Adjustment to the Alliance Cap Test on February 26th

    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      Sad story
      lets just see how this plays out. This is not a bad change actually. Increased upkeep is how every other RTS or MMO type game works. So this actually makes a lot of sense.

      But again - this change is better then nothing and better then just capping at 300 (its same as capping at 300+ other restrictions)
    • Malicious wrote:

      It's funny how a lot of ppl in this thread focus on the fame/silver debuffs and completely ignore the increased siphoned energy upkeep which basically forces alliances (mega alliances) with over X amount of terries to split up which would have the same effect as an alliance cap and it would introduce a much needed siphoned energy dump.
      Does it? Does it really? or does it mean as I said before that more required content, now mage raiding will be required so they can make up for it, taxes increasing I mean I don't see how it is that I am the only one that can see this. It is obvious, last guild I was in increased requirements to 500k pvp fame a week or kick, make any mistakes instant kick. They take this shit super serious and will find ways (so easily) around these weak changes.
    • Captainrussia wrote:

      Hollywoodi wrote:

      Sad story
      lets just see how this plays out. This is not a bad change actually. Increased upkeep is how every other RTS or MMO type game works. So this actually makes a lot of sense.
      But again - this change is better then nothing and better then just capping at 300 (its same as capping at 300+ other restrictions)
      Not when they are competing for season points and that is a major way of getting those points
    • That's useless. High end people only login to CTA's than logout after, so that change will only affect newer people.
      You can also build an alt to play on the huge alliance, cause for us what matters are the battles.

      Disarray improvements are ok, but if u wanna fix mega alliances I hope that's the wrong way. Just listen to the 80%.
    • I dont like the idea of punishing people just because of being part of a big alliance since being big is not the real problem but the hyper expansion ability.

      I will put ARCH alliance as an example to explain this. Regardless of what many people may think about them, they r the perfect example of a huge alliance without a big expansion power. The last time i checked alliances´ amount of territories, ARCH had 40-45 and even if it could look as a lot u can notice it really is not that much since that alliance is made by 40-45 guilds. It mean in average all of those guilds control one territory each or less which i think is totally fair.

      There r other ways to stop the ability to control so many territories at once by a single guild/alliance like making all clusters claimable at the begin of their prime times by any guild without need of a previous attack declaration 20+ hours before. This way every guild would be forced to split every day to channel every tower of the clusters they control in order to keep them until the next day.

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

    • Guilefulwolf wrote:

      I dont like the idea of punishing people just because of being part of a big alliance since being big is not the real problem
      what? yes it is.

      Reguardless of territories and season points big is the problem.

      Territories and points are just Points of Interest nothing more. they create tension = fights

      The problem is size. because there is no cap the way to win is N+1 having more people means you win.



      No Dissarray buff will stop that either, because as you kill players their debuff goes down, your team expends X resource to kill enough to then have an even fight, then you must spend X' resources to win. Meaning it is more costly for the little guy no matter what debuff they change it to.

      The only way the debuff will work is if they made it global simply having X players online means all zones have X% debuff to what ever stats. Then if players die it doesnt change the debuff.
    • One last recommendation @Korn

      You and your team would really be more helpful if you take more time for play your own game

      Can't believe that you Believe touching fame and silver drops and syphoned does anything..

      Again dev resources on something that does not the required result while you had the obvious everyone tells u again on the plate that is easy . .

      And the guilds already disbanded and moved, it is after the fact

      If there was damage with purges it is already done only issue is.. now u are not getting the benefit..

      And you have heavily if not irreversible touched your credibility..

      Do you have any doubts this will be what the people will carry to steam and all the other game portals??

      This will be the reputation of Albion, a RT behind the curtain backtrack..

      Alas, that is the blackest day right after removal of GvG..

      At least my personal view
    • This is a much better approach to the power-bloc issue the game is facing, and I'm glad the dev team is pivoting away from what would have very likely been a catastrophic change.

      That being said, I believe the proposed tuning is not nearly harsh enough in either territory count before upkeep costs or % reduced fame/silver. If the devs can flip on the cap, I have faith that the numbers can be adjusted until a healthy balance of limited power without stifling conflict is achieved. I especially like the fame and silver penalty as it puts the agency of decision into the hands of the individual to decide whether the penalty is "worth" the luxuries being in a large territory holding alliance holds.

      From a domestic standpoint within my alliance, the new direction in this change allows us to continue to on-board and train hundreds of new players each month, without needing to circumvent needlessly restrictive and frustrating mechanical limits just to sustain our casual, no-obligation environment.
      Head Diplomat for the Brave Newbie Alliance
    • UNFM wrote:

      Dear friend, I play in martlock so long time.. and I know how it looks, tp area camped almost 24/7 by 20+ archs, every try doing some fun with small scale pvp ending with arch CTA and zerging. Noone can challenge them and make any conflict overall there are only arch members.
      Why 8k players in ARCH should matter less than several players in small guilds?

      It's not that difficult to change home city and portal.
    • TheEmeraldKnight wrote:

      It is not a WOULD purge casuals it DID purge casuals within a day of your announcment casuals were asking to join a casual guild as they had be kicked as they can only do a couple of hours a night. [...]
      This is exactly correct. It has been a much busier than average time in our recruitment channel since the previous test announcement.
      Head Diplomat for the Brave Newbie Alliance
    • 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.
      u wanna know a secret? people are still getting purged so task failed succesfully? i guess
    • blappo wrote:

      Guilefulwolf wrote:

      I dont like the idea of punishing people just because of being part of a big alliance since being big is not the real problem
      what? yes it is.
      Reguardless of territories and season points big is the problem.

      Territories and points are just Points of Interest nothing more. they create tension = fights

      The problem is size. because there is no cap the way to win is N+1 having more people means you win.



      No Dissarray buff will stop that either, because as you kill players their debuff goes down, your team expends X resource to kill enough to then have an even fight, then you must spend X' resources to win. Meaning it is more costly for the little guy no matter what debuff they change it to.

      The only way the debuff will work is if they made it global simply having X players online means all zones have X% debuff to what ever stats. Then if players die it doesnt change the debuff.
      If there is an alliance with more than 1300 members that only controls 1-2 cluster, do u really think that alliance is a problem for the game? For me it clearly is not.

      I agree that zerg debuff should work somehow to keep the debuff bonus for the whole fight until its end and not decrease if the sizes of the zergs drop down.