Zerg Debuff (Disarray) Survey Reminder

    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      (...)
      The game punishes you for expanding, so what else is there to do than create safe borders from a rationality level ?

      /F
      I'm curious about a theoretical answer here too.

      You're one of maybe 3-5 groups in the game (that control about 70% of the outlands, yes) that this applies too.

      Grats, you "won" the progress game. Now actually go figure out what to do in the sandbox I suppose?
      Bogul#6397 - Merchants of the Mist - Founder & Head of "Management"
    • I dont really get that question.

      The game has a giant amount of content, and t here are so many things i miss doing that just cannot be done when you play for central outlands.

      My argument was from a central outlands point of view, but there is a giant amount of things to do at any given time in this game, so what to do can simply never be a issue for anyone.
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      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 won't be any mega alliances if you find balance between NAPs and regular alliances and if we successfully downsize communities and ensure they must fight each other instead of killing content because as you said, war is expensive for both sides, this will create space for everyone else.

      You are right, no mechanics will work to discourage slave masters from running slave empires, but there are ways how you can ensure they can't build successful NAP (limit hideouts access, territory limit, remove disarray, cluster queue) and at the same time limit what regular alliance can own, conquer so it doesn't overgrow.

      This way you give a clear message - managing large NAP is tought, has benefits (points sharing, abusing terri limitations) and regular alliances should have upfront advantage by balancing soft-cap limits (e.g. 40%-70% based on how the game plays out) but at the same time limiting on what you can own and this way limiting the size of alliances or even what a solo guild can own. If two solo guilds are in NAP size of their empire should be lowered as well. At the same time rewards should be reviewed to balance limits vs rewards so best guilds securing best terries are not on losing side because of losing control over secondary quality territories.


      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      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
      Like you said, the greed is major driver and people will find a way to run potato farm. Either SQUAD or PoE, no difference for 80% of the server. Your words just confirm the only way is to put hard limits on what you can get to limit the greed and create appropriate tiers where guilds that fight for best ranks must fight each other and staying in NAP or alliance will basically deny them highest ranks.

      Thanks for supporting my cause!

      The post was edited 3 times, last by glokz ().

    • glokz wrote:

      . Your words just confirm the only way is to put hard limits on what you can get to limit the greed and create appropriate tiers where guilds that fight for best ranks must fight each other and staying in NAP or alliance will basically deny them highest ranks.

      or you could make more objectives to fight over, objectives that actually have monetary value instead of meaningless points

      im voting for world peace so everyone can farm silver in peace.

      sandbox game after all, if someone wants to own entire game, they should be able to do it, hard limits on territories are probably the most stupid thing that happened to albion

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

    • Hey gloks,

      I think you are missing so many things that its hard to take seriously, but ill try with a couple of arguments.

      First of all, There is no way to kill of diplomacy. I dont really think you should either, but you simply cannot force people to fight each other.
      The more you lower the territory cap the more in incentivie handholding its that simple.

      You also talk about ranks, but a simple fact is that those not caring about the ranks are the ones most likely to succeed. Look at CIR, Elevate, sex with ex, final order, Blue army or Sun for that matter . Blue army could control the game last season by not going for rank themselves. CIR, Elevate, Sun, final order, ARCH, Conflict, zorn, black order and Sex with ex are all part of alliances that shares points which is the best indicator that you can have that the significant guilds are NOT playing for rankings.

      If the strongest guilds are not playing for rankings, your ideas simply all fail - and that is exactly what you see.

      If you play for rankings, you are simply hurting yourself.

      As for us, then we also in some way got motivated by the greed argument, and to me it was simply more valuable to ally a 2nd guild that could also hold all our alts, so we in that way would get double the battlemounts, as 250 seasonal battlemounts are way more interesting than fighting for 1% fame buff.

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

    • The storry of life..

      There was once people with ideas and visions and goals..

      And then they faced reality ...

      and now the same people sit here and say...

      Look ..solo guild is nonsense..because the game is different...


      True storry is, they failled miserably, had to join a mega, tail between legs...or get wiped..and now sing the song about the content in mega ..that is so good and so huge...


      I really wonder what some people see if they look in mirrors...if they already bend knee in video games and get corrupted there...


      Oh well..
    • one day you trolls would realise that we would have a bigger chance at moving in the right direction if the different parts could have a constructive dialogue, instead of having you bunch spitting after guys like me every time i try to give some insights in how it actually works.

      If you just wanna sit in a corner shouting at the cruel world, throwing sticks at the outland guilds that you hate so much if they actually try and engage in dialogue.
      Then you will get zero progress, because the forum trolls, and royal city players simply has no clue as to how the large alliances function.

