Disarray (Zerg Debuff)

    • solventh wrote:

      alliances can not be removed.

      you cant remove something when it comes from the society naturally. even a bird does a pact with a rhino.

      setting strict alliance making/leaving rules instead, would help.
      But if the rhyno wants, he can smash the bird.

      Its a non agression pact, not an alliance.

      If alliances are removed, people will make NAPs, but friendly fire will be there.
    • This is why they already said they will not remove alliances or cap alliances, because we can make deals or pacts with other alliances to fight someone.

      The thing is, there is no way to make EVERYONE happy and the zerg debuff, imo, is the fairestway to give smaler zergs to stand against bigger zergs. BUT with or without zerg debuff, more number still have a bigger power in zergs fight because you can work on the cooldowns or with flanks.

      I think the main problem in the game was the fact that 1 group of 3-5 persons could wipe a ton of guys in one engage (bomb squads) and now, with zerg debuff, it became harder to do that.
    • F0XXX wrote:

      The biggest problem remains in the leader of alliances itself.

      Take squad as example, they split they alliance in two, and even make "sex with ex" play outside the alliance, just to avoid the zerg debuff.

      And when the smart cluster comes out this will make them have more players in the zone, they can't win a fair ZvZ, them they bring more to just step on you like a herd.

      You can say that they pay a price for this, the risk of being friendly fired, but is super simple just to send one alliance around and flank, or just hold a position on a castle, being friendly fired is extremely hard.

      Nothing we can do in the fight trough, we can just dive in they zerg and stay there until one side die, without playing smart at all, and if we win, the other side can simply come and kill everyone that's left.
      'sex with ex' is out of SQUAK at the moment because they're on a 7 day cooldown, nothing more, nothing less. We split our alliance in half so all the main guilds are in one for the season points and all the Alt guilds are in SQUAD.
      Tired of LAGGING in-game? Try ExitLag;
      Use this LINK & code 'ROBIN' for 20% off any plan!
      youtube.com/c/robinhoodrs

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

    • solventh wrote:

      alliances can not be removed.

      you cant remove something when it comes from the society naturally. even a bird does a pact with a rhino.

      setting strict alliance making/leaving rules instead, would help.
      WTF are you talking about dude?

      Everyone here is talking about the artificial perks that alliance gives, the biggest one being making allies unattackable.

      Without alliances people would still form "soft alliances" but they wouldn't be able to ZvZ together properly because of friendly fire, breaking the zergs almost completely.

      Removing alliances would also remove the terry sharing bullshit, right now a big guild will ally itself with a bunch of slaves.

      The slaves get the terries to farm and in trade they are pawns for ZvZ.

      Breaking alliances would make guilds matter a lot more, and in the guilds we have the friendships... alliances would still exist in the form of Non Aggresion Pacts, but they wouldnt be able to ZvZ together properly, and it's a player enforced rule, not a game enforced one... so players will by mistake or willingly break these pacts and attack each other, causing drama and breaking soft alliances.

      The game would be A LOT better if they just removed alliances.
    • I don't understand why SBI is so afraid of making a test reset without alliances, are they scared that the big alliances will quit the game? The big alliances don't matter, only the guilds matter and they will be even stronger without the alliances... they will be smaller but more meaningful.


      Just man up and delete them for a couple of weeks, let's see how much more content will happen... it's a simple solution that you guys just refuse to implement.
    • Devastate wrote:

      Without alliances people would still form "soft alliances" but they wouldn't be able to ZvZ together properly because of friendly fire, breaking the zergs almost completely.

      Reportedly guilds/players are dropping tags to avoid debuffs in big zergs, while still helping the alliance. The above "friendly fire" meme seems inaccurate to me, especially because zerg attacks are based around clumped AoE, which is a highly specific area on the map, and would thus seem easy to avoid.

      I suspect guilds would have -far- less issue working together in zergs outside an alliance than is commonly supposed. They would simply need to form their own parties and not step in each other's AoE.

