Adjustment to the Alliance Cap Test on February 26th

    • 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.
      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
      @Retroman, I think this adjustment should be reconsidered, the 2 day guild change cooldown already has an extremely negative effect on new players. We have many new players coming to our discord server, intent to join our alliance, who are effectively stifled for two days mechanically while they wait the cooldown from joining their last, often very bad, guild. We see a lot of players interested to join, find out about the cooldown after leaving their last guild, and quit before it expires as it is, and increasing this cooldown will only compound that problem.
      Head Diplomat for the Brave Newbie Alliance
    • Midgard wrote:

      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.
      Well, then just close the game to new players, and let the experienced players burn themselves, and pretty soon SBI goes bankrupt, as "skilled and experienced" players do not inject real money in the company.

      Plus, fairness doesn't imply in equality.
    • Gerrit wrote:

      Theat wrote:

      Most guilds/players in the game want to breakup the MEGA-ALLIANCES
      Most players want a win button, especially casual ones.
      The win-button is *join mega-alliance*.

      It's lowest-cost, highest-reward. Daily-CTAs is a small price to pay for access to all BZ and BZ-safety.

      That's what the fuss is all about. I agree with the majority and anti-elitists: make it high-cost, high-reward. Add friendly-fire to the Megas.
    • 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.
      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
      To help the new players and to help keep them in the game that we all play. Maybe have a 30 day timer on all new accounts (not chars) or even unique ips to give them access to leave and join guilds faster (no cooldown)
    • 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.
      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
      when i started this game i was sent so many spam guild invites, i turned the auto deny setting on, but a high number of newbies will join a random guild invite (its an effective recruitment strategy). the chances of that guild being a bad fit for them (or its a potato guild) are high, so this player is now on the look out for an actual guild that will suit their needs. now they have to wait three days? what if its a weekend and its the only time they can play? now its a week. it can be very frustrating for these new players talking in my guild's discord server having to tell them "nope, the timer isn't up yet, this is just how the game works."

      obviously these new players with so little fame aren't the ones fucking with the blackzone smart cluster queue, i think this really needs to be reworked for these Cross cities players.
    • @Retroman there is a large negative impact on newer players as said.

      I have seen countless new players giving up on the game getting doomed to play solo for days because of having end up on a bad guild (up to potato farm guilds as I'm sure you're aware).

      You guys really need to consider the impact of your hunting down hardcore zvz allies on the actual newer players and game's own retention rate. Do not throw them under the bus trying to hit the high level problem on the end-game balance.
    • So here is how this will not work:
      Alliance with more then 10 territory will create an alt guild with 1 member which will take the next 10 territory and once a day they will kill the mages to get the points. If you place a hideout in alt guild territory the main guild will just destroy it, if you attack the territory the main guild will defend it.
    • MrNiceGuy wrote:

      So here is how this will not work:
      Alliance with more then 10 territory will create an alt guild with 1 member which will take the next 10 territory and once a day they will kill the mages to get the points. If you place a hideout in alt guild territory the main guild will just destroy it, if you attack the territory the main guild will defend it.
      It makes sense for them to actually split the alliance into multiple groups because mechanics like the zerg debuff are getting more strict than before.
    • ReeseEdgar wrote:

      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.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
      when i started this game i was sent so many spam guild invites, i turned the auto deny setting on, but a high number of newbies will join a random guild invite (its an effective recruitment strategy). the chances of that guild being a bad fit for them (or its a potato guild) are high, so this player is now on the look out for an actual guild that will suit their needs. now they have to wait three days? what if its a weekend and its the only time they can play? now its a week. it can be very frustrating for these new players talking in my guild's discord server having to tell them "nope, the timer isn't up yet, this is just how the game works."
      obviously these new players with so little fame aren't the ones fucking with the blackzone smart cluster queue, i think this really needs to be reworked for these Cross cities players.
      They could make the guild cooldown based on PVP kill-fame.

      That would block Mega-alliance ZVZers from abusing the drop-guild drop-alliance function, and allow new players to freely join and drop (potato) guilds.
    • MrNiceGuy wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      MrNiceGuy wrote:

      once a day they will kill the mages to get the points
      While I see your point, that does assume no one else gets to them first.
      Sure there will be more loses but they still can control the area what is the real purpose of territory

      This is one reason why I'd like guilds actually using the zones to have the inside track on taking the territories. A one-alt guild won't be able to do that.
    • Guilefulwolf wrote:

      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?
      Yes, it does, because of N+1 having more players = game is easier period end of story, more silver, more resources, more players, more mats, more focus, more farms. N+1 is in every aspect of the game.

      Territories make it evident how much that power is when the good players all group together to win the season, but 1300 players not having to deal with the struggles that a solo guild has to deal with is a problem. if there is no cap, why are we not all in 1 alliance, why dont we all join 1 group then no PvP exists at all and we are all winners, wohoo, no its lame, so letting those loser group into massive playerbases making the game easier for them and harder for anyone who doesnt want to play with 1000 faceless people who they know nothing about just so they have an easier time is a MASSSSSSSIIIIIIVVVVVVEEEE problem.

