Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

  • CapitanYak wrote:

    Move Guilds capacity to 500 or alliance to 1000

    Doesnt make sense to name it "Alliance" when it just the capacity of one guild (300 members) who can fill it easily.
    would never support that.

    300 is already too much, simple if 600 want fight it is not supported

    So why not cap at convenient numbers..

    Look 150 is perfect.. if 150 go for map control this will fail, because on long term 3x8 hours is max to play long run

    So if they want 6 terries that are they need come with 25 people..soory no map domination possible..
  • Hollywoodi wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    fillrup wrote:

    I see this as a quick fix for the problem of large alliances owning large expanses of the map.
    Yes, and I fear it will only be a label change if the guilds forming the mega alliances continue to work together.
    then nothing would change in worse case and you all can relax?

    What, trading a label change for destroying the long-term health of the game? Not a good business decision.
  • Roccandil wrote:

    Hollywoodi wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    fillrup wrote:

    I see this as a quick fix for the problem of large alliances owning large expanses of the map.
    Yes, and I fear it will only be a label change if the guilds forming the mega alliances continue to work together.
    then nothing would change in worse case and you all can relax?
    What, trading a label change for destroying the long-term health of the game? Not a good business decision.
    why label change? It was not yet branded for Zergion online..

    So right in time fixed
  • Eltharyon wrote:

    Dear players,

    On January 20th, we released Queen, our biggest update to date. It has also been our most successful. Since its release, player numbers have grown by more than 40%, and for the first time since our free to play launch, we have recently surpassed 350,000 monthly active players.

    At the core of the update was the new Outlands continent alongside significant changes to territory mechanics. Guilds can now establish their own bases - called hideouts - in the Outlands and territory conquest is now decided through open world conflict as opposed to a very limited 5 vs 5 system. This in principle allows everyone to establish a presence in the Outlands and take an active role in the conflict over the land and its resources.

    There was one risk that we anticipated in changing territory conquest to an open world system. Strength in numbers would become more important. To combat that, we introduced a zerg debuff based on group size - called Disarray. This has definitely helped to close the power gap between small and large groups. On top of that, we also made sure that travel distance matters more with the Queen update in order to reduce the power projection of strong alliances. While the best groups would always be powerful in certain parts of the game world, we did not want them to easily project that power to any location that they like.

    We said prior to the Queen update that a few weeks after its launch, we would take a step back and evaluate how all of the implemented features worked out in practice. In general, we are very happy with the outcome.

    However, one thing that we are unhappy with is that large alliances are still too dominant overall. This creates a lot of pressure on smaller groups to also join a large alliance, which in turn causes the game world to split into a few very large power blocks. This raises the barrier to entry for smaller and more casual guilds, while at the same time carrying the risk of effectively “pacifying” large parts of the Outlands leading to stale gameplay.

    After extensive discussion with the community - and a very active poll in which 80% of the players voted for the removal of alliances altogether - we have decided to shake things up.

    Important: As the following is quite a drastic change with an uncertain outcome, we will conduct it as a test. This means that once it goes live, we will monitor its effects closely and actively collect your feedback. Based on that, we’ll decide on whether to keep, reverse or adapt the new system.

    Here it is:
    From February 26th onwards, the maximum number of players who can be part of an alliance will be capped to 300. This is identical to the maximum number of players allowed in a single guild right now, hence it still allows smaller casual guilds to form an alliance just as before while achieving the goal of breaking up the current power blocks.

    To encourage these more casual alliances, we will also turn off points sharing between guilds in the same alliances such that there is no longer a downside in accepting a weaker guild into your alliance if you’d like to join forces with them. To account for the fact that average zerg sizes are likely to decrease, we’ll also change the disarray debuff in such a way that it has a stronger impact for medium sized zergs.

    It is our expectation that the existing in-game alliances will adapt to the new system and continue to exist through informal non-aggression pacts. However, we hope that these informal alliances are less powerful and less stable than what we have right now, leading to more action and tension overall and allowing newer groups to have an impact.

    As stated above, for now, we see this as a test. We are consciously doing this change before the next invasion day (February 29th) to immediately observe the effects and we expect that we’ll be able to give a first assessment of the impacts about 2 weeks after the change has gone live. Based on that impact and on the community’s feedback, we will decide on whether to keep, adjust or reverse the change.


    Looking forward to your thoughts and feedback,

    Robin 'Eltharyon' Henkys
    Game Director


    PS.: In order for existing guilds and alliances to be able to prepare for this change, here’s a detailed breakdown of how we intend to implement this change.
    1. On February 26th, existing Alliances will lose all member guilds except the founding guild (which by default puts the Alliance below 300 members).
    2. No guild can be invited or accept an invitation to an Alliance if that would bring the total number of characters in the Alliance to more than 300.
    3. No player can be invited, accept an invitation or be accepted to join a guild if this would increase the total number of characters in an Alliance to over 300 players
    4. Season Points will no longer be shared within alliances.
    Please note that the details of the implementation are still in development and may change until February 26th.
    I Love this. Small groups now decently viable in BZ (hard work/skilled players still required)... and the 5v5 for territory's are gone. great news. reinstalling.
  • Fluxx wrote:

    Love this. Small groups now decently viable in BZ (hard work/skilled players still required)...

