Zerg Debuff (Disarray) Survey Reminder

    • TheBacon wrote:

      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.
      Yea, blame stupid forum users.

      Don't you see the round table should note SBI of sequences, the players who jump to handhold before patch is the same players who in RT?
      If no, then why RT even exists?

      SBI itself, should stop listen stupid players, who only cares on they ingame profits.

      And finally find stuff, who can analyse, guessing sequences, and think by they own heads.

      And there is no one to blame exceptional the SBI.
    • TheBacon wrote:

      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.
      Are you talking about this game? Albion Online? Because in this game, what people asked for, and SBI agreed to test, was the removal of all alliances. Which has almost no relation to what they got. An infinite spectrum, and access to whatever organizational structure is most effective under the current circumstances.

      They actually gave groups huge incentives to break apart into smaller more effective units, and a penalty for not doing it in the form of taxes and reduced fame/silver. What did anyone expect to happen exactly?
      Discord: Piddle#7413 "The purpose of existence is simple: everything is fuel for the magmaw." —Jaji, magmaw worshipper

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

    • iRawr wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      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.
      Yea, blame stupid forum users.
      Don't you see the round table should note SBI of sequences, the players who jump to handhold before patch is the same players who in RT?
      If no, then why RT even exists?

      SBI itself, should stop listen stupid players, who only cares on they ingame profits.

      And finally find stuff, who can analyse, guessing sequences, and think by they own heads.

      And there is no one to blame exceptional the SBI.

      The whole drama about "oh the alliances are bad remove them" was started by the forum/reddit users, not by the roundtable, there are a lot of agendas being pushed but the changes causing the large splits of alliance tags and make hand-holding the standard solution that ANYONE who wants anything has to do were the devs response to the constant "remove allies" drama-llama.

      I've always warned this would happen, people didn't listen, now it did happen and it's undeniable how it gotten worse than before where everyone has to hand-hold be that military, via renting, etc, to have their place on the Outlands.

      SBI should have not risked this because hand-holding on split tags is insanely hard to realistically balance, this is on them indeed, now I can't even think of how can they do a meaningful change that fights back the new standard and meta of this game.
    • Piddle wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      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.
      Are you talking about this game? Albion Online? Because in this game, what people asked for, and SBI agree to test, was the removal of all alliances. Which has almost no relation to what they got. An infinite spectrum, and access to whatever organizational structure is most effective under the current circumstances.
      They actually gave groups huge incentives to break apart into smaller more effective units, and a penalty for not doing it in the form of taxes and reduced fame/silver. What did anyone expect to happen exactly?
      What ended up happening wasn't much different to what would be if the proposal would have been implemented now wasn't it? The big boys mostly all went solo and hand-holded, the same madness that is happening right now would not be greatly impacted by the removal or cap of 300 of the alliance system, be without alliances, with capped alliances or with mechanics to punish alliances with too many terris/etc,the hand-holding has became the meta and more effective than mega-alliances could ever been, there is no negatives, less debuff, no point share, no terri debuffs, queue system plays in their favour, what is there not to love about it? :D
    • i mean if u wanted to limit big alliances you could implement a mechanic in which if they dont expand their points start going away at which point they cant sit next to each other and are forced to fight if their terries are >=3, so a small alliance could keep its points but a guild with 10 would have to keep expanding while getting rid of the penalty for silver etc.
    • TheBacon wrote:

      What ended up happening wasn't much different to what would be if the proposal would have been implemented now wasn't it? The big boys mostly all went solo and hand-holded, the same madness that is happening right now would not be greatly impacted by the removal or cap of 300 of the alliance system, be without alliances, with capped alliances or with mechanics to punish alliances with too many terris/etc,the hand-holding has became the meta and more effective than mega-alliances could ever been, there is no negatives, less debuff, no point share, no terri debuffs, queue system plays in their favour, what is there not to love about it? :D
      Accusing people of hand holding is a meme. This game is a hand holding simulator, and you are going to have a hard time convincing me that it ever wasn't. The idea that you are going to pour 10s of thousands of people into a game and people aren't going to group up to be in a better position, is completely irrational.
      Discord: Piddle#7413 "The purpose of existence is simple: everything is fuel for the magmaw." —Jaji, magmaw worshipper
    • Tabor wrote:

      It feels like these disarray and smart cluster changes have actually caused more problems than they have solved. Just remove them both for simplicity and enable friendly fire outside of groups. Done and done.
      not gonna happen, some important will loose face if that happens..

      U cannot invest a shitload money into disarray & smart cluster queue and then admit it all failed and implement a piss simple solution everyone wanted 2 years ago..
    • Tabor wrote:

      It feels like these disarray and smart cluster changes have actually caused more problems than they have solved. Just remove them both for simplicity and enable friendly fire outside of groups. Done and done.
      Sunk Cost Fallacy, womp womp.

      Also, I don't know if that is actually better. I am not convinced that there isn't a set of numbers that make disarray/cluster queue a value add to the game, but I am convinced that the time and effort involved in finding that set of numbers is a lot larger than SBI expects. So, as long as we all accept a very long time horizon, things will probably work out.
      Discord: Piddle#7413 "The purpose of existence is simple: everything is fuel for the magmaw." —Jaji, magmaw worshipper
    • TheBacon wrote:

      iRawr wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      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.
      Yea, blame stupid forum users.Don't you see the round table should note SBI of sequences, the players who jump to handhold before patch is the same players who in RT?
      If no, then why RT even exists?

      SBI itself, should stop listen stupid players, who only cares on they ingame profits.

      And finally find stuff, who can analyse, guessing sequences, and think by they own heads.

      And there is no one to blame exceptional the SBI.
      The whole drama about "oh the alliances are bad remove them" was started by the forum/reddit users, not by the roundtable, there are a lot of agendas being pushed but the changes causing the large splits of alliance tags and make hand-holding the standard solution that ANYONE who wants anything has to do were the devs response to the constant "remove allies" drama-llama.

      I've always warned this would happen, people didn't listen, now it did happen and it's undeniable how it gotten worse than before where everyone has to hand-hold be that military, via renting, etc, to have their place on the Outlands.

      SBI should have not risked this because hand-holding on split tags is insanely hard to realistically balance, this is on them indeed, now I can't even think of how can they do a meaningful change that fights back the new standard and meta of this game.
      Oh man, its easy.
      The solution was here on forum, even in the alliance poll topic.

      - Remove the guild, name, alliance tags for REDs in the black zone.
      - Remove skins for BZ maps if there is 40+ players on it.

      Tadaaa. It will have less affect to ZvZ may be.
      But handholders will gank, dive each other in open world. Cause that much drama, so they will fight under zerg debuff, to not see dat drama every day.
      And once they fight under zerg debuff, the SBI can take control on it again.

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

    • İts just simple. Make seasonal rewards limited with numbers of guilds - not with point gaps-. So there is only 5 guild win crystal, 20 guild gold, 100 guild silver, 200 guild bronze with maybe less guild members. And make high level prizes insanly better besides low level prizes. So everybody want to be on top guild instead of split guilds with being sure about taking reward anyway. However handholders will be continuing crying to SBI.