Alliance Point Sharing

    • Retroman wrote:

      Flohhopf wrote:

      Retroman wrote:

      ALL Season Points generated are now partially also shared with all alliance members. (this also includes Guild Challenge, etc.)
      @Retroman maybe you think again in especially the guild challenge, because imo there is a too high risk to abuse this mechanic.Atm with the guild challenge there is a way to get seasonpoints without interacting with other guilds, with the problem that it would be harder every time you reached a new level (lvl1 300 seasonpoints vs 100,000 keys; lvl 50 300 seasonpoints vs 5,000,000 keys) thats a good system i think. but look at it combined with your new system:

      1. I level my guild (below called mainguild) to guildchallenge lvl 4 (1,200 seasonpoints with 1,000,000 keys)
      2. now i make my own alliance with that guild (im solo in that alliance)
      3. all players deposit their alts in that guild to get seasonrewards

      4. with all mains, we create a new guild and join alliance.
      5. i level new guild to level 1 in guildchallenge (75 seasonpoints to mainguild, 225 seasonpoints to new guild for 100,000 keys)
      6. leave alliance with new guild, and

      and now repeat step 4-6 in endless (there is no problem with 7 days alliancehopping penalty cause its always a new guild that is hopping and there is no minimum of time they have to stay). i can get 75 seasonpoints for my mainguild for every 100,000 keys we can get as guild!!!
      if we get problems with 2 days guildhopping lock, we can create more guilds simultaneosly and join alliance just a minute before reaching first level up, so single guilds level slower but the result of points is the same.

      In sum i can reach crystal rank with only 239,400,000 keys thats round about the same like now theoretically guild level 69 (which would be 20,700 instead of 180,000 seasonpoints if you do it fair like now)

      and the funny thing in this way i can get crystalrank without enter one time a full loot PvP-zone (like it would be if i do crystalfights, castlefights, mage raiding, GvG, etc. the normal things to get seasonpoints)

      so pls think again in sharing guildchallenge points with alliance because of the specific way the guild challenge scales
      Good Point. :thumbup:
      We will change it so the Season Points generated via the Guild Challenge are excluded from the Alliance Sharing.

      Cheers,
      Retro


      Hm, I'm kinda for and against this. The issue then is guild that don't conquer territories will contribute no points to an alliance they are supporting while still being part of it, Which might lead to it's own problems. Maybe just make it that if a guild leaves an alliance those guild points from guild challenges are removed from the alliance? Does not need to go back to the original guild, could just be lost.

      Kinda would need to be treated differently then points earned from other sources. The question I guess becomes how.
    • Your proposed Idea is not the right tool to downsize alliances as it is NOT punishing large alliances, it is punishing alliances with large differences in the effort the guilds are willing to spend for season points.

      Assume an alliance of only three guilds: 1 guild is place 1 of last season and guild 2 and 3 are the last 2 guilds in position ranking. What would this change mean? guild 1 would have reached instead of 675k points only 675*0,66 points and lost their very clear first place and guild2 would have reached instead of less than 30 points more than 100k per guild.

      Assume now an alliance of 100 guild from place 693 (lowest bronze guild) to place 593. This are 100 guild with same effort in last season. These guilds would have still all reached clear bronze rank. It would just mean that the spread in points from ~3500 to ~4200 points would be very equal around 3900.
      This alliance would have no reason to change anything with new point system.
      A alliance of the top 50 guilds (crystal to top silver) would be with this approach meaning that those 50 guilds reach most likely only gold, but this alliance would be dominating the complete game in an unseen manner.

      The real punishment is now, that large and active guilds have no incentive to alliance with small or casual guilds and are instead punished when not form alliances with guild having the same dedication. But there would be no problem for the guilds positioning 50 to 150 forming a power alliance.
      So your tool is not preventing large alliances at all, it is just shaking the actually large alliances in that the top guilds need to reconsider forming an alliance with casual guilds meaning in many alliances will either the top player leave or the casuals get kicked and you are forced to choose your alliance partner to meet your dedication towards season points.

      The real punsihed guilds are not the once beeing in large alliances, but the ones having not power or will to keep up with their more dedicated alliance partners when it comes to guild points.

      A small guild with less than 20 player or guild mainly gathering and not real into pvp will now be wrong in an alliance with crystal rank guild regardless if this alliance consists of 2 guild or 100 guilds. But a gold or silver rank guild could still be fine within a large alliance.

