Cluster Queue

    • The hideout systems that were implemented for "small guilds" were just the opposite, its just a die and respawn and come fast to the zvz again for the mega alliances.

      The new systems of gvgs, again, point for mega alliances, we are a 10 guys guild, no chance for any content on the blackzone.

      No chance for a hideout, no chance for a gvg.

      Dunno where these changes benefit small guilds or small scale pvp
    • MikeyMike wrote:

      Just make it so that territories can be captured at any time during prime time. Instead of giving the guilds/alliances holding each others' hands the chance to form up at a scheduled time to dominate and lock down a zone and its entrances/exits. If a territory was able to be captured at any time during prime time, it would keep the defending guild on its toes during that time. If captured by the attacking guild/alliance, then set a cool down period before it can be captured back or by another guild, for example 24 hrs to 72 hrs. That way it gives the attacking guild a chance to get a foot hold within that zone and other surrounding zones.

      Or, another idea is to get rid of prime time entirely and allow the territories to be attacked at any given time then a set cool down after it has been captured. Kind of like how Faction Outposts work.

      Otherwise, the only real viable option is instanced fights as they were meant more for being on a schedule rather than how open world sandbox should be.

      Also, hideouts need to be completely reworked. They might have been intended for smaller guilds/alliances but they have only given the ability to have even more of a bigger presence for the already bigger and more established guilds in the black zone. As a smaller scale player myself, I'd prefer if hide outs didn't exist at all. They provide me with zero benefit. They, also, hurt my chance to get any kills as those players with hide outs in a zone can simply click and disappear with no counter-play whatsoever.

      Maybe, give some love to the black zone rest areas and allow crafting stations to be placed there or something. Would give more of a reason to base out of for smaller scale players who could actually stimulate the economy within the black zone without having to be a part of any mega alliance. Also, more opportunity for the economy to expand in the game as many more players have joined (assuming they keep playing). I have zero interests in using the new banks placed around the black zone. I don't even use war camps, because guess what, I still have to go back out there just to return with the items to the royal continent. Zero point for me.
      said everything.
    • MikeyMike wrote:

      Just make it so that territories can be captured at any time during prime time. Instead of giving the guilds/alliances holding each others' hands the chance to form up at a scheduled time to dominate and lock down a zone and its entrances/exits. If a territory was able to be captured at any time during prime time, it would keep the defending guild on its toes during that time. If captured by the attacking guild/alliance, then set a cool down period before it can be captured back or by another guild, for example 24 hrs to 72 hrs. That way it gives the attacking guild a chance to get a foot hold within that zone and other surrounding zones.

      Or, another idea is to get rid of prime time entirely and allow the territories to be attacked at any given time then a set cool down after it has been captured. Kind of like how Faction Outposts work.

      Otherwise, the only real viable option is instanced fights as they were meant more for being on a schedule rather than how open world sandbox should be.

      Also, hideouts need to be completely reworked. They might have been intended for smaller guilds/alliances but they have only given the ability to have even more of a bigger presence for the already bigger and more established guilds in the black zone. As a smaller scale player myself, I'd prefer if hide outs didn't exist at all. They provide me with zero benefit. They, also, hurt my chance to get any kills as those players with hide outs in a zone can simply click and disappear with no counter-play whatsoever.

      Maybe, give some love to the black zone rest areas and allow crafting stations to be placed there or something. Would give more of a reason to base out of for smaller scale players who could actually stimulate the economy within the black zone without having to be a part of any mega alliance. Also, more opportunity for the economy to expand in the game as many more players have joined (assuming they keep playing). I have zero interests in using the new banks placed around the black zone. I don't even use war camps, because guess what, I still have to go back out there just to return with the items to the royal continent. Zero point for me.
      Best take so far
    • Instanced territory battles is 100% the answer.
      There are challenges that go with that however - mainly due to hideouts.
      Does an entire zone become locked down during a terry fight? What about hideout respawns, etc? All things hideouts would need to be addressed...

      My answer? Get rid of hideouts. They havent served the purpose they were supposed to serve - which was to give smaller guilds the ability to live in the BZ's. All it has done is made handholding worse since small guilds cant fight for territories, so to have a hideout they put themselves at the will of big guilds/alliances and are forced to pay rent and handhold.

      They are also expensive to upkeep and nearly impossible to make a public and profitable enterprise (thanks to the broken access permissions).

      Hideouts have made the BZ's way worse....
      Territory battles have made ZVZ way worse...

      The least that they could do is limit it to 1 Hideout per guild - and the only options for access is either guild/alliance only, or public. Nothing else.
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      implementing mechanics that provides huge advantage to whoever is in the zone first, is promoting the worst possible form of gameplay there is.

