PDA

View Full Version : Big concern in regard to 1v1 duels during matches.



Fatal-Feit
11-23-2015, 03:24 AM
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
11-23-2015, 04:41 AM
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.

Fatal-Feit
11-23-2015, 03:43 PM
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
11-23-2015, 05:18 PM
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
11-23-2015, 08:11 PM
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
11-23-2015, 11:39 PM
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.

Fatal-Feit
11-23-2015, 11:49 PM
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
11-24-2015, 03:46 AM
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!

Fatal-Feit
11-24-2015, 06:44 AM
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
11-24-2015, 02:26 PM
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 :D

Hangster_96
11-24-2015, 03:36 PM
Tho it might be true it Honorable for both team let each other 1v1, IT IS also Honorable for team to help each other

I mean this is a team game, you have to do whatever it takes to win even if it mean 2v1

Fatal-Feit
11-24-2015, 03:36 PM
*snip*
Hope I helped :D

That was very informative, thanks. :) Congratulations on the tournament. Did you guys get a reward?

1v1 was surprisingly common when I played the closed alpha. In fact, I played with the big shots (very good players, not the devs) and allowing 1v1s seems to have been the general consensus and anyone who didn't abide was alienated. It sort of sucks for those people because they're playing the game the way it's suppose to be. Of course, the game is far from release, but I think it's never too early to touch on a potential issue within the community.

Eiddard
11-24-2015, 04:10 PM
That was very informative, thanks. :) Congratulations on the tournament. Did you guys get a reward?

1v1 was surprisingly common when I played the closed alpha. In fact, I played with the big shots (very good players, not the devs) and allowing 1v1s seems to have been the general consensus and anyone who didn't abide was alienated. It sort of sucks for those people because they're playing the game the way it's suppose to be. Of course, the game is far from release, but I think it's never too early to touch on a potential issue within the community.

I think that might be because it was an alpha, you had limited time, and probably the one thing people in general wanted to test was the 1v1, once there is a decent playerbase, and there is a separate place for 1v1 i expect that what you narrate there won't happen in 4v4 gamemodes. If I had access to the alpha I would probably do that too, just because I would want to test my skills in the game, and I am pretty sure is more easy to learn the combat mechanics in a 1v1 situation than in a 4v4 match.

I am pretty sure that won't happen once the game releases or once they add more gamemodes to the alpha/betas.

SquadCityTyler
11-24-2015, 05:17 PM
That was very informative, thanks. :) Congratulations on the tournament. Did you guys get a reward?.

We did actually! The team got trophies- the whole event was a blast in general, have mine in my room.

Fatal-Feit
11-24-2015, 05:39 PM
I think that might be because it was an alpha, you had limited time, and probably the one thing people in general wanted to test was the 1v1, once there is a decent playerbase, and there is a separate place for 1v1 i expect that what you narrate there won't happen in 4v4 gamemodes. If I had access to the alpha I would probably do that too, just because I would want to test my skills in the game, and I am pretty sure is more easy to learn the combat mechanics in a 1v1 situation than in a 4v4 match.

I am pretty sure that won't happen once the game releases or once they add more gamemodes to the alpha/betas.

Yeah, I too think it won't become an issue IF they introduce a 1v1 mode for players. (please give us one!) The alpha also didn't have much in the way of rewards, other than minor cosmetics.

Beas7ie
01-18-2016, 11:59 PM
Most of the time, the first rule of battle is kill the enemy and look out for your comrades.

You guys can stay back if you want, but if I see a teammate and an enemy fighting 1v1 and I'm in the area with no other major enemies or objectives nearby, I'm definitely going to try and help. If I get teamed up on then well, that's also part of the game.

This is a TEAM game so don't be surprised if people jump in and try to attack people from behind that are fighting 1v1. If 1v1 duels are that important to you, then I'm sure there will be a 1v1 duel mode.

ZenBearV13
01-20-2016, 03:23 AM
I agree with Beas7ie, in the 4v4 team match honor duels should not be expected. If I saw a comrade in a fight to the death I would do everything in my power to aid them, and to me that is more honorable than allowing an opponent the opportunity to prove their superiority at the cost of a friend's life.

That being said, the devs will be doing their fans and themselves a great disservice if they fail to offer a 1v1 dueling mode. It would be the simplest thing to implement, though I hope they take the time to flesh out the dueling arenas to add dynamic environmental factors to exploit.

Furthermore, I didn't get a ton of play time in and for some reason the game kept crashing when I sat too long in the menu or tried to watch the tutorial videos, but I think 1vMore should be easier (i.e. possible). I understand there is a way to defend against attackers other than the one you are locked on to, and perhaps with more experience I will learn to manage the situation, but I hope they take a hard look at the mechanics there. I want skill to be able to trump numbers.

Assassin_M
01-20-2016, 04:16 AM
The way I see it, it should be up to player discretion. Bloodborne's PvP is great in that it could be 2 vs 1, 3 vs 1 or 1 vs 1. All of that is based on player agreement. You could be facing 2 opponents, but you can agree to fight one at a time. Will some people not listen and just go together and slice the lone guy? Sure, but leaving it up to the players creates a great dynamic, I think.

You can beat 2 when you're 1 and even 3 and this is the only concern I have, I guess. Skill should always trump numbers.