Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Rygol wrote:

    The only way, that I believe at least, is if they introduce more black zone maps/clusters to the outlands
    Please God no. A major reason UO died for me so fast is because the world was already too big for the population size before they even started adding expansions. It just made the game feel more and more dead the bigger it got.

  • Clothilde wrote:

    If the reduction to alliance size has been cancelled, I am disappointed. I was looking forward to playing with a maximum alliance size of 300. I'm in a small guild, and was looking for a little more opportunity to play in the black zone - even get back to gathering resources. If the message canceling the alliance size reduction originated with SBI, it shows they have no clue how to fix their game. The Queen update has made the game considerably less fun for me. I don't care too much about season points, but I do like to explore and do a little bit of everything. To me, the variety of fun things I can do is where the game really shines: ganking, small scale PvP, dungeons, dungeon diving, HCE, gathering, crafting - I like doing all these things. Unfortunately, the Queen update has limited what I can reasonably do (assuming I want to survive and profit). The ones who have profited the most from the change are the huge mega-alliances.


    tldr: SBI is clueless and don't know what players value or why we play. I don't care much about season points, but I do care that the Queen update has resulted in the fact that I can no longer do a wide variety of activities with success. That has made the game a lot less fun for me.
    you werent able to do any of that shit in the black zones pre-queen unless you were part of a guild in a zerg so idk what youre talking about. unless you mean anglia but im pretty sure most of that region was mega-zerged up as well? i was mostly red lock focused. was anglia just straight up dead, thus allowing you to do that stuff? that seems even worse than being excluded because the game has too much going on.

    did you even read why an alliance cap wont change anything for you, if you remain outside of the reformed version of mega zergs, aka NAPs?

  • Blazing wrote:

    Clothilde wrote:

    If the reduction to alliance size has been cancelled, I am disappointed. I was looking forward to playing with a maximum alliance size of 300. I'm in a small guild, and was looking for a little more opportunity to play in the black zone - even get back to gathering resources. If the message canceling the alliance size reduction originated with SBI, it shows they have no clue how to fix their game. The Queen update has made the game considerably less fun for me. I don't care too much about season points, but I do like to explore and do a little bit of everything. To me, the variety of fun things I can do is where the game really shines: ganking, small scale PvP, dungeons, dungeon diving, HCE, gathering, crafting - I like doing all these things. Unfortunately, the Queen update has limited what I can reasonably do (assuming I want to survive and profit). The ones who have profited the most from the change are the huge mega-alliances.


    tldr: SBI is clueless and don't know what players value or why we play. I don't care much about season points, but I do care that the Queen update has resulted in the fact that I can no longer do a wide variety of activities with success. That has made the game a lot less fun for me.
    you werent able to do any of that shit in the black zones pre-queen unless you were part of a guild in a zerg so idk what youre talking about. unless you mean anglia but im pretty sure most of that region was mega-zerged up as well? i was mostly red lock focused. was anglia just straight up dead, thus allowing you to do that stuff? that seems even worse than being excluded because the game has too much going on.
    did you even read why an alliance cap wont change anything for you, if you remain outside of the reformed version of mega zergs, aka NAPs?
    1. Yes, I was able to do that shit (assuming you mean dungeons and gathering) in the black zones because there were a lot more portals and war camps. It was easier to get stuff back to town.
    2. Yes, I read why Derrick et al. think an alliance cap won't change anything for me. It's still worth trying. It's clear the SBI dev bought someone's line that the sky is falling, and players will leave in droves if this test were to take effect.

  • 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 what I wanted to hear. Thank you. You are in a difficult position right now and lots of people are upset, but which such an attitude you'll see this through. Perhaps if you guys could find time, to also empower small gangs/guilds in a positive way as well, to support such play style. Anyway, thank you for this response I am glad.

  • 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.
    Then why the fuck did you go and post about making a limit before thinking about what it would do to the more casual players? You don't think people were already starting to work towards the 300 CAP? Also everyone knows it was a "test" which means I believe after if the cap was removed or changed the community could once again form, Its player nature to form groups why would you think this would not happen after a test? Also if you feel 300 would make too much of a problem on casuals why not increase the cap limit? to say 500 to 800 members in an alliance? This cap is much better then the 300 and the 4000+ we currently have and would be testing, I think the best rought would be to change the LIMIT of the test not theses new changes you have coming, Also whats with posting this on the round table only? That post should have been added for everyone to see after already posting the "test" post you opened this to everyone but Now you want to hide and be cowards by trying to only post the new changes on the round table, This to me shows even more that you can't be trusted, The new plan should have been made public right away. Best thing you could do now is remake that post to the public so all can see. Please reconsider a new cap limit of around 500 to 900 alliance members with also some if not all of the new changes listed. @Korn

  • Brobacca wrote:

