Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • Even with disarray or an alliance cap, can't guilds and alliances just keep players outside queued up for the zone to eventually defeat the normal sized guild because the normal sized guild probably won't have anyone queued up to enter the zone? So numbers would still win regardless? Everytime a zerg member dies, another gets queued in. Even with an alliance cap, guilds would still remain "allied" and prompt one another to attack other guilds at certain times. Zerg force one died? Send in zerg force two, doesn't matter if they are in the same guild/alliance or not. It's why I proposed this: Poll: Disarray Balance
    The suggestion needs tweaking (numbers tweaking probably) of course and more consideration regarding exploits and mechanics (still feel like if an alliance of 7000 people breaks up into ~20 300 man guilds or 70 100 man guilds, ONE of those guilds is still probably going to own the territory and those guilds can still pool their resources) but you get the general idea.
  • A lack of courage from the developers, Again ...

    Ask yourself why some players stop and why new players fail to start.

    You want a simple solution: Depending on the number, an alliance is T4, T5, T6, T7 or T8.

    If you are 2000, you are T8, and you can only take T8 territories, etc.It will allow everyone to make GVG for the territories at their level, without touching the alliance.

    Just simple, but it takes a bit of willpower
    The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you would ever look
    Julius Caesar. 75 BC
  • Same time sbi say ''we dont cancel mega alliance to help casual people''

    Casual alliance being raid by poe 400 vs 100 for 20 night in a row , at that point i regret took 3 month subs , fuck you sbi . I'm the 80 % that got scam . Hope durateen and glutony gonna send you enough money to make that game survive because everyone else disgust right now. .And your so much disconnect from your player base , that you cancel most wanted change in game ''to protect casual gamer in BA'' wich is a fucking joke. Actually keeping big alliance you shit on all casual gammer outsia big alliance :) I feel scam so much... How can dev be so much disconnect from their player base ? Anyone know when pantheon mmo going out ?

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

  • Korn wrote:

    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.

    I'm curious, from the SBI perspective... What does a casual player alliance of more than 300 members gain from their alliance outside of built in communication systems in-game? Perhaps your concern over disrupting a "physical" alliance should be aimed more at the communication systems afforded to alliances that are not available in any other way with-in the confines of the game itself. Other games with more open chat systems allow chat channel creation for players interested in like-minded content. This would effectively create the same chat communication systems that alliances provide without the need for the currently relied on alliance only based systems allowing casual players to continue finding quality content with their friends in other guilds without preventing a hard capped alliance system.


    Korn wrote:

    1. Balance large scale fights. We can do that by making a very significant increase to the disarray mechanic. If large zerg decide to dodge that by splitting, we'd have the same effect here as we'd get with the alliance cap. BUT: it wouldn't affect the more casual players and alliances, it would be a voluntary decision made by the top end power blocks
    2. Restrict the capability of alliances to hold too many territories in the Outlands, hence creating giant hand holding zones. The siphoned energy upkeep mentioned in the OP would be harsh. If you go significantly above 10 (or whatever soft cap we set), the upkeep per territory would be higher than the amount of siphoned energy it produces each day. Siphoned energy production is hard capped by the game world. It would be mathematically impossible for the current concentration of territories in the hand of a few power blocks to be maintained.
    3. In addition to that, what's mentioned in the OP is a 1% fame and silver reduction PER territory over 10 for ALL members of the alliance. The current power blocks hold 91, 57, 55 and 45 territories, that would be 81%, 47%, 45% and 35% reduction on fame and silver pick ups. I think it's obvious that if this was introduced, the concentration of that many territories in the hands of single alliances would immediately stop (it would anyways no longer be possible due to 2 above)

    2. That makes sense but what stops an alliance from forming plans to pass territories back and forth to generate additional siphoned energy? Also, is siphoned energy production ACTUALLY hard capped by the game world? I mean realistically a guild generates 300 energy for each level achieved in season in the guild challenge. This is a system that realistically could easily be abused by larger blocs by funneling resources to crafting alts in newly formed non-alliance guilds specifically to generate siphoned energy for income. A couple crafters for a mega alliance would likely be able to generate thousands of energy in an alt guild on top of any energy generated by the primary guilds within the alliance? So how much of an increase are you going to make that it becomes REALISTICALLY mathematically impossible?

    3. What % of overall silver do power alliances such as [SQUAK] now [ARMOR] get from silver pickups? And what % of their players are not already 400/400 in the gear they regularly run in ZvZ? Simply put I gotta be honest I don't think most of their players are going to care about these reductions? They get gear drops from dungeons, hellgates, and zvz battles. They can still craft on alts or run farms that are likely already capped on fame at this point in the game. So where are they actually losing anything by reducing silver and fame? I mean through the current league system you literally give the crystal guild members 30mil in the form of a mount every few months. So why do they care about reductions? What about these reductions actually stop them from doing what they already do? I mean yeah a 2000 player alliance might drop by 300-400 people that aren't capped now but those that want to finish gold/crystal are likely going to withstand absurd % reductions while players that can't are alienated from their guilds/alliance as it is which in your own earlier quote you wanted to prevent.

