Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • MzTaistey wrote:

    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.

    The inconvenient truth.

    Yet, they're still playing the game when they've should been banned for life.

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

  • I am officially quitting ZvZ untill it is actually fixed to where it is enjoyable for me.

    See you guys hopefully in 1 year? Can't be another 3 years right?
    Queen till now looks like a failure, just like I predicted with the current Dissarray values. And Hideouts being the most bullshit thing I have heard, "for small guild to have a place in the Outlands"......

    Anyways, 5v5 is still good enough, so ill stay around for that.
    With this backtracking you might see other players quit like me.

    Fary wrote:

    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's a miracle that this keeps working
  • Headquake wrote:

    Korn the big issue there is sbi don't understand that most small guild/alliance don't give sh.. about terry. What we want is to have hideout in bz and fair fight to defend it. All the solution you bring right now will change absolutely NOTHING for small alliance.
    I'm a solo player and I just want a hideout in bz and a fair fight to defend it.
    Dear devs, please add disarray for groups bigger than one and limit guild size to ten.
  • Only certain territories should actually give season points, like a king of the hill thing. That way the hardcore guilds who want to be number one will be stuck defending those territories, leaving the rest of the land for us to fight over the resources, fame, etc. Also they should make arenas give a small amount of season points to compensate for many territories not giving season points anymore. Probably a bad idea for so many reasons but hey wtf do I know lol.
  • Korn wrote:

    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
    THIS is FALSE fake statement

    there is no casual guild or alliance purging players, if you are competitive then by default ur not casual.

    The large alliances with territories are not casual, nor are any casuals in massive alliances there is not a point to being in one. Who Who is the casual reporting they got kicked out?

    Or are you just lying and saying that because the massive alliances heads such as the bacon has been lying to you. he is all over the forums saying it will hurt me, a solo guild player at the start of the season, who is now forced into an alliance we dont want to be in because its the only way to play the game.

    The real issue is mega alliances not 'powerblocks' The real issue is that 10000 people can have 0 people anywhere near them be able to attack them. while those of us with 240 in our solo guild have 99% of the player base as reds running about ganking us with 12 people on terrorbirds.

    Mega alliances have 100% benefit 0 drawback. season point sharing still is no drawback, because u can either make points or not, spreading them to other guilds who also make points and spread them back to u means 0 point loss, had you set point share to be 50% 25% 25% where the game eats a share and 25% got split alliances would have disappeared over night.

    But u never think about that do you? cuz the round table is in your ear and 100% of them are in mega alliances - how do i know this because you have to have gotten gold the season before to get on it, who gets gold? the people with all the advantage, free gear to their GvGers, massive zergs to take terris on resets, massive zergs to take castles, no people allowed to attack them because 30% of the active playerbase for their region are allied.

    You have never once realized that a casual person, or even a non winning guilds perspective might be the best thing for the round table.

    Even disarray is simply abused by megas, they might have a debuff but so do the people they are fighting so what do they do? higher a small squad of non allied gankers to run in and grab people from the backline assassinating healers because they get to use debuff to their advantage, they get no debuff but the smaller side still has a big enough debuff that small groups can run in and kill them 20% faster.

    Everything u put in the game the round table twists into a boon for them and a bane for the rest of us.
  • Gerrit wrote:

    Wargorth wrote:

    I am officially quitting ZvZ untill it is actually fixed to where it is enjoyable for me.
    Adapt or quit is a motto for all mmos. You chose to quit. So weak
    I am quitting something I have never enjoyed in the game. After removing 5v5s as the main game mode in the game I tried it out but It is still mega allianace hand holding zerging bullshit.
    Why should I play something i dont enojy, just because it is now the main gamemode?

    20v20 is fun, not the shit that it has been for years.
  • fillrup wrote:

    One wonders how many players in the top guilds are simply placeholders to get the season mount? If these are the casual players you are trying to protect, I don't see a problem. I am sure it some percentage of the casual players.

    Another way to get rich in the game by selling season mounts.
    Actually we are 25-35 past few seasons, we have 100 or so mount making alt accounts.. with the 300 cap we actually considered dropping them... which would be good for the game i think.
  • Korn wrote:

    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.
    dont listen to "the bacon" about purging, megas dont have casuals already they have alts to farm battle mounts.

    The better way to go about the 300 cap would have been to simply make allies hit with friendly fire. its nearly the same effect as the cap. Everyone says the effect will be non agression pacts. well a big alliance with on guilds having friendly fire off would mimic the exact same thing as those NAPs

    No one would be forced out but very similar gameplay would occur, guild A stands to the left guild B to the right, Guild C is fighting them both, Guild a throws in a camlann me as a member of guild C run into it purposefully to catch it, using my boots to run into guild B so that Guild A's camlann catches a group of Guild B. then my guild essentially got a free camlann without having to use it, Also, me from guild C is a Grove Keeper, so the camlann hits Guild B then I log right onto myself as the center of the camlann... boom possible gameplay from friendly fire.

