Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • New

    It would be interesting that Devs and decision makers will play their own game, and if they are not going to do it and have no idea what is going on, respect the surveys and questions they ask their own community.

    Apologizing in advance, I must conclude that they are idiots.

    - It's idiot to have a problem with the power of mega alliances for 3 years, and after making portal changes, lock changes, map changes, being in the initial box and having screwed up the gameplay of the other players

    - It's idiot to do an extreme survey (alliances of 300, white or black) but on top of it make it even worse by ignoring it later

    - It's idiot to think about changes based on statistics of a specific moment, as if we were in a beta, acting on the consequence, not the cause. With such simple mental schemes they are too easy to dodge and exploit by players.




    Decide what game you want to have, how fair or unfair it will be and the type of audience you want to reach, and stop hitting........it's a miracle that this keeps working
  • New


    he probably doesn't care because its their choice lol. they just want to avoid blame/backlash,

    Actually we think it makes a huge difference why and how a player quits playing with an Alliance.

    If we simply restrict the number of players in an Alliance, we create a single "super group", which will consist of the most active, combat focused players. This group will then attempt to retain as much territory as possible, likely succeeding in holding large chunks of land. Everyone else who was previously in the Alliance will have no leadership and generally fewer active players around them, effectively losing their reason to play.

    On the other hand, if we offer strong incentives for an Alliance to split into multiple groups which each hold territory and need to maintain a fighting force, players can more freely choose which of these groups they want to continue to play with, based on their friendships and playstyle preferences.

    This is why we're convinced a soft cap on alliances is a much better approach than a hard cap. In neither case will you stop former Alliance members from co-operating with each other, but in the second case you break them down into multiple more healthy groups, instead of a few "super guilds" and a lot of dropped players.
  • New

    Korn wrote:

    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.
    I'm still shoked that this was the reason , i literally can't bealive i'm reading this right now.

    It was obvious that there are hundreds of casual players in large Ally, i still wonder "how" you get such reports and from "whom" , but it doesn't matter. To be clear - you fuc**d up with this moment and forgot about it, let it be, i take it.
    So casual players, instead of adapting , as they should do , and play where they belong to (play in casual guilds/or "Alt guilds under the auspices of someone"). They become in a "magic way" the reason why people should suffer from a zerg domination and boring gameplay on the whole global server? Not bad, not bad
  • New

    Amon wrote:


    How would an alliance cap harm casual players exactly besides most ppl (casuals and non casuals) getting kicked out of their current alliances duo to alliance space limit? (which is the exactly the point on getting and hard cap on alliances lol)

    Im what you could call a casual and Id be delighted to see alliances go. Im sure most of the people in favor of getting rid of alliances are what you'd call casuals.

    The only people you will be hurting by caping alliances are people who just sit in a mega alliances for the safety of it cause why wouldnt you(thats a problem too) and alliances that rely on huge numbers to control part of the game and limit content to anyone else.

    Also, you made a poll that cearly showed how a lot of ppl feel and you agreed to at least make a test and even gave us a date for it.

    The question I have is, are you back pedaling and canceling the alliance cap test?

    I was saying exactly this to my guild mates, we all agree with you.
    kudos +60
    (small guild, growing slowly, of course)
  • New

    Eltharyon wrote:

    he probably doesn't care because its their choice lol. they just want to avoid blame/backlash,
    Actually we think it makes a huge difference why and how a player quits playing with an Alliance.

    If we simply restrict the number of players in an Alliance, we create a single "super group", which will consist of the most active, combat focused players. This group will then attempt to retain as much territory as possible, likely succeeding in holding large chunks of land. Everyone else who was previously in the Alliance will have no leadership and generally fewer active players around them, effectively losing their reason to play.

    On the other hand, if we offer strong incentives for an Alliance to split into multiple groups which each hold territory and need to maintain a fighting force, players can more freely choose which of these groups they want to continue to play with, based on their friendships and playstyle preferences.

    This is why we're convinced a soft cap on alliances is a much better approach than a hard cap. In neither case will you stop former Alliance members from co-operating with each other, but in the second case you break them down into multiple more healthy groups, instead of a few "super guilds" and a lot of dropped players.
    How are you going to determine the soft cap? if the mega alliance ends up with the same amount of terri after the break down, it still give no room for smaller alliances to grow which was the original intent of the queen map change.
  • New

    @Korn @Eltharyon

    Thank you for your efforts on responding and trying to understand the demand of the players.BUT

    There is unfortunately a but in here,

    To defend casuals in the big alliances you are basically promoting being casual in the alliances and denying all other casuals who refuses or got refused from the alliances.
    If you can check the numbers of the casual people outside of the alliances , you may see that the numbers are high..

    Being part of high competitive game play requires high effort and play time,

    I do see that 300 cap was something which could give damage to the normal people (newbies, pve players, gatherers, casuals) but there should be another solution for this.

    Territories can be lowered by clever leaders and they could maintain or increase the zerg size , like arch will do,

    Without putting limit on something it is basically making it open to be exploited..

    The solution could be ,
    -Increasing the nerf and debuffs on zerg,
    -Increasing the damage nerf on the taken damage , and giving advantage to smaller size against high numbers,
    -Capping alliances and adding another section for the normal people with an alt guild which it wont effect the zvz size and they wont be able to join to zvzs with smart cluster que
    (basically if they join in zvz, they will be the first people who will be kicked out from the map)
    -Blocking people to join territory war with high numbers , example. defending guild has 100 members , on prime time attacking alliance wont be able to put more than 100 people in the same map
    -Putting daily tax for the alliances who exceed the x number in the alliance (helps to sink silver)

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

  • New

    Silver and fame debuff basically doesn't effect me.