      /F
      Actually its strategic fair thing. The team who waste time to take positions, prepare it, alvays have advantages in real fights.

      Why the time wasting and waiting opponents should not give the advantages?
      To let any big zerg have the force protections easily with more dynamics?

      Now its pretty good and fair solution, you just dont like it coth its make your personal lifestyle - harder.
    • The fix for the disarray debuff is just to scrap it completely. Niether it, hideouts, nor cluster que have done ANYTHING positive for small guilds.
      In fact, it has only made the problem worse in almost every possible way.

      Pretty much at the point whete reverting it back to pre-queen is better, and coming at it with a new approach.

      You know, like instanced territory battles.
    • I didn't really understand why SBI introduced these not really well working cluster queues instead of instanced 20v20 GvG fights like cities?

      The original approach for 5v5 GvG was that It:
      1) gives a chance for territory claims even to very small scale guilds
      2) avoids lags and cluster shutdowns like those in Eve Online (with no number limits for sov warfare).

      Then SBI completely abandoned this sane approach and we literally got a badly balanced gvg system, much worse than even good old 5v5.

      If you want to involve more people - alright, make it 20v20 for lowest tier outland zones (T5?) and then add n+10 for every next tier, up to 50v50 for T8.

      You want battle mounts involved? No problem, allow one per zone tier or one per two tiers - whatever.

      If you don't want to introduce separate instances then make it so the attacked zone gets locked for any characters other than those participating and zone transitions just skip this locked zone and transfer people to the next available one (e.g. if a character comes from southern transition point, he will get transferred to the next door northern zone).

      That's it, the system will work perfect without any artificial limitations like item power scaling or player number limitation. Those really kill the feeling of a sandbox while not fixing the root problem at all =(

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

    • Korn wrote:

      What this however also means is that if an alliance A with 900 players attacks an alliance B with 100 players, and the zone cap was again 500, inside of the zone, A would get 450 players and B would get 50. The cluster queue evens out fights in such a way that the ratio of players in the zone reflects the ratio of players in the queue - not more, not less, as anything else would be subject to heavy abuse.

      Note that the above explanation assumes that all players have the same item power - the cluster queue also takes item power of individual players into account to prevent groups from stuffing the queue with a lot of under-geared players at low risk.
      Can you explain a little more how item power affects the number of slots an alliance gets in the cluster? My understanding was that things like premium status, IP, time in zone were only used to determine which players from an alliance get allocated to their available slots within the cluster. But your second statement here makes it sound like IP does play a role in potentially increasing or decreasing the amount of slots an alliance is allocated. In your example of 900 Alliance A vs 100 Alliance B - are there scenarios where because of IP, alliance B gets more or less than 50 players in the zone?

      You also mention above how allowing anything else other than the total number of players in the queue to impact the number of slots allocated to each alliance is subject to heavy abuse - but the queue is already being abused and we're also not doing anything to discourage mindless N+1 strategies. I think we need to do something to give defenders bonus weight in the queue, otherwise - large alliances will always be able to bully out smaller guilds/alliances simply through sheer numbers. At least with the old GvG system, skill played a role.
      AO Quick Reference Guide
      Discord: Grimhawke#9254


      The post was edited 1 time, last by Grimhawke-EB ().

    • Playing in a small guild with cluster queue wants me really uninstall the game.

      Yesterday I spent 25 minutes in a queue with 6.2 relics overcharged. Never had such a bad time in Albion and i'm playing it since release. If cluster queue stays for longer I think it might be final chapter of my journey. Horse simulator didn't break me but this...

      It's not a game it's AFK simulator. GJ@SBI

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

    • it does seem to be a complicated problem for you Albion devs, but... It should be you main priority, the whole point of the blackzones is pvp, reward for risk... last 5 battles,zvz ive been to, have been just sitting in a queue . Ive been with 400 people in a queue just doing nothing ... this is really not fun to me is a deal breaker ... I joined just to be a part of territories fights, help my guild by fighting with them ... really really really sucks atm .. do a brain storm and try to solve this asap.


      My idea is instanced battles where both teams have the same proportion of people, for example ... Ally (attacker) A has 300 people, Ally (defender) B has 250 people. Have several instances with as many people as you can fit with the same ip average. Something like this:

      Instance 1 : Main map, A= 100people , B= 100 people
      Instance 2: Outher zone from main map, A= 100people , B = 100 people
      Instance 3: outher zone from main, A= 100 people, B= 50 people since they have less people

      Each instance would mean a point, life point, shield point or whatever you wanna call it.

      Everyone will fight somehow, everyone will have fun, ally with more players will have an advantage . You can make instance 1 to be worth more points.