    In all likelihood, they won't be. :( Territories, hideouts, and castles all still reward bringing the biggest zerg, and the top guilds will gain power relative to everyone else.

    Here's another way of looking at the problem:

    Top guild X has 300 members and can reliably field 50% for any CTA (and that's probably low). Alliance A of small, casual guilds has 1000 members, but can only reliably field 10% (and that's probably high). Not only does top guild X outnumber Alliance A 150 to 100 in zvz, Alliance A won't even be possible in the new system. :P

    Personalities, loyalties, friendships, and leadership power struggles aside, Alliance A would need to ditch 70% of their least active members and form the rest into single guild A of 300, which will likely have a field rate of less than 100 (while leaving behind completely irrelevant husks of guilds). Despite the effort, they have lost power relative to guild X, and will likely lose every time they face guild X in zvz. Members of guild A will figure this out, and guild A will tend to lose their best soldiers to better zvz guilds.

    Over time, the strong will thus get stronger, the weak will get weaker, and the best zvz players will consolidate into the smallest possible number of zvz guilds, and continue to utterly dominate the Outlands.

    The only question I have is whether or not guilds in the top alliances will wage war on each other. That could benefit small groups if that happens, but only because top guild X will be fighting top guild Y, and won't show to face consolidated guild A.
  • Game designer try to design to make hardcore players (mega alliance in this case) to stay near the central of blackzone
    But the truth is they stay everywhere and take all territories

    and why they try to take much territories as they can ?
    yes, season points !!

    The best way to keep mega alliance to stay near the center of blackzone is don't let outer territories gain points if they own territories near the center of blackzone
    let's categorize territories in tiers (depend on how close to the central)

    T1: 10
    T2: 20
    T3: 40
    T4: 80
    T5: 240

    And then let's make lowest tier territories score season points
    If they own all territories (T1-T6). only T1 territories will score season points for them !!

    So squak will not interested in T4 territories
    And others mega alliances who want T5 territories must compete squak.
    And smaller alliance will have space to play and practice each others

    ps. As the example, I try to make T4 scores too low points than T5 because to let mega alliance not interested in them.

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

  • Reducers wrote:

    Game designer try to design to make hardcore players (mega alliance in this case) to stay near the central of blackzone
    But the truth is they stay everywhere and take all territories

    and why they try to take much territories as they can ?
    yes, season points !!

    The best way to keep mega alliance to stay near the center of blackzone is don't let outer territories gain points if they own territories near the center of blackzone
    let's categorize territories in tiers (depend on how close to the central)

    T1: 10
    T2: 20
    T3: 40
    T4: 80
    T5: 240

    And then let's make lowest tier territories score season points
    If they own all territories (T1-T6). only T1 territories will score season points for them !!

    So squak will not interested in T4 territories
    And others mega alliances who want T5 territories must compete squak.
    And smaller alliance will have space to play and practice each others

    ps. As the example, I try to make T4 scores too low points than T5 because to let mega alliance not interested in them.
    Why these suggestions aren't voted as well?

    The core of player management in a sandbox game is not to limit or punish but to give positive incentive when they do the things you want them to do.

    I don't understand why the dev industry is taking so long to acknowledge that. Just look at the mobile "money-grab" games. They give you everything, but if you really want to be the "best", you have to pay some, and people do that. A lot. It's because positive incentive works better than punishment.

    Also, the majority of people doesn't know what's the best from the whole, they only have limited vision of their daily gameplay; Most of them only interact with the surface of politics, war and economy as mere citizens, gatherers, soldiers... make a big voting isn`t necessarily the best of decision making. Gosh, we don't even know how to vote for president!
  • Anjek wrote:

    Reducers wrote:

    Game designer try to design to make hardcore players (mega alliance in this case) to stay near the central of blackzone
    But the truth is they stay everywhere and take all territories

    and why they try to take much territories as they can ?
    yes, season points !!

    The best way to keep mega alliance to stay near the center of blackzone is don't let outer territories gain points if they own territories near the center of blackzone
    let's categorize territories in tiers (depend on how close to the central)

    T1: 10
    T2: 20
    T3: 40
    T4: 80
    T5: 240

    And then let's make lowest tier territories score season points
    If they own all territories (T1-T6). only T1 territories will score season points for them !!

    So squak will not interested in T4 territories
    And others mega alliances who want T5 territories must compete squak.
    And smaller alliance will have space to play and practice each others

    ps. As the example, I try to make T4 scores too low points than T5 because to let mega alliance not interested in them.
    Why these suggestions aren't voted as well?
    The core of player management in a sandbox game is not to limit or punish but to give positive incentive when they do the things you want them to do.

    I don't understand why the dev industry is taking so long to acknowledge that. Just look at the mobile "money-grab" games. They give you everything, but if you really want to be the "best", you have to pay some, and people do that. A lot. It's because positive incentive works better than punishment.

