Suggestions to counter zerging

[Caduceus]

Zerging has been a part of Return of Reckoning for as long as I have played the game. I do however feel that more recently, the game has crept more towards rewarding zerging and it has taken away tools with which smaller groups could fight against greater numbers. Zerging has repeatedly been brought up as an issue regarding the tests of Land of the Dead, and this thread is a direct response to what I have seen during the tests and read in the feedback threads.

To be clear, what I mean by the term "zerging" is when a faction clumps all their forces into one huge ball that rarely, if ever, splits up. Often (but not always) this is done by the side that has numerical superiority, because it is a simple and straight-forward way to leverage their numerical advantage. The outnumbered side is almost naturally drawn towards a divide and conquer approach, however I believe in the current state of Return of Reckoning their options for counterplay are lacking.

Zerging is a natural, logical reaction to adversity on the battlefield, and therefore I don't see it as something that is always bad or undesirable. It can however have a tendency to slowly turn into a monster. Like an apex predator that drives out all competition from its habitat, so too does zerging have a tendency to force the competition to either start zerging as well or die. I do consider that particular manifestation of zerging as a problem, and it is one that has been on my mind for a long time. (I hope we can agree that the age of dinosaurs would be a lot less interesting if all we had was T-Rexes).

To solve this zerging issue I think we need to look for organic solutions. In the feedback threads I have already seen a couple of terrible suggestions on how we should punish players for zerging through arbitrary mechanics and penalties, and I believe this is entirely the wrong way to approach the problem.

Again, zerging is logical player behavior and it is even encouraged by one of the loading screen tips (it goes something along the lines of "If you can't beat them, just bring more!").

Rather than beating players with a stick for being smart and choosing the path of least resistance, we should aim to challenge players with more complicated tactical problems that require a non-zerging solution. Because I am unfamiliar with the tools and capabilities of the devs, I will not attempt to present ready-made solutions. Instead I have chosen to present a number of combat/battlefield dynamics that affect the effectiveness of zerging and thereby provide a conceptual basis from which to look for practical solutions.



Approach 1: Multiple objectives

Angle: Seeks to disincentivise zerging by presenting multiple objectives that require attention simultaneously.

Critical factor: The time it takes to bounce between the objectives needs to be designed in such a way that a reactive zerg will always struggle to hold control. If the distance between objectives, or the time it takes to secure them, is too short, zerging will not be disincentivized at all. The faction that splits up their forces will not have enough time to control the objectives there where the zerg is not.

The critical factor was not met in the current iteration of Land of the Dead, thus zerging was still the most effective tactic. More objectives that have more distance between them is an almost guaranteed way to disincentivise zerging.



Approach 2: Rear areas

Angle: Seeks to disincentivise zerging by introducing an ever-present threat of having one's rear areas infiltrated.

Critical factor: The penalty of having one's rear areas infiltrated, and thus one's frontlines cut off, needs to be significant enough that this threat cannot be ignored.

This is common theme in modern warfare. The way it is most commonly depicted in video games is with supply lines, which, when cut off, will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the cut off forces. Introducing a mechanic like this, which perhaps can be modeled sort of like Diminishing Rations, will encourage things like scouting over a broad front, smart positioning and manoeuvring. A zerg that gets cut off will either have to scramble to their rear areas or fight with reduced effectiveness.

Depending on how such a mechanic is designed and how heavily a side is penalized for getting their rear areas cut off, this can make zerging almost entirely ineffective. This approach can radically change the gameplay dynamic into one that offers lots of tactical problems to solve and gameplay depth.



Approach 3: More indirect AoE

Angle: Seeks to disincentivise zerging by giving players effective tools of damaging clumped up groups of enemies, like artillery. The indirect nature of this tool is crucial, because it offers the opportunity to strike where the enemy cannot strike back (unlike direct AoE). Historically speaking, the introduction of effective indirect fires caused the shift away from the dense formations of the late medieval era like the Spanish Tercios, to the looser, more elongated battle formations of the early modern period.

Critical factor: The damage and availability of these tools need to be sufficient, so the threat it poses cannot be ignored without great risk.

AoE and Single-target cannons are already a part of Return of Reckoning. Tweaking these and adding them to Land of the Dead could provide a solution to the zerging issue. I believe the primary reason cannons are not yet being utilized to counter zerging in the RvR lakes, is their poor availability and the fact multiple AoE cannons are required to have a decisive impact.

Solutions that come to mind are,
A. making cannons available from the war camp,
B. making more cannons available per faction, and
C. giving players a practical yet team-oriented way of keeping cannons supplied with ammunition. (One that is not countered by zerging, obviously)
D. increasing the damage, so they are a credible threat also to organized warbands.



Approach 4: More direct AoE

Angle: Seeks to disincentive zerging through the same means as approach 3, but by increasing the effectiveness of direct AoE rather than indirect AoE.

Critical factor: The nature of direct AoE is such that while the player is applying it, they are also in range of the enemy to strike back. Therefore, it is vitally important that when this approach is taken, it is implemented so that large groups suffer more heavily under this than small groups. If they were to suffer from it equally, it will simply be another tool for the zerg rather than an equalizer.

While this may sound imbalanced or radical at first, this type of a mechanic has been in the game in the past, back when there was no cap on morale damage. Back then, it functioned as a great tool to punish blobbing and allowed small, strong groups to fight outnumbered. Perhaps it is time to reconsider this change and caps on AoE damage in general. If the game is to shift towards these massive hundred-on-hundred player fights, the old paradigms won't suffice.

