Two potentially harmful gaming practices have been discussed this past week: Keen ponders the impacts of zergs in Age of Conan, while The Heartless Gamer is annoyed by reports of ranged standoffs in Warhammer Online. Ultimately, neither of these “features” are hard-coded into the game by developers, rather, they are tactics employed by players. That said, they aren’t very desirable, so what can be done to mitigate them in the upcoming Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning? In this post, I’ll examine the Zerg (part one). Next week, I’ll examine the Standoff (part two).
Zerging (part one)
Zerg is simply another name for a mob. Zergs are made up of many players coordinating their efforts towards a single goal or set of goals. A mindful zerg can accomplish quite a bit if led properly, but even mindless zergs with little direction can make an impact on their environment due to sheer size. Zergs are generally defined in proportion to your group size. If you’re in a group of 10 trying to compete against a group of 20+, you’ll most likely label your opposition “a zerg.”
Here’s a great comic explaining the “Fundamentals of Zergology.”
While some people prefer to steamroll their opponents rather than compete on even terms, zerging usually happens for other reasons. Using what we know about WAR and a bit of creative thinking, here are some of the things I think can be done to lessen the perceived need for zergs (by zerglings—the ones who zerg). And bear in mind, zerging in PvE isn’t really frowned upon; it’s the RvR zergs that most people have issues with because they feel it’s unfair.
- Instanced RvR
- I’d much prefer a fair and balanced open-world RvR environment, however, the most absolute way to prohibit zerging is to introduce instanced RvR with hard caps placed on participant numbers. Examples include a 10vs10 capture the flag scenario or breaking up city siege into multiple instances of 75vs75. You can’t instance open-world RvR because it will ruin the sense of immersion, so keep/objective battles will still allow for zerging, hence my next two points…
- I’d much prefer a fair and balanced open-world RvR environment, however, the most absolute way to prohibit zerging is to introduce instanced RvR with hard caps placed on participant numbers. Examples include a 10vs10 capture the flag scenario or breaking up city siege into multiple instances of 75vs75. You can’t instance open-world RvR because it will ruin the sense of immersion, so keep/objective battles will still allow for zerging, hence my next two points…
- More RvR Objectives
- The more RvR objectives you have such as keeps or control points, the more it will make sense for people to form smaller attack forces. A zerg of 100 people may overtake a single objective quicker, but 10 groups of 10 players could simultaneously attack multiple objectives for a quicker overall capture. This will only work if it doesn’t require 100 people to actually take an objective, hence the need to pair this concept up with easier-to-obtain RvR objectives…
- The more RvR objectives you have such as keeps or control points, the more it will make sense for people to form smaller attack forces. A zerg of 100 people may overtake a single objective quicker, but 10 groups of 10 players could simultaneously attack multiple objectives for a quicker overall capture. This will only work if it doesn’t require 100 people to actually take an objective, hence the need to pair this concept up with easier-to-obtain RvR objectives…
- Easier RvR Objectives
- Using the imaginary numbers from my previous concept, it doesn’t really make tactical sense for 100 people to attack an RvR objective that could be taken by 10 people. I’m not saying all objectives should be obtainable by groups of 10, it’s just a number I’m using to illustrate my point. Look at it from a defender’s point of view. Is it easier to defend a single objective or many objectives simultaneously? Obviously, the answer is a single objective because you can consolidate your forces (counter-zerg) rather than coordintate multiple groups. If you make the objectives easier to capture by groups sizes that aren’t classified as “zerg-like,” then you’ve given smaller groups incentive to go out and capture them, especially if rewards can be gained by objective capture. Sharing a pool or renown amongst less people is more beneficial to the individual, hence my next point…
- Using the imaginary numbers from my previous concept, it doesn’t really make tactical sense for 100 people to attack an RvR objective that could be taken by 10 people. I’m not saying all objectives should be obtainable by groups of 10, it’s just a number I’m using to illustrate my point. Look at it from a defender’s point of view. Is it easier to defend a single objective or many objectives simultaneously? Obviously, the answer is a single objective because you can consolidate your forces (counter-zerg) rather than coordintate multiple groups. If you make the objectives easier to capture by groups sizes that aren’t classified as “zerg-like,” then you’ve given smaller groups incentive to go out and capture them, especially if rewards can be gained by objective capture. Sharing a pool or renown amongst less people is more beneficial to the individual, hence my next point…
- High RP-share
- Realm points (a la DAOC), renown, or whatever they end up up calling it is the primary motivator for many in RvR. You want renown like you want experience points because both allow you to advance your character towards newer and more powerful abilities. Introducing a high dispersion mechanism or sharing penalty of renown is going to make people greedy and less likely to zerg. If I can kill someone solo and get 1000 renown, it’s more rewarding and will probably take less time than if I were to zerg it up, killing 10 people for 100 renown each. The more influence you have in a fight should determine how much of the pie you receive when all the pieces are shared amongst contributors. It works similarly in Public Quests and should work this way in RvR.