    Also, the majority of people doesn't know what's the best from the whole, they only have limited vision of their daily gameplay; Most of them only interact with the surface of politics, war and economy as mere citizens, gatherers, soldiers... make a big voting isn`t necessarily the best of decision making. Gosh, we don't even know how to vote for president!
    This is how democracy works. Even the homeless alcoholic has the same vote as the scientist who cured the cancer, or politic who stoped the war.
  • In my experience, Guilds in this game fall into categories along the following lines:

    Micro guilds: (1-10 players) - These are solo players and small groups of friends that have a guild for the guild island, plots and the guild hall. These are guilds only in name, and have no interest in holding a territory in the BZ. If they are in an alliance, its very casual.

    Small guilds: (20-40 players) - These are groups of players that enjoy going out to the BZ together to do PvP, Fame Farm, hell gates, and gather. Their skill sets can vary, and they may not shy away from a fight, but the fact is they will never be a zerg, and although they might get a territory on reset day, they have no dilutions of holding it for more than a day or two. Having a hideout is an aspiration, but not really feasible with their small numbers and given hostile BZ conditions. Half of these are probably in an alliance, but really on the fringe and not a part of the active core. The alliance is beneficial to them as they can gather near territories and have a safe spot to run to.

    Medium Guilds: (50-150 players) - These are guilds that are often the result of smaller guilds combining to form a more competitive guild, or the result of a larger guild splitting up due to conflict. These guilds want to be in the BZ doing everything! They would like to hold a territory or two, a hideout would be awesome, and they are willing to train up new players to be competitive. However, their aspirations for the season are hitting Silver...maybe Gold if they can raid a bunch of mages...but it's a reach. They are in an alliance and active, but play more of a support role.

    Large Guilds: (150-250 players) - These guilds live in the BZ!!! They require CTA's for most of them, and they expect to be holding multiple territories at all times. These guilds want to hit Gold for the season, and will do anything that they can to get to that goal. There is a broad range of guilds in this category, but skill level, planning, and alliances often determine if they will be controlling T5 territories or T7. Often a guild in this level will spring into the Elite tier in a season if the conditions are right for them, and their players are really active.

    Elite Guilds: (250-300 players) - These are the elite players in the game. They are organized, they have the gear, they have the skill, and they will stomp most parties if the numbers are equal. They expect to hit Crystal for the season, and surround themselves with an alliance of medium and large guilds to help them reach that goal. They are living the end game.

    So with that in mind, I see the change to alliance structure doing the following:

    Micro Guilds: No change. If they were in an alliance, they were just enjoying the fringe benefits of having purples in the BZ.

    Small & Medium Guilds: If they were in a large alliance, they just lost a lot of safe gathering zones. If they were in a small alliance, not much will change. Either way, the BZ were always pretty hostile to them, and it will continue to be so. If the alliance change happens as announced, these guilds will likely combine together to hit 300, and get back some safety in numbers. Territories will be an option, but require planning and organization. No more holding a territory in the shadow of a super alliance.

    Large Guilds: Two paths lay ahead for the category: 1) If you were in a large active alliance, things will get rough. Currently a large guild can control 6-10+ territories using allies to help secure the boarders and repel anyone attacking. Calling up an extra 50-100 allies to fill the ranks on a defense is easy now, but starting the 26th it wont happen. Guild leaders will have to lower the bar a bit and realize they can't defend as much area simultaneously.
    2) If you were in a small alliance or one that wasn't very active, things will either stay the same or improve! There will be a few more territories up for grabs as the guilds that were over extended draw back. Also, once you get a territory, you will likely not be facing 250 player zergs running around. It wont be easy, but it will be manageable.

    Elite Guilds: These guilds will take a hit as they will not have the numbers to support their big moves, but they are elite, so they will adapt. In all likely hood these guilds will consolidate power to a smaller region and surround themselves with friendly guilds that they can have NAP's with. Planning will be paramount as they will likely not be able to consistently defend more than 2 territories simultaneously, but their bottom line wont change much...its just going to be a bit harder.

    All in all I think the change will have a positive impact on the game, and i look forward to seeing it play out.
  • I think this will be a great add smaller guild with have a lot more members to pick up that hide in the huge alliances for protection. those smaller guilds make naps like ourselves work with one big guild on the same mind set. the smaller guild will still be able to pull larger numbers even with the casual player base and be able to assist the larger guild in there fights this makes it more beneficial for larger guilds to allow smaller guilds to place hideouts in there maps so the easy pull of an extra 40 to 50 members to assist in the fight. Great choice I'm excited to see the outcome!
  • everybody here is talking only about territories .. And they probably forgot how they cried then when 1 team occupied 3/4 of the world, and here it is about global improvement of the whole game, after all nobody is fighting .. the whole continent is be divided into 4 parts, 4 dominant alliances, the rest of the content in this way is blocked for the rest of people from outside these alliances, the end of mega alliances = open content for others and increasing overall conflicts everywhere, finish crying we'll see what comes out of it in the wash, or let's do 1 mega mega mega alliance all server in 1st alliance then you will cry for the removal of trolololo alliances