T1 Feedback

[Musax]

Yep. This. Requiring a ratio of 1:3 or 1:4 seems to be the driving factor in being able to lock a zone, not necessarily how you move around the map.

I heavily disagree with this statement. Such a big advantage is only needed if noone plays coordinated. And i believe that is fair. If you don't coordinate, then you need to outnumber heavily to reach such a goal as a zonelock.

If one side does not coordinate (aka zergs in a blob) you only need a force that can beat the enemy zerg and 1person for each BO.
Your mainforce follows their zerg, beats them, zone locks. Easy to say, hard to do...but that's where rewarding coordination comes into play.


I just made a huge post explaining my thought more detailed in another feedback thread...only just realised it might fit here better and is a bit OT in the other thread. If someone is interested:

Spoiler:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21653&start=10

Feel free to quote me on that here, i believe the other thread would get derailed if we further the discussion there (or am i wrong?)

[dansari]

That's not the issue, though. The issue is if your force is designed to be broken up into 4 pockets where the smaller force can stay as one, even if you're coordinated you're going to have to have a large enough force to counteract the other. I'm not sure that's healthy because I would rather have the realms evenly sided and have the sightly larger force have a decent chance of still locking a zone rather than a one sided stomp or a stalemate for eight hours.

[Musax]

That's not the issue, though. The issue is if your force is designed to be broken up into 4 pockets where the smaller force can stay as one, even if you're coordinated you're going to have to have a large enough force to counteract the other. I'm not sure that's healthy because I would rather have the realms evenly sided and have the sightly larger force have a decent chance of still locking a zone rather than a one sided stomp or a stalemate for eight hours.

Huh? Did you read my post in the Link i posted?
It shows a few examples of how a similar strength side can lock with superior coordination, and how a underdog can stop it if they use superior coordination. Just repeating the statement that i disagreed with, without giving any feedback to my arguments won't further the discussion.
As i said, with far superior macro-coordination (assuming equal fighting skills) you need (X+3)people to lock a zone against X people. In theory ofcourse.


If people dislike an 8 hours stalemates, maybe it will force them to start coordinating so they break the stalemate. Zone locks should not be something that just happens once every hour. If both sides are evenly strong then the zone shouldn't lock.

In this new system Strength is numbers * fightingskill * strategicalcoordination
In the old system strength is numbers * fightingskill

[dansari]

I read what you posted, it's just a flawed argument in the case of T1 (T4 it's better because you have more coordinated players, but this is a T1 feedback thread). You're never going to have the type of coordination you're referring to in T1; it's simply a utopia that is created to fit your logic.

T1 is filled with relatively new players (which is great!) and new players want to have fun, faceroll buttons, get kills, and flip zones. They will not be a coordinated mass like you describe, so asking them to act as such is not realistic from the start. This is why a system that is set up so that they are never bored (not sitting on BOs for an extended period of time without action), and one that doesn't force them to have a 1:4 ratio to flip zones (points based) is more ideal.

Last point: your argument centers around the larger force needing to coordinate to lock the zone, but that the smaller force does not to keep them from locking. This means that not only does the larger force need far superior numbers, it also has to coordinate those forces (in T1) into some sort of cohesive blob (while the smaller force can just zerg whichever BO they want without much coordination!). I don't see that as feasible.

[Rhinochaser]

I read what you posted, it's just a flawed argument in the case of T1 (T4 it's better because you have more coordinated players, but this is a T1 feedback thread). You're never going to have the type of coordination you're referring to in T1; it's simply a utopia that is created to fit your logic.

T1 is filled with relatively new players (which is great!) and new players want to have fun, faceroll buttons, get kills, and flip zones. They will not be a coordinated mass like you describe, so asking them to act as such is not realistic from the start. This is why a system that is set up so that they are never bored (not sitting on BOs for an extended period of time without action), and one that doesn't force them to have a 1:4 ratio to flip zones (points based) is more ideal.

Last point: your argument centers around the larger force needing to coordinate to lock the zone, but that the smaller force does not to keep them from locking. This means that not only does the larger force need far superior numbers, it also has to coordinate those forces (in T1) into some sort of cohesive blob (while the smaller force can just zerg whichever BO they want without much coordination!). I don't see that as feasible.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Babysitting a BO is not my idea of fun, nor is a glucose drip of renown for doing it. I'd rather go out and fight than sit around twiddling my thumbs.

