Big concern in regard to 1v1 duels during matches. | Forums

[Be1dou]

This is pretty late, and I apologize for that. I've been pretty busy during and after the closed alpha.

Something I've been meaning to address are 1v1 duels and players being ganged up on. What I mean is, sometimes players will gang up on an enemy, while other times they will be honorable and allow 1v1 duels instead of grouping up on the enemy.

During my sessions, there was a surprising amount of times where players won't gang up on me and vice versa, and while that's appreciated and considerably honorable, I'm afraid it might create a rift within the player base. I commonly used a mic and was playing with players using one and it was upsetting to hear people getting heated up when they are grouped against multiple enemies after being used to players condoning 1v1s the past few matches.

I personally don't gang up on players and I appreciate it when the enemies treat me with the same respect. It can be a gesture of good sportsmanship, but that's all it is. If you don't do it, that's completely fine by me. No beef. It's unjustified of me to alienate or hate certain players because they don't do the same and I feel other players should too. After all, it's part of the game and players are encourage to do it to win.

Basically, I really hope the community doesn't become like Souls and demean other players if they don't play the game the way some of us want them to.

[MisterWillow]

Basically, I really hope the community doesn't become like Souls and demean other players if they don't play the game the way some of us want them to.

That would be great.

On topic: Unless you're at a contested capture point, ganging up on one person doesn't really seem to have that much purpose, at least strategically, since the second person's effort would be better served at an objective, since that's where the bulk of a team's points seem to come from, while their teammate keeps the enemy occupied.

Maybe it's people who only care about K/D, or otherwise think that as long as they kill people they're helping out.

[Be1dou]

On topic: Unless you're at a contested capture point, ganging up on one person doesn't really seem to have that much purpose, at least strategically, since the second person's effort would be better served at an objective, since that's where the bulk of a team's points seem to come from, while their teammate keeps the enemy occupied.

Respawning takes up to 10-15 seconds, so unlike most games, that's something you might want to take advantage of during objectives. I remember playing a few matches against a duo who stuck together. They didn't didn't focus on the objective, but instead aimed for grouping on solo enemies ASAP. Because the respawn time wasn't quick, and they kept the pressure on, it gave the enemy team plenty of time to gain ahead.

Maybe it's people who only care about K/D, or otherwise think that as long as they kill people they're helping out.

Killing players also rewards PTS, btw.

[Eiddard]

I don't see any problem in ganging up in a 4v4 gamemode.

If someone gets upset because he was fighting 1v1 and some other guy appears and turns the fight in a 2v1 well, either be aware of your enemies position, or go play other gamemode, 4v4 is that, 4v4, there is not point on crying about being ganged up.

The metagame will dictate if it is worth or not to gang up on people, but since we only saw 2 classes in action it is quite hard to try to figure out how the metagame will be.

[premiumart]

War. War never changes.

On the battlefield your only objective is to survive and everything is permitted.

Good that there are so many honorable warriors who fight you 1vs1 BUT WHAT ABOUT MY HONOR AND GLORY WHEN I SLAY TWO ENEMIES AT ONCE ?? COME AT MEEEEE.

XD

[MisterWillow]

Respawning takes up to 10-15 seconds, so unlike most games, that's something you might want to take advantage of during objectives. I remember playing a few matches against a duo who stuck together. They didn't didn't focus on the objective, but instead aimed for grouping on solo enemies ASAP. Because the respawn time wasn't quick, and they kept the pressure on, it gave the enemy team plenty of time to gain ahead.

Fair point.

I suppose if, in the example I gave, the second player goes to an objective only to find two enemy players to contend with, it would have been better strategy to gang up on the first enemy so you have some backup for the objective... unless you're really good.

Killing players also rewards PTS, btw.

I never really payed attention, so feel free to correct me, but I thought killing players didn't reward your team as much as taking objectives. The real advantage of killing players, outside of contested objectives, seems to be gaining Feats quicker.

[Be1dou]

I suppose if, in the example I gave, the second player goes to an objective only to find two enemy players to contend with, it would have been better strategy to gang up on the first enemy so you have some backup for the objective... unless you're really good.

Yeah, that would be a good strategy. It really depends on the situation. Sometimes you or your teammates aren't skilled enough, so grouping is a better plan. Etc.

I never really payed attention, so feel free to correct me, but I thought killing players didn't reward your team as much as taking objectives. The real advantage of killing players, outside of contested objectives, seems to be gaining Feats quicker.

The objectives are always primary, and it does reward you with more points, but killing players are just as important. The less enemies on the battlefield, the less you have to worry about. It's 4v4 so everyone makes a difference. The death of one person can easily turn the tide around.

[MisterWillow]

The objectives are always primary, and it does reward you with more points, but killing players are just as important. The less enemies on the battlefield, the less you have to worry about. It's 4v4 so everyone makes a difference. The death of one person can easily turn the tide around.

Also true.

This sort of strategy discussion---whether to group together or go off alone, and whatnot---is going to be really interesting once all the classes, abilities, and modes are revealed, and more people have some time put in, since I'm guessing a class with a polearm might be better at dealing with two opponents (since they might be able to hit multiple opponents more easily), or a shield bearer could serve as a distraction, given their presumed greater defense for another player to mop up whoever's focused on them.

I can't wait!

[Be1dou]

Also true.

This sort of strategy discussion---whether to group together or go off alone, and whatnot---is going to be really interesting once all the classes, abilities, and modes are revealed, and more people have some time put in, since I'm guessing a class with a polearm might be better at dealing with two opponents (since they might be able to hit multiple opponents more easily), or a shield bearer could serve as a distraction, given their presumed greater defense for another player to mop up whoever's focused on them.

I can't wait!

Me too, man!

I really hope alpha/beta accesses becomes something common throughout development for me. Kind of like R6S. The game isn't out yet, and I've already clocked in dozens of hours in that game.

[SquadCityTyler]

In regards to this, I can assure you that fighting 2 v 1 is a valid strategy if you know what you're doing in the build I played on at MIGS 2015 (same as E3 apparently, we only had access to Knights). I am talking with some backing, as we won the tournament we participated in, but it is valid, allow me to explain.

Our strategy for that tournament (and it's going to have to change, because the devs may see this :3), was 3 going for the far point, and one to the closer point, number do matter and I understand that sounds crazy - that's why it worked. By rushing the far point, three players end up flanking the people that usually start to push A, while the person at C could run down to hold off the waves at A, or adapt to the situation (I was the solo guy at the close point, then I just cleaned where needed). In order to be effective, you need to be malleable and effective, our defined strategy ended at the 30 second mark, and it became a collected consciousness of intelligence and common sense.

An example of a situation that would strategically warrant a 1 v 2 is any capture point that is being contested, in the middle of nowhere, it'd be nice if it's easy to acquire, but in the end it might be a waste of your time, since disengaging is pretty simple if you're good about it. However I am pretty sure enemy kills give you the following:
- Upwards of 30 hardpoints.
- Progress towards you feats.
- Lead to outnumbering the remaining enemies while others respawn (unless they're breaking).
And there's always the team morale from slamming an enemy, gives them hope they can win, that kinda stuff, not as direct as the others though.

As for the actual morale aspect of outnumbering an opponent, it depends what the gains are. We were playing to win, it was a tournament and we didn't want to take chance - so we did 2v1 people, in fact I just sweeped the map at points helping teammates. However in a general, online multiplayer setting where games don't have much of a reward except for cumulative ingame "things", I could see it being fine - but it won't happen often. I'm sure there will be a feature for 1 v 1, and if not, friends can always get together and fight each other 1 on 1 and the like.

Hope I helped