Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • @Korn SO what? I'm asking you again - SO WHAT?

    They will have less terry(due to a new system) - because they will be forced to do that , too high taxes. But they will still have thousands of players and will kill everyone and dominate - just because they can, and they will do it. Controling (Dominating , and they can do that/show to everyone not only via amounts of terry they have) everything they want.
    Question is not only about terry control , question is about daily gameplay.

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

  • Lofthild wrote:

    I'm more interested in how many solo gatherers/PvE/PvP players are on that council.

    I reckon 0.
    There are a few. But, players who represent non-competitive guilds and non-mega alliance leadership are rarer than they should be. The way the RT is populated it is like the developers believe that the guilds and season fights are 100% of the game, and the rest of the content and players are just here to populate the world for them. Which maybe is how they see it?
    Discord: Piddle#7413
  • Korn wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:

    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149


    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
    What I think is interesting in this whole calculation is that you expect this patch to somehow be better against handholding AND helping the "casual" playerbase. First of all, what this would cause is mega alliances to create secondary and tertiary alliances that would be in control of the territories, while renting out the rest. This happened even without repercussions about a year ago when POE created the "Rent" alliance to effectively sell territories. In turn, these changes would create a benefit for handholding, as having more territories as a single alliance would be counterproductive. It also in turn ruins content because you make fighting for territory effectively hurt the alliances who don't handhold or rent out terries, so what should those people fight for??

    The whole idea that a hard-cap on Alliances would hurt the casual playerbase is funny to me. End-game hardcore guilds aren't meant for casual players, so why cater to them? Casual players can still do HCE, play in Royals or do Hellgates / Gather / Fame in Black Zone without being in a massive guild or alliance without repercussion. Even players that don't play the game a lot can switch in and out of hardcore guilds as they become more active.

    It just sounds like you're trying to make an issue out of nothing, because someone on the round table managed to convince you it's an issue. In effect you create a system that instead promotes handholding, secondary alliances and stop smaller alliances from having an incentive to control more than 10 territories.
  • Hey there,

    no final decision has been made on the matter.

    We are 100% committed to address the issue of the large power blocks. It will be fixed.

    The core issue we see with the original test plan is that it's almost certainly going to cause a massive "purge" of casual players from their guilds and alliances. We have gotten a lot of reports of this already happening - despite the fact that the test had not even started.

    Such a purge, once it has happened, is not easily reversible and could do massive damage to the game - not to the power alliances, but to the more casual players.

    As mentioned in the statement, there are two key goals we want to achieve:
    1. Balance large scale fights. We can do that by making a very significant increase to the disarray mechanic. If large zerg decide to dodge that by splitting, we'd have the same effect here as we'd get with the alliance cap. BUT: it wouldn't affect the more casual players and alliances, it would be a voluntary decision made by the top end power blocks
    2. Restrict the capability of alliances to hold too many territories in the Outlands, hence creating giant hand holding zones. The siphoned energy upkeep mentioned in the OP would be harsh. If you go significantly above 10 (or whatever soft cap we set), the upkeep per territory would be higher than the amount of siphoned energy it produces each day. Siphoned energy production is hard capped by the game world. It would be mathematically impossible for the current concentration of territories in the hand of a few power blocks to be maintained.
    3. In addition to that, what's mentioned in the OP is a 1% fame and silver reduction PER territory over 10 for ALL members of the alliance. The current power blocks hold 91, 57, 55 and 45 territories, that would be 81%, 47%, 45% and 35% reduction on fame and silver pick ups. I think it's obvious that if this was introduced, the concentration of that many territories in the hands of single alliances would immediately stop (it would anyways no longer be possible due to 2 above)
    The KEY POINT is:
    We are pretty sure that a 300 people cap would absolutely have a strong impact on the top 4 power blocks. However, it would unfortunately also have a drastic impact on hundreds of casual guilds and alliances and a *huge* number of more casual players who are parts of those guilds. If we did the 300 cap test, and it does go wrong, this could be bad. Really really bad.

    It seems to make a lot more sense to try a smarter approach (such as the one described in the OP) first. If that does not work, we can always still try a cap later on - that opportunity does not run away.
  • Lofthild wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:
    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149


    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
    I'm a new solo player since ~2 weeks:
    • I can't venture into red/black zones as there are gank/zerg squads everywhere
    • PvE content above yellow zones is almost non-existent, as I have to risk dying every time I set foot into a solo dungeon - and blue dungeons in a black zone are straight suicide as the chances of getting scouted by a big guild + annihilated is way too high
    • Hideouts did sound decent on paper, but now big guilds have save zones everywhere in the black zone, and smaller guilds have close to no chance of even constructing one, even less defending it
    I ask again: how many solo gatherers/PvE/PvP players are on that round table/council, because it's quite obvious the only voice you're hearing are big alliances.
    Why do people act like there are gank and zergs on every portal and in every zone at all times? You're lying or you're incredibly unaware of your surroundings. Zergs show up as blobs on the map, deaths show up on the maps. If you're not avoiding those areas then it's your fault.

