Alliance Restrictions Test: Findings and Next Steps

    • Alliance Restrictions Test: Findings and Next Steps

      Hi all,

      Our test to restrict the power of alliances has been running for a little over a month now, and it's time to give you an update on our findings and next steps.

      Test Summary

      In order to restrict the power of top-end alliances, we introduced a set of measures (LINK) on 26th of February.

      These measures have been effective in the sense that they caused the top-end alliances to split into multiple smaller groups & lone guilds. The impact on top-end alliances was similar to the impact we would expect a hard cap to have, whereas for more casual alliances, the impact was much smaller.

      However, while the top-end groups have formally split, many of them are now cooperating (“hand holding”) without the benefit of a formal alliance. Effectively, we’ve made playing in large groups more challenging, as it requires dealing with friendly fire - but we’d still like to see more conflict amongst these groups.

      Hence, the key question going forward is:

      Can we adjust and modify the alliance restrictions in such a way that they remain effective while at the same time providing a strong incentive for the top-end groups to wage war against each other? Can we reduce or stop the “hand-holding”?

      Encouraging Conflict

      Here is our idea to encourage more conflict between top-end guilds and alliances:

      Over the course of a 30-day reset cycle, territory towers will accumulate an energy and season points storage pool.

      The storage pool is fed through the points that a tower generates each day. The higher the quality of the zone (proximity to the Outland center) in which the tower is located, the higher the percentage of daily points and energy that goes into the storage pool. Towers in lower-end zones will not build up a storage pool at all.

      The storage pool percentage is applied to the daily maximum points that the tower could generate. Whatever goes into the storage pool does not get credited to the guild who owns the tower at that time.

      Instead, 100% of the storage pool is credited to the guild who owns the tower right before Invasion Day starts.

      This system will make sure that top-end guilds and alliances have a strong incentive to fight each other. The incentive will become stronger the closer we get to Invasion Day.

      As we do not want to create an incentive for top-end groups to go after more casual players, the storage pool in lower-end zones is going to be 0% or very close to it.

      Expected Dynamics

      With this system, the closer we get to the next Invasion Day, the bigger the storage pools will become, especially in high-end zones. The incentives for backstabbing and going to war are going to be massive, as capturing a territory in that time means massive potential point gains.

      Hence, we expect that while guilds and alliances will stay close to the current soft cap of 9 territories initially, they are encouraged to become more aggressive - and fight each other - the closer we get to Invasion Day. For this to work, we’ll need to adjust our current soft caps on territories held, as they currently are so strong that they act almost like a hard cap.

      On Invasion Day itself, however, the incentive to grab as many towers as you can is drastically reduced as all storage pools will have been reset to 0. This is a nice equalizer - even if your tower gets taken right before Invasion Day, you have a very good shot at getting it back. And for low-end zones, as the storage pool is 0, this whole dynamic does not apply in any event.

      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

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

    • The concept sounds interesting, I have my doubts if it will not be exploited in such a way that some groups will decide who gets which towers before the invasion day in an "organized" way. Statics with Season Points? It's an absolute success!

      My big question, will the two new activities (the next update) come with S9?

      I'm glad to hear you're doing well @Eltharyon
    • I've been saying for awhile that we need more conflict drivers for the top groups, so I'm happy to see SBI move in this direction, however I worry the silver incentive these groups are getting from their rental empires will still not be outweighed by this season point incentive, as very few high end groups seem to focus on Season Points.

      We'll see how the final numbers work out, and more importantly what groups decide to do, but this is at least going in the right direction.

      Eltharyon wrote:

      Next Steps

      [...] In addition to the above changes, we are also looking into some other changes for the upcoming season. [...] 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.
      Also very much looking forward to these improvements to open world gameplay! The banks in the outlands will be huge to help support groups and players without infrastructure built up in the outlands, providing another equalizer which I am a huge fan of.
      Head Diplomat for the Brave Newbie Alliance

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

    • Make renting illegal and start heavily banning RMT'ers, hire dedicated group just for finding such schemes.

      This will fix the hand holding and will restore healthy competitive environment for everybody.

      Also some hardcore guilds leadership will take low tier territories anyways because they can and rent them to somebody and keep proceeding to RMT.

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

    • Eltharyon wrote:

      Hi all,

      Our test to restrict the power of alliances has been running for a little over a month now, and it's time to give you an update on our findings and next steps.

