Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • Equart wrote:

    @Korn At least tell us for how long you will test this change.

    The same logic applies here.

    We'd see an immediate impact on reset day already. How will territories be distributed after reset day? What's the game play in the 1-2 weeks after it?

    We'll do a structured email survey for the players (more accurate than a forum poll) and ask them for their views. We'll then share our findings with the community and take it from there.
  • Forneus wrote:


    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.

    We are 100% committed to addressing the power block issue as Queen on it's own did not properly solve it.

    We know that in the gaming industry, there can be a lot of dishonest communication. How we are handling this case here is not one of these cases.

    It is what it is, we are really telling things how we see them, and yes, it does make us look stupid due to the change of mind. I guess by now everyone here will be aware that there is no professional PR manager in our team - and that's fine, we'd rather hire another dev to be honest.

    So here is the plan:
    If we decide to go ahead with the modified test, we think that we'd see results quickly. We'd verify this through a structured email survey sent out to active players. We'll share our findings with the community and actively ask for input, ideas and feedback.

    The main question to be answered: Was there a significant improvement to the power block issue? If not, why not? If yes, why? What sort of changes are adaptations are needed? Should the cap idea be revisited?
  • Korn wrote:

    Forneus wrote:

    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.
    We are 100% committed to addressing the power block issue as Queen on it's own did not properly solve it.

    We know that in the gaming industry, there can be a lot of dishonest communication. How we are handling this case here is not one of these cases.

    It is what it is, we are really telling things how we see them, and yes, it does make us look stupid due to the change of mind. I guess by now everyone here will be aware that there is no professional PR manager in our team - and that's fine, we'd rather hire another dev to be honest.

    So here is the plan:
    If we decide to go ahead with the modified test, we think that we'd see results quickly. We'd verify this through a structured email survey sent out to active players. We'll share our findings with the community and actively ask for input, ideas and feedback.

    The main question to be answered: Was there a significant improvement to the power block issue? If not, why not? If yes, why? What sort of changes are adaptations are needed? Should the cap idea be revisited?
    Are you even reading the posts ? or are you picking people to respond?
  • Korn wrote:

    Forneus wrote:

    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.
    We are 100% committed to addressing the power block issue as Queen on it's own did not properly solve it.

    We know that in the gaming industry, there can be a lot of dishonest communication. How we are handling this case here is not one of these cases.

    It is what it is, we are really telling things how we see them, and yes, it does make us look stupid due to the change of mind. I guess by now everyone here will be aware that there is no professional PR manager in our team - and that's fine, we'd rather hire another dev to be honest.

    So here is the plan:
    If we decide to go ahead with the modified test, we think that we'd see results quickly. We'd verify this through a structured email survey sent out to active players. We'll share our findings with the community and actively ask for input, ideas and feedback.

    The main question to be answered: Was there a significant improvement to the power block issue? If not, why not? If yes, why? What sort of changes are adaptations are needed? Should the cap idea be revisited?
    And you dont need PR manager , until you are open to community like now and honest.
  • Thanks for the swift response Korn.
    So while I'm not too happy about the way you went back, I'm glad that the alliance issue will be addressed directly now.
    On that note, regarding the heightened disarray debuff;
    Why is it that the first six players mark the fastest reduction in damage and after that, bringing more players becomes less and less painful. Doesn't this discourage naturally small groups from not bringing more than 25 people, while encouraging big groups to bring at least 60 players? Wouldn't it be more sensible to reduce the damage(and possibly other factors such as healing output) in a more linear fashion until the debuff hits a critical mass, i.e. 80-90%
  • Korn wrote:

    Forneus wrote:

    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.
    We are 100% committed to addressing the power block issue as Queen on it's own did not properly solve it.

    We know that in the gaming industry, there can be a lot of dishonest communication. How we are handling this case here is not one of these cases.

    It is what it is, we are really telling things how we see them, and yes, it does make us look stupid due to the change of mind. I guess by now everyone here will be aware that there is no professional PR manager in our team - and that's fine, we'd rather hire another dev to be honest.

    So here is the plan:
    If we decide to go ahead with the modified test, we think that we'd see results quickly. We'd verify this through a structured email survey sent out to active players. We'll share our findings with the community and actively ask for input, ideas and feedback.

    The main question to be answered: Was there a significant improvement to the power block issue? If not, why not? If yes, why? What sort of changes are adaptations are needed? Should the cap idea be revisited?
    Korn,

    Stick to the honesty. I prefer that over BS PR responses any day and I'm sure most AO players are with me on that part.

