Showing Posts For Reizak.2583:
I think Full pertains to the amount of players on the server, whether they have logged in or not is a different thing. I would assume a server could say “full” and only have 250 people logged in at peak times.
Simply not true.
I was trying to join a different server, was listed as ‘Full’, so I couldn’t… I waited for an hour and bingo, was on ‘High’, and I could transfer to it.
I also constantly have to queue for WvWvW, sometimes for 30 mins or more.
Also, every game loses low-level area population. It’s inevitable. Name any other game in the history of MMO’s that have high levels of users in every zone.
GW2s system of being able to level in a 10-20 zone at level 63 and not be penalized is the best I’ve seen for keeping low level areas pretty well populated.
My highest level character is 40-something, and all my characters never have a problem joining in with numerous others for dynamic events, or finding dungeon groups (again, handy as there’s no holy trinity).
Game is doing just fine as it is.
Nothing wrong with the system as far as I can tell.
In just about every battle in the last 4,000 years, the side with the larger force nearly always wins. The only time this isn’t true is when technology/resources plays an important role.
The same applies here. If you have 10 players, and are fighting a group of 50, why would you expect to win? If you got into a fight outside a bar, and you and two buddies were about to get jumped by a group of eight that didn’t appreciate something you said to them an hour ago, then personally I’d be preparing myself for an kitten kicking.
As mentioned above, the only reason I wouldn’t expect the zerg to walk it against a smaller group would be if they had technological (in this case golems or arrow carts) on their side. Keeps and castles have always (historically) been capture-able with a large enough force (in this case a ‘zerg’). Tactics and skill play a role, but the majority of time in real life, as well as in computer games, it’s a case of simple numbers. You have more, you’re more likely to win, exponentially.
I do agree with the AoE limits though. The code should check to see how many people are within a certain vicinity to one another. As it stands at the moment, if 50 people can effectively pile ontop of one another, they become pretty invulnerable as the AoE maths is fundamentally flawed, and only a couple of them will take damage.
The more people stood right next to each other, the more people should get effected from the AoE. Dynamic limits are the way to go. Applying a static function (5 player AoE limit) to a dynamic variable (the number of people within the AoE) is never a good idea if something is meant to be balanced and fair. Just ask any statistician. That’s why income taxation is staggered, and not just set to a static amount.
TL;DR: Combat rezzing is fine as it is. Peoples assumption that 10 players should be able to put up a decent fight against a group of 50 is what the issue is.
EDIT: Just as an aside, as the game has no dedicated healers, then as someone else said; this isn’t really any different to playing WoW and having three druids constantly healing their seven warrior buddies. They’re just as invincible (if not more so). People are always going to QQ about things they don’t like when it rubs them the wrong way.
If you don’t like it, you should adjust your tactics so that that disadvantage and weakness becomes your advantage and strength. That’s what tactics are really all about, realising why you fail, and incorporating it to your own strategies so you don’t lose to it again.
(edited by Reizak.2583)