Skill VS Zerg
- Thread starter Phen
- Start date
They both actually say it I believe, Tyrion says it during the siege of Casterly Rock
Once upon a time when MO-1 was in its early years (Think 2010-2012), the term "zerg" was only applied to groups reaching 100+
At the time it wasn't unheard of to have guilds rolling 20 to 30 members deep or more, but once the First Crusade against AQ formed, armies of 300+ gathered to take them on. This time in MO History would be known as the "First Crusade" or the "Gabarian Wars" in reference to the region. It became immediately apparent at the onset of the conflict that the war against AQ and their allies in MERC (and a few others) would not be decided by who had greater numbers, as AQ, being smaller in number, did not suffer the mechanical difficulties of "Unknown".
This was an issue where a maximum number of players were rendered on one groups clients, while another group already in a location remained unrendered, making them practically invisible to many players yet still able to attack since they could see their victims who could not attack in return.
In later years the term "zerg" was diluted to include any group that outnumbered the group that they defeated. Towards the end of the game, literally any group that won was declared a "zerg". It's a meaningless term once used to describe a large collection of shitty players and its Starcraft origins make the original reference mostly hollow in respects to how it is applied in this game by the playerbase.
I would say the things I highlighted in Red would be things that did negatively affect gameplay for outnumbered players. Sprintbreak was always terrible and I don't know why SV was always so wishy washy, they added it, then removed it, then added it again. It's a terrible mechanic.
Increased fall damage was important, kind of to punish poor positioning for people in heavier armor, as a legit downside to wearing 26kg of armor. I've experienced plenty of deaths and taken some enemies with me that way. One mechanic that I was dissatisfied with SV changing was the addition of fall damage when jumping into a body of water from high places, even in armor. I guess they said they did this to give relevance to the diving and other niche skills, though I have a few fond memories of myself and my mates retreating from lost battles or being chased only to jump the cliffs into the jungle for dear life. It was rare that one would follow.
I would say that some spells and ritual summons were stronger than others; though I cannot blame the school of Necromancy as a whole.
For the things that I highlighted in Blue, I would say that they did not entirely negatively affect gameplay in a way that made it worse for outnumbered players. "Turtling" is entirely a legitimate stance, fighting defensively is what a player would do if they were fighting outnumbered. Combat is a dance, and one must know when to dance conservatively to save stamina and health, and when to fight aggressively, which brings me to my next point that moving faster in combat mode was useful to play aggressively!
See one balances out the other, where players could parry and get extra damage on a fast "counter strike" against overly aggressive players, the faster movement speed in combat mode both allowed the defender to place their counter attack and to chase down runners. Too many fights that should have been ended by having cavalry chase a player down would turn into many mile long chases across the continent because 1: combat animations while mounted were broken before they "fixed" them, and 2: players could not keep up with players constantly running away for miles and miles on end. Charging at someone in combat mode made no sense since sprinting in combat mode was not faster at that time period and still consumed more stamina.
As for the removal of dice rolls, I have argued countless times that the removal of elements of RNG has always been preferable. Players expect A+B=C, and the stupidity of dice rolls when it came against mounted players was that any nitwit could wield a bow to yeet shitty bodkin arrows at a horse and have a 1/5 or 1/10 or however the percentage was calculated chance of dismount of the rider. Which took away and trivialized the point of being a trained and skilled horseman. Now when dicerolls existed for the chance of a knockdown effect for say... overhead strike, even a 1/20 chance of an overhead strike with a greatblade would occasionally render your opponent knocked to the floor, something I'd say was a welcome diceroll that left things somewhat entertaining, however I can understand if such an opinion would be considered inconsistent with my previous statement.
Knockdowns with a molva or a heavy horse have always been a part of this game and have been one of the more interesting ways of cavalry dealing with infantry in a combined arms fashion. It's hard to run away when you're knocked to the ground. In fact, I once argued that Molva's should have the unique ability to be able to charge through groups and possibly even cause multiple knockdowns, however that should leave them extra vulnerable to abilities like spear stance, which the latter was never quite improved upon sadly.
The statement of "OP" pets, confuses me. Are you referencing the creatures summoned by Necromancy? The heavy armored arctic and stalker lykiators with high HP, the various creatures that could be "dominated" and sent to do one's bidding? I don't mean to be pedantic, I just wish we could speak more specifically and frank about what the issue you were having with this was. I can understand where some instances seemed "Cheap" and in fact, they probably were. Plenty of creature with cheap "Acid" and "magic" attacks that dealt unavoidable high damage through expensive armor setups, sometimes with high frequency making it seem like you were hit with a machine gun. Some of these things were in fact a bit overpowered, and their immediate counters were not always apparent.
I guess where my mindset differed is that I tried to look at some of these things from the perspective of a strategist. I enjoyed the asymmetry of it all with hard and soft counters alike, (with soft counters being predominate in most engagements). I enjoyed strategy games, and while certain gameplay features countered one tactic, another tactic could be employed to counter and so on and so forth. It is why I did not always enjoy the long and tedious and numerous "Nerf X Naow" threads of the original game. Where Group X hated Group Y because Group Y developed a playstyle that beat Group X reliably, and Group X did not wish to adapt and change to maintain their status quo.
As for the equalizing of speed across the races, I have mixed thoughts on that point. It was always understood that Veela or Thur/Khur were always SpeedySpeedy vs Speedy/Strong, however racial traits were always imbalanced to a rather absurd degree, one that I found made the game rather bland and monotonous. When everyone in the world is a Thursar or a Veela, there's no place for Humans and the only place for Oghmir was at a crafting table.
Anyway that's my stream of thought when it comes to the points you raised, and I hope maybe you'll consider taking the time to craft a response with as much thoughtfulness as I in this regard. I think we're both getting too old to keep playing forum warrior troll games when it's easier to be direct.