Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • XKent wrote:

    SBI:

    1) Ask players
    2) Have 80% vote for something
    3) Announce solution according to that 80% reply
    4) Talk behind the scenes, cancel everything, show 0 respect to people who voted opt for a different solution
    Amended point 4 slightly to show what actually happened, rather than what you think happened.

    Your point 3 isn't fully correct either as the poll asked if alliances should be removed from the game. The solution they first proposed did not do that and instead opted for a cap, and even then only as a short test.
    Midgard
    T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
    T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
    T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
  • 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
    This is a clear example of the poor mentality.

    people want easy things, like dropping brainless mass aoe spells without any consequences.

    It should be a good idea, to do friendly fire outside of party, or activate friendly fire when party goes up 10+...

    A lot of possibilities, but it's hard when ppl don't want to help and in this case, SBI feels bad for this kind of players.
  • 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.
    This right here is the problem. Alliances and the developers think people care about the season and season points. People are mad that alliances let massive groups of people group up effortlessly and use the massive power of the unbalanced nature of N+1 combat in AO to just destroy the content of everyone who doesn't do the exact same thing.

    They refuse to give players areas on the map that can't be overrun by alliances. We thought they were going to allow the royals to be that place, but they turned their backs on that idea, and allowed all the alliances to effortlessly transfer between the outlands and the royals.

    Midgard wrote:

    XKent wrote:

    4) Talk behind the scenes, cancel everything, show 0 respect to people who voted opt for a different solution
    Amended point 4 slightly to show what actually happened, rather than what you think happened.
    Your point 3 isn't fully correct either as the poll asked if alliances should be removed from the game. The solution they first proposed did not do that and instead opted for a cap, and even then only as a short test.
    This isn't a solution to any problems that anyone I talk to care about at all. It is in fact not a solution, and not even an attempt at a solution. It is the exact same thing with numbers changed so that some slightly less powerful mega alliances can earn a few more territories.

    They don't understand that because they only understand the game from the perspective of the RT. They are completely clueless.
    Discord: Piddle#7413
    "The purpose of existence is simple: everything is fuel for the magmaw." —Jaji, magmaw worshipper
  • The likely result of this is that some megas will split up anyway because they want to continue holding large numbers of territories without getting taxed by the new system and as a bonus they get to circumvent part of the upcoming buffs to battle confusion. They'll have more incidents of "accidental" killing eachother throughout the day because of red names and just being able to do so over petty issues.
  • Blazing wrote:

    this is ironic, considering that the original 'cap alliances' poll this meme is based off of only had the participation of 5% of the playerbase. also, i puilled that number out of my ass just like this meme

    Blazing wrote:

    Rygol wrote:

    It's funny that the devs are scrambling to figure out a band-aid to the band-aid for the game. The only way, that I believe at least, is if they introduce more black zone maps/clusters to the outlands. That way there is a major expanse that any mega alliance would have to conquer, let alone protect at all times. When SBI originally showcased the game during a Unity developers convention, they stated they took ideas for the gameplay from League of Legends and the mechanics and systems from Eve Online.

    Well Eve Online, which I still play to this day, has over 7,000 solar systems or "map clusters". No one mega alliance is controlling the whole of null sec or the black zone equivalent. Many mega alliances have risen and fallen over the life of the game. If they really want to please everyone, they should make the outlands literally massive and possibly spread the outland portals back out as before in order to give everyone an equal chance to at least dip their toes into the outlands. Back in beta there were no portals, you had to traverse yellow zones into red zones to finally reach black zones. Just like in Eve Online, you go from high sec to low sec and finally into null sec. There's my 2 cents for the morning. This is purely my opinion and thoughts on the whole matter.
    albion online (arguably) does not have the population to support the current landmass. your solution is to spread the current playerbase even thinner? in hopes that an influx of players to fill these zones will suddenly come from.... where exactly? they already blew the F2P load, bro. do you think theres that many ex-players left? seems like a wild shot in the dark. still better than capping alliances to 300 though. massive landmass expansion will bleed off players due to disinterest slowly as opposed to the massive gunshot that will happen on the day that a large number of casual BZ players suddenly find they have to stay in the royal zones
    so which one is it? either 5% voted on this or albion doesnt have a big enough player base
  • dopplevader wrote:

    And this is why 80% of the community want Alliances gone completely
    Im not convinced they do.

    The poll was binary. There wasnt an option for anything other than keep alliances or remove them and whereas many believe that there is a problem with alliances, they dont necessarily think that removing them completely is the answer. But .. with only a binary choice , the poll gets skewed by those who want some other compromise lumped in with the 'remove completely' advocates.

    The only thing that the poll really tells you is 80% (actually its 78%) of those answering feel that 'something' needs to done with alliances.
    Midgard
    T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
    T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
    T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
  • @Korn , this have been happening for 2 week every night. So please don't lie to us when you say you back on the alliance cap to protect casual player. You are actually pushing every small alliance / guild player to disband and merge with the big 4.since its the only way to got acces to end game zone.

    We constently bring 120-150 player and got over whelm by 300 -400 poe blob. Imagine how it would be for smaller alliance now...

    yaga.sk/killboard/battle.php?id=66617315

    The game balance is totally broken and by the time you react it will be too late since most big alliance have accelerate their agenda to destroy every ho not their in bz.

