[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • I don't think you've thought this through. Of all of the complaints listed elsewhere, this solves almost none of them.

      We need solutions which improve on the winner-takes-all-so-everyone-hold-hands mentality.

      The major problems are that there is no incentive not to hold hands with everyone else in the game and there is no way currently to get fights against similarly skilled opponents. As an upstart guild, you have to be able to beat the best GvG teams in the game, or else it is nearly impossible to hold territory, even in royals. Without royals, you can't do Crystal GvGs, which should theoretically be the place to find equally skilled opponents in the current ruleset. However, even this is broken currently due to the mega alliances, as level 3 towers almost always match against level 1 towers.

      There should be some cost for alliances holding so much, either a progressive reduction in the value of holding territories, season point sharing across alliances, and/or some kind of regional, meaningful GvG and portal locks, to solve these problems.

      The best guilds in the game should control the best territory, but they shouldn't be able to block content for everyone else. BA deserves their castles, but giving them *all* castles is wrong because it disallows smaller/weaker guilds from ever contesting and improving. The same goes for GvGs.
    • Thanks everyone for your feedback so far. As to be expected with this topic, it sparks a lot of passionate replies. :)

      We are aware that this change would turn alliances pretty much turn into NAPs. But with keeping the whole QoL of an in-game UI and having the transparency of a proper feature

      Please keep in mind that this is only a proposal and since I this is a very delicate topic, I would like to see where our players stand with this. This is partially also due to player concerns voiced, like this recent thread again: strawpoll.me/16934223/r

      This threat of alliances becoming very big and controlling large amounts of the map has been a reoccurring theme in the community.

      Another suggestion I have read a lot from you is:
      Introducing an alliance player limit. Say each alliance could have max 300 players. I would assume it would result in having a few NAPs on the top end. Having two or three groups cooperating like this would be very punishing, since they can always outnumber any other parties which don't form NAPs. Of course it is harder to maintain NAPs. But I would fear that any system which gives a fundamental advantage for NAPs is making snowballing worse. Since the most committed guilds would probably be able to organize it, while the mid- tier or newcomers will have a much harder time to fight these NAPs. Hence the proposal to basically make NAPs the game feature instead. This said, I am not fundamentally against any change that could lead to the creation of NAPs. I am just sceptical that this approach would not lead in the dominance of similiar alliances, but with NAPs. But if you disagree, I am interested in your thoughts and why you think NAPs wouldn't become a big problem. :)

      Please keep the general feedback coming and if you don't agree with the main approach, please let me know what you rather would see changed instead. Or if you think the alliances are fine the way they are.

      Cheers,
      Retro


      oh and...

      Funstealer wrote:

      @Retroman does this mean we can crystal gvg against alliance members
      Yes


      EDIT:
      To answer some questions about the hostility rules: You could still form a party with alliance members and then ff together. Also faction warfare would still overwrite it. And the territory guards wouldn't attack alliance members.

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

    • Wadefu wrote:

      Grimhawke-EB wrote:

      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
      Maybe if they capped alliance / gvg and fixed the system... With the super alliances you can stick 5 naked dudes on a level 1 terry and have a 75% chance not to get a fight.

      And on the other side of that, not being in a super alliance means you're fighting Level 3 towers as a Level 1 tower every night. Nimue is no more favorable for small guilds and people with lives than previous patches, despite high hopes.
    • Retroman wrote:

      Thanks everyone for your feedback so far. As to be expected with this topic, it sparks a lot of passionate replies. :)

      We are aware that this change would turn alliances pretty much turn into NAPs. But with keeping the whole QoL of an in-game UI and having the transparency of a proper feature

      Please keep in mind that this is only a proposal and since I this is a very delicate topic, I would like to see where our players stand with this. This is partially also due to player concerns voiced, like this recent thread again: strawpoll.me/16934223/r

      This threat of alliances becoming very big and controlling large amounts of the map has been a reoccurring theme in the community.

