Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • rujind wrote:

    What is some people's obsession with this change coming "mid season?" Is this your first MMO? There is no such thing as a perfect time for changes. I always hated in terribly unbalanced World of Warcraft that a new raid tier or PVP season would launch, and some classes/specs would be so underpowered that they wouldn't be invited to groups. And Blizzard had some idiotic method of taking WEEKS OR MONTHS to fix the tiniest things. I've watched people have to wait entire expansions for necessary changes.

    Changes should always happen as soon as they possibly can before people get too accustomed to the current mechanics.

    The main complaint seems to be regarding Hideout placement. My first argument would be that Hideout cost doesn't really seem to be that expensive for any established guild, so you're not going to convince me that moving a Hideout is a big deal for them. Newer guilds, sure OK. And secondly if there's no way to deconstruct a Hideout and get most of the materials back, then you should be asking for it to be implemented. Think about the best way for it to work regarding time constraints and return percentage, and talk about it.

    Every single MMO you've ever played is constantly testing changes in the live game, they're just usually not as transparent and open regarding it, and frankly 100% of changes ever made to a game is a "test". Sometimes things get added or changed, and sometimes those things get reverted afterwards. It's completely normal, expected, and really not that big of a deal.
    Technically this is season based, competitive game, so the "perfect time" to make big changes is during preseason/offseason. I think the mistake people are ACTUALLY making is thinking that this is going to be a quick fix. This will probably pan out to be one of the most disrupted seasons in AO history lol.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Maori ().

  • ImaDoki wrote:

    Deadrino wrote:

    I think one underestimated consequence of this change is what will happen if the alliances decide to continue working together as guilds with NAP. What chances does one guild have against several guilds bringing people to fight them? If 5 guilds bring 50 man each to attack someone the not-so-smart que will make sure there are even numbers for every guild. It can't know if 5 of the 6 guilds in the zone are allied.
    its irrelevant if they are allied or not.
    Smart Queue IS smart.

    You should go to the smart queue spotlight to understand how it work.
    I understand how it works, but obviously you don't understand what I am saying.
    "This queue assesses a player's guild, alliance, and strength, and lets in players of both sides as evenly as possible to prevent zone-locking and ensure the fairest possible fight."
    Now read again what I said and tell me what is not true.
    Concordia res parvae crescunt

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

  • Deadrino wrote:

    ImaDoki wrote:

    Deadrino wrote:

    I think one underestimated consequence of this change is what will happen if the alliances decide to continue working together as guilds with NAP. What chances does one guild have against several guilds bringing people to fight them? If 5 guilds bring 50 man each to attack someone the not-so-smart que will make sure there are even numbers for every guild. It can't know if 5 of the 6 guilds in the zone are allied.
    its irrelevant if they are allied or not.Smart Queue IS smart.

    You should go to the smart queue spotlight to understand how it work.
    I understand how it works, but obviously you don't understand what I am saying."This queue assesses a player's guild, alliance, and strength, and lets in players of both sides as evenly as possible to prevent zone-locking and ensure the fairest possible fight."
    Now read again what I said and tell me what is not true.
    I repeat, If there are 300 allied or in NAP against you Smart Queue will provide the same result.

    Be it 50+50+50+50+50+50 or 300.

    Again i repeat, you don't understand how Smart Queue works.
  • Im still new, but i voted yes for the following reasons:
    - Alliances are useless, my First ZvZ was a Fläming war between 2 guys in discord
    - i dont actually see any reason why totally Different guilds should team up in a random Ally.
    - i cant see any Sense in 3000 Ppl alliances, territorries will still stay by the alliances the just have to work for it
    - Alliances are completly useless, like if you got demounted by a single ganker while on your way to ZvZ the just let you die because nobody cares and there is no communication

    I also see other reasons, like no new players in guilds. But thats ok, there will be other more friendly ones ;)
  • Piraterer wrote:

    Im still new, but i voted yes for the following reasons:
    - Alliances are useless, my First ZvZ was a Fläming war between 2 guys in discord
    - i dont actually see any reason why totally Different guilds should team up in a random Ally.
    - i cant see any Sense in 3000 Ppl alliances, territorries will still stay by the alliances the just have to work for it
    - Alliances are completly useless, like if you got demounted by a single ganker while on your way to ZvZ the just let you die because nobody cares and there is no communication

    I also see other reasons, like no new players in guilds. But thats ok, there will be other more friendly ones ;)
    It sounds like you were just in a really bad guild/alliance.
    Midgard
    T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
    T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
    T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
  • ImaDoki wrote:

    Deadrino wrote:

    ImaDoki wrote:

    Deadrino wrote:

