The Zerg Debacle

The elephant in the room.

Not so much the elephant but just COTP and this mega zerg alliance it has managed to create before the game has even left Alpha. Go against the zerg and suffer the wrath of many top players. Many of whom have achieved what the majority of players cannot simply because they picked up on certain cheese mechanics before others. This alone has created an imbalance in the current galaxy that grows exponentially with every passing hour. Increasing the severity of the disease that is COTP.

There’s a lot that could be said. However, there is still hope. The cause is growing and as the number of COTP’s victims increases so does the awareness of the potential damage COTP can do to the game itself.

Plus zerging is so boring. Fighting the zerg? Not so much. Resist the zerg. Resist at all costs. Save the Galaxy :slight_smile:

Developers: As it stands, the mechanics of the game support the zerging playstyle 100%. You need to find a healtyh balance. Squash the cheese and launch another galaxy! :smiley:

Also in before Cheatle throws out his bs numbers to support his claim that they aren’t some mega zerg.


On point. Have watched him do it in other games as well and the pattern is no different.

While this is true, people like to group up and play with their group. Also, games like these work around having these kinds of group/alliance/clan/whatever mechanics (if you’ve played ARK or EVE, think how the game goes).

The real reason this is becoming an issue is that while we have this one mega alliance, we don’t have the playerbase for the game to balance itself out. We need a much, MUCH larger playerbase, all making their own alliances, some getting big enough to balance out the player factions.

1 Like

Good for you! Except I’m gonna call BS on this one!

I LEFT CotP coz I didn’t find it aggressive enough… have they come a headhunting after me? Not as far as I can see. Did I experience fairly tight controls on rules of battles in there Yup.

So without further details this just sounds like a looser of a fight taking the battle to another arena. That is not constructive.

What is constructive is:

Yup absolutely we have very little tactics in game other than “Biggest/Best Tech steamrollers all below it” There is no room for skill or nuance just biggest gun/Numbers wins. This HAS to be corrected before the game is outta EA or its DOA.

But thats not CotP or any alliances fault, and we would not be gamers if we didn’t use such immature game mechanics to our advantage if we can.

Not saying they are all saints either, that’s another reason I left. But if a player with no track record is gonna use his first post as an attack then all I say is the rest of the community is laughing at ya friend!

We NEED proper in game alliances ASAP. If CotP or any informal alliance shows that if a GAME doesn’t regulate it IN GAME then individual groups may become overwhelming.

Thats what this thread coulda emphasised. Gawd knows I been saying the games alliance structure was a super high priority for YEARS… Now we’re in the public domain to a degree and this massive failing is so very obvious now… [please allow me this one indulgent : “Tol’ Ya So!” IDA]

Now Warmongers above has EARNED the right to critique them and has done so in the past and may well be right that they can be highly aggressive when they pick a target.

Why is that a bad thing? If I’d seen more of that I might have stuck with them.

Fire away!


ARK and EVE are fully developed games. This game has not even left Alpha yet and many of the mechanics I am referring to were not built in to the game with the intention of being abused (pop swapping, etc…) but that is precisely what is happening.

The player base is indeed too small for this kind of play style. This is why the issues must be addressed quickly.

If I had even fought them once your argument of me being a sore loser might have been valid but I am yet to fire even one shot. I actually stopped playing when I got access to the COTP database (easy as 1,2,3) as it reveals just how imbalanced the playing field is. I’ll wait just a bit longer before jumping in. :stuck_out_tongue:

Also don’t mind being laughed at. This is an internet forum and I’m just pointing a few things out.

Cheers lol :slight_smile:

1 Like

its one of the reasons why when alliances become intergrated into this game as a full feature, there must be a cap on member numbers. Diplomacy should be part of the alliance structure but to stop the large empires clans having 30 so called “Wing” empires you need a cap on the number of Allies they can have and the number of NAPs, so perhaps 3 allainces and 5 NAPs (depending on how game structure sees the diference) Allies cant attack other Allies, Naps as current structure, no accidental attacks but can force an atttack

Even with this, alliances can still be called IFA, IFB, IFC, IF1, IF2, and so on and since the alliance tag would (i mean if i doesnt ill be sorely confused) be easily seen on mouse over, there should be no mistakes and the experience of early game should be teaching players how to avoid accidental attacks. Without the addition of alliances, as Daktaklakpak pointed out the current situation, players will do what they want as they want even to the point of farmville which is their own choice. IMHO, the game needs a reason for players to skirmish with their neighbors but not to kill them off.

