FR EN DE ES IT PT
Browse forums 
Ankama Trackers

Alliance vs Alliance Feedback

By vagabaka - SUBSCRIBER - September 17, 2013, 03:27:43

The Guild Wars updates have largely reshaped many parts of the game, and most of us have been affected in one way or another. What are your thoughts on the system?

Outside PvP

  • What have been the effects of guild wars and alliance chat on the game community? Have the updates brought more opportunities to make friends, or more conflict?
  • Some of the goals of the AvA system are to "introduce additional kamasinks and itemsinks...to prevent economic bloat, ensure that the value of goods does not drop too low, and to keep the player economy lively and interesting". What has been the impact of AvA on server economy?
  • Prisms offer XP and drop bonus, and possibly teleportation, all of which benefit PvM. Do PvM players have significant impact in the guild wars? Should PvM players have more of a role in the guild war, without directly fighting other players?
  • Village specific resources have been made available outside the conquest villages. The overall feedback was positive. Is this enough for the PvM players who want nothing to do with AvA? Should the studio stop there? Some concerned members of our community mentioned several times quests such as Eternal Harvest. Other quests that required access to alignment villages in the past have been shifted. Should the same be done for arch monsters?
  • Are small guilds excluded from the benefits of territories? Do big alliances have too much control, to the extent of monopoly? Should these be changed?

The War
  • Briefly, how would you describe the positions of your server's alliances: does one alliance dominate everything, do a few alliances compete with each other, or is it something different? Do you think this situation is good for the majority of players?
  • The developers stated that the mechanisms in place would make it so territories wouldn't be controlled by the same Alliance for too long. Do you agree with this statement? How dynamic is the power shift on your server, if and when it happens? Do players have enough tools to change their servers' political landscape?
  • Despite different AvA environments across English-speaking servers, our community as a whole is impacted very differently than other bigger communities, such as the French or Spanish one. (This significant difference in server populations was the reason behind the initiative allowing for the 2:1 dopploon/kolossoken ratio exchange at class temples for the 2.10 recipe changes). Would you deem it fair to say that the smaller a server, the harder it is to shift the control of power?

Prism Fights (5v5, not including King of the Hill)
  • After a prism fight, if the attackers fail, they lose HP and energy. If they win, they get no immediate reward. However, alliances need to attack prisms to increase their chance of gaining territory. Should prism attacks be more rewarding, and why or why not? Note, we are not looking for suggestions of specific rewards.
  • Prisms appear in these fights and apply erosion, deal damage, lock, are unmovable, and are initially invulnerable. However if the prism dies, attackers win the fight. Are the prisms balanced?

King of the Hill
  • Is the King of the Hill system balanced, or does the alliance with most active PvPers inevitably win?
  • A lot has changed since the release of AvA, such as multi-accounting no longer being an immediate numeric advantage, and it all comes down numeric superiority per map of a KoTH area, (among other things). How has this impacted the strategic exploitations on your server when it comes to AvA? Has this made it any better for lower leveled players/guilds to participate and stand a chance? How/When do you feel numeric advance can be beaten by strategy?
  • Are Healer, Undertaker and Sentinel roles sufficiently balanced?
  • Should there be more rewards for participating in King of the Hill?

Perceptors
  • There have been changes to perceptor HP and resistances, how they are defended, how they are placed, and how they collect resources. Also due to changes to prisms, the primary confrontation between alliances on some servers may have shifted from prism fights to perceptor fights. Are perceptors more or less worthwhile than before? Is the current trade-off of benefit vs cost fair?
  • Perceptors play similar roles as prisms in fights, but they can be moved by spells and damaged from the start. Are perceptors that appear in fights balanced, in the perspectives of both attackers and defenders?
 
0 0
Reply
Reactions 51
Score : 27373

I find the perceptor change unacceptable. If we put in the work to level a guild in order to harden our perceptors, Ankama has made a grievous mistake by turning them them into sniveling piles of trash that can be killed by two people in a turn, even if they have a defense team that would be able to pull out a win.

This doesn't make fights more "interesting", even if Lichen and his cohorts would like to think it does. All this really does is encourage chickenshit "go-for-the-perc-because-we-can't-win" tactics which then ends up spawning abuse and harassment which generally extends far beyond that perc fight. I don't care if they don't want to go back to the 20,000 hp and 50% resistance levels, but where they currently are is an untenable position.

Either raise the survivability of the percs, give them something else to make them a valued member of the defense team(linear resistances, critical resistances, the ability to give themselves invulnerability or fully heal themselves are a few thoughts off the top of my head), or make their attacks much more powerful in order to compensate for the fact that a wet noodle will more often than not kill a fully leveled perceptor.

2 0
Reply
Score : 2987

While i think the system could be more balanced, what upsets me most is the fact that there is nothing for smaller guilds that don't or can't be part of a major alliance. This has been a major hit to those guilds that wish not to participate as finding members has become increasingly harder. This said, it's somewhat unavoidable.

I dislike how this system so powerfully favors a overwhelming superiority, with almost no possible chance of rebellion. For the most part, the ability to form a singular powerful alliance has destroyed the system.

As for what was said about preceptors, I for one think that their survivability is more than sufficient, as mounting a successful attack should never be impossible. The defending team has a potential numerical superiority, from what i know, preceptors are not subject to resistance caps from fecas, and a preceptor being able to be defended by anyone in the alliance is enough reason. I don't believe it should be possible to totally defend a preceptor, even in the best of circumstances. thus, I believe they should provide more offensive benefit, but should not be any more durable than they are as it stands, at the very least without guild point investment.

I will say that a 2 turn initial invulnerability state would be acceptable on preceptors however. but think this should be something upped by investing points that otherwise would have been used elsewhere.

1 0
Reply
Score : 2920

As an added note, the Zenith have gathered the ongoing threads for AvA feedback so far on the Official Forums and Imps Village. We're summarizing that information for inclusion into the feedback, but please make sure to answer the questions as best you can. Well also try to send out representatives to each server to talk to people who do not visit the official forums.

Our ankaboxes are also open for feedback for anyone who isn't comfortable posting on the official forums.

-Whadda

0 0
Reply
Score : 15681
What have been the effects of guild wars and alliance chat on the game community? Have the updates brought more opportunities to make friends, or more conflict?

I think that the alliance system has actually made it much easier to make friends and has greatly expanded the group of people that I am able to do things with. The alliance chat is a great place to find groups and people to help with bounty monsters and dungeons and other things. Naturally there is still a little conflict but frankly the conflict that I've seen has mostly been among people who already had serious issues with each before AvA started. So overall I'd say AvA has made the community stronger.

Some of the goals of the AvA system are to "introduce additional kamasinks and itemsinks...to prevent economic bloat, ensure that the value of goods does not drop too low, and to keep the player economy lively and interesting". What has been the impact of AvA on server economy?

