Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

  • Evil1 wrote:

    Good Job! But please consider to count 1 Account as 1 Player so crafter / gather alt don't count towards the limit

    Munjat wrote:

    Worst idea ever ... 300 players ... there's guilds that won't even be able to be in the same alliance .. It doesn't make any sense.
    Limit the number of guilds in the alliance that make sense, or like 900-1000 members (about 3 full guilds) ...
    But 300, no point, the word ALLIANCE won't even make sense anymore .
    350k players at QUEEN release, after the maj, your numbers will go down believe me.

    The account thing would be a nice future implementation if feasible to allow alts in the same guild without concern

    The whole point is that 300 player limit is an alternative to removing alliances.

    At this point with the way the game is restructure, there really is no need for alliances to exist anymore. People can cooperate outside the functions of the game with NAPs etc. however they want, sure - but the key benefits, city building etc. of the game in the BZ now there is really a major setback to the world operating under large groups. You shouldn't be able to claim a large area, there should be danger and small kingdoms all over the place.
  • Roccandil wrote:

    Norgannon wrote:

    The limitation to 300 members per alliance will provide a REAL opportunity for small entities against large ones, most of them argue that they will not be able to compete against large entities but are avoiding the factual fact that Disarray will change to support this test.
    LOL. :) The limitation to 300 members means small entities will effectively cease to exist. Let's use the military concept of "effectives" to describe why.

    Currently, a guild of the "small entity" variety, can have alts, crafters, gatherers, and casuals padding its numbers. Average combat effectives at zvz time will likely be a small percentage of the total: say, 10-20% on any given night. (And I'm not saying the "effectives" are skilled: they're simply the ones showing up for zvz.) Despite that, under the current alliance system many of those guilds can unite their combat effectives, and still form a decent-sized zerg with a chance to do something.

    Under the new system, however, that will be a practical impossibility. The only way casual guilds will be able to unite their effectives, and thus have a chance at being relevant, is by stripping everyone else out and forming a single guild of only zvz players, thus destroying the small entities.

    The only relevant guilds will be zvz-first, and there will be no room for anyone else.

    Additionally, anyone interested in zvz will have to find a guild of concentrated zvz players, but new players will have a hard time getting into those guilds, and will thus have far less chance of playing alongside more experienced players and shotcallers. It's a catch-22: to get zvz experience, you need to get into a zvz guild, but to get into a zvz guild, you need zvz experience.

    Long-term, this will stifle new player progression into zvz. This change effectively strips away stepping stones for new players, and gives the Outlands to zvz guilds. (I note that the best zvz guilds are also those most able to work within the framework of friendly fire, and they will continue to dominate.)
    Its going to do the opposite. Its going to break larger alliances down, making people choose one of two options, 300 man guild or 300 man alliance. And this new map will possible have people spread out in more zones.

    What's the difference between and gatherer and a PK?
  • VUZUV wrote:

    You shouldn't be able to claim a large area, there should be danger and small kingdoms all over the place.
    They can, and they still will, this happened on EvE online when the large NAPs happened, the control was insane to the point the whole game is monopolized. The lower tier of PvP content, be that ganking, etc... is already seen as content between allies, when the big guilds hold hands is on holding terris, placing hideouts and mutually attacking the same targets.

    The lack of alliance system just makes the dedicated ZvZ guilds on NAP be extremely powerful, monopolization is extremely profitable so there is motivation from the mutual benefit to hold such agreements.
  • ImaDoki wrote:

    What we have now:

    No cap on alliances
    Small guilds leeching big alliances
    Power projection based on sheer numbers
    Guilds not affiliated to big alliances denied influence of the outlands
    Tons of stale areas due to handholding

    What we will have with this change:

    Max 300 players per alliance
    Small guilds having to actively fight for space by allying with other small guilds
    Power projection based on strategy
    More conflict overall



    What will guilds win with the change:

    More content
    Less opression based on sheer numbers
    More space to explore the new outlands

    What will they lose?

    Allied territories
    Allied Battle mounts buff
    Allied healing
    Suffer FriendlyFire

    And the economy?