    Why run a poll if it isn't going to be listened to
    It was an opinion poll. Nothing more, nothing less. There was no guarantee in the poll itself that whatever the outcome it would be implemented. It was simply to garner general opinion on a subject. Even if an opinion poll comes out 99% in favour of 1 option it doesn't necessarily mean that the 99% are right.
    Midgard
    T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
    T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
    T8 Bags & Capes Crafter

  • Clothilde wrote:

    Yes, I read why Derrick et al. think an alliance cap won't change anything for me. It's still worth trying. It's clear the SBI dev bought someone's line that the sky is falling, and players will leave in droves if this test were to take effect.
    you cannot listen to any opinion that the head of mega alliances have about how it will effect anyone but themselves they never once played the game differently than in megas

  • Zahi wrote:

    This might come as a shock to you, but people have been getting purged from guilds since forever. The removal of alliances might be a reason to purge some very inactive people from some guilds, sure. However, new guilds will be able to recruit these people and maybe even conquer a territory for themselves. Right now new guilds have to either pay a hefty sum of silver to join ARCH or they have to be very good at ZVZ and make a good impression on an existing alliance. If these newer guilds cannot get into an alliance, or take control of one territory, the members will leave at some point and join one of these mega alliances
    This ^

  • Neef wrote:

    Then why the fuck did you go and post about making a limit before thinking about what it would do to the more casual players?

    That was indeed a very clear mistake that we made for which we can only apologize. We simply underestimated the downside potential of a cap and only realized how bad it could be after the announcement had already been made and we saw purges happening already.

    In an ideal world, we would have communicated the modified test from the get go, without first announcing a cap and then changing it.

    The modified test is still a drastic change overall. There is a good chance that a lot of people would have been positively surprised about it, too. Now that we have made the mistake of announcing the cap first and then deciding to modify the test, the overall impression is of course much worse. This is 100% a self-made problem on our end, no question about it.

    We are not trained PR people, we genuinely want to do what's best for the game. We try and communicate a lot with the player base, without a "filter" in between. Usually this works fell, sometimes, there is a communication screw up. It shouldn't happen, but in this case, it did.

  • tabooshka wrote:

    well looks like this game will always cater to zergs first and foremost

    The modified test includes a set of elements that exclusively target the hardcore mega alliances. They are specifically designed to make them less powerful.
    • Very strong "soft" cap on territories held via exponentially increasing upkeep costs for territories held
    • A significant silver and fame reduction for *all* members of a mega alliance if they hold more than a certain number of territories. For the current #1 alliances, the reduction would be around 70% right now.
    • A very significant buff to the disarray mechanic, such that it will have a very strong impact on 25 vs 50 (right now, that impact is close to 0) and a stronger impact on 50 vs 100 right, becoming even stronger after that. To give you a few math numbers, a group of 50 would be scaled down to roughly 35 effective players - so 25 vs 50 would effectively turn into 25 vs 35 (of course, reality is more complex, but just from the hard numbers, that's what it would be.) A group of 100 would be scaled down to 50 effective, so 100 vs 50 would turn into 50 vs 35 effective, which is a 1.4 to 1 ratio as opposed to a 2 to 1 ratio without disarray. 150 players would be scaled down to 57.5 effective, compared to 87.5 under the current disarray balance. Of course, power blocks can decided to lower the impact of disarray by splitting - but if they do, the net impact on the fight will be the same as if we had enforced a split via a hard cap - the key difference being that this would be a voluntary split by the hardcore groups, and not a forced split on everyone, including more casual players.
    The key difference between the original hard cap idea and the modified test is that we want to address the hardcore alliance issue without negatively impacting casual guilds, alliances and players.

    And last but not least: if the above measure are not effective enough, it does not change our commitment to tackle the alliance issue. We can then follow-up with adaptions or new measures, based on how the test goes. The key benefit of this approach over doing a cap right away: we won't have done any permanent damage to casual players and guilds.

  • Korn wrote:

    tabooshka wrote:

    well looks like this game will always cater to zergs first and foremost
    The modified test includes a set of elements that exclusively target the hardcore mega alliances. They are specifically designed to make them less powerful.
    • Very strong "soft" cap on territories held via exponentially increasing upkeep costs for territories held
    • A significant silver and fame reduction for *all* members of a mega alliance if they hold more than a certain number of territories. For the current #1 alliances, the reduction would be around 70% right now.
    • A very significant buff to the disarray mechanic, such that it will have a very strong impact on 25 vs 50 (right now, that impact is close to 0) and a stronger impact on 50 vs 100 right, becoming even stronger after that. To give you a few math numbers, a group of 50 would be scaled down to roughly 35 effective players - so 25 vs 50 would effectively turn into 25 vs 35 (of course, reality is more complex, but just from the hard numbers, that's what it would be.) A group of 100 would be scaled down to 50 effective, so 100 vs 50 would turn into 50 vs 35 effective, which is a 1.4 to 1 ratio as opposed to a 2 to 1 ratio without disarray. 150 players would be scaled down to 57.5 effective, compared to 87.5 under the current disarray balance. Of course, power blocks can decided to lower the impact of disarray by splitting - but if they do, the net impact on the fight will be the same as if we had enforced a split via a hard cap - the key difference being that this would be a voluntary split by the hardcore groups, and not a forced split on everyone, including more casual players.
    The key difference between the original hard cap idea and the modified test is that we want to address the hardcore alliance issue without negatively impacting casual guilds, alliances and players.

