Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

  • Voltel 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.
    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?
    How exactly are you comparing scaling down the size of organized groups that should have never been that large in the first place to deleting half the playerbase from WoW?

    ???

    "Massive" can mean different things. IMO a 50v50 is massive and I don't see any reason for fights to be bigger than that (preferably smaller). But they are, and from the sounds of it, the community doesn't want them to be as large as they are. I have no idea why anyone would want to manage 300 or more people. People asking for guild sizes to be like 1000 and shit is weird, I just don't get it.

    The alliance change I guarantee is just one of many changes coming to continue to balance fights and zergs.

    Other sandbox games don't need to restrict organization, because they all have tiny populations or aren't MMOs thus they have small server caps... Would love to hear what sandbox games you think are unrestrictive. :)
  • Tilden wrote:

    @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.
    This is exactly how I think it works. And my point was that if guilds which were in an alliance before the change keep working together making NAP and sending several formally non allied groups to a zone to fight some other group the smart queue can't see that there are actually two sides in the battle and not 5 (for example). If I understand the way the "smart"queue works this can happen now, but the big alliances don't need to do it, and for the smaller groups it is harder to coordinate such a thing.
    Concordia res parvae crescunt
  • one think that giant alliance forget to told everyone when they said : it will change nothing we gonna have nap.

    NAP can friendly fire , so they need to stay away from each other. Right now then just bring 400 player blob and can win with 1-2 goodshot caller.

    With friendly fire , yeah they can coordinate and nap but they will need like 10 good shot caller to win and they will all need to coordinate toghether on the battle field ( dont forget some alliance like poe got different guild from different language , french , portuguese , english it will be a logistical nightmare for them .

    This is a game changer for sure . Compare to small alliance/guild that will keep same number and dont need to train new shotcaller.
  • Benin wrote:

    SBI why not limit guild numbers in an alliance instead of total players in an ally?

    Limiting it to 3 guilds per ally
    Limiting the guild amount is worse then the total number because 4 small guilds can't ban together with a guild cap but with a number cap 4 small guilds with 25 players can join together. Which means number cap is always better. If you want 3 guilds then the cap should be 900, But that is to high, I would think a cap of around 400 to 500 would be okay, But im totally fine with the 300 cap as long as its account based and not 1 char based.
  • What is needed is to create a system that is organic and taxing according to the number of players in the same alliance and that affects various points in the day to day lives of all players and Guilds in that alliance.

    Values must scale according to the number of characters in the alliances and the towers they control on the map, for example:

    Also apply to the black market and the same can be applied but in the negative for the Fame and Silver received by the characters of that Alliance in PvE

    In addition, whenever an Alliance wants to grow beyond a certain level, it has to pay according to the amount of goods in its control, for example:

    ps: This will significant increase Silver sink in the game.
  • LordSilva wrote:

    What is needed is to create a system that is organic and taxing according to the number of players in the same alliance and that affects various points in the day to day lives of all players and Guilds in that alliance.

    Values must scale according to the number of characters in the alliances and the towers they control on the map, for example:

    Also apply to the black market and the same can be applied but in the negative for the Fame and Silver received by the characters of that Alliance in PvE

    In addition, whenever an Alliance wants to grow beyond a certain level, it has to pay according to the amount of goods in its control, for example:

    ps: This will significant increase Silver sink in the game.
    I dont mind seeing the costs of some things increase but the cost of the market tax and black market tax is just nuts lol. Having to pay more for items on the market just because your in a big alliance or guild should have nothing to do with it. That should totally be left alone. Other things you listed would be fine. The gear repair tax works because its kinda like theres so many allies to repair gear for the cost is more, But with market it doesn't really make sence.

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

  • Neef wrote:

    I dont mind seeing the costs of some things increase but the cost of the market tax and black market tax is just nuts lol.
    In my country you pay a tax on the properties according to the value of your property as well as the amount we discount in taxes every month is related to our salary, whoever has a higher salary, pays more taxes.
    In Albion the way you have to increase rates is where they exist, that is, in the markets and in the repairer.
  • LordSilva wrote:

    Neef wrote:

