[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • *Looks at all of the GvG launches that happens in Royals everyday - many by guilds that don't own territories*

      *Looks at all of low black and mid black where there are 3 gvg's a day (biggest continent by far)*

      *Scratches head at all of these comments made by top 3 alliances*

      Initial goal - lower cost of entry, increase competition

      IP cap ---> low and mid black will have as many GvG's as Royals.. from an average of 2 GvG's a day to at least 6+ (With the limited number of Royal territories).

      Mission accomplished... but wait... will the zerg alliance voice win out again?

      Alt's fighting GvG's as the argument - umm... okay? sounds good, the more GvG's the better. A 1000 IP gear cap set with relics ==> ~1-2m, super cheap. Same relic set at 8.1 level ==> ~5-10m

      Looks at Royal territories predominately owned by top 3 alliances ... why's this? Oh right, none of them fight in black, because gear is expensive, so many teams come to Royals to fight. With the cap, they actually have to fight in black?!?!? Game breaker.
    • tabooshka wrote:

      Eotl wrote:

      oh right, none of them fight in black, because gear is expensive,
      I wonder why, maybe because territories are close to worthless so even if you win you lost money LOL, its okay though, real battles are in crystal realm
      Our Take Away for the future:
      From the feedback in this thread, I noted these as your main problems with alliances:


      • The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)


      Reducing the cost to allow more people to challenge for territories... so they can crystal as well instead of having to sit in top 3 alliances. Thanks for backing me up buddy on exactly why this change takes a step forward in solving the problem that was identified. Couldn't have said it better myself.
    • Eotl wrote:

      Reducing the cost to allow more people to challenge for territories... so they can crystal as well instead of having to sit in top 3 alliances. Thanks for backing me up buddy on exactly why this change takes a step forward in solving the problem that was identified. Couldn't have said it better myself.
      And how you gonna get an attack off? Do you have an ip cap inside warcamps my dude? or are relics banned? sandbox goes strong here with limiting everything.
      I dare you to launch in your 6.1 and get 150-0 lose 3 mil from the attack and never come back again

      We all know people arent gonna start to gvg suddenly, they wont hold territories, just like reset system is completely useless
      you can already see that with crystals

      Blue army members probably excited, as they get to zerg every warcamp and show with 6.1 rats everywhere : )

      Can we ip cap castles now? Reduce cost to ZvZ because no one can contest SQUAD???

      The post was edited 5 times, last by tabooshka ().

    • Syndic wrote:

      Essentially what a lot of posts here boil down to, is that every guild should have a few territories, and losing those few territories should be heavily penalizing to the winner.

      Does that make sense?
      More guilds with a few territories = a more vibrant game, with more small scale wars going on. One dominant force winning everything & then just sitting there for 1-2 seasons makes for a game that isn't much fun. The game needs a mechanism to allow the strongest guilds to flex their e-peen without shutting everyone else out of the game.

      I'm a fan of making crystal towers going to L10 or higher with better rewards as you go up. Make it easy for a weak guild to hold 1-3 territories, and for a strong guild to hold perhaps as many as 10, but any time you have an entire continent without any fights happening, there's a problem.

      A healthy game has a tournament split in a top 8 of something like 27%, 21, 16, 12, 9, 6, 5, 4. The player in #1 doesn't get 80% of the prize, and the player in 7th & 8th still gets something too. In Albion, the winner gets to collect the bulk of the rewards, then they keep getting paid out prizes as they hold territories without having to compete for them. Crystal has been an amazing improvement, because it forces guilds to continue to compete to collect the value from their territories. The problem we have now, is that matchmaking is bad as T1's can fight T3's, and there's not enough teams coming to the table because the towers are nearly entirely in the hands of the mega-alliances.

      More guilds need towers, towers need to be able to go higher so the top team's towers are worth much more than the low tier ones.
    • Retroman wrote:

      Soft IP cap for GvGs in Low- and Mid- Outlands
      • Low Outland 50% scaling above 1000 IP (that is hell gates and crystal realm scaling)
      • Mid Outland 50% scaling above 1200 IP
      This change is not meant as the final solution for all snowballing problems and general high entry barrier, but rather a change for season 5, that potentially helps more teams that would like to try to get into the gvg scene. The lower IP levels should help reducing the gear cost per GvG fight.