1 reason can be a mini-game skirmish, another can be fear of a 3rd party coming in and attacking either player, but i am personally struggling to offer up more.

there is always the option to add, an occupy mode, where you dont actually take control of a planet but rather get the chance to steal the resi from the surface and get the income the planet produces for a given period of say 7 days, of which point you either removed your troops or it automatically goes back to the original owner

This is actually a very good solution. Rather than lose your planets, game and give up, the attacker takes control of a planet and receives resources and income, say 10% of the production automatically transferred to their home world. At the end of the seven days the occupying pop dissolves completely unless it is lifted prior to the end of the occupation by the player. The game needs a reason to attack a neighbour without the fear of destroying that players game. There would need to be a period of grace for the player who was occupied , say another 7 days before they could be occupied again.

Dude, you aggressively attacked multiple COTP members in the first 2-3 days of the game.

  1. We have had people leave, because we aren’t aggressive enough.
  2. The most people we have had against a single player is 15, we mostly work in groups smaller, because people can’t…you know move 300-500 LY to support people all the time.
  3. COTP hasn’t even come into contact with 30% of the server.
  4. There is plenty of combat happening everywhere, there are plenty of guilds forming (there have been two new guilds that have formed in the last month).
  5. The next 2 guilds on the server outnumber COTP (specifically active members)
  6. There is a guild on the server looking to bring in several hundred players once alliance features are in.
  7. We have fought…wait for it…34 total people since this server started.
  8. Personally, I am not going to be gracious when a mega guild actually comes in and you are forced to fight in an alliance, and forced to fight with us against them, I am very much going to say “I told you so.”


Because we don’t have an alliance system, a lot more people are freaking out, cause they can’t see actually numbers.

I would say, based on rough numbers that alliances have given me, 250 people on the main server are in alliances. This spans around 12 alliances.

I would also say, that more people are in alliances than I know of personally, and I will also say that a lot of people expect to play the game solo. I don’t think solo play is encouraged with the current features and mechanics.

I don’t agree with this, I don’t think Beli would agree with this either, he was doing pretty good fighting off a lot of people with skill and nuance.

@irondarren @UKSHADE

I think that this is what will happen with the vassal system

IN GENERAL alliances are going to do what they want, a reputation system with a solid mechanic will allow people to 1) Be aggressive, 2) Not be aggressive, 3) be reigned in when they are too aggressive.

We also need motivations for play.

We also need a reason to stay closer to home.

We also need a better way to claim territory.


Fair enough, I wasn’t involved with that but recall some of the discussions.

Consider my rant amended to “There is Not ENOUGH areas for skill and nuance” Just coz one expert player managed it doesn’t mean things are balanced. - Not that I am saying that’s Cheatles point, it obviously isn’t.

@Belisarius Would really be interested in your opinion here my good sir - especially as a former “Opponent” of the supposedly unstoppable CotP that as their guild leader just said. Fought off several of their stalwart players for quite a long time!

I am NOT content with the current combat system on several levels and make no apology for it. But I do accept Joe & Co have a chunk of things on their plate already, but I know them well enough to know they will get around to it when they can - as per their announced intentions.

A very good response and perhaps I misjudged the OP’s intent. But having been on both sides of the guild I’m having a real hard time reconciling his original post and the observed facts. if Cheatle says you wailed on some of his guys above, hes got the mileage for me and I suspect even his enemies on the forum to believe him.

Still you’re not wrong its now “EA” and NOT finished many things may be subject ot change and revision. This one I devoutly hope will be one of them!

@Cheatle I suspect much of this comes from not having a clan/alliance system built into the game at point of Early access release. you have a few fights with the neighbours not know the neighbours are part of a bigger alliance. If COTP is anything like AE it just goes on the alert section, and the nearest members get drafted to help out which ever member is being attacked. Parking a large attack fleet on someones door step when one of our guys was attacked was enough to make someone reset, dam and i only killed a couple of scouts. Just to prove the guy being attacked was part of a larger group

1 Like


I was just telling someone that attacking someone in the game right now is like playing Russian Roulette, you don’t know if you just won, or if you just shot yourself.


I do agree there, there is a lot of room to make the game better when it comes to combat.

1 Like

@Zathabar As requested, my comments! :smiley:

First. I’ve greatly apprecaited the efforts of the Outscape community at large to keep the forums constructive. Let’s maintain this! I think there should be a place for some fun and good natured trolling though. Maybe a seperate rooom on the discord server for each server where people can rant and rave at their outrageous neighbours. :stuck_out_tongue: But again, lets keep this forum clean and constructive.

Second. I love the game combat mechanics. There is room for improvement still ofc, but my experience so far is that it is better than anything else similar that I’ve encountered so far. I find that there is sufficent depth and nuance; however, once people get those figured out it is going to become much tougher. My sucess to date has come largely due to inexperience from others. Some have taken it good naturedly and I’ve chatted with them and offered advice, and laughed and congratulated them when they make successful counter strikes. Others unfortunately have taken it badly, likened me to Hitler, and resorted to accusations of cheating and threats of using their “zerg” to make me restart.

