Queen Update is likely to backfire at SBI, what will defeat the design

    • hypnoticshadow wrote:

      The solution is here:
      . remove alliances
      . guild cap to 50 accounts
      . max 3 territories owned by one guild, 1 castle for guild, 2 hideout for guild all decided by the system no bigger expenses to discourage or other weak trying just denied more than the limits. And of course access to territories, castle and hideouts strictly limited to the guild that owns it ONLY. Absolutely no access to other guilds.

      Do this and let's see
      brilliant - not gonna happen

      Though would be my beloved game + friendly fire outside groups + enhanced trash rate for 10 beating on ungrouoped

      My prediction is though: here is a 1-3% stronger disarray, as we have understood and executed the result of the poll..

      Or

      Another poll asking more smart..

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

    • hypnoticshadow wrote:

      The solution is here:
      . remove alliances
      . guild cap to 50 accounts
      . max 3 territories owned by one guild, 1 castle for guild, 2 hideout for guild all decided by the system no bigger expenses to discourage or other weak trying just denied more than the limits. And of course access to territories, castle and hideouts strictly limited to the guild that owns it ONLY. Absolutely no access to other guilds.

      Do this and let's see
      its totally looks like: no one should have more then me, and me go almost nothing.
      I got 50 players guild - so punish all who got more?
      What is next? I got t4.0 gear - punish all who got t4.1+? ( I already see such suggestions here).

      How about, i can play 8 hours a week, so limit all players online time to 8 hours a week? Or they become to strong! Nice idea!

      And BTW - your suggestion still have no reason to not wipe your hideouts, by 2 guilds in NAP, just coth they are wanna greif you.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by iRawr ().

    • iRawr wrote:

      hypnoticshadow wrote:

      The solution is here:
      . remove alliances
      . guild cap to 50 accounts
      . max 3 territories owned by one guild, 1 castle for guild, 2 hideout for guild all decided by the system no bigger expenses to discourage or other weak trying just denied more than the limits. And of course access to territories, castle and hideouts strictly limited to the guild that owns it ONLY. Absolutely no access to other guilds.

      Do this and let's see
      its totally looks like: no one should have more then me, and me go almost nothing.I got 50 players guild - so punish all who got more?
      What is next? I got t4.0 gear - punish all who got t4.1+? ( I already see such suggestions here).

      How about, i can play 8 hours a week, so limit all players online time to 8 hours a week? Or they become to strong! Nice idea!

      And BTW - your suggestion still have no reason to not wipe your hideouts, by 2 guilds in NAP, just coth they are wanna greif you.
      Sorry if you are in that kind of situation. I got what I want and what I was suggesting was not referred to me specifically but oh wait you are one of the alliance guys who are trying to save their bottom fro. sinking that's explains a lot
    • iRawr wrote:

      hypnoticshadow wrote:

      The solution is here:
      . remove alliances
      . guild cap to 50 accounts
      . max 3 territories owned by one guild, 1 castle for guild, 2 hideout for guild all decided by the system no bigger expenses to discourage or other weak trying just denied more than the limits. And of course access to territories, castle and hideouts strictly limited to the guild that owns it ONLY. Absolutely no access to other guilds.

      Do this and let's see
      its totally looks like: no one should have more then me, and me go almost nothing.I got 50 players guild - so punish all who got more?
      What is next? I got t4.0 gear - punish all who got t4.1+? ( I already see such suggestions here).

      How about, i can play 8 hours a week, so limit all players online time to 8 hours a week? Or they become to strong! Nice idea!

      And BTW - your suggestion still have no reason to not wipe your hideouts, by 2 guilds in NAP, just coth they are wanna greif you.
      do u have any clue about the players behind u claim such things?

      Hypnotic is Rich in game cause he knows how to play. He makes a lot on PvP, he can sustain with whatever crap hallened or happens. The thing we all try address is this:

      Leading OW guild 4 days ago 80 terries now 120 ..this is not gonna stop. That is +50%. That is even more as with GvG. Do u really think this mega alliance steam roll is on the long run beneficial for the game??

      And this mega alliance had 4 days ago 2k players, now it has 2.4 k players..

      Do u think that is beneficial??

      It is a demonstration of power projection, and I am happy that they show what can be achieved..

