[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • I like the suggestions about map layout! I would like to see Caerleon Realmgate leading only to one portal in BZ, possibly West Anglia or the exact mid of the BZ, and possibly putting smaller portals going out of the other Royal cities.

      Still I don't think Albion should have the alliance system as it is. I would say cap them to same cap as guild, or take that system completely out of the game. NAP's will always be a thing, but the game mechanics don't need to protect them.

      An uncapped system with involves no PvP, territory sharing, GvG sharing in a game with such low population and zones which are capped makes no sense to me.

      Cheers
    • 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
    • You can add a T4 IP limit for all i care. New guilds or Small guilds will not get any entry in BZ unless you change the actual ENTRY point to gvg's. The world map and its layout (war camps, central city) is designed completely so small guilds and new guilds cannot compete vs bigger and established guilds/alliances. No new guild or small guild will be able to compete vs the limited entryways to gvg (war camps) cause they will just not have enough people to compete or have open world experience to contest the entry point.

      Changing and lowering the IP does nothing to help these guilds to get into the scene. The fundamentals are wrong, unless you change those. You can change IP scaling as much as you want. It will still be the same established guilds and big alliances holding the world.

      So if you actually want to change something for smaller and new guilds. Change the map and add a shitload of war camps.
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      How are those small guilds supposed to get a fight when they need a lot of people to get a fight at a warcamp in the first place?.
      As mentioned before, we don't think this change alone will be enough to solve all entry barrier problems. But, as far as I am concerned, I think this change can potentially reduce the cost per GvG fight, which would reduce the entry barrier on that particular aspect.

      But if you think this is a bad change, I would like to hear why you think this change would be detrimental to our goal of reducing the entry barrier for the GvG scene?

      Cheers,
      Retro
    • @Retroman

      Its not that its a bad change as such, although i think it will be weird for a while to “downgear for gvg’s”.

      But i also think it wont change anything as you arent adressing the two main factors that i think is the limiting factors.

      1. Artifact availability and
      2. Gvg availability.

      On top of that the reason a gearcap doesnt work is that the normal gear is aæready cheaper than ever and the expensive parts will still be the meta artifact cost.
      Judi armor, fallen staff , cultist robe will still be needed and thats what costs - and a gearcap changes the cost minimally.

      That is why i suggested crafting specific artifact items for 75 runes/spuls/relics as that would put a top limit on price for fotm artifacts.
      Maning that change would adress the real problem with gvg gear cost - and thats the fotm artifacts.

      Secondly getting a gvg is hard, very hard. As an example we have tried getting a attack with 40 pol every day for a week and didnt get one launch because our opponent is better at zvz than us.
      So my point here is that cheap gear helps nothing if you cant get a fight.
      Hence mu suggestion of changing warcamp terris into hotspots allowing for 3 warcamp attacks a day (and no more counters/retals for a warcamp to fir the 4 slot mechanics so you either need a zerg many hours in a row or you accept fighting for it.

      Tl;dr
      The price of 8.1 gear is not a problem for anyone. The problem is the cost of fotm artifacts, and the access to actually getting a fight.
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Secondly getting a gvg is hard, very hard. As an example we have tried getting a attack with 40 pol every day for a week and didnt get one launch because our opponent is better at zvz than us.
      Where are you going... There are some war camps during NA timezone that are closed with a single person most days and other days are closed with less than 10.

      That being said sometimes the limiting factor in my opinion is time. Literally if you cannot play during a certain time your SOL. And these smaller guilds are small because they don't play 7 days a week at a certain time to gvg. Who really has time to commit 7 days a week for X amount of hours to defend a camp or get on to gvg. This is why "larger" guilds hold territories and not because of a gear crunch.
    • @Sinatra.SUN Why don't you just launch from one of your many town or farm plots?

      My guess is SUN isn't a fan of this change because their town plot domination in Anglia will finally be challenged.

      I haven't tried launching on a warcamp in awhile, but last time I was in the know, there were a few warcamps I could point to that were pacified by a single naked alt. A 5 man team could easily launch without a zerg. You just have to know where to look.

      Having done royal GvGs, crystal GvGs, and Anglia GvGs... I can definitely say crystals are cheaper than Anglia fights.

