Maintenance for the week of December 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
Another, "In an effort to get people to spread out" thread
Ranger209
✭✭✭✭✭
The zergs seem to be getting bigger all the time. What will it take to get people to spread out on the map? What can be done to incentivize that behavior, and make things less congested? Well, I had kind of a crazy thought that could assist in this endeavor.
What if players received all of the AP from every concurrently lit up point of interest that their respective alliance either successfully flipped, or defended? So say at a given time Alliance A was Attacking a keep, an outpost, and 2 resources, while at the same time defending a keep, and a resource concurrently. As soon as a POI lights up it is included with all other POI's that are currently lit and being fought over by an alliance. Say they were successful in claiming the outpost, the 2 resources, and defending the keep. All players on the combat list for those 4 points of interest would receive the AP for all 4 points of interest. In this way players would be rewarded for spreading out on the map and attacking multiple points of interest at the same time. It would be a reward system that encouraged acting more as an alliance rather than as groups within an alliance. It would encourage a more holistic Alliance effort rather than just the effort of individual groups within the alliance. It would encourage more cohesion of the entire alliance across the map rather than just rewarding massive groups of players fighting over a single point of interest.
Thoughts, concerns, pros, cons?
What if players received all of the AP from every concurrently lit up point of interest that their respective alliance either successfully flipped, or defended? So say at a given time Alliance A was Attacking a keep, an outpost, and 2 resources, while at the same time defending a keep, and a resource concurrently. As soon as a POI lights up it is included with all other POI's that are currently lit and being fought over by an alliance. Say they were successful in claiming the outpost, the 2 resources, and defending the keep. All players on the combat list for those 4 points of interest would receive the AP for all 4 points of interest. In this way players would be rewarded for spreading out on the map and attacking multiple points of interest at the same time. It would be a reward system that encouraged acting more as an alliance rather than as groups within an alliance. It would encourage a more holistic Alliance effort rather than just the effort of individual groups within the alliance. It would encourage more cohesion of the entire alliance across the map rather than just rewarding massive groups of players fighting over a single point of interest.
Thoughts, concerns, pros, cons?
0
-
Vizirith✭✭✭✭I think it's kind of a vicious cycle. Ball groups form to combat large zergs, but in order to counter ball groups you often have even larger zergs needed, and so on. I think that aoe heals/damage abilities should all scale with the amount of people hit, almost like a reverse proxy except in cost. If you make it so that larger groups/zergs (now with cross-healing added) don't get as much out of healing springs, remembrance, radiating regen, etc. But at the same time making aoe abilities cost more per person hit. It would partially decrease the efficacy of ball groups against big zergs, but increase their efficacy against smaller numbers. But it would limit the larger zergs even more, healing springs on 20+ people would cost way more than most can afford.
But probably the biggest change should be the addition of damage scaling like proxy with siege. That would decrease siege damage on the individual (making people stop standing on the walls sieging 1 or 2 people) while increasing it on groups. People would be forced to spread out or take more damage. As it is cp camp is basically just fd everything. I miss the days when walls were often better simply for the ease of getting in because siege could actually kill people. I haven't had a good inner keep defense when the fd and both side walls were down in years. Those were very fun even if you lost.2 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The zergs seem to be getting bigger all the time. What will it take to get people to spread out on the map?
This is a direct byproduct of ZOS' reducing group sizes. Instead of 24 man groups being able to quickly cap most objectives that they decide upon, as it used to be...... now you have a lot more solo players (who can't find groups) and small groups watching the map and zone chat to flock to the action, which creates zergs. And of course, with the enemy in the same situation, they are all converging on the same spot as well.
But this clustering on the map must be the "behavioral changes" that ZOS liked when they went to 12 man groups. What else could it be?
4