      But it needs be fixed
    • Don't you see? It will happen any way. Strong alliance take 120 or 5 strong guilds take 24 each.

      The reason is - just a bit players wanna competition vs strong guild or alliance.
      And like 90% of other small/medium guilds - just looking for the weaker opponents to greif they hideout, fight em 50 vs 15, etc. They just dont wanna real fights, they wanna win, and if its easy win - they like it even more.

      So if small and medium guild motivated to kill some smaller for easy wins and loot - then big guilds and allies have no pressure and can do what they want.

      Just like with GvG, if all MG terri will be attacked they can not defend it, but they got just 2-3 attacks daily. And not coth they defends warcaps so good, just coth no one event want to attack.

      There is no motivation to attack big guild or alliance, so players just dont want to do it, and prefer just zvz roam to find 30 vs 10 fight.
    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      Man, you can win 15 vs 30 or 25 vs 50 .. especially with disarray on that..

      But

      You cannot win 25 vs 250 ..
      I dint say you can't. I sayd players who got 50 players prefer to look 50 vs 20 fights insted of cooperate with other such guilds and attack big one.
      You can win 25 vs 50, but its much ez to win 50 vs 25. So why fight 25 vs 50 if you also can fight 25 vs 5.
      Just the rewards for 50 vs 25 fight is much better, and risk is much lower, then even 50 vs 50. So there is no motivation to attack big alliance.
      Example:
      (Guild wanna content for next CTA)

      1. Mass 2 partys to attack big alliance with another guild who wanna content.
      2. Mass 2 partys and gank and bank 25 t8 sets.

      Time waste is the same.
      Why should any one chose the first option?
      There is just no real reason, reward, or motivation to do it. But alot of reasons and motivation on 2-nd option.
      If this problem will not be solved, players will prefer second option any way.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by iRawr ().

    • I have yet to see an actual benefit provided from this current alliance system mentioned from you handful of current mechanic defenders. It is glaringly obvious the current setup does not work because it does nothing to punish ridiculous group sizes. You guys should not even need the cluster que system because 350 people in one zone should never even be a thing. Instead expand your zerg debuff to be 100% debuff on excessive blob sizes based on tier of zone. Stop proving incentives for the playerbase to operate in all this low skill N+1 playstyles. Players will always gravitate to what is the most efficient and your current mechanics make it most efficient to just blob smash.
    • Korn wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.
      It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
      @Korn the thing that needs to come in a short-term now is SEVERE limitations to the size of zerg fights on the game, it's simply impossible we are seeing T5 Blobs in the map borders just simply because they can and obviously no guild in that area has any chance whatsoever. The mechanics you implemented on Queen that you did think would balance are working in favor of those T4/T5 blobs, 1) because the queue system is prioritizing IP, a smaller guild or ally zerg that won't be on good specs + t8+ gear is being kicked out when this big blobs port in (what ruined reset day for us btw) and 2) the gear efficiency bonus is adding even more IP to those top zergs that are gearing themselves on high tier items.

      Another VERY important thing, the Hideout system the mega-allies especially POE and 1941 are deleting everyone's hideouts just out of spite, some hold the hideouts hostage for payments others just plain delete everyone from a map without any chance for them fighting back, it is MOST important as fast as possible that the hideouts can't be this easily destroyed, it doesn't matter it takes multiple days if you will never have a minimum chance of disrupting the zergs that are coming to camp the hideout when that happens. So that is deff a failed mechanic some guilds managed to place hideouts when the update launched and things were chaotic, but now, you will get "gangbanged" just because people can, there is no mechanic there discouraging it. The "rent system" is actually working against smaller guilds and alliances because they big ones that do that and surround you do mute you militarily from fighting them & their allies what is the game's equivalent of "go sit in that chair in the corner facing the wall".
    • TheBacon wrote:

      the thing that needs to come in a short-term now is SEVERE limitations to the size of zerg fights on the game, it's simply impossible we are seeing T5 Blobs in the map borders just simply because they can and obviously no guild in that area has any chance whatsoever.

      I increasingly believe the best way to limit zergs is to stop rewarding them. Right now territories are conquered on a schedule, a single point in time, which rewards bringing as many players as possible to the fight. Mechanics like disarray are simply a bandaid on a broken bone.