      MMORPG stands for massive multiplayer online role playing game

      The massive part means there is a whole world out there, but multiplayer is the key, playing with other people and the social interaction is what matters the most in the game. above anything else players group together. - starts sounding like im for alliances lol stay with me

      The problem with alliances is they are too big. 300 people in a guild is a massive amount. if players do not know their own allies what is the point, might as well play a 1 player RPG. those people could be AI. The social aspect knowing the people you play with is what matters. anything of that scale subdues the story of MMORPGs by turning all players into NPCs




      the very first post on the alliance poll












      blappo wrote:

      The best way i can put this ... think on it

      The tribute system makes it so a guild who pays tribute to keep their hideout alive may still be backstabbed and it will be destroyed.

      The alliance system is the opposite, once a guild opts in a Tag appears with their name and they would know instantly if their guild was kicked from the alliance thus they are betrayed.
      With out the friendly fire mandated and alliances tagged next to player names, politics could become deadly. 3 guilds vs 3 guilds could easily become a 5 on 1 re-alignment of their NAP

      If you have never played the board game / net game Diplomacy please go take a look. people must play politics to win, strength is their only bargaining chip and they make alliances, but then backstab people as there is no mandate and they all want to win. In a similar fashion the NAP is not just a workaround but an opportunity for some great politics and story making. watching reset day come around and a blob turns inward to destroy an unsuspecting member of an NAP what a great catch it would be for AOTV,.

      Aside from that it means guild must keep track and spread information on who is in or out. and no 1 person is incharge of it all. It could be a round table of guild leaders or electing 1 of them to the top

      People could post to a section of albion forums created "Guild Politics" or something similar, the new pacts they have made, who they kick out ect. They could spread information or guard it greedily. Perhaps, they could spread misinformation telling people lies that their guild is working with XYZ and they are truly solo as can be.

      The story telling, and gameplay that could stem from removing the very "video gamish" mandate of not being able to kill people with friendly fire maybe shouldnt be spread to guilds... however if it did i would still test it out on the PTR it sounds fun ...


      My point is you view it as people will work around it , however those of us playing the game especially in smaller guilds, think it would be refreshing, vital to our survival, and damn it I think it would be fun as hell to watch ARCH guilds just start demolishing each other because they dont know the 100 other guilds names in their alliance.

      No matter what happens the game must be a sandbox, alliances stop the story as they do not have enough tools, and they are obviously the winning solution. even if the game went 100% friendly fire it would be better than over 1000 players not being able to hurt eachother.
    • I wonder about creating a "limited hideout"...

      * Can't be destroyed
      * Your guild can only have 1
      * Its access rights are locked to "guild" (allies and non-guildies can't use it at all)
      * Very limited storage and space

      The biggest thing making me want to join a powerful alliance is because as a small guild, investing in a Hideout just to get it get blown away one day by a zerg we have no chance of fighting is a waste of energy. We're basing out of the NPC Outlands cities for now but it would be nice to have some kind of step forward "out of the cities" without "into the zerg".

      Alternatively maybe just a few more cities or "public hideouts" with a FEW more facilities? I don't want to undermine the functionality of real hideouts but it's a big leap to go from nothing to a destroyable hideout.
    • Slamz wrote:

      I wonder about creating a "limited hideout"...

      * Can't be destroyed
      * Your guild can only have 1
      * Its access rights are locked to "guild" (allies and non-guildies can't use it at all)
      * Very limited storage and space

      The biggest thing making me want to join a powerful alliance is because as a small guild, investing in a Hideout just to get it get blown away one day by a zerg we have no chance of fighting is a waste of energy. We're basing out of the NPC Outlands cities for now but it would be nice to have some kind of step forward "out of the cities" without "into the zerg".

      Alternatively maybe just a few more cities or "public hideouts" with a FEW more facilities? I don't want to undermine the functionality of real hideouts but it's a big leap to go from nothing to a destroyable hideout.

      I very much agree that the hideout barrier to entry is far too high.
    • 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.
      yeah but in the same time you decided to punish the casual players that want to farm and get on the high level of hardcore players and made it harder for those people to do so instead of balancing the game in a way where all the hardcore long time players should have to fight each other; aka if i have 300 players with 8.3s that play reguarly in just my guild and i band together with 3-4 same type guilds then whats the point for a casual player to go into bz if all they're gonna face is someone who is richer + has more fame + has more game exp and knowledge. Youre not punishing the alliances or hardcore players just the casuals
    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      Can't believe that you Believe touching fame and silver drops and syphoned does anything..
      It does. Try playing in a competitve ZvZ guild - that cares about season points. Siphons and season points is all they care about. Fame and silver drops is just the icing on the cake - which means their weaker members (which is like 80% of ARCH) will greatly suffer and leave the huge zerg alliance if they cant effectively FF or gain silver (the silver debuff affects silver bags too - as was confirmed)

      Plus less fame = less guild challenge keys.