Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Ble

Zone Caps

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Parfax said:

You say big guilds, but as an HoA member, we average 15-20 a night for siege. W averages 25-35 from my knowledge. There are bigger guilds then the two of ours, but we are the ones that just min-max our guilds.

you guys dont have the most but you are the most geared guilds on average, the average hoa/W player is on a scale of 1-10 probably a 7 while the average chaos player is a 2, huge disparity in skill and gear, but the people who complain that people put in time and effort to be better deserve to lose 


hoayaga2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Staff said:

you guys dont have the most but you are the most geared guilds on average, the average hoa/W player is on a scale of 1-10 probably a 7 while the average chaos player is a 2, huge disparity in skill and gear, but the people who complain that people put in time and effort to be better deserve to lose 

I’m a 7?!?! 


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The other factions have a lot of players using gimp classes with gimp gear. There are only a few non-healers who are playing good classes and have good gear.

Edited by MJayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Balathan said:

no mandy he said average, you're a 5

I hate you. 

16 minutes ago, MJayed said:

The other factions have a lot of players using gimp classes with gimp gear. There are only a few non-healers who are playing good classes and have good gear.

That’s a legit problem.  If your bring dps arbiters with white vessels and gear against purple heated/vessel champions it’s going to be a poorly made socks show. 


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been playing a few months now, for choas have died alot, I think each faction has been guilty of exploiting a game weakness, but the order joining choas, I believe was smart, together we are able to keep a keep. Zone cap is a game issue, our people come to defend a keep, from balance, who have good gear and good players. A keep is important for us to get the good gear too. In the end we are all here for PVP. The zone cap will leave and the gear will balance and maybe the classes too.  Then the talk will be on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bazgul said:

I have been playing a few months now, for choas have died alot, I think each faction has been guilty of exploiting a game weakness, but the order joining choas, I believe was smart, together we are able to keep a keep. Zone cap is a game issue, our people come to defend a keep, from balance, who have good gear and good players. A keep is important for us to get the good gear too. In the end we are all here for PVP. The zone cap will leave and the gear will balance and maybe the classes too.  Then the talk will be on the field.

Order could take a keep if we wanted, we just dont wanna use more then 1% of our power


hoayaga2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to stop the trials until you can raise or eliminate zone caps.  Every night these fellas are jumping around like crickets to avoid a fight.  It’s boring af.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ble said:

You need to stop the trials until you can raise or eliminate zone caps.  Every night these fellas are jumping around like crickets to avoid a fight.  It’s boring af.

As long as server performance doesn't take a hit, I'm for raising zone caps. I definitely don't want it to go back to the slide show it used to be at the beginning of the year though.

I'm curious about your crickets statement. The last few sieges I've been to, Corvus Citadel, at least, has jumped into other zones specifically looking for a fight, not avoiding it. We've even assaulted a keep outnumbered and lost, and @Dirty and I charged 20-30 HoA just to see how long we'd last (and also to delay their force, but let's not focus on that).

No, Chaos isn't avoiding fights to avoid fighting, or at least Corvus Citadel isn't. If we ever appear to be avoiding a fight it's because there is tactical value along another path.

But back to zone caps - yes, higher caps would be much better, or a reservation system, but any such system would have to be well thought out. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a reservation system that would be fair and not easily abused. Also higher population would help, and would be better for more reasons than just sieges.


corvus-logo.gif

Corvus Citadel is recruiting!

Come hang out with us on Discord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Thimble said:

But back to zone caps - yes, higher caps would be much better, or a reservation system, but any such system would have to be well thought out. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a reservation system that would be fair and not easily abused. Also higher population would help, and would be better for more reasons than just sieges.

Just a throw away idea, add faction caps first then let the top 50% of leader board players of each faction have 1 reservation token they can apply to a siege zone up to 12 hours before a siege starts. Make it first come first serve so the people that put their tokens in early are higher up on the list so the first 50 (lets say its a 50/50 cap for each faction since there are only 2 factions 😏) get priority on the server,then 30 mins before siege allow anyone else who put up a token fill the left over slots, Then have the tokens expire within the last 10 minutes before the siege if that player isnt in the zone and allow any other people to potentially get in.

This makes it to where guilds can coordinate those who have tokens wherever they wanna send them (and force guilds that are "to large" to actually figure out how they wanna divide their groups and not just try and out stack their enemies), it allows smaller guilds to group up and find ways to split their forces coherently and not have to worry to much about randoms getting in the way (so two guilds with 40 members each could say put 25 + 15 in one zone then 15 + 25 in another to push from multiple sides). It stops the ability of anyone to use a spy alt to waste space in a siege zone because a spy wouldnt have participated enough to get high enough on the board to get a token. It allows the guilds/top contributors the ability to make sure a random squad of lowbies doesnt roll up and eat like 10 spots and not even participate in the siege. And it still leaves open the possibility of extra people (those lower on the board that want to participate) getting in if there are no shows or the larger groups end up not having enough tokens to get all the spots. (also there would be a boot timer 1 hour before siege that kicks all non token players back to the temples to clear the zone of any afkers/non siege participators). 