      If, however, territories had to be conquered bit by bit throughout the day, huge zergs would no longer be rewarded. Instead, consistent numbers would be rewarded.

      I see this as a point system: defenders accumulate fortification points per day (via CGvGs, silver, and resources), and attackers accumulate assault points per day (by killing guards, mages, the Tower mage, and channeling the tower on a single-threaded CD). If by terri primetime, the attacking guilds have more assault points than the defenders have fortification points, the guild with the highest attack points win the terri.

      That instantly zaps the reward for zergs, especially if point accumulation per hour can be maxed with a small group (think a mage raiding or boss team party). :) That means PvP would far more likely be small group action, and it would be always there. There would be no single scheduled point in time to attract masses of players, nor would having a mass of players on a terri get you any more points per hour.

      Also, an alliance with many terris would suddenly need to be constantly guarding each terri against raids, and deciding how much they want to invest in getting defender points each day. In that environment, even a small, unallied guild doing raids can be a serious problem to a huge alliance, since they can stack attacker points anywhere.

      Rebalance hideouts in this paradigm, and I suspect a small alliance/guild would be in far better shape to hang on to a hideout, because attacking a hideout would no longer be a matter of massing the biggest zerg at a point in time, but of a continual presence at the hideout, which is an enormous opportunity cost for a huge alliance (since everything else a huge alliance owns would be vulnerable at the same time), and also something even a small guild can do well, if they only have one or two locations to defend.

      Albion Outlands warfare would thus be vastly different, balanced around endless small group fighting, without the need for zerg bandaid mechanics or restructuring alliances.

      I think that's a good thing. :)
    • UNFM wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
      better think to change it how fast it is possible, casuals and small/medium guild make you much more prfoit then big alliance, big alliances spend ingame gold for $$ and slowly killing game.
      otherwise, big alliances do nothing for game, they just abuse non caped numbers of alliances, to make for himself biggest profit, price of it is so many people leave the game, its unplayable at all, how long someone can be at yellow/red zone.

      also hideout idea is great but not with big alliances in game, few days ago I got letter from "POE" "Pay 2m per day otherwise we smash your hideout with everything"

      what should I do with this.. I have no chance to defend it and wont pay for this.. so 1 part of content is blocked for me..

      same shit is with world bosses, I can only dream about it, everything camped by big alliances, resources ? everything camped, FF? dont be funny, every static t7/8 is camped 24/7

      what left to do from whole content, some low tier dungeons, HG, ganking,gather low tier resources rest of content is locked.

      NAP is not key to fix current problems with big alliances..
      Alot of this is true to a point, But some is blown up, Like the dung thing, There are plenty of dungs that arn't camped, Also world bosses arn't always camped either, That will also slow down a bit after queen. Though I do agree all that is a problem, It is however blow up a bit.
    • Neef wrote:

      UNFM wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
      better think to change it how fast it is possible, casuals and small/medium guild make you much more prfoit then big alliance, big alliances spend ingame gold for $$ and slowly killing game.otherwise, big alliances do nothing for game, they just abuse non caped numbers of alliances, to make for himself biggest profit, price of it is so many people leave the game, its unplayable at all, how long someone can be at yellow/red zone.

      also hideout idea is great but not with big alliances in game, few days ago I got letter from "POE" "Pay 2m per day otherwise we smash your hideout with everything"

      what should I do with this.. I have no chance to defend it and wont pay for this.. so 1 part of content is blocked for me..

      same shit is with world bosses, I can only dream about it, everything camped by big alliances, resources ? everything camped, FF? dont be funny, every static t7/8 is camped 24/7

      what left to do from whole content, some low tier dungeons, HG, ganking,gather low tier resources rest of content is locked.

      NAP is not key to fix current problems with big alliances..
      Alot of this is true to a point, But some is blown up, Like the dung thing, There are plenty of dungs that arn't camped, Also world bosses arn't always camped either, That will also slow down a bit after queen. Though I do agree all that is a problem, It is however blow up a bit.
      agreed, maybe I have no luck to FF, every static at t8 ground when I was there was with scout from big ally "squak" or others.. thats I call it camped.