Adjustment to the Alliance Cap Test on February 26th

    • Yojimbo wrote:

      This is an absolute joke.

      Silver drops shouldn't even be considered a form of income, its more akin to a visual reward for killing a mob. Fame reduction for people who are already maxed out? Why would megas care about this? It's like telling mega's you don't get a participation sticker if you keep up what you're doing. Nobody cares. Especially when territories do a poor job of communicating where the power of these alliances actually are, which is in massive numbers which are currently the strongest, most meta way of dominating the bz. Removing them would at least make organization more difficult. Solutions have been presented so many times, and seem to be a combination of giving smaller numbers and advantage in fights and increasing the costs associated with territory control.

      Last of all, "think of the casuals?", Are you serious? So what if they're kicked, its an opportunity to create a new community built purely for casual players. They can make their own guilds, focus on smaller gains and defense, and enjoy the game at their own pace. This has to be the most backwards excuse for pussying out I've ever seen. Guilds will form built around playstyle: Gathering guilds, crafting guilds etc. The right thing to do to help this transition is give new objectives for these natural formations of guilds. Give gatherers an open world objective (or anything they can work towards) that doesn't involve PvP, same to crafters and other forms of gameplay. Arms dealers, transport services, so much opportunity for new content.

      It's a game, not a spreadsheet. Make it fun, not convoluted.

      EDIT: Also the round table is absolutely silly. Runescape utilizes a poll system, and it works for the players. That game is alive, and will continue to be through communities working with developers. Why on earth limit it to some few players, its so obviously wrought with potential for abuse its outrageous.
      What is your new guild going to do? You have no experience in zvz.

      Even if 300 cap was put in, awful company with 300 members would steam roll you, you won't be able to put a hide out down.
    • I'm a big fan of natural development.
      Remove disarray, remove smart queue, don't punish newbs in big alliances.
      Implement what should already be in the game: friendly fire when fighting with more than 20 guys.
      Start with 10% shared damage and go up to 50% when more than 100.

      And you will naturally see how zergs are shrinking.
      A big zergs will be countered by small zergs crushing into them.
      It would feel realistic and doesn't prefer elitist nor noobs.
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      Dear players,

      Last week we announced a test we wanted to run on limiting Alliance size on February 26th. Then, on Friday, information leaked regarding changes to this test we were considering.

      We deeply regret our approach to the communication and handling of this matter. We should have taken more time to evaluate the expected outcome of this test before making an announcement. For this, we would like to apologize.

      The reason we're now announcing an adjustment to the test is that a hard cap on alliances size would trigger a “purge” of a lot of players from their existing guilds and alliances, cutting them off from their in-game friends and destroying their daily gameplay routines. A cap of 300 would not only have hit the top 4 power blocks, but also a very large number of more casual guilds and alliances. The resulting purge would have affected gatherers, traders and more casual players the most and would have done permanent damage to the game.

      At the same time, we cannot allow large groups of players to dominate the gameplay experience of many others. Many players feel they have to join a large Alliance to be successful in Albion Online, and that there are too few opportunities for smaller groups to participate in meaningful gameplay outside of the influence of these large Alliances.

