Poll: Disarray Balance

    • @Korn
      It would make more sense to instead count the # of players within each alliance.

      • Case 1:
        # Players from Alliance / Total # of Players = %
        Alliance 1 - 50 Players
        Alliance 2 - 100 Players

        Total Players: 225
        Alliance 1 50/150 = 33.33%
        Alliance 2 100/150 = 66.66%


      This method guarantees the % value to be balanced regardless the number of players.

      If however you want larger groups to have a slight advantage/disadvantage simply add/subtract a flat % value.

      • Case 2:
        (# Players from Alliance / Total # of Players) - 30% = %
        Alliance 1 - 50 Players -> 3.33%
        Alliance 2 - 100 Players -> 36.66%
      • (adding a negative value helps the small guild, adding a positive value helps the larger guild)


      Below is an example of the zerg debuff % of X players vs 100 players.

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

    • This before me..is the key

      Permanent disarray independent of how many they are.

      In pve in PvP in hg and in crystal..

      You are 10 k people in your alliance??

      Okay 25 % disarray on all your people, everywhere..

      Never gonna happen but THAT would solve it .

      And it should start at 200 and have max at 1000

      You love to make group and Zerg content? Fine then this should not hurt as u always run in big groups

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

    • @Korn
      Make disarray effect the territory fights severely at numbers above 50+

      Normal open world situations It shouldn't have a large impact, including castles and outposts.

      If your worried about the artificially feeling focus the effect on the artificial fight that have the larger impact. If groups break up for the territories battles, let them, it adds friendly fire and creates a logistic problems. It takes logistic effort to break up 100s of people and coordinate an attack. It will allow a more organised groups to have a larger impact, but the whole of queen does that also.

      Targeting mechanics to the areas of the game that they have the largest impact is ideal. Territory fights will be more open, where flanks and numbers can have a large impact vs castles where your limited to two flanks no matter what so numbers can be delt with easier.

      Since territories are highly connected to progress/winning, pushing for their content to weigh more on the side of teamwork and strong play vs bringing more people will create a far more enjoyable game overall.

      But at the end of the day, Albion's abilities mainly fall under a 30 second cooldown, and most zergs operate around that cooldown. Damage and damage taken are irrelevant when numbers decide how many options a zerg has in 30 seconds. If you want disarray to have an impact make it effect cooldowns. A small zerg won't be able to do much against a group that can pop judicators, resets, and locus every time they bomb them.
    • I would say there should be strong debuff for 25v50 battles and medium 50v100.

      Why?
      Smaller guilds would be able to contest againist 50man zergs if they have some quality players, and in terms of 50v100 the guild with less people should work on clumps scaling againist stronger enemy, as you can't spread that much with 100 people. This way outnumbering alliances wouldn't just rush them, but will be forced to use some good calls instead.

      We all should keep in mind that although we might help smaller guilds with disarray balance, we shouldn't make it that easy for them with 2 different mechanics (dissarray and clump scaling) to wreck outnumbering enemy without outstanding players inside knowing how to use this mechanics in their favor.
    • Can we address the other issues with these dissaray debuffs. The minus damage can help but ideally there should be a huge drop in CC duration and a drop in healing as well.

      In addition to this I think true damage bypasses this dissaray right now which will just shift the meta not discourage people from bringing less numbers. You will promote more specter jackets and more tanks.

      80 people seems to be the sweet spot of when it should begin to get steep in my opinion.

      I get -25% damage the most that should be taken but why not -% cc durations and -% heals ontop of it the move it scales

      Example:

      41 people

      -5% damage
      -10% cc duration
      -5% heals

      Scale to 80

      -10% damage
      -20% cc duration
      -10% heals

      Scale to 100

      -20% damage
      -40%cc duration
      -20% heals

      scale to 120

      -25% damage
      -50% cc duration
      -25% heals

      Scale to 160
      -25% damage
      -65% cc duration
      -30% heal

      Why 50 and 150 as number points btw? Groups are 20 man so it would make sense to scale it to more than 2 full parties the Zerg buff begins etc. Etc.
    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      This before me..is the key

      Permanent disarray independent of how many they are.

      In pve in PvP in hg and in crystal..

      You are 10 k people in your alliance??

      Okay 25 % disarray on all your people, everywhere..

      Never gonna happen but THAT would solve it .

      And it should start at 200 and have max at 1000

      You love to make group and Zerg content? Fine then this should not hurt as u always run in big groups

      This is an interesting concept; thanks for posting it. I'm not entirely sure I like it, however, because new players need to be welcomed in guilds and alliances.