      Another suggestion I have read a lot from you is:
      Introducing an alliance player limit. Say each alliance could have max 300 players. I would assume it would result in having a few NAPs on the top end. Having two or three groups cooperating like this would be very punishing, since they can always outnumber any other parties which don't form NAPs. Of course it is harder to maintain NAPs. But I would fear that any system which gives a fundamental advantage for NAPs is making snowballing worse. Since the most committed guilds would probably be able to organize it, while the mid- tier or newcomers will have a much harder time to fight these NAPs. Hence the proposal to basically make NAPs the game feature instead. This said, I am not fundamentally against any change that could lead to the creation of NAPs. I am just sceptical that this approach would not lead in the dominance of similiar alliances, but with NAPs. But if you disagree, I am interested in your thoughts and why you think NAPs wouldn't become a big problem. :)

      Please keep the general feedback coming and if you don't agree with the main approach, please let me know what you rather would see changed instead. Or if you think the alliances are fine the way they are.

      Cheers,
      Retro


      oh and...

      Funstealer wrote:

      @Retroman does this mean we can crystal gvg against alliance members
      Yes

      EDIT:
      To answer some questions about the hostility rules: You could still form a party with alliance members and then ff together. Also faction warfare would still overwrite it. And the territory guards wouldn't attack alliance members.

      NAP's would be formed, but keeping them in place is hard work and overall they fail. GvG NAP's are easy to hold and manage, unless one side wants more and breaks it on their own.

      Open World NAP's are very, very hard to manage and always fail. Fame Farm, gathering, ganking, castle points and loot, treasure sites... all these are sort after by everyone and therefore all it takes is one group taking something from the other side that are NAP'd to break said NAP. Launching the guilds into a war and or breaking off the NAP, giving more content for the players and playing the game the right way... for PvP. This is a HARDCORE PvP MMO, yet we see alliances to enable hand holding and sit in peace.

      This game is becoming stale, this game needs a massive change and the community is calling for it with a massive change or deletion of Alliances. MAKE. IT. HAPPEN.
      Tired of LAGGING in-game? Try ExitLag;
      Use this LINK & code 'ROBIN' for 20% off any plan!
      youtube.com/c/robinhoodrs
    • The logic doesn't make sense @Retroman..

      Saying that if their is no alliance that the more coordinated guilds will dominate with NAPS.
      In the same sense if there is Friendly Fire the more coordinated guilds will still dominate with alliances...

      This leads to alliance caps > alliance no cap with Friendly Fire.

      Now that massive alliance cannot outnumber you because they are capped, but you can rally 5 other smaller guilds to compete.

      Also to note the most NAPS i've seen are for territory raiding/gvg's and not in the sense of NAPS if you run into the guild in a dungeon you don't attack them.
    • Retroman wrote:

      I am just sceptical that this approach would not lead in the dominance of similiar alliances, but with NAPs. But if you disagree, I am interested in your thoughts and why you think NAPs wouldn't become a big problem. :)
      The thing is, NAPs do not have the same functionality that alliances do currently.

      The problems with alliances currently are that --
      1. There is no disincentive for them to become massive and hold hands with each other
      2. Guilds are incentivized to join a massive alliance because it gives them territorial access without ever having to earn it
      3. Most importantly, a single GvG team with many alts can carry a huge alliance.
    • Retroman wrote:

      Another suggestion I have read a lot from you is:

      Introducing an alliance player limit. Say each alliance could have max 300 players.
      Would you then limit number of players in a guild? The guild limit is 300, which would already be the total allowed. My best suggestion is to either look at a total number of guilds as well as total number of players you want in an alliance, where 3-5 guilds max, with total number of around 900 players might be just enough to limit the fights to a smaller scale, but allow for smaller guilds of 100 or so that aren't capped at 300 to join an alliance over another 300 man guild to give an alliance(300+300+100+50+50) which max total would limit it to (300 + 300 + 300)

      "He rules the frost therefore he is their king." - God
    • @Retroman
      What's about guild levels + without alliance ? which will increase the cap member. (something really insane to make the max cap probably 500 for only few guilds)

      Or just delete alliances to encourage small scall Zvzs. That will force guild to choose between Zvz / gvg or both.

