Adjustment to the Alliance Cap Test on February 26th

    • Wulfencurse wrote:

      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.
      Almost reminds me of the Mega alliance leaders response to the previous idea on limiting alliances, only now they are silent? Why because they went kicking n screaming and crying, had a round table and came up with these "compromises" which they know does not change a single damn thing
    • Korn wrote:

      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.

      Yeah this is what people here don't understand, everyone who was not a dedicated ZvZ player would be purged from guilds that have territories and/or a good located hideout, it would increase the problem where people are more excluded from content than before just because they are not doing enough ZvZ.

      It's not catering to big allies, it's understanding this causes a large impact on every guild that has any ambition on the game that until this point would allow newer players or non-dedicated ZvZers, would be pressured with the 300 cap to replace them for ZvZers only.

      People are on this blind hate for the alliance system that they refuse to see the full impact of such a strict cap.

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

    • Korn wrote:

      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. One the revised test is done, there is a wide ranges of restrictions and changes, and they'll have a significant impact. If you just ignore our poor communication for a seconds, objectively, it's a major step and quite a drastic change.
      Hi you seem like a very intelligent guy and very open to discourse, I would really like if you read my post just up a couple spots from here. It outlines a very good and almost inevitable outcome from the changes you have listed.

      I would also like you to take notice that your everyday player is in here and quite unhappy with this change and not some limitations, while your mega alliance leaders are seem to be silent on this matter, almost seems as though this is the deal you worked out with them in order to keep them happy. I get at the end of the day you need to make money but the long term damage you are doing will at some point rear its nasty head, Star War Galaxies had a large flourishing player base and overnight it disappeared due to just a few really bad decisions.

      This is just outside eyes looking in, this is what many many people see that is somehow being overlooked weather it is intentional or not is really the only question.
    • TheBacon wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      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.
      Yeah this is what people here don't understand, everyone who was not a dedicated ZvZ player would be purged from guilds that have territories and/or a good located hideout, it would increase the problem where people are more excluded from content than before just because they are not doing enough ZvZ.

      It's not catering to big allies, it's understanding this causes a large impact on every guild that has any ambition on the game that until this point would allow newer players or non-dedicated ZvZers, would be pressured with the 300 cap to replace them for ZvZers only.
      Or, and just try and stay with me here. It would have created the opportunity for even more content spread about more of the out lands
      When 1 door closes many open and now that opportunity has gone with nobody knowing what the true outcome may have been.

      People getting purged simply means that those people band together and form more guilds and alliances, it is not like the sky is falling if they are not allowed to cup nuts with 2000 people
    • Korn wrote:

      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.
      Korn, I think you're missing out the point here.

      What is the real effect of fame debuff on a mega player in a mega guild in a mega alliance that has mastered all knowledge tree? None, zero, nada, caput.

      What is the actual effect of silver debuff on a mega player in a mega guild in a mega alliance that own billions of silver and thousands of gold? Again, none, zero, nada, caput.

      What is the effect of debuffing siphoned energy on a mega guild in a mega alliance that owns thousands of siphoned energy? None, zero, nada, caput.

      Your suggested debuff will only affect players who haven't mastered all knowledge tree. And come on, anyone playing the game for two weeks know that you can't make wealth out of mobs drops.
    • Xezqez wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      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.
      Yeah this is what people here don't understand, everyone who was not a dedicated ZvZ player would be purged from guilds that have territories and/or a good located hideout, it would increase the problem where people are more excluded from content than before just because they are not doing enough ZvZ.
      It's not catering to big allies, it's understanding this causes a large impact on every guild that has any ambition on the game that until this point would allow newer players or non-dedicated ZvZers, would be pressured with the 300 cap to replace them for ZvZers only.
      Or, and just try and stay with me here. It would have created the opportunity for even more content spread about more of the out landsWhen 1 door closes many open and now that opportunity has gone with nobody knowing what the true outcome may have been.

      People getting purged simply means that those people band together and form more guilds and alliances, it is not like the sky is falling if they are not allowed to cup nuts with 2000 people
      No it would not.

