Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • Drift wrote:

    One day SBI you might realise that the casual players your so concerned about not upsetting wont be around in the long turn
    I think the real risk is something I see in other games:

    The "hardcore" keep merging into larger and more powerful blocs until eventually they bore themselves out of their own game. The politics become stagnant and the game becomes monotonous or they actually ally their way out of having any competent enemies at all because all the competent players have finally been forced to join the same team (or they lose badly enough to give up and quit).

    I'm not sure megas -- or their leaders, anyway -- realize that they would surely have more fun if battles and politics were more fluid. Smaller alliances with shifting loyalties. Fewer allies and more enemies. The drive to "win" can end up destroying all the things that made the game fun.
  • 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.
    Why people would fight for extra territories if that extra territories gives % debuff and siphoned energy cost? So you wanna big alliances take 10 territory each and thats it? Territory claiming system will be nothing with that change.
  • LordZetta wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    LordZetta wrote:

    making the game worse
    How would the territory capping system make the game worse? The "worst" outcome I see is that the number of territories controlled by the big alliances (BA/1941/PoE/etc.) doesn't change at all, and SBI decides to do something more drastic.
    I do find it interesting how many people believe that capping alliances will magically balance the Outlands. I'm not a member of a big alliance, and while capping might help my guild in the short term, the long-term damage to the game isn't worth it.
    Worse in comparison to the original plan. Please, enlighten me, what long-term damage would we have?

    A game like Albion needs newer players to become veterans, to replace veterans who are leaving. With alliance capping, however, zvz players will concentrate into the fewest possible guilds, and it will become harder and harder for newer players to get into the same guild or alliance as good players and shotcallers.

    Alliance capping will thus strangle the process of new players becoming veterans. That's the long-term damage.
  • Have you considered a 600 player cap instead of 300?

    This would smooth over many of the complaints I’ve seen about alts, casual players, non-zvzers, and split eu/na guilds. At the same time 600 is a downsize for basically every alliance that currently holds territory.

    And surely 600 people in an alliance is enough for casual players to have people to play with? At a 10% concurrency ratio that would be 60 people online, which should be enough to do most ZvZ content with the right disarray scaling.

    300 people is already way past the point where Dunbar’s number lets the guild be a tight knit community. Why couldn’t it be the case that after you make this change new smaller casual guilds will begin to pop up that we’re snuffed out of existence by zerging?

    Either way, I am more interested in seeing how disarray will be buffed, which would seem to make the most difference to the moment to moment gameplay.
  • Leadership issue

    If u would play u own game u would know in apvp game doing no decision or reverting it is the worse you can do

    I promise you and myself the next full loot open world game coming out has my full attention.

    This is a joke..

    P.S. if I could sell my account and it not against the TOS I would do it right on the spot..

    The only thing that keeps me back is a feeling of a long time invest of time but this..no words but REDICOULOS

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

  • I was looking forward to playing the game with no alliances so badly. First time in a long while I was excited about an Albion update - such a shame SBI is going back on this.

    The game excels and thrives at small scale pvp, yet the developments to it keep going in the direction of large scale zvz. Give meaningful rewards and incentives for small groups and the game could be amazing. Keep going towards zvz and the game will inevitably die.
  • Once again , SBI dont listen people . They listen a little crown crying to still have power with 3000 people vs 600 .

    I said Gathering will be dead , its dead . All depleted 24/24 and need do 20 maps to move stuff back.

    Now that .


    U guys really dont play that game honestly . Continue have fight 600 vs 600 , map crash , cap in a zone , soo everything fucked ....



    Stop listen LEADER of big alliance , and listen the people .
  • Eternalhaze wrote:

    game will inevitably die.
    Actually , at some point it might "die" , i was always sceptical about this statement for along time. But if we take a look on 2020/21 years - lots of similar/good mmo projects (No i'm not counting Fractured, it looks horrible :P ) are coming and now add to this current Albion game direction. As the result Albion might have "some issues" - it will not die ofc. in common way, but Online will be drastically lower. But in such case it will not stay long alive.

    There is might be a bright side , after all fails/awareness of own mistakes/analyzing game direction/working on fresh VIABLE content for EVERYONE, on top of that deleting Round Table and stop listening to a bunch of few people - and start making Global Survey via Emails/In-game Game UI special "survey menu" and forum survey (all of this together) - SBI could change it in experience. Sad/Bad , but experience which made them stronger.
  • Handsome wrote:

    Robin is pretty much depressed because he expect anonther scenario....
    @Eltharyon Robin, if it is true - i feel sorry. We all want to make Albion better , we got same aim ,and i sincerely wish you and your team good luck and prosper. But this reaction - it is what it is, we all learn from mistakes.