      I know it would be a challenge with parties, etc. You can create an interface so you know where youre gonna get instanced and youre auto partied to your team.

      Think about it, its perfect, everybody will have fun, fight, etc. Most of us dont even mind having more terris or whatever, we just dont want to waste our time looking at a queue number forever and then the fight ends and you did nothing basically.

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

    • Korn wrote:

      What is the goal of the cluster queue?

      The goal of the cluster queue is to prevent zone capping.

      How does the cluster queue balance?

      The reason why the cluster queue logic is set up like this is to make sure that you cannot "cheat" the system by splitting up your group into multiple alliances. The cluster queue does not really care about alliance split ups.

      Note that the above explanation assumes that all players have the same item power - the cluster queue also takes item power of individual players into account to prevent groups from stuffing the queue with a lot of under-geared players at low risk.

      What about the "cluster queue abuse" that is often brought up?

      If, however, the attacker outnumbers the defender by such a margin that they can easily control all 4 entrances, then it is extremely hard for the defender to prevail. Having said that, one could argue that if you are so heavily outnumbered, you would also not have prevailed if there was no zone cap at all. However, this does not mean that we consider the current situation to be fine. We are closely looking into it and have a set of measures lined up to improve the situation.



      Measures we intend to take

      Note that as always when it comes to balancing highly complex game mechanics, the below list is subject to changes and adjustments.
      • With the next patch, the disarray curve will be flattened to reduce the relative power of split up alliances. However, at the same time, players inside in the cluster queue will now count towards the disarray debuff inside of the zone. Hence, if you heavily stuff the queue with a lot of players to as many people inside of the zone out, you'll be penalized for that through a stronger disarray
      • A potential weakness here is that the attacker - then subject to a stronger disarray - could immediately zone back out and then solely focus on hunting down the defenders players who got ported out.
      • To counter this, shortly after the patch (was not ready in time for the patch as we needed to rework some queue logic), we intend to do one of the following:
      • Option a) We will introduce a feature that prevents players who entered a zone through the cluster queue from leaving the zone for a certain time (say, 60-90 seconds). With this in place, once an attacker stuffs the queue to kick players outs, his own players that get ported in will be subject to a high disarray debuff and won't be able to immediately run back out, hence, giving the defender a very proper counter-attack option. We might combine this with a longer zone-in bubble to prevent the defender from effectively camping the entrance on the other side.
      • Option b) An alternative to the above is to allow attackers who enter a zone via the CQ to leave the zone as normal, but if they do and then re-queue, their "queue weight" for that zone would be set to 0 for that zone. We might combine this with a longer zone-in bubble to prevent the defender from effectively camping the entrance on the other side.
      • Both a) and b) would allow the defender to launch a counter-attack option against one of the entrance once the attacker has zoned in, in particular if the attacker decides to split his force to camp all 4 entrances, as the defender can then choose to counter-attack only against one of the opponents forces.
      • If the attacker concentrates his force at 1 entrance, however, he can pretty much zone in as normal, having his forces in one place starting a normal engage after the original zone in.
      • We are also looking into ways to give alliances more options in deciding in which order their players get removed by the cluster queue - for example, to allow them from keeping their party structures largely intact or preventing their healers from getting ported out, etc.
      • We are also looking into giving players who are ported out of the zone via the CQ a longer lasting and better protection bubble, possibly one that is similar to the one you can get in portal zones (i.e. invisibility, invulnerability and silence). This should make hunting down players who got ported out much harder.
      We think there is a very good chance that the above changes will largely deal with the above mentioned "cluster queue abuse" strategy. We'll keep evaluating the situation and make further changes and adjustments if required.

      We are looking forward to your feedback.
      1. people are zone capping now
      2. 1.people are setting up multiple guilds to get rid of the disarray and abuse cluster queue thanks to being placed in cluster queue based on your IP > you made it so new players cant go into BZ cause theres absolutely no need for them at all
      2. 2. the risk is the bigger for new player in 4.1 gear than it is for someone in 6.1 playing for years, one loses half of its money on a death, the other can regear himself for 500 deaths. you yoinked ratting as a means for new players to acquire silver, vets don't log on unless theyre doing ctas or 20man ganking around, so you cant get it from them either and theyre not spending it cause their 4.1 set with 400 spec has same ilevel as someones full t8.
      3. then why have ip preference when the defender with lower numbers should be able to fight
      4. if you're already giving preference to alliances with better geared players why is there a need to also have disarray affect allied forces inside, if lower geared players are already contributing to the debuff + they just sit in the queue for longer. So not only are they being somewhat useless to their alliances they're actively hindering them as well.
      5. i mean people are getting queued out as healers due to IP as well, cause supporting is a bit problematic to level up, you cant do it solo, and the black zone is for experienced players, and the yellow zone is for experienced players wearing 8.3s and dealing more dmg to mobs in group dungeons so you cant take them
    • iRawr wrote:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      implementing mechanics that provides huge advantage to whoever is in the zone first, is promoting the worst possible form of gameplay there is.