      Test Summary

      In order to restrict the power of top-end alliances, we introduced a set of measures (LINK) on 26th of February.

      These measures have been effective in the sense that they caused the top-end alliances to split into multiple smaller groups & lone guilds. The impact on top-end alliances was similar to the impact we would expect a hard cap to have, whereas for more casual alliances, the impact was much smaller.

      However, while the top-end groups have formally split, many of them are now cooperating (“hand holding”) without the benefit of a formal alliance. Effectively, we’ve made playing in large groups more challenging, as it requires dealing with friendly fire - but we’d still like to see more conflict amongst these groups.

      Hence, the key question going forward is:

      Can we adjust and modify the alliance restrictions in such a way that they remain effective while at the same time providing a strong incentive for the top-end groups to wage war against each other? Can we reduce or stop the “hand-holding”?

      Encouraging Conflict

      Here is our idea to encourage more conflict between top-end guilds and alliances:

      Over the course of a 30-day reset cycle, territory towers will accumulate an energy and season points storage pool.

      The storage pool is fed through the points that a tower generates each day. The higher the quality of the zone (proximity to the Outland center) in which the tower is located, the higher the percentage of daily points and energy that goes into the storage pool. Towers in lower-end zones will not build up a storage pool at all.

      The storage pool percentage is applied to the daily maximum points that the tower could generate. Whatever goes into the storage pool does not get credited to the guild who owns the tower at that time.

      Instead, 100% of the storage pool is credited to the guild who owns the tower right before Invasion Day starts.

      This system will make sure that top-end guilds and alliances have a strong incentive to fight each other. The incentive will become stronger the closer we get to Invasion Day.

      As we do not want to create an incentive for top-end groups to go after more casual players, the storage pool in lower-end zones is going to be 0% or very close to it.

      Expected Dynamics

      With this system, the closer we get to the next Invasion Day, the bigger the storage pools will become, especially in high-end zones. The incentives for backstabbing and going to war are going to be massive, as capturing a territory in that time means massive potential point gains.

      Hence, we expect that while guilds and alliances will stay close to the current soft cap of 9 territories initially, they are encouraged to become more aggressive - and fight each other - the closer we get to Invasion Day. For this to work, we’ll need to adjust our current soft caps on territories held, as they currently are so strong that they act almost like a hard cap.

      On Invasion Day itself, however, the incentive to grab as many towers as you can is drastically reduced as all storage pools will have been reset to 0. This is a nice equalizer - even if your tower gets taken right before Invasion Day, you have a very good shot at getting it back. And for low-end zones, as the storage pool is 0, this whole dynamic does not apply in any event.

      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
      Make rewards by position on season rank and not by some amount of points!

      1st place should get a reward way much better than 2nd, 2nd and 3rd one should get rewards way much better than other positions, there is no incentive to fight each other if everyone can get the same reward


      Maybe make the territories battles in an instance where only one guild attacking and the guild defending can join (max 200 players per guild)

      ez pz

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

    • On tight groups this will do nothing but make it easier. "boys guild C , Guild H and Guild Z will not reach our goal on the season points let's drop some towers for them last day so they can catch up".
      It will be just on loose groups and not very stable coalitions that this might have the desired effect but if the focus of this change is to destabilize the top coalitions i think it will give extremely poor results or even help those that are in very good terms with each other even more it will give them a new tool for "handholding" as you call it in the post.



      WIth love Novan
      It's all about the rocks!

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

    • I have a proposition for stop the hand holding and make better the nerf on alliance.

      For the moment we have see all the guilds have split their force for don't have the zerg debuff but all the guild are handholding without be in the same alliance so during the time for take territory, they help all each other.
      For prevent this, one solution : lock the map or the territory at the GvG timer for only the alliance who attack and the alliance who defend. This solution will force everyone who want to help each other to be in the same alliance and have the zerg debuff.

      One exemple, for the moment Everything is alone without alliance, we have a zerg of like 30-40 person. Today we have attack the territory of Runnelvein Slough. And on this map, we have fight Ardor (guild alone too), and Death-and-Taxes (guild alone but bring a zerg of multiple guild), COV-19 (Talion and Eikon), Blue army and lot of other guild. So is it normal to see all this different alliance to help each other ? For stop this, lock the map for the attacking alliance and the defendant alliance.

      albiononline.com/fr/killboard/battles/73573391
      albiononline.com/fr/killboard/battles/73571694
      albiononline.com/fr/killboard/battles/73567956
    • Ookaminu wrote:

      I have a proposition for stop the hand holding and make better the nerf on alliance.