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

  • Apologies apparently theres a 10k character limit.....

    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 play style 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.


    Is a singular smaller "super group" not in itself a solution to the mega alliance problem? Currently, with 2000 player alliances an alliance can theoretically field 2-3 defense forces across multiple time zones that could each be 200+ players strong. When allowed those can pair into smaller units of 100 or more effectively doubling their map coverage. Based on time zone activity this quickly escalates allowing mega alliances control over large swaths of map by simply staying online. But a 300 player group simply cannot respond in the same way. In an absolute best case scenario of having all 300 members online simultaneously the group must decide where to send defense forces in the event of multiple attacks. This is most clearly visible in the northern portions of the new outlands where [LIONS] w/ 528 members and Tea Party w/ 208 each hold 8 territories all in roughly the exact same timezone when they can be online. I believe each of these groups is a prime example of realistic expectations for capping alliances at 300 members by making the map as a whole competitive.

    How could it be more evenly competitive? Based on Korn's numbers earlier in the post the top 4 alliances have 13,409 players. If alliances cap with guilds at 300 thats roughly a minimum of 45 "alliances" post change. Those same alliances possess 248 territories if those were split among the total new "alliances" evenly each one would receive 5.5 territories. This doesn't even begin to take into account capable smaller units that do not currently own that 5 territory average that in an equalized game setting would potentially be capable of taking and holding at least one zone. Nor does it account for any newly formed "alliances" that would be incapable of holding any territories they were mathematically allotted in a changed system. So, realistically an effective time zone system combined with more and smaller alliances should naturally reduce the amount of land that power blocks can actually hold onto.

    _________________


    Furthermore, I really find your comment "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." as nonsensical. I've seen more players quit the game over the current mega alliance issues than any other reason going back to the constantly maligned multi beta game world redesigns. Players that enjoy Albion aren't quitting Albion because their guild died or they got kicked out of their guild. There are hundreds of other guilds/alliances with leadership looking for good quality players. To simply imply that you are destroying the game for a group of players because their leadership kicks them from guild sounds ignorant as if there is no one else in the game for them to join or play with. Which is simply not true. If they were not hardcore enough for their primary guild they will seek new guilds just as they did when they found their original guild. Personally, I've been through 3 guild deaths since launch and every time new groups form to replace the old. There are hundreds of recruiting examples daily on the Official Albion Discord Guild Recruitment Channel. If players enjoy the game itself they're going to find people to play with regardless of their leadership. In fact, in some ways I would argue the currently available recruiting options are a bigger stumbling block to players than just being kicked from their guild because to really do any real guild searching you either need to know someone, check the forums, or have know about the official discord. Players can't specially tailor their search in-game based on content specifics with the current systems. In-game recruitment channel is just as bad, 70% of the posts aren't even in my native langauge. Overall, it's just a poorly crafted system that I'm shocked has never been upgraded. I can select my language, casual or hardcore and somehow this is complete and acceptable. But often more important metrics for finding like minded players like Hellgates, ZvZ, Faction War, Dungeons, Home City, Fame Requirements, Total Players or Time Zone aren't available in search criteria? Can we really not implement a better system?
  • LordZetta wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    LordZetta wrote:

    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?
    I'll give you a RL example. In WWII, German aces had far more kills than American aces. Why? Due to policy, as soon as an American ace had scored X kills (I can't remember the actual number), they were pulled back from active duty to train green pilots. The Germans aces, however, kept fighting until they died.
    This resulted in new American pilots getting the benefit of learning from the elite pilots, and of course, those new American pilots were much better out of the gate than they would have been otherwise.

    That's what an alliance cap would strangle. When I was a new Albion player, because alliances were unrestricted, I was easily able to join zvzs led by players far more experienced than myself. Having previously played World of Tanks, which had clans capped at 100 players, no alliances, and all the elite players concentrated into a few clans (that dominated clan wars), I found the egalitarian alliance system of Albion refreshing! :)

    If alliances were capped, however, and I were a new player, I would have a very hard time finding an experienced group willing to include me. And green players fighting green players is not the way to learn.

    What I think you're missing is that alliance and guild caps do not change the ratio of elite players to green players. All they will do is concentrate the elite players into fewer and fewer places, increasingly separating the green players from the elite players, and thus prolonging the learning curve of those green players.

