Adjustment to the Alliance Cap Test on February 26th

    • Korn wrote:

      Hey there,

      in some posts above, users have rightfully pointed out that large hardcore alliances can avoid the negative effects of the modified test by splitting up into separate alliances. In the same way, you can of course avoid the much harsher disarray - at the expense of being red to each other, including friendly fire.

      However, if hardcore alliances split up in order to do so, the net effect on them is the same as if we had forced a split up through a hard cap.

      A key difference here though is that a hard cap would also have forced casual alliances to split up, and that's what we did not want to happen.

      So now its ok, but it wasnt before because hardcore alliances started to purge casual players?
    • Wulfencurse wrote:

      These debuffs wont effect high spec players but will dissuade new-mid tier players from joining alliances. (Ex. "We have a15% tax along with a 30% Fame and silver debuff, come join us.")
      while this might be true, what will happen is that the "winning allies" will still keep sucking up the high spec players while the other guilds will just be used as a ladder.

      it's a vicious cycle that's hard to break. Top alliances should be given much more preoccupation (aka content) than they could ever deal with, so much that could possibly lead to chaos, losses, break ups etc.

      Maps closer to the center should be on war 24h/7d.

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

    • what dev don't understand that's atm we loose a lot of content because all medium was kick out of the BZ. For protecting mega alliance ( and not casual players like you says ) your killing the game slowly , friendly fire was one of the best way and for that you nedd to cap alliances. We can see that you don't play to your game because actual probleme it's not that BA have a lot of territories but that they bring 300 players in every fight. I don't care if they hold territories but i care if i can't even fight. And at the end you are going to punish alliance for conquer territories , in a game where the goal is the conquest of the map ... did you see the problem ?
    • scions wrote:

      in a game where the goal is the conquest of the map ... did you see the problem ?
      The goal of the game is to win the season.

      And once again, what is your problem? The fact that BA is doing whatever anyone else is doing, but better? Or what?

      The idea behind solving ''mega alliance'problem, is that you would have much easier times at finding other enemies and in the end have fun with the game far away from them... And if you would like to beat the best, well, complaining on the forum is not the way.
    • Biggest problem i have with the changes is how the Disarry debuff works. The disarry debuff needs to remain the same even after players start dieing, If a zerg enters the cluster with a 30% debuff that debuff percent should remain 30% intil they either all die or they leave that cluster, Once they switch zones/clusters then and only then should the debuff decrease, The debuff can always increase in the cluster but it should never decrease in a zone, If its a fight of say 200 vs 100, Yes the 200 players start off with a higher debuff then the 100 players but as players start dieing the 200 player debuff starts dropping and will soon be the same if not less then the 100 group debuff, This in itself is why your disarry debuff will never work inless you stop it from decreasing. Why would the 200 man group ever want to bring 100 less players when they can just let 100 players die and then be either stronger or on the same level as the group they started fighting. The disarry debuff should never decrease inless the zerg switchs clusters/zones. This would be a major improvement to your disarry debuff system!. @Korn

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

    • Throwing thoughts here.

      Maybe a good way to balance the inequality would be leveling guilds/alliances based on their power fame, so based on a guild/alliance leveling they would get a different additional debuff.

      So we have:

      Guild A - level 0 (up to 1b overall fame)
      Guild B - level 1 (from 1b to 2b fame)

      When A and B face each other in the Outlands, guild B gets an additional debuff of, let's say 3%.

      Guild C joins the fight (it's a level 0 guild) after A hipothetically smashed B, both A and C play at the same level (no debuff).

      Now let's say Guild B brings 100 men to the battlefield (they have already the zerg debuff from bringing too many) and encounters Alliance Z (which is a top level alliance, let's say level 10) with 250 men, so Z would get the zerg debuff from bringing 250 men plus an extra debuff from fighting a underleveled guild, let's say an additional 10% debuff.

      That way the fight might be a bit more power balanced.

      If two top tier Alliances/Guilds face each other the same principle would apply, only it wouldn't make much of a difference, because both would be equally debuffed.