Frankly the impact has been pretty minimal. There isn't enough stuff to buy. The prisms and teleport modules are pretty easy to make and don't require that much resources. I would love to have more stuff to build like bases and towers and things that would actually take a fair amount of work to construct.

Prisms offer XP and drop bonus, and possibly teleportation, all of which benefit PvM. Do PvM players have significant impact in the guild wars? Should PvM players have more of a role in the guild war, without directly fighting other players?

From what I've seen PvM players do help the war a lot because even if they aren't super skilled PvP players the pure numbers of them can tip the balance of KoTH. But it might be interesting to see some sort of expanded role where PvM can actually contribute to alliance control or loss of control over a territory. But I'm not sure how that might work. (Edit: Maybe it could work by applying a "control level" on the territory. When alliance members PvM in the area they raise the control level but if they stop PvMing in the area the control level drops. If the control level drops too far then the prism dies and the territory becomes available for anyone to place a prism on. This would make it nearly impossible for a small alliance to control the entire server, and it would potentially cause alliances to focus on a few important territories where alliance members actually do PvM fights instead of just conquering the entire world.)

Village specific resources have been made available outside the conquest villages. The overall feedback was positive. Is this enough for the PvM players who want nothing to do with AvA? Should the studio stop there? Some concerned members of our community mentioned several times quests such as Eternal Harvest. Other quests that required access to alignment villages in the past have been shifted. Should the same be done for arch monsters?

It seems to me like there is plenty of resources. I have noticed that is a bit easier to find dopple arches and zoth village arches, probably because people outside the alliance aren't souling them. But I know for a fact that some of the people in our alliance are souling and selling the souls for reasonable prices so I don't think there is supply problem. Also from what I see those particular monsters respawn really fast.

Are small guilds excluded from the benefits of territories? Do big alliances have too much control, to the extent of monopoly? Should these be changed?

I think that small guilds find it harder to get into the biggest, powerful alliances. I do think that big alliances have too much control. On Solar the alliance I'm in has taken control of the entire world. We do have a fairly powerful that actually has 3200 members to our 2600 but they have not been able to take any territory from us sadly. To be honest I wouldn't mind switching to a system where alliances can only control a certain number of territories at once. The number of territories should be significant enough that an alliance can control all of Frigost for example, but not the entire world. I think ideally there should be room in the world for say three or four large alliances.

Briefly, how would you describe the positions of your server's alliances: does one alliance dominate everything, do a few alliances compete with each other, or is it something different? Do you think this situation is good for the majority of players?

On Solar there are two major alliances: IRON and KEWL. IRON has about 2600 members and KEWL has about 3200 members. IRON is mostly endgame guilds full of high level players. KEWL is mostly low level guilds with low level characters. As a result IRON rules the entire world. I think this situation is good for all the high level players who put the most effort into the game. However, I'd like to see a system where every territory has a level and territories can only be captured by guilds with a level within a certain range of the territory level. And limit the number of territories each guild can capture. This way an alliance who wants to control the entire world has to have a variety of guilds of different levels. And you could have a high level alliance with high level guilds controlling Frigost while a low alliance with low level guilds controls the lower level areas.

The developers stated that the mechanisms in place would make it so territories wouldn't be controlled by the same Alliance for too long. Do you agree with this statement? How dynamic is the power shift on your server, if and when it happens? Do players have enough tools to change their servers' political landscape?

I disagree with this. I don't see anything about the system to make it dynamic. KEWL for example hit IRON hard for about a week and a half but then they lost heart and basically stopped because they kept getting beat and their people stopped showing up for KoTH. At this point it seems KEWL has no motivation to attack because it doesn't seem like they can win. So its a slippery slope until the attacking alliance has no reason to attack.

I don't know what is meant by "tools". I don't really see any tools for changing the political landscape... there is just recruiting guilds and attacking.

Despite different AvA environments across English-speaking servers, our community as a whole is impacted very differently than other bigger communities, such as the French or Spanish one. (This significant difference in server populations was the reason behind the initiative allowing for the 2:1 dopploon/kolossoken ratio exchange at class temples for the 2.10 recipe changes). Would you deem it fair to say that the smaller a server, the harder it is to shift the control of power?

I can't really compare a small server to a large server. Solar is pretty mid range I think. It seems pretty hard to shift the control of power but only because IRON has most of the high level players.

After a prism fight, if the attackers fail, they lose HP and energy. If they win, they get no immediate reward. However, alliances need to attack prisms to increase their chance of gaining territory. Should prism attacks be more rewarding, and why or why not? Note, we are not looking for suggestions of specific rewards.

Yes I think there should be more rewards. And maybe there should also be some sort of achievements to motivate people, like "Participate in 20 prism attacks" and "Participate in 20 prism defenses". Perhaps additionally limit prism defenses based on the level of the territory. If the territory is low level then only low levels can defend or attack the prism. If the prism is in a high level territory only high levels can attack and defend. This will provide more motivation as well because it will make it more possible for people to actually win attacks and defenses no matter what level they are.

Prisms appear in these fights and apply erosion, deal damage, lock, are unmovable, and are initially invulnerable. However if the prism dies, attackers win the fight. Are the prisms balanced?

I think the prisms are fairly balanced. They aren't too easy or too difficult to kill.

Is the King of the Hill system balanced, or does the alliance with most active PvPers inevitably win?

I'd say that right now KoTH is definitely won by the alliance that has the most people. I think this is a good thing though. I don't think its a good situation where a few high levels win the KoTH. But the problem with the majority wins approach is that it makes it really hard for some alliances to get enough people together, or get them motivated to participate because they just assume that they will lose.

A lot has changed since the release of AvA, such as multi-accounting no longer being an immediate numeric advantage, and it all comes down numeric superiority per map of a KoTH area, (among other things). How has this impacted the strategic exploitations on your server when it comes to AvA? Has this made it any better for lower leveled players/guilds to participate and stand a chance? How/When do you feel numeric advance can be beaten by strategy?

KoTH has definitely gotten better. I like that people have to spread out now because it is much more strategic and there is much more active fights going on.

Are Healer, Undertaker and Sentinel roles sufficiently balanced?

Healer and undertaker are very useful. Sentinel is useless.

Should there be more rewards for participating in King of the Hill?

Yes, to motivate people to participate even if they think they will lose.

There have been changes to perceptor HP and resistances, how they are defended, how they are placed, and how they collect resources. Also due to changes to prisms, the primary confrontation between alliances on some servers may have shifted from prism fights to perceptor fights. Are perceptors more or less worthwhile than before? Is the current trade-off of benefit vs cost fair?

They are about the same as far as usefulness. Because they gather from an entire area it has become quite useful to place them in some areas where P2P bots are fighting a lot, because they start gathering resources really fast.

Perceptors play similar roles as prisms in fights, but they can be moved by spells and damaged from the start. Are perceptors that appear in fights balanced, in the perspectives of both attackers and defenders?