    Far from solving the problem of elite players dominating the rest, alliance capping locks it in.
    let me repeat: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? your example has absolutely NOTHING to do with Albion. You think newbies are learning anything new from joining the huge alliances? the people who are complaining about this are literally just safe farming/ganking all day in the most inefficient way possible and that's it, just look at most Arch players( no offense lul). Also, you speak as if this game had a huge skill cap. It doesn't, it's a very simple game.
    Green players fighting green players is organic content that should exist, but we're robbed out of that because a couple of guys still want to have their special little safe space at the expense of newbies/vets who don't put up with that shit. Unfortunately, those guys don't have a representative at the round table, like the Bacons guy, begging the devs to benefit them. Just try and imagine what this game would be without them...but i guess in that very stupid point of view, they don't matter at all eh?

    I'm talking about my own experiences, and my example has everything to do with Albion. When I started playing, any new player interested in zvz was able to find an alliance with more experienced shotcallers. I know, because I did it. :)

    If alliances were capped, however, that would become very difficult. I've already seen how that looks in World of Tanks, and it wasn't a good thing.

    Do you really want all the good zvz players concentrating into as few guilds as possible?
  • This is basically Brexit isn't it.

    Changes need to be made, the ability to lock out a zone due to numbers, the ease at destroying a hideout in the build phase, players unable to enjoy the whole game because certain guilds/alliances can instantly wipe them, yes it's a pvp game but without any chance of a win or progress new players will play, establish their character, get bent over massively in the black and some of the red zones and think screw this.

    Whilst some people and their 11 other alts complain about any changes that affect their ability to win easily.

    I'm not asking for care bear stuff, I'm just saying unfortunately there isn't any competition for some guilds and alliances.
  • Guys u need to really stop getting brainwashed by your round table friends ..

    And..

    It is time you play at least from time to time your own game, to have an own opinion.

    On top it would really be fantastic if you could keep your promises..

    Right now u have crippled evolvement of your game for a very long time trying to create a wheelchair by disarray, smart queue and even queen while everyone told you - Cap alliance / guild to 150..

    Now u finally confirm that to 300, everyone think ..yes finally there is hope..

    But after a few days there (this is most hilarious..) is a leak that u will break u promise to cater for a few and cancel what you already announced

    You are already one or two years past schedule for fixing 2hg, creating serious small scale content etc.. for fixing a non problem that has an obvious easy solution.. cap Alliance

    And regarding purges, it was mainly alts and the things that moved and consolidated aka purged is already done. U players did believe in your announcement and already executed organization adaptions..

    Stopping or cancelling that now is after the fact.

    I would really recommend you, to check if the one in the end responsible for this decision / direction not really is a bit overchallenged with the job and might need help or something less complicated to work on..

    This backtrack is a clear sign something is badly wrong in decision making..

    On top of the imbalance a T8 crystal map gives u 1k syphoned energie and a battle mount per player even if u loose it..are you aware what you doing?? You give free battle mounts en mass to zergs..

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Hollywoodi ().

  • This seems like a foolish move, to tempt the general forum with a poll, but then do a 180-decision based on the RT within a week.

    Bad PR SBI. I hope you learn your lesson from this. The general forum reflects a small fraction of the overall playerbase.

    Is it a surprise? The general forum represents small guilds and solo players, while the RT represents Mega-alliances and the majority of the long-term playerbase???


    I still believe the changes are moving in the right direction. Cap the mega-alliances (900 limit?) and make exponential costs on territories beyond 10 (per alliance).

    Friendly-fire seems inevitable. If you don't do it now, then at the end of this season.

    Friendly-fire will also make for more interesting/strategic/tactical battles (in end game with mega-alliance).


    It will give a new dimension of gameplay to ZVZ, forcing tactics and costly mistakes.

    I think the community will approve in the long-run.

    Just do it!!
  • If you dont cap alliances there is no more hope in this slavery system game.

    The cancer won here like in real life.

    My friends who came back after Queen update just quitting one by one.
    Why?- Developers dont listen to community. They listen only to biggest alliances leaders.

    And whats with biggest alliances leaders?
    They dont need changes, they have actually absolute power.
  • Saas wrote:

    A lack of courage from the developers, Again ...
    Actually I think the developers have shown a great amount of courage in changing direction from there original announcement.

    It’s never easy to admit you might have made a mistake. The first announcement was a bit premature in my opinion and after discussion (and believe me it was a discussion ... all this talk of the RT demanding the cap idea be reversed is utter bullshit, it was a dev team decision) they made a reassessment.

    That’s not an easy thing to do when you know a lot of your player base (a lot of whom are ill informed anyway) will react badly.
    Midgard
    T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
    T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
    T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
  • What you can be sure is that they do consider it a problem , and they do want to tackle it but finding the way is very difficult.
    They have to look at the whole picture, and not just the individual simple solutions that seems so obviously to individual players who dont have the bigger picture.

    A fame debuff to endgame guilds that dont need fame, and a siphon tax to those swimming in a already deevaluated resource, with a system that incredibly easy is circumvented wont do much - but its also obvious that they are very serious about finding a solution.

