• # Poll: Disarray Balance

Where should the relative impact of disarray be for different fight situations? 118
1.
small impact on 25 vs 50, medium impact on 50 vs 100 (current set-up) (17) 14%
2.
no impact on 25 vs 50, strong impact on 50 vs 100 (72) 61%
3.
strong impact on 25 vs 50, small impact on 50 vs 100 (29) 25%
.

Hi all,

we'd like to get your view on the current disarray balance.

Background information:

In theory, for each group size, there is maximum value that disarray would be before you'd essentially force these groups to use workarounds by artificially splitting up in separate sub-groups. This would create a very artificial game play and is something that we don't want to happen with the exception of very large groups

Now, for the sake of discussion, let's assume for a group size of 100 that maximum value would be 25%. The interesting question is then what should happen at sizes below that number. We could either have disarray kick in at smaller player numbers (right now, it kicks in at more than 25 players) and then let it naturally increase to hit the 25% at 100. Or we could have it kick in later, say at 51 players, with a steeper increase.

In the first case, disarray will somewhat affect that balance of a, say, 25 vs 50 player fight, though the absolute disarray differences would be relatively small. Also, the effect on a 50 vs 100 fight is also relatively small, as you already have quite a strong disarray value at 50 players, so the difference in values against a 100 player group again is not that large. In the second case, disarray would drastically affect the balance of a 50 vs 100 fight, as a 50 player group would have 0 disarray compared to the theoretical 25% for 100 players. However, in the second case, disarray would have no effect on a 25 vs 50 fight.

So, the tricky question is this: In what range of player numbers should disarray be most effective? Should it have a very strong effect on 50 vs 100 at the expense of having no effect on 25 vs 50? Or should it have a very strong effect von 25 vs 50 and only a small effect on 50 vs 100? Or a medium effect von both, 25 vs 50 and 50 vs 100 as it is right now? What would you say is the sweet spot?

It would be great if you could take part in the poll. Please also share your feedback with us. Thanks!
• I miss an option

String for 25 vs 50 and strong for 50 vs 100

Because anytime someone gets completely outnumbered it sucks especially if enemy has double numbers..
• I would want different impacts on different maps. For a large castle map, I would want no impact on 25v50 and medium impact on 50v100. For outposts, small impact on 25v50 and large impact on 50v100. For less valuable zones, I would support strong impact at both levels.
• ### Hollywoodi wrote:

I miss an option

String for 25 vs 50 and strong for 50 vs 100

Because anytime someone gets completely outnumbered it sucks especially if enemy has double numbers..
The problem here is that the debuff would be so insanely strong then at 100 players that you'd effectively force people to work around it by "artificial" group splits.
• Honestly thats missing many options making it quite leading,

it goes from no & strong to small & medium where is the no & small

Honestly it still makes nearly 0 impact on fights that i have been in

I also feel development of it is probably a waste of time as there is nearly no fair way to do it.

When you first rolled it out it was probably better than it is now, however second iteration has better scaling ...

I also feel that you could ignore damage scaling and just do CDs and/or Movespeed and it would suddenly be dramatic because in ZvZ your damage vs HP is always 100 to 0 in 3 seconds otherwise you heal back up... so attacking how frequent skills are and peoples ability to position would be the only way to make an impact because scaling damage doesnt HP either drops to 0 when hit or you walk away
• OPTION 4: small impact on 25 vs 50, strong impact on 50 vs 100 (current set-up) -> and yes, potentially crazy impact on 100 vs 200, but 200 man fights are bad anyway, and having multiple groups (and multiple shot callers) is much more skillful and falls under the same 1% GvG paradox (exept here is 1% shotcallers) where more people will actually play as group leaders (i.e. shotcallers)

What Crystal League did to GvG same as Strong Disarray to ZvZ = it enables much more people to participate (albeit in smaller groups, but many more of those groups, more skilled commanders, more fun)
• When will we get a system that balances disarray based on average gear/spec?

### Hollywoodi wrote:

I miss an option

String for 25 vs 50 and strong for 50 vs 100

Because anytime someone gets completely outnumbered it sucks especially if enemy has double numbers..
The problem here is that the debuff would be so insanely strong then at 100 players that you'd effectively force people to work around it by "artificial" group splits.
the problem obviously is that you are stuck because it is simply the wrong approach.

As u said whatever u do, some fights will always be screwed..

The obvious solution, that a lot of people want and you already had on the table is

A) friendly fire

B) limit Alliance to 200 or 300 and let the rest be sandbox
• I do not understand why you wanna punish the big alliances for being big.if you wanna fight 20 vs 50 - then you should be super good. But i dont see the reason why 50 players should beat 100?
If get 100 players to the fight is yeasy win - then bring 100 players. If you cant bring 100 players the go play in your small league.

Like why the 400/400 player in t8.3 gear will beat the 0 spec 4.0? Right, coth it is hard to get 400/400 and 8.3 gear, same as easy to have 0 spec and t4 gear.

So why in ZvZ you all want make that 50 ppl = 150 ppl? Easy to bring 50 players just like get a 4.0 gear. And need to hard work to bring 150 players and make them fight as one!
• ### Korn wrote:

Hi all,

we'd like to get your view on the current disarray balance.