Low level perceptors are ridiculously easy to destroy. Other than that they are okay. I'd like to see their utility in the fight reworked to make their spells actually worth leveling. It seems a shame for their spells to be so useless. But anyway....
0 0
Reply
Score : 13424
The Guild Wars updates have largely reshaped many parts of the game, and most of us have been affected in one way or another. What are your thoughts on the system?

Outside PvP
What have been the effects of guild wars and alliance chat on the game community? Have the updates brought more opportunities to make friends, or more conflict?Alliance chat is great. Some people tried using it as a global /b chat. They got either got /a rights removed, or something though because that stopped quick. it kind of works just like a global /r chat with less rules, less spam, less immaturity. The occasional phallic reference makes its way into that chat, we laugh about it, it moves on. It doesn't become a swearing contest. It works because leadership in the guilds of the alliance can moderate it (sort of.)
That being said, maybe this is just because of our choice of allies. I don't have an alt in a different alliance to see the situation from the other side, but from what I've heard from people who are in both but stay out of AvA, [Abyss] chat sucks. Frankly, even though we seem to be on the losing side territory-wise, I think our /a chat redeems us.

Some of the goals of the AvA system are to "introduce additional kamasinks and itemsinks...to prevent economic bloat, ensure that the value of goods does not drop too low, and to keep the player economy lively and interesting". What has been the impact of AvA on server economy?

Kama sinks? Item sinks? If nothing else we lost a kama sink with the perceptor changes. The item sink is barely existant as it takes 15 minutes to get the mats for 30 perceptor potions, then even less after the initial gathering. Set, protect, and collect; alternatively, raid thy adversaries.

Prisms offer XP and drop bonus, and possibly teleportation, all of which benefit PvM. Do PvM players have significant impact in the guild wars? Should PvM players have more of a role in the guild war, without directly fighting other players?


It comes down to whether the end is the goal or is it the journey you care about. If all you care about is "WEE LOOK AT THE NUMBERS!," then 25% is amazing. honestly, I think this is too much as it encourages everyone pooling into the alliance that has everything making it significantly harder for anyone else to even try to take territory. I think if you don't take part in the PvP side, your benefits should reflect that. See old prism system and only 3-7% for rank 1 wings if you just used them for that tiny bonus, and didn't actually PvP. (I do not think that was any better though. example message of why (fake(yes these are nested parentheses)) [0:42](trade) somerandomplaya: Selling honor pm me.)

Village specific resources have been made available outside the conquest villages. The overall feedback was positive. Is this enough for the PvM players who want nothing to do with AvA? Should the studio stop there? Some concerned members of our community mentioned several times quests such as Eternal Harvest. Other quests that required access to alignment villages in the past have been shifted. Should the same be done for arch monsters?


Well making zoth and dopple resources available even if in a smaller area would be nice, but I actually haven't had any issue obtaining them through market, purchase, or barter; I can't say it is necessary. As for arches, I haven't run into that issue quite yet, but I'm sure I could find a seller if I needed to, possibly even a trade for one of my arches I have doubles of at this point.

Are small guilds excluded from the benefits of territories? Do big alliances have too much control, to the extent of monopoly? Should these be changed?


A small guild has the benefit of territories, as long as it can gain entry to the big alliance. The current system even encourages this, and gives every reason for the big alliance to let them in.
The War
Briefly, how would you describe the positions of your server's alliances: does one alliance dominate everything, do a few alliances compete with each other, or is it something different? Do you think this situation is good for the majority of players?


The top alliance has more than double the second largest in numbers (both guild and player) and territory is 143:19 (16xx in [Abyss], 7xx in [vVv] )between them. several other alliances seem to have formed just for chat purposes.
The situation is ok for that 70% of the allied population.

The developers stated that the mechanisms in place would make it so territories wouldn't be controlled by the same Alliance for too long. Do you agree with this statement? How dynamic is the power shift on your server, if and when it happens? Do players have enough tools to change their servers' political landscape?


No dynamics. Our alliance can win prism fights all day, but being outnumbered more than 2:1 means they can literally gang every single one of us in the KoTH, leaving us little in the means of ways to win territory. In addition, there is no incentive for the other alliance to fall out, as they have 25% xp and loot and teleportation.

Despite different AvA environments across English-speaking servers, our community as a whole is impacted very differently than other bigger communities, such as the French or Spanish one. (This significant difference in server populations was the reason behind the initiative allowing for the 2:1 dopploon/kolossoken ratio exchange at class temples for the 2.10 recipe changes). Would you deem it fair to say that the smaller a server, the harder it is to shift the control of power?


As I have nothing to compare it to, I cannot answer this question to any level of accuracy.

Prism Fights (5v5, not including King of the Hill)
After a prism fight, if the attackers fail, they lose HP and energy. If they win, they get no immediate reward. However, alliances need to attack prisms to increase their chance of gaining territory. Should prism attacks be more rewarding, and why or why not? Note, we are not looking for suggestions of specific rewards.


If the devs truly want dynamic landscape, the rewards need to be immediate. I think the current amount of rewards are fine, I just object to the timing (well and the KoTH)


Prisms appear in these fights and apply erosion, deal damage, lock, are unmovable, and are initially invulnerable. However if the prism dies, attackers win the fight. Are the prisms balanced?


No. A defending team does not have to build a defense that is capable of tactical offense as well. They don't need erosion on their side if the attackers bring shields, as the prism does it for them. The prism being unmoveable is fine, but it's invulnerability along side that it has a lifesteal attack that inflicts erosion is a bit much.

King of the Hill
Is the King of the Hill system balanced, or does the alliance with most active PvPers inevitably win?


I don't know what happens in servers like solar that have alliances with 2-3k people in them (reference: Mishna's post) but yes, more people = a win.


A lot has changed since the release of AvA, such as multi-accounting no longer being an immediate numeric advantage, and it all comes down numeric superiority per map of a KoTH area, (among other things). How has this impacted the strategic exploitations on your server when it comes to AvA? Has this made it any better for lower leveled players/guilds to participate and stand a chance? How/When do you feel numeric advance can be beaten by strategy?


Ha!, we've already seen people "work around this" whether it has been by using VM's, multiple machines, or even account sharing. (On both sides of the fight, not just one alliance) these incidences have been reported, I don't know if anything was done.
As for it impacting strategics, it only effects the people that don't break the rules.

Are Healer, Undertaker and Sentinel roles sufficiently balanced?


Healer and undertaker are fine. Sentinel is garbage. However, I think there should still be the 5 second timer, I just don't think it should be visible. If you weren't attacking an enemy in your area within 5 seconds just because they weren't using a potion, you are only attacking them because of the potion, not because you actually want to fight. KoTH should be about fighting.

Should there be more rewards for participating in King of the Hill?


