Alliance Restrictions Test: Findings and Next Steps

    • I don't have too much faith in the current territory changes. High end guilds are still going to control low level territories just so they can collect rent either with silver or RMT to smaller guilds.

      The only way you could stop that is by making it obnoxiously difficult where the silver bank and spec level of a guild has no benefit to being able to control a territory.

      Make a soft cap similiar to crystal league relative to the land tier would be the best solution. (During prime times)

      @ThePottersky
      That's an excellent suggestion. However that doesn't solve the issue of 2 alliances agreeing on splitting the land in half. This is similiar to Left Wing vs. Right Wing politics when they are 2 sides of the same coin.

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

    • How about using kill fame to determine who is neutral/enemy, and remove alliances ?

      Handholding would be considered as neutral or ally no matter how you do things.
      Make neutral guilds unable to attack territories/HO of each other, unless they spill blood first to lower their mutual appreciation.
      With such logic, you could effectively lock maps for sworn ennemies to battle.
      But you would need to make handholding hard to maintain by killing each other as an arrangement, so just compare the worth of a map with the worth of the gear lost by killing each other.

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

    • Re-design the outlands map into 4 rotating circles, smallest on the middle and largest at its peripheral. Every few days, some of the circles rotate in random directions (and the zones located on those circles are then moved around, connecting you differently). Every few days an entire guild should be locked to a new city, forcing hand-holding guilds to be locked to different cities. But allow casual alliances to 'link up' with other casual guilds, making them always keep the same, random lock.. at a price. This price could be a high reduction in siphoned energy you can yield as a guild.

      Just a basic concept to work with.

      tl;dr @Eltharyon

      Implement a system that forces guilds to be based out of completely different locations; but implement an 'opt-out' system that only casual guilds would want to accept.

      If we can't force handholding between competitive guilds to stop, perhaps we can force them away from eachother?

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

    • Imo if you wanna set up lets say the biggest fights in the days of the end of the month for the points and stuff you also have to keep in mind to improve the cluster queues, because like for now it works not so good in the primetimes then for sure in the d-days there will be more players declaring their apparience for CTAs.
      "The wolf on the hill is never as hungry as the wolf climbing the hill."
    • ThePottersky wrote:

      @Korn

      I will reiterate what I already mentioned before. Please someone enlighten me and show how I am wrong:
      • Why not extend the primetime for maps closer in the center? Say, let it be attackable 24h?
      Feed those hardcore kids.
      1st point i see : resources respawn after maintenance. castles could be attacked 24/7, but ppl only came just before the chest respawn
      (maybe I'm wrong, I don't usually play around this time)

      2nd : The goal is to split big groups, and give more fights to them, and to relatively smaller alliances. Those small alliances won't be able to keep such a territory, even with a large enough group, because ppl need to sleep, super alliances with players from all around the globe can always be active.
    • It's somewhat discouraging to see SBI miss the point to this extent.

      1. This gives more incentive to handhold. This gives the guilds in the mega-alliances uncertainty that they will get the storage pool before invasion day. What is the point of handholding? Certainty.
      They won't betray eachother on the last day, if anything they will have more reason to work together so that they can all loot their respective zones that they share instead of having the risk of an outer-alliance making a move to hold the territory for one day to snag the storage pool from them on the last day.

      2. Storage pool? Sounds more like a free boost they can give out as a reward for handholding with them in the season.
    • If you guys have already discovered that most alliances are now "hand holding" and they get together and decide which guild they want to push to crystal/rank 1 etc, why would this change anything? If anything this just makes it easier to organize and "push" a certain guild to a particular rank or spot on the leader boards? This actually changes nothing, and makes it EASIER for these non-tagged alliances to plan/hand hold/push 1 guild. Why would this encourage anyone to back stab your allies over season points when you can just organize it so youre essentially "trading" these energy pools at the end of the season? lol

      How about we focus on the fact that solo guilds are still fighting outnumbered 3 to 1 with a larger debuff than any 1 of the smaller "allianceless" guilds fighting against them? Or the fact that cluster queue can be abused in a very similar way. The debuff "ended" alliances, but it also made it almost impossible for actual solo guilds to fight anyone when they're constantly outnumbered and fighting with a LARGER debuff.
    • Panzerchrek wrote:

      If you guys have already discovered that most alliances are now "hand holding" and they get together and decide which guild they want to push to crystal/rank 1 etc, why would this change anything? If anything this just makes it easier to organize and "push" a certain guild to a particular rank or spot on the leader boards? This actually changes nothing, and makes it EASIER for these non-tagged alliances to plan/hand hold/push 1 guild. Why would this encourage anyone to back stab your allies over season points when you can just organize it so youre essentially "trading" these energy pools at the end of the season? lol

      How about we focus on the fact that solo guilds are still fighting outnumbered 3 to 1 with a larger debuff than any 1 of the smaller "allianceless" guilds fighting against them? Or the fact that cluster queue can be abused in a very similar way. The debuff "ended" alliances, but it also made it almost impossible for actual solo guilds to fight anyone when they're constantly outnumbered and fighting with a LARGER debuff.
      Ironically, the old gvg system was actually better in the sense that any guild with 5 decent players could claim a territory in the black zone.

      We might have to return to some form of GVG (maybe with a larger player cap) to prevent these hand holding scenarios.
    • Zapshep wrote:

      Probably an unpopular opinion, but lots of content is balanced around 5v5 or smaller. Maybe some minor exceptions. I don't really see why group size isn't just limited to that.
      Because what ended up happening was giant guilds such as Arch would have 5-10 players deciding the fate of +5000 players. It made the normal players effectively feel useless for territory control and made it unfun for them since they couldn't effectively contribute to the guild aside donating silver or resources.
    • @Eltharyon

      You keep introducing measure after measure after even more contrived measure to try and solve a problem that you should have realised by now that you probably cant..

      Players will work together. The most organised guilds and their leaders understand that this is a socio-political game and that working together with like minded capable groups equals greater power than working alone. Despite your best efforts to control this you have pretty much failed time and again, and yet you plan to roll out yet another convoluted design destined to fail. All that will happen is their will be trade offs and as usual with these changes, the biggest best organised groups work around it to their advantage whilst the less organised dont know how or cant. Stop trying to control the uncontrollable .. player interaction. Instead for Gods sake start looking at how you can have variable content that fits all group and guild sizes rather than trying to make the overarching design suitable for the 30 man guild and the 300 man guild alike.
      Midgard
      T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
      T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
      T8 Bags & Capes Crafter