    If you guys are serious about limiting "top" alliances please consider changes that affect top players more than bottom and casual players.

    Stronger zerg debuff
    Scale tower nutrition requirements with number of territories held (and by scale I mean actually exponentially scale, not like the initial garbage you guys did with the disarray)
    Put a literal tax on territories (scaling) if you need to
    Scaling point sharing

    Account limit not character limit

    I dunno there were tons of suggestions that made more sense than what you guys are doing now
  • New

    Eltharyon wrote:

    Actually we think it makes a huge difference why and how a player quits playing with an Alliance.

    If we simply restrict the number of players in an Alliance, we create a single "super group", which will consist of the most active, combat focused players. This group will then attempt to retain as much territory as possible, likely succeeding in holding large chunks of land. Everyone else who was previously in the Alliance will have no leadership and generally fewer active players around them, effectively losing their reason to play.

    On the other hand, if we offer strong incentives for an Alliance to split into multiple groups which each hold territory and need to maintain a fighting force, players can more freely choose which of these groups they want to continue to play with, based on their friendships and playstyle preferences.

    This is why we're convinced a soft cap on alliances is a much better approach than a hard cap. In neither case will you stop former Alliance members from co-operating with each other, but in the second case you break them down into multiple more healthy groups, instead of a few "super guilds" and a lot of dropped players
    as a member of an alliance - I hate it, we want to be competitive so we are forced into making Fight Club Season 8. We - Black Flag - wanted to go Solo, because we didnt want to stay in EGO. The second we did we lost all content because only alliances get to play your game.

    I know 3 players in my alliance the rest are just tools for having any chance at playing the game.

    I want to play with my guild, they are all my friends and i know them all.

    Alliances owning territories is NOOOOOTTTT the problem.
    Nothing you proposed in that post remotely will help the problems.

    You MUST STOP listening to the ROUND TABLE they are lying to you telling you it will hurt casuals

    THERE ARE NO CASUALS IN THE TOP ALLIANCES - those guilds are charged per member millions of silver to stay in the alliance

    They are twisting your arm to stay in power your players voted and 100% mean our votes. At this point avoiding the test is simply a recipe for killing the game.

    as of this morning we already had 2 members announce they are leaving for a 1 month + absence from the game.

    everyone with solo guilds and alliances do not play the same game as the members of the ROUND TABLE.

    Anyone in Mega alliances doesnt know what your game is actually like. they are handed everything safety, high tier gear, and so many members that they never really fight anyone.
    Everytime a guild or small alliance leaves portal is a battle because 1941 can mass 50 people in an instant and drop your caravan.



    twitch.tv/videos/545464938?t=33m47s

    Listen in to what they say about black flag hideout, - its a role play hideout - these guys have no right to be here

    Look at how we played NA reset, trapped inside our hideout because Cluster Queue was active when there was no fight in our zone.
    - update we are still there, have no ability to play, so if you watch up north you can see us fight up there,

    We are named Fight Club Season 8 because we literally had to reach out to so many other guilds, form up some forces, and agree to have fun this season, and stop those assholes in big alliances. We Just Want To Play. We are a fight club because we literally stage fights and agree on how to push out the Megas, its just stupid. Kill the megas

    I dont care if they all quit! they are like 10k players you just announced you have 350k subs, so 10k players are ruining your game for 340k players

    AND YOU SIDE WITH THEM, REFUSING TO TEST why should we 340k keep playing your game?

    WHY either @ me or PM i need a direct answer this is absurd.
  • New

    Throatcutter wrote:

    this system can be easily gotten around by spreading territories between holding guilds and smaller guilds within the alliance

    The penalties are per alliance not per guild.

    Of course, you could still do the obvious: Squak becomes Squak A, Squak B, Squak C, Squak D, etc, to however many they need to dodge the debuffs.

    But thinking about it from a member perspective, I wonder how many people relegated to the depths of "Squak F" are going to still get that feeling of "I'm in a powerful alliance, I must be super awesome". They're in a fifth rate sub-guild now. The grass could start to look greener elsewhere. Worth a shot.

    GramPositive wrote:

    I'm in a solo guild that holds terris and we're FORCED to work with neighbors to even exist
    ...I don't see the problem with this? Guilds should have to interact with their neighbors, calling on them for help and running to their aid when needed. It's just that it should be your actual neighbors and not a mega-alliance that sees you running 8 zones to defend a territory you should have no interest in at all, but run to anyway because you're in the same mega.

    I think the real goal is more like loose confederations of city-states rather than gigantic single-entity nations. But independent Gondor and independent Rohan still need to call each other for aid now and then.

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

  • New

    After this news i can't force myself to log into the game , and i'm fu**ing solo player who get used to fight/run vs blobs and travel through 20 + locations vs only one Ally on this maps, for fuc*ng several years. I am on fire and pissed off.
    I should be neutral , or should feel like i dont give a fuc* about this changes, because they "almost" do not affect my gameplay - but i can't.
  • New

    Korn wrote:

    but to the more casual players
    Hello um hi Black flag - lead of S8 alliance, um yea we have no ability to recruit, so if they are kicking casuals then we will pick them up

    That is absolutely not an issue, casuals are not in top guilds 100% if top guilds are telling you this they are lying. if you are on 1-2 times a week and weekends we would take you,

    If not that then another guild, so many guilds are not at 300 cap would take them.

    The purge that is happening is our alts, we have over 100 alts in our guild so we started talking about moving them all out. Our players would absolutely stay. and we want more, most guilds are heavily recruiting ... so ya try again not a good reason.