I'm going to be blunt. No. And there shouldn't be a KoTH to begin with. whoever wins the prism wins it (make it protected for x hours after winning so that winning means something)

Perceptors
There have been changes to perceptor HP and resistances, how they are defended, how they are placed, and how they collect resources. Also due to changes to prisms, the primary confrontation between alliances on some servers may have shifted from prism fights to perceptor fights. Are perceptors more or less worthwhile than before? Is the current trade-off of benefit vs cost fair?


Perceptors are more worthwhile. They collect in the entire area albeit, split with other percs in the area. They are better.
They are more risky to attack now due to an entire alliance being able to defend, but the reward is much bigger due to the area collecting. Trade off is fine. (oh and I get more buisness as an alchemist, but as always, alchemy is easy to level, so it's tip work)

Perceptors play similar roles as prisms in fights, but they can be moved by spells and damaged from the start. Are perceptors that appear in fights balanced, in the perspectives of both attackers and defenders?


Perceptors are slightly different than prisms, while prisms can help you blast through protections, percs can outright use unbewitch percs are also a lot squishier. It is quite easy to blitz a perceptor even with a team less powerful than the defense. We took a team or 5 ranging from levels 188-200 and used erosion tactics to nuke the perc while the defense of 5 level 199/200s couldn't do much to stop it due to a combination of good tactics and communication, as well as their defense not being able to hit our feca with a hard erosion spell. Sure it was a "cheap shot" but it's loot. it would have been theirs, but it instead became ours. We didn't cheat to accomplish it, and it was their choice not to bring erosion to the table to counter out feca.
1 0
Reply
Score : 1305

I'm going to try and answer most of these as best as I can:

Outside PvP

1. N/A since my guild is in a 1 guild alliance (I'm not sure why either).

2. In regards to the server economy, little to no difference has been made. Though I noticed that they traded the kamasinks for placing percs with an itemsink, which alchemists can make a profit from.

3. It would be interesting to have PvM players fight for their bonuses. Maybe give them a role of placing monster traps (in which the target of the item has to fight monsters according to their level) to distract the other team in KoTH.

4. All exclusive materials are available, but some are a little cuckoo bananas in terms of price. As for arches, they are also available. The price of them is debatable. All in all, it's somewhat fine.

5. Yes. They are, for the most part, excluded (on Rushu anyway) from the benefits.

The War:

1. Most of it is owned by one alliance. The rest is divided among others. 115-24-15-7-2-1 is how the areas are currently divided. Occasional fights do break out here and there.

2. I can't answer this because my guild hasn't bothered with AvA.

3. Kind of vague to draw any conclusions without anymore examples beside it being a small server. We'd have to look at how many of the supposed players actually AvA in that said small server, along with alliance numbers, alliance history when it comes to Prism fights/KoTH results, etc. For all we know, they all could be equal and everyone has a hard time, or it can be a cakewalk for one alliance but Hell's Kitchen for the others.

I'll skip the next two sections because I do not do AvA. I'll just jump to Perceptors.

Perceptors:

1. Having to share between the other Percs in the area is a blessing and a curse at the same time. Now I have to worry about losing a Dofus to not just one, but x amount of percs in a dungeon (though that will eventually change, making some of the dungeons less worthwhile to have Percs in). I do agree with Nerd-Tease with the extra money an alchemist can get. 180kk+ per 10 is a nice little thing to pop up every now and then.

2. As everyone has said, they die too easily. As for the fights being balanced, the players can be, but I can't say a Perc is balanced. I say this because I've seen most people put points in Rock or Cyclone lvl 1, Unbewitchment lvl 1, then dump all points into PP, Pods, and the amount of Percs a guild can place.

0 0
Reply
Score : 3389

The Guild Wars updates have largely reshaped many parts of the game, and most of us have been affected in one way or another. What are your thoughts on the system?

Outside PvP

  • What have been the effects of guild wars and alliance chat on the game community? Have the updates brought more opportunities to make friends, or more conflict?
Both, I've made friends (I got to meet people I don't usually talk to) and enemies (people who used to be really close to me slowly moving away from me since my guild is in a different alliance and blah blah blah... drama.)

  • Some of the goals of the AvA system are to "introduce additional kamasinks and itemsinks...to prevent economic bloat, ensure that the value of goods does not drop too low, and to keep the player economy lively and interesting". What has been the impact of AvA on server economy?
Let see.. Trophies are a lot more expensive now, some people are forced to pay millions of kamas since they can't access any of the villages, most of the trophies require zoth maths and yup.. you can't get those either, In short, It's crap.

  • Prisms offer XP and drop bonus, and possibly teleportation, all of which benefit PvM. Do PvM players have significant impact in the guild wars? Should PvM players have more of a role in the guild war, without directly fighting other players?
Let me fix that for you. Prisms offer XP and drop bonuses, and possibly teleportation all of which benefit the OP end game PvPers and their guilds.*

If Ankama doesn't screw it up even more then go for it, right now Most pvmers are upset about the fact that they can't access some of the content in the game even though some of them have no interest what so ever when it comes to ava mode. In short, Ankama created a faulty system that doesn't hurts the majority of the pvmers since they can't access a lot of content because of the stupid territories system the game has right now.

  • Village specific resources have been made available outside the conquest villages. The overall feedback was positive. Is this enough for the PvM players who want nothing to do with AvA? Should the studio stop there? Some concerned members of our community mentioned several times quests such as Eternal Harvest. Other quests that required access to alignment villages in the past have been shifted. Should the same be done for arch monsters?
Rofl. Where are the Zoth monsters and where are the dopple territory monsters? The resources that have been made available outside the conquest villages is a little step forward, but there is still a lot more that needs to be fixed.

  • Are small guilds excluded from the benefits of territories? Do big alliances have too much control, to the extent of monopoly? Should these be changed?
It depends on the alliance.

The War
  • Briefly, how would you describe the positions of your server's alliances: does one alliance dominate everything, do a few alliances compete with each other, or is it something different? Do you think this situation is good for the majority of players?
Judging from how I'm replying back to this thread, I think it's safe to say that Shika's ava system is a complete load of dog crap which focuses more on "Who can stay awake for the longest when KOTH arrives" than when it comes to "Who deserves to actually get the area" - In short, the game is turning into a load a dog crap with these changes, a lot of people are pissed off (at least on shika) at the fact that not one alliance can gain back the territories lost to ovo since they have people who are awake all night long and play for several hours per day. How on earth is that fair ?

  • The developers stated that the mechanisms in place would make it so territories wouldn't be controlled by the same Alliance for too long. Do you agree with this statement? How dynamic is the power shift on your server, if and when it happens? Do players have enough tools to change their servers' political landscape?
It is a needed change, right now the Alliance system is a lot worse than the Bonta vs Brakmar system (or at least on Shika)

  • Despite different AvA environments across English-speaking servers, our community as a whole is impacted very differently than other bigger communities, such as the French or Spanish one. (This significant difference in server populations was the reason behind the initiative allowing for the 2:1 dopploon/kolossoken ratio exchange at class temples for the 2.10 recipe changes). Would you deem it fair to say that the smaller a server, the harder it is to shift the control of power?
From personal experience I can definitely say this is the case, Not one major area has been taken back ever since the Alliance system came out, in other words, we've had to deal with at least 3 months of complete crap and not being able to craft items that needed to get made.

