Disarray (Zerg Debuff)

    • Arghun wrote:

      Robinhoodrs wrote:

      Whin wrote:

      Haven't you forgotten a zero in each damage %?

      This numbers look ridiculous for me, the objective of that is to make the new zvz mechanics more even. If we go 25 guys, and you go 50 only losing 9% of the dmg... doesn't fix anything.

      Imagine a real scenario... you have to fight for a territory or something... you bring 25? or 50? I go 50 for sure, i don't care about losing 9% of the dmg, even 60 o 70, i don't care at all with those numbers.
      Yes it does, it's actually huge.Just look at City Plot GvG's, owner gets a 5% buff and that's only in a 5v5 and they're at a massive advantage over the other team.
      Nope a 9% debuff when you have 50 ppl vs 25 is RIDICULOUS and won't change the outcome of a fight. Debuff should be more drastic at first (low numbers) then progress slightly slower with big numbers.
      70 vs 25 and you only get 10% def debuff and 11% dmg debuff. R O F L
      Im sorry but do you really want them to add a debuff in that is so strong that a 25man could really take on 75 people and win? I mean come on people are we that crazy because from where im sitting that is just insane to try to aim at making all uneven fights winable its not possiable. The game should bring them 75 people "down" to some kind of reasonable level for the 25 people to fight and with a very very small chance to win and only let them win by pure over strait or something like that as 25 people inless they are all gods at this game they should not win a 25 vs 75 people. The point of the debuff is to make that 75 people slit up and that way your only fighting half of them 75 people and someone else is fighting the other half somewhere else.
    • Neef wrote:

      Im sorry but do you really want them to add a debuff in that is so strong that a 25man could really take on 75 people and win?
      Well yes, that is kinda the point, that while the 75 will kill the 25 they take 40+ for casualty is the idea...

      The point is to have more fights with 50 or less people per guild/alliance in a fight

      why 1 performance would be way better
      2 the biggest alliance of 100000 noobs doesnt dominate the map
      3 with GvG going away and zerging become the new map control the "Fair fight" ideal of 5v5 needs to be somewhat present
      otherwise why would anyone besides arch continue playing albion

      4 ignore all of the above it SBI

      WOULD JUST INSTALL AN ALLIANCE CAP
    • I do not necessarily think or want 25 players to be able to beat 75. I think it is more NEVER wanting to even see groups of 30+. Instead it would be much more interesting with high volumes of reasonable sized groups fighting each other across the entire map instead of the entire population all in 2 blobs trying to fight each in just a lag shit fest of mashing buttons.
    • Tabor wrote:

      I do not necessarily think or want 25 players to be able to beat 75. I think it is more NEVER wanting to even see groups of 30+. Instead it would be much more interesting with high volumes of reasonable sized groups fighting each other across the entire map instead of the entire population all in 2 blobs trying to fight each in just a lag shit fest of mashing buttons.
      I can agree with part of your sentiment, having many battles all over the world would feel more alive than 1 massive battle at a time...

      Castles and world bosses help with this some..

      I think they could put some objective on maps where across the world your guild must capture 3-5 points anywhere in the world out of a total ~ 40 or so with a 20 second channel at each point to capture enemies may channel to take the point. until the controlling guild has 5 points each point they control is still in flux. when complete gain points and what ever reward this event would bring

      This would force even massive guilds to split their forces around the world.
    • blappo wrote:

      Neef wrote:

      Im sorry but do you really want them to add a debuff in that is so strong that a 25man could really take on 75 people and win?
      Well yes, that is kinda the point, that while the 75 will kill the 25 they take 40+ for casualty is the idea...
      The point is to have more fights with 50 or less people per guild/alliance in a fight

      why 1 performance would be way better
      2 the biggest alliance of 100000 noobs doesnt dominate the map
      3 with GvG going away and zerging become the new map control the "Fair fight" ideal of 5v5 needs to be somewhat present
      otherwise why would anyone besides arch continue playing albion

      4 ignore all of the above it SBI

      WOULD JUST INSTALL AN ALLIANCE CAP
      The zerg debuff has nothing to do with limiting the amount of players of a single alliance in a map. If that were the target it would be as easy as setting the game to not allow more than a certain amout of players of the same alliance per map. I think something between 100 and 150 would be a good number.

