CR2.0 must not increase the effectiveness of the Zerg!

I agree.

Thanks to the new system, not only do you have to worry about Knife Throwers, Gunmen and Hackers while you're interlock, but now you have to worry about Martial Artists as well.  Before I could interlock someone and maybe a friend or two would jump in to help them out, now they just stand around Melee free-firing me while I'm trying to fight one person.

So in essence, the zerg mentality has been given even more confidence.  At least before all of this, the most a Martial Artist did was Swirling Ki Summon or try to shoot me.  Now they can just bludgeon me to death.

If multi-interlock was the cause of the problems, why not just restrict interlock to just one on one?  The rest of the system was perfectly fine to me.

But instead we're treated to an entirely new type of combat to fix ONE bug?

I know this is still testing, but at the moment, its a horrible mess, IMO.

I'm not entirely sure what your complaint is here.  If you're complaining that people shooting/hacking/striking at you from outside of interlock are doing more damage than they should, well, damage hasn't been balanced yet, so just give it some time.  If you're complaining that you're getting hit from outside interlock too much while you're in, well, I have to disagree with you there.  In my opinion, shooting at a target that is interlocked should grant you a bonus to accuracy, as you are free to concentrate on shooting, and your target is too busy concentrating on the interlock fight to effectively dodge your attacks as well as he/she could when not interlocked (I say provide the shooters with the bonus instead of applying a downgrade to the interlock combatants because we currently have no distinction in attributes between ranged defense against someone who is shooting at you in interlock and someone who is shooting at you using free-fire, and providing a blanket downgrade would obviously have unfair consequences).  Ultimately, though, it seems you are asking them to 'fix' a fundamental law of reality - in a war where both sides have access to the same technology (in our case, abilities, weapons, and apparel), the side who has more people is going to win.  It's not a game mechanic, it's a fact of life. 

In the live game, there's practically no skill whatsoever involved in PvP, it's all about which abilities you have loaded, what you're wearing, which weapons you're using, then finally, down to pure luck and finally skill, but only in the form of knowing when to use which attack.  If you ask me, rather than asking them to nerf people shooting at someone who's interlocked, you should ask them to rework the system so that player skill matters at least to some non-negligible degree (and if you ask me, they have taken a step in that direction with CR 2.0 already - which attack tactic you choose compared to your opponent's is much more involved than in live).  If they do that, however, they'd have to lower the random effect in combat, which would sort of negate the whole 'lowbies have a chance to hit a level 50' deal, so it's really about what you're willing to compromise.

Message Edited by >revolt_ on 02-02-200606:18 PM

---

>revolt_ wrote:
But I would expect if I get shot in real-life while being involved with someone in a close fist fight, that my melee opponent would be in danger of getting shot too.

Atleast I'd expect that the shooter will have a harder time hitting me, without hitting his friend.

My Suggestion: Free-attacking, Shooting or launching a virus or throwing a knife into an INTERLOCK fight should be penalized with a hefty penalty. This way interlock will mean something again and it'll finally become an effective tactic to aggro and tank your opponent.

---

Possible solution for "the Zerg".  Since the zerg factor is greatly increased in IL by free fire attacks, and by the lack of Damage resistance atm.  So to counter act the zerg, and to increase desire to IL is to tactle these two issues.

My solution is:  Increased Free Fire Defense tactics, increased Free Fire Damage Resistance while in IL when a member of the same Organization is in IL.  I'm not talking anything major.  Just an addtion 20 pts or 10% Free Fire Defense tactics, and an addition 100 pts or 10% Free Fire Damage Resistance.

Example: 2v1 combat.(PVP)  You and your friend have picked a target, and your friend IL.  You don't want to hit your friend in IL, so it becomes harder for you to make a decisive shot, without hitting your friend.

Second Example: 1v1v1 combat.(PVP)  A Merovingian, a Zionist, and a Machinist walk into a bar...(bad pun)...and since a one Organization doesn't care about the other two Orgs, there will be no reason to be careful when free firing.

Way to Impliment this AS A DEV:  I took a little bit of Java and flunked, but I do know about If() statements.  Imo, all you need to do is:

***When ORG represents what organization your IL with.

 IF( IL ORG) 

 ORG damage recieved=(damage recieve - 10%),

 ORG accuracy =(accuracy - 10%);

Would this be hard to impliment?  Or is it a bad Idea?

