[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • [Updated] Possible Alliance Change

      Are you in favour of friendly fire between alliances? 286
      1.  
        Yes (130) 45%
      2.  
        No (156) 55%
      .












      **UPDATED**

      Hello everyone,

      after taking in all your feedback and more internal disucssions, we decided to NOT implement the proposed friendly fire change.

      The alliance system in this regard will stay unchanged for season 5.

      We are aware, this would have been a very big change in a running game, even for a test period. That is why we wanted to evaluate this proposal with you, the community, before trying it in the live game. Obviously the opinions on this are quite divided and there is no clear agreement on this. Therefore we are looking at other options instead.

      Our Take Away for the future:
      From the feedback in this thread, I noted these as your main problems with alliances:

      • The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)
      • Only a few top GvG teams fight the majority of all fights, making it extremely difficult to get fresh blood into this scene. Since the top teams circumvent most locking mechanics and potentially fight alliance-wide
      • Alliance armies are too mobile. An Alliance can spontanously accumulate all online members fast at any spot of the world. They are not regionally bound in any sense. Making it hard to have smaller skirmishes, because battles easily escalate in numbers, due to reinforcements getting there very fast.
      • There is not enough incentives to fight enemies in the open world; outside of the structured fights.
      • Mega Alliances lead to a lot of no-shows and auto wins in crystal realm battles.


      These are all things which needs more fundamental changes and / or reevaluation of some existing features and content in the game. Which is why we won't be able to adress these points for the short time left until season 5. But we are aware of these problems and will prepare solutions to see how we can best improve those aspects in the long-run.

      Regarding Point 5), we will make a change to Crystal Realm battles for Season 5:
      In Season 5, Auto Wins (aka No Shows) will not generate any season points anymore. This way we want to make it less attractive to have a majority of towers queuing from one alliance. Which creates a bigger incentive to not accumulate too many guilds in one alliance. Potentially leading to less No Shows.


      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Hey everyone,

      I would like to ask your feedback and thoughts on a potential change to alliances.

      We have been following your discussions about alliances and this has always been a very passionate discussion among the community. This is also something we have been discussing a lot and I would like to share with you how we would like to proceed.


      First, our take on alliance in a nutshell:
      We think some form of alliances are unavoidable. If we remove alliances form the game or cap the membership, the most organized guilds will still form non-aggression pacts (NAPs) outside of the game. These guilds would, in this case, have an unfair advantage over guilds with no NAPs. However, we have also heard your concerns and agree that our current system has the risk of forming just a few mega alliances, thus diminishing the impact of each individual guild.

      Hence this proposed change to improve the situation in the long run:
      • Enable Friendly Fire between alliance members
      Other than that, alliance and guild membership limits will stay untouched. But now all alliance members can be attacked any time. For guild members nothing changes, there will be no friendly fire between guilds.

      Effects of this change:
      1. Large scale battles will likely turn into only guild vs guild battles. Since friendly fire will make it very challenging to form an army consisting of multiple guilds. Meaning on big fights like on reset day, each guild fights on its own. Additionally, this is also good for the game on a technical level. Because if the fights are usually between just two guilds and not between two alliances, the player numbers involved in a single battle go down on average, which will lead to better game performance during fights.
      2. On a political level, mega-alliances are less likely to form - because inviting too many guilds increases the chance of one (or more of them) turning against you. Alliances are more likely to be formed by a smaller amount of guilds who trust each other. Thus has the potential to lead to multiple smaller alliances, which offers more opposition.
      3. Lastly, with this change, we would adjust the matchmaking process in Crystal GvGs. So that alliance members will be able to face each other, leading to more fights.


      Overall this change allows us to keep the management of your alliance through the in-game UI, while still reducing the likelihood of mega alliances forming.

      It’s also important to note that we would first like to test this change for a limited time period of around 1 month. This should give us sufficient time to evaluate the results and your feedback before committing to such a change in the long-term.

      We would also like to hear your thoughts on this proposal. Are you in favor of it? Or would you rather see a different change? Or do you think alliances are fine the way they are right now?

      We will use the results of this poll and your feedback as one of the key factors in making our decision, so we encourage you to share your opinion with us.

      Cheers,
      Retro

    • We think some form of alliances are unavoidable. If we remove alliances form the game or cap the membership, the most organized guilds will still form non-aggression pacts (NAPs) outside of the game. These guilds would, in this case, have an unfair advantage over guilds with no NAPs. However, we have also heard your concerns and agree that our current system has the risk of forming just a few mega alliances, thus diminishing the impact of each individual guild.

