We are ready to make thing together!
Spoiler:
personally, i never had a problem with zergs. i really love to fighting bigger numbers. we still do this every warband day. also i understand the zerg as a reasonable way to do something in special situations.And your suggestions for breaking up zerg are...?
Saccara wrote:Its always funny to fight against you guys, but the tunnel szene shows exactly why cannons shouldnt be in the game.
really, you put effort in trying different specs, wb composition, training, communication and everything else just to get your WB destroyed in 2 hits. there is no honor or skill in this... two lvl1 players with one finger each can do that. actually i never saw a situation where a cannon breaks a funnel. its simply just annoying for attackers and on the fields...
not complaining about you buran, but in my opinion thats one of the many design flaws with this new system.
so, i hope you record more videos and show the longer fights also, where we kicked your asseswould be nice to see some of the long headwall fights from another perspective...
With the fear of my head being chopped off, is it a total no go opening up more zones at a time again? That would be one of my suggestion towards "fixing the issue", at least until the game reaches realm lockout timers. I am well aware off that the one zone only was implemented to stop people from dodging fights and stop taking empty zones and reaping the rewards - which if I remember correctly was totally nerfed anyway - rewards reduced, no bags etc. Having said that though, I still think and hope WAR is about a warfront in multiple areas at a time. Because in my mind, even if people swap zones, they obv. bring action to a new zone automatically. If we use the example from CW from above: If order/destro had to option to also level/had to worry about Black Crag/Caledor, this would give people(wb leaders, premade, pugs) the option of forcing people to fight elsewhere or potentially push the fight back. Then there is the flipside of the coin -> what if people then don't bother going and just stay in CW and just let the other faction take it? Well then that is their problem - if they wanna have a "EPIC last keep def" in one pairing, let them. They lost a pairing and in the future lost a vital part of the campaign towards potentially sieging the enemy city. That is what WAR is about. Tactics n' S#&%.Azarael wrote:And your suggestions for breaking up zerg are...?
If you say nothing, I will go with a damage nerf combined with a higher CD and the following effects divided racially:
- Stagger 0s-10s or 15s depending on target count, standard immunity
- Knockback, power varies from nothing to viable depending on target count, standard immunity
- Pin, reducing speed and ranged damage taken, depending on target count
Remember that we're still waiting on the ability to add siege towers. This will never be a complete implementation until we have it.
I'm leaning more towards stagger implementations in future zerg breakup ideas - both siege-based and player-based.
Zerg versus zerg is a laggy, spammy, tactically and strategically restricted mess. You're probably about to tell me that current cannons are no better. They're probably not. Experimentation.Saccara wrote:personally, i never had a problem with zergs. i really love to fighting bigger numbers. we still do this every warband day. also i understand the zerg as a reasonable way to do something in special situations.
at least at a siege it becomes automaticly a zerg, cause everyone wants to paricipate in it.
same for funnels... they still work and as a attacker i find it always great to break the defense with good gameplay. sure, you cant break every funnel but who said you should win every keep attack? i know, i know, most people hate funnels. boring to hold, hard to attack. but they are still a propriate way to hold a keep. escpecially if you are the underdog...
People keep saying this and it shows a lack of foresight.Saccara wrote:the best and only way to split the zerg is to have more then one zone! so you can split the enemy and also act as a big zerg. whatever the situation needs. tactical freedom, which is not in the current system. with city sieges back in the game this becomes a important tactical aspect, because the defending realm have to decide if they focus on one zone or try to hold another as well. more freedoms means in this case also that there a alot of usefull scenarios for small groups aswelll, which will shrink the amount of wbs down again.
The BO timers are so short because of what happened when they were long, which is exactly the same thing that's happening now - BO-go-round. Only one or two BOs would be contestable at a time, which would lead to a zerg forming up and rushing the open BO or BOs in sequence. How does that one get solved?Saccara wrote:another thing are this short bo timers. they lost their tacticial aspect. no need to hold them. if you loose one, come back in a few minutes. they are not required to attack, so just play the rescource game until you can buy enough siege weapons. to reach this goal, the best and only way (during primetime) is to run as a big blob in a circle.
not very funny to be honest, because this can take hours. a map like kv becomes a real pain with this rescource system, because both sides run as a blob and rank their keeps.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests