FR EN DE ES IT PT
Browse forums 
Ankama Trackers

Alliance vs Alliance Feedback

By vagabaka - SUBSCRIBER - September 17, 2013, 03:27:43
Reactions 51
Score : 4519
Kotengu|2013-09-22 19:51:10
What is the situation with [Guard] and [Aeon] now? Have the numbers grown in one or the other alliance?

If [Guard] consists of the server's leading guilds, it makes sense that it was able to defeat [Aeon] in prism fights. But how about KotH -- was it a matter of killing off [Aeon] members, or was [Aeon] not motivated to participate in fights?

Also, you mentioned 'when they had lower population'. This suggests that [Guard] now has a higher population that [Aeon] as things currently stand. Do you think the dominance of [Guard] motivated players to switch to it? Or, perhaps, that the presence of the server's most powerful players was a motivating factor?

[Guard] now has 3725 members and has been growing, while [Aeon] has 3173 and has been shrinking.

I should have said [Guard] included a few of the server's leading guilds. At the beginning both alliances had similar numbers in KOTH, but [Guard] was typically more organized and presented better geared characters. But nowadays after continual losses in KOTH, and because many members have resorted to using alts in [Guard] to access the territory resources instead, it's basically impossible to motivate [Aeon] members to participate.

I think the population shift from [Aeon] to [Guard] is because [Guard] dominates the territories. But their ability to dominate was largely thanks to having most of the servers' leading guilds and best geared players.

Revil-Nunor|2013-09-22 20:19:58
Go check out the french servers, many of them have multiple alliances controlling 50 or 60 prisms, so expecting sweeping changes because the small English community servers aren't working as well as the bigger French servers seems... unrealistic.

If the AvA system has had differing results on international servers from on French servers, it's all the more important to get feedback from our community. Developers have been known to make changes in consideration of smaller servers, such as the Dopploon-Kolossoken exchange mentioned in the opening post.
0 0
Reply
Score : 27358

Can you really compare exchanging tokens, which takes effect at the individual player level, to changes to a system that affects the entire server? I don't see what they can change which would only affect a smaller server and would do nothing on a server where things are working as intended.

Unless they plan to add tokens on the small servers that would grant you access to Zoths or whatever area for a designated amount of time... but that is pretty far out there.

0 0
Reply
Score : 4519
Revil-Nunor|2013-09-23 00:06:17
Can you really compare exchanging tokens, which takes effect at the individual player level, to changes to a system that affects the entire server? I don't see what they can change which would only affect a smaller server and would do nothing on a server where things are working as intended.

Unless they plan to add tokens on the small servers that would grant you access to Zoths or whatever area for a designated amount of time... but that is pretty far out there.
I believe it's possible to make changes to the system so that it encourages the competition between multiple alliances, instead of the existence of a single dominating alliance. Such changes would affect all servers, but if a server already has multiple competing alliances, it would probably be less affected than servers with single dominating alliances. However, as I said above, I would not like to discuss specific changes in this thread.
0 0
Reply
Score : 136
vagabaka|2013-09-23 00:02:27
Kotengu|2013-09-22 19:51:10
What is the situation with [Guard] and [Aeon] now? Have the numbers grown in one or the other alliance?

If [Guard] consists of the server's leading guilds, it makes sense that it was able to defeat [Aeon] in prism fights. But how about KotH -- was it a matter of killing off [Aeon] members, or was [Aeon] not motivated to participate in fights?

Also, you mentioned 'when they had lower population'. This suggests that [Guard] now has a higher population that [Aeon] as things currently stand. Do you think the dominance of [Guard] motivated players to switch to it? Or, perhaps, that the presence of the server's most powerful players was a motivating factor?

[Guard] now has 3725 members and has been growing, while [Aeon] has 3173 and has been shrinking.

I should have said [Guard] included a few of the server's leading guilds. At the beginning both alliances had similar numbers in KOTH, but [Guard] was typically more organized and presented better geared characters. But nowadays after continual losses in KOTH, and because many members have resorted to using alts in [Guard] to access the territory resources instead, it's basically impossible to motivate [Aeon] members to participate.

I think the population shift from [Aeon] to [Guard] is because [Guard] dominates the territories. But their ability to dominate was largely thanks to having most of the servers' leading guilds and best geared players.
Makes sense that things have unfolded as you described. If the numbers started out more or less balanced then the difference in numbers would not have reached a point of imbalance, and combat superiority could serve as a factor to swing the tide.

As you have previously observed, now that [Guard] has
  • slight numerical superiority, better than parity
  • domination of territories
  • advantage in combat
it doesn't seem that there is anything the now-underdog [Aeon] can do to reclaim territory.

