Tytanya_MxO wrote: Rather what we are emulating is the source material, the movie world, where as we see a single opponent can take on unbelieveble odds (even in the situation where a single opponent is a serious threat ie 1 Smith offered as much of a challenge to Neo as 101 etc). This is the environment that brought most of us here, and what we looked forward to enjoying.
I totally disagree with you here. The only times people in the movies were able to beat an unbeleivable number of opponents it was when they were fighting things much less powerful than themselves.
For instance Neo beats the many Smiths because he is much more powerful than Smith. (Neo beat Smith with one hand in the end of the first movie) It wasn't until Smith took over the Oracle that he could fight Neo one on one, that's why one Smith foufght Neo just as well 101 Smith's did in Reloaded.
Other than that the only time anyone beats large groups it is redpills fighting bluepill cops. I can't think of anywhere in the movies where equally matched opponents were able to beat huge odds.
ScareCrow wrote:I totally disagree with you here. The only times people in the movies were able to beat an unbeleivable number of opponents it was when they were fighting things much less powerful than themselves.For instance Neo beats the many Smiths because he is much more powerful than Smith. (Neo beat Smith with one hand in the end of the first movie) It wasn't until Smith took over the Oracle that he could fight Neo one on one, that's why one Smith foufght Neo just as well 101 Smith's did in Reloaded.Other than that the only time anyone beats large groups it is redpills fighting bluepill cops. I can't think of anywhere in the movies where equally matched opponents were able to beat huge odds.
Imo the stand out fight scene's of the trilogy have a small group taking on a much lager group (and in no way should Smith be seen as anything other than powerful), the chateau fight being my personal favorite but even early before Neo's powers are fully developed he and trinty and Morpheus are seen fighting the odds without laboring just how much more powerful they are (indeed bullets throughout are treated as equally lethal to all no matter who fires them).
Moreover the films that inspired the Walkowski's were a diet of wire fu antics again where the odds were against the central character, its is almost a prerequisite of action film entertainment, your responce surprises me but without question a vast majority of the players expect that kind of action to be available and indeed in the current system its exactly what you get.....multi IL with multifighting loaded allows upto 4 players to be taken on with each round played as 1 on 1 ie no penalty, that design was for a reason the implementation may be flawed and/or technically difficult BUT the reason remains!
I am not suggesting increased number should not improve the odds, what I am suggesting is that in the current set up multi IL is gone, IL is greatly increased in speed, stuns debuffs and the like are all dramtically reduced - the tools and abilities to attempt to even the odds have been significantly nerfed and without anything else in their place the availability and flexibilty of a group of people to do damage to a smaller group is significantly higher...it could even be so high that anything other than organised and balanced pvp is completely out of the question...in my experience 'organised and balanced' pvp is the least frequent pvp any of us experience. I consider the current influence of numerical advantage already more than enough....CR2.0 makes a beautiful 1 on 1 system BUT it is the everyday pvp I am concerned about here and it does not automatically follow it will improve matter....indeed without work beyond balance I beleive it will not!
Message Edited by Tytanya_MxO on 02-22-200605:34 AM
Tytanya_MxO wrote:ScareCrow wrote:I totally disagree with you here. The only times people in the movies were able to beat an unbeleivable number of opponents it was when they were fighting things much less powerful than themselves.For instance Neo beats the many Smiths because he is much more powerful than Smith. (Neo beat Smith with one hand in the end of the first movie) It wasn't until Smith took over the Oracle that he could fight Neo one on one, that's why one Smith foufght Neo just as well 101 Smith's did in Reloaded.Other than that the only time anyone beats large groups it is redpills fighting bluepill cops. I can't think of anywhere in the movies where equally matched opponents were able to beat huge odds.Imo the stand out fight scene's of the trilogy have a small group taking on a much lager group (and in no way should Smith be seen as anything other than powerful), the chateau fight being my personal favorite but even early before Neo's powers are fully developed he and trinty and Morpheus are seen fighting the odds without laboring just how much more powerful they are (indeed bullets throughout are treated as equally lethal to all no matter who fires them).Yes a lot of the standout fight scenes were with a small group beating a much larger group. But again all of those situations featured a small group of more powerful characters, beating a larger group of less powerful characters. (or to put in MxO terms a lvl 50 beating 10 lvl 30's)For instance the chateau fight is Neo fighting several exiles who are much less powerful than he is. Same with the first "burly brawl" Neo is much more powerful than any one of the Smiths. (until he takes over the Oracle, & no I'm not saying Smith isn't powerful just that before he takes over the Oracle he isn't close to as powerful as Neo)Moreover the films that inspired the Walkowski's were a diet of wire fu antics again where the odds were against the central character, its is almost a prerequisite of action film entertainment, your responce surprises me but without question a vast majority of the players expect that kind of action to be available and indeed in the current system its exactly what you get.....multi IL with multifighting loaded allows upto 4 players to be taken on with each round played as 1 on 1 ie no penalty, that design was for a reason the implementation may be flawed and/or technically difficult BUT the reason remains!Multifighting isn't supposed to make you able to fight 4 people by yourself. All it does is makes it so that you have the same chance of hitting your opponent whether you're fighting 1 person, or 4. However you can still only attack each opponent once, they attack you four times, so you're still going to lose unless you are much more powerful than the group you are fighting.I am not suggesting increased number should not improve the odds, what I am suggesting is that in the current set up multi IL is gone, IL is greatly increased in speed, stuns debuffs and the like are all dramtically reduced - the tools and abilities to attempt to even the odds have been significantly nerfed and without anything else in their place the availability and flexibilty of a group of people to do damage to a smaller group is significantly higher...it could even be so high that anything other than organised and balanced pvp is completely out of the question...in my experience 'organised and balanced' pvp is the least frequent pvp any of us experience. I consider the current influence of numerical advantage already more than enough....CR2.0 makes a beautiful 1 on 1 system BUT it is the everyday pvp I am concerned about here and it does not automatically follow it will improve matter....indeed without work beyond balance I beleive it will not!Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying here, but it seems to me that you're saying that the new system will give an advantage to a team that has bigger numbers & is more organized. But to me that is exactly how it should be. If one side has bigger numbers & has a better organized strategy they should win. However if the smaller team is more well organized & has a better strategy then they may also win. To me thats how it should be.