@Cheatle Thanks for confirming the 15-to-1 ratio, I’m assuming that is me. :smiley:

@joe One thing that I’d really like for the devs to consider, or re-consider, are my recommandations on (1) ship movement speeds and scouts, and (2) tactical mines.

The tactial mines are essential to give an out-gunned, but active, player a fighting chance against a larger group. It provides the only mechanic to avoid loss by attrition. I was holding my own fighting 3 or 4 players simultaneous without tactical mines, but that was about the limit. I was getting great ratios, but every ship I did lose really hurt given that the others players out numbered me and could out produce me. When 15 players rolled in, well… it was time to run! Or as Chesty Puller put it… attack in the oposite direction! :smiley: If there was still 1 hour tactical mine laying I might have been able to go toe to toe wth 15 players… again. :smiley:

Third. More alliance features definitely need to be a priority. COTP has developed a nice maping tool that really helps to get a feel for the situation at large. This really needs to be an in game feature:

  1. Keep vision of star systems that are outside of your scanner range but that you have already visited. Joe did mention at the end of October that this was coming and that it was supposed to be out a couple of weeks ago.
  1. Similarily be able to see allied systems and star systems that they’ve charted, i.e. shared stellar cartography. However, what I am strongly against is shared scanner data!!! You should NOT have a live feed to fleet movements or planetary data from other players ships.

  2. Be able to give star systems your own color coding for information purposes.

Those are bare minimum features.

Fourth. I like that the spawn mechanism doesn t allow you to choose your starting locations. In fact I would like to see it even more random tbh. I think that games like this should promote players to make new alliances ever server, rather than continuing pre-made ones. I look at it like we did pick-up sports when I was young. You get a group of friends together, even some new fresh people you don’t know, pick captions and teams or divide players randomly into teams, play a match, see who wins, and then mix it up and play again. A spawn mechanic that makes it really difficult for large groups to start together, and the fact that the galaxy is so large, means that players are more likely to make local alliances for immeidate survival. This also provides solo players who start alone more than the current two options of (1) join the huge zerg that started around you, or (2) get wrecked. It would force more alliances with new unknown players and enchance the soclal dynamic of the game.

Just one possible idea would be to have multiple “epicenters” in the galaxy for spawing. That would mean that you start in proximity to some other players to force early interactions, but that players would be randomly broken up into groups. The other advantage to this, is that it give more room for expansion if you spawn early near the middle of an epicenter. At the moment if you spawn near the middle you can be hemmed in fairly quickly and could have to go quite far to get ro less populated areas. With multiple epicenters you would be able to get the edge of your spawn region more quicky. Regional spawns could add a nice dynamic to the game imo. But any idea that makes it harder on pre-made groups is good in my opinion.

End of transmision


Alliances would seem to logically imply adding bureaucratic command and control to co-ordinate alliance activities. Comments in this place regarding the difficulties players encounter co-ordinating attacks would seem to support this notion.

In common with most 4X games Outscape has a gameplay representing the effects of the increasing complexities of expanding organisations. In this case, corruption.

Could it not be possible to nerf the o’erweening might of clans and alliances by extending the gameplay of corruption to alliances ? Such that the larger the alliance the more crippling the corruption. Of course, also add researchable techs to mitigate these effects.

Can’t stop players from joining zergs, short of turning this into a something like a 3-team game where you are assigned a team at the start.

I think the best we can do is continue to look at problem areas in the mechanics.

Pop swapping:
I wish the devs would either agree that this is a problem which they are going to fix, or come out and say “we intend all players to swap populations with their neighbor.”

Offline Controls and Alerts:
When being in a big zerg war it’s super hard to log out. You’re at a big disadvantage if you’re not online and there’s a lot of fairly simple stuff that could be done about that, I think. “Command queues” probably being the #1 item.

  1. Go to X,Y
  2. Lay mines
  3. Return to base

That alone would save me a ton of time. Maybe limit how close waypoints can be to each other to limit micro zig-zagging but we really need command queues to save us some offline grief.

  1. Attack target
  2. Return to base
  3. (Also return to base if fuel < 50%, user adjustable)

Another safety measure that would let me set an attack but then log out. Probably the hardest thing with fighting a zerg in this game today is that they can collectively be online 24/7 and you can’t, and you’re super vulnerable when offline.

They should investigate phone alerts too. Actually if they opened up the API (similar to EVE), people would probably write phone apps themselves.


Really like the idea of player coded simple scripts of actionable commands simply because it’s a concept I’ve mulled for years (but never seen implemented(?)).

1 Like

CotP has strict rules against in-game exploits, so would you care to elaborate on the “cheese mechanics” you speak of?

Only if they don’t see it as an exploit. If they see it as a ‘feature’ then that is not an issue.

It’s not clear, yet. In which camp the developers see certain Expolit / Features in the game.