[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • This newest change won't help alone, more needs to be done and I hope they talk about them here openly so people can comment on SBI ideas :)
      Being good shouldn't be punished but holding more than is used should be, thats why I still think some form of "decay" on territories should be implemented. Also more OW points of attack AND territories need to be buffed to make it worth while own them. I don't think the T8 resource balance worked well since it made other territories worth a lot less than those center tiles.
    • 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?
      That's what they say/want. And I don't disagree with that concept, but with the specifics like how that will happen.

      Total global/domination should be possible, but hard, and without making the game into a theme mmorpg.
    • kreeshak 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?
      That's what they say/want. And I don't disagree with that concept, but with the specifics like how that will happen.
      Total global/domination should be possible, but hard, and without making the game into a theme mmorpg.

      I feel like nobody in their sane mind could agree with it. Wars cannot exist in a state of perpetual status quo, if its not possible to win and the game punishes you for winning, there is no reason to fight wars in the first place.
    • Guilds should be able to fight for a few territories => doesn't mean that every guild should have a territory.
      Some people might aim to hold all territories but it shouldn't be possible with 5 players only as it is now. GvG used to be a guild effort to sustain, now for small guilds it's still the case but for big alliances its just 5 people carrying the rest 2995 without them being important.
      Territories used to give too much wealth and leaded to a snowball from their owners and now every GvG fight is minimum in 8.1 overcharged with 100 specs atleast (1400ish IP) where it used to be close to 1200 in Anglia. + relics have an insane cost: losing a GvG with a few death used to cost a 2-10mil silvers now its over 10mil or its just a sit tent.
      There is too many/ powerful interests for a guild who wants to complete in BZ to join a big alliance, and not enough to stay apart:
      • they will face one of the most experienced teams (for sure if they take a few terris)
      • they will only have a few maps safe (with a terri) compared to half the world.
      • dungeons defense requires a lot of efforts (compared to a dungeon defended by an alliance)
      • they won't have more than 30 for objectives such as warcamps
      • etc.
      Putting a cap on IP will definetly create some economic changes and IMO isn't a long-term solution:
      Some balancing around game mechanics should be done now and as soon as they are in place the cap should be removed since it wouldn't be necessary.
    • Overall underlying issues still need to be addressed to see a permanent solution:
      • Incessant use of Alts from the top GvG teams allowing them to fight even in the royals whilst also defending BZ territories.
      • The value of holding territories other than those needed for a guild/alliances operations (somewhat negated by T8 resource shift, but holding royal terry's as a buffer to keep cities safe remains an issue).
      • Current state of the overcharge mechanic (easier for rich alliances to overcharge high tier gear to ensure ip advantage, where as newer formed alliances cannot do this sustainably do this.
      • The problem with Zerg power projection, and the ease of any large force to easily transit to any WC across the outlands with almost no restriction.
      Hop on in to my Discord and Twitch ^^
    • Khladraven wrote:

      Incessant use of Alts from the top GvG teams allowing them to fight even in the royals whilst also defending BZ territories.
      Currently Royal territories provide a crystal gvg that doesn't lock you in blackzone which is important so your ready for warcamps half hour later.
      I don't think a solution is to find a way to stop alts from wrecking new gvg teams. I think the only solution is to have some sort of scaling cost the more territories you own, this has the issue of having an alt guild hold the territory and having that alt guild in your alliance. Well now were back at the question of do we cap the number of guilds and/or people. or do what SBI said SPLIT season points/energy in alliances.

      Khladraven wrote:

      Current state of the overcharge mechanic (easier for rich alliances to overcharge high tier gear to ensure ip advantage, where as newer formed alliances cannot do this sustainably do this.
      I think it was mentioned somewhere a scaling trash rate where if you overcharge high base IP items the more chance it has to trash may be a good idea. So if you choose to OC a 8.1 it may have a 70% chance to trash.

      Khladraven wrote:

      The problem with Zerg power projection, and the ease of any large force to easily transit to any WC across the outlands with almost no restriction.
      People have said new map layout and/or adding ports removing realmgates in cumbria/mercia would help... Don't think SBI is looking at that sort of major game overhaul. I would like to wait another season and see if the castle changes along with other things going on if that will change the layout of the zergs...
    • Khladraven wrote:

      Incessant use of Alts from the top GvG teams allowing them to fight even in the royals whilst also defending BZ territories.
      I believe gvg alts allow for easier defense from mercia to anglia because you don't have to worry as much about portal locks. But royals are so convenient that most A team main characters can defend royals and their primary continent nearly simultaneously (worst case you throw a B team to try a first round of defense and send your A team on the retaliation). I do not see alts being an issue for royals but rather the accessibility + rewards just making it a no brainer for even mercia guilds to dabble.
    • Syndic wrote:

      kreeshak 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?
      That's what they say/want. And I don't disagree with that concept, but with the specifics like how that will happen.Total global/domination should be possible, but hard, and without making the game into a theme mmorpg.
      I feel like nobody in their sane mind could agree with it. Wars cannot exist in a state of perpetual status quo, if its not possible to win and the game punishes you for winning, there is no reason to fight wars in the first place.
      I believe gugusteh and khladraven highlight the real issues. You should have reasons to win fights and wars. But not without requiring more players than you actually really do.