      On another sight, zerg debuff should be revisited and changes be made to penalize big zergs, double the zerg debuff percentage. Oh, hell, triple them if necessary.
    • 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.
      It really doesn't have any affect at all. Siphoned energy is easily farmable with alt guilds. Just throw all your resources to a crafting alt and then generate the season points on the alt in an alt guild. You get 300 energy everytime your guild moves up in the season challenge. One alt with funneled resources should easily be able to generate a few thousand siphoned energy in that system. So while SBI may believe that they're creating a solution a mega alliance would probably need to reach 40, 50 or even 60 territories to begin feeling any sort of pain from siphoned energy upkeep. On top of their already lucrative silver income sources and real money gold purchases. Plus all the siphoned energy generated in-house during the season by the alliance guilds themselves. If you reach a point where new siphoned energy becomes too difficult because the season point spread is too far. You just make another guild. It's a really quite an easily manipulated system. @Eltharyon @Korn I hope you considered this in your conversations about siphoned energy.

      So I would imagine at this point in time the mega alliances are doing some reshaping to fit the new mold. Without any inside knowledge, one would assume [ARMOR] specifically is likely telling their guilds they plan to tax each guild respective to its territory holdings while expecting continued ZvZ support. If you refuse to rise to meet the new requirements you're out. So likely the richest groups with the highest current fame, that are hit least by a fame debuff, will continue holding vast quantities of wealth without much issue. Groups like Conflict have already started removing more casual players and increased their fame caps for entry to stay competitive. It was inevitable of course because to stay at the top those changes had to happen.

      Ultimately, with around 50 territories no longer held by the major alliances right now. I'd guess instead of 4 major alliances we'll see 6-7 major alliances holding everything as the test goes into effect. Which really doesn't resolve the big issues that everyone I've talked to has been concerned about so far in Queen. Maybe that result is enough of a change for SBI to feel like they resolved the issue, only time will tell. I know players won't think it's fixed but maybe SBI will....
    • glokz wrote:

      scions wrote:

      in a game where the goal is the conquest of the map ... did you see the problem ?
      The goal of the game is to win the season.
      And once again, what is your problem? The fact that BA is doing whatever anyone else is doing, but better? Or what?

      The idea behind solving ''mega alliance'problem, is that you would have much easier times at finding other enemies and in the end have fun with the game far away from them... And if you would like to beat the best, well, complaining on the forum is not the way.
      Problem is that fighting mega guilds/alliances or whatsoever is not even close to a fair fight.

      Even if you bring 100 men, they will just keep pushing double or triple the numbers, plus most of players in those have fully mastered the knowledge tree, so it's far from being a fair battle.
    • I think the territory upkeep needs to be a lot higher. For example up to 5 zones nothing then double the upkeep for every 5 territories in the alliance. Have half the upkeep come out of the Alliances owners guild and the other half from the territories owners guild.
      This way the MAIN guild has a reason to limit what others in their alliance are doing.
      <----------> Virtue tries harder things. <---------->
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      in my opinion ALBION ONLINE will dead if you update this SHIT . im pretty sure you will lose Player . why people play this game , because is they LOVE PVPING with BIG ZERG (sometimes we lose sometimes we win) .
      IF SBI WANNA MAKE EVERYBODY next time GO MAKE GATHERING GAME . NOT PVP GAME .








      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.
    • felipe128 wrote:

      Problem is that fighting mega guilds/alliances or whatsoever is not even close to a fair fight.
      "Fair" isnt something to be aspiring to. Fair is what the snowflake liberals make school sports days these days to ensure everyone wins.

      Competitive is what we should be aiming for, but organisation and hard work should give an advantage as should skill and experience. The only 'advantage' that should be addressed and levelled out is the n+1, which the devs have acknowledged and have said they want to tackle.
      Midgard
      T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
      T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
      T8 Bags & Capes Crafter

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

    • glokz wrote:

      scions wrote:

      in a game where the goal is the conquest of the map ... did you see the problem ?
      The goal of the game is to win the season.
      And once again, what is your problem? The fact that BA is doing whatever anyone else is doing, but better? Or what?