Background information:

In theory, for each group size, there is maximum value that disarray would be before you'd essentially force these groups to use workarounds by artificially splitting up in separate sub-groups. This would create a very artificial game play and is something that we don't want to happen with the exception of very large groups

Now, for the sake of discussion, let's assume for a group size of 100 that maximum value would be 25%. The interesting question is then what should happen at sizes below that number. We could either have disarray kick in at smaller player numbers (right now, it kicks in at more than 25 players) and then let it naturally increase to hit the 25% at 100. Or we could have it kick in later, say at 51 players, with a steeper increase.

In the first case, disarray will somewhat affect that balance of a, say, 25 vs 50 player fight, though the absolute disarray differences would be relatively small. Also, the effect on a 50 vs 100 fight is also relatively small, as you already have quite a strong disarray value at 50 players, so the difference in values against a 100 player group again is not that large. In the second case, disarray would drastically affect the balance of a 50 vs 100 fight, as a 50 player group would have 0 disarray compared to the theoretical 25% for 100 players. However, in the second case, disarray would have no effect on a 25 vs 50 fight.

So, the tricky question is this: In what range of player numbers should disarray be most effective? Should it have a very strong effect on 50 vs 100 at the expense of having no effect on 25 vs 50? Or should it have a very strong effect von 25 vs 50 and only a small effect on 50 vs 100? Or a medium effect von both, 25 vs 50 and 50 vs 100 as it is right now? What would you say is the sweet spot?

It would be great if you could take part in the poll. Please also share your feedback with us. Thanks!
@Korn The main problem with the zerg debuff right now is this:

1. Alliances & Guilds are circumventing the debuff by having their friends leave alliance/not in alliance but are coordinating together in teamspeak & discord

2. Large "Coalitions" are wearing high tier gear in a coordinated effort to zone out enemy zerg numbers

3. When the max zone Q zones out members of your guild/alliance, it does not give any preference to weapon used/class so theoretically you could have ALL of your healers get zoned out and none of your melees/tanks.
• Debuff needs to be so strong that they would need to split the zerg and if they drop alliance to work around this then well atleast they can kill each other with Friendly Fire. Also the limits on rejoining alliances could be brought up higher so it would effect alliances season points even more by having to wait to rejoin. This way maybe we would see more 150 man zergs split down to 50/50/50 and other large alliances would do the same so they all could fight 50/50/50 in different locations. Though with terri's going live tomorrow we will see how much zergs will need to spread to cover more then 1 terri in zones with the same timezone.. At the end of the day it wouldn't hurt to try something different because it currently isn't working and well you can always change it if it goes really baddly.

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

• ### GluttonySDS wrote:

When will we get a system that balances disarray based on average gear/spec?
Hopefully never.
Midgard
T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
• currently 50 vs 100 debuff has like almost next to 0 effect on battles, you still have twice the numbers, you still have more CC, ability to flank etc, and with focus fire you still will kill a clump even with a dmg debuff

severe numbers advantage gonna lead to winning most of the time with similar skill level zergs.
• alliance cap is such an easy solution to many problems you ''seem'' to be seeking to solve.. but for some reason you dont do it...

Tho a viable option to reduce alliance size would be when the game splits season points, each guild counts as 2 shares then only gets 1 share and the server takes the other.

Diminishing return on season points will make it a questionable choice to be allied at all

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

• Not going to vote as your missing relevant options
• ### Throatcutter wrote:

Not going to vote as your missing relevant options
This is actually the best answer so far. I regret that I have voted..
• ### Throatcutter wrote:

Not going to vote as your missing relevant options
Maybe thats the only options they are considering implementing ....
Midgard
T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
T8 Bags & Capes Crafter

### Throatcutter wrote:

Not going to vote as your missing relevant options
Maybe thats the only options they are considering implementing ....
why should they not consider solutions the majority of customers want - if there is a poll and an alternative option that is not more expensive to code and maintain as Zerg debuff is voted??

Though I have to admit, I am not a coder or have any experience in game development but I am guessing limiting alliance total number to a value is not rocket science in coding effort..

Friendly fire doesn't seem too much effort either, though I am not experienced in coding .

And no company want their customer say... Your solution does not address our problem though you deny the easy and obvious solution..

Which is indeed strange .

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

### Hollywoodi wrote:

I miss an option

String for 25 vs 50 and strong for 50 vs 100

Because anytime someone gets completely outnumbered it sucks especially if enemy has double numbers..
The problem here is that the debuff would be so insanely strong then at 100 players that you'd effectively force people to work around it by "artificial" group splits.
Artificial group splits come with Friendly Fire, which was already an option from SBI before and i really wanted to see it tested.
• Given the three options, I would say the middle one would work out best when it comes to creating content in the game. (no impact on 25 vs 50, strong on 50 vs 100)

There are a larger number of smaller guilds that can only pull around 20 or so players so keeping the smaller fights normal but punishing the massively out numbered fights could help create more smaller fights scattered about. From what I've seen so far with the debuff over the last few months is that many guilds are still massing T3+ blobs opposed to splitting off because even with the debuff the advantage of having 100+ players in a fight outweigh it.