    -------------
    @Handsome
    There is one more game direction/solution. Seasons , each 1/2 months (then break for 1/2 month) there will be seasons like POE/Diablo have in current state or in incoming Crowfall game. All progression at the end will be transferred on your main character. With unique cosmetic rewards at the end etc.

    Imagine fresh starts every 1/2 months(On unique island) and then break for 1/2 month. Lots of PvP, Action etc. Albion got everything for this. Fresh Starts are always Hype and fun - they gather people to play , pure psychology.

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

  • How many people frustrated with something that was already said that nothing was set in stone...
    Just as what was said is also not definitive, today's generation cries more and plays less...

    I will pay a taxi for these people who have been talking for months/years who are leaving ... I will try to help you guys, no more false goodbyes x)
  • Roccandil wrote:

    LordZetta wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    LordZetta wrote:

    making the game worse
    How would the territory capping system make the game worse? The "worst" outcome I see is that the number of territories controlled by the big alliances (BA/1941/PoE/etc.) doesn't change at all, and SBI decides to do something more drastic.I do find it interesting how many people believe that capping alliances will magically balance the Outlands. I'm not a member of a big alliance, and while capping might help my guild in the short term, the long-term damage to the game isn't worth it.
    Worse in comparison to the original plan. Please, enlighten me, what long-term damage would we have?
    A game like Albion needs newer players to become veterans, to replace veterans who are leaving. With alliance capping, however, zvz players will concentrate into the fewest possible guilds, and it will become harder and harder for newer players to get into the same guild or alliance as good players and shotcallers.

    Alliance capping will thus strangle the process of new players becoming veterans. That's the long-term damage.
    What? what are you talking about? why would the newer player NEED to join the old, established guilds? they would probably develop their skills on lower tier guilds up to a point where those guilds and alliances would actually become good by themselves(which is EXTREMELY hard to pull off now). How can you not understand something as simple as the reason people need this crutch called big alliance is because they exist in the first place?
  • Let's assume that this proposal will go through. What would stop alliance A from having alliance b, c, d, e, and f exclusively for terry holding, having a hideout in every important terry open for all alliances and all the main forces in alliance A.
    Alliance A would be able to hold 60 terries without any repurcussions, having safe zones in all the zones via hideouts. The only downside would be the loss of season points. But trading this some season points in turn for massive safe zones and net positive siphoned energy gain would be worth it for most alliances. Moreover, you say that getting season points encourages actual alliances to hold terries. BUT, if you're a top alliance, having more territories under 'your control' and effectively making it impossible for the enemies to acquire them as well is a valid strategy too.

    For this reason, please, consider implementing a hideout system where access can only be granted to (own guild, own alliance, everyone). No in-between.

    And another system that's been resurfaced(though it doesn't make sense if alliance caps aren't introduced) would be to turn off guild/alliance tags for enemies in the black zone.

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

  • Akise wrote:

    Let's assume that this proposal will go through. What would stop alliance A from having alliance b, c, d, e, and f exclusively for terry holding, having a hideout in every important terry open for all alliances and all the main forces in alliance A.
    Alliance A would be able to hold 60 terries without any repurcussions, having safe zones in all the zones via hideouts. The only downside would be the loss of season points. But trading this some season points in turn for massive safe zones and net positive siphoned energy gain would be worth it for most alliances.

    Please, consider implementing a hideout system where access can only be granted to (own guild, own alliance, everyone). No in-between.

    And another system that's been resurfaced(though it doesn't make sense if alliance caps aren't introduced) would be to turn off guild/alliance tags for enemies in the black zone.
    Please note that we intended to significantly increase disarray for the test, too.

    In terms of the possible outcome you describe, a lot of factors are at work here - such as the impact of season points, for example.

    If de facto it would be the case that the strategy you mention would be employed successfully, it's very easy for us to take further steps is needed.

    The core benefit - and main reason - for the modified test is that if it fails (for example, if what you describe actually happens) no permanent damage would have been done. We can then easily take it further or make adjustments, or revisit the hard cap idea.

    If we go with the hard cap idea right away - as originally intended - it it fails, we'd have done permanent damage to the game. After all the feedback and we received after having announced our plans, we think it's simply the smarter approach to try the modified test first and take it from there.