    More deaths all around = more gear trashed = more market activity.
    I gonna tell u what gonna happen, ok? Gonna try to be simple to do ur brain undestand.
    Even with 300ppl in alliance nothing gonna change, what SBI is doing is just removing alliance from the game. And if u are thinking like "OK, Small allys gonna have space..." Please, dont be fool, even with 6 smalls guilds in a alliance wont be able to fight a organized one. So, do you wanna give space for small ally? Ok, lets try to limite ZvZ for terris capped to 75 ppl, or less, 50, IDK!
    Ok, ok... Nothing gonna happen, SQUAK/POE/1941 gonna be organized to dont do FF, its all.
    SBI Dont be fool, lets get smart. If u guys wanna remove alliance from the game, say ti direcly, dont think that we are retard.
    And another thing that I've heard here... giant alliance DO NOT fight against small alliances, just dont happen.
  • MosassauroLoiro wrote:

    ImaDoki wrote:

    What we have now:

    No cap on alliances
    Small guilds leeching big alliances
    Power projection based on sheer numbers
    Guilds not affiliated to big alliances denied influence of the outlands
    Tons of stale areas due to handholding

    What we will have with this change:

    Max 300 players per alliance
    Small guilds having to actively fight for space by allying with other small guilds
    Power projection based on strategy
    More conflict overall



    What will guilds win with the change:

    More content
    Less opression based on sheer numbers
    More space to explore the new outlands

    What will they lose?

    Allied territories
    Allied Battle mounts buff
    Allied healing
    Suffer FriendlyFire

    And the economy?

    More deaths all around = more gear trashed = more market activity.
    I gonna tell u what gonna happen, ok? Gonna try to be simple to do ur brain undestand.Even with 300ppl in alliance nothing gonna change, what SBI is doing is just removing alliance from the game. And if u are thinking like "OK, Small allys gonna have space..." Please, dont be fool, even with 6 smalls guilds in a alliance wont be able to fight a organized one. So, do you wanna give space for small ally? Ok, lets try to limite ZvZ for terris capped to 75 ppl, or less, 50, IDK!
    Ok, ok... Nothing gonna happen, SQUAK/POE/1941 gonna be organized to dont do FF, its all.
    SBI Dont be fool, lets get smart. If u guys wanna remove alliance from the game, say ti direcly, dont think that we are retard.
    And another thing that I've heard here... giant alliance DO NOT fight against small alliances, just dont happen.
    how this change will change nothing what is crying about?
    LUL
  • UNFM wrote:

    MosassauroLoiro wrote:

    ImaDoki wrote:

    What we have now:

    No cap on alliances
    Small guilds leeching big alliances
    Power projection based on sheer numbers
    Guilds not affiliated to big alliances denied influence of the outlands
    Tons of stale areas due to handholding

    What we will have with this change:

    Max 300 players per alliance
    Small guilds having to actively fight for space by allying with other small guilds
    Power projection based on strategy
    More conflict overall



    What will guilds win with the change:

    More content
    Less opression based on sheer numbers
    More space to explore the new outlands

    What will they lose?

    Allied territories
    Allied Battle mounts buff
    Allied healing
    Suffer FriendlyFire

    And the economy?

    More deaths all around = more gear trashed = more market activity.
    I gonna tell u what gonna happen, ok? Gonna try to be simple to do ur brain undestand.Even with 300ppl in alliance nothing gonna change, what SBI is doing is just removing alliance from the game. And if u are thinking like "OK, Small allys gonna have space..." Please, dont be fool, even with 6 smalls guilds in a alliance wont be able to fight a organized one. So, do you wanna give space for small ally? Ok, lets try to limite ZvZ for terris capped to 75 ppl, or less, 50, IDK!Ok, ok... Nothing gonna happen, SQUAK/POE/1941 gonna be organized to dont do FF, its all.
    SBI Dont be fool, lets get smart. If u guys wanna remove alliance from the game, say ti direcly, dont think that we are retard.
    And another thing that I've heard here... giant alliance DO NOT fight against small alliances, just dont happen.
    how this change will change nothing what is crying about?LUL
    Because its stuppid. And to be honest, wont change nothing for me, but I'm thinkin about the small ones, I would like to see some small alliances rising.
  • Lets wait and see what happens. I personally think it wont make a big change for current small guilds/alliances.