      We have evaluated all of your feedback and we have developed an alternative approach to limiting the dominance of large Alliances. Instead of limiting the numbers of players per Alliance, we’re now planning to introduce a number of measures which aim at decreasing the effectiveness and attractiveness of being a member of a large Alliance:
      1. Introduce an Upkeep on Territory control based on the number of territories held by the Alliance*
        • This upkeep will be paid in siphoned energy
        • It will begin to apply when an alliance holds more than 10 territories (excluding Castles and Castle Outposts)
        • The amount of upkeep per territory will increase the more territories are held by your alliance
        • If upkeep cannot be paid at the region time, your guild will drop the territory and receive no season points for the territory ownership that day
        • The upkeep will be paid as a percentage of the territories' expected Energy Output (including tower levels) and increases by 5% for each territory above 10
        • In this balancing, adding any territories beyond 20 actually reduces your global energy output (so the 21st territory adds less than it costs)
        • The upkeep can exceed 100% of the production (which would occur if an Alliance holds 31+ territories).
        • Our expectation would be that this causes alliances to focus on quality of territories and defense of mages over quantity, breaking the largest Alliances down into multiple groups who each hold 10-20 territories at most (and cannot effectively support each other in combat)
        • (*) These penalties apply to guilds outside an Alliance as well, if they hold more than 10 Territories
      2. Introduce an income penalty to players in Alliances* based on the number of territories held
        • All players within an Alliance will suffer from reduced silver & fame income if the Alliance holds more than 10 Territories (excluding Castles and Castle Outposts)
        • This penalty applies to all fame gained from gathering and PvE, as well as silver income from silver bags and mobs
        • This penalty starts at 1% and increases by 1% per additional Territory in the Alliance
        • With this balancing, this penalty reaches about 10% for players in an Alliance with 20 Territories. You can think of this debuff as the opposite of the Faction Warfare benefit: you’re gaining additional safety for playing as a member of a successful Alliance, but you’re paying for it with decreased efficiency.
        • (*) These penalties apply to outside an Alliance as well, if they hold more than 10 Territories
      3. Improve the power of Disarray to have an increased impact in medium scale engagements
        • Our goal would be that players can already feel the impact of Disarray in fights of 25 vs 50, and 50 vs 100 would become significantly more even that way
      4. Introduce a Cooldown of 7 days to re-joining the same guild after leaving your current guild to prevent guild-drop exploitation of Disarray.
      5. Introduce a Cooldown of 7 days to re-joining the same alliance after leaving your current alliance to prevent alliance-drop exploitation of Disarray.
      6. Lower the impact of high quality gear in the Smart Cluster Queue
      We’re still planning to roll most of these changes around February 26th, in time for the next Invasion day, though this timeframe is ambitious and subject to change if necessary.

      The goal of these measures is to create more natural reasons for Alliances to reduce in size. On their own, these measures will not suffice. We will need to take an additional look at Alliances living in cities, especially the situation around portals, and into introducing more opportunities for small scale groups to succeed in Albion. We do hope, however, to already be able to measure a significant impact of these limitations during the next Invasion day.

      Once we see what happens with these changes, we will then continue to work towards our ideal Albion experience: open to players of all skill levels and full of opportunity for players in any size group.

      In the meantime, we’ve already begun planning the next update and will soon be ready to talk about our updated roadmap for Albion, which will put a strong emphasis on small scale gameplay.

      Sincerely,

      Robin ‘Eltharyon’ Henkys
      Game Director

      PS.: Given that we’re not putting a cap on Alliance size at this time we’re of course not removing the Alliance point sharing either.


      @Eltharyon could we maybe think about maybe removing that guild cooldown for new players for maybe the first 1 or 2 weeks as very often a new player gets invited to a 100% tax group and then can not join another group once they figure out they got invited to a scam potato farming guild. We deal with this multiple times a day even with the two day timer. It is bad for retention of new players that these guilds exist in the first place however it might be minimized if there was not the cooldown timer once they have figured it out and are helped by a new player group that isn't trying to take advantage of them like Newby. It is why we have 0% tax but there are still a lot of players that unfortunately are not able to join a guild there first few days because of it. Essentially they are not really able to take advantage of the three days of premium they get in a efficient manner because of this. I think the rest of the proposed changes are a step in a positive direction and should have no negative impact on groups like Newby!
    • The territories and season point systems are basically the appendix of Albion. The real game post-Queen is hideouts. Who owns them, and where? Who can defend them on their own terms and who pays tribute to keep them? These are the real questions to judge the success of anti-mega changes. Other than more disarray I see very little in this post that will open the black zone up to more hideouts from smaller guilds in locations away from portal zones.

      a couple questions:
      1. Why not let a single 300 man guild own as many territories as possible? I find it slightly offensive that your solution to giving smaller guilds a fair shake is communism. Why even have a season points ranking if you lose money holding too many territories?
      2. Why doesn’t disarray affect CC?
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      we cannot allow large groups of players to dominate the gameplay experience of many others

      Hmm, somehow can't let large groups dominate the gameplay experience but for 3 betas and 8 seasons there was no problem letting small groups of GVGers dominate and influence the gameplay. Successful alliances that worked towards being a dominant power don't even get a season. :thinking:
    • Number isn't the issue, power it is. So instead of limiting numbers, just add an enormous disarray per guild/alliance overall fame.