Prism Fights (5v5, not including King of the Hill)
  • After a prism fight, if the attackers fail, they lose HP and energy. If they win, they get no immediate reward. However, alliances need to attack prisms to increase their chance of gaining territory. Should prism attacks be more rewarding, and why or why not? Note, we are not looking for suggestions of specific rewards.
They should be rewarding, that way more players can feel engaged when taking part in the alliance system instead of the constant "Oh, We just destroyed a prism, but oh.... ovo is going to take it back soon, so we practically just wasted our time. -__-"

  • Prisms appear in these fights and apply erosion, deal damage, lock, are unmovable, and are initially invulnerable. However if the prism dies, attackers win the fight. Are the prisms balanced?
Haven't seen anyone go for the prism first, so I can't really say.

King of the Hill
  • Is the King of the Hill system balanced, or does the alliance with most active PvPers inevitably win?
ROFL. ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFL. ROOOOOOOOOOOOFL! IS IT BALANCED hahahaha. Oh my god. It's not even close to being balanced right now, people sit around for 30 minutes at least to try and get an area and when they don't they don't even take part anymore because they don't get rewarded for their efforts. It's not balanced at all since ganging is always a constant issue, pvmer's don't even bother with the system (for the most part at least) so yes, PvPers inevitably win. Ovo is filled with the best guilds on Shika (Level wise and gear wise), When it comes to koth, they always win because they can practically beat most, if not all of the people they face.

  • A lot has changed since the release of AvA, such as multi-accounting no longer being an immediate numeric advantage, and it all comes down numeric superiority per map of a KoTH area, (among other things). How has this impacted the strategic exploitations on your server when it comes to AvA? Has this made it any better for lower leveled players/guilds to participate and stand a chance? How/When do you feel numeric advance can be beaten by strategy?
Strategy is almost never ever used when it comes to Koth and I don't see any low levels taking part when it comes to KOTH.

  • Are Healer, Undertaker and Sentinel roles sufficiently balanced?
Why is Sentinel even in the game? I haven't seen anybody use it till now.

  • Should there be more rewards for participating in King of the Hill?
Without a doubt on my mind, there should be more rewards for taking part in KOTH.

Perceptors
  • There have been changes to perceptor HP and resistances, how they are defended, how they are placed, and how they collect resources. Also due to changes to prisms, the primary confrontation between alliances on some servers may have shifted from prism fights to perceptor fights. Are perceptors more or less worthwhile than before? Is the current trade-off of benefit vs cost fair?
Well, I don't really mind the new perceptors to be honest, I don't have much to say about that.

  • Perceptors play similar roles as prisms in fights, but they can be moved by spells and damaged from the start. Are perceptors that appear in fights balanced, in the perspectives of both attackers and defenders?
Read above.
0 0
Reply
Score : 335

Great thread, i am amazed by everyone's ideas and can't help it but think the current system needs some tweaking. The way it is now, if you have an alliance that have more number then others, the AvA will die and they will dominate, eventually people will join the main power if they want the bonuses, that makes them have more number and therefore kill pvp even more. I really love the pvp in this game and many share my opinion, it is a shame after i was happy the developers came up with such a great update i find my alliance helplessly overrun by numbers massively and unable to change the current situation even though we have really skilled pvpers. I hope the voice of Kolo champs and all pvp fans reach out to you folks and i am sure i will still be amazed by what's Amakna team is gonna come up with in the future.

Cheers

Al-Azrag

0 0
Reply
Score : 3877
LHassen|2013-09-19 18:34:39
Great thread, i am amazed by everyone's ideas and can't help it but think the current system needs some tweaking. The way it is now, if you have an alliance that have more number then others, the AvA will die and they will dominate, eventually people will join the main power if they want the bonuses, that makes them have more number and therefore kill pvp even more. I really love the pvp in this game and many share my opinion, it is a shame after i was happy the developers came up with such a great update i find my alliance helplessly overrun by numbers massively and unable to change the current situation even though we have really skilled pvpers. I hope the voice of Kolo champs and all pvp fans reach out to you folks and i am sure i will still be amazed by what's Amakna team is gonna come up with in the future.

Cheers

Al-Azrag
Yep, that is pretty much the same as it was with bonta/brakmar. There is only one to rule them all
0 0
Reply
Score : 184

There is a simple solution for the AvA System, the combined lvl of the guilds in a alliance cannot be over X number and that would be the same for members a limited number for it, would make it waaay more balanced in my opinion.

0 0
Reply
Score : 6161
ReyalsLous|2013-09-20 04:35:57
There is a simple solution for the AvA System, the combined lvl of the guilds in a alliance cannot be over X number and that would be the same for members a limited number for it, would make it waaay more balanced in my opinion.
...then, people would make lvl 1 guilds and fill them with characters, without leveling it up. That won't help. There should be a limit for characters, but it would be a lot more complicated than just guild level.

The best way I can see would be to break apart the most powerful guilds somehow (maybe a tier system, based on the number of characters and their levels in the guild, and limitations imposed based on this tier system: 2 strong guilds, 5 medium, 10 low for alliance, for instance). That way, there would be real competition, since the strongest would be constantly fighting for one or another area, instead of having all guilds crammed in one alliance, and would give the weak guilds a lot more of importance.
0 0
Reply
Score : 2275

I think its no good with one big super alliance controlling everything. There should be some favor which lures people to join the rebel side. During stroken period of dofus, people joined the smaller alignment because there was less competitions about finding a duel, which gave good reward to the winner of the fights. There were more figts and hence more rewards for the ones who joined the smaler force.
AVA gives nothing like that. There is nothing which tryes to balance the numbers between the fighting sides.

0 0
Reply
Score : 2803
1) What have been the effects of guild wars and alliance chat on the game community? Have the updates brought more opportunities to make friends, or more conflict?

From my own experience I would say that the effect on the community has been exceptionally positive.

Making new friends: The update has made it far easier to make new friends. Circles of friends have expanded and many individuals who were secluded in their private or small Guilds now interact fully with the community. In this respect, the update has made it possible for small and private Guilds to flourish without having to abandon their virtues. These benefits have made it easier for single-account holders to get together in groups.
Conflict: I have seen plenty of individuals who used to be in conflict with one another getting together to achieve common goals - this has brought the community closer in my opinion. Some individuals have drifted further apart as a result of the competitive nature of the update, but for the most part these individuals were competing with each other to begin with. The number of new friendships created on each side of the fence far outweigh the drifting apart of competitive individuals. Overall the update has resolved conflicts between people, whilst conflicts that were not resolved by the update have somewhat intensified.
Alliance chat: The Alliance chat is a great big playground. In our Alliance, we decided that it would be unfair for one person, or for a small group of people, to regulate and to moderate what others saying. Sometimes members do experience conflicts and petty arguments over the /a chat, but Ankama has given us players all the tools needed to deal with such problems: every player has the "ignore" button at their disposal. Considering that Ankama has made it possible for us to ignore any player who causes frustration, it would seem unreasonable and unfair to have further moderation and regulation. Having said that, we do occasionally get grossly inappropriate behaviour, but the Guild leaders are exceptional at dealing with this in-house. You'd be surprised how much more effective it is to get through to somebody with reason, instead of removing their privileges or banishing them.

