Explanation of manual cluster queue priority system

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

    • Explanation of manual cluster queue priority system

      Hi all,

      here is a short explanation of how the manual cluster queue priority system works.

      1. The cluster queue in general works on an alliance level.

      2. Based on the players from the alliance who are in the queue or already in the zone, the system calculates how many total player slots that alliance will get in the zone in the upcoming queue cycle. The calculation is based on the average IP value of the players in the queue or zone. This calculation is not affected by any manual queue priority settings.

      3. Once the system has calculated how many total slots an alliance will have in the zone, it checks if the current number of alliance members in the zone is higher or lower than that. If it is higher, some members will be kicked form the zone. If lower, some members can enter the zone.

      4. The system then determines players to be added to or removed from the zone based on the following:

      Entering (if there are fewer players from the alliance in the zone than the alliance has slots)
      • The system will pick the player from the alliance in the queue with the lowest party priority number. (priority number = the actual number that you choose in the cluster queue UI)
      • If there is more than 1, pick the one with the lowest party member priority number.
      • If there is more than 1, pick the one with the highest average item power
      • Repeat the above until the all slots are filled
      Kicking from the zone (if there are more players from the alliance in the zone than the alliance has slots)
      • The system will pick the player from the alliance in the zone with the highest party priority number (if nothing is set here, it automatically counts as the highest, i.e. 100)
      • If there is more than 1, pick the one with the highest party member priority number
      • If there is more than 1, pick the one with the lowest average item power
      • Repeat the above until all excess players are removed
      Note that the above means that if no manual priorities are set, the cluster queue works exactly as before


      Tipps on how to correctly use manual cluster access settings
      • The absolute value of the priority number you set does not really matter. There is no benefit from setting everyone to "1" for example. The only thing that matters is order of the numbers that you use.
      • Each party should have a unique party priority number. If multiple parties have the same party priority number, the system essentially considers them to be one large party and won't differentiate between them.
      • If you want to structure your manual cluster queue in such a way that individual guild structures are preserved, a good way to do that is to reserve party priority ranges for each guild, such as 1-9 for guild A, 10-19 for guild B, 20-29 for guild C, etc. If each guild has 3 parties, you'd use priorities 1, 2 and 3 for guild A, 10, 11 and 12 for guild B, and 20, 21, 22 for guild C. This ensures that guild A will zone in fully before the first players from guild B can zone in, with guild C only zoning in after everyone from guild A and B has already done so.
      • For individual parties, depending on what your aims are, you'd probably want to give custom priorities to critical roles such as party leader, tank and healer. Again, here, if you want absolute control, use each number only once. It's probably fine if you just assign a custom number to absolute key roles such as leader, tank and healer and leave the reset unassigned - which means that the system will automatically sort them based on average item power.
    • Korn wrote:


      Entering (if there are fewer players from the alliance in the zone than the alliance has slots)
      • The system will pick the player from the alliance in the queue with the lowest party priority number. (priority number = the actual number that you choose in the cluster queue UI)
      • If there is more than 1, pick the one with the lowest party member priority number.
      • If there is more than 1, pick the one with the highest average item power
      • Repeat the above until the all slots are filled

      Are we missing some indentation here or I am just not able to understand correctly?
      What's meant with "If there is more than 1, pick the one with the lowest party member priority number."? This was already said with the first bullet point.
      Does "If there is more than 1, pick the one with the highest average item power" need some indentation because the system favors the person with the highest IP when multiple players have the same priority number?

      For me this would make sense:

      Entering (if there are fewer players from the alliance in the zone than the alliance has slots)
      • The system will pick the player from the alliance in the queue with the lowest party priority number. (priority number = the actual number that you choose in the cluster queue UI)
      • If there is more than 1, pick the one with the lowest party member priority number.
        • If there is more than 1 player, pick the one with the highest average item power
      • Repeat the above until the all slots are filled
    • @Tiaryn

      Every player has essentially two numbers assigned to him: 1. The manual priority of that players party 2. The manual priority of party members within his party

      The cluster queue will sort by party priority first, then, by internal priority within parties, and then by average IP.

      Example:
      There are 4 players.

      Party A, with party priority 3, and members Jim and Jane, with internal priority 2 and 3 respectively
      Party B with party priority 5 and members Bill and Bettie, with internal priority 1 and 4 respectively

      The ranking the system creates is as follows:

      #1 = Jim (3 party priority, 2 member priority
      #2 = Jane (3 party priority, 3 member priority)
      #3 = Bill (5 party priority, 1 member priority)
      #4 = Bettie (5 party priority, 4 member priority)

      When porting into a zone, Bill will be first. When getting removed from a zone, Bill will be last.