    I think one underestimated consequence of this change is what will happen if the alliances decide to continue working together as guilds with NAP. What chances does one guild have against several guilds bringing people to fight them? If 5 guilds bring 50 man each to attack someone the not-so-smart que will make sure there are even numbers for every guild. It can't know if 5 of the 6 guilds in the zone are allied.
    its irrelevant if they are allied or not.Smart Queue IS smart.
    You should go to the smart queue spotlight to understand how it work.
    I understand how it works, but obviously you don't understand what I am saying."This queue assesses a player's guild, alliance, and strength, and lets in players of both sides as evenly as possible to prevent zone-locking and ensure the fairest possible fight."Now read again what I said and tell me what is not true.
    I repeat, If there are 300 allied or in NAP against you Smart Queue will provide the same result.
    Be it 50+50+50+50+50+50 or 300.

    Again i repeat, you don't understand how Smart Queue works.
    If I don't understand how it works, please give me the source of your more accurate information. In the information I find I don't see how the queue will see who is in informal alliance and what are the real sides in the battle to be able to remove properly players from both sides.
    Concordia res parvae crescunt
  • Maccuswell wrote:

    So instead of having 1 ARCH guild… we will have ARCH 1, ARCH 2, ARCH 3, ARCH 4, ARCH 5, ARCH 6,ARCH 7... ARCH 666.
    Really?
    The big cahonas (Derrick, Bacon) are right NAPS will win.
    If you've ever been in ARCH discord/comms you will know this won't work.

    Not to be offensive, but when you have 50+ people talking over each other in ZvZ it doesn't work. There's no clear way for people to mark and follow shot callers, especially when the vast majority of ARCH don't even have a good enough computer to play ZvZ with nametags on. They may be able to do an agreement to zonecap areas together. But why would I help someone zonecap if I can't enter the territory? Also ARCH has a motto "RED IS DEAD". Good luck coordinating with that.
    Youtube Tametheark
  • I applaud SBI for implementing this change. People here defending their alliance is understandable, you like being in it. But what is good for the game, the players and it's future? An alliance is not. They have to be dealt with asap in any way possible.

    Aftrmath0 wrote:

    I like it! People are concerned about Non-Aggression Pacts still being a viable solution for the larger alliances. My response to that is, fine we will see how that goes, but what happens when they want to zerg in on another guild. Whos to stop them from killing each other and the higher chance of members treating themselves as a separate entity given the fact they are now responsible for their own season points and money. THATS RIGHT! Money no longer is dispursed between the masses. If you think a guild is going to "donate" to the parent guilds with 100% honesty your sadly mistaken. Head guilds of alliances won't be able to properly siphon the hard work of the up and coming guilds who fame farm the shit out of those static dungeons. There will be blood and there will be unintended kills, regardless of the organizational factor between guilds. Eventually, Guilds will adjust to the smaller size of groups and this conversation/change will have been the spark that lit the fire of the up and coming strongman guilds.

    The best part! We all get to watch them do it to themselves while they confidently make bold statements of solidarity well beyond their ability to control.
    I predict this will eventually happen too. However, it will take time. Guilds will eventually become their own separate entity but this will imo take many many months.
  • I think this change will probably modify nothing for big and strong alliances, only accelerating new meta vs zerg debuff (splitting ally on different 'boxes' to prevent disarray).

    I think it will be better, causing drama and more minor skirmishes...

    It will be a real hell for rat gatherer, those one not integrated with the core guilds.
  • Deadrino wrote:

    ImaDoki wrote:

    Deadrino wrote:

    ImaDoki wrote:

    Deadrino wrote:

    I think one underestimated consequence of this change is what will happen if the alliances decide to continue working together as guilds with NAP. What chances does one guild have against several guilds bringing people to fight them? If 5 guilds bring 50 man each to attack someone the not-so-smart que will make sure there are even numbers for every guild. It can't know if 5 of the 6 guilds in the zone are allied.
    its irrelevant if they are allied or not.Smart Queue IS smart.You should go to the smart queue spotlight to understand how it work.
    I understand how it works, but obviously you don't understand what I am saying."This queue assesses a player's guild, alliance, and strength, and lets in players of both sides as evenly as possible to prevent zone-locking and ensure the fairest possible fight."Now read again what I said and tell me what is not true.
    I repeat, If there are 300 allied or in NAP against you Smart Queue will provide the same result.Be it 50+50+50+50+50+50 or 300.

    Again i repeat, you don't understand how Smart Queue works.
    If I don't understand how it works, please give me the source of your more accurate information. In the information I find I don't see how the queue will see who is in informal alliance and what are the real sides in the battle to be able to remove properly players from both sides.
    Quoted from the AMA.

    "The way the mathematics behind the queue system works, it's not possible to work around it. Splitting your alliance will not get you more people inside the zone.