      Just looking on the market:
      - a 6.1 1h holy set costs 150k (merc hood, cleric robe, mage sandals, 1h holy staff, eye of secrets)
      - an 8.1 set costs 650k.
      - A 4.2 (300k) fallen is acceptable for a crystal fight, but 6.2 (600k) is probably necessary for an uncapped fight. Artifacts will still be cheaper with this cap.

      For an entire team that would be 2mil versus 10mil. ALSO, this cap will definitely stop people from bringing 8.2 to Anglia fights. GvGing in 8.1 might be affordable for some guilds and rich individuals, but 8.2 for GvGs is unattainable for all except rich guilds.


      @Retroman I think this is a really solid change. I definitely think it'll make it easier for small guilds to get into the GvG scene.
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:



      The price of 8.1 gear is not a problem for anyone. The problem is the cost of fotm artifacts, and the access to actually getting a fight.
      Amen. Applying an IP cap will just allow more alts of top teams. This is making it more accessible for alts to now stomp with no IP downside. Issue is not the IP/gear/cost Its how easy it is for the top end to access GvGs. Alliance guild limits and Territory limit soft caps would be much more interesting. Owning more then 5 territories per guild should force a hard to maintain food cost for example. This would indirectly make GvGs more accessible, This still allows for Alt alliances but it will be more costly and at the expense of season rewards and access to those territories with their main alliance.
    • Boomroasted wrote:

      Alliance guild limits and Territory limit soft caps would be much more interesting. Owning more then 5 territories per guild should force a hard to maintain food cost for example. This would indirectly make GvGs more accessible,
      This seems like it would yield a lot more success then simply capping IP. As you can see capped IP in Hellgates in Royals didn't really do a whole lot to bring smaller guilds to the gvg/pvp scene.
    • @Lanyday not sure what you refer to as we did exacly that yesterday, and fighting on today.
      Sun is irrelevant in the argument as we have plenty of money and plenty of attack angles.

      But i am writing on the topic at hand about getting more fights, and entry barriers for new teams - and as you will see then this change wont help small guilds breaking into outlands and it will not result in more gvgs.

      I want more fights as well, but as i also happen to be one of those paying gear for these fights i would beleive i vve pretty good insights and cost of gvgs.

      T4 cultist robe, t4 judi armor amd t5 fallen, how many can you lose a day?. Non billionaires cant sustain fotm
      Artifacts - and my suggestion is to help those guilds get a top price ceiling for fotm artifacts - how is that a bad thing? And how dp you suggest these guilds will win warcamp fights when warcamp fights require higher tier gear than gvgs and numbers you cant field?.
      Leave your dislike for sun for a second and give your take om that?
    • Lanyday wrote:

      @Sinatra.SUN Why don't you just launch from one of your many town or farm plots?

      My guess is SUN isn't a fan of this change because their town plot domination in Anglia will finally be challenged.

      I haven't tried launching on a warcamp in awhile, but last time I was in the know, there were a few warcamps I could point to that were pacified by a single naked alt. A 5 man team could easily launch without a zerg. You just have to know where to look.

      Having done royal GvGs, crystal GvGs, and Anglia GvGs... I can definitely say crystals are cheaper than Anglia fights.

      Just looking on the market:
      - a 6.1 1h holy set costs 150k (merc hood, cleric robe, mage sandals, 1h holy staff, eye of secrets)
      - an 8.1 set costs 650k.
      - A 4.2 (300k) fallen is acceptable for a crystal fight, but 6.2 (600k) is probably necessary for an uncapped fight. Artifacts will still be cheaper with this cap.

      For an entire team that would be 2mil versus 10mil. ALSO, this cap will definitely stop people from bringing 8.2 to Anglia fights. GvGing in 8.1 might be affordable for some guilds and rich individuals, but 8.2 for GvGs is unattainable for all except rich guilds.


      @Retroman I think this is a really solid change. I definitely think it'll make it easier for small guilds to get into the GvG scene.

      You can crunch the gear level and lack of relics as much as you want. But you will still face guilds who can afford relics. And you will lose cause of it, normal gear isn't the problem. Its RELICS that are not affordable to new guilds or not established guilds. You made a calculation based on non relic gear, good luck fighting 1000IP alts with relics :) Oh and big guilds will now be able to afford unlimited alts cause IP doesn't matter anymore.