    Yes former alliated guilds will gank, dive, kill each other in small scale encounters and clusters controls will probably be fought by themselve without back up of other guilds but GMs will also sit and talk about land distribution and say "Okay, these are mine and those are yours. We dont raid your mages, outposts or castles and you dont raid ours". At the end, most clusters will be controlled and disputed by the same guilds doing it now.


    About hidding names and guild/alliance tags in BZ i like the idea. Make them only visible in the safe zones.
  • blappo wrote:

    Eltharyon wrote:

    Based on that impact and on the community’s feedback, we will decide on whether to keep, adjust or reverse the change.
    Trust me reverse = 50% players base just leaves
    300 is a bit extreme no cap to guild cap... but W/e so long as there is a cap i am happier.
    I think only fans of full monopoly adn endless himself profit will leave game for sure BUT maybe not who knows
  • Guilefulwolf wrote:

    GMs will also sit and talk about land distribution and say "Okay, these are mine and those are yours. We dont raid your mages, outposts or castles and you dont raid ours". At the end, most clusters will be controlled and disputed by the same guilds doing it now.
    So, they cant react as fast with Alliance chat removed coordination slows to people having to actively check discords to know when a 'friend' is being hit and needs back up
  • UNFM wrote:

    MosassauroLoiro

    ok now I get it, if you don't like something it's stupid.
    LUL


    is that leaders of alliances tell you to make account and spam on forum how bad idea it is ? LUL x2

    SlothSDS wrote:

    Alliance leaders upset because the dick is not going to suck itself anymore.
    Ok, boys, just see at day 26th. I wont try to change ur mind, this gonna be just useless, they are litelly removing alliances from the game, but ok, gonna still happen 250x250 fights as I like btw.
  • SlothSDS wrote:

    Its going to break larger alliances down, making people choose one of two options, 300 man guild or 300 man alliance.

    That isn't a practical choice. A 300-player guild will simply be more efficient than a 300-player alliance. Note also that in a 300-player alliance, there will be additional friction, because guilds can recruit up free slots and prevent allied guilds from recruiting (lol :P ).

    The practical difference is that the big boys will need to deal with friendly fire (but less disarray) when coordinating. They may compete on a small scale (ganking/dungeons/gathering), but where it really counts (hideouts, territories, castles), NAPs are easy.
  • UNFM wrote:

    blappo wrote:

    Eltharyon wrote:

    Based on that impact and on the community’s feedback, we will decide on whether to keep, adjust or reverse the change.
    Trust me reverse = 50% players base just leaves300 is a bit extreme no cap to guild cap... but W/e so long as there is a cap i am happier.
    I think only fans of full monopoly adn endless himself profit will leave game for sure BUT maybe not who knows
    well all the negative say, nothing changes it will even be worse.. so why should someone leave

    Or is something changing now? Is it??
  • So newby has already started implementing our plan to address these arbitrary roadblocks that SBI has decided to set up to make it harder for player communities to organize. Once we are done and have fully rolled out our plan I will write up how we did it for any casual group that is being severely negatively impacted by this arbitrary limit. As always while I completely disagree with this change this is a sandbox and we will all find a way to continue building sandcastles. While this change is already being circumvented by the larger more organized groups we intend on leveling the playing field by showing any casual group how to replicate what the larger organized groups are implementing as we speak.
  • Hollywoodi wrote:

    UNFM wrote:

    blappo wrote:

    Eltharyon wrote:

    Based on that impact and on the community’s feedback, we will decide on whether to keep, adjust or reverse the change.
    Trust me reverse = 50% players base just leaves300 is a bit extreme no cap to guild cap... but W/e so long as there is a cap i am happier.
    I think only fans of full monopoly adn endless himself profit will leave game for sure BUT maybe not who knows
    well all the negative say, nothing changes it will even be worse.. so why should someone leave
    Or is something changing now? Is it??
    ofc it change, like ARCHS 7.5k people LUL
    other allainces 3k+
    half of thoes people will spread = more conflict and fight at bz.