      I think what devs want to do is balancing the impact numbers have in unequal zergs fights in a way that the smaller ones manage to take down as many player of the other zerg as they have, i.e. for a 25 vs 60 being able to take ~25 out of those 60 and same way for a 100 vs 150 fight being able to take ~100 out of those 150. Anything above or below of that should depend on other factors like the players skill, the item power of their gear, their ping etc. So yes a smaller zerg could be able to beat a bigger one but it would happen if those players played much better and not because of a debuff helping them.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Guilefulwolf ().

    • Norgannon wrote:

      The debuff continues to feel insufficient to cause small groups to have real possibilities. @Retroman I hope the next invasion day will give you other ideas to keep trying. It is still more of the same. :/
      Really? Well, yesterday we could test this in practice: yaga.sk/killboard/battle.php?id=57853683

      We fought ARCH with almost the double of players in the enemy side. We saw their clappers coming in and they didnt killed that many of our guys, but if you see the battleboard, our (SQUAK) top fame and kills are from clappers as well.

      In a lot of their engages i was feeling that we would die easily, but turn out that we survived a lot of times and got a good sustain even with low on healers.

      Of course we need to put in the balance the quality of the zergs, but still, it was a LOT different from fighting without the debuff.
    • Here is another idea for debuffing that could sound crazy but give it a try and imagine how it would work out in real scenarios.

      What if the game lowers everyone´s IP in 5x the amount of players sharing alliance in the same zone/map.

      This way zergs of 50 men would be debuffed in -250 IP each, 100 men zergs would get a -500 IP and so on.

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

    • Guilefulwolf wrote:

      Here is another idea for debuffing that could sound crazy but give it a try and imagine how it would work out in real scenarios.

      What if the game lowers everyone´s IP in 5x the amount of players sharing alliance in the same zone/map.

      This way zergs of 50 men would be debuffed in -250 IP each, 100 men zergs would get a -500 IP and so on.

      ImaDoki wrote:

      We still need to see it in action to get to a real conclusion, so we'd better wait for the event season to begin.

      Togheter with the old zerg mechanics (focus fire/AoE Scaling) this may result in more even fights. yet i still believe it won't be enough to make them really even.



      I'd go with for every member over 25 every alliances member would lose 2 IP.

      75 members would result in a -100 IP, which would reduce around 9% (if i'm not mistake) in their overall effectivity (HP, energy, resistances, damage, CC).

      In bigger fights this Disarray debuff would result in much longer fights, as everyone would be harder to kill since HP and resistances aren't scaling down too.

      Can't really determine if this is a bad or a good thing... but the most recents buffs to CC resistance in Cloth/Leather, nerfs on commonly used CC weapons (read Soulscythe) and the Cleric Cowl buff made surviving WAY easier.



      In the end, it's wait and see before giving my concrete opinion, as this is all speculation.
      I posted this in the second page of this thread.

      5 IP is too much in my opinion. i'd go for AT MAX 4, and it still can be a little too strong.

      But seriously, reducing flat ip per EXTRA MEMBER after 25 alliance members would be the best way to apply this.

      It just downgrade the zerg effectively, instead of just this or that stat.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by ImaDoki ().

    • Fusionbomb wrote:

      for anyone who doesn't think 10% equates to much, feel free to donate 5% of your salary to me~
      Depends on the setting.

      In a 5v5 situation yeah 10% is huge. In a 100v200 a measly 10% is nothing.