There may just not be sufficient players left to swing the balance. For example, it is actually the case that on Zatoishwan, [Abyss] has
  • overwhelming numerical superiority
  • domination of territories
  • parity in combat, with a slight edge simply due to having a larger pool of players, and several large guilds
The numerical disparity is such that [Abyss] is more than 2.5 times the size of [vVv], and significantly larger than all the other alliances combined.

vagabaka|2013-09-23 00:02:27
Revil-Nunor|2013-09-22 20:19:58
Go check out the french servers, many of them have multiple alliances controlling 50 or 60 prisms, so expecting sweeping changes because the small English community servers aren't working as well as the bigger French servers seems... unrealistic.

If the AvA system has had differing results on international servers from on French servers, it's all the more important to get feedback from our community. Developers have been known to make changes in consideration of smaller servers, such as the Dopploon-Kolossoken exchange mentioned in the opening post.

Whatever changes are introduced, they would have to scale. It is likely that there is a network effect associated with AvA participation. If the situation on the French servers is different from that on English servers, it could be because the large number of players has allowed several interconnected networks of players to form around multiple difference points. Lacking the same scale of numbers, the social networks on English servers may be of a simpler nature.

We can try to think of gameplay mechanics changes (which we will of course reserve for a subsequent suggestions thread wink).

Without discussing specific details at this point, it seems to me that these gameplay mechanics might be along these lines:
  • encourage (not mandate, though some have suggested this) a relatively proportional territory distribution on servers where alliances are of different size
  • scale according to alliance/territory size
  • allow that servers already in a state of dynamic equilibrium, with respect to AvA, will likely remain in such a state of dynamic equilibrium
  • allow that servers that reach a 100% or almost-100% consensus to share all resources may be allowed to do so
 
0 0
Reply
Score : 2275

Hi

King of the hill is not how I like it to be. The PvP part doesnt play a big role. No matter how many you kill, they can quickly log another alt to replace the dead one. I know there are people with 8+ characters. One fight takes 5-10 minutes. Koth lasts around 30-45minutes usually. I dont have enough time to kill off all of the alts to decrease the number of enemy numbers/maps during the session. You might as well not pvp. Just sit and wait and check wether or not your alliance got more people. The pvp part has become just a cheap entertainment in koth which has no real value.

I rather avoid suggestinos in zenith but it should give some bonus points to the alliance who successfully kills during koth. Say 1 temporary map point for 3 minutes for each head. At the same time a penalty for same amount and duration for the alliance who got killed. It will give a satesfaction of done some diffrence, if not for anything else then at least temporary.

EDIT: perhaps the duration of the fight is not the same for everyone. But we should consider that there are many classes which doesnt have the ability to kill fast. Should those be discriminated?

0 0
Reply
Score : 15681

The new penalty system for alliances that control too much of the world is working pretty nicely to shake up Solar, because IRON has had to shed a bunch of the worthless low level areas in order to retain control of the valuable key areas.

But truthfully IRON can and probably will continue to control all the key villages and valuable Frigost villages forever with no hope of our rival PEACE alliance managing to capture any of the key territories that we don't want to lose.

We will give them all the low level areas we don't want so they can farm nuggets off them, but we aren't interested in trying to capture those low level areas from them, and they lack the power to capture the high value villages and Frigost territories from us, so the PvP aspects of the war are still pretty dead.

1 0
Reply
Score : 136
vagabaka|2013-09-23 00:13:54
I believe it's possible to make changes to the system so that it encourages the competition between multiple alliances, instead of the existence of a single dominating alliance. Such changes would affect all servers, but if a server already has multiple competing alliances, it would probably be less affected than servers with single dominating alliances. However, as I said above, I would not like to discuss specific changes in this thread.

After reading this comment, I took a step back and considered the way in which AvA is set up. AvA indeed promotes competition between the alliances (successfully or not). However, with regards to the rewards of AvA, an alliance is either rewarded, or it is not. Members of an alliance cannot participate to some extent and be rewarded proportionally.

I'd like to suggest that proportional rewards might be considered for AvA participation. We see implementations of this in other games -- for example, in some simplified MMORPGs, players can join together to defeat a boss. When sufficient damage is dealt to the boss, the 'informal alliance' of players dissolves, and rewards are given proportionally to those who have participated in the fight. While such an implementation is far removed from anything that could be implemented in Dofus, there is something that Dofus could adapt from such a system. If players participate, they are rewarded based on what they have accomplished within that `boss event'. Rewards are proportional to participation.

In contrast, under the current AvA system, being rewarded at all is contingent on one's alliance winning the entire KotH. This discourages players from participating in AvA since the time/kama sink is guaranteed, while rewards are not.

