# Disarray (Zerg Debuff)

• ### Wargorth wrote:

]According to my calculations if we dont consider tanks as much:[/size]

77 people is effectively ~ 59.3 people
&
167 people is effectively ~ 49.5‬ people

Going any more than 120 is not needed and slowly nerfs your zerg the more you go above it.
So if we ignore Tanks, Black Order really had the advantage here. If it was 77 vs 120 they would have the disadvantage.

Hey there,

would you mind sharing your calculations?

The general (simplified) logic used is this:

1. The "relative value" V of a player after the debuff is given by V=T*D where T = tankyness and D = damage output. T = 1/(1+extra dmg taken from debuff). D = (1-reduced damage dealt). So, for example, if a player has 20% reduced damage dealt and 25% more damage taken, his relative value V = (1/1.25) * 0.8 = 0.8*0.8 = 0.64 - simplied, he is worth as much as 0.64 players without the debuff

2. Now, we need to consider that any extra player not only gets the debuff himself, but also increases the debuff for all other players already in the group.

3. To calculate "effective zerg size" Z, one needs to take the number of players N times the relative value per player V, i.e. Z = N*V = N*(1-reduced dmg dealt)/1+extra dmg taken)

A few examples
N = 50 -> Z = 47.04
N = 100 -> Z = 75.27
N = 150 -> Z = 85.52
N = 200 -> Z = 76.31
• ### Korn wrote:

The general (simplified) logic used is this:
I want to share funny a much more simple thing you actually did =))
20 players difference between zergs are equal to 100 IP redution to damage and EHP of bigger zerg.
WTB skill
• I mean every 20 players difference. =)
It's like you bring one raid more - is like your zerg debuffed by 100 IP without dissarray.
2 raids more -200 IP defuff.
You bring 160 versus 80, ok! Keep in mind, you actually debuffed all items of all your soldiers by 400 IP, GLHF "Praise be".
WTB skill

### Wargorth wrote:

]According to my calculations if we dont consider tanks as much:[/size]

77 people is effectively ~ 59.3 people
&
167 people is effectively ~ 49.5‬ people

Going any more than 120 is not needed and slowly nerfs your zerg the more you go above it.
So if we ignore Tanks, Black Order really had the advantage here. If it was 77 vs 120 they would have the disadvantage.
Hey there,

would you mind sharing your calculations?

The general (simplified) logic used is this:

1. The "relative value" V of a player after the debuff is given by V=T*D where T = tankyness and D = damage output. T = 1/(1+extra dmg taken from debuff). D = (1-reduced damage dealt). So, for example, if a player has 20% reduced damage dealt and 25% more damage taken, his relative value V = (1/1.25) * 0.8 = 0.8*0.8 = 0.64 - simplied, he is worth as much as 0.64 players without the debuff

2. Now, we need to consider that any extra player not only gets the debuff himself, but also increases the debuff for all other players already in the group.

3. To calculate "effective zerg size" Z, one needs to take the number of players N times the relative value per player V, i.e. Z = N*V = N*(1-reduced dmg dealt)/1+extra dmg taken)

A few examples
N = 50 -> Z = 47.04
N = 100 -> Z = 75.27
N = 150 -> Z = 85.52
N = 200 -> Z = 76.31
I feel like Disarray is still catering to big fights when most people can't fight it effectively.

The top effectiveness imo should be between 50~70 players. It's enough to generate a big fight without too much fps drop and is more easily achievable by most guilds/alliances.

Those 100+ fights per side is just a lag fest.
• I calculated once the optimal zerg size for the current debuff and if i remember correctly it was around 159 players. Anything above that would affect negativelly due to the excessive debuff.
• @Korn It feels that Zerg Debuff it needs to be even rougher to leave us in a slightly smaller number of efficient Zerg and the game will not only work better, but it will be more fun for everyone. I hope you can reflect when Queen is already released.
• According to most battleboards, statistically, 70-80 is optimal, because this size is able to beat any other sizes.
WTB skill
• ### gmatagmis wrote:

According to most battleboards, statistically, 70-80 is optimal, because this size is able to beat any other sizes.
Most guilds/alliance who reach a size greater than that number usually know how to organize to make flanking groups. You have to take into account all the factors, I see you very optimistic with the zerg debuff but most people think otherwise, it is still "loose" so that having a huge number of numbers does give you the advantage. Adding more people to increase your chances of winning is what ruins the ZvZ experience.

Besides that you are not taking into account the small entities that in the long term are what keeps the game healthy. Most of the small guilds do not get to form 30 players, and the ridiculous excuse of "they must know where to go with the amount they have" I doubt is applicable in Queen when they cannot defend even their own hideout against huge boring zerg.

Check this:
reddit.com/r/albiononline/comm…3f6c/open_letter_for_sbi/

reddit.com/r/albiononline/comm…out_disarray_zerg_debuff
• ### gmatagmis wrote:

According to most battleboards, statistically, 70-80 is optimal, because this size is able to beat any other sizes.
• I think It's good decision but these rates should be increased so It better for new and small guilds.
• ### Korn wrote:

would you mind sharing your calculations?
Yeah they are flawed, you are right!
Thanks.

Zerg = Number of Player * Value of each player
Value of each player~ = Tankyness (which is 1/(1+extra dmg taken from debuff) ) * Damage Ouput = (which is 1-reduced damage dealt).

Although not sure if I am being dumb again, but I think according to the above formular your examples are also wrong, I think. Or is there another variable that you have not talked about?

### Korn wrote:

A few examples
N = 50 -> Z = 47.04
N = 100 -> Z = 75.27
N = 150 -> Z = 85.52
N = 200 -> Z = 76.31
 Player Threshhold defense vs players damage vs players 50 -6% -6% 100 -16% -19% 150 -26% -35% 200 -36% -56%

So I would think now:
N = 50 -> Z = 44.33~ (50 x V) | (0.8867924528301887 (=0.9433962264150943 x 0.94) )
N = 100 -> Z = 69.82~ (100 x V‬) | (0.6982758620689655‬ (=0.8620689655172414‬ x 0.81) )
N = 150 -> Z = 77.38~ (150 x V) | (0.5158730158730159 (=0.7936507936507937 x 0.65)
N = 200 -> Z = 64.70~ (200 x V) | (0.3235294117647059 (=0.7352941176470588 x 0.44‬) )
N = 77 -> Z = 61.04~ (77 x V) | (0.7927927927927928‬ (=0.9009009009009009‬ x 0.88‬) )
N = 167 -> Z = 76.37~ (167 x V) | (0.4573643410852713‬ (=0.7751937984496124 x 0.59) )

If you have the time correct me if I am wrong here too
Cheers.

The post was edited 4 times, last by Wargorth ().

• New

What is the definition of a “cluster?” Does it include people in hideouts, dungeons, and caves?

It isn’t hard to see a new tactic to circumvent the smart clustering arising towards the center of the map.
T8 Quarrier | T8 Miner | T8 Lumberjack | T8 Fishing | T8 Skinning | T8 Cropper
• New

### Constructor wrote:

What is the definition of a “cluster?” Does it include people in hideouts, dungeons, and caves?

It isn’t hard to see a new tactic to circumvent the smart clustering arising towards the center of the map.
Cluster = Whole zone. Hideouts are instanced I don't think they count as being in that zone. caves(Not sure what caves you mean? Tunnels maybe? If so tunnels are there own clusters/zone as well).Dungs Are the same as hideouts instanced so they shouldnt count as being in the cluster/zone but when they come out they would.