    What the queue system does is that once a cluster is "full", each "faction" in the cluster/queue will get a contingent of players that are supposed to be in the zone. That contingent depends on the number of players and their overall gear score.

    In simplified terms, it does not really matter if you have one "faction" of 400 players or two "factions" of 200 players each here, as a "faction" of 400 players would have a contingent that is twice as big as that of each 200 player "faction".

    The main goal of the queue system is to prevent zone locking and facilitate large battles that span over multiple zones.

    To deal with number imbalances, we rely on our core anti-zerg mechanics outlined [here.](reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/e…t_update_ever_on/fetslxn/)"
  • haraj wrote:

    Why are you testing stuff in the middle of a season?
    uhm maybe cause that is when you are able to get the data require
    testing in the off season would not produce large scale fights the way a reset would, not even close

    Maori wrote:

    rujind wrote:

    What is some people's obsession with this change coming "mid season?" Is this your first MMO? There is no such thing as a perfect time for changes. I always hated in terribly unbalanced World of Warcraft that a new raid tier or PVP season would launch, and some classes/specs would be so underpowered that they wouldn't be invited to groups. And Blizzard had some idiotic method of taking WEEKS OR MONTHS to fix the tiniest things. I've watched people have to wait entire expansions for necessary changes.

    Changes should always happen as soon as they possibly can before people get too accustomed to the current mechanics.

    The main complaint seems to be regarding Hideout placement. My first argument would be that Hideout cost doesn't really seem to be that expensive for any established guild, so you're not going to convince me that moving a Hideout is a big deal for them. Newer guilds, sure OK. And secondly if there's no way to deconstruct a Hideout and get most of the materials back, then you should be asking for it to be implemented. Think about the best way for it to work regarding time constraints and return percentage, and talk about it.

    Every single MMO you've ever played is constantly testing changes in the live game, they're just usually not as transparent and open regarding it, and frankly 100% of changes ever made to a game is a "test". Sometimes things get added or changed, and sometimes those things get reverted afterwards. It's completely normal, expected, and really not that big of a deal.
    Technically this is season based, competitive game, so the "perfect time" to make big changes is during preseason/offseason. I think the mistake people are ACTUALLY making is thinking that this is going to be a quick fix. This will probably pan out to be one of the most disrupted seasons in AO history lol.
    How does that make any sense? if you start this test now you get the data to support this being a good or bad change, doing it in the off season when zvz dies down is not the best time technically or otherwise.
    This is literally the best time to do it, during the peak activity time period, you always experiment when you are able to get the most information back from your tests.
    If it wont make any difference or change anything then it dang sure cannot possibly interfere or hurt this season in anyway so, why not get r done?
  • ImaDoki wrote:

    Deadrino wrote:

    ImaDoki wrote:

    Deadrino wrote:

    ImaDoki wrote:

    Deadrino wrote:

    I think one underestimated consequence of this change is what will happen if the alliances decide to continue working together as guilds with NAP. What chances does one guild have against several guilds bringing people to fight them? If 5 guilds bring 50 man each to attack someone the not-so-smart que will make sure there are even numbers for every guild. It can't know if 5 of the 6 guilds in the zone are allied.
    its irrelevant if they are allied or not.Smart Queue IS smart.You should go to the smart queue spotlight to understand how it work.
    I understand how it works, but obviously you don't understand what I am saying."This queue assesses a player's guild, alliance, and strength, and lets in players of both sides as evenly as possible to prevent zone-locking and ensure the fairest possible fight."Now read again what I said and tell me what is not true.
    I repeat, If there are 300 allied or in NAP against you Smart Queue will provide the same result.Be it 50+50+50+50+50+50 or 300.
    Again i repeat, you don't understand how Smart Queue works.
    If I don't understand how it works, please give me the source of your more accurate information. In the information I find I don't see how the queue will see who is in informal alliance and what are the real sides in the battle to be able to remove properly players from both sides.
    Quoted from the AMA.
    "The way the mathematics behind the queue system works, it's not possible to work around it. Splitting your alliance will not get you more people inside the zone.

    What the queue system does is that once a cluster is "full", each "faction" in the cluster/queue will get a contingent of players that are supposed to be in the zone. That contingent depends on the number of players and their overall gear score.

    In simplified terms, it does not really matter if you have one "faction" of 400 players or two "factions" of 200 players each here, as a "faction" of 400 players would have a contingent that is twice as big as that of each 200 player "faction".

    The main goal of the queue system is to prevent zone locking and facilitate large battles that span over multiple zones.