      You also comment on war camps yet haven't tried to launch on one for, how long? ages? I invite you to come join war camps even in anglia. Fact on the matter is, you claim 1 naked guy can pacify. Yes it could happen, cause not everyone has the stomach to send 40+ people daily. But once u get ur 1 war camp with ur 5man vs 1 naked pacifier. I'll tell you what will happen next. You will show up in your 6.1 normal gear ( cause that's what you wrote as gear cost), u'll face a established team in relic gear ( expensive even in crystal equal gear, but affordable for those). You will most likely get stomped, if not well played! But next day ur 5 man to pacify that war camp, will face a zerg (in uncapped t8+ gear) to fight over that war camp. And your One day trip to BZ will end short. Cause ur small / new guild will not be able to compete on numbers and price of relics. 8.1 normal gear isn't expensive at all, its actually very cheap atm.

      Lowering the IP cap to HG level for Low Blackzone is imo too far. The cap should be that its not worth bringing 8.2 gear to low lands. The Cap should be to what is available in that Zone from gathering/resources/plots. Which is Flat and .1 in low lands. I dont see the point to making Low Blackzone to the same level as Red Zone? Look at Red Zones now? Do you see new and small guilds? NO, u see established guilds from BZ having their fun and owning everything there also.

      Fix is simple: Make a lot of entry points to gvg and make relics more affordable.

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

    • @Sinatra.SUN I was refering to:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      As an example we have tried getting a attack with 40 pol every day for a week and didnt get one launch because our opponent is better at zvz than us.

      I agree that this change is not enough, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

      I'm in Content, a very small guild that, until a few days ago, held a few territories in the royal zone. We lost those territories because our team went inactive and so we had to pug a few fights, not because it is impossible to hold territories in the royals. With the introduction of this cap, guilds like us will be more prepared to take and hold territories in Anglia. We are not a rich guild and our team could not afford to throw away 8.1.

      Fighting off alts of top end GvG teams was a problem our team faced multiple times. I agree this is an issue and I don't think it'll be solved by this IP cap. Something else needs to be changed as well (like changing GvGs to two times a day that rotate or capping alliances).

      BUT, this change does go a long way in making these fights (and potential losses) more affordable.


      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      T4 cultist robe, t4 judi armor amd t5 fallen, how many can you lose a day?. Non billionaires cant sustain fotm
      Sure... but it's still easier to lose the 4.2 version than the 6.2 version. I don't believe this completely solves the problem but it is a step in the correct direction. If anything, they need to implement your artifact suggestion in addition to this IP cap.



      Tabooshka wrote:

      Just look at redzones and tell me ip cap helped new guilds
      The IP cap isn't the problem. The problem is alliances NAPing so that A teams get bored and decide to come fight in royals. Adding an IP cap to Anglia won't fix this problem, but it will increase the amount of territories that a small guild can go for and maybe avoid fighting A teams.
    • Xondox wrote:

      You can crunch the gear level and lack of relics as much as you want. But you will still face guilds who can afford relics.
      I chose non-artifact gear because:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      normal gear is aæready cheaper than ever and the expensive parts will still be the meta artifact cost.
      To show that even in normal gear... it is significantly cheaper to fight in 6.1 than 8.1.

      STILL, I'd rather lose 4.2 relics than 6.2 relics. Multiple changes are needed here. IP capping is one of them.



      Xondox wrote:

      You also comment on war camps yet haven't tried to launch on one for, how long? ages? I invite you to come join war camps even in anglia.

      Wadefu wrote:

      Where are you going... There are some war camps during NA timezone that are closed with a single person most days and other days are closed with less than 10.
      Apparently my intel is still accurate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Lanyday: added part about warcamps ().

    • Lanyday wrote:

      The IP cap isn't the problem. The problem is alliances NAPing so that A teams get bored and decide to come fight in royals. Adding an IP cap to Anglia won't fix this problem, but it will increase the amount of territories that a small guild can go for and maybe avoid fighting A teams.
      Thank you for proving IP cap is useless in blackzones.

      btw, 4.2 fiend sandals more expensive than your non meta healer set FeelsBadMan