    In general i would say that the purple names should go away too, make allies names red. Also i have seen posts about removing guild tags 100% from the outlands.. i am pretty happy with this idea. it would really put strain onto Non Agression Pacts because without knowing all names of each player in the alliance / NAPs then they would be ganking eachother.

    Ganking is one of the biggest things alliance players simply dont have happen. very few of their players go out alone because sheer numbers, but also if they do a massive amount of players in their local area are all purples.
  • Piddle wrote:

    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.
    All right, let them enjoy it, I canceled my subscription on all my accounts, and they won't see a dollar from me again, if they see it that way.
    I continue to play the game (certain things I like here), but the financial support from my side for the SBI ended when I see how things are going and what the SBI is doing.
    WP SBI.
  • Korn wrote:

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

    how i have many posts in the forums about this,

    You have the same number of territories but you went from NA and EU to 0000, 0300, 0500, 1200,1500, 1800, 2100 this split means less territories having combat at the same time. Meaning Big alliances can fight 3 battles in 0000 then fight 3 battles in 0300 then fight 3 battles at 0500.

    Also next to my hideout we have 6 2100 timers, all of them touch each other.. meaning 1-2 t5 blobs can defend all 6 zones if they are all attacked. because they fight in 1 zone, then move fight and move and fight. boom 3 zones, and territory becomes claimable in 5 minutes, how could those guilds just killed regear that fast unless they have hideouts within 2-3 zones away... well they dont because the mega alliances killed all the hideouts near their zones.
  • Excuse me if this sounds very disrespectful, but I really don't understand if you have mental problems or if you do it on purpose

    Penalize players with their pve and pvp fame for having territories?

    Wouldn't it be more logical to penalize the owners of alliances or guilds?Make them pay extremely high taxes so they can keep their territories????????????????

    The simplistic reasoning that they are using is "we are going to destroy all the content to the alliance players so they leave the game and it becomes all more equitable"

    Use the brain and not the ass, stop thinking about how to benefit your friends with these changes and think of the common people that the only thing you do is enter the Albion to have a good time.

    I hope that after a few months you will not fill me the email box asking us to return to the game as they have done a lot of games that have screwed up in the past

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

  • Equart wrote:

    Question is not only about terry control , question is about daily gameplay.
    I think you've got just about the right focus.

    Korn & the other devs should be looking to introduce content and game mechanics which gives groups of all size (including solo players) something to do in the open world. I'll admit there are no easy answers in terms of how to introduce that content (or the mechanics to facilitate that), but it seems like allowing large alliances to crush anyone who wanders into their territory... isn't the way to go. And it's naive to think that every guild or alliance will allow smaller groups to pay tribute to build a hideout in the areas they control -- that's pure wishful thinking and not at all supported by an examination of the psychology you'll find in a full loot game based on territorial control and control of resources.

    It's similar to the thought that solo random dungeons should have even been given that name when large groups are allowed to gank solo players in them for lulz. And of course that was going to happen because people like like farming tears more than anything else. Again... that's the psychology at play.

    Piddle wrote:

    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.
    This is a central problem, and has been for a long time.
  • Korn wrote:

    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 much as I've promoted various ways to limit guild and alliance sizes over the years (progressive taxation based on the number of players being my oldest and most frequent proposal), I do sympathize with the situation in which you now find yourself. If you suddenly slash guild/alliance sizes... you risk the more casual players in those guilds and alliances becoming disgruntled. If you don't reign in the power of the large guilds/alliances... you risk the other players not in those guilds and alliances becoming too frustrated due to effectively being locked out of certain content/areas. I can appreciate that this is a real catch-22 for you.

    I don't know for sure that this is the best idea, but might I suggest a compromise? Instead of a dramatic rework... ease into it. Start increasing the pressure on the large guilds to encourage them to slim down, but then simultaneously install more features for more casual players. Of course, your metrics may show that you need more sudden and decisive action.

    Now... I'm mostly just spitballing here, and thinking out loud for the sake of the game, but let me begin with my years-old refrain... Solo Hellgates. After one player enters... the entrance disappears. Make them so that when you finish one... you can exit OR go "deeper" and do another solo hellgate right away. Continue for as long as you want until you die or want to go to your bank. These TRUE solo dungeons/hellgates will give people something to do when they are alone for whatever reason. Players who naturally go solo will be happy, but also players in larger guilds will have something to do when their usual gang isn't online.

    On a somewhat related note... give more acknowledgement to more players for more activities. You don't need to completely change or introduce more game features. Just give people a bit of recognition. People don't just like to find rare items in the game, they like to be recognized and acknowledged for whatever little niche thing they are doing in the game. This can be facilitated in (at least) two ways...