    We as players just have to wait and see the development of this, for the vast amount of game activities this isnt really THAT important compared to how awesome the game is in general.

    Im still not really seeing the reason to spend half a year on remaking the world, as its simply the same as before , but maybe it gives them the grounds to make the changes going forward.

    who knows, but we might disagree with the devs in their conclusions, but when people write that they dont care, that is where everything because idiotic.
  • The world before queen had warcamps to save progress and delimit risk

    The past queen needs a hideout for this, hideout not works as easy as warchest..warchest was magically there in warcamp

    From portal to hohe was 4 terries, then u was in middle of deepest black

    Now to get to the rest it is 6-8 zones

    And cause of that for the non hideout owners, the world with queen is much much worse..
  • Hollywoodi wrote:

    The world before queen had warcamps to save progress and delimit risk

    The past queen needs a hideout for this, hideout not works as easy as warchest..warchest was magically there in warcamp

    From portal to hohe was 4 terries, then u was in middle of deepest black

    Now to get to the rest it is 6-8 zones

    And cause of that for the non hideout owners, the world with queen is much much worse..
    I do agree that gathering sucks now for this reason and the fact that nodes are empty or 1/3... I miss the old map.
  • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

    What you can be sure is that they do consider it a problem , and they do want to tackle it but finding the way is very difficult.
    They have to look at the whole picture, and not just the individual simple solutions that seems so obviously to individual players who dont have the bigger picture.

    A fame debuff to endgame guilds that dont need fame, and a siphon tax to those swimming in a already deevaluated resource, with a system that incredibly easy is circumvented wont do much - but its also obvious that they are very serious about finding a solution.

    We as players just have to wait and see the development of this, for the vast amount of game activities this isnt really THAT important compared to how awesome the game is in general.

    Im still not really seeing the reason to spend half a year on remaking the world, as its simply the same as before , but maybe it gives them the grounds to make the changes going forward.

    who knows, but we might disagree with the devs in their conclusions, but when people write that they dont care, that is where everything because idiotic.
    They have been considering it a problem for a while now. I think the FTP was a disaster for two reason the DDOS, and the toxic environment the alliances presented -- that it was impossible to compete for the average person.

    Well the promise of queen came and kept me going. The map would allow smaller guilds to live in the BZ. Well how did that work out for most? Just take a look at Korn's alliance list hardly a good cross section of guilds.

    OK they realize that queen didn't work out the way they thought. I could go back to previous posts and I had little hope it would work. Sometimes I think they do not understand the dynamics of the mega-alliances.

    They announce a big change, they back out, and now they say they are working on it. I suppose we will have to wait for some change this summer. Do I think they will address the problem?

    NO!

    The disarray is too weak and even with the changes they are proposing. They need to make any zerg greater than 60 be so worthless it makes NO sense to bring any more than three raids. If they do a 20 man raid should be able to win.

    They are proposing a alliance to own 10 territories? 10 is too many to have free. It is a huge swath of territory. How about 2 and it starts costing siphoned energy and fame. It doesn't need to be much., but it needs to be noticeable.

    I was so hopeful they had some courage to make a significant change, then WHAM -- this might hurt the casual player in one of the mega-alliances. How many players are actually casual in the mega-alliances? Even arch trimmed the guilds for queen to get rid of the dead weight. I think you have to be careful of alts in these guilds which are only there to obtain multiple season rewards.

    I was talking to a ARCH member and he indicated he loved arch they could FF in 8.3 any 8 dungeon and they do it all day long without any fear. What about the other 300K players which many are "casual"? They get frustrated join arch or other mega-alliance or just plain lose.

    So much for risk vs reward the main concept of this world. One word comes to mind: FAIL!



    I will only follow the carrot in front of my nose for so long. How long will the party last? This was a huge punch in the gut, to show hope just to be taken away. with proposed changes which will not effect 300K of the player base (I doubt this number as so many alts are running around just to farm).

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

  • GluttonySDS wrote:

    Hollywoodi wrote:

    The world before queen had warcamps to save progress and delimit risk

    The past queen needs a hideout for this, hideout not works as easy as warchest..warchest was magically there in warcamp

    From portal to hohe was 4 terries, then u was in middle of deepest black

    Now to get to the rest it is 6-8 zones

    And cause of that for the non hideout owners, the world with queen is much much worse..
    I do agree that gathering sucks now for this reason and the fact that nodes are empty or 1/3... I miss the old map.
    u think just gathering sucks for JOE? Ya of course Zerg leader..

    Even if u SRD or GRD or even treasure chest.. everything u collect any result of BZ Work cannot be safed.. no warcamp

    Any resources u need like 50 poison or 5 food.. u need carry now..so triple or more times the risk as on old map