      NAP's have been a thing in the past and I don't think you understand the major hassle these bring if it's implemented as a NAP for Open World. If another guild is inside your fame farm spot and they're red, there's a very high chance you'll force them out, this breaking the NAP and then causing a chain reaction throughout the guilds involved in the NAP. Happens all the time.

      Right now in the Open World you're limited to fights because most of the time when you run into someone, they're purple.

      Why are Alliances even a thing? In a game where massive warfare is highlighted and pushed by the games core features, surely having Alliances puts a massive stop sign on that core feature. If guilds think they can handle Open World NAP's, let them. They'll still have to place themselves correctly in ZvZ's because they'll be red or "friendly fire enabled".

      I see this change as a very poor effort and a scared move by SBI on the Alliance issue in the game right now. I voted YES, but want more done. Sadly I don't think SBI are brave enough to even test a month without Alliances.
      Tired of LAGGING in-game? Try ExitLag;
      Use this LINK & code 'ROBIN' for 20% off any plan!
      youtube.com/c/robinhoodrs
    • I would be in favor of this except for the first point, “Large scale battles would turn into GvG battles.”
      This would cause a lot of smaller guilds to be faced with the decision of disbanding and being absorbed by a larger guild. Also, if you’re calling for backup to your alliance and they show up, how do they keep from accidentally smashing you with AOEs and such? Would you need to form parties with a guild member as the lead of each party or would even that still leave alliance members vulnerable. The way it is written now kind of makes alliances useless since most alliances are formed to help smaller guilds compete with larger ones.

      I like the thought and look forward to where this could go. Maybe give an option for a guild to select two other guilds within their alliance that will be immune from friendly fire. That way if you’re defending/attacking a territory you can get some back up. Then this option can be changed every 48 hours or something like that.
    • I say give it a try. Current meta is really stale.

      edit: One quick thought.

      • Assuming parties still wouldn't allow you to hit your team mates : this change would limit your ability to expand group sizes beyond 20 because you'll run the risk of undermining the friendly fire mechanic.
      • Allow guilds to set standings towards other guilds


      Would look something like this

      10 - bros
      5 - you seem cool
      0 - neutral
      -5 - you're a sh*#
      -10 - K.O.S.
      BZPD - PULL OVER.

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

    • An alliance system with friendly fire is just enabling the NAP's that are problematic. Just remove them entirely, and have enough incentives for people to attack each other to act as a counter. Currently, the problem is that territory GvG's are incredibly expensive to do, and return very little reward. Your winning play is to NAP everyone around you, and hold onto things without fighting. THAT is the problem. You addressed the lack of fighting wonderfully with Crystal GvG's. Now find a way to limit how much a single guild can control, and encourage attacks from people that have few territories. You have no tower GvG content because a few major parties control nearly everything, and nobody else has the power to challenge them.
    • Zahi wrote:

      If you remove alliances there won't be any 200 vs. 200 fights anymore either, which will greatly reduce server load and in my opinion make the game more enjoyable. I preffer small scale fights where I can actually use all my spells without teleporting all across the screen due to lagg.

      Being able to attack alliance members is - in my opinion - the worst idea you could have come up with...
      Its actually not a new concept to sandboxes. The king of sandboxes (EvE Online) allows friendly fire between corporations (guilds) already with great success. It also opens up meta potential (I.E backstabbing) events.
      BZPD - PULL OVER.
    • I personally love the idea it makes zvzs WAY more strategic and interesting to fight I also love outside the box thinking because if they just dissolve alliances then everything just stays the same with non aggression pacts and sudo alliances like it was before. The only change I would suggest is maybe buffing the energy from castles and making so this only has effect in the castle zones so that wild guild members arnt just ganking there alliance when they are bored and causing drama.

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

    • As I've posted elsewhere - this is the wrong approach to dis-incentivizing massive alliances.

      I don't know why SBI officially announced point sharing among alliance guilds would be implemented but still haven't done it. Point sharing alone would go a long way towards cutting down on massive alliances because you would have a reason to cut all the dead weight that would just be leeching your season points and energy.

      Enabling friendly fire inter-alliance just plays into the hands of the bigger guilds like BA/Conflict/TC that can mass 2x the number of most guilds.
      AO Quick Reference Guide
      Discord: Grimhawke#9254