      In that regards, imho, the best ultimate solution is to remove every lock mechanism and time restraint.

      If CIR (or anyone) wants to take grisdale, they can take take it within the next 30-60 minutes they decide to. If the current owner of grisdale can't defend, they should organise so that they have someone (ally) to defend.

      The whole concept of locks and time constraints was to promote people with limited time, so that they can compete. But did they really compete? Isn't it the nolifers that control the game anyway? I would argue those people's best interests (with limited time) was to be able to choose where to fight on their limited time, and because the nolifers can't play in 3 alts concurrently, they can choose to dodge them and fight elsewhere.

      That would also promote new players into gvg, without requiring caps or soft caps.

      If CIR holds grisdale, and cargera is not on to defend or is busy elsewhere, then the next person can replace him, temporarily, until cargera comes back to reclaim it.
    • Locks and timers exist for good reason. Going to sleep, losing all your sh*t while youre sleeping and having to retake it back when you're online gets boring really fast. Most people are already bored to death of seasons resetting everything once a month.

      Nothing will promote new players into GVG's for as long as it is a net loss activity. The guys that have the funds won't fund them, if they self-fund they'll run out sooner then expected. Territories are quite simply, not worth taking or holding. Any small guild can knock on a territory-owners door and offer to pay them some money for a tower.

      With respec, tomes, adventurer tomes and crystal tomes, alts and GVG's are a casual man's game. Have been for a while, it's literally 30 min playtime sessions.
    • Syndic wrote:

      kreeshak 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?
      That's what they say/want. And I don't disagree with that concept, but with the specifics like how that will happen.Total global/domination should be possible, but hard, and without making the game into a theme mmorpg.
      I feel like nobody in their sane mind could agree with it. Wars cannot exist in a state of perpetual status quo, if its not possible to win and the game punishes you for winning, there is no reason to fight wars in the first place.
      If we look at real wars or games of strategy, they involve logistics. The mechanic of multiple fronts to fight increases the logistics required to succeed.

      So mechanics of scheduled times to launch a fight, fight that fight, where you can be attacked from etc, all make it easier to hold something once you have it and limit the logistical penalties for holding more.

      If you want to jump in a fight people without loss of progress go play a MOBA. If you want to be on a hamster wheel go play WoW.

      For SBI if you want to see AO succeed, make taking stuff possible, make keeping lots of stuff hard, make PvP kills matter towards progression (fame, season points, monthly chest). Make it hard to move an army across the world.

      In general make the time spent in game rewarding and more people will spend more time in game.
    • It would go a long way to separate the royals from the BZ. If we could have a BZ version of Caerleon, with 3-4 walking paths/ships from the royals to the outlands - keep the portals but make the BZ portals only work from the BZ city make a few portals for the rezones maybe "boats" from Caerleon to the landings. And then some new zones peppered in if its possible. It would. just throwing it out there - allow the borderland royals to attack blackzone territories and vice versa. Maybe add T5 Blackzones to the outer ring of the royals.
      Extravirgin olive oil
      3medium onions, chopped
      Salt,black pepper
      4cloves garlic, minced
      1tablespoon tomato paste
      3cups chicken broth
      Freshbasil
      15medium or 10 large ripe tomatoes, Chopped + Juice
    • Syndic wrote:

      Territories are quite simply, not worth taking or holding.
      Why does Kantos then defend royals? if they are not worth holding?


      Syndic wrote:

      Locks and timers exist for good reason. Going to sleep, losing all your sh*t while youre sleeping and having to retake it back when you're online gets boring really fast. Most people are already bored to death of seasons resetting everything once a month.

      Well isn't that double standards though? You are, rightfully, complaining, that them lesser players are trying to move the goalposts and adjust the game to their needs, so they can hold territories, and not depend on those elite few gvgers or rich persons but at the same time you are refusing to share that 'power' with allies or new gvgers, you could potentially need.

      If you need more people to hold your shite while you sleep, you either have more people gvg, which solves their problem, or you lose power. Choices isn't what sandbox should be about?