A system in which players compete to do more against a common opponent or obstacle, as opposed to competing against each other for exclusive rewards or no rewards at all, may also encourage cooperation between alliances and promote harmony across alliances.

I'd like to throw this out and add a couple of questions that I am still considering: Can this be considered a form of competition against other players, if the fighting is not necessarily against other players? Can some PvP/AvA implementation be found that incorporates fighting directly against other players, but still results in a proportional distribution of rewards to ensure that players are incentivized to participate for guaranteed rewards, rather than having only the possibility of a reward?
0 0
Reply
Score : 392

I'm disappointed with the alliance system, I get that it is supposed to be a purely PvP system, but why? The idea of combing guilds together is decent, but Where is the PvM in it? I would love some PvM features that help your alliance. Maybe some bonus that is only earned from killing large amounts of enemies.

0 0
Reply
Score : 27358

You get a lot of teleportation prisms, 25% more drops and experience outside of dungeons and you can fight Zoths and Dopples.

0 0
Reply
Score : 4519
Revil-Nunor|2013-11-22 18:40:12
You get a lot of teleportation prisms, 25% more drops and experience outside of dungeons and you can fight Zoths and Dopples.
Those are not ways for "PvMers to help their alliance". More often, it makes PvMers who are not in a dominating alliance change their alliance or guild in order to enjoy the benefits.

Kotengu|2013-11-20 03:03:50
A system in which players compete to do more against a common opponent or obstacle, as opposed to competing against each other for exclusive rewards or no rewards at all, may also encourage cooperation between alliances and promote harmony across alliances.

I'd like to throw this out and add a couple of questions that I am still considering: Can this be considered a form of competition against other players, if the fighting is not necessarily against other players? Can some PvP/AvA implementation be found that incorporates fighting directly against other players, but still results in a proportional distribution of rewards to ensure that players are incentivized to participate for guaranteed rewards, rather than having only the possibility of a reward?

I've also thought about whether the AvA system, especially KOTH, should become more friendly to PvMers. I think there are a few good reasons for this:
  • We already have many forms for PvP. Just within the AvA system, prism and perc attacks provide plenty of opportunities of PvP.
  • Part of the motivation for the design of the KOTH system is that some players wanted "wild PvP". But it seems that this has so far been a turn-off for many players, including players who like PvP.
  • Low participation in KOTH in turn discourages players from attacking prisms, keeping AvA from being as dynamic as it can be.
  • The "numerical superiority" rule of KOTH is supposed to give non-PvPers and low level players a chance to participate in AvA. However in my experience it doesn't work very well, and this attempt to please both PvPers and other players ends up displeasing both types of players.

But I also see a few reasons against it:
  • Even if KOTH becomes an PvM competition, there will still be only one winner at the end of a KOTH, and the losers will still end up spending effort with no rewards. As a result participation in KOTH will still decrease.
  • Just like "annoyances" exist in the current system KOTH such as "ganging", if KOTH becomes a PvM competition, there will also be practices which some people deem unfair, such as creating lag to prevent people from attacking a mob, or using dummy characters to hold mobs, etc.
  • Developers spent time to design the KOTH system including the AvA roles, and such a drastic change might make much of their effort useless, with no guarantee of improving AvA and the game overall.
  • Some players are satisfied with the current KOTH system, and it works well on some servers. There is no guarantee that such a change will be an improvement for all players and all servers.
 
0 0
Reply
Score : 27358
vagabaka|2013-11-23 05:02:58
Revil-Nunor|2013-11-22 18:40:12
You get a lot of teleportation prisms, 25% more drops and experience outside of dungeons and you can fight Zoths and Dopples.
Those are not ways for "PvMers to help their alliance". More often, it makes PvMers who are not in a dominating alliance change their alliance or guild in order to enjoy the benefits.
I know, I interpreted his question as having two parts "What is the benefit for PvMers", and "How can they contribute". I answered the first part.

And in reality PvM would end up the same as PvP. The serious power players would outclass 15 or 20 regular players by themselves and then you are back to where you currently are with PvP.
0 0
Reply
Score : 63

PvM does not need to be the "main drive" in the alliance system, but I think it should play a bit of a part. I don't think the AvA system was by any means a bad move(Except the villages, but they've done significant work on that with 2.17). I don't personally care, but I'm in the top alliance on Rushu. I just don't see why there can't be ANY PvM involved. Nuggets added a benefit that lasted for a few days and now nuggets are worthless on Rushu. I still like the idea of an Alliance killing x amount of monsters and getting maybe a bonus or something if they hold on to the territory via PvP the next time it is vulnerable. .

0 0
Reply
Respond to this thread