SBI: Admit defeat on open-world territory contest and save us from this cluster queue garbage.

    • SBI: Admit defeat on open-world territory contest and save us from this cluster queue garbage.

      Just had a lovely hour of riding my horse around the black zone listening to my shotcaller and seeing no actual combat due to being clustered out whenever a fight was starting. Cluster queue is trash, zonecapping is trash, and I see no other good solution than to simply limit the number of people each side can bring or get better servers.

      40v40 Instanced Combat
      When a guild launches on a territory or hideout, instead of being able to ram as many nitwits as the server allows into the cluster, anyone in the guild with the proper rights will be able to select up to 40 members of their alliance to participate in the fight. These members can be changed up until the fight begins.

      Once the fight begins, everyone in the list in that cluster will be teleported to a "virtual cluster" which is a copy of the cluster the objective is located in. The main difference is that there will be no dungeons, no resources, and no one not on the fight list. From there, the two teams will battle it out to achieve the objective, be that damaging a hideout or channeling a territory.

      If a player is killed in the virtual cluster, they will die and drop their loot. They will respawn at their home location or their last city, and will have to regear and return to the contested cluster to rejoin the virtual cluster battle.

      Boom. No more handholding, no more cluster queue booting people out of fights, no more reason to try and zone cap.

      Since there are many targets that a powerful guild would own to attack, I am not convinced that this would lead to a situation similar to 5v5 combat that the old GvG system lead to. It would be a lot harder to make a consistent team of 40, and you'd still need multiple teams to cover your bases. "Everyone matters" is hardly an argument against this when the cluster queue is actively denying you combat anyway.
    • I agree with limiting number of people playing.

      I played zvz for a long time. And it´s not fun now. Going around cluster queue, waiting for a long time in queue unless you are in main group only not to get in, and if you get in - it´s usually just fight about numbersr.
      Fights with even numbers or at least somewhat even ? Nope. That never happens. Usually it´s just overwhelming numbers dominating others.
      Not to mention my PC suffers. And lets not forget during reset, at least 10-20% of players get disconnected due to so many people fighting at the same time.

      So yeah, limiting it to 40 v 40, or 50 v 50 or more, sounds more than fair enough to me.

      Because the way it is currently, zvz aren´t enjoyable. And since they aren´t enjoyable, they aren´t rewarding - since you don´t really get anything out of zvz apart that.

      I remember having fun in zvz when it was smaller numbers in past, but now with all the handholding and mega alliances - it´s just boring.
      My YT channel - Solo greataxe killing everything https://www.youtube.com/user/DhaosNK/video=7
    • Yeah the other day I was reflecting about the state of outlands and its messy, I would rather see 100vs100 and the zone getting locked for 20 minutes for everyone than from those two zergs than see hundreds of napsters trying to avoid disarray debuff. Would be much easier for smaller guilds aswell to fight for their own territories.
    • I've been talking about this recently and your idea is basically exactly what I was thinking of minus 10 players per side. I was saying there should be a 50v50 battle that is an instanced copy of the zone that is being contested. Considering the original design for territory control was 5v5 battles I think they should go back to the instanced combat to avoid the unfortunate side effects of cluster queues and manipulating them. This method really isn't fun for anyone except the groups with priority access in their chosen alliance. The entire experience would be much better with scheduled instanced battles TBH like it was originally but just increase the player count and size of the battlefield. GvG has morphed into the Crystal League which is fine. AvA (ZvZ) content needs to evolve as well with the much larger playerbase.. It is unfortunate that some players will be shut out of this content but it's obviously already happening now on the live servers anyways. There's a reason why many ZvZ zergs are forced to overcharge their gear just so they don't get cluster zone kicked from the zone. Afterwards, those players unfortunately kicked out are left basically on their own with almost 0 coordination and most will just hide in solo dungeons to escape enemy zergs or get destroyed which just makes them hate the experience even more.. This is making the entire black zone a game of bait and switch instead of a true GvG or AvA and the entire experience pretty much boils down to a waiting game which is boring to the majority of those participating in this type of content. Massing an hour before a CTA and then spending the next 90 minutes just traveling from zone to zone without one second of actual ZvZ content is just going to turn more players away from the Outlands which will just make the Black Zone issues even worse. There is nothing fun about spending almost 2 hours literally doing NOTHING and potentially losing high end gear that may or may not get replaced.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Jerek ().

    • Get the fuck out of my sandbox with that instanced bullshit.


      You wanna fix handholding, then bring back clapping. Back when clappers ruled the zvz, we had handholding (just like every sandbox which ever existed) but it was never even close to what it is now, because there was simply no point in endlessly adding more bad players to your zerg. 20 shitters, 40 shitters, 100 shitters, 200 shitters, what did it matter when it took 2 seconds to blow them all up because they had no idea how to position and use their defensives. Now numbers are everything, so it's not really a surprise that every big war revolves around adding more and more people to your side, until you have the whole server involved. The whole reason we're in this mess, is because carebears cried about ZvZ being too punishing, so SBI made sure that every shitter with 6.1 halberd matters.
    • The reduction of AoE escalation in this game ruined a lot of aspects. Especially the ability to take fights 1vX. It's literally all about numbers, it's nauseating. Some players will show their videos of them doing it, but they are wearing 8.3 using cheese tactics and killing people in t6 max. Take me back to when the large group clumps up, you turn and nuke them, and then continue to kite.
    • Tipx wrote:

      Doesn't this just mean that instead of getting to sit in queue, you just don't get to participate at all if you're not in your guilds top x% of people?
      I do agree that's a downside to the idea, but I still think that most alliances have enough target that they'll need to mass quite a few people.

      Tipx wrote:

      How would it work if more than one guild/alliance launches on the same terri?
      Good point. I guess it's now a 40v40v40 or whatever.
    • Fred_the_Barbarian wrote:

      Tipx wrote:

      Doesn't this just mean that instead of getting to sit in queue, you just don't get to participate at all if you're not in your guilds top x% of people?
      I do agree that's a downside to the idea, but I still think that most alliances have enough target that they'll need to mass quite a few people.

      Tipx wrote:

      How would it work if more than one guild/alliance launches on the same terri?
      Good point. I guess it's now a 40v40v40 or whatever.
      nah then you would have allies launching on your terry turning it into an 80v40