Alliance Restrictions Test: Findings and Next Steps

    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      this is a nice idea but handholding alliances will just donate tower to each other - not gonna fly...

      There are two additional factors - not mentioned in the OP - that seek to counteract this:
      i) On capture, a certain percentage of stored energy is destroyed (most likely 10%, but can be adjusted by us easily)
      ii) On capture, a certain percentage of energy is directly taken by the entity who captures the tower (most likely 10% as well, remains to be seen - we could also have this at 0% and set i) to 20% instead, for example)

      Now, that of course does not mean that artificial "handovers" aren't possible. However, these artificial handovers only work if there is no real contender. After all, a rival might just want to take that tower towards the end of the season - he does not care what your handover plans are. The incentive for a real takeover are much much higher than anything that we have right now.

      So as long as the stated design goal - generating significantly more real fights between top end groups - is met, we can live with the fact that sometimes towers are given away to try and game the system.
    • This makes it even easier for large alliances to move points to ensure all guilds obtain the optimal ranks.

      I dont see this having any effect, but IF an effect should happen then the top spots simply must matter more, rewards be bigger, and ensure real incentives that isnt just 60k or 180k boundaries.

      I dont think it works tho, as 9998 out of top 10.000 guilds are not competing for ranks at all.
    • Korn wrote:

      Hollywoodi wrote:

      this is a nice idea but handholding alliances will just donate tower to each other - not gonna fly...
      There are two additional factors - not mentioned in the OP - that seek to counteract this:
      i) On capture, a certain percentage of stored energy is destroyed (most likely 10%, but can be adjusted by us easily)
      ii) On capture, a certain percentage of energy is directly taken by the entity who captures the tower (most likely 10% as well, remains to be seen - we could also have this at 0% and set i) to 20% instead, for example)

      Now, that of course does not mean that artificial "handovers" aren't possible. However, these artificial handovers only work if there is no real contender. After all, a rival might just want to take that tower towards the end of the season - he does not care what your handover plans are. The incentive for a real takeover are much much higher than anything that we have right now.

      So as long as the stated design goal - generating significantly more real fights between top end groups - is met, we can live with the fact that sometimes towers are given away to try and game the system.
      On most timers the big coalitios fight around 2/3 zones maximum on massive scale so i feel like this "third party" attack happening to take the territory you want to handover to your pal gonna be very hard to counter, you either gotta slam on a massive zerg or that massive zerg is gonna be half a zone behind you by the time you are trying to disrupt the handover. Scouting is a really strong tool, communication too.
      And... getting a full guild to let's say gold from silver is worth a 10% energy from a couple territories just for the battlemount reward upgrade


      Again With love Novan
      It's all about the rocks!
    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      @Eltharyon

      Why don't you connect possession of a zone with the need to generate PVE fame aka gathering and fame farming.

      Each zone has to fullfill a daily PvE challenge in order to create the pool of season points. If the threshold of e.g. 2 mio is not done each day the zone draws more energy and even draws away season points. The progress is shown on the corner of the map. In order to create the full amount of points it needs e.g. 4 mio fame. That for a T5 zone. This will force people to actually live in their zone .

      For T6 is is 50% more
      For T7 it is 100% more
      T8 200

      This will enforce guilds to live there this will restrict ownership .

      If u want PvP to add, let the 2 and 5 hg also contribute their pve and PvP fame if they done from the zone.
      @Korn I gave you the solution here, that WILL work and can be reached in Relation to an alliance cap...

      If u spice that up that as more terries & Hideouts & castles you own, these "fame challenge" increases it is fixing your alliance issue in a sandbox way..

      It unites even PvP PVE and gatherer because they now need each other...

      And it balance itself as more they own as more they need pve and gather or it generates negative income..and 300 players can just do a limited amount of pve fame..and hg..

      And it even stops the "I log in, Zerg the fuck out of the population" and logs back to whatever

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Hollywoodi ().

    • I guess I am not following how the 30 day accumulation theory solves anything. At best that would encourage 1 day per month of conflict? And the cost of that will be the big guilds giving 2 shits about those zones the other 29 days which means they will be attacking the lower zones more often? Am I missing something here?

      Good to hear you are looking to do something to help static dungeons. Hopefully something similar coming for roaming mobs as well?
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      ...


      Next Steps

      We plan to roll this system out with the start of Season 9. In addition to the above changes, we are also looking into some other changes for the upcoming season. We’ll make the rewards for the top spots more competitive, adjust the balancing of Crystal League, and introduce a number of “bank spots” to the Outlands, to ensure solo players and guilds without a Hideout in the Outlands still have a few safe retreat points for Outland play. Finally, we’re hoping to boost rewards of static dungeons and add some season point rewards to them to return open-world dungeon PvP to Albion.

      Stay tuned for more details about Season 9 to emerge when Season 8 concludes!


      Looking forward to your thoughts and feedback,

      Robin ‘Eltharyon’ Henkys
      Game Director
      Best fights that albion has ever provided.I can't wait to enter a static dungeon, and have several blobs ready to fight as it used to be.
    • I've made this recommendation before but I will reiterate it here. For 30 min before and 30 min after primetime for territories and castles (you would need to offset castle timers, but you should anyway) disarray should apply to anyone not in the alliance that owns the objective as a single group. This will make hand-holding the same as being allies for the attackers.
    • I think you have the right idea for territory point pool generation however you should change it so instead those pool points are given out daily based on who held the territory the longest over that 24 hour period. This would encourage guilds to need to hold the territory consistently instead of just fighting for it once every 24 hours and spreading elsewhere since they no longer need to worry about it (current design). This in theory would encourage consistent fighting over the high value territories all day long to get credit for the points.
    • Tabor wrote:

      I think you have the right idea for territory point pool generation however you should change it so instead those pool points are given out daily based on who held the territory the longest over that 24 hour period. This would encourage guilds to need to hold the territory consistently instead of just fighting for it once every 24 hours and spreading elsewhere since they no longer need to worry about it (current design). This in theory would encourage consistent fighting over the high value territories all day long to get credit for the points.
      do that and add total war, give each terrie guard 20 k fame, 5 k silver and 2 season points.. and let it not assist each other if it just one or 2 ..then u get total war..
    • Perhaps make the top rewards more exclusive as well to encourage the top guilds to actually fight each other. Instead of target season points ranges for reward instead make it only the top overall guild is Crystal, the next 3 gold, and the next x amount Silver etc. This way the top current hand holding alliances could not just swap territories between each other to have ALL hit max Crystal rewards. This change would have minimal impact on the remaining community.
    • the only solution I can think is to have territory ownership shift to the alliance with the most influence in the zone, tally all the kills, losses, fame farmed, gathering and crafting activity on the map into a basic algorithm that determines an alliances (or guilds) influence as a means to claim an area. This would combat the issue of splinter alliances because they would be directly in conflict with each other if they try to assist each other. Smaller groups would then be able to claim zones with higher concentration of activity compared to their larger rivals spreading themselves across multiple zones. You could go even further and have an influence debuff for every zone you current hold top influence in.
    • Yeah Odell I do agree that consistent zone activity leading to ownership would be the best way to do it. Castles could still exist for the big ZvZ battles for those who crave that. It would limit the insane amount of CTAs zerg guilds do today which I assume a large amount of those players would even be happy to see a reduction in. This change would also encourage consistent activity in the BZ which is massively needed right now.