      For the moment we have see all the guilds have split their force for don't have the zerg debuff but all the guild are handholding without be in the same alliance so during the time for take territory, they help all each other.
      For prevent this, one solution : lock the map or the territory at the ZvZ timer for only the alliance who attack and the alliance who defend. This solution will force everyone who want to help each other to be in the same alliance and have the zerg debuff.
      There are several things that makes this difficult.

      1. Multiple guilds can attack the territory at once.
      2. Who gets the priority of being first attacker ?
      3. How to prevent 1st attacker abusing the right to attack and just skip the fight because they are hand holding ?
    • Heyayajajaja wrote:

      Ookaminu wrote:

      I have a proposition for stop the hand holding and make better the nerf on alliance.

      For the moment we have see all the guilds have split their force for don't have the zerg debuff but all the guild are handholding without be in the same alliance so during the time for take territory, they help all each other.
      For prevent this, one solution : lock the map or the territory at the ZvZ timer for only the alliance who attack and the alliance who defend. This solution will force everyone who want to help each other to be in the same alliance and have the zerg debuff.
      There are several things that makes this difficult.
      1. Multiple guilds can attack the territory at once.
      2. Who gets the priority of being first attacker ?
      3. How to prevent 1st attacker abusing the right to attack and just skip the fight because they are hand holding ?
      1. that's true but when you attack, you pay so do it 20 time in a week and you will pay a lot for help the other
      2. The people who attack in first the territory in the timer
      3. If they want to skip the fight, go, but continu to pay the attack for nothing then
    • @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.
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      Hi all,

      Our test to restrict the power of alliances has been running for a little over a month now, and it's time to give you an update on our findings and next steps.

      Test Summary

      In order to restrict the power of top-end alliances, we introduced a set of measures (LINK) on 26th of February.

      These measures have been effective in the sense that they caused the top-end alliances to split into multiple smaller groups & lone guilds. The impact on top-end alliances was similar to the impact we would expect a hard cap to have, whereas for more casual alliances, the impact was much smaller.

      However, while the top-end groups have formally split, many of them are now cooperating (“hand holding”) without the benefit of a formal alliance. Effectively, we’ve made playing in large groups more challenging, as it requires dealing with friendly fire - but we’d still like to see more conflict amongst these groups.

      Hence, the key question going forward is:

      Can we adjust and modify the alliance restrictions in such a way that they remain effective while at the same time providing a strong incentive for the top-end groups to wage war against each other? Can we reduce or stop the “hand-holding”?

      Encouraging Conflict

      Here is our idea to encourage more conflict between top-end guilds and alliances:

      Over the course of a 30-day reset cycle, territory towers will accumulate an energy and season points storage pool.

      The storage pool is fed through the points that a tower generates each day. The higher the quality of the zone (proximity to the Outland center) in which the tower is located, the higher the percentage of daily points and energy that goes into the storage pool. Towers in lower-end zones will not build up a storage pool at all.

      The storage pool percentage is applied to the daily maximum points that the tower could generate. Whatever goes into the storage pool does not get credited to the guild who owns the tower at that time.

      Instead, 100% of the storage pool is credited to the guild who owns the tower right before Invasion Day starts.

      This system will make sure that top-end guilds and alliances have a strong incentive to fight each other. The incentive will become stronger the closer we get to Invasion Day.

      As we do not want to create an incentive for top-end groups to go after more casual players, the storage pool in lower-end zones is going to be 0% or very close to it.

      Expected Dynamics

      With this system, the closer we get to the next Invasion Day, the bigger the storage pools will become, especially in high-end zones. The incentives for backstabbing and going to war are going to be massive, as capturing a territory in that time means massive potential point gains.

      Hence, we expect that while guilds and alliances will stay close to the current soft cap of 9 territories initially, they are encouraged to become more aggressive - and fight each other - the closer we get to Invasion Day. For this to work, we’ll need to adjust our current soft caps on territories held, as they currently are so strong that they act almost like a hard cap.

      On Invasion Day itself, however, the incentive to grab as many towers as you can is drastically reduced as all storage pools will have been reset to 0. This is a nice equalizer - even if your tower gets taken right before Invasion Day, you have a very good shot at getting it back. And for low-end zones, as the storage pool is 0, this whole dynamic does not apply in any event.

