250 man zone caps

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • 250 man zone caps

      As a leader of a super alliance that can muster a zerg of over 600 people, think I had 800 on reset day, I think the developers need to look at alliance size. With a 250 man black zone cap, for the rest of the season, I am just going to send 200 men to each portal zone war camp, maybe 175, and then whatever enemy wants to fight us, can NOT even get enough men to fight. There is NO reason for me to not do this, I assume others will as well...

      Thoughts on this?
    • The problem is that well, the zone limit isn't the only problem.
      It's a multi-faceted issue -
      Lock the zone, at which point mega alliances can just hit the cap themselves
      Don't lock the zone, and you end up with a population inzone that either straight up crash the node, or just make it unplayable.

      I'd struggle to call fights at the current zone cap fun, they're about as fun as a powerpoint presentation where the presentator just reads from the slide.
      Increase the cap and that just gets compounded.

      There's not really an elegant solution, without a significant amount of work, and even then there's limitations on how far you go before you're re-inventing the wheel and there certainly isn't a short term (read this, or soon to be seasons) solution.
    • ChristyCloud wrote:

      RottenH20 wrote:

      This is a temporary fix because apparently from the start of the game to now they are just realizing that the game might need a bit of optimizing.

      Hmmmmm...
      It's almost as if software and hardware architecture isn't an easy question
      It’s almost as if YEARS of the problem just getting starting to see work now is a problem no?

      Don’t fucking act like you know shit about what you are talking about
      I’m toxic
    • But alliance size =\= players online.

      we’ve had zone cap forever and what you’re saying has never actually been accomplished, except on reset days, for a single zone, on a saturday. that everyone prepares for days in advance. No ones capped multiple zones twice a day every day.

      I don’t think you could max out more than 1 zone daily for warcamps even with a 3k alliance. and if you did it continuously, forcing your alliance to mass, to come and sit, knowing it’s just so you can avoid a fight, avoid content. You’d then have alliance issues.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by owensssss ().

    • owensssss wrote:

      But alliance size =\= players online.

      we’ve had zone cap forever and what you’re saying has never actually been accomplished, except on reset days, for a single zone, on a saturday. that everyone prepares for days in advance. No ones capped multiple zones twice a day every day.

      I don’t think you could max out more than 1 zone daily for warcamps even with a 3k alliance. and if you did it continuously, forcing your alliance to mass, to come and sit, knowing it’s just so you can avoid a fight, avoid content. You’d then have alliance issues.
      This is actually a pretty ridiculous statement. My alliance has nearly zone capped every day since reset. Both for NA and EU WC's. Do you even play Albion?
      let me also note, that we are one of the smaller alliances... so..
    • owensssss wrote:

      But alliance size =\= players online.

      we’ve had zone cap forever and what you’re saying has never actually been accomplished, except on reset days, for a single zone, on a saturday. that everyone prepares for days in advance. No ones capped multiple zones twice a day every day.

      I don’t think you could max out more than 1 zone daily for warcamps even with a 3k alliance. and if you did it continuously, forcing your alliance to mass, to come and sit, knowing it’s just so you can avoid a fight, avoid content. You’d then have alliance issues.
      I could zone cap 2 war camp zones if I wanted too.
    • Got a great recording, we did have people try to challenge, but i was able to lag lock them, then send wave after wave of men similar to a horde of zombies. Eventually the challengers ran out of mana and died. We had a lot die too but with over 400 near a zone that caps that 250 and endless 4.2 gear overcharged, they were easily replaced.
    • RottenH20 wrote:

      It’s almost as if YEARS of the problem just getting starting to see work now is a problem no?
      Don’t fucking act like you know shit about what you are talking about
      Why act like I know shit, when I can just know it.
      Scaling an application is hard.
      Scaling hardware for the application to run on is hard.
      Simulating load at scale is hard.

      So it's hard to simulate the load that would allow you to perform the software optimisations (which are hard) and the hardware optimisations (which are hard).

      Maybe instead of reflecting the fact that you seemingly have no idea what you're talking about to others, you could think before you type.

      Unsurprisingly people on here have jobs, and sometimes these jobs correlate to the problem at hand.
    • Balder13 wrote:

      125+ from any single alliance allowed on the map is a start. Not impossible to game, but a start.
      Alliances would split into smaller sub-groupings to avoid the limitations whilst retaining co-operation, it'd obviously have a side effect for land access etc, but I'd be very surprised if you didn't just end up with
      ZERG1
      ZERG2
      ZERG3
      ZERG4
      So that they could bypass the per-alliance limit.
    • ChristyCloud wrote:

      Balder13 wrote:

      125+ from any single alliance allowed on the map is a start. Not impossible to game, but a start.
      Alliances would split into smaller sub-groupings to avoid the limitations whilst retaining co-operation, it'd obviously have a side effect for land access etc, but I'd be very surprised if you didn't just end up withZERG1
      ZERG2
      ZERG3
      ZERG4
      So that they could bypass the per-alliance limit.
      Yeah I would just make 4 alliances and have them zone in from opposite sides and sandwhich my opfor.
    • ChristyCloud wrote:

      RottenH20 wrote:

      It’s almost as if YEARS of the problem just getting starting to see work now is a problem no?
      Don’t fucking act like you know shit about what you are talking about
      Why act like I know shit, when I can just know it.Scaling an application is hard.
      Scaling hardware for the application to run on is hard.
      Simulating load at scale is hard.

      So it's hard to simulate the load that would allow you to perform the software optimisations (which are hard) and the hardware optimisations (which are hard).

      Maybe instead of reflecting the fact that you seemingly have no idea what you're talking about to others, you could think before you type.

      Unsurprisingly people on here have jobs, and sometimes these jobs correlate to the problem at hand.
      They rent their servers from someone else. If you can actually think for a second why servers are shit they explained a lot of it.

      Also I doubt your job correlated to anything about servers. McDonalds internet is fine.

      If it takes 4+ years to still not have the servers fixed then that’s a problem.
      I’m toxic