Queen Update is likely to backfire at SBI, what will defeat the design

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

    • The map is just not that big for logistics and opportunity cost to have the effect you desire. There's a roughly 0% chance that they just let all the outer territories belong to small new guilds. I mean hell ZvZ guilds will already run 10+ zones looking for a potential fight. You think suddenly they'll decide not to run that far for a guaranteed one?
    • Desriel wrote:

      The map is just not that big for logistics and opportunity cost to have the effect you desire. There's a roughly 0% chance that they just let all the outer territories belong to small new guilds. I mean hell ZvZ guilds will already run 10+ zones looking for a potential fight. You think suddenly they'll decide not to run that far for a guaranteed one?
      I think your forgetting that 1 5man team can't hold a shit ton of terri anymore, 5man skill means nothing anymore as far as terris go other then upgrades. It will be much harder for big guilds to hold 50+ terris much less 25+ terris like in the old system. They would need a decent ZVZ force to defend all the terri they take the more they take the more they will need to spread out there numbers, Also any amount of guilds can launch an attack. If 10 small guilds wanna ban together and clear out an area they could do so. You must remember even though the timezones are different the more terris 1 alliance/guild holds the more terris they will have on the same timezone which means smaller forces @ each location.
    • Neef wrote:

      Desriel wrote:

      The map is just not that big for logistics and opportunity cost to have the effect you desire. There's a roughly 0% chance that they just let all the outer territories belong to small new guilds. I mean hell ZvZ guilds will already run 10+ zones looking for a potential fight. You think suddenly they'll decide not to run that far for a guaranteed one?
      I think your forgetting that 1 5man team can't hold a shit ton of terri anymore, 5man skill means nothing anymore as far as terris go other then upgrades. It will be much harder for big guilds to hold 50+ terris much less 25+ terris like in the old system. They would need a decent ZVZ force to defend all the terri they take the more they take the more they will need to spread out there numbers, Also any amount of guilds can launch an attack. If 10 small guilds wanna ban together and clear out an area they could do so. You must remember even though the timezones are different the more terris 1 alliance/guild holds the more terris they will have on the same timezone which means smaller forces @ each location.
      Nope not forgetting that. It will probably be even easier for large alliances to hold lots of territories because cost to attack them for new guilds is going up. Just because 10 small guilds could band together doesn't mean they will. If a small guild is too afraid to fight 5v5 in an equal setting you think they're going to suddenly want to fight 20vs100+ with way more on the line?

      You're operating under the assumption that the mega-alliances are going to have to spread out their numbers due to constant attacks every day. This is highly unlikely to actually occur as guilds give up after getting run over by 2-3 times their number once or twice. On the first couple days sure lots of small guilds will try and some might even take territories for a brief period. However once the large alliances strike back and stomp them into the ground by focusing them they will quickly give up and the mega-alliances will go back to only having to fend off attacks from a few brave guilds that eventually give up. Exactly like how the GvG system played out.

      If you're down I'm willing to bet 20mil that within 2 weeks the top 5 alliances will hold 80%+ of terris
    • Desriel wrote:

      You're operating under the assumption that the mega-alliances are going to have to spread out their numbers due to constant attacks every day.

      For sure, declaring an attack isn't trivial: you've got to defeat the Sentry Mage (which could happen under fire from a hideout-reinforced defense) and then spend 2m to launch. This also means alliances will know which terris are vulnerable, and they can ignore everything else.

      What I wonder is how much warfare there will be over the valuable inner territories. They're a long way from the outer ring, and if they're reinforced by hideouts to help in the war, that would tend to focus a guild's attention to the area around their hideout(s).

      What I hope -doesn't- happen is all the big guilds/alliances making NAPs so they can conquer everything. (In that case, I hope the devs would step in.)
    • Dev intervention needs to be mechanics based. Ever since launch zerg alliances have hoarded territories because the mechanics allow that functionality. If they find these new changes still do not improve that situation (if they even think that needs improving) they can further change mechanics by making incremental territory holding more costly. Examples would be silver tax, much higher food consumption, things of that nature.
    • Tabor wrote:

      If they find these new changes still do not improve that situation (if they even think that needs improving) they can further change mechanics by making incremental territory holding more costly. Examples would be silver tax, much higher food consumption, things of that nature.
      If they haven't done that already as a simple baseline solution, I don't think they ever will. SBI has a hard-on for zergs and alliances and that isn't going to change.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      If they find these new changes still do not improve that situation (if they even think that needs improving) they can further change mechanics by making incremental territory holding more costly. Examples would be silver tax, much higher food consumption, things of that nature.
      If they haven't done that already as a simple baseline solution, I don't think they ever will. SBI has a hard-on for zergs and alliances and that isn't going to change.
      Yeah because the devs love the fact that people get lagged out they love is so much they even put in a debuff for zergs getting biggers.
    • Neef wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      If they find these new changes still do not improve that situation (if they even think that needs improving) they can further change mechanics by making incremental territory holding more costly. Examples would be silver tax, much higher food consumption, things of that nature.
      If they haven't done that already as a simple baseline solution, I don't think they ever will. SBI has a hard-on for zergs and alliances and that isn't going to change.
      Yeah because the devs love the fact that people get lagged out they love is so much they even put in a debuff for zergs getting biggers.
      I realize you're being sarcastic, but SBI has literally allowed zergs to dictate season winners with castles for three consecutive seasons.