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

      I have a proposition for stop the hand holding and make better the nerf on alliance.

      For the moment we have see all the guilds have split their force for don't have the zerg debuff but all the guild are handholding without be in the same alliance so during the time for take territory, they help all each other.
      For prevent this, one solution : lock the map or the territory at the GvG timer for only the alliance who attack and the alliance who defend. This solution will force everyone who want to help each other to be in the same alliance and have the zerg debuff.

      One exemple, for the moment Everything is alone without alliance, we have a zerg of like 30-40 person. Today we have attack the territory of Runnelvein Slough. And on this map, we have fight Ardor (guild alone too), and Death-and-Taxes (guild alone but bring a zerg of multiple guild), COV-19 (Talion and Eikon), Blue army and lot of other guild. So is it normal to see all this different alliance to help each other ? For stop this, lock the map for the attacking alliance and the defendant alliance.
      there will always be handholding because this is a sandbox game and if you don't handhold your enemy's will and you'll lose (clearing this up for sake of argument). but idea would be very bad cuz people could do fake launches to basically stop movements for their enemys during those timers, yes it would cost silver to launch but big guild can easily and drop that daily.

      instead they should bring back alliances so that the small guilds can band together easier due to the inherent instability of there position relative to the mega blocks AKA.-SQUAD and POE. after bringing back capless alliances rework the zerg debuff to allow for more people in the alliance to be in the same zone with a less punishing debuff to encourage guilds to stay in the same alliance then the instance fighting at zvz timers could maybe work without being abused.

      on the idea of instance based zvz it does go against what this game was meant to be (A open world sandbox game) but it could have some use in the future if the devs run out of ideas zvz scrims on terri maps pls with varying numbers please :)

      but a real way to fix the hand holding thing is that to reduce the zone cap to like 200 vs. the 350 we have now and sector the launches for each zones so instead of having to defend just one terri and funnel everyone into 1 map, 3 or 4 maps will be attacked at the same time so that you have to spread your forces out to defend multiple zones. for guilds that are small they might not be able to take a whole sector but positioning on the edges of multiple sectors would be smart as they only need to defend one territories every 2-3 hours or so. i do acknowledge that this change would but alot of power into the hands of the attacker but its better than what we have now of everything is red but kill X Y Z guilds but not A B C guilds.
    • ThetaXeno wrote:

      Ookaminu wrote:

      I have a proposition for stop the hand holding and make better the nerf on alliance.

      For the moment we have see all the guilds have split their force for don't have the zerg debuff but all the guild are handholding without be in the same alliance so during the time for take territory, they help all each other.
      For prevent this, one solution : lock the map or the territory at the GvG timer for only the alliance who attack and the alliance who defend. This solution will force everyone who want to help each other to be in the same alliance and have the zerg debuff.

      One exemple, for the moment Everything is alone without alliance, we have a zerg of like 30-40 person. Today we have attack the territory of Runnelvein Slough. And on this map, we have fight Ardor (guild alone too), and Death-and-Taxes (guild alone but bring a zerg of multiple guild), COV-19 (Talion and Eikon), Blue army and lot of other guild. So is it normal to see all this different alliance to help each other ? For stop this, lock the map for the attacking alliance and the defendant alliance.
      there will always be handholding because this is a sandbox game and if you don't handhold your enemy's will and you'll lose (clearing this up for sake of argument). but idea would be very bad cuz people could do fake launches to basically stop movements for their enemys during those timers, yes it would cost silver to launch but big guild can easily and drop that daily.
      And why not do a 1v1. Exemple :
      - ally A defend / Ally B attack : Ally A have to defend a point during 15 min for win the fight/ Ally B have to capture a point for win. (it's an exemple of fight, can be a another system)

      If the terry have multiple attack, do the same path : 1v1 ally
      - Ally A defend and Ally B attack : if ally B win, ally B is now the new defender vs Ally C. And let a few time between the two attack for let the winner of first fight to prepare themself

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

    • Just a random thought, why would then guilds keep bothering launching on high-end territories when it does make more sense to get it couple of days before scoring, just means less content on a daily basis since conquering terries with storage pool provides 0 benefits

      And then again for the sake of content everyone gonna set their eyes on low end terries that score daily and will result in bullying smaller guilds, since those terries gonna be safer option for scoring points!

      This is just my opinion tho :D