      The big allies what you can the ones monopolizing right now already had proper plans to keep doing what they do now, under a coalition tag, if anything truly changes would be how easy it would be for them to destroy anyone else in their path because they already excel on coordination and organization that any more casual group is far from having to properly counter.

      This is exactly why people getting purged from the groups that would be ever able to own terris or good hideouts would be excluded from the content entirely. The "2000 people" alliance would simply become the "2000 people coalition", something that ALREADY happens as several guilds and allies do hold hands to attack same targets without attacking each other. The end result is not more content, and not more guilds owning territories.

      People who played EvE online enough know the power of hand holding, EvE didn't need an alliance mechanic to be insanely monopolized, neither does Albion, alliances are actually helping the less hardcore and casual groups to achieve something as they can retain enough ZvZ players from a larger yet casual and not fully dedicated to zvz group to focus those resources on getting their own place in the outlands, and several have achieved that, such proposed initial cap would outright destroy groups like that and any chance they could ever have without indeed, purging their guild members.
    • TheBacon wrote:

      Xezqez wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      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.
      Yeah this is what people here don't understand, everyone who was not a dedicated ZvZ player would be purged from guilds that have territories and/or a good located hideout, it would increase the problem where people are more excluded from content than before just because they are not doing enough ZvZ.It's not catering to big allies, it's understanding this causes a large impact on every guild that has any ambition on the game that until this point would allow newer players or non-dedicated ZvZers, would be pressured with the 300 cap to replace them for ZvZers only.
      Or, and just try and stay with me here. It would have created the opportunity for even more content spread about more of the out landsWhen 1 door closes many open and now that opportunity has gone with nobody knowing what the true outcome may have been.
      People getting purged simply means that those people band together and form more guilds and alliances, it is not like the sky is falling if they are not allowed to cup nuts with 2000 people
      No it would not.
      The big allies what you can the ones monopolizing right now already had proper plans to keep doing what they do now, under a coalition tag, if anything truly changes would be how easy it would be for them to destroy anyone else in their path because they already excel on coordination and organization that any more casual group is far from having to properly counter.

      This is exactly why people getting purged from the groups that would be ever able to own terris or good hideouts would be excluded from the content entirely. The "2000 people" alliance would simply become the "2000 people coalition", something that ALREADY happens as several guilds and allies do hold hands to attack same targets without attacking each other. The end result is not more content, and not more guilds owning territories.

      People who played EvE online enough know the power of hand holding, EvE didn't need an alliance mechanic to be insanely monopolized, neither does Albion, alliances are actually helping the less hardcore and casual groups to achieve something as they can retain enough ZvZ players from a larger yet casual and not fully dedicated to zvz group to focus those resources on getting their own place in the outlands, and several have achieved that, such proposed initial cap would outright destroy groups like that and any chance they could ever have without indeed, purging their guild members.
      And who said coalitions won't happen either way?
    • TheBacon wrote:

      Xezqez wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      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.
      Yeah this is what people here don't understand, everyone who was not a dedicated ZvZ player would be purged from guilds that have territories and/or a good located hideout, it would increase the problem where people are more excluded from content than before just because they are not doing enough ZvZ.It's not catering to big allies, it's understanding this causes a large impact on every guild that has any ambition on the game that until this point would allow newer players or non-dedicated ZvZers, would be pressured with the 300 cap to replace them for ZvZers only.
      Or, and just try and stay with me here. It would have created the opportunity for even more content spread about more of the out landsWhen 1 door closes many open and now that opportunity has gone with nobody knowing what the true outcome may have been.
      People getting purged simply means that those people band together and form more guilds and alliances, it is not like the sky is falling if they are not allowed to cup nuts with 2000 people
      No it would not.
      The big allies what you can the ones monopolizing right now already had proper plans to keep doing what they do now, under a coalition tag, if anything truly changes would be how easy it would be for them to destroy anyone else in their path because they already excel on coordination and organization that any more casual group is far from having to properly counter.

      This is exactly why people getting purged from the groups that would be ever able to own terris or good hideouts would be excluded from the content entirely. The "2000 people" alliance would simply become the "2000 people coalition", something that ALREADY happens as several guilds and allies do hold hands to attack same targets without attacking each other. The end result is not more content, and not more guilds owning territories.

