Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

  • Rumor via the round table (more leaks, I never understood why they don't discuss things on the forum for all) this is not going to happen.

    I think an alliance should hold 3 territories comfortably, but after that is should be very very expensive for each guild in the alliance. This would help split up alliances.


    I thought SBI had some guts with this change, but I guess they listen to the elite and want to keep the status quo. Very disappointed.

    We were promised a BZ where smaller guilds could survive. I didn't believe it then, and now I don't believe it can ever happen. I doubt they will make the mega alliance change their behavior.
  • Y'all at SBI really need to establish more coherent plans and follow through on them instead of changing your goals mid-way.

    You come out with Hideouts with the goal of *allowing smaller guilds to exist in the Black Zones*. It fails.

    You then come out with the idea - which is still part of this goal of allowing smaller guilds to exist in the Black Zones - that alliance size would be capped at 300. Ballsy, for sure, but given the fact that your first measure failed spectacularly at doing what it was supposed to do, drastic measures are definitely needed. People vote and you have overwhelming support for your move.

    But then, Round Table (a terrible concept in itself) bois persuade you not to so you backtrack. Now, you're thinking about introducing measures that will not affect alliance size in any way but will instead penalize alliances for holding more than ten territories. Such big alliances (only six currently hold more than ten) would have to pay a fee (undisclosed) or lose said territory(ies). They would also suffer penalties on fame/silver gathering... of 1% per territory above 10. The goal, according to the big post in question, is now to turn the much larger alliances (the big 4 who own 40+ territories each) into slightly smaller alliances who would own "10 to 20" territories.

    We started with SBI's goal of "allowing smaller guilds to exist in the Black Zones" (a goal backed with massive popular support) and after it went through the Round Table, the goal was now "we want alliances who own 10-20 territories each". We went from the focus being on smaller guilds (20-80 ppl) to splitting the über zergs in half so instead of getting stomped by a mega t5 blob, the smaller guilds will get stomped by a much more manageable t3 to t4 blob. Truly, progress.

    I wonder what the Round Table folks have on SBI to get them to back off such a popular move. It must be quite something as this is the kind of backtracking that causes a company to lose quite a bit of reputation and goodwill.
  • A lot of players and guilds don't understand this change.

    It is more a direct-nerf to mega-alliances and top guilds (BA and CIR) than anybody else. Now the mega-alliances must endure Friendly-Fire. The feeder-guilds and slave-guilds of POE and Squak must now take most of the damage, death, and frontline fighting. The feeder-guilds will sacrifice themselves in the first engagements, leaving Blue Army and/or CIR to come in, team-kill, and face no retaliation. The feeder-guilds must be "thankful" of their place, as necessary sacrifices. They will take this humiliating role, because they don't have a choice. These are the brunt of 'complaints' in this thread, because those whining loudest, know that they will be the ones sacrificed and left-out to dry.

    It's a positive change because it is a huge toll on the 'lecches' of the mega-alliance, along with the 'casuals' who log-in specifically to CTA. The end-result is that BA and CIR will need to become more elitist, purging their rosters of afks, alts, and anybody-else who doesn't contribute. This will force many players into the "feeder/slave" guilds. The feeder/slave-guilds, of the mega-alliances, are now very unattractive, because these are the ones who will likely be wiped more, die in ZVZ, and laughed at, as they will rather serve as pawns to the elitists, than strike it off on their own.

    This is why I believe this change is a huge-overhaul, and positive to the game as a whole. I disagree with the 300 alliance limit, and recommend 600 or 900. It may be "too forceful and extreme", as I believe the GVG nerf was as well. I recommend more 'balanced' and moderate game-changing nerfs than all-or-nothing as Albion has become accustomed to.


    The small guilds and small-alliances may see positive changes, as the end-game, elitists, and mega-alliances will now be forced to 'deal' with small alliances and guilds. This will allow for some opportunities of diplomacy. However, until small guilds and alliances have doors to launch against medium, large, and mega-alliances, the door to Black Zone and barrier-of-entry of new players, to BZ, is still very high.