Quote (Nerd-Tease @ 2013-09-17 07:31:10)
I don't have an alt in a different alliance to see the situation from the other side, but from what I've heard from people who are in both but stay out of AvA, [Abyss] chat sucks. Frankly, even though we seem to be on the losing side territory-wise, I think our /a chat redeems us.


I'm not sure how accurate this third-party report is! The people you are making reference to are not as bad as you think. You wouldn't know this, of course, because as you said you are not in both Alliances! sleep
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2) Some of the goals of the AvA system are to "introduce additional kamasinks and itemsinks...to prevent economic bloat, ensure that the value of goods does not drop too low, and to keep the player economy lively and interesting". What has been the impact of AvA on server economy?

Additional kama- and item-sinks have been introduced. How effective these are at achieving the goal "to prevent economic bloat" remain to be seen. It is too early to tell at this stage. However, I am personally very pleased to see some resources brought to the limelight by finding new and exciting uses!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3) Prisms offer XP and drop bonus, and possibly teleportation, all of which benefit PvM. Do PvM players have significant impact in the guild wars? Should PvM players have more of a role in the guild war, without directly fighting other players?

PvM players do have a significant impact in the Guild Wars already. Our Alliance controls nearly all the territories of our server and we do not have more than 2-3 individuals who like to call themselves "PvP characters". The vast majority of our members are only focusing on PvM, but willingly participate in the Guild Wars in order to enjoy the above-mentioned benefits. If it wasn't for the PvM players we would have around 3 people ready and willing to participate in AvA and KoH!

It would be nice to see some features that enabled PvM players to "do their bit" for their Alliance outside of KoH battles. Mishna's suggestion to regulate control over territories and to remove automatically prisms in areas where PvM doesn't take place is interesting. However, there are SOME areas, where PvM never takes place (for example the Breeder's Village in Otomai Island).

Creating KoH features for PvM players to participate in seems unrealistic and unnecessary in my opinion. PvM players already participate in KoH. Just because they have to put down their Backpacks and take out their Swords doesn't mean that they are not participating!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4) Village specific resources have been made available outside the conquest villages. The overall feedback was positive. Is this enough for the PvM players who want nothing to do with AvA?

It is difficult to tell whether this is "enough". Although my Alliance is open to people placing "profession alts" in our baby Guilds, many people do not want to use this option. However, I have done a quick survey of resources outside the villages and I am seeing multiple stars on most occasions. This suggests to me that demand for such resources is not as high as some people believe.



As far as arch-monsters are concerned, putting more of them outside the conquest villages can only be a good thing. In fact, do make more resources available out side the conquest villages, and place some Zoths around the Canopy while you are at it! smile
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5) Are small guilds excluded from the benefits of territories? Do big alliances have too much control, to the extent of monopoly? Should these be changed?

I am not sure how or why things should change in this regard. The Developers have given us the tools to shape the landscape in any way that we can (i.e. whether or not we are capable of doing so) or want (i.e. by our own personal choice). If an Alliance experiences a monopoly, it's because the players have decided to move in that direction. This represents a majority opinion and it would seem unfair for changes to be applied in order to disadvantage that opinion, not least because the dynamics are driven purely by the players themselves.

It should also be noted that some Alliances choose to harbour a small, more selective size, by their own initiative. For example, if you look at the recruitment thread of vVv in Zatoishwan, the Alliance specifically indicates the following: "Veni Vidi Vici is not focused on being the biggest alliance on Zatoishwan". Moreover, some members of small Alliances have been quick to point out the advantages associated with such environments; if I can use an example from this very thread, Turretz (post #6) implies that his /a chat is more pleasant in his opinion. It would seem that smaller Alliances can regulate their /a chat more easily, if regulation and moderation is something that they actively seek in the /a chat.

In my opinion, these advantages offset the advantages that large Alliances have: namely controlling the territories and conquest villages. Managing large Alliances is harder, and it's a fair price to pay in order to have the above-mentioned monopoly. The fact that smaller Alliances are easier to manage and have various distinct advantages over larger Alliances creates a balance: it's like embracing more difficulties and challenges in order to be rewarded with a limited monopoly. It wouldn't make sense to apply changes that would disrupt this logic, not least because the small Alliances themselves prefer to be in small Alliances by choice.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6) Briefly, how would you describe the positions of your server's alliances: does one alliance dominate everything, do a few alliances compete with each other, or is it something different? Do you think this situation is good for the majority of players?

In our server one Alliance (Abyss) dominates, but this Alliance is open to small Guilds and players from all backgrounds.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7) The developers stated that the mechanisms in place would make it so territories wouldn't be controlled by the same Alliance for too long. Do you agree with this statement? How dynamic is the power shift on your server, if and when it happens? Do players have enough tools to change their servers' political landscape?

Players most certainly have the tools needed to change the political landscape: their own power of speech and politics. I do not see the logic in implementing mechanical tools that would influence this process.

As I mentioned in my response to question #5, larger Alliances are more difficult to manage than smaller Alliances. This is a fair price to pay for having the power and the monopoly associated with such Alliances. Add to this the fact that the smaller Alliances have a number of distinct (especially administrative) advantages and choose to play in such environments by choice, and suddenly the system may appear as a lot more balanced/fair than some people believe.

The difficulty in managing large Alliances makes the following statement accurate in my opinion: there ARE mechanics in place that make it difficult for the same Alliance to control everything for too long.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8) Would you deem it fair to say that the smaller a server, the harder it is to shift the control of power?

I don't know the answer to this I'm afraid... but the way I'm looking at it, it might not be the case.

If a server has 10 large Guilds, and 8 of them are in one Alliance, then the other 2 Guilds would have to convince several large Guilds to join them in order to shift the power. On the other hand, if a server has only 4 major Guilds and 3 are in the same Alliance, then the remaining Guild only has to win 1 set of hearts in order to shift the balance. From this perspective I cannot understand how it may be more difficult to achieve a power-shift on a smaller server.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9) Prism Fights (5v5, not including King of the Hill) After a prism fight, if the attackers fail, they lose HP and energy. If they win, they get no immediate reward. However, alliances need to attack prisms to increase their chance of gaining territory. Should prism attacks be more rewarding, and why or why not? Note, we are not looking for suggestions of specific rewards.