      /F
      Actually its strategic fair thing. The team who waste time to take positions, prepare it, alvays have advantages in real fights.
      Why the time wasting and waiting opponents should not give the advantages?
      To let any big zerg have the force protections easily with more dynamics?

      Now its pretty good and fair solution, you just dont like it coth its make your personal lifestyle - harder.
      Once again using your mouth before the brain. Goodjob
    • C0RRUPTION wrote:

      iRawr wrote:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      implementing mechanics that provides huge advantage to whoever is in the zone first, is promoting the worst possible form of gameplay there is.

      /F
      Actually its strategic fair thing. The team who waste time to take positions, prepare it, alvays have advantages in real fights.Why the time wasting and waiting opponents should not give the advantages?
      To let any big zerg have the force protections easily with more dynamics?

      Now its pretty good and fair solution, you just dont like it coth its make your personal lifestyle - harder.
      Once again using your mouth before the brain. Goodjob
      Man. You follow me to necro-post in the threat you have no idea is about.
      Just to spell, what you r doing? R you okay?
    • Raise the zone cap some, last night at GMK was a mess 2-3 capped zones 300+ people in cue and barely any fighting once you got in because then next cycle half your zerg got ported to who knows where.
      Extravirgin olive oil
      3medium onions, chopped
      Salt,black pepper
      4cloves garlic, minced
      1tablespoon tomato paste
      3cups chicken broth
      Freshbasil
      15medium or 10 large ripe tomatoes, Chopped + Juice
    • iRawr wrote:

      C0RRUPTION wrote:

      iRawr wrote:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      implementing mechanics that provides huge advantage to whoever is in the zone first, is promoting the worst possible form of gameplay there is.

      /F
      Actually its strategic fair thing. The team who waste time to take positions, prepare it, alvays have advantages in real fights.Why the time wasting and waiting opponents should not give the advantages?To let any big zerg have the force protections easily with more dynamics?

      Now its pretty good and fair solution, you just dont like it coth its make your personal lifestyle - harder.
      Once again using your mouth before the brain. Goodjob
      Man. You follow me to necro-post in the threat you have no idea is about.Just to spell, what you r doing? R you okay?
      One day you'll get those braincells back.. If you behave little boy
    • C0RRUPTION wrote:

      iRawr wrote:

      C0RRUPTION wrote:

      iRawr wrote:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      implementing mechanics that provides huge advantage to whoever is in the zone first, is promoting the worst possible form of gameplay there is.

      /F
      Actually its strategic fair thing. The team who waste time to take positions, prepare it, alvays have advantages in real fights.Why the time wasting and waiting opponents should not give the advantages?To let any big zerg have the force protections easily with more dynamics?
      Now its pretty good and fair solution, you just dont like it coth its make your personal lifestyle - harder.
      Once again using your mouth before the brain. Goodjob
      Man. You follow me to necro-post in the threat you have no idea is about.Just to spell, what you r doing? R you okay?
      One day you'll get those braincells back.. If you behave little boy
      This is all arguments you got for this theme?
      I got a question for you then. Why you even post something, if you have nothing to say about the cluster q?

      It's not healthy to say nothing, and just try to offend someone. I recommend you to visit a doctors. They should care about you.
    • iRawr wrote:

      C0RRUPTION wrote:

      iRawr wrote:

      C0RRUPTION wrote:

      iRawr wrote:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      implementing mechanics that provides huge advantage to whoever is in the zone first, is promoting the worst possible form of gameplay there is.

      /F
      Actually its strategic fair thing. The team who waste time to take positions, prepare it, alvays have advantages in real fights.Why the time wasting and waiting opponents should not give the advantages?To let any big zerg have the force protections easily with more dynamics?Now its pretty good and fair solution, you just dont like it coth its make your personal lifestyle - harder.
      Once again using your mouth before the brain. Goodjob
      Man. You follow me to necro-post in the threat you have no idea is about.Just to spell, what you r doing? R you okay?
      One day you'll get those braincells back.. If you behave little boy
      This is all arguments you got for this theme?I got a question for you then. Why you even post something, if you have nothing to say about the cluster q?

      It's not healthy to say nothing, and just try to offend someone. I recommend you to visit a doctors. They should care about you.
      I can't argue with stupid anymore. It is tiring