      Actually to many guild are getting carried by gvger and getting silver from energy or having map control when they don't really deserve it. It'll force zvz guild to kill mages 24/7 and to do castle to play the season rank. And probably working on their gvg.
      As gvg guild that will try hard gvg / crystal and will try to work on their zvz skills to defend mages / take castle or anything else.
    • Here are some thoughtful player suggestions reddit.com/r/albiononline/comm…_with_alliances_followup/

      Alliances forming large zergs is one specific situation and only a small subset of the problems with alliances. This proposal is upsetting because it fails to address any of the meaningful problems and appears to be a lazy attempt to reduce the problem to a one-line change. You aren't going to stop people from cooperating just by removing or nerfing the alliance system itself directly. You're going to have to put in real work to fundamentally alter some key mechanics of Albion and rethink how they incentivize or punish cooperation and large organizations. If you're not willing to do that then just leave it as it is and go model another mount.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by DominoHarvey ().

    • Here is all the issues I see with this change:

      The examples below start with the same scenario a 40v40 ZvZ. 2 Alliances containing 2x20man groups that are split over 2 or more guilds.

      Scenario 1:
      Alliance A attacks Alliance B - Their tanks go in and stun a bunch of people from Alliance B. The tanks then regrets stunning people because he died from the AOE damage drop on his character. No more players tanking in ZvZ! Super good idea this!

      Scenario 2:
      Alliance A gets pushed back by Alliance B - A tank from Alliance A is trying to run back and has to use their stun to get out of danger and stuns a large part of their alliance zerg and boom wiped.

      Scenario 3:
      Alliance A has a Malevolent Locus tank that uses the E ability defensively on their own back line. Now it purges and slows a large chunk of the zerg. Great feature this will really work out well.

      Scenario 4:
      Tank uses a Demon armor to protect their back line from incoming AOE damage.. OH NO half the raid wiped cause they never got any defense from the demon armor.

      Scenario 5:
      Oh and since the game is so good at not lagging someone will be lagging and drop their AOE backwards and wipe their own zerg. That player is gonna get blacklisted forever and quit the game. Well thought out change. Will be great for the Albion population!




      Sigh... Where is this going... How do you guys even come up with changes like this? It does not make any sense!
    • @Retroman
      Are you guys afraid that if you capped alliances NAPs would be a problem ?
      IMO, the worst thing that could happen is that NAPs would become what alliances are today, but with some possible backstabbing.
      Try it, that's what seasons are made for.

      Edit:
      As @Zhinto mentioned below, it would not hurt to do some testing to get community feedback.
      ______________________________________
      Red is dead
    • Essentially this change is to remove alliances and make the current in game system into a nap system. IMO just remove alliances all together or limit them. naps will happen no matter what, and making us show them in game removes a political element of gathering Intel on who is working with who.

      I understand removing the alliance system would get rid of the mercing system, but it would be nice to see guild stand on their own two feet instead of 5 people gvging for 10 guilds.
    • Retroman wrote:

      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.
      This is already happening with NAPs.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Elsa: Rant ().

    • emutheblue wrote:

      We need solutions which improve on the winner-takes-all-so-everyone-hold-hands mentality.


      The major problems are that there is no incentive not to hold hands with everyone else in the game and there is no way currently to get fights against similarly skilled opponents. As an upstart guild, you have to be able to beat the best GvG teams in the game, or else it is nearly impossible to hold territory, even in royals. Without royals, you can't do Crystal GvGs, which should theoretically be the place to find equally skilled opponents in the current ruleset. However, even this is broken currently due to the mega alliances, as level 3 towers almost always match against level 1 towers.