I was always of the opinion that a prism is attacked to achieve an empirical effect, not to earn any specific reward. If prism victories bestow some reward to the attackers then more prism fights may be encouraged - however, the same rewards should be bestowed upon the defenders who successfully defend a prism. That, in my opinion, would be the most fair way forward.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


10)
Prisms appear in these fights and apply erosion, deal damage, lock, are unmovable, and are initially invulnerable. However if the prism dies, attackers win the fight. Are the prisms balanced?

In a 5 Vs 5 battle, the attackers have the distinct advantage of being able to put their most elite team together. The defenders are disadvantaged by having to join in whatever current state they are in, not necessarily having the most ideal team at their disposal. This is a small price to pay for the defenders, considering they enjoy the benefits of the prisms, but my opinion is that the above-mentioned advantages fairly offset by the involvement of the prism.

If any attacking group can destroy a prism before the fight is over, then they surely deserve the win. After all, the prism is very difficult to kill in the current state.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11) Is the King of the Hill system balanced, or does the alliance with most active PvPers inevitably win?

It's a combination of quality and quantity that determines the outcome. There can be a situation where quality PvPers can offset a slightly larger attacking/defending group, but this is only true to a certain degree. Some Alliances are not only large, they are also very motivated and have excellent organisation. It is difficult to imagine how a smaller number of attacking individuals can overcome all those challenges simultaneously. However, the difficulty associated with managing large groups of people (in a large Alliance) fairly balances the advantages on the battlefield, in my opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12) A lot has changed since the release of AvA, such as multi-accounting no longer being an immediate numeric advantage, and it all comes down numeric superiority per map of a KoTH area, (among other things). How has this impacted the strategic exploitations on your server when it comes to AvA? Has this made it any better for lower leveled players/guilds to participate and stand a chance? How/When do you feel numeric advance can be beaten by strategy?

As far as I can see every single person in my Guild who used to multi-account, when it was within the rules to multi account, no longer does so. The changes have enabled mid- and low-level members of our Alliance to have a special place in KoH. Our battle strategies adapted and we have done everything that could have been done in order to adapt quickly to this new system. Now, the system feels as balanced and as fair as can be - it's up to the players to decide which side they want to fight on, and their numbers and general organisation can bring about victory in a fair manner.

I am very unhappy to see people sharing accounts to shift the balance of power. This is against Ankama's Terms & Conditions, and sadly the AvA update that banished multi accounting has encouraged account sharing. I constantly find myself in KoH PvP against the characters of people who are either fast asleep or on holiday!!! Some are proud of the fact that they are on their friends' accounts, and even shout it out on the general chat during the battle...
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


13) Are Healer, Undertaker and Sentinel roles sufficiently balanced?


In my opinion these are great the way they are. I have been in situations where I got tired of chasing 1 or 2 people to kill them - I almost felt like changing my roles to Sentinel through and through!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


14) Should there be more rewards for participating in King of the Hill?


Having participated in more than 140 KoH battles, I only have this to say: no. The advantage of owning the prism and territory AFTER the KoH is enough.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15) & 16)
Are perceptors more or less worthwhile than before? Is the current trade-off of benefit vs cost fair?
Are perceptors that appear in fights balanced, in the perspectives of both attackers and defenders?

Perceptors are far more useful than before. Their pods fill up more quickly and there are fewer clashes between Guild members wanting to place perceptors in the same area. This is one of the best changes made in recent times, in my opinion.

However, perceptors are far too easy to kill. We need to strike a balance between the way that they are now (easy to kill) and they way they were before (impossible to kill before the defenders had been removed). As a defender I feel that my perceptors are a liability in the battle - they have very little use and are easily disposed of by an experienced team.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for giving us a chance to comment smile

WinterHeart
1 0
Reply
Score : 224

vVv have demonstrated that a non-majority alliance can kill prisms and preceptors effectively. We have seen them launching 5-10 simultaneous attacks against prisms and preceptors, which suggests that their biggest problem is not the numbers. They don’t come to defend their land even though the number of people that they include in simultaneous attacks far outweighs the number of attackers from our side that win the KoH.Having a few skilled groups of attackers roaming around together could change things for an Alliance that isn’t the biggest one on any server. For this reason I don’t think that the Developers should be implementing new models and structures to help smaller alliances. There is much that they can do to help themselves in the first place.

1 0
Reply
Score : 4519
Levosis|2013-09-20 23:41:06
vVv have demonstrated that a non-majority alliance can kill prisms and preceptors effectively. We have seen them launching 5-10 simultaneous attacks against prisms and preceptors, which suggests that their biggest problem is not the numbers. They don’t come to defend their land even though the number of people that they include in simultaneous attacks far outweighs the number of attackers from our side that win the KoH.Having a few skilled groups of attackers roaming around together could change things for an Alliance that isn’t the biggest one on any server. For this reason I don’t think that the Developers should be implementing new models and structures to help smaller alliances. There is much that they can do to help themselves in the first place.
Are there strategies which an underdog alliance can use, but the dominating alliance cannot? When an alliance controls most territories, it will naturally attract more guilds including active attackers, and its members will be more motivated to participate. Members of underdog alliances will be likely migrate to the dominating alliance or make alts in the dominating alliance to enjoy the territories, instead of fighting for their original alliance. Do underdog alliances have any way to counter this disadvantage?
0 0
Reply
Score : 2803
vagabaka|2013-09-21 02:44:50
Levosis|2013-09-20 23:41:06
vVv have demonstrated that a non-majority alliance can kill prisms and preceptors effectively. We have seen them launching 5-10 simultaneous attacks against prisms and preceptors, which suggests that their biggest problem is not the numbers. They don’t come to defend their land even though the number of people that they include in simultaneous attacks far outweighs the number of attackers from our side that win the KoH.Having a few skilled groups of attackers roaming around together could change things for an Alliance that isn’t the biggest one on any server. For this reason I don’t think that the Developers should be implementing new models and structures to help smaller alliances. There is much that they can do to help themselves in the first place.
Are there strategies which an underdog alliance can use, but the dominating alliance cannot? When an alliance controls most territories, it will naturally attract more guilds including active attackers, and its members will be more motivated to participate. Members of underdog alliances will be likely migrate to the dominating alliance or make alts in the dominating alliance to enjoy the territories, instead of fighting for their original alliance. Do underdog alliances have any way to counter this disadvantage?

There are no specific attacking/defending strategies that would benefit an underdog Alliance more than a well-established (larger) alliance, but that does not mean that a power shift is impossible. Through expert use of politics, and given enough time, anything can change.

I believe that the easy-going environment of a smaller alliance may appeal to some players, while PvP lovers could switch to the underdog Alliance purely for the thrill of a good battle. Such occurrences can eventually cause a power shift, and this is the way in which underdog Alliances can counter their difficulties. Quick-fix patches by the Development team to encourage a "50/50" or "60/40" power shift on any server will never lead to absolute balance and harmony. There will always be a group of more people who are capable of skewing the landscape beyond what was reasonably expected.