    To deal with number imbalances, we rely on our core anti-zerg mechanics outlined [here.](reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/e…t_update_ever_on/fetslxn/)"
    The only thing that I can't understand is how this smart system is going to know if a group of players are in informal alliance fighting someone else? Or if they are a third (or forth) party in the battle? Or some gankers waiting for stragglers? Probably you are correct and I am wrong but I can't see that in the quoted text.
    Concordia res parvae crescunt
  • Xezqez wrote:

    haraj wrote:

    Why are you testing stuff in the middle of a season?
    uhm maybe cause that is when you are able to get the data requiretesting in the off season would not produce large scale fights the way a reset would, not even close

    Maori wrote:

    rujind wrote:

    What is some people's obsession with this change coming "mid season?" Is this your first MMO? There is no such thing as a perfect time for changes. I always hated in terribly unbalanced World of Warcraft that a new raid tier or PVP season would launch, and some classes/specs would be so underpowered that they wouldn't be invited to groups. And Blizzard had some idiotic method of taking WEEKS OR MONTHS to fix the tiniest things. I've watched people have to wait entire expansions for necessary changes.

    Changes should always happen as soon as they possibly can before people get too accustomed to the current mechanics.

    The main complaint seems to be regarding Hideout placement. My first argument would be that Hideout cost doesn't really seem to be that expensive for any established guild, so you're not going to convince me that moving a Hideout is a big deal for them. Newer guilds, sure OK. And secondly if there's no way to deconstruct a Hideout and get most of the materials back, then you should be asking for it to be implemented. Think about the best way for it to work regarding time constraints and return percentage, and talk about it.

    Every single MMO you've ever played is constantly testing changes in the live game, they're just usually not as transparent and open regarding it, and frankly 100% of changes ever made to a game is a "test". Sometimes things get added or changed, and sometimes those things get reverted afterwards. It's completely normal, expected, and really not that big of a deal.
    Technically this is season based, competitive game, so the "perfect time" to make big changes is during preseason/offseason. I think the mistake people are ACTUALLY making is thinking that this is going to be a quick fix. This will probably pan out to be one of the most disrupted seasons in AO history lol.
    How does that make any sense? if you start this test now you get the data to support this being a good or bad change, doing it in the off season when zvz dies down is not the best time technically or otherwise.This is literally the best time to do it, during the peak activity time period, you always experiment when you are able to get the most information back from your tests.
    If it wont make any difference or change anything then it dang sure cannot possibly interfere or hurt this season in anyway so, why not get r done?
    You don't test in the off season, you make the changes in the off season, so you can begin the season with (hopefully) a stable build and avoid having to make any drastic changes to the competitive format during the season, that's all anyone is trying to say.
  • @Deadrino The cluster queue takes a percentage of each group.

    Example 1: 300 vs 300, that's 600 total, AKA double the zone cap, so the queue allows 50% of each group to enter. 150 for each.

    Example 2: 300 vs (100 + 100 + 100), which is also 600 total, so again the queue allows 50% of each group. The big zerg gets 150, and each smaller zerg gets 50. 50+50+50 = 150, so even with alliance splitting it's still 150 vs 150.

    It has a couple extra rules and math to prevent tricking the queue with naked dummies, but that's essentially how it works.
  • rujind wrote:

    What is some people's obsession with this change coming "mid season?" Is this your first MMO? There is no such thing as a perfect time for changes. I always hated in terribly unbalanced World of Warcraft that a new raid tier or PVP season would launch, and some classes/specs would be so underpowered that they wouldn't be invited to groups. And Blizzard had some idiotic method of taking WEEKS OR MONTHS to fix the tiniest things. I've watched people have to wait entire expansions for necessary changes.

    Changes should always happen as soon as they possibly can before people get too accustomed to the current mechanics.

    The main complaint seems to be regarding Hideout placement. My first argument would be that Hideout cost doesn't really seem to be that expensive for any established guild, so you're not going to convince me that moving a Hideout is a big deal for them. Newer guilds, sure OK. And secondly if there's no way to deconstruct a Hideout and get most of the materials back, then you should be asking for it to be implemented. Think about the best way for it to work regarding time constraints and return percentage, and talk about it.

    Every single MMO you've ever played is constantly testing changes in the live game, they're just usually not as transparent and open regarding it, and frankly 100% of changes ever made to a game is a "test". Sometimes things get added or changed, and sometimes those things get reverted afterwards. It's completely normal, expected, and really not that big of a deal.
    problem is thought this would be like making pve servers in wow pvp servers or making pvp servers full loot. How pissed would people be if they decided to delete the horde?. Creating large groups and massive battles in a "sandbox" is literally the way this game is sold. Name another sandbox game that trys to restrict players organizing? it is literally the antithesis of what the definition of sandbox game means. Hey its a sandbox unless you want to organize larger than 300 people in a game of over 350k...… like what?