      If you dont engage with the large alliances, you will never get input in what could work - and you will get 3 more years of not solving anything because SBI dont understand it either and the forums are full of trolls who dont have a clue as well.
    • Im not trolling, just sayin you are not competent to talk in this thread. Why? Because you are the one of the guys who destroying this game. He had 0 clue what hes talking about he is not relevant to talk about things like that, but he still has a voice.
      If we talk about disarray first disarray was the best (damage reduction without healing reduction but with LOW numbers). It was pretty good balanced. Game is very bad not because of disarray, game is bad because of "SMART" cluster queue and alliance restrictions.
    • I am just amazed by people that try in a video game to exploit any weakness a game has

      Zone locking

      Throwing people out

      Holy shit, it is a game..

      It is very similar if u play chess and u opponent goes piss.. and u move his queen and then win the game..

      That's why I wonder if there is more involved as a video game? What other outside game implications are involved? I cannot believe someone feels good zone locking and winning??

      How does that feel as an achievement? U won because u locked u enemy out?

      It is the same as on the chess board, moving the queen while u friend goes piss??

      I am sorry but again, below some standards..

      Sad story
    • I am always amused if people do super shit like chain fear starter out of yellow zones and say..

      Sandbox!!!

      It is the same people that cry "Sandbox" that go 8.3 in yellow and knock people safe down while have on faction flagged..

      It is the same people that cry "Sandbox'!! That have the brother on the same PC, naked, scouting while watching a movie..

      Sandbox.. is not always the cheap excuse for being on the edge of exploiting in a game ..a fucking video game..

      And justification of this by crying "sandbox, sandbox" is below most people's standards..


      If u look at the game, how much effort went into managing zone locks and other shit .. called "sandbox"..

      Imagine all this development not into managing people trying to twist and bend a video game but in progress of content...

      Sad story..
    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      I am always amused if people do super shit like chain fear starter out of yellow zones and say..

      Sandbox!!!

      It is the same people that cry "Sandbox" that go 8.3 in yellow and knock people safe down while have on faction flagged..

      It is the same people that cry "Sandbox'!! That have the brother on the same PC, naked, scouting while watching a movie..

      Sandbox.. is not always the cheap excuse for being on the edge of exploiting in a game ..a fucking video game..

      And justification of this by crying "sandbox, sandbox" is below most people's standards..


      If u look at the game, how much effort went into managing zone locks and other shit .. called "sandbox"..

      Imagine all this development not into managing people trying to twist and bend a video game but in progress of content...

      Sad story..
      Congratulation, you've just saw how human mentality works in this world.
    • Owlsane wrote:

      Hollywoodi wrote:

      I am always amused if people do super shit like chain fear starter out of yellow zones and say..

      Sandbox!!!

      It is the same people that cry "Sandbox" that go 8.3 in yellow and knock people safe down while have on faction flagged..

      It is the same people that cry "Sandbox'!! That have the brother on the same PC, naked, scouting while watching a movie..

      Sandbox.. is not always the cheap excuse for being on the edge of exploiting in a game ..a fucking video game..

      And justification of this by crying "sandbox, sandbox" is below most people's standards..


      If u look at the game, how much effort went into managing zone locks and other shit .. called "sandbox"..

      Imagine all this development not into managing people trying to twist and bend a video game but in progress of content...

      Sad story..
      Congratulation, you've just saw how human mentality works in this world.
      Ya, I am just shocked that adult people playing games do it..

      I still do believe ..it must be about more than just a game..
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Hey gloks,

      I think you are missing so many things that its hard to take seriously, but ill try with a couple of arguments.

      First of all, There is no way to kill of diplomacy. I dont really think you should either, but you simply cannot force people to fight each other.
      The more you lower the territory cap the more in incentivie handholding its that simple.

      You also talk about ranks, but a simple fact is that those not caring about the ranks are the ones most likely to succeed. Look at CIR, Elevate, sex with ex, final order, Blue army or Sun for that matter . Blue army could control the game last season by not going for rank themselves. CIR, Elevate, Sun, final order, ARCH, Conflict, zorn, black order and Sex with ex are all part of alliances that shares points which is the best indicator that you can have that the significant guilds are NOT playing for rankings.

      If the strongest guilds are not playing for rankings, your ideas simply all fail - and that is exactly what you see.

      If you play for rankings, you are simply hurting yourself.

      As for us, then we also in some way got motivated by the greed argument, and to me it was simply more valuable to ally a 2nd guild that could also hold all our alts, so we in that way would get double the battlemounts, as 250 seasonal battlemounts are way more interesting than fighting for 1% fame buff.
      I disagree with your point about the strongest guilds not caring about points or ranking... that is essentially what squad did all season, BA and the rest of squad coalition decided they would boost SWE to top ranking by letting them have the best castles and most territories within their coalition.

      POE guilds also cared about ranking but in a different way, their goal was to get all their guilds gold ranking as opposed to boosting a single guild to #1.

