Zerg Debuff (Disarray) Survey Reminder

    • Zerg Debuff (Disarray) Survey Reminder

      Hi everyone,

      A few days ago, we sent out a survey on Zerg Debuff (Disarray) via email to players who have been very actively involved in PvP recently and who have opted in to our newsletter system.

      Please remember to check your Spam folder in case it might have been funnelled there.

      Thank you!

      - Mytherceria & Dev Team

      Mytherceria#3744
    • DuendeBrek wrote:

      @Mytherceria considering how important this survey is for ZvZ players, there definitely should be a way for those that opted out of newsletter to take a part in it too. I'm one of those who signed out of it quite some time ago, but would definitely like to cast my vote regarding such important topic.

      Hey, unfortunately according to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules, the moment players click on the opt-out button, we are simply not allowed to send such communication to them. However, we'll try to see if there are any viable solutions to this issue.

      Mytherceria#3744
    • Grimhawke-EB wrote:

      I’m also a player who opted out of the newsletter but would like to contribute to the survey - is there not a way for me to register a response using my account information?

      I'm currently in the process of checking on this and will let you know.

      NutUpOr5hutUp wrote:

      is there a way to opt back into the newsletter?

      Sure, just head over here and scroll down to 'Account Information' where you can click on the checkbox which says 'Subscribe to newsletter'. This will sign you up for our future mailings.

      Mytherceria#3744
    • Mytherceria wrote:

      DuendeBrek wrote:

      @Mytherceria considering how important this survey is for ZvZ players, there definitely should be a way for those that opted out of newsletter to take a part in it too. I'm one of those who signed out of it quite some time ago, but would definitely like to cast my vote regarding such important topic.
      Hey, unfortunately according to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules, the moment players click on the opt-out button, we are simply not allowed to send such communication to them. However, we'll try to see if there are any viable solutions to this issue.
      Why have a poll that everyone can vote on about the "Are alliances too big" but this is only to a few people that didn't opt-out?
    • I dont see the email unfortunately But I opted in. But I strongly advocate for cluster queue and dissaray changes/balances. ESPECIALLY cluster queue which is being abused by many guilds/alliances in one coalition that zone in and out to kick out the defenders. The game doesnt know whos with who so it ends up being very unbalanced in the fight. Not to mention guilds like cir's bombsquad guild that stays out of alliance so they get no debuff.
    • The Zerg Debuff (Disarray) should be removed from the game. The queue should be corrected so that the number of players per alliance is equal. Logically, a guild will never be able to fight against an alliance, that is, stop trying to balance guilds with alliances, just let the game work, since the alliances are present, let the game experience be good for the players of the same ... understand that this debuff only gets in the way of the gameplay, where the large guilds split into 10 small ones just to circumvent the system so there are fights of 300 (divided into 10 guilds of 30) fighting against an alliance where only 100 players are present on the map for example
    • Mytherceria wrote:

      Hi everyone,

      A few days ago, we sent out a survey on Zerg Debuff (Disarray) via email to players who have been very actively involved in PvP recently and who have opted in to our newsletter system.

      Please remember to check your Spam folder in case it might have been funnelled there.

      Thank you!

      - Mytherceria & Dev Team
      Stop asking incompetent RUST-like greaf players!
      Only thing that players and your RT care about, is they personal needs, and they need so far from make game better, profitable or balanced.

      Just use metrics and professionals who can analyse it, to make changes in the right direction. Force your game designers to play a game for 10 h /week.

      It is only way to make right changes. Mass players will never tell you the true. But lead to big fails, just like they did alot of times.
    • New

      Tonecas wrote:

      How to use an Alliance to get around the rules to get a result.
      drive.google.com/file/d/1r1Iz0…Jh3imKFYJu8nzBqY_icj/view

      It is a shame that these people have an accent in the Round Table mainly considering how they devalue the team that invites them.
      @Mytherceria

      Hi, thanks for bringing this up. We are aware of these issues when conducting surveys and our devs keep this in mind when going through the results.

      Mytherceria#3744
    • New

      Tonecas wrote:

      How to use an Alliance to get around the rules to get a result.
      drive.google.com/file/d/1r1Iz0…Jh3imKFYJu8nzBqY_icj/view

      It is a shame that these people have an accent in the Round Table mainly considering how they devalue the team that invites them.
      @Mytherceria
      Hey there,

      when we send out surveys - or run forum polls - we are fully aware that politics come into play and that different groups will try to influence the outcome one way or another.
      That is also why we always make it clear that these surveys or polls are never a "vote" on an issue. Rather, they are a tool for us to gather as much information as possible, being fully aware that different sources of information carry different types and magnitudes of bias.