    Yes, it is a backtrack. Yes, a backtrack makes us "look silly" and that ideally should not happen. Still though, what is infinitely more important is that we get it right, in a way that is best for the long term health of the game.

    We share a lot of our ideas and thoughts with the community on an ongoing bases, We adapt and adjust all the time. That also means that we sometimes get it wrong. We could now of course just dig our heels in and go ahead with it no matter what just to avoid the embarrassment of changing plans. However, we think that we have genuinely found a better approach now - one that can be tested without the risk of serious side-effects, and one that can always be escalated further if needed.
  • Equart wrote:

    Handsome wrote:

    Robin is pretty much depressed because he expect anonther scenario....
    @Eltharyon Robin, if it is true - i feel sorry. We all want to make Albion better , we got same aim ,and i sincerely wish you and your team good luck and prosper. But this reaction - it is what it is, we all learn from mistakes.

    I think you mention a very critical point here, one that it's often poorly understood.

    And it's this:
    We really do share the same goal here. We do consider it an issue that a small number of large alliances is too dominant right now. It can lead to too much hand holding and too high barriers to entry for smaller groups. We 100% agree with this assessment.

    Where there is a huge spectrum of opinions, suggestions and ideas amongst the community is how to best tackle it. And that is the really really hard bit. That's also why we we announced the initial plans for a hard cap it was clearly communicated as a 2 week test. The mistake that we made here is that we misjudged the extent of the unintended - and likely irresversilbe consequences - of such a test. We incorrectly assumed that we could run the test, evaluate data, do a structured email survey for all players and make significant changes or a partial reversal if it backfired - with no real harm done. Once we realized over the past days however that the test itself would trigger a massive purge of casual guilds and players it became clear to us that just the test alone, even if limited to two weeks, could to serious long term damage to the game.

    Hence, we went back to the drawing board to try and find solutions that would tackle the issue of hardcore mega alliances without triggering a purge of less hardcore guilds and players. There is a good chance that this test will work. There is also a chance that it won't. We'll find that out soon. However, if it does not work out, no real damage will have been done to the game.

    All options remain on the table after that. We can then try out different things, or even revisit the cap idea.
  • Korn wrote:

    Akise wrote:

    Let's assume that this proposal will go through. What would stop alliance A from having alliance b, c, d, e, and f exclusively for terry holding, having a hideout in every important terry open for all alliances and all the main forces in alliance A.
    Alliance A would be able to hold 60 terries without any repurcussions, having safe zones in all the zones via hideouts. The only downside would be the loss of season points. But trading this some season points in turn for massive safe zones and net positive siphoned energy gain would be worth it for most alliances.

    Please, consider implementing a hideout system where access can only be granted to (own guild, own alliance, everyone). No in-between.

    And another system that's been resurfaced(though it doesn't make sense if alliance caps aren't introduced) would be to turn off guild/alliance tags for enemies in the black zone.
    Please note that we intended to significantly increase disarray for the test, too.
    In terms of the possible outcome you describe, a lot of factors are at work here - such as the impact of season points, for example.

    If de facto it would be the case that the strategy you mention would be employed successfully, it's very easy for us to take further steps is needed.

    The core benefit - and main reason - for the modified test is that if it fails (for example, if what you describe actually happens) no permanent damage would have been done. We can then easily take it further or make adjustments, or revisit the hard cap idea.

    If we go with the hard cap idea right away - as originally intended - it it fails, we'd have done permanent damage to the game. After all the feedback and we received after having announced our plans, we think it's simply the smarter approach to try the modified test first and take it from there.

    Yes, it is a backtrack. Yes, a backtrack makes us "look silly" and that ideally should not happen. Still though, what is infinitely more important is that we get it right, in a way that is best for the long term health of the game.

    We share a lot of our ideas and thoughts with the community on an ongoing bases, We adapt and adjust all the time. That also means that we sometimes get it wrong. We could now of course just dig our heels in and go ahead with it no matter what just to avoid the embarrassment of changing plans. However, we think that we have genuinely found a better approach now - one that can be tested without the risk of serious side-effects, and one that can always be escalated further if needed.
    This is the first good and honest and also IMO surprisingly rational response given to this.

    If your new change doesn't work though, you need to react swiftly. Having data from the remaining half of this season should be enough. Don't drag it out over several seasons like you've done previously with broken battlemounts etc. You've opened pandoras box with the hard cap annoucement, something many of us have been wanting for ages.

    If your new implementation doesn't work, please don't go dragging your feet waiting to implement the hard cap.