The current lack of the ability to deal fast, decisive damage (this problem is multi-faceted, and not only damage-related) makes fights predictable and zerging more attractive, because tactical surprises are not rewarded as much as they perhaps should be.



Thanks for taking the time to read this thread. I look forward to reading your thoughts and comments.

[Aethilmar]

You are only discussing mechanics to break up zerging behavior (which is also not really well defined so I'm going to go with one side having strategic numerical superiority with AAO in excess of 80% for the opposition) and there have been multiple attempts to do so and those mechanics are still available.

However you need to look at the root cause of it which how you acquire rewards. Quite simply the game rewards (kills, contribution, renown, bags) people for massing up everywhere they go. Sieging, supply running, Forts and City (can't speak for LoTD b/c haven't been there yet). All promote Warband+ style of play with little to no downsides.

So add your new mechanics. I love new stuff. But tie them in to how people get rewarded or they won't do anything.

[Kloaner]

don't we already enough AoE? Isn't Gameplay more like this, oh look Napalm isn't that hot. And there a Mist together with a Pit of Shades and did you see that cute Choppa over there? (just some examples)

Changing AoE will effect Cities and SC also.

[Caduceus]

You are only discussing mechanics to break up zerging behavior (which is also not really well defined so I'm going to go with one side having strategic numerical superiority with AAO in excess of 80% for the opposition) ...

You're right, I probably should have specified what exactly I mean with zerging. The type of zerging I am talking about is when a faction clumps all their forces into one huge group. (So it is not necessarily something that only the side with numerical superiority can do.)

However you need to look at the root cause of it which how you acquire rewards. Quite simply the game rewards (kills, contribution, renown, bags) people for massing up everywhere they go. Sieging, supply running, Forts and City (can't speak for LoTD b/c haven't been there yet). All promote Warband+ style of play with little to no downsides.

So add your new mechanics. I love new stuff. But tie them in to how people get rewarded or they won't do anything.

That's a good point, though I think these changes will already influence players through the rewards they get. After all, rewards are gained by winning, and if zerging is no longer a winning strategy, then the rewards are also affected.

I also think there's something to be said for opening up avenues of gameplay for smaller groups, to avoid forcing every player into this Warband+ style as you said.

[kirraha]

Zerging has been rewarded through changes in the game. Lockout, Aoe caps, Morale changes etc.
The mentality cannot be changed through these things and imo can't be. the lockouts in both rvr and forts cucked us who liked play underdogs.

[Parallell86]

And what if one side decides to just obstruct the other realms attempts by still zerging?

Example: 48 vs 48. One realm split up their forces to control said objectives. The other realm decides to use their entire force to run between the objectives and farm kills on their outnumbered opponents.

How does this fly with your anti-zerging strategy? You are forgetting one thing, people zerg cause they only trust in overwhelming numbers.

Another note on this strategy. Do you really wanna go back to sitting on a BO and simply hold it for several minutes? People want PVP encounters. Not more chilling on a battle objective.

[Caduceus]

And what if one side decides to just obstruct the other realms attempts by still zerging?

Example: 48 vs 48. One realm split up their forces to control said objectives. The other realm decides to use their entire force to run between the objectives and farm kills on their outnumbered opponents.

How does this fly with your anti-zerging strategy? You are forgetting one thing, people zerg cause they only trust in overwhelming numbers.

Another note on this strategy. Do you really wanna go back to sitting on a BO and simply hold it for several minutes? People want PVP encounters. Not more chilling on a battle objective.

Please read my post thoroughly.

I am not proposing a strategy. I am proposing several approaches of gameplay changes that could reduce the effectiveness of zerging.

[Parallell86]

And what if one side decides to just obstruct the other realms attempts by still zerging?

Example: 48 vs 48. One realm split up their forces to control said objectives. The other realm decides to use their entire force to run between the objectives and farm kills on their outnumbered opponents.

How does this fly with your anti-zerging strategy? You are forgetting one thing, people zerg cause they only trust in overwhelming numbers.

Another note on this strategy. Do you really wanna go back to sitting on a BO and simply hold it for several minutes? People want PVP encounters. Not more chilling on a battle objective.

Please read my post thoroughly.

I am not proposing a strategy. I am proposing several approaches of gameplay changes that could reduce the effectiveness of zerging.

Please read my post thoroughly.

I am responding to your "several approaches of gameplay changes that could reduce the effectiveness of zerging."

Unless you just have AOE gimped by 90% if your WB is closer than 100 feet of another ally warband then people wont give a ****. Overwhelming numbers still win, and in this community people form 6 mans to gank singles. 12 mans to gank 6 mans, and 24 mans to gank 12 mans. This community play for easy kills and free bags.

[Caduceus]

I am responding to your "several approaches of gameplay changes that could reduce the effectiveness of zerging."

Please quote exactly what part of my post you are responding to, because it is entirely unclear to me how anything you said relates to my post.

[Parallell86]

I am responding to your "several approaches of gameplay changes that could reduce the effectiveness of zerging."

Please quote exactly what part of my post you are responding to, because it is entirely unclear to me how anything you said relates to my post.

High demands. I dont respond well to orders. If you cant see it, or simply to **** blinded by your own pride to see my point. I got nothing else to say. Its clear you took my response and made your private vendetta. Thats a you-problem.

Let me re-phrase my post into something less confusing: Your idea is **** and will never be implemented.