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.

    • Adjustment to the Alliance Cap Test on February 26th

      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 10 or more 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 9
        • In this balancing, adding any territories beyond 19 actually reduces your global energy output (so the 20th territory adds less than it costs)
        • The upkeep can exceed 100% of the production (which would occur if an Alliance holds 30+ 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 10 or more 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 10 or more 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 guilds outside an Alliance as well, if they hold more than 10 territories 10 or more 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 3 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.

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

    • This is a real joke ... well that means everyone outside poe/arch/squak can forget about playing bz this season ;) ty sbi for ignoring 80 % of your player base.

      10 % fame debuff for 20 terry , run 1 avalonian dungeon and puff back to normal for 7 day. So if they run avalonian dungeon a alliance can easily got 10 % fame debuff for 30 terry and 30 % silver debuff ( wich noone actually give a fuck ). Imo no one would care 10 % fame debuff is a joke for owning all t7-t8 , running safely t8 dungeon all day long and having acces to all best ressource zone and keep swarming with 400 all small guild hideout.

      Zerg dissaray ... so the worst that can happen is if someone 400 vs 100. They will get disaray at start of the fight and if by luck after sometime they lose 75 % of their zerg they will have same disaray then the other side ... that withouth counting the 2 other 250 people blob of poe waiting in the next zone " just in case ".

      With such weak action sbi , you are forcing everyone to join the big 4 ( and their incoming big 4 overflow alliance ). You know its not enough to fix the problem and most player outside those alliance have already start to quit albion or merge with them . Its too weak too late. Dont forget that while you are snail moving many of us keep getting kill day after day after day , 100 vs 400. I don't think many player will have the patience to wait 3 month for you to make real action instead of 1% silver debuff by terry and losing siphon after " 30 terry " . What are we suposed to do , hce expedition for 3 month while you fix the game ?

      The post was edited 10 times, last by Headquake ().

    • It's a good direction without throwing more casual allies and groups under the bus with a strict cap the most hardcore groups will always bypass with NAPs, this changes will still be bypassed with NAPs but at least now it hits specifically the big territory holder groups and not everyone broadly.

      The direction needs to continue to attack the mega-zvz fights that continue to easily overwhelm any adversary, stop rewarding big zvz and rewarding smaller skirmishes instead, I would say changes like increasing the % of trashed loot based on high number of assists.

      And to be fair, while more prime-time timezones is good for some people, it allows this big ZvZ groups to play for so many terris per day, before Queen they had to be picky on what they fought for because there was just 2 prime-times for ZvZ, allowing many more groups to be able to take territories.

      The whole thing stands around having the most powerful zvz groups focusing their strategic open world goals, instead of just being "let's take everything just because we can", or "Let's take everything and create a rental empire", hand holding is extremely profitable so there is only motivation to do it.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by TheBacon ().

    • This is even worse idea then capping alliances to 300 accounts.

      Like why - you just force alliances to abuse creating sub guilds or maybe splitting the alliance and that's it.
      You don't solve ANY problem with this ridiculous solution, just make another feature which can be easily bypassed and will just make quality of life for players worse.
    • This will not achieve what they want, by placing this they will create alliances with two or 3 guilds that together contain 20 territories, where non-aggression pacts will be the daily bread. more and more casual players will not be able to play in guilds with a focus on the season.
      The big problem is the multiple schedules giving rise to the big alliances to be able to fight all the schedules.
    • Most small/medium guilds could give 2 shits about the "season" but would very much like the opportunity to still play reasonably in the BZ. Please consider changes to allow for more realistic availability for those folks.

      *Fix portal zones. Current state it is 100% more safe to walk around in top season point T8 zones than that of T5 BZ entry zones. This obviously makes no sense fix it immediately. Add invisible fountain at realm gate protective bubble, add safe area at all exits in portal zones similar to cities, and add further tunnel entrances in middle area of portal zones attaching to other BZ areas similar to Caerleon system.