      People who played EvE online enough know the power of hand holding, EvE didn't need an alliance mechanic to be insanely monopolized, neither does Albion, alliances are actually helping the less hardcore and casual groups to achieve something as they can retain enough ZvZ players from a larger yet casual and not fully dedicated to zvz group to focus those resources on getting their own place in the outlands, and several have achieved that, such proposed initial cap would outright destroy groups like that and any chance they could ever have without indeed, purging their guild members.
      You think those coordinated guild don't make mistakes? how many time causing a zone lockout or ff killing off one of the leaders or whatever clusterfuck happens cause we all know shit happens before Mojo or Derrick (the calm n wise) blows up and boots one or more of those coordinated allies. I get what you are saying and you saying it would be the same result is just pure ignorance because when you create an opportunity for chaos then inevitably chaos will ensue.
      The changes that have now stepped up damn sure do absolutely nothing to weaken the giant power bases like not even a little, it will def flow down to the casuals and those helpless souls that you called out that are incapable of finding a different route to content cause as I stated earlier in a post you can bet the leaders will let the shit flow down hill and raise the tax levels and or require more mandatory cta content in order to make up for the costs
    • felipe128 wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      Xezqez wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      Yeah this is what people here don't understand, everyone who was not a dedicated ZvZ player would be purged from guilds that have territories and/or a good located hideout, it would increase the problem where people are more excluded from content than before just because they are not doing enough ZvZ.It's not catering to big allies, it's understanding this causes a large impact on every guild that has any ambition on the game that until this point would allow newer players or non-dedicated ZvZers, would be pressured with the 300 cap to replace them for ZvZers only.
      Or, and just try and stay with me here. It would have created the opportunity for even more content spread about more of the out landsWhen 1 door closes many open and now that opportunity has gone with nobody knowing what the true outcome may have been.People getting purged simply means that those people band together and form more guilds and alliances, it is not like the sky is falling if they are not allowed to cup nuts with 2000 people
      No it would not.The big allies what you can the ones monopolizing right now already had proper plans to keep doing what they do now, under a coalition tag, if anything truly changes would be how easy it would be for them to destroy anyone else in their path because they already excel on coordination and organization that any more casual group is far from having to properly counter.

      This is exactly why people getting purged from the groups that would be ever able to own terris or good hideouts would be excluded from the content entirely. The "2000 people" alliance would simply become the "2000 people coalition", something that ALREADY happens as several guilds and allies do hold hands to attack same targets without attacking each other. The end result is not more content, and not more guilds owning territories.

      People who played EvE online enough know the power of hand holding, EvE didn't need an alliance mechanic to be insanely monopolized, neither does Albion, alliances are actually helping the less hardcore and casual groups to achieve something as they can retain enough ZvZ players from a larger yet casual and not fully dedicated to zvz group to focus those resources on getting their own place in the outlands, and several have achieved that, such proposed initial cap would outright destroy groups like that and any chance they could ever have without indeed, purging their guild members.
      And who said coalitions won't happen either way?
      They will happen either way, the point here is that casual normal player groups should not be thrown under the bus to try to hit the big boy zvz groups, this changes for example hit only the big boy zvz groups and this is the direction that needs to be followed so they still get harder time coordinating as they'll need multiple alliances to keep the same number of territories on a realistic way, meanwhile casual large groups that are not part of the problem continue to stand a chance retaining ZvZers from their own player pool that is not ZvZ-driven (unlike the current monopoly allies)


      Xezqez wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      No it would not.The big allies what you can the ones monopolizing right now already had proper plans to keep doing what they do now, under a coalition tag, if anything truly changes would be how easy it would be for them to destroy anyone else in their path because they already excel on coordination and organization that any more casual group is far from having to properly counter.

      This is exactly why people getting purged from the groups that would be ever able to own terris or good hideouts would be excluded from the content entirely. The "2000 people" alliance would simply become the "2000 people coalition", something that ALREADY happens as several guilds and allies do hold hands to attack same targets without attacking each other. The end result is not more content, and not more guilds owning territories.