      When looking at survey data, we can also see when responses come in, and if and how the ratio of responses develops over time. In this particular case, we can indeed see a small impact from the "coordination" that has been going on behind the scenes. Interestingly, by the way, is that we did not see anyone advocating for a return to the "one shot meta" that as claimed in the recording.
      The reason why we sent out the disarray survey in addition to all the information and feedback that we had already gathered on the subject beforehand was mostly to see if it is consistent - after taking politics and manipulation into account - which the impressions and our own thoughts on the state of Disarray that we had prior to the survey.

      So what is our view on the state of Disarray, and has this been impacted by the survey results?

      In our forums, we have stated regularly that since Disarray can be dodged by splitting into multiple alliances, the natural balancing limit for Disarray is ultimately given by how annoying it is to fight with friendly fire enabled and how challenging it is to organize an implicit alliances of multiple groups that are not allied in-game.

      If Disarray is too strong, fighting large battles as a split group becomes too powerful of a strategy. If Disarray, on the other hand, is too weak, then it can't function as a gap closer for large scale fights.
      When Disarray was initially introduced, it was very weak without any noticeable impact on fights. Later on it was changed to also increase damage taken by players, which lead to a very "one-shot" heavy meta that we did not like as it made large scale fights less enjoyable.

      We then changed Disarray in a way that it would not affect damage taken, but have a much stronger effect on damage dealt and healing instead, which is the current situation what we are in.
      While we feel that this has been a step in the right direction, our current view is that it's right now a bit too strong, making "splitting up" too powerful in some situations. This, in turn, can have the effect that a larger group and well organized group gets a disproportional advantage by being larger & being better at splitting up.

      The fact that Disarray can be worked around like that is always going to be a downside of the feature. Hence, we can't realistically expect to eliminate this strategy completely as that would mean that we'd have to make Disarray so weak that it won't have any meaningful impact.

      Hence, our stance is that we intend somewhat flatten the Disarray curve - not by so much that pure N+1 strategies become dominant again and not by so much that splitting as a strategy will be eliminated entirely, but in such a way that it will feel less mandatory.

      In addition to that, we are considered to change the smart cluster queue in such a way that people queuing for a zone count towards Disarray in the zone that they are queuing for. The intention here is to discourage "queue stuffing" which we hope will reduce the number of times that the cluster queue will become active and in turn might contribute to large fights happening more evenly, across multiple zones.
    • New

      @Korn I liked your answer and I am glad to know that you have this awareness, I am only sorry that these particular players reportedly have little regard for you, they even go so far as to ridicule your skills, however they are considered by you as prestigious members in this community and they are on your round table, its like a dog that does not know the owner who feeds him and will still bite him.
      Just sad to see these kinds of situations,
    • New

      Im wondering if people think that large alliances are for or against the dissaray ?.

      The core of the matter is that with or without, there will always be handholding and large alliances - and regardless of solution there will be people feeling entitled to have a solo guild and expecting a territory that they cant fight for against bigger/better numbers.

      There is nothing more expensive than war, and when guild income has been crippled over the last 1.5 year no one can be surprised that it incentivices naps and handholding.
      The only real motivator for action is greed, but greed from a guild and alliance perspective has been removed as a factor by design - so Why spend billions on nothing ?.

      The only way to reduce the power and spread of large alliances would be to have instanced territory combat, but that is also the mechanic we just left.

      as i see it, a incredibly amount of time has been spend on activities with very little effect. Sure it makes a lot of things more difficult on a organisational level, but not really on a performance level. I am unsure if SBI really wants to change large alliance power projection or that they mainly do it to cater to those who are angry that large guilds work together.

      As i see it, this is what politics is about and this is and should be a core part of the game.
      I would like to see that numbers were less impactfull, but that is only really solved by instancing.

      Im really wondering what people think if large alliances would be for or against - because the overall effect is close to zero anyways so its not really a topic of importance.

      Nomatter the solution, then greed is the driver for action - and its really the only motivator that works. The crystal points and the new power bank solution on terris will work, and they will spawn action - but fighting is incredibly expensive with very little gain and as long as you dont feel like you "must have just one more terri", then you have the foundation for handholding right there.
      The game punishes you for expanding, so what else is there to do than create safe borders from a rationality level ?

      /F