    I LIVE in the blackzone and farm in the blackzone and I'm not in a mega alliance and I have been ganked a handful of times. RED ZONES are worse, it shows how many gankers are in the zone. Stop saying something that happened like once to you happens every day at all hours. Screenshot and post your death log, I guarantee its not consistent with your presentation.
  • The siphoned energy upkeep will limit the alliance's terri count, but the power of the mega alliances will still be intact.

    The current mega alliance will break up into sister alliances to hold terris or rent out the terri to smaller alliance. the current mega alliance can still roll up with big zerg and dominate smaller alliances. This change will create more stale game play for smaller alliance because they will either get pushed out or have to pay rent to play in the BZ. Without the alliance CAP, new/small alliance will never be able to fight against the mega.
  • Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution.

    "Our expectation would be that this causes alliances to focus on quality of territories and defense of mages over quantity at some point, potentially breaking existing large alliances into multiple strong groups which own 10-20 territories each."

    Defeats the whole purpose of this.

    They will hold the same amount of terris under diefferent names.
  • EiindyinScythe wrote:

    Lofthild wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:
    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149


    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
    I'm a new solo player since ~2 weeks:
    • I can't venture into red/black zones as there are gank/zerg squads everywhere
    • PvE content above yellow zones is almost non-existent, as I have to risk dying every time I set foot into a solo dungeon - and blue dungeons in a black zone are straight suicide as the chances of getting scouted by a big guild + annihilated is way too high
    • Hideouts did sound decent on paper, but now big guilds have save zones everywhere in the black zone, and smaller guilds have close to no chance of even constructing one, even less defending it
    I ask again: how many solo gatherers/PvE/PvP players are on that round table/council, because it's quite obvious the only voice you're hearing are big alliances.
    Why do people act like there are gank and zergs on every portal and in every zone at all times? You're lying or you're incredibly unaware of your surroundings. Zergs show up as blobs on the map, deaths show up on the maps. If you're not avoiding those areas then it's your fault.
    I LIVE in the blackzone and farm in the blackzone and I'm not in a mega alliance and I have been ganked a handful of times. RED ZONES are worse, it shows how many gankers are in the zone. Stop saying something that happened like once to you happens every day at all hours. Screenshot and post your death log, I guarantee its not consistent with your presentation.
    • Only 3 portals per city to Outlands which in itself already promotes camping the portals
    • A few people on Swiftclaws are enough to hunt solo players like myself
    • You admit not being in a mega alliance, but in an alliance nonetheless - but I am playing solo, on my own, with neither guild nor alliance
    • I see plenty of gank quads running around, which forces me to always go the long way through obstacles on every map to minimize dying
    • Rather interesting how you ignore every other point I made to focus on that one point
  • Korn wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:

    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149


    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
    Casual players shouldn't join an Active ZvZ guild, Gatherers in some extent could do it with % tax or a tribute, you'll keep the big alliances cuz they own BILLIONS of silver, siphon energy price will go up cuz handholders demand, and small guilds will not be able to afford them as now..
  • Brobacca wrote:

    I just dont get it casual players are not even in the mega alliances..... so how does it hurt them?
    Also going back on an official post? When your previous poll shows 80% of players do not want the mega alliances in the game. Why run a poll if it isn't going to be listened to.
    There are a lot of casual alliances with more than 300 members.

    The problem is that if we do a higher cap, say, 1000, the impact on the power blocks would have been close to 0. With 1.000 slots, we are pretty sure that the power blocks could have done close to perfect workarounds. So that wasn't an option, either.

    We absolutely did not want casual guilds and alliances to purge their less hardcore players. We are a bit surprised when we got more and more reports of that already happening, despite the test not even having started. So we took a step back. The real issue is with the power blocks. Can we tackle that problem without doing permanent damage to more casual players and guilds?

    We think that we can, through the steps outlined above. We also think it would be crazy not to give this a try first before doing a more drastic change which could cause permanent damage to the game. As stated above, we are not backtracking on fixing the power block issue. Not all all.

    That issue will be fixed. We just want to do this in the smartest way possible - in a way that does not hurt casual players and alliances.