      So the proposed change would of course break up _now_ the large alliances, but not in a way preventing large alliances at all, just in a way that existing alliances need to sort their guilds more carefully in terms of dedicdation towards season points with most likely ending in same amount of alliances as now, just with less mixture of high-end and low-end guilds in same alliance which for me is not a gain, but a real loss for the game.
    • Oldboy wrote:

      Your proposed Idea is not the right tool to downsize alliances as it is NOT punishing large alliances, it is punishing alliances with large differences in the effort the guilds are willing to spend for season points.

      Assume an alliance of only three guilds: 1 guild is place 1 of last season and guild 2 and 3 are the last 2 guilds in position ranking. What would this change mean? guild 1 would have reached instead of 675k points only 675*0,66 points and lost their very clear first place and guild2 would have reached instead of less than 30 points more than 100k per guild.

      Assume now an alliance of 100 guild from place 693 (lowest bronze guild) to place 593. This are 100 guild with same effort in last season. These guilds would have still all reached clear bronze rank. It would just mean that the spread in points from ~3500 to ~4200 points would be very equal around 3900.
      This alliance would have no reason to change anything with new point system.
      A alliance of the top 50 guilds (crystal to top silver) would be with this approach meaning that those 50 guilds reach most likely only gold, but this alliance would be dominating the complete game in an unseen manner.

      The real punishment is now, that large and active guilds have no incentive to alliance with small or casual guilds and are instead punished when not form alliances with guild having the same dedication. But there would be no problem for the guilds positioning 50 to 150 forming a power alliance.
      So your tool is not preventing large alliances at all, it is just shaking the actually large alliances in that the top guilds need to reconsider forming an alliance with casual guilds meaning in many alliances will either the top player leave or the casuals get kicked and you are forced to choose your alliance partner to meet your dedication towards season points.

      The real punsihed guilds are not the once beeing in large alliances, but the ones having not power or will to keep up with their more dedicated alliance partners when it comes to guild points.

      A small guild with less than 20 player or guild mainly gathering and not real into pvp will now be wrong in an alliance with crystal rank guild regardless if this alliance consists of 2 guild or 100 guilds. But a gold or silver rank guild could still be fine within a large alliance.

      So the proposed change would of course break up _now_ the large alliances, but not in a way preventing large alliances at all, just in a way that existing alliances need to sort their guilds more carefully in terms of dedicdation towards season points with most likely ending in same amount of alliances as now, just with less mixture of high-end and low-end guilds in same alliance which for me is not a gain, but a real loss for the game.
      You talked about those things as if they are bad. Casual guilds shouldn't be playing riskless in high end zones.

      This proposal is in the correct direction. If you want to be part of end game content, make an effort. Show up in CTAs, help keep the territories, don't just leech.
    • ImaDoki wrote:

      Casual guilds shouldn't be playing riskless in high end zones.

      So much elitism. :( Mixing high-end guilds with new guilds is the best way to get new guilds and players on their feet, to know the game and how it works. Let them experience endgame firsthand, and want to own territory for themselves.

      Isolating the veteran and the newer guilds from each other, however, will tend to push out newer players, leaving the game dominated by veterans. That's not a business position I'd want to be in.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      ImaDoki wrote:

      Casual guilds shouldn't be playing riskless in high end zones.
      So much elitism. :( Mixing high-end guilds with new guilds is the best way to get new guilds and players on their feet, to know the game and how it works. Let them experience endgame firsthand, and want to own territory for themselves.

      Isolating the veteran and the newer guilds from each other, however, will tend to push out newer players, leaving the game dominated by veterans. That's not a business position I'd want to be in.
      This has nothing to do with elitism, but with progression.

      Day in, day off, someone show up complaining of being mass ganked in the Blackzones and how the game is bad because gankers are riskless, how some weapons are so good or so bad, and most of them has never even ganked or used those weapons or at least understand what they actually do.

      This is a game, people is supposed to learn and develop from early stages (all the way up to redzone) to mid stages (low black, west cumbria) to high stages (east cumbria/mercia).

      What happens today are mega alliances inclusing as many guilds as possible to have massive numbers to cap the maps or make the fights impossible. On the other hand, there are leech guilds out there doing absolutely NOTHING to help their alliances.

      With this, high end guilds gets punished for using small guilds as meat shields and for using anti game mechanics (zone cap) to get advantage AND casual/small guilda have to put some effort to benefit from safe high end content.


      I'm NOT saying casual guilds should have no access to high end content. I said it's bizarre they have to put ZERO effort to have RISKLESS high end content.