      There should be some cost for alliances holding so much, either a progressive reduction in the value of holding territories, season point sharing across alliances, and/or some kind of regional, meaningful GvG and portal locks, to solve these problems.

      The best guilds in the game should control the best territory, but they shouldn't be able to block content for everyone else. BA deserves their castles, but giving them *all* castles is wrong because it disallows smaller/weaker guilds from ever contesting and improving. The same goes for GvGs.
      I wish I could like your post more. This is the root of the problem. If there's some mechanism to deal with snowballing, and the difficulty for a smaller party to compete, forming the gigantic alliance would be less rewarded. This isn't isn't that alliances are too big, the issue is that game design SPECIFICALLY REWARDS the non competing powerful parties. The most profit for the powerful is obtained by not fighting, but cooperating, and then shutting out everyone else. While appropriate strategy, it makes a for a shitty game.
    • I think capping the alliances at 300-500 members would be a better solution to prevent mega alliances.
      Friendly fire will push guilds in alliances to merge so they avoid friendly fire, so it will encourage creating bigger communities. This won't solve the huge zvz fights (because it will push to the creation of guilds filled with super actives who're gonna group together and create big zergs (maybe not 200 members zergs, but easily 150)
      Having bigger entities, in its place, makes it easier to create naps. Like it's easier for ppl to remember don't attac X and Y, than not to attack a,s,d,,f,g and so on...
      If your purpose is to encourage smaller scale zerg fights than you need to implement a cap to the alliance and reduce the caps on guilds.

      Anyhow, neither of the solutions (capping or friendly fire) won't prevent or discourage a single gvg team to take and hold a huge number of territories.

      IMO, if you want more gvgs to happen you need to change more things.

      Friendly fire won't work unless you give additional changes.
      capping alliances is necessary though, cuz you kill 2 birds with one stone: more gvg, less huge zergs.
    • Delete alliances entirely, but remake how territory control works. Imagine a system like this, inspired by BDO's node warring:

      Each individual territory has a specified day of the week and time it can be contested, and a fixed maximum team size that can contest it

      There should be variety of team sizes in each tier, from around 25 to 250 and IP scaling related to the territory tier from around 700 in T3 to unlimited in the most valuable tiers.

      A guild can select to contest one territory per day. Guilds should be able to see how many guilds have chosen to contest a zone, but not specifically who is contesting it.

      Once the territory your guild wishes to contest or defend has been selected, guild members can sign up to attend in a territory conquest UI. At the specified war start time, those who have signed up will be teleported into the battle instance.

      The territory conquest instance should be a zone scaled to the number of participating guilds, with each guild starting at an objective to defend like a small castle with a gate to destroy and an NPC inside to protect. The purpose of the battle would be to destroy all other guild's NPC.

      NAPs and alliances aren't the real problem. What we really need is a more accessible and more fun territory conquest system. The system we have is way too exclusive. A system more like the one I described would be open to everyone and would produce regular daily large scale fights. Of course, this isn't an exact representation of the territory conquest system we need, but it's just a fantasy example of what would actually make sense from a gameplay perspective. Including everyone in the territory conquest game would make so much more sense.
      https://steamcommunity.com/id/asgaeroth/
    • I think this change, given that at the same time a number of other things get tweaked to not get back stabbed by alliance too much, but still possible, it would be a great change. Like changing homeplot access system similar to that of islands to somehow give crafters protection( bonus points if this would also be possible for individual territories to set perms for bank access and guards/tower beam aggro).

      To all the people that think you can't zvz with an alliance group anymore, yes that is exactly the point, no big alliance zergs but independent guild zergs instead, if you prefer big zone capping zvz's just tell us but i bet most of you are also complaining there are no fights and people cap zones on reset day.

      In the end i think a whole alliance rework would be the best giving guilds separate agreements about stuff like gvg's, territory access etc. instead of lumping all guild together in an all or nothing alliance.