Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • @Korn
    I believe the current Queen update on paper was a good idea, but on practice was terrible.

    ** rework this **
    The new world map
    - Wheres those 1 exit/entrance low tier maps? Those maps where usefull for some guilds to do some minor content, gather etc. Since they were low tier, mostly big alliances didn't even bother going there.

    ** rework this **
    The new gathering system
    - Honestly I think its horrible, at the old world map you could gather abit safer... at this new world map, everywhere its not safe duo to hideouts everywhere and it just looks way slower to gather now.
    Plus it looks amazingly slow to gather now.

    ** rework this **
    The hideout idea was good, but on practice it just gave so much power to alliances to be everywhere so fast, specially big alliances.
    - Maybe you should have put a limit of 1 Hideout per guild as maximum, since alliance can allow everyone to use each other hideout yet.
    - The territory importance is kinda dead too, since hideout are way better (sure the new layout on some really help small alliances to defend at such 01 choke, only 1 positive point).
    You made the game amazingly dependant on hideouts, and everything on this new map its far, enhancing way more the guild/alliance to stay in their hideouts.

    I know you wanted to people ZvZ more but on other hand, respawning so fast at hideouts making small alliances get overwhelmed too.
    The disarray debuff is insane? Yes it its, anything over 20% disarray becomes pretty deadly, but won't solve anything too.
    Bigger alliances will die and re-gear at their hideouts and still overwhelm the small alliance.
    - You could include a hideout warmode feature based on disarray to help the defender hideout, a defender buff.
    -20% enemy disarray - The hideout will emit (around it, like 30meters) 20% HP restore aura and 20% reduced cooldown aura every 5s.
    -30% enemy disarray - The hideout will emit (around it, like 40meters) 5% extra player defense, 30% HP restore aura and 30% reduced cooldown aura every 5s.
    - Higher than 30% disarray - The hideout will emit (around it, like 60meters) 10% extra player defense, 30% HP restore aura, 30% HP regen, 30% Mana regen and 30% reduced cooldown aura every 5s.

    Basically every defender around 30meters at their own hideout will receive the buff cycle, every 5s as long the enemy has the disarray.
    The hideout aura will be automatically enabled... only when certain disarray ticks in, and will stop as soon the disarray debuff its gone.
    So either the enemy bring less people to don't enable hideout warmode or play all-in cards to quickly wipe the defender.

    Or

    The higher disarray, it will enable death release feature.
    - 20% disarray - If the attacker player dies, will have a 5s cooldown to be able to revive.
    - 25% disarray - If the attacker player dies, will have a 10s cooldown to be able to revive.
    - 30% disarray - If the attacker player dies, will have a 15s cooldown to be able to revive.
    - Higher than 30% disarray - If the attacker player dies, will have a 25s cooldown to be able to revive.
    This way you can delay the overwhelming force to rejoin automatically the battle.

    ** another idea, release the high-end content promissed... **
    Release the Avalonian area (center of map), so the higher content goes to bigger alliances. (why delaying so much?)
    - with the higher content and profit around at that area, bigger alliances will mostly move their main force to dominate that area.

    Theres lots of ways to incite those stuff for the bigger alliances.

    - Avalonian Siege - A guild/alliance can setup a siege attack to their citadel. (its a weekly preparation schedule siege) *** Deeply down we want a revenge for caerleon slaughter...***
    At schedule time, alliances must move to each avalonian citadel exit and claim the siege. The claiming mode window will be 1h total (if the timer reaches zero, and no one were able to claim, the avalonians will secure the area/exit and massive spawn elites to kick everyone out of there). During the week, each alliance must complete the steps to enable to siege claim. So bigger alliances will have to choose, lesser content (breaking lower tier zones hideout or moving their forces for greater avalonian content) or avalonian siege preparation, maybe this will give some breath to minor alliances and small guilds to exist at black zone too.

    At claiming time the area will be open for massive ZvZ content, duo to everyones fighting the right to claim the siege at the chosen exit.
    After claiming, it will start the schedule time for siege mode. When siege time ticks-in, each exit will be allowed only the alliance that setup the siege (the current map becomes locked only to the siege alliance, enemy can't go in to disrupt it). Thats the importance to fight for siege claim before... Claiming a siege will require a guild leader or alliance officer to stay still, claiming it for 3minutes without getting disrupted.

