Posted by Korn 4 years ago (Source)
we'd like to get your view on the current disarray balance.
In theory, for each group size, there is maximum value that disarray would be before you'd essentially force these groups to use workarounds by artificially splitting up in separate sub-groups. This would create a very artificial game play and is something that we don't want to happen with the exception of very large groups
Now, for the sake of discussion, let's assume for a group size of 100 that maximum value would be 25%. The interesting question is then what should happen at sizes below that number. We could either have disarray kick in at smaller player numbers (right now, it kicks in at more than 25 players) and then let it naturally increase to hit the 25% at 100. Or we could have it kick in later, say at 51 players, with a steeper increase.
In the first case, disarray will somewhat affect that balance of a, say, 25 vs 50 player fight, though the absolute disarray differences would be relatively small. Also, the effect on a 50 vs 100 fight is also relatively small, as you already have quite a strong disarray value at 50 players, so the difference in values against a 100 player group again is not that large. In the second case, disarray would drastically affect the balance of a 50 vs 100 fight, as a 50 player group would have 0 disarray compared to the theoretical 25% for 100 players. However, in the second case, disarray would have no effect on a 25 vs 50 fight.
So, the tricky question is this: In what range of player numbers should disarray be most effective? Should it have a very strong effect on 50 vs 100 at the expense of having no effect on 25 vs 50? Or should it have a very strong effect von 25 vs 50 and only a small effect on 50 vs 100? Or a medium effect von both, 25 vs 50 and 50 vs 100 as it is right now? What would you say is the sweet spot?
It would be great if you could take part in the poll. Please also share your feedback with us. Thanks!