      The proposed system makes no change whatsoever to those in mega guilds in mega alliances where most of them are already 400/400 in all weapons and equipments. So they get a fame debuff on what, if they have already mastered all gears? 10% of 0 still 0. 90% of 0 still 0.

      This proposed system not only shall penalize unmastered players, but do nothing to the mega guilds in mega alliances and their mega powerful players.

      Revisit the season's points system, make it less rewarding owning territories and grant a big boost on all the other stuff. So a small/medium gathering guild/alliance could still make it to silver/gold if they do gather. Small/medium guilds/alliances focused on crafting could still make to the silver/gold.
    • CaptainPando wrote:

      LordSilva wrote:

      Satisfying only a few, is that it is not.There are 350,000 active accounts in the game, in the forum there should be 10,000 active and in the other topic only 1,000 voted, this for me is not the will of the majority.
      We have to know how to analyse things properly and look for alternatives and not be radical.

      tabooshka wrote:

      when 80% of players dont matter and 5 on RT do.
      Where did you see 80% of the players?
      First Reply, - > To this point there may be 350,000 active accounts, your also counting player alt accounts that they use for focus. While also including the referral clubs that are out there also.
      And when he says 80% its from the orginal vote they did on the forums.



      @Eltharyon Upcost on terrorties costing siphon energy wont mean anything for large guilds / alliances. Considering there are guilds that have 60,000 + Energy. along with millions in gold.


      Almost any changes that take place will make people angry... But i find it odd there are no big name alliance leaders posting their responces yet?/??
      Mister, 1200 votes are not 80% of players.
    • Hey there,

      I'd like to add one key point to the discussion:

      Some of you doubt the the announced measures will be effective. It's our view that the siphoned energy upkeep (which becomes very high very fast) and the silver and fame debuff for those who own more than 10 territories is going to be effective, and once the test goes live, we'll see a significant change to the Outland power distribution. That's the goal. We would have impacted the top 4 power blocks without causing an unintentional member purge in more casual alliances - and there are a lot of them with significantly more than 300 members.

      Here is the thing though: If the mechanics that we are introducing are not effective, we can very easily tweak them. If a 1% fame loss per territory over 10 is not effective and is being largely ignored, we can set it to 2% - the same goes for the upkeep mechanic. I think we can all agree in principle that the mechanics themselves hurt and th at values can be found that are effective. We want to strike the right balance here that does not act as a de facto hard cap, but that certainly ensures that there is a certain line that won't be crossed.

      Here are the current territory holdings, taken 2 days ago:

      (Name / Territories / Members)
      Squak912382
      1941571906
      POE552826
      Arch456295
      Valon17859
      Surf12675
      Rang12827
      Ego121946
      Lions7571
      Bee71161
      Mobs51025
      R4044661
      S84756
      Solid4493
      Sea31393
      DONT4901
      AGS3383
      3002133
      Bacon12574
      Chime1217
      Bruv149



      We are very confident that we won't see (m)any entities with holding more than 20 in the long term - if at all, I think it's quite likely that nobody goes much above 10. We are certain that after these changes, the distribution overall is going to be much healthier. And if the top groups in the game can hold 15-20 territories, we'd be fine with that. You don't want to totally curb opportunities for expansion as this could make the Outland gameplay very stale.

      We see this as a test. Our commitment to tackle the power block issue stands. We share a common goal here, disagreement is over how to get there.

      Can we maybe agree that it make sense to try and achieve that goal without hitting the wrong players as collateral damage? That it would be better for the game if we tackle the issue in the smartest way possible without taking the serious risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water?