      I'd like to see a solution that doesn't make newer players something to be shunted aside. IP-based disarray could help, and so could fortification mechanics, for defensive battles.
    • I think polling on this topic is not useful. People think they want the debuff to make 100 mans non-viable, but the result would be terrible. It will make the game overly difficult for large groups who just eat the debuff, and it will make the game overly frustrating for both sides with large groups who feel forced to cheese the debuff. The problem is alliance size, no amount of tinkering with debuffs will ever make the game play well. All these debuffs do is make the game inconsistent. Negotiating long term treaty and short term NAPs for mutual benefit would make so much more sense for the game than these pointless alliance systems. Removing alliances would add friendly fire to prevent 4 guilds from all pouncing on one guild at the same time, which is really what is going on when people complain that their small group can't compete.
      https://steamcommunity.com/id/asgaeroth/
    • Once again. It needs to not only reduce damage dealt and received but everything else. Healing power, CC, armor, resistances etc. What needs to be affected is the effective IP and it needs to be strong enough that there will be not much difference in going with 100 and going with 150 men, being even a bad idea to go with 200.

      Another simpler, fairer and easier way to deal with this issue would be to just limit the amount of players of the same alliance per map to something like 100 max.
    • Hello,

      As a regular zerg player belonging to a medium scaled alliance, I'd say option 2, no impact on 50vs50, big impact on 50vs 100. Here is my reasoning :

      I'd categorize zerg group as follow :

      1. "small" zerg group : for 50 man fight, 〜 25 player,
      2. "medium" zerg group : for 100 man fight, 〜 50 player
      3. "Big" zerg group : for 200 man fight, 〜 100player
      4. "Massive" zerg group :cluster lock fight, 〜 200 player



      In my opinion, small and medium scale group do not need disarray. We remain in the "managable" size fight, where you can follow without too much difficulty the position of the enemy and of your ally, kite the enemy, play with choke, and altought number is a serious disavantage (as it should rightfully be imo), you have room to play and outplay the enemy.

      When it come to massive zerg, the new cluster queue (althought lackluster and very frustrating) kinda solve the problem : if there is a massive number of player, the force in presence are somewhat the same on each side.

      Remain the case of "Big" scale fight. In this situation, I believe that dissaray is necessary, because there is enought player to form a neverending wave, where the bigger group just run straight ahead in a single neverending push, with massive number of tank and dps using their CD without needing much coodination, leaving no room to breath to the smaller group, who need to constantly run (leaving stunned and cc player to their death) and without much hop to turn back on the enemy, as it can just afford to loose some player on a turn and keep pushing straight ahead. The smaller group just get drowned into the enemy wave. in this situation, there is no room for skill or anything, it's pure number and very frustrating.


      Altought it's not strictly the question here, I'ad add that the type of map play a big role in this. In swamp, forest or steppe, it is much easier for bigger group to drown smaller one by pure number and win, while higland or mountain, there is much more choke, making it easier to manage bigger group. I don't have much doubt on the fact that currently, dissaray have no impact on open fight (i.e without choke or much map relief to play with) because it is easy for the enemy to surround and flank you, and leave less room for missplay in the form on too much player concentrating at the same place. On the other hand, it is welcome and usefull in choke fight.
      It is a problem, in the sense that bigger group are advantaged in some map and not in other, but I have no idea how this could be solved.

      Overall, I'd say that current dissaray is better than what most would admit, but it depend a lot on the kind of fight taken. I like the idea of incrasing it's impact for big group.
    • Make it strong for whenever you are outnumbered lol.

      Ever since queen i have been facing zergs triple my numbers and nothing happens, A player out weighs the de-buff atm. Yeah you do more damage but when you are done using that E you gotta watch out for so many more E's, even if they do less damage you cant out do it.

      You got to make the disadvantages of having huge alliances so bad that everyone wants to be in no alliance or in a really small one.

      I don'y know who is telling you that 300v300 fights are fun, because it's not, and i've done it for a long time. Most people do 300v300 because they have to, this game needs to become skill > numbers like it was, not whoever has more.
    • I fully agree, I know I could buy much better hw.. but as soon as 150 vs 150 or even 100 vs 100 I have to down tune everything that I not lag totally out..

      But I refuse to spend 1000 bucks and more just to not lag in these fights..

      I play non Zerg for skill reason but also cause of hw issues..

      So u have a brilliant game 1-50 vs 1-50 ..but why on Earth u optimize buff icentive debuff not on 200 man Alliances??

      U have a gem of game that outclasses everything but u go for more Zerg bigger Zerg biggest Zerg..

      U don't get it.. you changed so much from alpha.. and original philosophy that the people at that time would yell at that of today..