    Each Avalonian citadel exit (North, South, West, East) will allow a siege attack, so you can have 4 sieges going on same time. If an alliance shows-up to cover 3 exists, their chance on winning its pretty secure, since it will be 3zergs vs 1, if the opposing alliance manage to breach the walls in time too. Or the alliance can setup 1 siege, and massive ZvZ the other exits to don't allow the enemy alliance to setup their siege too.

    ** reaching the Avalonian Elites, will start a 5mins cooldown wall reinforcement. This will guarantee that the quicker ones to breach the wall, wont get sniped by late wall breachers. On other words, if your enemy reach the elites, you got 5mins to reach there or the room will be locked for your alliance. ***

    The faster alliance that breaches the avalonian walls, will fight the Avalonian Elites plus the other zerg (in case if the other siege was an enemy and breaches the wall on time, if its friend alliance it will sum-up to fight the elites).
    The winner will take a fat loot chests, plus the enemy drop (if any make it on time to the elites).
    This event will require bigger alliances to have good preparation and logistics.

    The alliance that breaches 3x in sequence the avalonian walls, will earn the right to fight their way to the Queen. No enemy disruption allowed this time (So after reaching 3x wins, after the siege ends, it will start the Queen Mode, the zone becomes locked to the alliance thats fighting the Queen - Only the alliance fighting the queen are enable to enter avalon).

    Beating the Queen, will give a fat avalonian loot plus avalonian mounts, avalonian tools, new avalonian avatar ring, new challenge record, new avalonian cosmetics, queen buff mode (higher pve/craft/gather bonus), new territory transmog (allow tower, guards and mages looks like avalonian - visually and skillfully too, extra elite guards per 1 week or while you hold the territory)

    So the goal is do not let an alliance to earn the 3 breaches sequence.
    Per example, if BA wins 2x sequence, they are aiming for 3rd win to earn the right to fight the queen. But PoE takes the day win breaching the wall and killing BA and Elites 1st, BA victory is reset and PoE becomes the runner-up with 1x win sequence.

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

  • @Korn
    I'm new to the forums. So sorry in advance if i get a few things wrong or Mention things already stated.

    Firstly, The new suggestion isn't going to take a huge effect on MEGA-Alliance. Yes it makes them less tasty to other people due to the Debuff on Fame and Silver. However This only limits the number of territories an Alliance will hold. This will NOT change how many players that alliances bring to fights.
    Secondly, The Disarray isn't nearly what it should be. It was stated in the past that it is being implemented to allow a smaller force fight a bigger force. The only way this will be possible is if the Dis-array is upped so much 20 fighting 100+ feels like 20v20.
    Thirdly, Using Siphoned energy as a Currency for territories isn't going to have too much of an impact on these guilds either. Reason being is that there are mages to raid. Also there's the passive income per territory owned. This just gives more incentives to go mage raiding. Granted you only get 6-10 per mage. 4 mages per territory x 10 zones = 240-400 energy. All you need to do is rotate.

    Lastly, my comment regarding Alliance CAPS.
    Although im not a big fan of big alliances or alliances in general, Reducing Cap to 300 is pretty ridiculous. If it is that low then just get rid of alliances altogether.
    An alternative would be 1000.
    I seen however you stated this will affect major alliance in 0%. However this is incorrect.
    Also your statement regarding Casual being affected more by this is pretty far fetched.

    Lets put it this way.

    Having a 1000 player cap on alliances opens more opportunities for those casual guilds. Reason being, these casual guilds can for an alliance together and be able to hold 2-3 terries alone.
    This will also give incentive for Guilds would also rather be Solo Guilds to be able to do this and not have to worry about a 2K+ alliance knocking at your door.


