See what Korn has to say about this topic.

Posted by TheBacon 9 months ago

Heya,

So we've been talking Queen update and seeing how everything is shaping up and how specifically the mega-alliances are reacting to it, and I must say the SBI designers have not quite thought well of the systems that they are adding to as stated before, wanting to have smaller guilds and alliances a play on the end-game territory play & settle on the outlands that has been very monopolized for a long time by mere numbers, and a balance of ZvZ trying to move away from the messy fights of hundreds on the same zone.

But as test server opened and queen approaches the entire design is already being defeated, here's what is happening:

  • Queue System? There is a very large growth on coalitions between major alliances for Queen already, the general agreement that will completely break the Queue and Zerg Debuff system is going to be multiple zergs on coalition from multiple alliances on the same zone to guarantee a win, you know what happens to the enemy zerg if they try to match? They won't be able to get in as the system wanted for balance will balance them instead. There are already guilds/allies offering this "service".

  • ZvZ Territories? So monopolization here is something that is absolutely going to happen, here's the deal, on queen there are many prime times for territories what currently say on a reset day/warcamps requires a top zerg to focus their strategy where to it because they only have the EU & NA chance daily is now turning into them being able to fight attacks throughout the entire day as terris enter prime time, they are also not spread enough to discourage that. This means that the mid and low tier BZ maps are still able to be monopolized as X alliance decides they want that entire zone simply because they can have their main zerg fight for many territory claims per day.

  • Hideouts? Another mechanic at risk of monopolization here. The problem here ties to the previous point, hideouts can only be placed on prime time and have to be defended for a while, from the test server once the season starts is when the hideout rush will begin, and once it does we are in for quite the challenge as the many prime-times allow main zergs to contest many zones per day, and see there is an interest of a top ZvZ guild/ally to get all hideouts they can, 6 per guild + academy/alt guilds imagine what already happened with BZ Towns for long now with hideouts, for those who don't know most of them are bought & sold there wasn't much legit fighting over getting a town you bought them instead, and I think there is motivation to cap a map of YOUR controlled hideouts and sell the spots to others interested instead on similar deals to towns. If this happens hideouts will not be the inclusive mechanic to allow smaller alliances and non-hardcore guilds to settle on the outlands, mind a outlands map seem to cap around ~6 hideouts based on the distance you must keep between them.


In any way that's my thoughts on queen as far the devs attempt to break monopolization/mega-allies go, I don't think it will work out if they manage to work around the new systems in the ways mentioned, and as far I looked they are entirely possible, and as we know if it's possible there is no reason it won't happen even if it is dirty play like top guilds zone-capping maps just because they could.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think the Queen update will succeed at mitigating the monopolization by few while the mega-alliances remain?

Posted by Korn 8 months ago (Source)

Tabor wrote:

Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.

It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.

You must be logged in to an activated account to comment on dev posts.