[Thelen]

Spoiler:

I read what you posted, it's just a flawed argument in the case of T1 (T4 it's better because you have more coordinated players, but this is a T1 feedback thread). You're never going to have the type of coordination you're referring to in T1; it's simply a utopia that is created to fit your logic.

T1 is filled with relatively new players (which is great!) and new players want to have fun, faceroll buttons, get kills, and flip zones. They will not be a coordinated mass like you describe, so asking them to act as such is not realistic from the start. This is why a system that is set up so that they are never bored (not sitting on BOs for an extended period of time without action), and one that doesn't force them to have a 1:4 ratio to flip zones (points based) is more ideal.

Last point: your argument centers around the larger force needing to coordinate to lock the zone, but that the smaller force does not to keep them from locking. This means that not only does the larger force need far superior numbers, it also has to coordinate those forces (in T1) into some sort of cohesive blob (while the smaller force can just zerg whichever BO they want without much coordination!). I don't see that as feasible.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Babysitting a BO is not my idea of fun, nor is a glucose drip of renown for doing it. I'd rather go out and fight than sit around twiddling my thumbs.

I mean, in the current system you don't HAVE to sit at a BO. I've played the new system for hours and never had a situation where we had trouble leaving a solo on a BO. There are quite a few players out there that are more than happy with the BO drip. Have solos sit on BOs and make a roaming group to respond to the other sides advances. Go solo and scout the enemy to tell your side where the enemy is headed.

The situation will definitely need to be refined for tiers with keeps, but this system is by far the best I've seen for T1 so far. The problems is just that Dwarf vs Greenskins zone is poorly designed.

I like the new system because you never lock a zone "accidentally". It requires a good shot caller in /1 and coordination for players. I think the meta just needs to shift for players to realize they can form smaller roaming groups instead of just a massive WB. Also the thinking has to shift to cover zones rather than just sit at a BO until the enemy strikes somewhere else.

[dansari]

I agree that it's the best system I've seen for T1. I really don't want to come across as bashing it. I just want people to remember that new players exist, we want them to continue having fun, and that T1 might require a little too much coordination (for the larger force) to handle now. We're not going to have veterans debolstered into T1 on a regular basis, so you might be lacking that good shot caller required to flip it.

Again, I think it does a great job of breaking up the larger zerg, but now the smaller zerg simply takes their place to attack BOs and keep the zone from locking long enough for the larger force to quit. You win by attrition in a situation like that, which imo isn't a healthy experience (although it can still be fun).

[anarchypark]

it's about when to sit BO, when to chase enemies.
and how many to each BO.
when enemies are moving as 12man, 1g for each BO would be wrong decision.
call the name of BO in danger and send 2g or 3g to it.
communication between each grp and reports from scouts are important more than ever.
it could be real complicated. but u see less zerg.
it also feel like a solution for half afk zerg following leech dps.

[Musax]

I read what you posted, it's just a flawed argument in the case of T1 (T4 it's better because you have more coordinated players, but this is a T1 feedback thread). You're never going to have the type of coordination you're referring to in T1; it's simply a utopia that is created to fit your logic.

T1 is filled with relatively new players (which is great!) and new players want to have fun, faceroll buttons, get kills, and flip zones. They will not be a coordinated mass like you describe, so asking them to act as such is not realistic from the start. This is why a system that is set up so that they are never bored (not sitting on BOs for an extended period of time without action), and one that doesn't force them to have a 1:4 ratio to flip zones (points based) is more ideal.

Last point: your argument centers around the larger force needing to coordinate to lock the zone, but that the smaller force does not to keep them from locking. This means that not only does the larger force need far superior numbers, it also has to coordinate those forces (in T1) into some sort of cohesive blob (while the smaller force can just zerg whichever BO they want without much coordination!). I don't see that as feasible.

ofcourse my example was a stipulation of the extremes...which won't happen (one side being professionally organized, and the others have zero coordination) but it is untrue that the underdog side doesn't need to coordinate to stall the lock. If the underdog side just zergs without coordination, they are only securing maximum one BO. And as soon as they lose a fight they lose the zone because now all objectives are taken by the enemy while they are respawning

People in T1 can button smash and zerg around all they want learning the game, but imbreeding the mentality that zone flips just happen when you are more than the others for a certain time is bad for the whole game imo.
If we had that system from the get go, i bet we would have far more people actively coordinating, instead of 90% mindless zergsurfing maybe it would only be 50%

[Odaop]

I feel like there is way too much running back and forth and not enough action. Prefer the old system.