Adjustment to the Alliance Cap Test on February 26th

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Risk vs Reward...is there no risk in being part of an alliance? Is there no oppurtunity for skullduggery ?
      Fom what i have seen theres more drama created by the developer then there is by players in this sandbox game.
      Need game mechanics to create these dramas within an alliance....the risk should always be trusting the other guilds in the alliance and the ability to turn on the alliance and reap massive rewards should be there.
      Its obvious alliances are rewarding but sounds like all you got to negate this is a tax? Surely there are better ideas then this.
      Tax is not a risk......
    • Owning a territory gives a guild/alliance access to resources worth hundreds of millions of silver. By owning 50-90 territories these mega alliances have access to billions of silver...every day. That level of wealth has already tipped the scales so far in the favor of these alliances that the rest of the player base simply has no option but to join them, or fight a loosing battle against a foe that can outspend them a thousand times over.

      The 4 top alliances have broken the game for the rest of us, and now the developers have to scramble to fix it. My suggestion, be swift and do not hold back. Half measures will merely cause more of the player base to get bored with the game and bleed off. If you allow the 4 mega alliances to game the system for another month, they will own the entire outlands and 3% of the player base will control the economy of the game.

      My suggestions, 1) cap alliances numbers (900 sounds good). 2) Limit guild territory control to 7 with sever costs if they go above it. (they own billions, so don't think small!!!) 3) Enable friendly fire to reduce effectiveness of NAP's. 4) Reduce number of hideouts per guild to 2. 5) Increase the cost of attacking a hideout...attacking them should be strategic, not a daily CTA activity. 6) Increase the point values for the higher Territory control so the elite guilds get their precious season points while owning fewer.

      Be decisive and don't hold back!

      Good Luck Devs, I'm rooting for you!!!
    • glokz wrote:

      GluttonySDS wrote:

      every change to alliances has hurt arch and not hurt squad/poe
      Example please? So far the only change to alliances is season points split,That does not hurt alliances, that hurts AC

      You don't understand that model of your alliance ruins the nature of the hardcore mmorpg game, but I don't expect you to see that from where you sit,
      Well he is not really wrong.

      SQUAD / POE will easily enough work-around these changes to keep doing what they are doing, now alliances like ARCH get the worst of it, because ARCH is a more open group and less coordinated than the hardcore zvz allies mentioned (that will split into multiple groups anyway).

      The model of POE, SQUAD and 1941 is what ruins the game, alliances made of a few big hardcore ZvZ groups that control most of the map. ARCH is actually a huge group of many guilds that owns their corner of the map, in fact they give much more people who are not dedicated zvz players access to the Outlands.


      On mechanics like the zerg debuff, it's groups like ARCH that take the worst of it, because the top zvz allies high spec and well geared zergs focus on squeezing the most efficiency as possible out of numbers. So you kinda can see who has been getting the biggest hit is not who owns most of the outlands currently.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by TheBacon ().

    • glokz wrote:

      GluttonySDS wrote:

      every change to alliances has hurt arch and not hurt squad/poe
      Example please? So far the only change to alliances is season points split,That does not hurt alliances, that hurts AC

      You don't understand that model of your alliance ruins the nature of the hardcore mmorpg game, but I don't expect you to see that from where you sit,
      excatly, arch turn pvp game into npvp.
      @GluttonySDS
      #gogo10k
    • MarauderShields wrote:

      Owning a territory gives a guild/alliance access to resources worth hundreds of millions of silver. By owning 50-90 territories these mega alliances have access to billions of silver...every day. That level of wealth has already tipped the scales so far in the favor of these alliances that the rest of the player base simply has no option but to join them, or fight a loosing battle against a foe that can outspend them a thousand times over.

      The 4 top alliances have broken the game for the rest of us, and now the developers have to scramble to fix it. My suggestion, be swift and do not hold back. Half measures will merely cause more of the player base to get bored with the game and bleed off. If you allow the 4 mega alliances to game the system for another month, they will own the entire outlands and 3% of the player base will control the economy of the game.

      My suggestions, 1) cap alliances numbers (900 sounds good). 2) Limit guild territory control to 7 with sever costs if they go above it. (they own billions, so don't think small!!!) 3) Enable friendly fire to reduce effectiveness of NAP's. 4) Reduce number of hideouts per guild to 2. 5) Increase the cost of attacking a hideout...attacking them should be strategic, not a daily CTA activity. 6) Increase the point values for the higher Territory control so the elite guilds get their precious season points while owning fewer.

      Be decisive and don't hold back!

      Good Luck Devs, I'm rooting for you!!!
      Take a ride through a post queen territory some time. They aren't a source of resource wealth anymore because they just don't have nodes in the same way. If you get lucky, a single node might be within the border in an area that doesn't even have guards. A max leveled, fully defended, inner ring territory generates maybe 2.5 mil worth of siphoned energy. Rates drop off fast if you can't meet all 3 qualifiers.
    • GluttonySDS wrote:

      fillrup wrote:

      I think this change should be considered -- lets see what we can do to limit Arch.

