Alliance Restrictions Test: Findings and Next Steps

    • Hope someone will be reading this, but I think this could solve the whole problems :

      - Take part of the assets of GW2 WorldvsWorld content

      - Make territories just 1 attack and you get them, this would involve strats during whole day not about CTA

      - All territories can have long term upgrades with small value for a huge cost, that make the guild that own the territory able to come for defense if she has in mind to keep just 2-3 territories

      - Guild rushing for ranks would not be established anywhere, in fact they would just need a terri where there have HO and the nwill be rushing everywhere trying to take as much points as they can

      This is the general idea but DAOC and GW2 have proved that permanent objective taking brings up midnight zvz special attacks, incredible events, and always a spot for smaller guilds to focus for a time on a small territory

      Hope someone will take that in mind ;)

      Cheers
    • Anillan wrote:

      This is the general idea but DAOC and GW2 have proved that permanent objective taking brings up midnight zvz special attacks, incredible events

      Anillan wrote:

      sandstorm22 wrote:

      I hope no one takes that in mind. I can't believe I am reading someone would promote off hour ninja raids when there are no defenders.

      No thanks.
      If there's no defender, it means you don't know how to defend. If you are 5k people in an alliance and cannot defend your terri 24/24 7/7 then this is the real problem..

      Such a disingenuous statement. I've played many hours of both games. One of the biggest complaints from people is off hour ninja raids. They don't like them. It marginalizes the hard work done during the day when you take a keep.

      Taking a keep when there are no defenders is not an "incredible event"
    • Anillan wrote:

      Hope someone will be reading this, but I think this could solve the whole problems :

      - Take part of the assets of GW2 WorldvsWorld content

      - Make territories just 1 attack and you get them, this would involve strats during whole day not about CTA

      - All territories can have long term upgrades with small value for a huge cost, that make the guild that own the territory able to come for defense if she has in mind to keep just 2-3 territories

      - Guild rushing for ranks would not be established anywhere, in fact they would just need a terri where there have HO and the nwill be rushing everywhere trying to take as much points as they can

      This is the general idea but DAOC and GW2 have proved that permanent objective taking brings up midnight zvz special attacks, incredible events, and always a spot for smaller guilds to focus for a time on a small territory

      Hope someone will take that in mind ;)

      Cheers
      also not true, the ninjaing during the night is hated by the people who log at prime time cause they just get rolled over by the servers that people transfer to to beat them; you would literally have days in which you couldnt leave the spawn point cause some idiots snatched things during the night the previous week
    • It will not change anything at all, only that some alliances can hold territories until the last day and give them up to the strongest guild to win the season

      having a system based on guilds and not kingdoms will always have this problem, is it like having a cartel without any kind of control, how to expect it to work and be good for everyone? it just won't.

      want to solve the problem? make guilds belong to a kingdom, make them have to fight for territories for that kingdom. Make the fights of territories weekly and not daily, so that the big guilds have to choose their fights and not be strangling the smaller ones every day. Make the guilds fight for control of territory within the proper kingdom, also in just one day. So, who knows, this current scenario improves
    • Register characters that are going into a fight based on their IP. So smaller less important locations can be fought over by smaller guilds. Larger guild fight over the more rewarding and more important locations. So you have a better balance and no one is steamrolling newer guilds trying to make a name for themselves. Same issue that persists through many games with these kinds of features. Seperate it by teirs 1 - 3. As well as the number of players that can enter a battle. So say a 3 man guild can actually fight in a 3v3 for another less important location. This will help keep players playing.

      If a larger guild wants to take over one of these "T1" locations they have to register lower gear characters to fight vs them. Can be an opportunity to use new recruits and use the PvP pros for the "T3"locations. Can still use your good players but they have to wear lower Tier gear.


      My 2 cents,

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

    • A.Frosted.Wolf wrote:

      Fix the cluster queue abuse.
      Give guilds a reason to split up with more important objectives and rewards spread out over large distances.
      Out season 9 on hold till cluster queue abuse is fixed.
      so few zvzs are of the size where cluster queue even happens... It's really only happening in the mega zvzs which most guilds can and do avoid.

      I do agree with more objectives being spread out
    • If you think about why guilds hand hold... safety!

      This safety comes in many forms be it agreed NAP but a large part of it comes with hideout access. Not only is it safety from each other but secure safety in prime locations from other players.

      Guilds agree handhold to allow safe points across the maps via hideout access which provide not only safety but access to fame and pvp spots, repairs, craft etc etc.

      You'll reduce handhold massively if you change hideouts to:

      Guild Only
      Guild and Alliance Only
      Public

      If this change is to limiting you could also consider charging flat rate energy fees which increase exponentially per guild given hideout access. If you want to give your NAP none Alliance handhold guild access to your hideout its 10k energy for both guilds per week or month, what ever you think is a reasonable cost. By putting energy on the line it enforces your other proposed changes in the OP.

      Cost
      Single guild access to hideout: 10k energy for hideout owners guild and additional guild added.

      For every additional guild you add the cost for ALL GUILDS is increased by 5% as they all benefit so should pay an increased cost.

      The post was edited 5 times, last by Drift ().

    • New

      Instead of making all territory battles the same, which was a mistake you knew already from 5v5 days, why did you make the same mistake and make all battles zerg? Split them up for gods sake. Some 5v5, some 10v10, some 50v50, some. Un restricted, closer to the middle you get biggest the fights and higher the IP cap should be. Games a f***ing joke right now.
    • New

      Hideouts right now are the cancer of the game in their current state and implementation.

      The alliance holding each terri has 5 or 6 hideouts around the map so they can fame and gather as if they were in blue zones. Especially in the zones with static dungeons.

      An alliance holding a terri must not be able to have a hideout in the same zone . Instead inside the terri where the bank is have a hideout there for free

      Each hideout must only permit access to alliance members and a maximum put to the people able to make home there. Only one HO per alliance per map