    As an example, our guild <War Blood> is filled with new players to the game, and we are shut-out of the BZ by RANG and BEE around Lymhurst, who are not severely 'strong' in terms of alliances or ZVZ, but are organized and experienced enough to block newer players/guilds from entry. It's enough of a struggle to deal with medium-size alliances and experienced alliances, than it is to deal with elitists and end-game (BA and CIR).

    Overall I believe it will end well for small guilds and alliances, than it would with the mega-alliances and feeder-guilds.

    It's a good time for newer players, small guilds, and small alliances, to be playing.


    I expect a lot of positive results to the game in the long-run.

    EDIT: And another thing, if Albion community thinks that there will be a shortage of slave and feeder-guilds, willing to die as pawns for BA and CIR, then you are sorely mistaken and deluded. There will always be a high demand of guilds to join the mega-alliances and elitists, even if it means cucking out and dieing from friendly-fire. That is the degree of loyalty to the elitists there is, in the end-game. So, no, there will not be any "mass exodus" of players or guilds or alliances quitting the game. It only increased the price of mega-alliance leeches, which is a deserving punishment, for many who entered into the doors of the mega-alliances, but never really 'earned' it.

    Now the elitists need to 'earn' their place in the center of Black Zone.


    GREAT CHANGE!!!

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

  • Lol Mega alliance guys cry about the possibility of having to actually fight and struggle so SBI now acts like a scolded dog, tucks tale and backtracks
    the new idea is just absolute shit. The point of a season is to try and win by getting the most season points but if you do this then you are penalized DONT TRY SO HARD TO WIN FOOLS
    Large alliances will not be affected or care about losing a little energy if they can control the map LOL stupid just stupid

    Dumb, finally a chance to make a good change for the health of the game and maybe make the black more populated and they drop the ball

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

  • Maori wrote:

    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.
    Ok and if the changes need more adjustments or need reverted do they just wait til end of season to go back? does it matter when the change is done really? middle, end at start of season the result of failure is the same a revert or adjustments that would still take place during the season.
  • Xezqez wrote:

    Maori wrote:

    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.
    Ok and if the changes need more adjustments or need reverted do they just wait til end of season to go back? does it matter when the change is done really? middle, end at start of season the result of failure is the same a revert or adjustments that would still take place during the season.
    It mostly matters for all the people who are getting screwed over by the change lol. There's almost certainly going to be guilds out there who will suffer from a newly hostile neighbour that was once a defensive ally XD. Some people be downplaying it a bit, but this is a HUGE change to the game for a lot of people, and not a good one for some.

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

  • Theat wrote:

    A lot of players and guilds don't understand this change.

    It is more a direct-nerf to mega-alliances and top guilds (BA and CIR) than anybody else. Now the mega-alliances must endure Friendly-Fire. The feeder-guilds and slave-guilds of POE and Squak must now take most of the damage, death, and frontline fighting. The feeder-guilds will sacrifice themselves in the first engagements, leaving Blue Army and/or CIR to come in, team-kill, and face no retaliation. The feeder-guilds must be "thankful" of their place, as necessary sacrifices. They will take this humiliating role, because they don't have a choice. These are the brunt of 'complaints' in this thread, because those whining loudest, know that they will be the ones sacrificed and left-out to dry.

    It's a positive change because it is a huge toll on the 'lecches' of the mega-alliance, along with the 'casuals' who log-in specifically to CTA. The end-result is that BA and CIR will need to become more elitist, purging their rosters of afks, alts, and anybody-else who doesn't contribute. This will force many players into the "feeder/slave" guilds. The feeder/slave-guilds, of the mega-alliances, are now very unattractive, because these are the ones who will likely be wiped more, die in ZVZ, and laughed at, as they will rather serve as pawns to the elitists, than strike it off on their own.