      The real downside I see is loss of access to territories as safe havens, and general "red is dead" gameplay outside zergs.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Devastate wrote:

      Without alliances people would still form "soft alliances" but they wouldn't be able to ZvZ together properly because of friendly fire, breaking the zergs almost completely.
      Reportedly guilds/players are dropping tags to avoid debuffs in big zergs, while still helping the alliance. The above "friendly fire" meme seems inaccurate to me, especially because zerg attacks are based around clumped AoE, which is a highly specific area on the map, and would thus seem easy to avoid.

      I suspect guilds would have -far- less issue working together in zergs outside an alliance than is commonly supposed. They would simply need to form their own parties and not step in each other's AoE.

      The real downside I see is loss of access to territories as safe havens, and general "red is dead" gameplay outside zergs.
      Very specific bomb squads are dropping, that's like having a few guys in a very specific position just to bomb.

      Good luck zvzing when 100 out of 150 "allies" being red, friendly fire would mess you up.

      Completely different scenarios.
    • Devastate wrote:

      Good luck zvzing when 100 out of 150 "allies" being red, friendly fire would mess you up.

      Maybe if players made no adjustments at all, but it seems like basic organizational changes to deter mixing with allies would counter most of the downsides in zvz.

      Friendly fire seems like it would be more of an issue during a route, when units are likely to mix. During the critical junctures of a battle, however, parties will likely still have cohesion, and thus have more control over whether or not they engage into a space mixed with allies.

      If alliances were removed outright, I do think we'd want to have the option for guild flags over players, not just the name, to make it easier to see who's who.
    • Devastate wrote:

      ...I stil think that the best and only solution is completely removing alliances, let people do non aggression pacts, but the players will still be able to attack each other.

      Equart wrote:

      I think we need new global survey.
      those new features that are trying to diminish the impact of zvz problems (bigger groups taking advantage of the small ones), "disarray" could be just another bad piece of code for the game, it could turn into just another poor line of code...

      The alliance feature was implemented badly imo, it should be reworked or the easy solution is remove it completely.
    • Hi @Retroman, it seems like buff for suicide attackes with Brimstone or Galatines (debuff is only for players in zergs)... :(
      This whole zerg debuff is the wrong solution IMHO.
      Because you are trying to solve the consequences (lot of players in a cluster), not the root of the issue (big alliances).
      I think correct way is to motivate players somehow to create smaller alliances (this should lead to smaller zergs)...
      HankTheNoob | Battles in AO

      The post was edited 2 times, last by H4nk ().

    • H4nk wrote:

      Hi @Retroman, it seems like buff for suicide attackes with Brimstone or Galatines (debuff is only for players in zergs)... :(
      This whole zerg debuff is the wrong solution IMHO.
      Because you are trying to solve the consequences (lot of players in a cluster), not the root of the issue (big alliances).
      I think correct way is to motivate players somehow to create smaller alliances (this should lead to smaller zergs)...
      Very well said !!!


      Just increase silver sink for huge ally. Like if tou have more than 1000 or 5 guilds you have to pay to fame farm and etc. none will create mega ally this way
    • H4nk wrote:

      Hi @Retroman, it seems like buff for suicide attackes with Brimstone or Galatines (debuff is only for players in zergs)... :(
      This whole zerg debuff is the wrong solution IMHO.
      Because you are trying to solve the consequences (lot of players in a cluster), not the root of the issue (big alliances).
      I think correct way is to motivate players somehow to create smaller alliances (this should lead to smaller zergs)...
      Removing alliances will just create Mega Guilds fielding 200+ players for themselves. The root of the issue IS the ammount of players in a zerg, not Alliances.

      There are other issues, like too much safety due to huge alliances, too. But point sharing is there for this.
    • Any chance this could be reworked to be more similar to how resilience and resilience penetration work? Small groups that are out of guild/alliance will be severely encouraged the way this is set to work currently.

      The disarray debuff should reduce output damage as it currently does. When being attacked, your attacker should have the reduction from thier own debuff reduced by up to the value of your debuff.