      Now, coming back to the algorithm described in the OP:

      ---------

      The system will pick the player from the alliance in the queue with the lowest party priority number. (priority number = the actual number that you choose in the cluster queue UI)
      -> the system picks Jim and Jane. That's more than one

      If there is more than 1, pick the one with the lowest party member priority number.
      -> The system picks Jim, as Jim's member priority is smaller than Jane's

      That's just one person, so jump to repeat.
      ----------

      The system will pick the player from the alliance in the queue with the lowest party priority number. (priority number = the actual number that you choose in the cluster queue UI)
      -> the system picks Jane

      That's just one person, so jump straight to repeat.

      --------

      The system will pick the player from the alliance in the queue with the lowest party priority number. (priority number = the actual number that you choose in the cluster queue UI)
      -> the system picks Bill and Bettie - both have party priority of 5.

      If there is more than 1, pick the one with the lowest party member priority number.
      -> The system picks Bill, as his member priority is lower than Bettie's

      That's just one person, so jump to repeat.

      --------

      And so on
    • Korn wrote:

      #1 = Jim (3 party priority, 2 member priority
      #2 = Jane (3 party priority, 3 member priority)
      #3 = Bill (5 party priority, 1 member priority)
      #4 = Bettie (5 party priority, 4 member priority)

      When porting into a zone, Bill will be first. When getting removed from a zone, Bill will be last.
      What? Why would Bill be the first if Jim is the first in the rankings?
    • Klifern wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      #1 = Jim (3 party priority, 2 member priority
      #2 = Jane (3 party priority, 3 member priority)
      #3 = Bill (5 party priority, 1 member priority)
      #4 = Bettie (5 party priority, 4 member priority)

      When porting into a zone, Bill will be first. When getting removed from a zone, Bill will be last.
      What? Why would Bill be the first if Jim is the first in the rankings?
      Because the priority of the party is more important than the players individual priority within the party.
    • Korn wrote:

      Klifern wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      #1 = Jim (3 party priority, 2 member priority
      #2 = Jane (3 party priority, 3 member priority)
      #3 = Bill (5 party priority, 1 member priority)
      #4 = Bettie (5 party priority, 4 member priority)

      When porting into a zone, Bill will be first. When getting removed from a zone, Bill will be last.
      What? Why would Bill be the first if Jim is the first in the rankings?
      Because the priority of the party is more important than the players individual priority within the party.
      You made a mistake, in your example you set Bill and Bettie in 3 party priority and 2 & 4 individual priority, and Jim and Jane in 5 party priority and 1 & 3 individual priority, and later mix them all,
      At the end, Bill and Bettie are in 5 party priority and 1 & 4 individual priority, and Jim and Jane in 3 party priority and 2 & 3 individual priority

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

    • Starloss wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      Klifern wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      #1 = Jim (3 party priority, 2 member priority
      #2 = Jane (3 party priority, 3 member priority)
      #3 = Bill (5 party priority, 1 member priority)
      #4 = Bettie (5 party priority, 4 member priority)

      When porting into a zone, Bill will be first. When getting removed from a zone, Bill will be last.
      What? Why would Bill be the first if Jim is the first in the rankings?
      Because the priority of the party is more important than the players individual priority within the party.
      You made a mistake, in your example you set Bill and Bettie in 3 party priority and 2 & 4 individual priority, and Jim and Jane in 5 party priority and 1 & 3 individual priority, and later mix them all,At the end, Bill and Bettie are in 5 party priority and 1 & 4 individual priority, and Jim and Jane in 3 party priority and 2 & 3 individual priority
      Oh, sorry for that and thanks for pointing this out.

      Example is now fixed.
    • How does the system deal with a person not in a party, say they DC and party is lost, they have no access to the priority UI, are they 1-1 or what...


      and secondly, if i have 2 alliances in zone with 100 people each and then 4 guilds with 40 each and a 5th guild zones in with 40


      Alliance A 100 players in zone
      Alliance B 100 players in zone
      / Guild A 40 players in zone
      N Guild B 40 players in zone
      A Guild C 40 players in zone
      P Guild D 40 Players in zone
      \ Guild E 40 players Queue in

      do the 40 players queue in removing 20 from each alliance?

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

    • Why does step 2 favor high IP alliances? New guilds/alliances are at a disadvantage. Alliances like SHAKE who own all cities and can regear 8.3 for free get more slots?

      Also, party and member priority can only range from 1-20.

      blappo wrote:

      How does the system deal with a person not in a party, say they DC and party is lost, they have no access to the priority UI, are they 1-1 or what...

      This would be good to know

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

    • addidas wrote:

      Why does step 2 favor high IP alliances? New guilds/alliances are at a disadvantage. Alliances like SHAKE who own all cities and can regear 8.3 for free get more slots?

      Also, party and member priority can only range from 1-20.

      blappo wrote:

      How does the system deal with a person not in a party, say they DC and party is lost, they have no access to the priority UI, are they 1-1 or what...
      This would be good to know
      Because maps would then be filled with 900 ip rats that only come for loot stealing. If you can't afford zvz in a cluster fights, you probably shouldn't be there in the first place.
    • Tl;dr

      you need an army and a lot of slaves. Give the army high prio to ensure it gets in, and get the slaves low prio.

      that way the slaves will create more room for the army, while never being at risk to see combat.

      the most destructive patch for zvz enjoyment since forever, and it cannot possibly have been designed by someone who does large scale zvz.

      hopefully the next patch will improve things, but this solution literally forces guilds to bring people with the task of just hitting the qeue to trigger slots and thats a design choice i will never understand.
    • The System you created is a very hierarchical system, or it reflects that there is pve & pvp players.