    Obivously I hope your solution will work, but I must admit I really have doubts. What I don't doubt right now though, is that your communication is honest and sincere. And that stands above all else in my book.

    Fair winds!
  • Korn wrote:

    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.
    You're assuming that us smaller guilds wont gladly open up to the "less hardcore players"..

    There's plenty of other guilds for them to join. Besides, a lot of guilds have already started their purging. You're a little late to save face for those players.
  • Korn wrote:

    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.

    Well, I guess your key point is wrong.

    SBI needs to realize that those in mega alliances are not the ones funding the company. It is actually new players who pay for the premium status, those casual players you want to "protect".

    Protecting mega alliances is just dumb, those mega power players in mega guilds in mega alliances are the ones who RMT, who cheat and use macro loot scripts and shit. Yet, SBI protects them.

    Ok they maybe bring more content to the game, but you need to revisit who is funding your company, thus the game itself.

    If new players don't/can't see fit anywhere in the game they'll drop it and those you are protecting won't be spending a penny in the game and sometime anytime soon SBI will go bankrupt and those ingame-powerful players will just migrate to another MMO (there are plenty out there and a new one is released every week).

    If SBI wants to keep the new players base growing (again, those who spend real money and keep the company alive) they have to rethink the actual importance of mega players, mega guilds, and mega alliances, and make the casual-new-paying-players gameplay friendlier, creating opportunities for them to keep growing and bringing more and more new players.

    Honestly, seeing those mega players in their mega guilds in their mega alliances and their gameplay style it seems they don't really care about new/casual players, and actually they don't do anything to bring new players to the game, it's the quite opposite, when new players don't see fit and have no opportunities to grow, they just put the game aside and go find a fitting gameplay in another game.

    EDIT: I'd like to make one exception to those mega alliances which is ARCH and @GluttonySDS, they are open-hearted and welcoming, though they trash talk hell of a lot.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by felipe128 ().

  • The best change of 2020:
    -We want to help new players
    -This penalty would start at 1% when holding 10 territories and increase by 1%...-
    This change will help new players significantly. Bc after this change thay can just uinstall game xDD

    Old players will not care about this debuff and new cant play in big alliance like SQUAK or POE bc thay get over 50% debuff XD
  • Headquake wrote:

    Expect to see lot of Player leaving. Trying to not hurt casual player ? Don't you see that already all small alliance/guild.are getting kick out of bz ? Look how many ho poe have destroy in 2 week. Wait 1 month and only them gonna have ho between lym and bridgwatch. At some point it will be too late because even if you broke alliance later all their old guild gonna have t3 ho all over the map and they will be almost impossible to push away.
    Any small guilds that need/want a hide out in the blackzone come to Martlock and place it -- while ARCH isnt the strongest, we protected many small guilds while they got their hideouts build around blue lock -- more people here, more pvp, better markets, etc.
  • GluttonySDS wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    Expect to see lot of Player leaving. Trying to not hurt casual player ? Don't you see that already all small alliance/guild.are getting kick out of bz ? Look how many ho poe have destroy in 2 week. Wait 1 month and only them gonna have ho between lym and bridgwatch. At some point it will be too late because even if you broke alliance later all their old guild gonna have t3 ho all over the map and they will be almost impossible to push away.
    Any small guilds that need/want a hide out in the blackzone come to Martlock and place it -- while ARCH isnt the strongest, we protected many small guilds while they got their hideouts build around blue lock -- more people here, more pvp, better markets, etc.
    Praise Be!
  • 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 don't comment here ever, but I have to.

    When you say "We are 100% determined to address this issue" What exactly is the issue? Because I don't think you've made that clear to the general population? You are determining your judgments on a ROUND TABLE of probably the most toxic players in the game.

    You legit have players there that have broken so many rules and done so many things that they shouldn't be representing your community in the first place.

    Maybe try to determine what the REAL issue is here before you try to again punish large alliances, which btw you won't do, because who cares about Terris. We just want to fight, we make our money from Ganking, Diving, and Gathering.

    Alliances mean nothing at this time you have three alliances,,,POE, 1941, and ARCH grouping together against Squak. So 10,000 vs. 2,400 and they still are having a hard time beating them.

    All they are going to do is be on their own, have barely any terris and still fight. This is probably the dumbest solution I have ever seen in ANY mmo game I have ever played. When you think of a solution think of the loopholes before you try to implement it, that's what the player base is doing. And this "solution" has a ton of them.

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