      I myself run T8 solo dungeons in mercia without a single territory in Mercia available for safetiness. And with next update the number of t8 maps are gonna rise significantly.

      Point sharing is a nice step into the right direction: combating the mega alliances.

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

    • ImaDoki wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      ImaDoki wrote:

      Casual guilds shouldn't be playing riskless in high end zones.
      So much elitism. :( Mixing high-end guilds with new guilds is the best way to get new guilds and players on their feet, to know the game and how it works. Let them experience endgame firsthand, and want to own territory for themselves.
      Isolating the veteran and the newer guilds from each other, however, will tend to push out newer players, leaving the game dominated by veterans. That's not a business position I'd want to be in.
      This has nothing to do with elitism, but with progression.
      Day in, day off, someone show up complaining of being mass ganked in the Blackzones and how the game is bad because gankers are riskless, how some weapons are so good or so bad, and most of them has never even ganked or used those weapons or at least understand what they actually do.

      This is a game, people is supposed to learn and develop from early stages (all the way up to redzone) to mid stages (low black, west cumbria) to high stages (east cumbria/mercia).

      What happens today are mega alliances inclusing as many guilds as possible to have massive numbers to cap the maps or make the fights impossible. On the other hand, there are leech guilds out there doing absolutely NOTHING to help their alliances.

      With this, high end guilds gets punished for using small guilds as meat shields and for using anti game mechanics (zone cap) to get advantage AND casual/small guilda have to put some effort to benefit from safe high end content.


      I'm NOT saying casual guilds should have no access to high end content. I said it's bizarre they have to put ZERO effort to have RISKLESS high end content.

      I myself run T8 solo dungeons in mercia without a single territory in Mercia available for safetiness. And with next update the number of t8 maps are gonna rise significantly.

      Point sharing is a nice step into the right direction: combating the mega alliances.

      This is about new players learning by playing with experienced players. Allowing small guilds to join super-alliances has downsides, sure, but it tends to keep the new player lifecycle running, which is essential for the long-term health of the game.

      Concentrating veteran players into the smallest possible number of guilds and alliances, however, will stifle new players, and thus tend to destroy the game.

      This is the difference:

      1) New player joins casual guild in big alliance -> Gets a chance to play alongside veterans in endgame content -> Learns from veterans and from experiences -> Is now on fast-track to becoming veteran -> Replaces a veteran who is quitting the game- > Albion stays alive.
      2) New player joins casual guild in small alliance -> All the veterans have joined the best guilds they can and have kicked out all casual guilds from alliances -> New player has no chance to play with veterans -> Endgame content is locked down by top alliances -> New player's learning progression is stifled -> New player quits playing game seriously, if at all -> Is not available to replace a veteran who is quitting the game -> Albion dies.

      That will be the long-term effect and tendency of the new rules. There are -much- better ways to handle the downsides of mega alliances.
    • ImaDoki wrote:

      You talked about those things as if they are bad. Casual guilds shouldn't be playing riskless in high end zones.
      This proposal is in the correct direction. If you want to be part of end game content, make an effort. Show up in CTAs, help keep the territories, don't just leech.
      First there is no riskless play possible in Mercia. Neither for casual nor for progress gamers, You should play long enough to know this.
      But if beeing part of pro game alliance would reduce risk, why would it be good to give this only to gamers playing at least 50h a week? Or only to those casual players that join Mega-Guilds?.
      I'm not a progress gamer and still be part of top 100 guild and would have several options to join larger guilds that operate in top 50.

      But you did not even understand my point. This is not about beeing able to leech from large alliances. This is that Devs want to reduce alliance size (why ever they think it is necessary) with a tool that by no means enforces playing in small alliances. It just ensures that alilances will be formed of guilds with equal dedication towards guild points (this is not even a question of strength in PvP or similar). In fact if you think about it even benefits guilds forming large alliances as long as they choose the right partners.

      If having large alliancs is bad, why is it good to have guilds with more than 20 Players?
      And why should an alliance of 30 guilds with 20 people each be worse than an alliance of 2 guilds with 300 player? And if thats the case why is guild size limited to 300 instead of 3000?

      The measure of guild instead of player for guild point distribution is random.

      If size of alliance is a problem, than limit size of alliance to 3000 player for instance instead of limit number of guilds to 100. That would downsize immediate and is fair and good.
    • I believe there will be the change that guild challenge is only affacts the own guild, I like that.