- Realm points (a la DAOC), renown, or whatever they end up up calling it is the primary motivator for many in RvR. You want renown like you want experience points because both allow you to advance your character towards newer and more powerful abilities. Introducing a high dispersion mechanism or sharing penalty of renown is going to make people greedy and less likely to zerg. If I can kill someone solo and get 1000 renown, it’s more rewarding and will probably take less time than if I were to zerg it up, killing 10 people for 100 renown each. The more influence you have in a fight should determine how much of the pie you receive when all the pieces are shared amongst contributors. It works similarly in Public Quests and should work this way in RvR.
- Zerg Encumbrance
- Here’s an older MUD concept I’m bringing back from the dead because I haven’t seen or heard about it in any MMORPGs. Zerg encumbrance. Movement penalty. Back in the days of MUDs, you could form large groups of players, but you would also experience a movement penalty. For instance, a group of 4 could go East, East, East at a normal rate. Groups of 5-6 would experience a minor lag (encumbrance) as they moved from room to room. The larger your group size, the longer the lag. This prevented large groups of people from spamming down single targets. It’s not too fun passing a room with 10 people in it only to have that group chase after you just as fast as you can run, all the while spamming “hit $target!” Pick a fair number, introduce a speed debuff curve for larger groups of players, and I guarantee you people will be annoyed enough to quit zerging. This concept also makes sense from a realistic standpoint since larger armies move slower than smaller ones.
- Here’s an older MUD concept I’m bringing back from the dead because I haven’t seen or heard about it in any MMORPGs. Zerg encumbrance. Movement penalty. Back in the days of MUDs, you could form large groups of players, but you would also experience a movement penalty. For instance, a group of 4 could go East, East, East at a normal rate. Groups of 5-6 would experience a minor lag (encumbrance) as they moved from room to room. The larger your group size, the longer the lag. This prevented large groups of people from spamming down single targets. It’s not too fun passing a room with 10 people in it only to have that group chase after you just as fast as you can run, all the while spamming “hit $target!” Pick a fair number, introduce a speed debuff curve for larger groups of players, and I guarantee you people will be annoyed enough to quit zerging. This concept also makes sense from a realistic standpoint since larger armies move slower than smaller ones.
- Powerful AoE Effects
- AoE effects like crowd control and direct damage are most effective against larger clusters of enemies, and much less so against smaller ones. Do not cap the number of enemies an AoE can affect and it will be made even more effective against a zerg. That doesn’t mean you need to increase the radius, just that it will affect everyone within the radius instead of some arbitrary, imposed cap. Also, giving classes more AoE abilities will allow for more anti-zerg tactics. Melee characters can get a swing arc, caster hybrids or archers can get 30-degree cone AoE attacks, casters can get circular AoEs (point-blank and ranged), and healers can get group heals and AoE debuffs.
- AoE effects like crowd control and direct damage are most effective against larger clusters of enemies, and much less so against smaller ones. Do not cap the number of enemies an AoE can affect and it will be made even more effective against a zerg. That doesn’t mean you need to increase the radius, just that it will affect everyone within the radius instead of some arbitrary, imposed cap. Also, giving classes more AoE abilities will allow for more anti-zerg tactics. Melee characters can get a swing arc, caster hybrids or archers can get 30-degree cone AoE attacks, casters can get circular AoEs (point-blank and ranged), and healers can get group heals and AoE debuffs.
- Lower Battlegroup Caps
- The battlegroup concept is simply a super-group of groups. I.e., Multiple groups can form a battlegroup in an effort to increase communication and give members a better visual idea of what’s happening to all the other groups (all battlegroup member summaries of health, power, endurance, etc. can be shown on the screen so you know who’s in trouble). The best way to limit a zerg is to limit their ability for coordination. You can do this by placing a cap on how many players can join a battlegroup. Limiting battlegroups to 4 groups (24 players) is going to impact the success of a zerg containing 10 groups (60 players). Also, assuming you include the High RP-share concept, sharing a kill amongst battlegroup members should yield a better result for members than sharing a kill with someone outside the battlegroup. This might help alleviate multiple battlegroups running around together, stealing each other’s kills. It’s basic human psychology: most people don’t like to share, especially in a game driven by personal rewards like an MMORPG. This is why there’s so much global poverty and basic human rights atrocities that get looked over. We’re primarily concerned with “our own” and outside of that, we’re generally apathetic.
I went on a bit of a tangent near the end of the last one, but it does illustrate my point. Zerging isn’t an in-game mechanism, it’s a human behaviour. Therefore, it needs to be attacked at the level of human psychology and conciousness. You need to reward people for not zerging and penalize them when they do. Strategically, EA Mythic needs to determine what a fair group size is and what’s considered a zerg; and they can’t get caught up by catering to those who like to run around solo or in groups of 2-3 because to them, almost everything is a zerg. There might be some instances where a zerg is OK, but I can’t think of many…
If your entire game is based around massive quantities of people fighting it out against massive quantities of others, hey, that’s peachy. But it still comes down to the individual player who gets annihilated in mere seconds when he unfortunately attracts a zerg’s temporary focus.
Can you think of any other incentives for people to roam in smaller groups? How about ways to punish people for employing the angry mob approach to RvR? Do you think zerging should be discouraged in WAR or left to sort itself out?