    I dont mind seeing the costs of some things increase but the cost of the market tax and black market tax is just nuts lol.
    In my country you pay a tax on the properties according to the value of your property as well as the amount we discount in taxes every month is related to our salary, whoever has a higher salary, pays more taxes.In Albion the way you have to increase rates is where they exist, that is, in the markets and in the repairer.
    Yes but in RL your being taxed on what you already own, Not what your buying based on how many family members you have, Market tax should never be included and to be more realistic when you buy more items @ one time most the time is becomes cheaper not cost more, Like most stores give you a discount for buying 2 cokes and not just 1, Not the other way around, Therefor it would be stupid to make the market tax increase based on the numbers in your guild, This would only hurt the market not help the market, Also this system can totally be worked around with a simple alt buying the items, Market tax is fine, Leave that shit alone.
  • LordSilva wrote:

    Sinatra.SUN wrote:

    tax and black market tax is a useless method as everyone will have unallied alts anyway, and im pretty sure everyone who works the black market is doing it on unallied alts living in caerlon anyways.

    a 1000% tax on my main wouldnt hurt me one bit, so i dont see what it should change.
    We need to start anywhere, right!
    yes but that is nowhere.
  • LordSilva wrote:

    What is needed is to create a system that is organic and taxing according to the number of players in the same alliance and that affects various points in the day to day lives of all players and Guilds in that alliance.

    Values must scale according to the number of characters in the alliances and the towers they control on the map, for example:

    Also apply to the black market and the same can be applied but in the negative for the Fame and Silver received by the characters of that Alliance in PvE

    In addition, whenever an Alliance wants to grow beyond a certain level, it has to pay according to the amount of goods in its control, for example:

    ps: This will significant increase Silver sink in the game.
    You are probably do not understand the problem that arose by the mega alliances .. the pvp game has turned into an npvp game, only during the reset day you can see the activity, so nobody is fighting.Nobody defends to join groups and fight together .. Remember that there will be friendly fire, even if it will be, the territory will belong to 1 guild = 300 people and not to 3000. Gold manipulation does not make sense, mega alliances have billions of gold it will only hurt new players, it's time to stop thinking only about yourself and your benefits.
  • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

    LordSilva wrote:

    Sinatra.SUN wrote:

    tax and black market tax is a useless method as everyone will have unallied alts anyway, and im pretty sure everyone who works the black market is doing it on unallied alts living in caerlon anyways.

    a 1000% tax on my main wouldnt hurt me one bit, so i dont see what it should change.
    We need to start anywhere, right!
    yes but that is nowhere.
    Unfortunately not everyone has gotten hundreds of millions sitting afk in anglia for 7 seasons. Just because it doesn't matter for u personally doesn't mean it won't impact a large portion of ppl. The tax penalties would def have somewhat of an impact.
  • Deadrino wrote:

    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.
    It doesn't matter.

    The Smart Queue isn't based on Equality, it's based on Equity. If a side has 2x more numbers, they have 2x more slots for them. (those numbers include members in the Queue out of the cluster)

    Example:

    Smart Queue starts at 350 players.

    Lets imagine a 350 members alliance fighting another 350 alliance.

    Since they have equal numbers, they will fight 175 x 175.



    New lets consider one of the alliances divided into 7 equal entities of 50 players.

    It would be 50+50+50+50+50+50+50 x 350

    Since the 350 alliance has 7x more members, they will get 7x more slots in the Queue than the other entities. And since the 7 entities are equal in size, all of them get the same ammount of slots.

    It would result in:

    25+25+25+25+25+25+25 x 175. Which would still mean 175 x 175.

    TLDR: You can't fool the Smart Queue. But you can bypass Disarray at the cost of Friendly Fire.
  • LordSilva wrote:

    What is needed is to create a system that is organic and taxing according to the number of players in the same alliance and that affects various points in the day to day lives of all players and Guilds in that alliance.

    Values must scale according to the number of characters in the alliances and the towers they control on the map, for example:

    Also apply to the black market and the same can be applied but in the negative for the Fame and Silver received by the characters of that Alliance in PvE

    In addition, whenever an Alliance wants to grow beyond a certain level, it has to pay according to the amount of goods in its control, for example:

    ps: This will significant increase Silver sink in the game.

    This is a good idea but now that there are no alliances any more we can use "Territory Owned" as well as "Number of Characters in Alliance/Guild" together, adapting the percentages accordingly.

    Another thing that could be added is a "Spread too thin" debuff that a guild can get when it owns more than a certain amount of territory. For example; less shield points and hp on hideouts, more food etc required for maintenance, hideouts/structures/territory more often vulnerable to attacks and time frame being longer (insert other soft cap ideas here). This increases more and more after every extra territory you control.

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