      It's just always going to be better to outnumber your enemy - so instead of trying to allow smaller zergs to fight bigger ones, why can't SBI just focus on making bigger zergs not the norm? Equalize group size to be no more than 50 through caps on alliances or remove them altogether and provide less incentives for people to hand hold. It's the simplest no brainer solution, and yet it won't ever come to fruition.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      In a 5v5 situation yeah 10% is huge. In a 100v200 a measly 10% is nothing.
      in both cases, you also need to factor in IP, skill-level, and coordination

      10% is never measly

      not saying the debuff is fine as-is... im saying 10% is actually quite relevant in any aspect
      Fusionbomb - GM of Morbidly_Obese

      T8 Axe/Sickle/Pickaxe/Skinning/Stone
      T7 Fishing

      100/100/90/100 Holy Specs
    • ImaDoki wrote:

      Guilefulwolf wrote:

      Here is another idea for debuffing that could sound crazy but give it a try and imagine how it would work out in real scenarios.

      What if the game lowers everyone´s IP in 5x the amount of players sharing alliance in the same zone/map.

      This way zergs of 50 men would be debuffed in -250 IP each, 100 men zergs would get a -500 IP and so on.

      ImaDoki wrote:

      We still need to see it in action to get to a real conclusion, so we'd better wait for the event season to begin.

      Togheter with the old zerg mechanics (focus fire/AoE Scaling) this may result in more even fights. yet i still believe it won't be enough to make them really even.



      I'd go with for every member over 25 every alliances member would lose 2 IP.

      75 members would result in a -100 IP, which would reduce around 9% (if i'm not mistake) in their overall effectivity (HP, energy, resistances, damage, CC).

      In bigger fights this Disarray debuff would result in much longer fights, as everyone would be harder to kill since HP and resistances aren't scaling down too.

      Can't really determine if this is a bad or a good thing... but the most recents buffs to CC resistance in Cloth/Leather, nerfs on commonly used CC weapons (read Soulscythe) and the Cleric Cowl buff made surviving WAY easier.



      In the end, it's wait and see before giving my concrete opinion, as this is all speculation.
      I posted this in the second page of this thread.
      5 IP is too much in my opinion. i'd go for AT MAX 4, and it still can be a little too strong.

      But seriously, reducing flat ip per EXTRA MEMBER after 25 alliance members would be the best way to apply this.

      It just downgrade the zerg effectively, instead of just this or that stat.
      Ah yes very similar ideas, definitelly lowering the effective IP would be the best way to debuff since it affects everything and not only the damage dealt and received.

      However, i still think 5x times per alliance member in the same map is high but not too much since the bigger the battles are the higher must be the debuff to actually be relevant in those. Also it would help a bit in small scale fights like ganking, diving etc.
    • Guilefulwolf wrote:

      ImaDoki wrote:

      Guilefulwolf wrote:

      Here is another idea for debuffing that could sound crazy but give it a try and imagine how it would work out in real scenarios.

      What if the game lowers everyone´s IP in 5x the amount of players sharing alliance in the same zone/map.

      This way zergs of 50 men would be debuffed in -250 IP each, 100 men zergs would get a -500 IP and so on.

      ImaDoki wrote:

      We still need to see it in action to get to a real conclusion, so we'd better wait for the event season to begin.

      Togheter with the old zerg mechanics (focus fire/AoE Scaling) this may result in more even fights. yet i still believe it won't be enough to make them really even.



      I'd go with for every member over 25 every alliances member would lose 2 IP.

      75 members would result in a -100 IP, which would reduce around 9% (if i'm not mistake) in their overall effectivity (HP, energy, resistances, damage, CC).

      In bigger fights this Disarray debuff would result in much longer fights, as everyone would be harder to kill since HP and resistances aren't scaling down too.

      Can't really determine if this is a bad or a good thing... but the most recents buffs to CC resistance in Cloth/Leather, nerfs on commonly used CC weapons (read Soulscythe) and the Cleric Cowl buff made surviving WAY easier.