Yes a lot of the standout fight scenes were with a small group beating a much larger group. But again all of those situations featured a small group of more powerful characters, beating a larger group of less powerful characters. (or to put in MxO terms a lvl 50 beating 10 lvl 30's)
For instance the chateau fight is Neo fighting several exiles who are much less powerful than he is. Same with the first "burly brawl" Neo is much more powerful than any one of the Smiths. (until he takes over the Oracle, & no I'm not saying Smith isn't powerful just that before he takes over the Oracle he isn't close to as powerful as Neo)
Multifighting isn't supposed to make you able to fight 4 people by yourself. All it does is makes it so that you have the same chance of hitting your opponent whether you're fighting 1 person, or 4. However you can still only attack each opponent once, they attack you four times, so you're still going to lose unless you are much more powerful than the group you are fighting.
Tytanya_MxO wrote:The current pvp system already offers a significant advantage when numbers of combatants are factored against a smaller unit. I am asking that the degree to which that effectiveness 'stacks' for each active player in excess to your team should not be made greater than the current system because other factors to do with speed and flexibility of combat ALREADY and INEVITABLY will increase the potency of zerg forces in CR2. OK, I agree the numbers shouldn't play more of a role than they do now, however I do think it's a good idea to allow lower levels to be effective in large numbers (within 10 levels as has been suggested by the devs) As I forsee it at present IL in a group pvp scenario with the current potency of melee freefire will be akin to suicide, I belive in the interests of good pvp we want to encourage people to use IL and not create a situation where it is avoided like the plague and to do that the suggestion of buffing the resistance of those in IL seems the best approach Also agree that mele free fire shouldn't be more potant than interlock, ideally there should be no advantage either way (to IL or to use mele freee fire) Also agree that giving some kind of a penalty for free firing at someone in mele combat makes sense as you would have to be very careful not to hit your allies while firing at your enemies. BTW in no way do we have any clue as to how inferior those opponents of Neo et al were, they were treated as a threat and were intent on being one and again the potency of one single bullet was always considered very very significant. We'll just have to disagree on this one. My beleif is that Neo was way more powerful than anyone or anything else in the Matrix until Smith takes over the Oracle. And yes the bullets were equally effective no matter who fired them, assuming they hit. However the skill of the shooter & the skill of the person being shot at was also considered. For instance Neo was able to shoot bluepills accurately while doing a cartwheel, but was unable to hit an agent standing still with two guns. Because the agent has more skill in dodging bullets than a bluepill.
We'll just have to disagree on this one. My beleif is that Neo was way more powerful than anyone or anything else in the Matrix until Smith takes over the Oracle.
And yes the bullets were equally effective no matter who fired them, assuming they hit. However the skill of the shooter & the skill of the person being shot at was also considered. For instance Neo was able to shoot bluepills accurately while doing a cartwheel, but was unable to hit an agent standing still with two guns. Because the agent has more skill in dodging bullets than a bluepill.
gunslinga wrote:sweet another good reson why i left the game SOE sucks and like i said they dont see it by the gamers view YOU SUCK SOE GO HOME
HCFrog wrote:Can I ask what tactics made you successful against the zerg in the old combat system?I played as a Merv on Live, on a non-hostile server, but I was in a decent amount of PvP. When we were outnumbered, it would be suicide to just run into a situation where twice your number were directly attacking you, unless you knew they were all idiots. And typically, there were some good players there; enough that we couldn't just run at them and expect to win.So instead, we would lure enemies out away from the crowd until the numbers were more even. The best was pulling one person away, destroying them, and getting out before reinforcements could arrive. Or using the dead body as bait for their friends... ah, good times.I also would go in as an MA with max VD, basically as a tank, and hold people in IL so friendly hackers, knife throwers and snipers could nail them, but that was a fairly suicidal tactic and was more fun than successful.I'd be interested to hear what kind of tactics people used against greater numbers before. In my experience PvP had a lot to do with numbers already and it was by changing the odds that you beat the bigger force, but I know there are players with way more experience at it than me.
HCFrog wrote:Can I ask what tactics made you successful against the zerg in the old combat system?
Message Edited by TheTaxidermist on 03-01-200611:23 AM
This is nothing whatsoever to do with overpowered tree's or the interminable stuns - Freeing the members of a zerg force more quickly will greatly increase its effectiveness, potentially to a degree that anything other than straight organised pvp has to be abandoned into total retreat. tbh I dont see any way to counter all these effects but would suggest that the latter two points could be addressed - make sneak robust and buff the defenses of ppl in IL so that form of combat (the most fun part) is encouraged not discouraged.
Hmm I hope that makes some semblance of sense lol.
Message Edited by Tytanya_MxO on 03-01-200601:55 PM