      Let's wait and see what the actual impact of the test is. If it does not work, we can always make adjustments and consider alternative ideas.
    • Skarvah wrote:

      Vitos wrote:

      OK for me is done. Derrick, Syndic, Mojo, Gluttony are really poor game directors.



      my 6 friends just did same thing. keep the game and alliances as it is, GL
      do you need a goodbye? at least in my country when someone says they’re leaving, it’s very polite to say that, so I asked.
      Quick everyone take a screen shot to show the devs you're uninstalling, but intend to reinstall if the don't do what they say. Try to hold the game hostage by leaving or threatening to leave because as stated the forums don't represent the majority of the player base. BTW IF you do uninstall and 100% don't intend to come back Thanks for playing but make sure you give your stuff to someone who is gonna continue playing this GAME.
    • LordSilva wrote:

      CaptainPando wrote:

      LordSilva wrote:

      Satisfying only a few, is that it is not.There are 350,000 active accounts in the game, in the forum there should be 10,000 active and in the other topic only 1,000 voted, this for me is not the will of the majority.
      We have to know how to analyse things properly and look for alternatives and not be radical.

      tabooshka wrote:

      when 80% of players dont matter and 5 on RT do.
      Where did you see 80% of the players?
      First Reply, - > To this point there may be 350,000 active accounts, your also counting player alt accounts that they use for focus. While also including the referral clubs that are out there also.And when he says 80% its from the orginal vote they did on the forums.



      @Eltharyon Upcost on terrorties costing siphon energy wont mean anything for large guilds / alliances. Considering there are guilds that have 60,000 + Energy. along with millions in gold.


      Almost any changes that take place will make people angry... But i find it odd there are no big name alliance leaders posting their responces yet?/??
      Mister, 1200 votes are not 80% of players.
      Not sure you understand how mathematics and statistics work, but 80% is 80% no matter what, 1 billion votes or 10. 80% is 80%.

      So yeah, 80% of the players who voted, still 80%.
    • Cannot for the life of me understand how you think this is going to do anything to mega alliances and their endless banks, whatever this upkeep is 1 person could withstand the "punishment" for years on his own funds, all this means is that tax rates within the guilds will go up to cover the cost. Really no thought went into this one at all.

      On top of that horrible idea you decide that the gatherers, traders and more casual players should suffer due to the demands of the mega alliance leaders, giving them 2 options suffer or leave the alliance and wait for it.....suffer ending with the words from your opening statement "the most and would have done permanent damage to the game"

      So Ya try and win the season in exchange for normal game play for gatherers, traders and more casual players, or not try and win the season so that gatherers, traders and more casual players do not have to suffer and waste valuable time and money and expect people to pay for that suffering with a monthly premium or gold purchases. Or even worse doing this to increase the sale of your gold so that the big dogs in the mega alliances open the wallet up so they can afford to continue trying to win a season all the while not doing a damn thing to curb mega alliances.

      Congrats
    • felipe128 wrote:

      Not sure you understand how mathematics and statistics work, but 80% is 80% no matter what, 1 billion votes or 10. 80% is 80%.
      So yeah, 80% of the players who voted, still 80%.

      We did the vote to double check if there would be adequate support to try out the 300 people cap test.

      What do you think the outcome would have been if we had made the following poll?

      Question:
      Should we nerf hardcore alliances through a silver/fame debuff and expoential territory upkeeps?
      A) Yes B) No, keep things as they are.

      It's very likely that we'd have seen a similar outcome.

      Here is the thing: We are 100% committed to tackle the alliances issue.

      The problem in the debate is this: We made the mistake to suggest the 300 people cap first - without fully understanding that it would trigger a casual player purge. We then changed our view to the mechanics illustrated above later. This feels like backtracking or somehow "catering to large alliances" which is simply not the case. Catering to large alliances would be to leave thing as they are - the revised changes are still quite drastic after all.

      Look at it from a different angle: Right now, there are 0 restrictions on alliances. In the revised test is done, there is a wide ranges of restriction, and they'll have a significant impact (if they don't, we'll adjust). If you just ignore our poor communication for a seconds, objectively, it's a major step and quite a drastic change.