      Cheers,
      Retro
      Thank you for trying to address the lack of competition. Would you consider removing the ability to pacify warcamps? If guilds had to maintain 1 GvG team for every 1-3 territories (Which they need to pull full value out of Crystal anyways), we'd have far more guilds competing. In combination with limiting the size of alliances, so one party cannot control an entire continent we could have an incredibly competitive black zone landscape.
    • Eotl wrote:

      *Looks at all of the GvG launches that happens in Royals everyday - many by guilds that don't own territories*

      *Looks at all of low black and mid black where there are 3 gvg's a day (biggest continent by far)*
      When you write "all the gvg launches that happens every day in royals - do you happen to mean the 3 there actually is or should we make some up ?.
      Also those 3 are made by alliances, and no solo guilds.

      Its more than impossible for new guilds to gets attacks and sustained presense in outlands, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gearlevel
    • Retroman wrote:

      Hey everyone,

      As another follow up from the discussion. As for point 1)
      1. 'The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)'
      There is another change we want to introduce with Season 5:

      Soft IP cap for GvGs in Low- and Mid- Outlands
      • Low Outland 50% scaling above 1000 IP (that is hell gates and crystal realm scaling)
      • Mid Outland 50% scaling above 1200 IP
      This change is not meant as the final solution for all snowballing problems and general high entry barrier, but rather a change for season 5, that potentially helps more teams that would like to try to get into the gvg scene. The lower IP levels should help reducing the gear cost per GvG fight.

      Cheers,
      Retro
      This change was very necessary. In red/yellow zone you can see a variety of guilds, now with this change there will be much more content of conquest and wars where it should always be a place to start for small guilds. Congratulations on the S5 change. :thumbsup:
      Farmer.
    • The red zones have just recently been fully taken over by the zerg alliances. For the majority of the season the smaller alliances were able to withstand the push from the big boys. Once again the cap change should drive more attacks in black which also should free up the red zone for up and comers instead of bored vets driven from all the recent hand holding in black.
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Its more than impossible for new guilds to gets attacks and sustained presense in outlands, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gearlevel
      I'm not really sure how you can claim to know anything about new guild life. It definitely has something to do with gear level. I actually can't tell if you guys are acting in bad faith or your judgement is just clouded by your wealth.

      The only downside to IP capping Anglia people have mentioned is A team alts running rampant. A team alts already run rampant (and lets be real, many are tome'd up enough to fight in Anglia with no cap). This is a separate problem that needs to be fixed by a different solution (*cough* like capping alliances *cough*).

      The problem IP capping is addressing is lowering the barrier to entry for small/new guilds into Anglia GvGs (to challenge guilds like SUN). Content has had much more success fighting in the royals than in Anglia (because of the IP cap). I'm excited for when we can launch in Anglia too.
    • Retroman wrote:

      Hey everyone,

      As another follow up from the discussion. As for point 1)
      1. 'The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)'
      There is another change we want to introduce with Season 5:

      Soft IP cap for GvGs in Low- and Mid- Outlands
      • Low Outland 50% scaling above 1000 IP (that is hell gates and crystal realm scaling)
      • Mid Outland 50% scaling above 1200 IP
      This change is not meant as the final solution for all snowballing problems and general high entry barrier, but rather a change for season 5, that potentially helps more teams that would like to try to get into the gvg scene. The lower IP levels should help reducing the gear cost per GvG fight.

      Cheers,
      Retro
      I feel like the answers being avoided or you guys are still debating...
      Are season points and/or energy going to be split between alliance guilds?
      You guys mentioned this before and after the season 5 changes were mentioned nothing has been said on this.
    • So what I am seeing here is that the IP cap won't really change much in itself. I do think the IP cap could be good in terms of allowing newer GvG teams to practice with lesser costs.

      Now it will allow veteran GvGers to make alts capable of fighting in the lower IP zones easier but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean a new team practice fighting against a very skilled team can likely learn more then if they just faced unskilled GvGers.

      I do however agree with Sinatra that more needs to be done in order to actually help newer or non alliance guilds to get in on the action since this change really is more beneficial to helping established mega alliances field more new gvg teams.

      I do remember there was once an idea proposed where instead of having limited warcamps, territories could be flagged for attack on every specific territory map. This would mean that at the daily launch times zergs would have to split up all over the world to stop launches which could of happened from anywhere. This meant that zergs would have to decide which territories were most important to protect. I don't remember why it was later decided that it would be better to have just a few warcamps that could be heavily contested with massive zergs to blockade and prevent smaller guilds from partaking was better for the territory game.