    1.) A better and more comprehensive "rankings" tab/page. You should try to acknowledge people who are having success in every aspect of the game. Instead of just fame, and silver collected, and the few things you're listing already... you should list all sorts of stuff. Who has the most solo kills? Which player and guild has the most yellow zone fame? Most fame in red zones? Most Hellgates won? Most solo dungeon fame? Most hidden treasures found? And so forth. Give more people, and more guilds, the opportunity to appear on various lists of all sorts. And promote those lists -- it should be a prominent tab, as with killboards, on your game's homepage. It should be a thing that people are regularly looking at and pointing to.

    2.) Instead of a splash-screen every few weeks announcing who won the "season" (something many players don't care about and never will), there should be a splash-screen every day for all different kinds of "seasons." The first time you log in every day... you should be shining a spotlight on someone, or some guild, and congratulating various players who have had success in some niche part of the game. SoAndSo had the most solo kills for the solo kill season! Guild X killed the most ancients over the last period! Player Z earned the most faction points over the latest period! If you really wanted to be cool, and if you really wanted players to encourage players to engage in certain activities, you could give out token rewards for certain accomplishments. Imagine the number of players who would strive to succeed in solo PvP if the top killer, and #2-10, and the #11-100 players, got a unique direwolf skin for being the best over a certain period! The same would hold true for all sorts of token skins for all sorts of activities. And, because different players and different groups of different levels would have different priorities... you wouldn't have to worry about the strongest players in the strongest guilds winning the prize for most red or yellow zone fame. Guilds focused on outland territories probably wouldn't get the most faction fame. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't RECOGNIZE, ACKNOWLEDGE, and maybe even give a token reward, to players who are engaging with certain aspects of your game. Maybe not every area would be as prestigious as every other... but even the guy who busted the most T4 granite rocks might like a little recognition every once in a while.

    Moving on to a different subject... I think you were on to something with luxury goods. They facilitate travel in the game. And I think now may be the time to expand and enhance that aspect of the game. Maybe it's time for 100k T8 luxury goods? Found only in the outlands and bought only in Caerleon... I can imagine that it would encourage people to transport them to Caerleon (making that city a bit more important and useful again). And people moving goods around the map facilitates PvP. Some red zone gankers killing someone hauling T8 luxury goods to Caerleon... would be a significant score. As would arriving in Caerleon successfully with such goods.

    These are just a few ideas, and I realize they're not all about controlling Alliance/Guild size, but if you reward and acknowledge people more overtly for engaging in more aspects of your game... not everyone will want to be part of huge guilds and gate camps. They'll want to earn the acknowledgement (and token rewards/skins?) for engaging in activities that are better suited for groups of different sizes. I think even the T8 luxury goods works toward that because it's something that even a solo player can engage with and, again, it facilitates purposeful travel around the map.

    Sorry for the wall of text, but I'm a long time player, and I really like the concept of your game, but I've rarely been able to do what I want to do and I've consistently seen the large guilds/alliances rewarded while in-game life is made more difficult for solo players and small groups. Even things ostensibly intended for small groups and solo players seem to mostly benefit the large guilds/alliances. Take solo dungeons and hideouts, for example.

    Anyway... End. Rant. I hope you'll actually acknowledge and implement some of these ideas, or at least do more for solo players and small groups.
  • Korn wrote:

    We are 100% committed to address the issue of the large power blocks.
    Korn, I am glad that you all have acknowledge the problem with the current situation, and are working to address this issue. I applauded your effort, and I'm actually quite impressed you posted that territory breakdown. That level of transparency is a solid move, and shuts down the nay sayers that claim theirs no problems at the moment...clearly there is.

    The fact that 3.8% of the player base can control 72% of the outlands is a huge issue. The wealth these guilds are amassing as a result of these safe zones has changed the dynamic of this game and will impact it for the foreseeable future. I'd be curious about the breakdown of hideouts too...I'm betting it aligns with the territory numbers, which means 4-5 alliances are benefiting from the addition of the hideouts while few others are. And to anyone complaining about doing this mid season, seriously you need to stop complaining. The imbalance is obvious and I have NO sympathy for any "challenges" you or your guild will go through adapting to whatever changes the developers come up with. This game is not designed to cater to your are 1 in 350,000!

    With all that said, please think long and hard about what you do at the end of the month. Please listen to a variety of voices in the game...not just the players in large alliances or that have been on since the beginning!!! Please do more polls, and get more feedback from the player base. Obviously the veterans have a lot to contribute, but their game experience is VERY different from the casual and newer players. Personally I'd push for an alliance member cap and introduce the territory upkeep....but i'm just 1/350, take it for what it is...

    In the end, I'm not going to quit this game, no matter what you all decide to do with alliances and territories. I love the game, and I'll do what everyone else is going to do, adapt!!!