Disarray (Zerg Debuff)

    • 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.
    • Zarxy 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.
      Yea, but that is a controlled 5v5 secenario, they are only 5 guys no matter what. Of course this is an advantage over the other 5 guys.Iam pretty sure 100 ppl with 19% are still way stronger then 70 with 13%.
      But it isn't just the 19%, you'll also have the focus fire & AoE scaling we have in-place currently on top.

      I'd like to see @Retroman post what the stats would be with both of those applied on top of the suggested debuff.

      (I'm all for this being tested, then we go ahead and change the numbers, remember this mini-season is like a beta test for these features so they're working correctly when the major changes come with QUEEN)

      Use this LINK & code 'ROBIN' for 20% off any plan!
    • Gank wrote:

      I'd suggest after 170 the scaling should balloon. But thats just me ;)
      I agree with Gank here, around 150 numbers should start getting more aggresive,
      for example:
      160 - 26%
      170 - 29%
      180 - 33%
      190 - 38%
      200 - 44%

      I also think Zerg Debuff should start at around 10 with a less aggressive % on those numbers, with the proposed numbers fighting 30 vs 25 would put the smaller group at a big advantage (5%) with a not so big disadvantage in numbers.
    • Its hard to say if the values are high enough till we see it in action. Zvz deaths aren't long drawn out affairs where 10% less damage equates to the opponent having a 10% advantage. Players die in dps drops where one to three abilities kill a few players from full hp. Taking 2520 damage instead of 2800 is a huge deal because you'll be be alive to receive heals and throw your e in the counter.
    • I think this is a good start, but the changes need to go further still. I would modify it such that allies are capped at an effective 40 allies per zone regardless of how many people they bring. The game doesn't perform well above 40v40 anyway.

      I would suggest changing the scaling to:

      Ally CountDebuff StrengthEffective ally countRevised debuff strengthRevised effective ally count
    • First off, it's great to see that the hoard-mentality of zvz's up until this point is being addressed. In terms of server/computer strain and abusive strategies in Albion, this a prime target for balancing zone control.

      However, I'm definitely concerned that the numbers in the OP still aren't significant enough to prevent massive zergs from finding it advantageous to just recruit everyone they can for a fight. In an ideal world, you could have a 20v20 fight where both sides find it in their interest to have close to the same numbers as their opponents. But with what is proposed, the pros of growing the party outweighs the disadvantages. With every new player, you're still likely to get 90%+ of their damage counted in the fight. And while the other debuff metrics may help sway the fight initially towards the smaller group, the recurrent 'rebuffing' of the group as it changes sizes means that as a group loses players, it becomes stronger and stronger until it reaches the size of the other group.

      That is to say, a 40v20 will feel like a 36v20, which is still a one-sided fight. And even if the 20 can kill 20 of their enemies, the battle would then be even and there is no longer any drawback for those players who brought 40 initially.

      I feel like the debuff:

      a) should be larger in magnitude. I want to hear zvz leaders say "no, we cannot bring more than 25 or we are likely to lose the fight". Make a 40v25 feel like a 20v25 respectively. If you get above 25 so to say, you could get a 40-50% reduction.

      b) should not be reassessed during the fight to benefit the larger group. Make it so the debuff can grow if more people from one side join the fight, but it never decreases in magnitude. If there's a 40% debuff on a zerg of 40 people, let it be a 40% reduction even when there's one person left. Make people regret bringing that many.

      Otherwise, I am very happy to see the season points being shared. It should make the top alliances/guilds restructure themselves in ways that limit the size of people capable of fighting on their behalf.
      My referral link: https://albiononline.com/?ref=BBEL9TU111
    • It would be particularly useful now to be able to have 25 players in your party.

      The scaling is a nice idea, however maybe the debuff should be effective based specifically on the difference in numbers between alliance A and alliance B.

      Example: Alliance A has 25 members, Alliance B has 40 members. The difference being 15 members. Thus making Alliance B 46% larger but their reduction % currently doesn't reflect the literal balance.

    • Reducing dmg/heal and leaving HP/dmg reduction is only going to help bigger zerg's swarm smaller one's. The ONLY reason guilds like KFC were able to win fights 50vs150 is because they had coordinated burst.
      Now your reducing that burst/stun durration by 15%. It doesnt realy matter if the bigger zerg is going to have 25% reduction when they swarm you with 50 more melees and random dmg.
    • Tabor wrote:

      Using the home plot 5% comparison does not compute here because that is an even fight. Bringing 40 people people to steam roll 20 and only getting a 7% debuff does next to nothing to change the fights favor.

      That's my impression as well, although we'll see how it plays out. At that, however, even if a bigger group doesn't win outright in the first clap, achieving a favorable rate of exchange as they lose players means they'll still outnumber the enemy by the time they dip below debuff numbers (going from 40 vs. 20 to 20 vs. 15, for instance).

      Overall, if performance weren't an issue, I'd be completely against this. I'd rather the sandbox itself were structured to discourage performance-breaking numbers, then an implementation which (if successful) will tend to exclude newer players.
    • I woud say as well that the agressive debuff from 25-30 is quite strange when compared to the light 25% debuff to bringing 145 players over the 'maximum'.
      When the ultimate goal is to increase pvp action, you need to provide smaller guilds with a good chance to compete. Currently it is impossible for a small guild/alliance with 50ish people to get even one terry, when competing with 100-300 players of other alliances. At the current debuff-level a group with let's say 100 players can easily roll over a group of 25, even if the group of 100 players has a 20% damage debuff. A more sensible way to encourage smaller scale fights, but more of them, would be to not only carb three stats, but all of them;

      Effective IP = IP x 2^[ln(99/100)/ln(2)]*z

      z being number of allied players over 25

      This way smaller scale fights would be significantly encouraged, while making sure that there wouldn't be a situation where item power reaches zero.
      While this method would discourage massive scale fights, fights of 40+ allied people would still be possible.
      If it is the wish to strongly increase small scale pvp of no more than 25-30 people, further eroding mass-alliances, this would be a possible solution;

      Effective IP = IP x 2^[ln(98/100)/ln(2)]*z

      z being number of allied players over 25

      This way even bringing 5 more players brings a major disadvantage.
      Ultimately, it depends on what the goal of the zerg debuff is. Whether it is to provide a soft limit or a hard limit on the scale of fights.
      The soft limit would allow a lot more strategy play, wheras the hard limit would encourage three or even four+way fights.

      But, the current proposals need a decisive overhaul regarding the top end, because the debuff as of now does not significantly motivate guilds/alliances to come with smaller groups if they're already using more than 120 players. However, it discourages small groups to bring slightly more members due to the agressive decrease in power for the first 5 additional people.

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

    • I thought the idea with reworking the way territories were done and the ZvZs played out was to actually combat against them? I feel like this nothing but a love tap to the issue, why not just actually ENFORCE smaller ZvZs, like 50v50 at the maximum. Force alliances to actually spread their forces to different areas.

      This proposal still encourages 150 players to show up to a ZvZ IMO.

      But who knows, maybe I'm wrong but just looking at it on paper makes it seem like it's going to have a minor affect.