      Then thrown on top of that they make all territory conquest tied to zergs. And with tons of people asking for limitations to alliances, they refuse to do anything about it - even when they fundamentally shift the focus of the game away from high skilled combat of even numbered fights into a zerg fest of numbers for conquest.

      You even realize that there's an issue with lag in zerg fights, and now that's all we're getting with Queen. You're sarcasm is lost even on yourself.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      Neef wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      If they find these new changes still do not improve that situation (if they even think that needs improving) they can further change mechanics by making incremental territory holding more costly. Examples would be silver tax, much higher food consumption, things of that nature.
      If they haven't done that already as a simple baseline solution, I don't think they ever will. SBI has a hard-on for zergs and alliances and that isn't going to change.
      Yeah because the devs love the fact that people get lagged out they love is so much they even put in a debuff for zergs getting biggers.
      I realize you're being sarcastic, but SBI has literally allowed zergs to dictate season winners with castles for three consecutive seasons.
      Then thrown on top of that they make all territory conquest tied to zergs. And with tons of people asking for limitations to alliances, they refuse to do anything about it - even when they fundamentally shift the focus of the game away from high skilled combat of even numbered fights into a zerg fest of numbers for conquest.

      You even realize that there's an issue with lag in zerg fights, and now that's all we're getting with Queen. You're sarcasm is lost even on yourself.
      Lol the point was they are trying to limit the size of armies and they are trying to get more people in guilds involved in taking terri not just 5 people, They didn't make this change to "HELP" zergs they made this change to help players have some fun by allowing them to fight for land, Before only a select group got to do this. So yeah you have no clue and everything is lost on you.
    • Neef wrote:

      Lol the point was they are trying to limit the size of armies
      But they aren't trying to limit the size of armies.. Alliances have remained untouched, disarray has not helped in bringing lower numbers to fights, SBI is not adding in any content for small groups to fight over.

      Neef wrote:

      and they are trying to get more people in guilds involved in taking terri not just 5 people,
      So they could have done 10v10 or 20v20. I like adding more ways for guilds to be involved with territory conquest, but removing the highest skilled combat in favor of a numbers game is not the solution for long term sustainability.

      Neef wrote:

      They didn't make this change to "HELP" zergs they made this change to help players have some fun by allowing them to fight for land
      How does it NOT help zergs? Everything about Queen is zerg oriented or at the very least zerg friendly. All territory including hideouts will be zerg fights. There's plenty of players that don't find zerging rewarding, and now there's no options for those players. You can't say they weren't helping zergs when the whole update rewards zerging even more than before.

      Neef wrote:

      Before only a select group got to do this
      Well that just ain't true. Royal gvgs were 4.1 with spec or 4.2 without it and were hard capped, and guilds could launch warcamps on their own because they weren't hotly contested. Even in Anglia you could find decent fights in 6.1 with a minimal amount of experience. Anyone who wanted to actually put in the effort required could absolutely been rewarded with taking territory.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      But they aren't trying to limit the size of armies.. Alliances have remained untouched,

      Alliance point sharing has effectively destroyed many alliances. Not all, to be sure, but many of them. That's a bad thing, by the way: the new player pipeline is being disrupted.

      I do like that territory control is now dependent on open world battles: that makes sense immersively. GvGs are abstract and arbitrary.
    • Desriel wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      I do like that territory control is now dependent on open world battles: that makes sense immersively. GvGs are abstract and arbitrary.
      Being able to stroll in and launch an attack during a 4 hour window, but not any other time, then waiting 24 hours and bonking on it with a hammer to have all the guards instantly convert into yours seems pretty abstract to me lol

      Those mechanics accommodate people with Real Life schedules.

      Ideally, of course, we could all play all the time, we wouldn't need NPC guards, because real players would be willing to stand on guard for hours, and we wouldn't need to fight on a schedule. :P

      As to GvGs, the closest RL equivalent I can think of is the old knightly practice of commanders meeting in personal hand-to-hand combat, leaving the armies as spectators, in which the castle would go to the victor. That was optional, however, generally offered by the weaker side (thus being a way to even the odds), and could be refused, leaving the matter in the hands of the zergs.

      In Albion, that would mean GvGs would happen for territory only if both sides agreed: the default being zvz if one side or the other refused. The current practice of forcing GvGs on both sides, however, is extremely odd to me.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Those mechanics accommodate people with Real Life schedules.
      Sure, doesn't mean they aren't still just as abstract and arbitrary though. Just seems like a lack of variety to me. Outposts are decided by ZvZ, Castles are decided by ZvZ, and territories are decided by ZvZ.

      Having at least one kind of open world focal point decided through a duel of champions (as was done sometimes in real life) provides variety and seems no more arbitrary or abstract than timed waves of defenders appearing out of nowhere in the castles.