      *Allow for indestructible hideout placement in all T5/T6 BZ areas. 1 hideout per guild allowed with minimum number of 20 members guild to place HO. If HOs are not maintained (fed) than they would self destruct so inactive guild HOs would not infest maps. There is next to zero placed in these zones today so this would bring reason for small guilds to live in BZ. All HOs in T7/T8 zones would maintain current rules of being destructible.

      When you have these massive groups of 4k people running around out here all friendly it makes life extremely difficult for anyone else to even play in BZ let alone try to worry about ZvZ warfare. Majority of BZ is just dead space right now. Consider the above changes to help with this.
    • Honestly this change doesn't help any of the causal or small alliance player base.

      In regards to the cap-I still think there should be an alliance cap of 600 not 300. I don't think alliances should be removed completely but 600 is a healthy number.

      In regards to Purges- They happen regardless of caps. I purge my inactives weekly and I'm in a small guild of 50ish.

      I appreciate the developers dedication to improving the game constantly but if you continue to allow the big boys(arch,poe,squad/armor/etc.,) the only say at the round table nothing will change in regards to the alliance system or any other issue that effects them.
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      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.

      1. 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

      How does this make sense in your head? If Im in a giant alliance to farm fame and silver you introduce a tax so I dont join as a casual player, but the player who has his 8.3s , battlemounts, and 400 400 is affected exactly how by this?

      Or is the goal that I start my own guild with my 4.1 buddies , so I can donate free loot to the 8.3s ? I get to avoid to tax but I get to donate my entire gear.

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

    • These changes solve several issues:

      Large alliances will either hold as many territories as possible and use wealth to maintain.
      Large alliances will break up into smaller groups, thus achieving a portion of the intent of capping the alliance size.
      Less players will end up purged and guild-less.
      Alliances will choose allies more selectively.
      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.")
      Focus most likely will be turned to holding specific maps and not the world as strong alliances will want to efficiently have the highest energy generation.
      Mage defense and raiding will become a much higher priority, guerrilla warfare by denying energy for your opponents will become a viable game-play style.

      Nothing is definite here but that goes with any change in game, this includes changes to mechanics or ability buffs/nerfs. This is also much more reversible than purging off players to get guilds full of 400/400 players.

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

    • I I think it is amazing that SBI as a team is so wholly invested in this community. And you are all taking your precious time to evaluate and find out what the community wants from your product. It is a mindset that many large developers should have.

      HOWEVER. This this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

      I bought an epic founder pack so I could both support this company, and to add my input into how the game would look upon release. And and now I feel like I am in a free open beta test, after beta test. The most recent changes have either been good or bad depending on your point of view. And since I am uneducated in game development or any related fields, I won't comment on the specific changes themselves. What I will say is that it is blaringly obvious that SBI doesn't know what they want from the game. I honestly feel like I've wasted my money, as I could have simply waited till free to play launch, and still been involved in the beta testing of this product.
      tI didn't come to this decision because the changes are good or bad; and it may not matter, as as there are many who paid more initially for their legendary founders pack, and individuals who currently pay more for in-game gold and premium ; but I will not be renewing my premium. And it makes me sad

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

    • Headquake wrote:

      This is a real joke ... well that means everyone outside poe/arch/squak can forget about playing bz this season ;) ty sbi for ignoring 80 % of your player base...

      With such weak action sbi , you are forcing everyone to join the big 4 ( and their incoming big 4 overflow alliance ). You know its not enough to fix the problem and most player outside those alliance have already start to quit albion or merge with them . Its too weak too late. Dont forget that while you are snail moving many of us keep getting kill day after day after day , 100 vs 400. I don't think many player will have the patience to wait 3 month for you to make real action instead of 1% silver debuff by terry and losing siphon after " 30 terry " . What are we suposed to do , hce expedition for 3 month while you fix the game ?
      reddit.com/r/albiononline/comm…alliance_wants_a_hideout/

      Arch doesn't want everyone to join us. So for anyone who's small/medium sized guild or alliance who wants a fighting chance in BZ, come visit Martlock.