      I somehow doubt it will effect other alliances as they will simply subdivide. Can arch subdivide? sure but they are so large, friendly fire will be more of a problem.
      every change to alliances has hurt arch and not hurt squad/poe
      I am not arch, but yes I have noticed there is a bias.
    • TheBacon wrote:

      ARCH is actually a huge group of many guilds that owns their corner of the map, in fact they give much more people who are not dedicated zvz players access to the Outlands.
      I actually think an alliance like ARCH will be better off for it, albeit maybe not in the way they wanted.

      There really shouldn't be just 1 giant alliance like ARCH. There should be several smaller ones, ideally with a treaty between them that only extends to "don't attack each other's territories or hideouts".

      The aim would be to give people a home in the Outlands but also give them plenty of people to fight. ARCH A gives them a home and allows them to farm and dungeon run while having open world fights with ARCH B-F. In an emergency, they can still potentially work together but the goal should be more of a loose confederation where PvP between the different branches is not only allowed but encouraged. At least, that's how I'd do it, because it would be a good balance of safe vs exciting.
    • Slamz wrote:

      TheBacon wrote:

      ARCH is actually a huge group of many guilds that owns their corner of the map, in fact they give much more people who are not dedicated zvz players access to the Outlands.
      I actually think an alliance like ARCH will be better off for it, albeit maybe not in the way they wanted.
      There really shouldn't be just 1 giant alliance like ARCH. There should be several smaller ones, ideally with a treaty between them that only extends to "don't attack each other's territories or hideouts".

      The aim would be to give people a home in the Outlands but also give them plenty of people to fight. ARCH A gives them a home and allows them to farm and dungeon run while having open world fights with ARCH B-F. In an emergency, they can still potentially work together but the goal should be more of a loose confederation where PvP between the different branches is not only allowed but encouraged. At least, that's how I'd do it, because it would be a good balance of safe vs exciting.
      right, we need much more overall conflict.
      guilty is not new players but alliances leaders, they take everything just for numbers.
    • SirusX715 wrote:

      Take a ride through a post queen territory some time. They aren't a source of resource wealth anymore because they just don't have nodes in the same way. If you get lucky, a single node might be within the border in an area that doesn't even have guards. A max leveled, fully defended, inner ring territory generates maybe 2.5 mil worth of siphoned energy. Rates drop off fast if you can't meet all 3 qualifiers.
      Looking over my previous post it appears i wasn't specific enough with my terminology. I agree, owning a territory and farming within its boarders does not guarantee vast wealth anymore. However, that is not what is happening in these massive 50-90 territory regions controlled by these mega alliances. In these regions they control all of the resources in each of the zones, not just the territory. The ability to safely gather all of the resources in the zone means their members can turn a huge profit, even in a T5 zone. They also have the ability to run solo and group dungeons with little fear of being dove, which gives then even more access to wealth.

      So you are correct, owning the territory isn't the real source of the fortune, its the ability to project power from it over the surrounding zone and to lock down the resources for members to strip mine. Doing this in small clusters doesn't upset the game dynamics, but doing it on a massive scale, like we are currently witnessing, is ruining the game.
    • SirusX715 wrote:

      Its the hideouts that matter for controlling whole zones the way you describe. The territories do little for that purpose. You can buff the zone by winning cgvg in the territory, but that benifits enemies just as much as you if you can't keep red gatherers pushes out.
      Yes this may be true, But terri's give the hideout all the power, Control the terri you control the hideouts in the whole zone.
    • LoganSilkCheeks wrote:

      so punish the guild that cant get same amount of 8.3s in their guild so they compensate with numbers rather than punishing hardcore guilds that just hold hands
      I'm still waiting to hear the idea that can totally prevent that.

      It seems to come down to the fact that FFA-style (EVE/Albion) is really just "player created factions". In the end, you have a relatively small number of player-created factions ("alliances") fighting each other with most players joining one of those large factions.

      The other side of the coin is to actually look for ways to encourage this to occur in a more balanced way. What we don't want is one gigantic faction that crushes the game under its own weight because everyone just joins "the winning team" until there's no one left to fight. Helping players identify and join alternatives (and coming up with reasons why they should want to do so) may be the better challenge than going against human nature by trying to stop them.
    • Trial_hard wrote:

      Drift wrote:

      I'll sit patiently and wait for this to fail for all the reasons stated and watch you back peddle and implement an alliance cap as previously announced.
      don't we not all do it...except the megas who try to let it look like it works which we all know except some .... not gonna work?
      Did you see the last shield fight for the Final Order hideout? Squak (or A.M. now) is a NAP alliance now.
      It works, we get the 300 Sotf Cap instead of a Hard Cap.