---

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

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.

---

---

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.

---

Message Edited by TheTaxidermist on 03-01-200611:23 AM

• The loss of multi IL: In the current system a zerg force will IL opponents - almost as statistical chance a single member of the smaller force will be IL by at least 2 zerging opponents, effectively this plays out at a slower rate than the pvp around and the number of active bodies on the side of the zerg is effectvely reduced for a period of time - in a 7 on 5 scenario (no one can take 2 o 1 odds seriously) instantly this reduces to 5 on 4...suddenly an upset is possible and indeed if 3 ppl enetred that IL the fight around is even. By the time the IL has played out the odds can be very different indeed....... Currently multi IL actually works to the advantage of the smaller team and that Zerg beating possibility will be lost.
• The introducion of dps and free fire increases the speed of resolution of battles, the effectiveness of free fire on an IL opponent is devastating for the same level (as 90% of pvp is) meaning IL is akin to suicide where the numbers allow for outside attcks on the IL member of the smaller side (as other IL is only 1 on 1 there is no mechanism to avoid this occurence.) quicker destruction of the handicapped party in IL frees the zerg and allows it to be more versatile and damaging.
• Addtionally since I opened this thread I have tested the new 'sneak' power which on live is so effective to lie in wait and/or target an unprepared player and strike.... However sneak is broken almost instantly when you move through multiple enemies and it is all but impossible to stay in one place as over time the likelyhood of a sneak being broken increases...against a zerg it will be useless. The tactic you describe that was used to pick off stragglers in a zerg will not function anything like as well under CR2

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

---

HCFrog wrote:

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?

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.

---

Well you're on the right track with luring them away from crowds but not crowds in general but hardlines.

On vector from experiences... zergs are a greater threat in familiar territory such as Mara Central, Mara Northwest, Apollyon northwest, and Midian East... the typical richland areas.

but when you bring them downtown in foreign territory they aren't as effective.... or not effective against a force with decent numbers on a ... believe it or not... flat surface.... no bridges or buildings to hack down from just a flat surfaced battle field.

HCFrog, pvping on a nonhostile server won't answer your question... you need to experience a hostile server where all bets are off.

as for more tactics well these tactics occur not due to the opposition but the current state of the game.

players in zion get bored of zergging so they turn merv or machine.

---

xBLINDSIDEx wrote:
The benefits of the current system, as far as battling the zerg goes, and actually putting up a good fight...  At least as an MA, you can load up full VD... as well as load up some good DR (with squad shirt and the gi), so all your bases are covered fairly well.. the problem with the new system (and i've said this in other posts)  is the fact, you're not going to be able to have the greatest defense against all the trees because you have to spread your points across 4 attributes to get a fair (not good) defense against everything...    I think one thing that could help this, would be to move thrown defense to another attribute, instead of reason....  for the ones of us that are die hard MAs or gunman, the only benefit of reason, is thrown defense... and the problem you can either have mediocore defense against everything, or good defense against 2 things .. for example for someone that wanted to use MA for their primary tree...   could go 30 belief, 30 focus... and would have great defense against hackers and other MAs..   or you could spread the points out.. and have so so defense against everything...     So, I think either moving thrown defense over into another attribute, or even making the hyper abilities passive, could really benefit making a good loadout to battle the zerg..  just my opinion.

---

Isn't the entire left half of the new awakened tree full of abillities to boost defenses from all the different types of attacks? Not being a smart a** or anything, but the last time I looked I thought I saw that. Because I remeber thinking that was a really good idea, because whatever weakness you have from your clothes/abillities can be made up with just a few memory points from the awakened tree.

Message Edited by ScareCrow on 03-10-200602:35 PM

Message Edited by nanofiggisremo on 03-29-200603:48 PM

there is no T in ORG IMBALANCE lol. thats the point. how can you get your friends to help you when the enemy just has more friends.

i suggest this..either make the meet niobe, agent grey, and flood missions the first 3 crits..wich could make the story kinds start off sucky..or make a new player non hostile and non recruitable to all orgs until the meet (those guys) missions are complete. basically..there has to be a way to not give the impression that meros and machines are the enemy from the bat. the player should have to come to a conclusion based on how they feel the matrix should be run by them selves. now i know this isnt really in complete line with the matrix films. but its a game. and the game has to run smoothly.