      In the end, it's wait and see before giving my concrete opinion, as this is all speculation.
      I posted this in the second page of this thread.5 IP is too much in my opinion. i'd go for AT MAX 4, and it still can be a little too strong.

      But seriously, reducing flat ip per EXTRA MEMBER after 25 alliance members would be the best way to apply this.

      It just downgrade the zerg effectively, instead of just this or that stat.
      Ah yes very similar ideas, definitelly lowering the effective IP would be the best way to debuff since it affects everything and not only the damage dealt and received.
      However, i still think 5x times per alliance member in the same map is high but not too much since the bigger the battles are the higher must be the debuff to actually be relevant in those. Also it would help a bit in small scale fights like ganking, diving etc.
      You know that a guy with 1200 IP in a 200 man zerg in your idea would have 200 IP (weaker than wearing a t2 set) ?

      Meanwhile, with 3 IP a 200 man zerg would have 1200-525 = 675 (weaker than T4, which is still VERY WEAK).

      If we consider some really strong guys with 1500 IP, they would have 975 IP. Must be frustrating to have this IP being with high tier gear.
    • Fusionbomb wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      In a 5v5 situation yeah 10% is huge. In a 100v200 a measly 10% is nothing.
      in both cases, you also need to factor in IP, skill-level, and coordination
      10% is never measly

      not saying the debuff is fine as-is... im saying 10% is actually quite relevant in any aspect
      Wrong. The bigger is the difference between the teams numbers the less relevant becomes any % of buff/debuff. Common sense can make u think that when u fight out numbered u should be able to at least take down one of ur foes but thats not what happens in real scenarios. This is because everyone in the fight is fighting all the time and not taking turns like in cheap action movies where every villain waits for the hero to beat their team mates before going to attack him.

      It is easier to understand with examples;

      Say hero is a fighter that has 100 HP and deals 10 damage points per second. If hero fights vs a villain with the same stats, after 10 seconds it would be a 50-50 win rate for both. In this scenarion even something as small as a 1% difference would make a relevan difference in the long run.

      Now imagine that hero has110 HP and deals a damage of 11 per second which is a "huge" +10% buff for both his health and attack. If he fights vs 2 std villains of the example above, after 6 seconds he would be beaten and wouldnt even get to KO one of the villains because he was fighting vs a whole foe of 200 HP that also deals 20 damage points per second.

      Now lets say hero is a super human with 150 HP and 15 dmg/s which is a really huge +50% buff and fights vs 3 std villains. After only 5 second he would lose and again he couldnt beat even one of the much weaker villains.

      This applies to large scale fights results will barely vary.

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

    • ImaDoki wrote:

      Guilefulwolf wrote:

      ImaDoki wrote:

      Guilefulwolf wrote:

      Here is another idea for debuffing that could sound crazy but give it a try and imagine how it would work out in real scenarios.

      What if the game lowers everyone´s IP in 5x the amount of players sharing alliance in the same zone/map.

      This way zergs of 50 men would be debuffed in -250 IP each, 100 men zergs would get a -500 IP and so on.

      ImaDoki wrote:

      We still need to see it in action to get to a real conclusion, so we'd better wait for the event season to begin.

      Togheter with the old zerg mechanics (focus fire/AoE Scaling) this may result in more even fights. yet i still believe it won't be enough to make them really even.



      I'd go with for every member over 25 every alliances member would lose 2 IP.

      75 members would result in a -100 IP, which would reduce around 9% (if i'm not mistake) in their overall effectivity (HP, energy, resistances, damage, CC).

      In bigger fights this Disarray debuff would result in much longer fights, as everyone would be harder to kill since HP and resistances aren't scaling down too.

      Can't really determine if this is a bad or a good thing... but the most recents buffs to CC resistance in Cloth/Leather, nerfs on commonly used CC weapons (read Soulscythe) and the Cleric Cowl buff made surviving WAY easier.