    The More experienced guilds may or may not want to go solo. However if they do, it wont affect any guild as much as it does now.
    Also Season points may drive up the gears for Mega Alliances and non mega alliances, however having 5K players vs 1K players, Who do you think can get more points on a daily basis(Just on members earning keys)


    IMO-
    Dis-array - Should be Doubled what is currently in effect.
    Alliance CAP - 1000-1200 Should be a FAIR goal to reach for all competitive and casual guilds.
    Silver and Fame Debuff - Should be forgotten about.
    Point Sharing(If alliances don't get capped) - Should be increased depending on the number of members within the alliance and not number of guilds.(300 players = 1 guild === 1200 players = 3 Guilds) Also points share equally among the alliance regardless of what guild does the most. This gives more incentive for guilds to actually do things for their alliance. And it gives Alliance Incentives to reduce the amount of members per alliance which in turn reduces alliance numbers.

    Those being affected by Purging alliances/Guilds aren't going to be affected in a bad way. It just means they are less casual and can find a less casual guild. Why would a casual player want to be in a hardcore guild? Except for protection.
    There are plenty of guilds on the game. Some are so casual they just FF in yellow zones. Also, players have the option to create their own guild and make it into what they would like a guild to be or do.


    Keeping Mega Alliances in power with the numbers they can bring to ANY fight, is just going to ruin the game for all playing. Not only the casual players/guilds/alliances. Keeping them in power will turn all these new players, that came to the game, away from playing.

    Also, if you announce your implementing or doing tests about certain issues then totally disregard what the players asked for due to the RT meeting is a very very bad call on the dev side. If you announce something all over the forums and players made the effort to get their opinions across you should follow through. I understand after the RT meeting things changed. However, You do have a player case to consider. Not just the Big names/Big Spenders on the game.
  • blappo wrote:

    REMINDER:



    The 300 alliance cap is still happening, No information has been put out by any member of SBI claiming otherwise

    The information we are commenting on was a leak.

    Until they state otherwise continue to plan on the hard cap of 300.

    While you are correct that no information has officially been announced yet. Korn has stated in this thread that SBI is currently not planning on moving forward with the announced test on the 27th. The specific quote is on page 6 near the bottom of the page and reads as follows:

    Korn wrote:

    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.
    Note the very end of the quote when he references "revisit the cap idea". While not explicitly stating that they are no longer instituting the cap you can tell from his wording that they are no longer moving forward with the cap while they implement other potential fixes. He then goes on to talk about those fixes later in the thread. Such as multiplied siphoned energy upkeep for alliances holding an arbitrary number of territories, silver and fame debuffs beyond an arbitrary number of territories. As well as, increases to the disarrary on groups 25+.
  • Step in the right direction for sure. I'm not sure why so many people insist that the previous proposed changes were better somehow? lmao

    The terry limit is too high, the 1% tax per terry should be 2% or more or at least it should scale exponentially not linearly.


    This change will encourage some hand holding still but that will never stop since hand holding is human nature!


    We need to give alliances and guilds a reason to exist without hand holding. Increase competition in the 'good' zones, make them worth so much more than they are currently and give elite players no reason to even want to look at the outer zones or share their resources with anyone.
    Join our guild https://discord.gg/pejawjG
  • Equart wrote:

    TheKlux wrote:

    I'm not sure why so many people insist that the previous proposed changes were better somehow? lmao
    Problem and question not in Terry control. Question is about daily and global gameplay. That's why people mad.
    excatly, how long people can be at yellow/red zones.. any try of fight is ending like movie up, ARCHs did cta for every small scale pvp.
    @Korn wake up!
    #edit: we will let you make own hideout (best memme)
  • Just out of curiosity why not just put a hard cap on alliance members in a zone when territories/hideouts are vulnerable. You guys are clearly tracking the number of people from each alliance for the disarray debuff. I don't see a reason why you could not use that to make an alliance size cap which could get progressively higher towards the center of the map.

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

  • Gerrit wrote:

    dopplevader wrote:

    And this is why 80% of the community want Alliances gone completely....Just saying :thumbsup:
    The community wants alliances gone because people believe it'll magically make them competitive. It won't.
    Maybe tier 2 guilds will benefit. But that delusional noobs whining on forums and expecting to get a hideout with 7 ppl guild will get nothing.
    No they do not believe in that, problem in other things. And delusional are people who think that we need it only because of Terry or Hideout control, fu*k it , just forget about it.


