[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • I'd rather see downstream changes to the benefits of being in a large alliance instead of front end caps. An alliance of 12 50 member guilds should be in the same footing as an alliance of 2 300 member guilds. Caps based on numbers or friendly fire don't accomplish that. You also can't just divide energy/tax income among the alliance because the lead guilds could just require it's supporting guilds to pay it back. I think there would have to be tangible economic loss and/or combat disadvantage to having a large player count alliance to reverse the mega alliance trend properly.
    • slizzard wrote:

      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.
      Isn't the friendly fire mechanic in EVE an option that corporation owners can toggle? I'm 99% sure it's not something that is forced. Perhaps it's toggleable by the individual player - I just remember seeing it not forced.
    • we just need cap on the amount of people in an alliance the whole point of alliances is to band together to fight a common enemy or fight common goal together and have numbers

      when 1 side sees that another side has 300 more pplayers than them they go looking for another guild to add so they can have more numbers and more support then the other side sees that and goes get another guild for more support. so if u put a cap on the amount of players in an alliance to say 800-900 can be even lower since we fill zones on reset day and cant have people in the zone to begin with

      so now were at a point where if 2 alliances wanted to work together they would form a NAP (SAME THING AS FRIENDLY FIRE BECAUSE U AGREED NOT TO ATTACK EACHOTHER INSIDE A FIGHT) then when somone mis calls and runs their zerg into the NAP zerg it will cause fighting
    • Retroman wrote:

      .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.

      Not enough its too late and this poll do not take in count the most of the ppl like me its not actually playing albion and obviously dont use this forum.

      Remove this black zone system and make it as was on beta all the black zone with same tier rate from 5 to 8, remove that system of alliance and let the guilds fight arround the map which means you need more territories and probably maps for all of that fresh clans which will be created and finally take in count as account per clan not character.

      Who matters NAPs outside of the game do you think any competitive game is thinking about if there is aggresion pacts outside of the game when everyone want to fight as equal with same possibilities, if you devs dont make balanced ruleset for everyone. always will be directly or undirectly unbalanced.

      At the end non aggression pacts are part of an strategy, if a guild decide to dont attack anotherone its acceptable but it's not accepted that they can share his territory and no friendly fire in to the open world. finally its very probably this no aggression pact will be broken if there is not to much to take in benefit of this "NAP"

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

    • So how the hell do we fame farm with friendly fire on one blazing/siege bow wrecks tank and melee Dps GG faming outside of a big guild that can pull everything they need to fame without shooting their tank in the face.

      IMO you should take the opportunity to try capping an alliance or implement some of sohrabs ideas to penalize Zerg play.

      Friendly fire is the same shit as no alliance without taking a stance on the issue.

      Stop being scared of taking a stance with seasons you have the opportunity to try no alliance and capped alliance man up.
    • Funstealer wrote:

      we just need cap on the amount of people in an alliance the whole point of alliances is to band together to fight a common enemy or fight common goal together and have numbers

      when 1 side sees that another side has 300 more pplayers than them they go looking for another guild to add so they can have more numbers and more support then the other side sees that and goes get another guild for more support. so if u put a cap on the amount of players in an alliance to say 800-900 can be even lower since we fill zones on reset day and cant have people in the zone to begin with

      so now were at a point where if 2 alliances wanted to work together they would form a NAP (SAME THING AS FRIENDLY FIRE BECAUSE U AGREED NOT TO ATTACK EACHOTHER INSIDE A FIGHT) then when somone mis calls and runs their zerg into the NAP zerg it will cause fighting
      i agree everything but it sounds like 800-900 players are the 1% of the player base and its not. Stack 800 players in to the same group its not fun on a "PVP" game.

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

    • Wadefu wrote:

      jack12 wrote:

      pls do not cap alliances on characters but, if you must, on accounts!
      Eh By capping alliance or guilds they actually subvert a lot of people who want to alt 5 gvg teams.
      With Crystal GvGs generating a good portion of the total season points available now, a single team with multiple alts is relatively less important than having multiple teams. You still need that one strong team to be able to wage an offensive against an enemy, but in order to fully utilize your territories now you need multiple, real teams that can win crystals.
      AO Quick Reference Guide
      Discord: Grimhawke#9254


    • I believe this a step in the right direction. If u consider how this game is designed, in no way should there be 100vs100 or even 50vs50. The lag or data traffic is too much for the servers as well as the players client to fight in massive fights of a 100 people dropping spells in real time.

      Now to consider if this is the best solution to this, while not limiting the amount of guilds or total number of players in an alliance, is something to consider all possible groups this may effect.

      + means a positive view | - means a negative view

      So let's consider change does go through, what it may effect is:
      1. Simple and obvious the ZvZ battles in a zone
      +Guilds in an alliance will need to be separated in battle to prevent confusion and FF. This brings more strategy and coordination for an alliance in order to win a battle
      Examples may be in open world and castles/dungs:
      a. Castles/dungs the guilds cant be all grouped together else it will cause FF, allowing the enemy if it is a single or smaller alliance to have a better chance fighting.
      b. Open world fights/ WC will require the guilds to split into separate blobs in a zone to either sandwich or flank a fight. It could also bring 2 battles in a zone which the 2 guilds in each alliance will have to fight 1v1 and 1v1.

      2. Ganking
      -+ I can see this in a positive and negative way for players, in which where players in the open world will have to take notice if the a name tag they see are enemies or still in alliance. This can be simply solved with another color such as yellow or bright orange, however it will still bring 2 things to an alliance:
      a. Trust
      b. Conflict

      Where depending on the ideals of the alliance, in which an allied member kills another, will show the intentions of the player or guild. However if they allow the player to live, will be example of trust in the alliance rather than their care for gear and silver.

      3. Fame groups
      + This may limit how alliances act with one another, UNLESS if they are in your party, they will be considered non-attackable, where this might be a solution, however it will still allow a group of 20(10 of guild A and 10 of guild B) to work with another. They wouldn't be able to allow and 2nd group of 20 because that will bring FF in the battle, which this will limit the number of fights, but also allow small fights with allied members at a max size of 20.

      4. GVGs
      - This system will bring great risk in how allies work with one another before, during, and after a GVG.
      I believe there will need to be a number of fail safes in order to prevent allies killing your gvgers in 8.3 gear as possibly making it so allies can't enter HP, or giving a command UI to check off or on in it. As well as the UI for territories, where you can choose to have guards attack allies, not attack allies, or attack allies hitting resources in territory. But for every option, the tower should beam allies to allow some security as well as gvgers getting a bubble after gvg when back in tower



      These are the only groups I can consider so far in my views, people may fear that if this was in place, that a guild that is 100 players NA active will be unbeatable, however, that is only if you consider there are no tactics in a ZvZ. They can easily be won against with a group of 30 and another group of 30 if working together in the right way. This I can see is limiting the massive alliances which group into a T5 blob to run over another blob. Which this will solve the issue and open for more tactics of game play in alliance.

      "He rules the frost therefore he is their king." - God

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