      In short, during the warcamp hours, multiple territories should have a little flag camp that becomes active and whatever guild manages to raise the flag gets to launch an attack on one of the territories in that map. I am not sure what to do about the war chest. Don't really want every single zone to have a chest for gatherers to drop items in. Perhaps you should just introduce battle chests again where players fill them with the gear they want to use in an attack and when they register their attack they select a battle chest and mark it as the active one so whereever they fight offensively that gear goes. This would also remove the strategy of trying to blockcade an offensive GvG team from reaching territory to fight.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by DoomRawrus ().

    • Retroman wrote:

      Hey everyone,

      As another follow up from the discussion. As for point 1)
      1. 'The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)'
      There is another change we want to introduce with Season 5:

      Soft IP cap for GvGs in Low- and Mid- Outlands
      • Low Outland 50% scaling above 1000 IP (that is hell gates and crystal realm scaling)
      • Mid Outland 50% scaling above 1200 IP
      This change is not meant as the final solution for all snowballing problems and general high entry barrier, but rather a change for season 5, that potentially helps more teams that would like to try to get into the gvg scene. The lower IP levels should help reducing the gear cost per GvG fight.

      Cheers,
      Retro
      This change won't be enough on its own to lower the entry level, because you will have the same teams fighting with less expensive gear.

      Newer guilds will try and get defeated for several times at most and then they will stop. This will only make the poor people poorer and the rich people richer.

      As mentioned before, this will encourage alts of already established teams to play at a cheaper price. If you try to lower the entry level then you must make the `old guys` fight the `old guys` and the `new guys` fight the `new guys` slowly climbing their way up to fighting the `old guys`.

      I think limiting the amount of terries a guild can hold is wrong for a sandbox, but capping how many members there can be in a guild and in an alliance in a game with a low population like albion is the way to go.

      Why struggle to unnecessarily punish high spec people by adding caps instead of capping the communities in which people can group? That would seem smarter. Not making tons of hours spent fame farming worthless. Like don't get me wrong, but if only Mercia was uncapped, people won't struggle to max out their specs, so they won't venture into the wilds for that, so bz population will decrease even more, so you will take out from the already existing content and annoy many of the people who have famed their gear up.

      Create some blue zone terries as entry point and make them worthless for old guilds so they are contested only by new ones. Don't destroy what's good in this game.

      And since we're speaking about entry level, that should be royals, why do you even think of modifying bz to lower the gvg entry level??

      Like sorry, but I dont expect newer players to have any use of a bz terry even... If you hope to get back to the bz the `old guys` fighting in royals, it won't work cuz they can fight there and there...

      I don't think this is a good change or a healthy change for the game.
    • Starseed wrote:

      Syndic wrote:

      Essentially what a lot of posts here boil down to, is that every guild should have a few territories, and losing those few territories should be heavily penalizing to the winner.

      Does that make sense?
      More guilds with a few territories = a more vibrant game, with more small scale wars going on. One dominant force winning everything & then just sitting there for 1-2 seasons makes for a game that isn't much fun. The game needs a mechanism to allow the strongest guilds to flex their e-peen without shutting everyone else out of the game.
      I'm a fan of making crystal towers going to L10 or higher with better rewards as you go up. Make it easy for a weak guild to hold 1-3 territories, and for a strong guild to hold perhaps as many as 10, but any time you have an entire continent without any fights happening, there's a problem.

      A healthy game has a tournament split in a top 8 of something like 27%, 21, 16, 12, 9, 6, 5, 4. The player in #1 doesn't get 80% of the prize, and the player in 7th & 8th still gets something too. In Albion, the winner gets to collect the bulk of the rewards, then they keep getting paid out prizes as they hold territories without having to compete for them. Crystal has been an amazing improvement, because it forces guilds to continue to compete to collect the value from their territories. The problem we have now, is that matchmaking is bad as T1's can fight T3's, and there's not enough teams coming to the table because the towers are nearly entirely in the hands of the mega-alliances.

      More guilds need towers, towers need to be able to go higher so the top team's towers are worth much more than the low tier ones.

      You know that the logical outcome of small scale wars is that eventually there is a winner right? If there can't be a winner and a loser, then why bother fighting in the first place? If nobody is fighting wars because they can't win, why have a territory control system in the first place?