Time spent on the test server it was pretty clear the devs kept a watchful eye on the activity at the mara c hardline. Now try something new.

Vector org imbalance

1. Make a lvl 50 character exactly like ours with no god mod buffs etc... and put a team of devs together on a pvp team with some mervs or machines and pvp at mara for about an hour so you can face the trials of being zerged ... die reconstruct etc... with no noneflagged carebear patchers rezzing your bodies.

this will give devs the change to get first hand experience. It's time to cater to Vector =)

2. Its year 2 of MXO the story should have advanced to show that all orgs are recruiting instead of mervs/machines recruiting from Zion. that way it gives everyone a chance just like darkhaze stated in his post.

this is a serious hostile server issues that has yet to be worked on by the devs.

CR2 is good but it has made the zion zerg on vector stronger than before since their lowbie cheerleaders can now make matters worst.

Message Edited by Inguss on 03-29-200607:11 PM

Message Edited by darkhaze on 03-30-200605:16 AM

death effect increases would only benefit the zion and hurt the opposing orgs more (as DH said above) 

get rid of death effect all together: meh, doesn't change anything.

vector is facing a serious crisis though.  all the players that seem to be leaving are machine and meros because they are facing the negative effects of the free fire/change in buffing system.  they were able to withstand a 3v1 in a lot of cases in the last system (which is bogus, and the new system is better balance wise) but now I can't see how the pvp thing will be much fun at all for them.

Inguss encourages more zionites to switch orgs, and I hope they do.  My faction will not, however, so I'm no help there.  PvP will be obviously nonexistant if there are no enemies, so something must be done.  And once again i have no idea what that should be.  i know  a lot of ppl are really tempted to move if a server transfer were offered, and that bumms me out too... i don't want to go to a non hostile server, but i also don't want to stay on a hostile server with no hostilities.

/nohelp

Message Edited by Bethlahem on 03-30-200611:20 AM

...right then, along comes cryshal with your scheduled reality check =D

i recall shooting at ppl, before cr2, who were in interlock. cue 2001 theme music.

the reason it has become MUCH worse has nothing to do with interlock. after all, the difference between interlock and multilock is nil, zero, moot. now that theres no more multilock, and yet now we got freefire melee attacks.. whats the difference? absolutely none.

the reason why ppl standing around loaded up to their eyes with ballistic buffs are causing so much of a problem is cuz theyre exactly the same they always were, but the game isnt. they were always standing there, shooting you about 4-6 secs AFTER you pull someone into interlock.. but in cr2 guns hit ppl SO much more often now. its not interlock, or the zerg, or the balance of population between the orgs (as much), its the fact that youre getting hit sometimes 3 times in one second, by guns now.

devs, turn down the gunfire pls =D

i do missions on easy, just to test.. and i still get pelted for noob dmg which adds up so much faster than i thought it would. an average of 80 dmg per sec means i die in about 32 secs or the time it takes me, with hacker (no hacker comments pls), to kill 3-4 npcs if all goes well.

see the pattern here? this is just how its been going down at mara a la pvp lately. its not the zerg, its the bullets. they hit you in the back of the head far more often now. the solution is to tone down the ranged stuff. its just trouble in several different ways, as voiced by many ppl ingame, to be getting hit so much now. item decay etc. or you could make ppl in interlock unable to be hit by anyone outside. that would be fine with me. i try to avoid interlock about 2/3rds of the time but when im there, i want it to be me vs them and no bs about it. however id also have to consider this heavy handed.. far easier im sure to just throttle back on how much we get hit by ballistic attacks.

TBH for all sorts of reasons not zerg releated I would love a more severe DE a full 5 minutes where you must not return to the battle would actually make properly resolvable conflicts etc.

For the Zerg atm split EPN away as a pvpable group...you can still give them the same missions as zion but the seperation will mean Zion needs to exert more care in pvp situations (and inevitably will generate friction between one another).

Split the cyphs in the same way BUT a new redpill should be awoken by Zion and then under the terms of the truce automatically be emplyed by the machines to keep order (at a later date being able to opt into other orgs).

There is a good excuse for both Merovs and machines to have area's of the matrix where the exile gangs (for merovs) and security/agents (for machines) will actually fight at their side....the level and density of these could be adjusted to the org distribution of the server.

Message Edited by Tytanya_MxO on 03-31-200603:25 AM