      To summarise, does anyone really believe it is ok for 100-200 people to control the whole game which potentially consists of more than 10k players? Would it be bad if those 100-200 people became 500-1000?

      The post was edited 2 times, last by kreeshak ().

      • 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.)
      • Only a few top GvG teams fight the majority of all fights, making it extremely difficult to get fresh blood into this scene. Since the top teams circumvent most locking mechanics and potentially fight alliance-wide
      • Alliance armies are too mobile. An Alliance can spontanously accumulate all online members fast at any spot of the world. They are not regionally bound in any sense. Making it hard to have smaller skirmishes, because battles easily escalate in numbers, due to reinforcements getting there very fast.
      • There is not enough incentives to fight enemies in the open world; outside of the structured fights.
      • Mega Alliances lead to a lot of no-shows and auto wins in crystal realm battles.
      My thoughts, when I first started when the game first released. I joined basically a noob guild, I was of course put in to a higher-end guild because I saw they were more competitive. It's extremely hard to be a high-end guild from the get go, not only do you need a core of players but you need consistency from these players... let alone if they're new they need to learn too, there's nearly no answer to having to join or merge with a big guild/alliance because that's how you guys created the game. We're so deep in to the game now that the more experienced players just run over the newer ones until they learn over a long period of time if they want to stick around, you guys have done more for experienced players than the new/developing players from all the updates although your intentions were for new players. The process of your developing and thoughts aren't thorough as everything has a backlash because they're easily abusable by the strong core of players right now.
      As for the GvG scene for newer blood, it's painful as a new player to have to figure out what is strong and weak. Having to fame up something new because what you like isn't exactly viable or strong compared to others. Having to learn how to GvG properly, because 95% of the time you're going to vs a team that is already experienced. The fact that Royal Continent cities are owned by big guilds/alliances, in fact should be owned by newer/developing guilds to help the progress even better, GvG and ZvZ wise, maybe cities brought in to the Black Zone should be a thing and more beneficial for black zone players as we have no need in the Royal Zone, the Royal Zone truly should be for developing and newer players. A thought is a Black Zone like the Royal Zone, centered by all the continents and going from Caerleon goes to Black Zone city > running to your terries, making zoning a lot less mobile to just hop around.

      For alliances being mobile is a bit odd, the typical zvz fight is a lot more advanced now. And holding off a fight is a reason for Alliances to be "mobile". What do you really expect when its a standstill for 15minutes.

      Well you guys basically wrecked open world objectives, mages? waste of time to defend, castles? even nerfed the energy, world boss? a bit decent and other stuff that no one really cares for because most of the rewards open world are trash.

      Maybe Crystal Realm Battles could've been implemented a lot more better to be honest...

      Also want to add that the devs and etc should probably play the game to understand a lot more going on. Because simply updating the game does nothing when you know nothing going on in game.

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

    • Ik its a full loot game where the players gather, craft then sell the gear thats made. Mentioned stuff like this before but you could add a few weeklies possibly? Gear you cannot sell, but you can loot and use. But not trade, so at least they would have half of it trash and one person would be wasting days counting towards their season days in a guild. In addition to the killfame loss from trying to cheese trade the gear. So maybe only allow it to be traded after its looted from a corpse. It could be "crystal realm gear" Or something along those lines, It would probably be flat 6. maybe get a set of flat 5 in addition. You could select the set of none relic gear. A horse, potions, bag and cape. Just a basic set. In addition you could add a coin or something that you have to farm for. Say with pvp fame, kinda like the challenge keys you get from faming, gathering, farming. You turn that coin in for 1 4.2 relic of your choice. or even a flat 4 relic. Then 1 rune and 1 soul coin of your choice for another weekly. If they wanted to risk the basic set to try and earn the relic they can. Ganking, zvz, gvg. If they wanted to "flex" They can raid 1 energy and overcharge. Or they can add pieces to the free gear sets. Maybe if its throw away gear people wont be so afraid to loose it on the daily or at least weekly. maybe add a flat 4 set for a daily. A mission to go out and kill a boss in a dungeon or something, anything in the open world. Somewhere they can spend the cheap or free gear. But yes ik thats taking away from the economy, but who really cares if it creates content out of thin air.

      So yes a welfare system that takes out the middle man and the crafters of that set. The price of premium with gold is much more expensive than it use to be for the lower class. Silver sinks for people with not much money makes a hard life for the poor. This way players could use the sets for fun instead of profit or saving silver. Having fun while still able to use their silver/gold for other things or more gear. Ways to earn the gear would be from the open world so they are risking for the rewards still. Perhaps have a mission or reward from the new black zone outposts.