      In the end, it's wait and see before giving my concrete opinion, as this is all speculation.
      I posted this in the second page of this thread.5 IP is too much in my opinion. i'd go for AT MAX 4, and it still can be a little too strong.
      But seriously, reducing flat ip per EXTRA MEMBER after 25 alliance members would be the best way to apply this.

      It just downgrade the zerg effectively, instead of just this or that stat.
      Ah yes very similar ideas, definitelly lowering the effective IP would be the best way to debuff since it affects everything and not only the damage dealt and received.However, i still think 5x times per alliance member in the same map is high but not too much since the bigger the battles are the higher must be the debuff to actually be relevant in those. Also it would help a bit in small scale fights like ganking, diving etc.
      You know that a guy with 1200 IP in a 200 man zerg in your idea would have 200 IP (weaker than wearing a t2 set) ?
      Meanwhile, with 3 IP a 200 man zerg would have 1200-525 = 675 (weaker than T4, which is still VERY WEAK).

      If we consider some really strong guys with 1500 IP, they would have 975 IP. Must be frustrating to have this IP being with high tier gear.
      Yes i do.

      -1000 IP might look as too much but now bring it to a real scenario, if that 200 men zerg fought vs a 150 men one with a -750 IP debuff, the real IP difference in average would be of 250 which is not actually too much for that fight. Both sides would be fighting like if were wearing low tier gear. If it was vs a 100 men zerg the IP difference would be of 500 which is high but thats the kind of gap a fight like that needs when a zerg is twice the other.

      Perhaps 4x could be better or even 3x. It would be a matter of testing and see which one fits better.

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

    • This whole argument seems ridiculous. A small group should almost always lose to a large group. That's just reality. In real life an army of a thousand will always beat an army of 300 unless the 300 use something to their advantage.. like the 300 did in the movie 300, where they used a choke to make the enemy Zerg have to fight in smaller numbers.

      Also, huge armies don't gather to fight a small percentage of their number due to the cost it takes to gather such an army. SBI should focus on hitting huge zergs in the wallet instead mindlessly messing with the damage and defense numbers. Just make huge alliances cost money and then watch them shrink.
    • mcian91 wrote:

      This whole argument seems ridiculous. A small group should almost always lose to a large group. That's just reality. In real life an army of a thousand will always beat an army of 300 unless the 300 use something to their advantage.. like the 300 did in the movie 300, where they used a choke to make the enemy Zerg have to fight in smaller numbers.

      Also, huge armies don't gather to fight a small percentage of their number due to the cost it takes to gather such an army. SBI should focus on hitting huge zergs in the wallet instead mindlessly messing with the damage and defense numbers. Just make huge alliances cost money and then watch them shrink.
      I agree with what you said and as I was saying before give more importance to the weapon mastery over the tier.
    • Anyone with a brain would tell the dev: the key to the zerg gameplay is the hardcap.. zerg always gonna be a problem on a game with such many beta cucks on a badly design OW game.. they need to hire someone good with math and start using general value and more wisely the hardcap.. instead messing with the general buff n debuff that messing with the optimise builds more than the all around (weaker build)..

      giving less reason to stronger build to draft weaker build to zerg is not enough... since this game is full of beta.. HARDCAP is the key.. like any other good sandbox game out there..

      But since u pick this direction you should think of adding a real buff to smaller groups.. since u guys not good with math and sandbox hardcap just give another insensitive to split with a buff on smaller group like u doing with the reputation system.. could be fun to see a group of 24 member splut in 4-6 groups of 4-6 players with friendlyfire on on a same map trying to coordinate..

      AKA: If u punish the big group give a reasons to the beta.. a freaking cookies.. if they playing in a small group ...

      PS: killing someone 10vs1 99% of the inventory of the solo dude should be trash... if u use insensitive use the good one.. but the best move would be use wisely the HARDCAP.. but watching ur game design.. u need to hire someone good with math and passionate by mmoRPG sandbox.. wich wont happens