Didnt fully think all that through all the way so there might be holes in it but it sounds like a decent starting place to me at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Thimble said:

We've even assaulted a keep outnumbered and lost, and @Dirty and I charged 20-30 HoA just to see how long we'd last (and also to delay their force, but let's not focus on that).

No, Chaos isn't avoiding fights to avoid fighting, or at least Corvus Citadel isn't. If we ever appear to be avoiding a fight it's because there is tactical value along another path.

 

I appreciate your tenacity and your will to battle.  It was great seeing you guys on the field.  But you clearly do not speak for the whole, we've had 2..? fights this whole CW.  And thats not for lack of trying on Balance's part.  Chaos routinely crickets between zones trying to lopside the lockout before doing anything other than sitting in their keep (also with a lopsided lockout).

Edited by Ble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ble said:

I appreciate your tenacity and your will to battle.  It was great seeing you guys on the field.  But you clearly do not speak for the whole, we've had 2..? fights this whole CW.  And thats not for lack of trying on Balance's part.  Chaos routinely crickets between zones trying to lopside the lockout before doing anything other than sitting in their keep (also with a lopsided lockout).

I've missed 2 siege days this campaign but there was the fight the time we went on offense and left no defenders, there was the two fights when we took two keeps the day after, and there was the fight yesterday where we crushed the balance that pushed into our keep that I can remember off the top of my head.

Chaos on a whole has been overly cautious since we made the mistake of taking everyone off defense and losing that first keep. I wouldn't mind to see some bolder tactics but I'm glad we've learned from the mistakes that cost us our keep that first night.


"To hell with honor. Win."

A Beginner's Guide to Crowfall (5.8.5 Edition)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Main issue I see with the zone caps is the ability to just lockout out a zone and guarantee a 60v40 or a 70vs30 type of situation.  You can literally sit in the free city, scout out the weakest zone and lock it in your favor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

yes, we need zonecaps for each faction to prevent zonelocking.

Edited by Kreigon

One Ring to Rule them all, One Ring to Find them, One Ring to bring them all an in the darkness and bind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cap where no faction can have more than 50% of a zone is better than 33/33/33 IMO. 

So you'd have 50/25/25, 50/50/0, etc. 

This 50% cap could work in the dregs also. Make it so the defending guild gets 50% of the cap, attacking guild gets 50% of the cap, and if space is needed then it kicks non-participating parties from the zone and puts them into a queue that either lets them wait it out or port back to beachhead (similar to what happens if you try to log in to a zone that is full currently). 

The dregs rule of attackers/defenders could apply to the faction campaigns also. The faction that owns the keep (defenders) could get 50% of the cap and everyone else gets the other 50%. For the most part you can assume the attackers will sorta team up on the defenders anyways or at the very least attack from opposite sides of the keep. This would work in 3 faction campaigns and all the way up to 12 faction campaigns. 

Ideally they fix performance enough that zone caps aren't even an issue but it's not a bad idea to have a solid backup plan. I think the 50% rule would work well for both guilds and faction based campaigns. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, blazzen said:

A cap where no faction can have more than 50% of a zone is better than 33/33/33 IMO. 

So you'd have 50/25/25, 50/50/0, etc. 

This 50% cap could work in the dregs also. Make it so the defending guild gets 50% of the cap, attacking guild gets 50% of the cap, and if space is needed then it kicks non-participating parties from the zone and puts them into a queue that either lets them wait it out or port back to beachhead (similar to what happens if you try to log in to a zone that is full currently). 

The dregs rule of attackers/defenders could apply to the faction campaigns also. The faction that owns the keep (defenders) could get 50% of the cap and everyone else gets the other 50%. For the most part you can assume the attackers will sorta team up on the defenders anyways or at the very least attack from opposite sides of the keep. This would work in 3 faction campaigns and all the way up to 12 faction campaigns. 

Ideally they fix performance enough that zone caps aren't even an issue but it's not a bad idea to have a solid backup plan. I think the 50% rule would work well for both guilds and faction based campaigns. 

 

The obvious counter to that would be to put idle alts in your enemy faction and seed the zone with them hours before siege. It's already being done, but would be far more effective with a 50%/faction cap.


corvus-logo.gif

Corvus Citadel is recruiting!

Come hang out with us on Discord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The zone caps really undermine the game.  I think they know that.  For me personally, if they don’t have a fix soon, I’ll probably step away till they do.  I do not enjoy the counter-cap play at all.

Edited by Ble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Thimble said:

The obvious counter to that would be to put idle alts in your enemy faction and seed the zone with them hours before siege. It's already being done, but would be far more effective with a 50%/faction cap.

This is true...but a 50% cap is far better than 33/33/33. 

Stacking enemy factions only works for faction campaigns - won't work for dregs as you can choose who is in your guild. I have a feeling most of the guilds currently using this zone stacking mechanic will ultimately be in the dregs. Faction players are typically more casual types and less likely to do this. 

Removal of the /who command should help some also. 

Ideally though they boost performance to where the caps aren't a factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...