      For the being able to move around the map to fast. Just dont allow respawns at home or nearest terri anymore. Have a continent lock or portal lock timers increased. Or dont allow suiciding to change locks.
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Hey

      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?.
      This is exactly where small guilds can shine, because Its big alliances who cant zerg up and defend warcamps.

      Small guilds can easily get 10-20 man and get that warcamp. I think IP cap is wrong way, asI am usually more keen to find best solution possible not being satisfied with small adjustments. But this makes sense. Just make some gvg unattractive for A teams. I think not all A teams will enjoy capped gvgs as the meta is different.
    • I honestly think that there needs to be 3 changes in this game to add "balance" to the blackzone war and also add new GvG teams, aswell as remove the domination of moneyholders controlling the playing field.

      #1 IP capping GvG, since it will not only reduce the cost, but also allow PVP oriented players, who really dont enjoy the grind in this game to participate. Barely any PvP interested player enjoys the 100h+ grind that is needed to get into GvG. It isnt only high cost / a barrier of entry, but also a repellant for PvP oriented players, which GvG is supposes to cater.

      #2 Remove the ability to Launch attacks from a Cityplot territory. If there is a team in a Guild that possesses a cityplot, that is a daily threat of a GvG launch, which can even cover 2 different non Adjacent zones. A cityplot farm can give you "free" territories, every time enemy teams arent aviable. This is proven further by the fact that the map is split among guilds depending on their cityplot locations.

      #3 The most important change to this game would be: adding a DECAY system. If any Guild / Player posseses an "undepletable" stack of ressources / gear / money, it is barely possible to fight a war against those. My suggestion would be adding a system where any piece of gear or ressource would decay after a certain amount of time. This way the guilds who earned money 1 year, or even longer ago wouldnt be able to still use it to be superior even now. The T8 outside territories change only affected the INCOME of guilds. it never adressed the infinite Stacks of 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and relics of all the guilds who had mercia for a long while.

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

    • MSSJ wrote:

      I honestly think that there needs to be 3 changes in this game to add "balance" to the blackzone war and also add new GvG teams, aswell as remove the domination of moneyholders controlling the playing field.

      #1 IP capping GvG, since it will not only reduce the cost, but also allow PVP oriented players, who really dont enjoy the grind in this game to participate. Barely any PvP interested player enjoys the 100h+ grind that is needed to get into GvG. It isnt only high cost / a barrier of entry, but also a repellant for PvP oriented players, which GvG is supposes to cater.

      #2 Remove the ability to Launch attacks from a Cityplot territory. If there is a team in a Guild that possesses a cityplot, that is a daily threat of a GvG launch, which can even cover 2 different non Adjacent zones. A cityplot farm can give you "free" territories, every time enemy teams arent aviable. This is proven further by the fact that the map is split among guilds depending on their cityplot locations.

      #3 The most important change to this game would be: adding a DECAY system. If any Guild / Player posseses an "undepletable" stack of ressources / gear / money, it is barely possible to fight a war against those. My suggestion would be adding a system where any piece of gear or ressource would decay after a certain amount of time. This way the guilds who earned money 1 year, or even longer ago wouldnt be able to still use it to be superior even now. The T8 outside territories change only affected the INCOME of guilds. it never adressed the infinite Stacks of 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and relics of all the guilds who had mercia for a long while.
      #3 is probably the greatest concept for a game mechanic this game could ever receive... It would potentially force that elite corner of HCE's to partake in open world content regularly, and drastically adjust the game economy back to a reasonable standard.

      Also, as far as the GvG scene goes.. I've gotten a new team together. We're all veteran players, with some pretty significant time invested into this game. We had our first official GvG a little over a week ago, and completely wrecked the team. Then immediately get launched from an adjacent farmplot by their A team. We had a terri for all of about 35min, and the idea that multiple GvG teams from the same alliance were able to strike back is kind of ridiculous. I feel as though GvG's need to adopt a similar concept from the Crystals where a team is essentially Ranked/Tiered. Lets say you have an A, B, and C team in a guild/alliance- and each of those teams are tiered respectively. If the B team is a tier 2 team, and they take a terri, then I feel as though only the B team (or any ally tier 2 team) should be able to defend that terri. I fully understand that many GvG teams would probably be against this concept, but lets be realistic here... It only takes 48 hours to reclaim. If the A team really wants that terri, then the A team (or any ally tier 1 team) is forced to commit to that terri- as well as holding the responsibility of defending that terri.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by jwhite179 ().

    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Removing the retaliate feature could be a interesting solution, however introducing decay for unused items is just weird as it would just make everyone flip items on the market on a regular basis.

      And with the coming ip caps (that i dont agree with), all the “stocked up respurces” will be close to worthless anyway.
      Counter/retal overwrote the old gvg system, and immediately after we saw a drastic drop in attacks.