more fun metagaming to work out your best 3-man offenses, slowing things down a little cuts back on spam a bit (either through less things showing on combatfocus or fewer attacks per second overall). Focus fire is also still an option, just something you need to calculate if you're going to be getting fewer attacks in relative to a team spreading their hits.

Cons - I've survived longer in Lusternian fights with way more people attacking than would be possible in Imperian without gimmicks like ritual reflections. Lusternian ttks are also longer in general. Artifact disparity is somewhat of an issue, since the Other Place had far more accessible 'artifacts' available through xp grinding and generally lower price points. And of course, there would be significant balancing needed for defensive skills, adding in skills to play around with positioning, etc.

So, sure, but it's always fallen down my priority lists for things to push despite my love of the idea.

It's a interesting idea, but I believe this would make combat less fun and I don't think it would balance well with the current curing system. But mostly my concern is the former - It would be noticeable to have a bal/eq malus for every attack, in addition to group combat taking longer. It would make combat take longer, but not necessarily be more interesting, nor encourage different strategies. 

I would rather see more options available for group combat. Straight number reduction on damage is one option (by forcing teams to focus on other methods), but others could include making support skills mid-combat more viable. If you didn't have to sacrifice offense for defense quite so much, especially if defense favoured smaller numbers, it would make support skills more valuable.