An effective fix for ZvZ groups power projection

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • An effective fix for ZvZ groups power projection

      Heya,

      So as it's known one of the biggest issues currently happening is how easy power projection is, zergs can be anywhere on the map and stage from anywhere on the map making the intended design of the current outlands to have more localized and smaller fights obsolete and benefiting mega-coalition type of ZvZ battle setup.

      My idea is actually simple but it hits one of the core things of how current big powers power project:
      • Add a cool-down to set an hideout/rest as Home of once per 24/48 hours.


        A very standard thing for big powers is move their zergs through the map and go to a staging hideout or rest area to place multiple regears and stage from, allowing them to sustain a war front-line on the opposite side of the map from where they settle and they do this multiple times per day, this is an issue I'm sure the devs thinker around because the idea of making hideouts either fully public or simply only allow the owning guild/alliance to visit, this would not force that design change while still not allowing this aspect of power projection, if big powers go fight a frontline away from home then they will have to cope with a limited capability to regear and regroup vs the groups that settle there that is a realistic advantage/disadvantage war scenario that fights back power projection.


      What about the realmgate home reset buff?
      I think this one would not be a tricky one either, the game should be aware of the hideout/rest the player has set as their home and allow them to re-lock it as their home without a problem, simply meant to not allow players to set another place as home during that cooldown.



      What do you guys think?

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

    • I think this a problem too, but the cooldowns may cause alot of issues to implement, and it might encourage large zergs just to abuse smaller ones by holding them hostage on timers, as they have the manpower.

      I like Logans solution, implementing the ability for only alliances to set home on their own HO's. It'll help reduce the cluster queue abuse, and the attackers would have to commit to placing their own HO's within each alliance to be able to stage.

      One of the main issues would be the Safe Cities, where I think the Cooldown idea would work well, as it'll allow people who want to live from Arthurs etc, to continue to do so, while also requiring larger zergs to either commit in the area by setting home or opt to place a HO.
    • @LoganSilkCheeks @Minuano

      So I get the HO permission approach but there is some core issues that make it worse than my proposal (on how this mega-coalitions will work around it). I don't really see issues with my proposal in terms of implemtation seems rather linear, in terms of "holding smaller zergs hostage", consider that if you're a smaller group you won't really be power projecting all over the map with multiple stager uses, we would be playing around our home kinda like how this whole thing was designed to play as! :P

      Now to the approach of fixing this on the HO permissions same-guild/ally/public only:
      - The big groups would be insanely more imposing on wanting their own hideouts all over the map, creating more pressure to evict other guilds out of maps and creating hideout spam where the vast majority would just be ZvZ stagers for the same top ZvZ tags (that already happens a lot imagine with this change, they can also merge a bit more into a single-tag to work around it with less HOs).
      - The home-lock cd proposal bypasses that because it wouldn't matter if the HO is their guild/ally or not, and would cover rest areas.


      I know several groups that even if your idea of "same-guild-same-ally" would be able to do same power projection into their ally/guild HOs spread around the map to more than half of the map covering the territory of 3 cities on the outlands. On my POV there is no point on adding changes that can and will be worked around in multiple ways to mute their desired effect, just like it been happening with the queue system, the home lock CD is far more imposing here if implemented and does not really harm the general playerbase that by default has a stable home lock on the outlands.

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

    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      your solution would only promote alts, and not really solve anything.
      That's a far cry from how easy that much was to do with GvG alt accounts, ZvZ is a mass scale thing, top guilds already split to reduce point share to cope would need to be filling themselves of alts or be making separate guilds just to cope with a different CTA to lock alts to a new hideout/rest area... I'd be quite impressed if they manage to standardize that on a mega-coalition level.
    • Alts will always be a thing when they decided to allow multiple characters per account and go FTP. I think quality of life for regular players is a more important focus than the concern of alt abuse (that already happens constantly). The HO CD would be big and also only allowing guild/alliance/public open permissions to avoid all the hand holding.
    • Tabor wrote:

      Alts will always be a thing when they decided to allow multiple characters per account and go FTP. I think quality of life for regular players is a more important focus than the concern of alt abuse (that already happens constantly). The HO CD would be big and also only allowing guild/alliance/public open permissions to avoid all the hand holding.
      The mark home CD is core here because it blocks pretty much every realistically viable method to power project the way it is done, it's all about moving zergs, moving regears, and overwhelm any zone of the map like you settle there, you cut that off and fights will start becoming more localized, especially, much harder to be doing things like current meta fights that are all about map queues and who controls them.
    • Abdolesh wrote:

      That would be good for small guilds and alliances who suffer from a constant bullying by big groups..
      General idea to get ZvZ powers to be more localized, less power projection allows some more breathing room to other groups to not have to be under constant pressure of groups that stage from the other corner of the map, reducing in-game projection on the movement of armies should consequentially reduce the political influence that directly ties to how they power project millitarly.