      Then I think Alliance sharing points is a good thing.
      There have been (smaller) guilds saying they getting severely punished. But it seems they are in a alliance that doesnt care about season points&ranking and those guilds do care. You are probably getting advantage from being in those allys where the other guilds dont care about points. Also the punishment isnt that hard, maybe they loose their battle mount, or they have to structure their alliances new.

      Players playing with experienced guys is good point, but currently there is only very few places where unexperienced players can fight unexperienced players. this change with the new Outlands could be great for that.

      Large less-competitive ally are good, they provide content to everyone.

      whatever just my thoughts,
      cheers
      ingame:Soph/princeOberyn guild:Ark1 alliance:BOOH (our own)
    • ImaDoki wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      That will be the long-term effect and tendency of the new rules. There are -much- better ways to handle the downsides of mega alliances.
      Can you point out the -much- better ways?

      Fair enough. :) I'd want to handle the problem immersively, not arbitrarily. One consideration: what makes it hard for large armies to fight in Real Life? Even a cursory examination of history makes it plain the answer is logistics: simply moving a large army is hard. (Somewhat ironically, Albion might be called Dragoons Online: we're all mounted infantry, with indefatigable horses, no less! :) )

      Conversely, for much of history the anti-zerg mechanic has been fortresses.

      So, that gives me two immersive ways to consider solutions:

      - Make it harder to assemble a large army in one place (but don't inherently penalize one for being assembled).
      - Make it easier to defend owned territory against a significantly larger force.

      In short, offense should be difficult (though not impossible), while defense should be easy (though not guaranteed). That gameplay philosophy would tend to make it easier for small guilds to hold on to something, and also make it easier for a small alliance to focus on attacking a single territory owned by a large alliance that has spread its forces across a huge swath of territory.

      With that in mind, we can get into details. Just for example:

      - Schedule as many point-scoring events at the same time (in short, do castles and terris for a time zone simultaneously, not staggered). Alliances will have to divide forces more if they want more points, since a single huge zerg can't be everywhere at once.
      - Completely wall off territories (or put castles inside them), and buff castles to something more realistic: give defenders range advantage from walls, reduce enemy effectiveness against enemies on walls, provide defensive siege emplacements. Castles should be hard to crack open; an assaulting zerg should expect to require two or even three times the number of defenders to have a chance of victory. The toughest castles (maybe for hideouts) could even require battlemounts to batter down walls.
      - Increase the silver cost of owning multiple territories as more territories are conquered.
      - Implement a supply debuff: the farther you are from your hideout, the worse the debuff. (This would tend to encourage more geographically realistic wars and maybe even alliances.)

      Those are all possibilities that do not discourage large alliances from teaming up with new or casual guilds, while also giving new or causal guilds a better chance to participate on their own.
    • Can you make it so that if a Guild leaves an alliance or is kicked from an alliance then those points are subtracted from the guilds that benefited? My guild was in a big alliance and ZvZ everyday, donating over 5-20M in gear sets daily to help "Money Guild" try to win first place, and after season points were over we were surprised by being removed from the alliance, and no access to territories. I feel that the bigger guilds will use smaller guilds and kick them after they get their shared points.
      Youtube Tametheark
    • yiconomics wrote:

      Can you make it so that if a Guild leaves an alliance or is kicked from an alliance then those points are subtracted from the guilds that benefited? My guild was in a big alliance and ZvZ everyday, donating over 5-20M in gear sets daily to help "Money Guild" try to win first place, and after season points were over we were surprised by being removed from the alliance, and no access to territories. I feel that the bigger guilds will use smaller guilds and kick them after they get their shared points.
      Very bad idea. Such method can lead to situation when in last moment of a season guild left an allianse and other guilds drop from higher rank to lower.
    • yiconomics wrote:

      Can you make it so that if a Guild leaves an alliance or is kicked from an alliance then those points are subtracted from the guilds that benefited? My guild was in a big alliance and ZvZ everyday, donating over 5-20M in gear sets daily to help "Money Guild" try to win first place, and after season points were over we were surprised by being removed from the alliance, and no access to territories. I feel that the bigger guilds will use smaller guilds and kick them after they get their shared points.
      Seems unnecessary. Under the point share system, a supporting guild like you describe would have siphoned more points away from the lead guild than they recieved from you. Something that might be needed though would be for point sharing to continue for 1-3 days. Something like that would be helpful to deter guilds from dropping/kicking to keep more points for themselves even if they fully intend to rejoin/invite shortly after the points tick in.