title text says it all
they should just make special instanced zones (either copies of originals, or special ones) and let people just straight up queue in to enter
trying to fight the cluster queue system, people trying to work around alliance debuffs and etcetera is just a clusterfuck
Posted May 13, 2020, 12:56 AM UTC
No and fuck you
no fuckyou
Nofuckyou
No thanks. But zoning out poeple because of cluster queue needs to be fixed i agree.
I was also thinking that Guild leaders could get a list of 200(maybe 250 so 50 can be reserve) slot for players they put in those slots the name of the players that they want in the fight in prio order. Those players have prio in cluster que no matter what. If things go well there should be a 200v200 and if all 400 slots are taken all 3rd parties would be kiked out.
cluster queue priority is already a feature and you can manage it in guild permissions
then they should make only only the specific fighting guilds be able to participate in the fight assuming the 400 slots are taken
Na, just remove guild tags under names and it'll make abusing the loophole for the debuff that much harder. It'll be a logistical nightmare.
its a fun cluster fuck and there are other ways to address it than making a sandbox fight instanced. do city fights if thats what you're into.
I personally think we should put a lower guild / alliance limit on the table (100 should be the limit in my opinion). Nothing has really changed since we introduced the zerg debuff outside of a meta shift. Large zergs, single power entities controlling a majority of territories, and locking zones with superior numbers is still too big of an issue.
This wouldn't change anything. The lastest ZvZs already have fights with unofficial alliances. Your allies are reds and so are your enemies. Making guilds smaller have no big impact on this patch's ZvZs. The devs should focus on systems that are actually more manageablr to small guilds than large zergs.
Probably with events where, if you took too long to mass, you lost.
ah you missed my point -
Smaller guild and alliance sizes would mean more complicated fights and politics and more likely that a NAP / unofficial alliances would implode. Friendly fire would be more prevalent, outside of CTA conflicts would occur more, and in order to cluster queue a zone as a single power entity you would need 10+ guilds / alliances working together.
Right now we have guilds and alliances massing and coordinating from a 300 limit guild / limitless alliance. If you lower that number, masses will be more divided, require more coordination if you want to ally outside of your 100-200 guild member pool / person limit, and thus make it that more difficult to control multiple zones.
I think making mechanics and system to move the focus of pvp outside the sandbox would be a mistake. Big, unpredictable fights are why a lot of people ZvZ, and most people don't want to queue up for a BG and do something instanced. They've been in talks of hashing out faction warfare for people that have that mindset of just wanting to fight around predictable, manageable events, but the sandbox ZvZ guild system should not be that.
So they limit guilds to 100, who gets kicked from the guilds? That’s literally the worst solution,nif solution at all, I’ve seen by far.
yea just limiting alliances like they originally planned would probably be better
Im not sure, I am playing in a similar alliance and the majority of the guilds in the in-game ally are 50~ people large. We have problems with friendly fire and some attrition but nothing seems to be falling apart. I get your point, but I think the hardcap is kind of a brute force solution that will take forever to unfold.
no
people with a vested interest don't get input, sorry