    Their is no way most casual/small guild got a fair chance to place and defend an hideout if they are not member of the big 4. They will just keep hiting the ho with 3x ot 4 x your number night after night after night . And all the tweak to terry owning and silver debuff and energy cost , will change 0 % of that situation . Thats why 80 % have vote to cap giant alliance.
    Images
    • Screenshot_20200217-110157_Samsung Internet.jpg

      762.46 kB, 2,220×1,080, viewed 52 times

    The post was edited 6 times, last by Headquake ().

  • 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.
    Funny thing is man, Your just making or really forcing them to break off into smaller alliances and NAP's to work around the terri system, It really is what would happen with a cap, Just half assed in most ways. I'm sure we will see SQUAD 1 2 and 3 coming soon. Much rather have a cap on alliances, Cut right to the end of all the bullshit and just put a decent cap of around 300 to 600 on alliances.

    EDIT: Also wanted to add that the TERRI system was not the only reason we wanted an alliance cap, Therefor your whole "New" idea falls flat on its face. Alliances like ARCH can simply purge all the extra terri's and still have 6000 members running around ganking 2 players with 40. Running off all our new players, Great idea.


    PS. Fix portal camping already, Do you injoy running off all the new players? Because portal ganking is making this happen everyday. Nice work on the portal spacing! Truely great work, Nice shields around rest entraces maybe think about putting them around the portal gate exits? Maybe? @Korn

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

  • Headquake wrote:

    its so ridiculous at that point that expect sbi to ask the round table ,: do round table got too much power? ...
    Only because the developers hand feed it power. Whoever leaked the update didn't give you the full story either. 24 hours before the update the RT had an alliance leader meeting, rescheduled so that they could all be there, and the next day this update happened.

    Now, they will come and say that just because A then B, doesn't mean that A caused B, but I don't remember actually hearing any of the "complaints" that the developers are saying caused this roll back, and I pretty much read anything anyone says about AO that I can find, anywhere it appears in public. I even use the Chrome translate feature to read the non-English sections of these forums. So where did this update even come from? Why was there an update?

    What I did read was almost every single person being super excited that SBI was finally going to take a step back from this infinite cycle of adjustments to game mechanics so that alliances are happy with the season points part of the game, and actually try to fix the underlying cause of the countless problems suffered by everyone.

    I imagine that the people who voted to delete alliances had some idea that people would have to be removed from alliances at some point to get what they wanted? That's makes sense right? It's not like it was a surprise to players that if alliances got shrunk then some people would need to find a new place.

    SBIs reasoning for the update is "Players were too stupid to know that they didn't like what they asked for." You are all too stupid and you don't know what you want. The alliance leaders do though. Trust your alliance overlords and the developers who believe that they speak for you. You exist ONLY as CONTENT for them, and there will be more of you off the boat every single day, loading into Forest Crossing or Mountain Crossing. So you don't matter.
    Discord: Piddle#7413
    "The purpose of existence is simple: everything is fuel for the magmaw." —Jaji, magmaw worshipper
  • Midgard wrote:

    Your point 3 isn't fully correct either as the poll asked if alliances should be removed from the game. The solution they first proposed did not do that and instead opted for a cap, and even then only as a short test.
    OK, remove the alliances. Good enough.

    Having 300 Guild cap and 300 Ally cap just makes possible for even smaller (6x50) guilds to join up.

    A 200-300 active player entity should be able to compete in this game and should be enough to be independent.

    More than 200-300 is just killing your own game. Why you need 5000 people in alliance if you don't plan/can 5000vs5000 fights ??? So they can 250vs100 20 different zones at the same time ?

    If 250vs100 doesn't go well, they just bring that extra 2x250 from the neighboring location. Just to get the loot back...

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

  • Hollywoodi wrote:

    Well as 2 we went for OW treasure chest

    POE Area, first came 4 ..full ZvZ gear, we fight 2 on 4, we in hg gear, so works..

    Finally after 3 mins ..full blob, they did CTA the OW treasure chest

    Can u just remove this more more more Alliance feature?
    what about the poor "casual gamer " in that poe blob. What will happen to them if they cannot 6 vs 1 and ruined the game for 80 % of playerbase ? Don't worry sbi will protect them :) . This game is moving from mmorpg to mmorts slowly.
  • It sounds like they are protecting the large guilds under the disguise of protecting the “casual players of those guilds !!” This is just reinforcing the extortion tactics of the larger /massive guild and their bullying tactics based off of numbers. All I hear about is skill over numbers.. and from what I read and hear... this is a huge false statement.
  • GluttonySDS wrote:

    Hollywoodi wrote:

    Well as 2 we went for OW treasure chest

    POE Area, first came 4 ..full ZvZ gear, we fight 2 on 4, we in hg gear, so works..

    Finally after 3 mins ..full blob, they did CTA the OW treasure chest

    Can u just remove this more more more Alliance feature?
    I'm sorry but what will you do when a guild party of 15 come... ask for removal of guilds?
    u are not that beneath reality

    OW chest are small scale content. But everything that has mimium value that can be zerged will be zerged..there is no disadvantage to n+1 it. You are a big example of people explore that, you know it, I know it. And you would do everything to maintain that status
  • Piddle wrote:

    This right here is the problem. Alliances and the developers think people care about the season and season points. People are mad that alliances let massive groups of people group up effortlessly and use the massive power of the unbalanced nature of N+1 combat in AO to just destroy the content of everyone who doesn't do the exact same thing.
    100% spot on! Most guilds don't even want to bother trying to be competitive because there's simply no point trying to compete with the current top guilds, they just want somewhere in the world to call home other than a crappy private island. What percentage of guilds will likely never get a territtory? I'm gonna guess about 80%, lol.