    This is why I believe this change is a huge-overhaul, and positive to the game as a whole. I disagree with the 300 alliance limit, and recommend 600 or 900. It may be "too forceful and extreme", as I believe the GVG nerf was as well. I recommend more 'balanced' and moderate game-changing nerfs than all-or-nothing as Albion has become accustomed to.


    The small guilds and small-alliances may see positive changes, as the end-game, elitists, and mega-alliances will now be forced to 'deal' with small alliances and guilds. This will allow for some opportunities of diplomacy. However, until small guilds and alliances have doors to launch against medium, large, and mega-alliances, the door to Black Zone and barrier-of-entry of new players, to BZ, is still very high.

    As an example, our guild <War Blood> is filled with new players to the game, and we are shut-out of the BZ by RANG and BEE around Lymhurst, who are not severely 'strong' in terms of alliances or ZVZ, but are organized and experienced enough to block newer players/guilds from entry. It's enough of a struggle to deal with medium-size alliances and experienced alliances, than it is to deal with elitists and end-game (BA and CIR).

    Overall I believe it will end well for small guilds and alliances, than it would with the mega-alliances and feeder-guilds.

    It's a good time for newer players, small guilds, and small alliances, to be playing.


    I expect a lot of positive results to the game in the long-run.

    EDIT: And another thing, if Albion community thinks that there will be a shortage of slave and feeder-guilds, willing to die as pawns for BA and CIR, then you are sorely mistaken and deluded. There will always be a high demand of guilds to join the mega-alliances and elitists, even if it means cucking out and dieing from friendly-fire. That is the degree of loyalty to the elitists there is, in the end-game. So, no, there will not be any "mass exodus" of players or guilds or alliances quitting the game. It only increased the price of mega-alliance leeches, which is a deserving punishment, for many who entered into the doors of the mega-alliances, but never really 'earned' it.

    Now the elitists need to 'earn' their place in the center of Black Zone.


    GREAT CHANGE!!!
    I mean I get you and a lot of other people wanting smaller guilds to do well but there comes a point where there are only oh so many true leaders in this game capable of leading a good guild. The reason most guilds stay small is because people don't want to join a shitty guild with a shitty leader and the reason big guilds get bigger is because they're doing well because of strong leadership it's the reason BA gets over 30 apps a day, has a full t8 regear system, multiple great content creators and streamers and multiple shotcallers during every time zone. I'm not a mega alliance guy never have been i've always liked having more people to kill but when it comes to punishing a single guild for being too good it's fucking annoying. You can't punish the Elite guilds out of being anything better then some average guild because they effect everything at such a high level from crafting to gathering to market prices to massive amounts of gear being destroyed due to content being had. At some point people gotta realize maybe it makes sense the guys that play the game easily 12+ hours a day have a huge advantage over someone that plays 4 hours a day.
  • FriendlyFire wrote:

    FrozenIce wrote:

    How are you going to do this in the middle of a season
    Lol they are supposed to wait to fix the game 2+ months because you wanted to hand-hold your way to a season win via a mega-alliance?

    TheBacon wrote:

    I absolute hate this on that reason, we take new players in our guild also dedicated crafters / gatherers
    Oh no, depriving new players the opportunity to gather and craft for you.. the tragedy.
    i wish i could find someone to craft and gather for... it's all do. it's why i play the game. not everyone likes pvp...
  • Xezqez wrote:

    Vindrax wrote:

    Predictions of what is going to happen post this change (will come back to see how accurate these are):