      Also, Final Order was not part of any official alliance or NAP during season 8, just FYI. We accepted help from other guilds occasional as a matter of necessity, as we’re now seeing in season 9, almost everyone is doing that, even guilds that have previously stated intentions to be “solo” this season (I’m looking at you Blue Army).

      Back to the main topic, IMO the current disarray and cluster queue systems have failed to limit power of mega alliances/coalitions and the cluster queue system specifically has made zone cap sized ZvZ fights a bad experience for everyone involved most of the time.

      At this point in the game with the new map, more objectives (ie many more castles, outposts, world bosses giving season points whereas in the past there were only ~4 castles per continent) - I think it’s better to just remove the smart cluster queue system.

      If a mega coalition wants to secure an objective via zone locking with 350+ players 2+ hrs in advance, let them do it. Ultimately they’re just denying content to their members and it’s a good way to lose good players in the long run. There’s plenty of ways to earn season points now so I don’t think it’s as much of an issue as it used to be when SQUAD monopolized the majority of Mercia/Cumbria/anglia castles.
      AO Quick Reference Guide
      Discord: Grimhawke#9254


    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Hey gloks,

      I think you are missing so many things that its hard to take seriously, but ill try with a couple of arguments.
      Based on your whole comment I bet you didn't even read my post where I carefully described everything, but OK let me try to answer,

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      First of all, There is no way to kill of diplomacy. I dont really think you should either, but you simply cannot force people to fight each other.
      The more you lower the territory cap the more in incentivie handholding its that simple.
      The more you lower the territory cap, the less reach each of the guilds/NAPs/alliances have. You could think, battlefields will consolidate making even bigger battles that the game engine can't support, but truth is - even if you have 30 territories, there's still one major battle happening per CTA regardless of how many territories you own, because time zones are consolidated and everything happens in the same place. Killing diplomacy? Wut?


      Territory limit is a handle, mechanic that allows you to control balance between official alliances and NAPs. Together with all the other changes official alliances would have upfront advantage of staying together and complying against limitations while solo guilds who try to abuse points sharing and territory limit would have hard times (no access to hideouts, friendly fire, no more debuff giving advantage, no more split forces due to smart cluster queue etc.).

      Whenever NAP or Alliance feels too strong you can balance this mechanic based on how the other changes plays out,

      The idea about territory limit is to give more space to weaker/newer guilds, it's not about TOP guilds like you said. I don't really understand the part about ranks and not competing for season points, this points really discredits everything else you say because it's far from truth and it's not hard to prove it.

      So to summarize your post,

      What you said is that what we are trying to propose is killing diplomacy, but you have completely not explained why or how would that happen? People had NAPs with everyone within regular alliances, they created unofficial NAPs and established NAPs between NAPs after queen and will continue to do that regardless. But according to you if we try to balance the cons and prons of staying WITHIN regular alliance and within NAP we destroy politics, diplomacy?
      Complete absurd, people will always find a way to optimize and increase they chances of winning the game, regardless if it's territory control, season rank or simply providing safety for their peeps.

      The idea is not to limit on HOW DO YOU ACQUIRE TERRITORIES, but HOW BIG YOUR EMPIRE SHOULD GROW.

      Another ridiculous attempt to discredit us is to tell nobody gives A F about season points, but every major guild stays in NAP to abuse season points and territory limit and it's now the only correct way of playing the game at highest competitive level, which comes with too much power vs regular alliances.The whole idea is to ensure regular alliances are the right way to play the game but at the same time ensure those will not overgrow to mega alliances again and still give space and possibility to those who want to trade comfort and easy going for season points and achievements as a solo guild. Overgrown unofficial NAPs are also a problem but even harder as you can't even see the exact size at first sight! Thus official alliances mechanics should benefit players just because we can see their size/reach and limit this.


      I think it's pretty fair to say at this point, you are missing the whole picture so much it's really hard to take you serious Mr. @Sinatra.SUN
    • I think the Disarray stuff is pointless, because hand-holding will always be meta, if you flatten it to a point it's more worth to be on same tag zergs (aka bigger zergs) the meta will be hand-hold bigger zergs, if you make it too strong (as is) then the meta will be smaller yet multiple tag zergs working together.

      It's simply 2 methods to achieve the same goal, devs took much effort breaking up alliances (thank you this forum users for not understanding anything about how this game meta politics work thinking hitting/removing alliances was the solution to all evils) and the result is something even worse, specifically, much harder to balance & make fair as per intended queen update design.

      I will have to say, that the push of SBI to break up alliances has caused them to loose control over the game on the end-game ZvZ territory conquest aspect, it created new standard of how things work a much more efficient solution to "win" that can bypass almost anything the devs can throw at it.

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