Disarray (Zerg Debuff)

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

    • 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. I recently read about the battle of Agincourt, in which less than ten thousand English defeated a French force at least ten times as large (maybe up to fifteen times). To put the fight in simplified Albion terms:

      - The French charged with mounted tanks into permanent CC (swampy ground, in which the horses reportedly sank up to the knees)
      - The English had experienced longbowmen, effectively 400/400 single-target, armor-piercing DPS, with a high rate of fire, stationed behind a permanent firewall (pointed stakes the enemy horses wouldn't run into)
      - The English archers obliterated the slowed tanks; the few that made it to the archer line were dismounted and killed

      That wasn't a cohesion problem. :) The English had a qualitive advantage, and exploited the terrain and the enemy nobility's desire to get the glory.

      I wish Albion would add more fortification and terrain advantages, such that a smaller force -could- exploit them to hold off a much larger force, instead of this disarray debuff bandaid, which mostly seems to be pushing newer players out of the fights.
    • Neef wrote:

      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.
      being able to win against the larger big dogs was the entire message of the game since beta, not sure if you recall that from back in the day. maybe not 25 vs 75 having a chance, but at least 25 vs 50.

      really, we just need more ways to hold terries in 5v5s, and a way to introduce it to new players ontop of this zvz terry system coming out.

      but yeah, the 10% debuff is unnoticable so far when fighting against groups of 50 as 20. not sure what the intended effect is, im sure they're watching though we'll see during this reset day i guess
    • Disarray is a garbage mechanic for the least skill-requirement playstyle that is zvz. Legit, my German Shepard can zvz, it's so fucking brain-dead.

      Bring back ways for small groups to compete and put a hard or artificial limit on group/alliance size and watch the world of Albion return to life. No one wants 200v200 with Albion's notorious lag and de-synch issues - never mind issues like zone locking, N+1, alliances...
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      Disarray is a garbage mechanic for the least skill-requirement playstyle that is zvz. Legit, my German Shepard can zvz, it's so fucking brain-dead.

      Bring back ways for small groups to compete and put a hard or artificial limit on group/alliance size and watch the world of Albion return to life. No one wants 200v200 with Albion's notorious lag and de-synch issues - never mind issues like zone locking, N+1, alliances...
      Finally someone got the point
    • hypnoticshadow wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      Disarray is a garbage mechanic for the least skill-requirement playstyle that is zvz. Legit, my German Shepard can zvz, it's so fucking brain-dead.

      Bring back ways for small groups to compete and put a hard or artificial limit on group/alliance size and watch the world of Albion return to life. No one wants 200v200 with Albion's notorious lag and de-synch issues - never mind issues like zone locking, N+1, alliances...
      Finally someone got the point
      I am not sure, that people in charge to this point called today have not sunk too much money aka dev resources to turn around without completely destroying their careers...
    • hypnoticshadow wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      Disarray is a garbage mechanic for the least skill-requirement playstyle that is zvz. Legit, my German Shepard can zvz, it's so fucking brain-dead.

      Bring back ways for small groups to compete and put a hard or artificial limit on group/alliance size and watch the world of Albion return to life. No one wants 200v200 with Albion's notorious lag and de-synch issues - never mind issues like zone locking, N+1, alliances...
      Finally someone got the point
      You both stop dreaming. They wont get rid of the guilds alliances feature. If the fights size was the issue i have already said they could (and probably will) just limit the amout of players sharing alliance in the same zone.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      Disarray is a garbage mechanic for the least skill-requirement playstyle that is zvz. Legit, my German Shepard can zvz, it's so fucking brain-dead.

      Bring back ways for small groups to compete and put a hard or artificial limit on group/alliance size and watch the world of Albion return to life. No one wants 200v200 with Albion's notorious lag and de-synch issues - never mind issues like zone locking, N+1, alliances...
      Along with Disarray Debuff - the new "Shadow Realm" (working title) anti-zone-lock mechanic and a few other things we will hopefully see this all come together in the Queen update.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      Disarray is a garbage mechanic for the least skill-requirement playstyle that is zvz. Legit, my German Shepard can zvz, it's so fucking brain-dead.

      Bring back ways for small groups to compete and put a hard or artificial limit on group/alliance size and watch the world of Albion return to life. No one wants 200v200 with Albion's notorious lag and de-synch issues - never mind issues like zone locking, N+1, alliances...
      +1
      CIR is recruiting

      CIR Discord
    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      I am not sure, that people in charge to this point called today have not sunk too much money aka dev resources to turn around without completely destroying their careers...
      I'd rather someone's career take a dive than the game as a whole.

      Captainrussia wrote:

      Along with Disarray Debuff - the new "Shadow Realm" (working title) anti-zone-lock mechanic and a few other things we will hopefully see this all come together in the Queen update.
      I've been around long enough to know that SBI is not competent enough to balance this mechanic, especially in a timely manner. And that's just one of the many issues facing ZvZ for territory conquest.

      Guilefulwolf wrote:

      You both stop dreaming. They wont get rid of the guilds alliances feature.
      I know they won't, but that's a massive issue that needs addressing - in some form or another.
    • Dissarray is awesome. <3





      @Retroman
      Can you please bring a light on "true" (percentage) damage aoe escalation, focus fire protection and defense interaction.
      As far as i know, true damage is multiplied by bonus damage.
      And true damage ignores resistances.
      Does true damage affected by aoe escalation?
      Does true damage pass trough (ignores) focus fire protection and defense?
      How exactly it interact with dissaray damage decrease and defense decrease effects?
      WTB skill

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

    • @gmatagmis there may be dozens of factors involved in those two battleboards. As far as we all know, the zerg debuff still does nothing against the numbers. 40 men vs 80 ends permanent CC followed by death. When the whole forum community makes noise that this debuff is still inefficient and you show a proof without founding it, you are not contributing anything. Show us a video of these fights to see how they outcome.
    • What if debuff changed values according to the map it is on.
      Theoretically there will still be places where there will be large-scale fights, 0 debuff. Castles example
      And in regions such as outpost castle, with active debuffing, so it would encourage people to bring smaller groups to these maps, so would a mechanism to fight in areas where you have the advantage.
    • Akhenaden wrote:

      What if debuff changed values according to the map it is on.
      Theoretically there will still be places where there will be large-scale fights, 0 debuff. Castles example
      And in regions such as outpost castle, with active debuffing, so it would encourage people to bring smaller groups to these maps, so would a mechanism to fight in areas where you have the advantage.
      The whole point of the debuff system is to stop people from bring 300 people to any map I'm pretty sure, because the servers cant handle a 300vs300 fight very good and also to help stop zone capping (Which the new QU system in Queens should stop this). They want all maps not to have hudge 200 vs 200 and 300 vs 300 fights anywhere, They want the alliances/guilds to split there forces to other castles and have 100vs100 fights so that the servers can handle it better and be more "fair". Thats what i get from all this anyways.
    • 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. :/
      I can feel the difference when fighting large groups with 10% debuff, fights lasting slightly longer etc.

      HustlinHitmans are a pretty solid ZvZ team, though. Might be why you aren't seeing any difference?
    • Cakie wrote:

      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. :/
      I can feel the difference when fighting large groups with 10% debuff, fights lasting slightly longer etc.
      HustlinHitmans are a pretty solid ZvZ team, though. Might be why you aren't seeing any difference?
      I always try to have a slightly broader perspective and not only see our guild as a point of influence for my feedback. When we go roaming with 40+ men and face groups of 20 we literally erase them without losses, I feel it is an abuse and debuff shouldn't work like that. I want a Albion with long-term health, I would not like that only 50+ groups will remain in the game.