    • Mega purge of guild rosters for non-top end guilds of their alts, casual and newer members into "Academy" guilds. Entrance standards for guilds will be raised and more players placed into academy based guilds hoping for their chance to join a main guild.
    • Stricter enforcement of play times and regular purges of inactive members going forward by guilds. Prepare for CTA spreadsheets and close monitoring of "keeping your spot".
    • For serious guilds trying to maintain an alliance, a segmenting of "spots each guild gets for members" where there will likely be enforcement of PVP fame minimum requirements on an alliance level for people trying to join.
    • A need for kicking/moving remembers to academy guilds when veteran players taking a break return to the game, causing strain in terms of value each player brings to the guild's community.
    • Nothing fundamentally will change in terms of the mega-guilds owning the vast majority of the map. BA, CIR, and others will NAP with guilds (likely the ones currently in their alliances) and still divide up the map as they currently do with the more powerful guilds overwhelming any guilds with coordinated territory/hideout attacks against "weaker" guilds who do not have the political relationships to form a reasonable defense.
    • A significant consolidation of veteran players in a handful of guilds and an increasing disparity between newer guilds and "mega-guilds". Playing in a newer guild will be a way of trying to obtain the stats to jump to a mega-guild versus of joining a guild that you would like to be a part of their community, play/grow with.
    • It will be significantly harder for newer guilds to join alliances with experienced guilds and be any level of competitive. This will lead many newer guilds to collapse as their members leave and feed into more established guilds, ultimately making more people quit the game.
    Ultimately I see this system changing very little in the political landscape of the game while making veteran/established guilds significantly stronger and coalescing the more veteran players into a smaller concentration of a handful of guilds. Newer players will spend most of their time "working on a resume" so they can get into one of these guilds versus which will make startup guilds even harder than they currently are as members consistently jump ship to the advice of people on reddit who are advising people to "join top end guilds to fully experience Albion".
    Do not know what guild or alliance you are in but those things you listed are going on now among the top guilds/alliances, I see it all the time, like nearly everyday someone is kicked or threatened based on performance, IP, fame level, activity, pvp fame for the week, so on n so on. So this basically changes nothing that isnt already happening.
    yes and this change will compound the problem exponentially...
  • GeneralHiro wrote:

    FriendlyFire wrote:

    FrozenIce wrote:

    How are you going to do this in the middle of a season
    Lol they are supposed to wait to fix the game 2+ months because you wanted to hand-hold your way to a season win via a mega-alliance?

    TheBacon wrote:

    I absolute hate this on that reason, we take new players in our guild also dedicated crafters / gatherers
    Oh no, depriving new players the opportunity to gather and craft for you.. the tragedy.
    i wish i could find someone to craft and gather for... it's all do. it's why i play the game. not everyone likes pvp...
    add me on discord GluttonySDS#0952
  • I agree with the increase of attack declarations costs depending on how many cluster the alliance controls but WTF with the retard idea of increasing repairing and market costs? The size of the alliances is not the problem in itself but the hyper expansion ability and the huge zergs being able to overwhelm so hard to the smaller ones. Devs r looking for a way to deal with these issues not to punish people just for being part of a big alliance.
  • SBI, you have screwed the pooch on this one.

    One week after you say your gonna limit alliances, Guilds, and Alliances start making plans for the changes, (my alliance as an example) we start making changes in our alliance and guilds to handle how things will be when alliances are capped at 300 people. THEN a week later, YOU suddenly reverse course and say "WE ARE NOT LIMITING ALLIANCES". SOME OF US HAVE ALREADY MADE CHANGES THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN BACK.

    You are puppets of the largest guilds in the game. and Kinda Cowardly.

    ALL, the current negative shit going on IS YOUR DAMNED FAULT.

    Grow a set of Balls! Make a Decision and fucking stick with it!
  • The first plan was to just make it so there was friendly fire between alliances which wouldn't fix all the issues but at least was a start in some direction. Then shortly after that idea was scrapped. No attempt to even test it out.

    Now they come out with an idea which was a bit more extreme but could accomplish a similar thing and I am hearing rumors that the test is going to be scrapped? I don't have the full story but I know there were complaints about it happening mid season so maybe it will just be delayed until after the season ends which I think will be disappointing but more so if the idea is canned as a whole.

    I was looking forward to seeing how the game might change up. I say at the very least then increase the disarray affect to start hitting hard at numbers over 50 so we can keep the biggest fights down to 70v70.

    I'll wait and see if the rumors are true or just trolls. If they are true then I hope that there is some sorta backup plan being worked on.