    Equart wrote:

    Problem and question not in Terry control. Question is about daily and global gameplay. That's why people mad.
    This ^ , or you can read some posts higher, or few more from other people. Or on reddit , or welcome on twitch. Make a research to find out why people want this change.
  • Equart wrote:

    No they do not believe in that, problem in other things. And delusional are people who think that we need it only because of Terry or Hideout control, fu*k it , just forget about it.

    This ^ , or you can read some posts higher, or few more from other people. Or on reddit , or welcome on twitch. Make a research to find out why people want this change.
    So there's no problem with terries? Well I supposed that this thread is about terries, hideouts for noobs, and limiting super guilds power.

    Btw, I've read some of your posts in this thread, just standart rants about solo content, mostly irrelevant to the change being discussed here.
  • Gerrit wrote:

    Equart wrote:

    No they do not believe in that, problem in other things. And delusional are people who think that we need it only because of Terry or Hideout control, fu*k it , just forget about it.

    This ^ , or you can read some posts higher, or few more from other people. Or on reddit , or welcome on twitch. Make a research to find out why people want this change.
    So there's no problem with terries? Well I supposed that this thread is about terries, hideouts for noobs, and limiting super guilds power.
    Btw, I've read some of your posts in this thread, just standart rants about solo content, mostly irrelevant to the change being discussed here.
    Main problem is promotion of zerg/sheep behavior.
    That video of ARCH zerging a dung with 9 ppl in it is a great example. Makes me want to throw out....
    This wouldnt happen with hardcapped alliances cause they would not be able to get this kind of force from 300pool of ppl.

    If the hardcap will not happen because it will hurt casuals or whatever. Then there should be another drastic change that will address mindless ZERG. The new zerg debuff is not enough.
    Only natural way to counter is friendly fire outside of party members imo. SBI would not force anyone to do anything by this. But it will be REAL pain to organise big zerg and dont AOE your own ppl.

    Most of players dont care about terri control. It mostly just means you need to show up on more CTAs. And if you are not shotcaller/clapper zvz is totally braindead boring crap.
    "Montaron, you are so aggravating! 'Tis disturbing to my demeanor!" - Xzar

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

  • Monatron wrote:

    If the hardcap will not happen because it will hurt casuals or whatever. Then there should be another drastic change that will address mindless ZERG. The new zerg debuff is not enough.
    Only natural way to counter is friendly fire outside of party members imo. SBI would not force anyone to do anything by this. But it will be REAL pain to organise big zerg and dont AOE your own ppl.
    Honestly why do people like the idea of friendly fire? This just means you can attack guild mates regardless unless they are in the same party. Then you also have Zerg presence. Lets Take SUN for example. Pull about 3-4 groups. So does this mean each group has to hit the enemy from different positions making it hard to work as a guild?

    If this was the case and you want friendly fie on, just go solo. You can get all the non friendly fire rules there
  • 3 years of consulting SBI by Round table has lead to this situation.

    Communication cannot be worse

    Dev resources focused on something never achieved

    Delimit steam roll of mega alliance..

    And to achieve that they took consulting from RT aka mega Alliance..

    And now we surprised after mega Alliance consult and feedback SBI how to cut down mega alliance they stronger as ever ...

    I think the only one obviously surprised is SBI..
  • StellerNova wrote:

    Monatron wrote:

    If the hardcap will not happen because it will hurt casuals or whatever. Then there should be another drastic change that will address mindless ZERG. The new zerg debuff is not enough.
    Only natural way to counter is friendly fire outside of party members imo. SBI would not force anyone to do anything by this. But it will be REAL pain to organise big zerg and dont AOE your own ppl.
    Honestly why do people like the idea of friendly fire? This just means you can attack guild mates regardless unless they are in the same party. Then you also have Zerg presence. Lets Take SUN for example. Pull about 3-4 groups. So does this mean each group has to hit the enemy from different positions making it hard to work as a guild?
    If this was the case and you want friendly fie on, just go solo. You can get all the non friendly fire rules there
    Yes if you had more than 1 group you would need to be really careful.
    Whats wrong with that? It would make gameplay more interesting and FUN (game should be about FUN last time i checked).
    "Montaron, you are so aggravating! 'Tis disturbing to my demeanor!" - Xzar