One word on friendly fire

    • One word on friendly fire

      I understand the intention of disaray, and i understand why you dont want to split alliances up, and i dont think the alliance cap was a great idea ( just really good for my guild, but not really the game).

      But what you are doing here is incentivising the rent gameplay we saw a year ago. and those renting territories will then be obligated to help the landcontroller (not owners) in zvz. Disarray debuff does not kick in with unallied groups of aliances, and this will create exactly that.
      Korn mentioned the bacons last night, and they are a good example because its a large alliance who cant really zvz. but they can group up, without being touched by the dissaray of the main alliance they are helping.

      The work around for the disaray is simply to have multible unallied groups with the same objective, and workaround for the new suggested alliance solution is exactly to split your alliance in 2 or 3 artificially. This not only lets you have your territories without a debuff, but it also gives you a workaround for the disaray debuff.

      You are putting several incentives in to workaround the mechanics you put in, which means that people have a larger incentive to actually do this.

      Friendly fire.
      The best way to fight bigger enemies is to have friendly fire on, both for the fight itself, and for the aftermath of fights with friendly fire.
      In the fight itself you can now have a strategy of quickly charging into the middle of the enemy force, forcing the bigger enemy to decide if they wanna bomb everyone, or wait for the fight to play out. Basically just like a war movie where 2 friendly alliances go to war, one has a army of archers, and one a army of footmen.
      What does the army of archers do when the army of footmen have engaged.

      Furthermore friendly fire in this situation create internal drama after the fights. "hey you killed me, give me my stuff" kinda discussions, which always will make the giant armies implode over time by themselves.

      What you should do should be increasing group size to lets say 50, add some group management options (more leaders with other color icons on minimap etc), Or make it 70 or 100 - essentially a grouped army instead of a group of 20.
      Let that army group have strategic ingame options like shared drawin on map, objectives on zone map and all the funky stuff.
      But implement friendly fire outside of the group itself.

      Friendly fire gives you opportunities as the sandwiched part, its still hard but you have opportunities. And that is tons better than now incentivising splitting up alliances to both circumventing the territory debuff AND the dissaray debuff, because this is what will happen.

      thanks for reading.
    • I think you need debuffs as long as there is no disadvantage to just stacking more players, but we had that discussion for years.
      The reason you could be without it in darkfall, was that there was no friendly fire at all.

      As for bacons, i dont think there is a setup possible where fighting them would be a fair fight as they are possibly the worst zvz force in the game, but they can jump you in the back and die which will buy them at least a place to live as long as they are ready to sacrifice their zerg on a daily basis.

      We did a 47-1 fight against them yesterday , where they secured the tower for their overlords and then they died - and this is the gameplay the bacons leader is trying to tell Korn is good.
      I think its the worst possible way to get new players into the game, but oppinions differ ofc.
    • Friendly fire is one of the basic principles in asymmetrical warfare. The simple essence of fighting a numerically larger force with a small force that employed better tactics...

      Why isn't it already here... it will literally govern itself... sounds like a sandbox mechanic to me.
      I'm a bomb technician...… If you see me running, try to keep up!
    • As i remember it there was a vote that ended close to 50/50, and many of those voting no did it because they wanted alliances removed completely instead

      Im pretty sure that if it had been worded as "Alliances will stay nomatter what, and given that fact would you prefer friendly fire implemented" it would be different.

      but thats life, and game is still great.
    • I 100% agree with the grouping system you're describing (50-size parties, friendly fire always enabled outside of parties), HOWEVER, breaking up alliances is still necessary and is the whole point of introducing mechanics that require splitting. A big part of the problem right now is that huge sections of the map have zero conflict because the inside territories of mega alliance empires are walled off from enemy players. If you open the world map in Alliance view, at any given point you will only see territory battles at the borders between different alliances, and the other 75% of the map completely pacified.

      Yes, friendly fire needs to be enabled to help balance ZvZ fights, but alliance structure needs to change so that these fights actually happen enough to matter.