    And last but not least: if the above measure are not effective enough, it does not change our commitment to tackle the alliance issue. We can then follow-up with adaptions or new measures, based on how the test goes. The key benefit of this approach over doing a cap right away: we won't have done any permanent damage to casual players and guilds.

    So instead of reducing numbers, which would be healthy for every aspect of open world(not only fight over territories), you decided to PUNISH people for owning territories that are already pretty much worthless. Sorry to say but that isnt a solution. Honestly if you want for everyone to own few territories just give away territories to every single guild like islands

    Why even have a conquest mechanic at this point?

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

  • tabooshka wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    tabooshka wrote:

    well looks like this game will always cater to zergs first and foremost
    The modified test includes a set of elements that exclusively target the hardcore mega alliances. They are specifically designed to make them less powerful.
    • Very strong "soft" cap on territories held via exponentially increasing upkeep costs for territories held
    • A significant silver and fame reduction for *all* members of a mega alliance if they hold more than a certain number of territories. For the current #1 alliances, the reduction would be around 70% right now.
    • A very significant buff to the disarray mechanic, such that it will have a very strong impact on 25 vs 50 (right now, that impact is close to 0) and a stronger impact on 50 vs 100 right, becoming even stronger after that. To give you a few math numbers, a group of 50 would be scaled down to roughly 35 effective players - so 25 vs 50 would effectively turn into 25 vs 35 (of course, reality is more complex, but just from the hard numbers, that's what it would be.) A group of 100 would be scaled down to 50 effective, so 100 vs 50 would turn into 50 vs 35 effective, which is a 1.4 to 1 ratio as opposed to a 2 to 1 ratio without disarray. 150 players would be scaled down to 57.5 effective, compared to 87.5 under the current disarray balance. Of course, power blocks can decided to lower the impact of disarray by splitting - but if they do, the net impact on the fight will be the same as if we had enforced a split via a hard cap - the key difference being that this would be a voluntary split by the hardcore groups, and not a forced split on everyone, including more casual players.
    The key difference between the original hard cap idea and the modified test is that we want to address the hardcore alliance issue without negatively impacting casual guilds, alliances and players.

    And last but not least: if the above measure are not effective enough, it does not change our commitment to tackle the alliance issue. We can then follow-up with adaptions or new measures, based on how the test goes. The key benefit of this approach over doing a cap right away: we won't have done any permanent damage to casual players and guilds.
    So instead of reducing numbers, which would be healthy for every aspect of open world(not only fight over territories), you decided to PUNISH people for owning territories that are already pretty much worthless. Sorry to say but that isnt a solution.

    Why even have a conquest mechanic at this point?
    They won't be punished if they go solo, which many guilds can (and should).

    You're not punished for collecting a lot of terries; you're punished for holding hands while doing it.

  • tabooshka wrote:

    Phosphia wrote:

    They won't be punished if they go solo, which many guilds can (and should).

    You're not punished for collecting a lot of terries; you're punished for holding hands while doing it.
    Thats clearly not true based on every response on this topic and actual state of the game after Queen.

    Korn wrote:

    The modified test includes a set of elements that exclusively target the hardcore mega alliances
    Logic dictates otherwise. If it's to exclusively target alliances, you should be exempt if you aren't in one. ^

    They could also consider not allowing hideouts to be set to public (or specific guilds) to prevent handholding.

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

  • Phosphia wrote:

    tabooshka wrote:

    Phosphia wrote:

    They won't be punished if they go solo, which many guilds can (and should).

    You're not punished for collecting a lot of terries; you're punished for holding hands while doing it.
    Thats clearly not true based on every response on this topic and actual state of the game after Queen.

    Korn wrote:

    The modified test includes a set of elements that exclusively target the hardcore mega alliances
    Logic dictates otherwise. If it's to exclusively target alliances, you should be exempt if you aren't in one. ^

    So what stops an alliance to funnel all territories to one guild with 0 drawbacks and still fight as an alliance, as many people already pointed out they would do with 300 cap

    Exactly.

  • Midgard wrote:

    Brobacca wrote:

    Why run a poll if it isn't going to be listened to
    It was an opinion poll. Nothing more, nothing less. There was no guarantee in the poll itself that whatever the outcome it would be implemented. It was simply to garner general opinion on a subject. Even if an opinion poll comes out 99% in favour of 1 option it doesn't necessarily mean that the 99% are right.
    poll was to test and get some feedback OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT WASNT , stop tlaking chap chap go gather