As a side-note, I would like to state that we cannot dub an alliance "underdog" based purely on KoH numbers. We rarely see more than 20-30 participants from either side in these events. Therefore, an Alliance with several hundred members can easily match and defeat an Alliance with over one thousand members. There is much that an underdog Alliance can do to help itself, as Levosis said in his post.

WinterHeart
0 0
Reply
Score : 136
vagabaka|2013-09-21 02:44:50
Levosis|2013-09-20 23:41:06
vVv have demonstrated that a non-majority alliance can kill prisms and preceptors effectively. We have seen them launching 5-10 simultaneous attacks against prisms and preceptors, which suggests that their biggest problem is not the numbers. They don’t come to defend their land even though the number of people that they include in simultaneous attacks far outweighs the number of attackers from our side that win the KoH.Having a few skilled groups of attackers roaming around together could change things for an Alliance that isn’t the biggest one on any server. For this reason I don’t think that the Developers should be implementing new models and structures to help smaller alliances. There is much that they can do to help themselves in the first place.
Are there strategies which an underdog alliance can use, but the dominating alliance cannot? When an alliance controls most territories, it will naturally attract more guilds including active attackers, and its members will be more motivated to participate. Members of underdog alliances will be likely migrate to the dominating alliance or make alts in the dominating alliance to enjoy the territories, instead of fighting for their original alliance. Do underdog alliances have any way to counter this disadvantage?
I take 'underdog alliance' to mean 'smaller alliance' since smaller alliances have a disadvantage in KotH.
There are no strategies that a smaller alliance can use to even the balance of power. That's the key issue in my view: the current system encourages an already large alliance to get even larger.

Would the devs consider introducing some sort of 'upkeep' or 'timeout' to prisms -- the prisms might deteriorate and disappear given enough time, just as pets might die if left alone for too long? Might the prisms of alliances have a total number of hit points across all prisms that is somehow inversely related to the number of territories held, so that it is very easy to maintain a single territory but difficult to maintain a large number of them?

Winterheart|2013-09-21 03:20:41

There are no specific attacking/defending strategies that would benefit an underdog Alliance more than a well-established (larger) alliance, but that does not mean that a power shift is impossible. Through expert use of politics, and given enough time, anything can change.

I believe that the easy-going environment of a smaller alliance may appeal to some players, while PvP lovers could switch to the underdog Alliance purely for the thrill of a good battle. Such occurrences can eventually cause a power shift, and this is the way in which underdog Alliances can counter their difficulties. Quick-fix patches by the Development team to encourage a "50/50" or "60/40" power shift on any server will never lead to absolute balance and harmony. There will always be a group of more people who are capable of skewing the landscape beyond what was reasonably expected.

As a side-note, I would like to state that we cannot dub an alliance "underdog" based purely on KoH numbers. We rarely see more than 20-30 participants from either side in these events. Therefore, an Alliance with several hundred members can easily match and defeat an Alliance with over one thousand members. There is much that an underdog Alliance can do to help itself, as Levosis said in his post.

WinterHeart
I agree with some of these points: that it is possible for a smaller alliance to outmanoeuvre a larger one, and for a smaller alliance to weaken the prisms of a larger alliance. However, while I acknowledge the possibility, I think the issue here (according to the post that Winterheart was responding to, and IMHO an important issue) is the sort of situation that the current system encourages. The system encourages the incumbent dominant alliance to remain dominant. Furthermore, while smaller alliances can win prism fights, given any alliance of sufficiently large number, the levels and abilities of the players will be similarly distributed.

We have seen how important KotH is to the dominance of an alliance. Numerical superiority is truly key to the gaining and holding of territory in Dofus, since winning prism fights is futile if a much larger alliance has many more members.

And while underdog alliances can help themselves, so can 'overdog' alliances. There is nothing in the AvA system that makes it more difficult to 'manage' a larger, more dominant alliance than to manage a smaller one with little territory.
0 0
Reply
Score : 2803
Kotengu|2013-09-21 15:08:37
And while underdog alliances can help themselves, so can 'overdog' alliances. There is nothing in the AvA system that makes it more difficult to 'manage' a larger, more dominant alliance than to manage a smaller one with little territory.

This is a very interesting comment. I agree that a dominating Alliance can help itself more than an underdog Alliance can help itself. However, I do not agree that there is nothing in the AvA system which makes the managing of larger Alliances difficult. In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to the following comment by Izmar (lifted directly from the 2.13 Devblog; bold formatting edited by myself):
Geopolitics in perpetual motion: Behind this somewhat bold title hides a real goal that we want to achieve (and propose): ensure that any given situation on a server is never permanent. For example, that an alliance can never totally and continuously dominate a server. To achieve this goal, we have put some specific game mechanisms in place:Alliances are easily created, build and dissolved. The main tool to destroy alliances will come from within: the drama!

I can assure you that a larger Alliance is exceptionally difficult to manage and to coordinate. We have seen large Alliances on all servers collapse directly as a result of these mechanisms.

I also wish to draw your attention to this comment, also from the same Devblog:
And if it does indeed remain the same for too long, it will largely depend on the players to organize themselves and join forces to change the way things are. You now have the tools available to you, prove yourself worthy and step up to the responsibility!

There may well be a situation where a large Alliance is particularly stable and fiercely dominating over time. If that is the case on one or two servers, but not on other servers, it could be because those particular Alliances are managed sufficiently well to maintain their size.

WinterHeart
0 0
Reply
Score : 4

HI

Befor i start i'll just say that i'll make thing short ,easy and fast so we dont get lost in a big chapter of something simple !

1- AvA is already good like this : We can't multy log , every single lvl help , it required just a litle organisation and even smaller alliance can win ! i seen big allaince with low people present in KoH . it woul've been easy for other to conquer it !
Just need a good leadership to plan AvA fight !

2-Quality over quantaty ! A well planned strategy win , always !

3-What is the point about big alliance being a problem ? It is sure there will ALWAYS be bigger guild/alliance:people join an alliance for there own interest . They want big ? they join big . they want original ? they join original . they want friendly mature ? they will join friendly mautre one ! we can't penalise big alliance just because other want,but cant, be big ! It will result as saying ' i'm lvl 150 but i cant kill lvl 200 that's unfair! ' if your objective is to be Big work for it !

4-AvA is Fun but it take time when you have to wait 30 min doing nothing in a KoH because no one show up!!!! Adding something like 'forfait' when no alliance defander is showing up would be great ! they havent showed the first 15 min . They are showing no interest in defanding there teritory , why make it last longuer?

5 If you want a beter opinion about AvA and alliance you should take a look on the server. Forum is usualy filled of a minority of people disagreing wyle the majority is playing , having fun and enjoying this current update.

--Rubyz alias Emerald!--

0 0
Reply
Respond to this thread