      The idea behind solving ''mega alliance'problem, is that you would have much easier times at finding other enemies and in the end have fun with the game far away from them... And if you would like to beat the best, well, complaining on the forum is not the way.
      BA is better and i don't have any problem with that, i have a problem when they brings 2x, 3x our number because they have 15 guilds in alliances, the actual alliance systeme don't have any sense, it's ok when you have 3-4 guilds in but more it's stupid and make the actual problem. What you don't see it's atm we less and less content because a majority of the game's guild was kick out of the BZ because they crush by 500 Squak.

      If you want to see the game die because the players base leave the game, why not.
      Even in big alliances a lot of player find the game boring because it's only 300+ zvz fight where you lag , you have low fps ...
      ZvZ is very fun when you have fair fight not when you just win because you lock the map
    • Eltharyon wrote:


      Introduce a Cooldown of 7 3 days to re-joining the same guild after leaving your current guild to prevent guild-drop exploitation of Disarray.
      In case you wonder, we changed this from 7 to 3 days for technical reasons.

      Simply because we will store the last guild a character left and apply a cooldown on rejoining this guild.

      If the guild rejoin cooldown would be higher than the guild change cooldown, the rejoin cooldown could be circumvented by the following exploit:

      1. I leave Guild A (now I get a a rejoin cooldown of the initially announced 7 days)
      2. Now I hoin Guild B (Where I get the cooldown to change my guild currently 2 days)
      3. After these 2 days I leave Guild B (my last joined guild is now Guild B)
      4. Now I could rejoin Guild A again.


      To prevent this behavior we will have the guild change and the guild rejoin cooldown on the same value: 3 days

      Cheers,
      Retro
    • Korn wrote:

      Hey there,

      in some posts above, users have rightfully pointed out that large hardcore alliances can avoid the negative effects of the modified test by splitting up into separate alliances. In the same way, you can of course avoid the much harsher disarray - at the expense of being red to each other, including friendly fire.

      However, if hardcore alliances split up in order to do so, the net effect on them is the same as if we had forced a split up through a hard cap.

      A key difference here though is that a hard cap would also have forced casual alliances to split up, and that's what we did not want to happen.
      Casuals can take a hike.

      Most guilds/players in the game want to breakup the MEGA-ALLIANCES.

      In order to do so, you need to cap it (900) and introduce friendly-fire to the end-game ZVZs.


      Let the mega-alliances LEECHES pay a real price for their center-map meal tickets.

      In the long run, everybody will be happy. And the mega-alliance leeches will be forced out, away, into new alliances of their own, etc.

      Lastly, they will be forced to actually EARN their place in BZ by fighting for it, like the rest of us do.
    • ArthurV wrote:

      This is the first time I am actually scared this game can go on a Iatus soon (a few months).

      I really cant understand how can you guys propose something that the community asked on your own poll, make it a future IMPORTANT change that people start being hyped about (people coming back to the game, guilds reorganizing etc.) and then GO BACK ON YOUR OWN DECISIONS and do what?
      Change nothing and make people mad?

      No, make a worse change and make people even more mad than before, now you cannot own more than 10 terries or you start getting punshed for it.
      Conquer the map, but not too much of it, leave some terries to the other guilds, is this the definition of a sandbox?


      I fear you guys are going to the wrong direction and I fear soon your mistakes will add up so much that your player base will get very tiny.

      I also hope Im wrong about that.
      This!

      This is the worst part, so many people were STOKED for alliance limits, people left and right where wanting to come back and see the game from a bunch of different smaller theaters. It was so close to be so fucking good.
    • One shoe won't fit everyone no matter how many times you resize it. The game needs more diverse systems for making your mark in the outlands. Every system we have right now for planting a flag in the outlands is based on open world zvz. Let most zones continue to have a territory controlled by big zvz, but throw in 5v5 and 20v20 control systems as well. Make hideout destruction involve both zvz and 5v5 phases.
    • Retroman wrote:

      Eltharyon wrote:

      Introduce a Cooldown of 7 3 days to re-joining the same guild after leaving your current guild to prevent guild-drop exploitation of Disarray.
      In case you wonder, we changed this from 7 to 3 days for technical reasons.
      Cheers,
      Retro
      @Retroman Is that also why the Rageclaw isn't a skin yet? It has an ability, but it's not unique. There's the Panther, Terrorbird, Husky etc. The Rageclaw is effectively useless, collecting dust in people's chests.