      People who played EvE online enough know the power of hand holding, EvE didn't need an alliance mechanic to be insanely monopolized, neither does Albion, alliances are actually helping the less hardcore and casual groups to achieve something as they can retain enough ZvZ players from a larger yet casual and not fully dedicated to zvz group to focus those resources on getting their own place in the outlands, and several have achieved that, such proposed initial cap would outright destroy groups like that and any chance they could ever have without indeed, purging their guild members.
      You think those coordinated guild don't make mistakes? how many time causing a zone lockout or ff killing off one of the leaders or whatever clusterfuck happens cause we all know shit happens before Mojo or Derrick (the calm n wise) blows up and boots one or more of those coordinated allies. I get what you are saying and you saying it would be the same result is just pure ignorance because when you create an opportunity for chaos then inevitably chaos will ensue.The changes that have now stepped up damn sure do absolutely nothing to weaken the giant power bases like not even a little, it will def flow down to the casuals and those helpless souls that you called out that are incapable of finding a different route to content cause as I stated earlier in a post you can bet the leaders will let the shit flow down hill and raise the tax levels and or require more mandatory cta content in order to make up for the costs
      They will make mistakes sure, but the only thing that will happen is one coalition is traded for another coalition because X an Y hate each other, Albion has been like this for a long time, you see multiple guilds and groups but in the background 80% of this is all defined by politics, aka hand holding.

      Thing is: Holding hands is extremely profitable. It will ALWAYS happen as there is only motivation to do so, both on how much silver can you hoard AND the fact if you do you have a strong military power against any enemy, it's a matter of time until someone does it and the only way to counter their coordination is coordinate yourself, hence why there is so much hand-holding right now, there may be multiple powerblocks owning terris but the whole outlands in a nutshell is pretty much 2-sides.

      They will weak the big power blocks on the aspect they will have to still coordinate more to achieve the same result, the difference between THIS approach and the initial approach like I said, is that it leaves the more community normal and casual player larger groups alone, as they are not part of the problem they shouldn't be pressured into "go full zvz guild if you want a terri or die" because the way it is, is healthy for such groups, it's the zvz powerblocks that need tackling, the game must make them not want all the terris yet have a strategic focus to pushes them to inner circle, as Queen's design intended.
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      It will begin to apply when an alliance holds more than 10 territories (excluding Castles and Castle Outposts)
      Why exactly does none of this touch castles or outposts?

      These same big alliances use t4 blobs to take outposts, not castles, outposts. Those were meant to be small scale when u announced them.

      so not upkeep perhaps but there should be something to stop them from rolling every outpost and castle, aanndd having 31 territories.
    • I think the siphoned energy attrition on x amount of territories is good step in the right direction, and any clarification and iteration on the queue system is welcome. However the 300 man guild against guild no alliances would be better for the game in the long run and line up with the Everybody Matters trailer from 2016. The small scale fights would be great, it would enable small groups to compete and allow big groups who have top notch organization to really strut their stuff. I'd even be down for alliances remaining in the game so the internet emperors of our community could build their realms if there was friendly fire on everyone outside of your guild and party - to change up the death-balling on one map, spread the fighting out across multiple, and introduce zerg tactics beyond having one group 100 man group engage an enemy as a meatshield and blow cooldowns, while two or three 20 mans just flank a typically outnumbered opponent. I'd actually like to see the alliance system replaced by something similar to EvE's Diplomatic Standing system - So guild members would know without having to be told who they are not supposed to kill.
      The 2/26 drop date of this patch sounds a little ambitious, best of luck to the devs on that one.
    • Taxing billionaire alliances and screwing the market in the process (like every major update): Check
      Meaningless fame and silver debuff to High End ZvZ alliances: Check
      Zerg debuff that can be avoided via NAPs: Check
      Not banning the people who abused an exploit: Check

      SQUAD 2, POE 2, ARCH 2/3/4/5/6 , 1942: Pending.

      300 Alliance cap: Cancelled


      Claps SBI Claps.