      The pve players create the tickets to enter, and the pvp player can enjoy the zvz

      The only problem, you steal 1+ hour of the people live just to stand there, for their pvp friends assigned on low prio, never intendet to go in ...

      Just Curious, if my alt is at another place, can I at least do my farms while I hold slots open for some people? Or do some solo dungeons on the other screen?
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Hopefully the next patch will improve things, but this solution literally forces guilds to bring people with the task of just hitting the qeue to trigger slots and thats a design choice i will never understand.
      The problem that in very large single cluster fights, a lot of people will be stuck in queue for a long time is unfortunately nothing new.

      We are going to address this in the near future by allowing people in the queue to "zone through" the zone that their are queuing through (subject to certain rules and restrictions and with a specific bubble) which will allow the part of the alliances currently stuck in queue to essentially actually fight each other. The aim here is to encourage fighting across multiple zones, making sure that everyone sees action.
    • Korn wrote:

      We are going to address this in the near future by allowing people in the queue to "zone through" the zone that their are queuing through (subject to certain rules and restrictions and with a specific bubble) which will allow the part of the alliances currently stuck in queue to essentially actually fight each other. The aim here is to encourage fighting across multiple zones, making sure that everyone sees action.
      why not create a "copy" of the zone then everyone in Queue is in the Copy and can fight on the same map, when they get queued in have them drop either by their gate, or at the spot they stand.

      this removes the hordes standing on the door to get into zone, gives them a chance to fight, and stops fights from capping 2-5 zones with more troops standing on gates 3 zones out essentially shutting down sections of the map for all other players.
    • Korn wrote:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Hopefully the next patch will improve things, but this solution literally forces guilds to bring people with the task of just hitting the qeue to trigger slots and thats a design choice i will never understand.
      The problem that in very large single cluster fights, a lot of people will be stuck in queue for a long time is unfortunately nothing new.
      We are going to address this in the near future by allowing people in the queue to "zone through" the zone that their are queuing through (subject to certain rules and restrictions and with a specific bubble) which will allow the part of the alliances currently stuck in queue to essentially actually fight each other. The aim here is to encourage fighting across multiple zones, making sure that everyone sees action.
      is there a chance u one-day do it fair & instances?

      Like t5 terrie is max 50 on 50 - defending guild can load 50, offending can? If u die, u are out?

      Like t6 terrie 100 on 100
      T7 150 on 150
      T8 200 on 200

      And a decent IP cap - t5 1000 t6 1200 T7 1490 T7 uncapped?

      All the efforts in cluster queue, disarray alliance caps make me sad, there will always be a work around..except in what I wrote, which is basically the evolution of city fights & gvg.
      Why do u city fights instanced? There is no reason, it is historical the evolution of gvg.. right now, it just a relict of abandoned gvg that was not yet thrown in the zerg wars .
    • combosd wrote:

      addidas wrote:

      Why does step 2 favor high IP alliances? New guilds/alliances are at a disadvantage. Alliances like SHAKE who own all cities and can regear 8.3 for free get more slots?

      Also, party and member priority can only range from 1-20.

      blappo wrote:

      How does the system deal with a person not in a party, say they DC and party is lost, they have no access to the priority UI, are they 1-1 or what...
      This would be good to know
      Because maps would then be filled with 900 ip rats that only come for loot stealing. If you can't afford zvz in a cluster fights, you probably shouldn't be there in the first place.
      why not? its a sandbox if a guild allows 700 ips and wants to regear / coach them what difference does it make to you?
    • Im still dont understand, why during launch on terri you cant choose guilds which are be able zone into cluster.

      for example like now you pay 2m for launch and only your guild can channel tower, let upgrade this system, only guild who has launched on terri in specific time can zone into cluster..

      and make a system with price,



      launch with

      20ppl : 5m

      40ppl: 10m

      60ppl : 15m

      etc..+

      example: BA want bring 60ppl to fight SURF. they have to choose option 60ppl and pay "15m", they have choose priority for them 1,2,3.. so system will know who should be able to zone in.

      bomb squad 20ppl? have to launch on their own pay 5m and use same option like BA.

      Defenders after launch should be able to use a tower a set same option like attackers. amount of player able to be defend should be x2 of attackers.

      example. 120 will attack. Defenders can bring only 240.

      only people who rly want fight and valuable people will be in fight, other rats and useless players in this time can do other things,

      if theres will be cluster que. for some reason... average lowest party ip should be kicked..(RISK REWARD)

      theres no other way to fix cluster problems.. if you not lock a cluster for randoms and useless players.

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