[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • Lars024 wrote:

      tabooshka wrote:

      Lars024 wrote:

      no big alliance zergs but independent guild zergs instead
      so few small guilds have to merge or game punishes them heavily, very nice idea
      Only if they want to contest warcamps or castles etc. most guilds i don't see doing that unless forced by their alliance
      So you are excluding them completely, even though right now, theres plenty of small guilds going for warcamps which yields 30 v 30 fights

      And theres nothing wrong that you can reach every place in a blackzone in less than 5 minutes

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

    • @Retroman

      The issues of this game are mid tier players not ever able to acquire lands and, new players being denied opportunities to experience the true experience of this game.

      Reducing guild caps / total guilds in an alliance / alliance member count are all ways that can help strengthen the future of the game by forcing people to play in isolated environments to protect their own.

      The ever beneficial option of going full open world presence has become the dominant factor in this game-- especially since it's most profitable to create a zvz presence to own castles over territories [in comparison of value of putting investment cost overtime/risk vs reward]. Three guilds hold 90% of the games wealth and it will never change.

      Say for example, a 20 man guild from another game migrates over to Albion to play. They have zero chance of breaking into gvg scene, castle scene, or anything that is relevant in this game. They would lose aspirations immediately and discard the game. Unless, they signed their soul away to a slave master of the game.

      I'm curious to know are you looking to retain new players or grow to acquire new players? Or, are you trying to appease the remaining population of the game that is already end-game and looking to give us daily content?
      twitch.tv/persiansohrab
      400/400 Fire Mage Spec
      400/400 Cloth Robe Crafter

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

    • tabooshka wrote:

      Lars024 wrote:

      no big alliance zergs but independent guild zergs instead
      so few small guilds have to merge or game punishes them heavily, very nice idea
      Exactly. Guilds that can mass 40+ players easily (see Blue Army) will continue to zerg out smaller guilds in open world ZvZ. If BA thinks they're getting denied content now under the current system, they'll be even worse off with a change like FF being implemented.
      AO Quick Reference Guide
      Discord: Grimhawke#9254


    • Instead of hard capping player numbers why not hard cap territories. an alliance can only own x number of territories, it you wanna have 2500 people split 9 or whatever number of territories go for it. maybe an alliance can have max 2 city plots max 4 rezi plots max 4 farm plots whatever: think of something reasonable, im not going to split hairs over the map math.

      Then people will have to split if they want their own stuff, and then it gives more people an opportunity to compete without punishing people who want to lock down a corner / area of the map

      You could even increase it by a fraction by how many guilds are in the alliance by 1 territory for three guilds, then 1 more for 5 more, something that gets more difficult. even put in a requirement that while an alliance may hold x number a guild can only hold x-y number of territories and one(maybe two) member(s) of the defending / attacking guild must be present in the gvg for that territory. so that there would have to be cooperation with the guilds that help an alliance hold territories, which would limit the number of zones 1 or 2 elite gvg teams could defend on their own.
      Extravirgin olive oil
      3medium onions, chopped
      Salt,black pepper
      4cloves garlic, minced
      1tablespoon tomato paste
      3cups chicken broth
      Freshbasil
      15medium or 10 large ripe tomatoes, Chopped + Juice

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

    • I got to say if your desire is to kill off the 10 to 20 man guild then great job. I mean hell we will go from mega alliances to mega guilds. 700 to 2000 guild members. Heck it will force the map to look like the maps of ww2, all this section red, this section green, this section blue.

      What else is great about this is you go from power sharing among 6 guys to only 1 guy with all the power. As we all know, only 1 person with all that power never did anything wrong.

      This is also great that it forces everyone into English speaking guilds and they need to learn English to pvp with their guild mates.
    • 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.


      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
      It's a great idea.

      First, you should mention that obviously in a party there wouldn't be friendly fire, you can team up with alliance members or even other players. Some of the "no" are player who thinks that they'll have less opportunities to fame farm because they won't be able to fame farm with their alliance members.

      I think firendly fire would create much more tactical opportunities, and also solve some of the zerging problem. Now with the current numbers cap 20 for a party and 300 for a guild. It would be a big issue, if a guild get 100 or 150 players together at some point it would make them very hard to fight by an alliance with less activity per guild. Thus guild would have to keep very active members only creating some kind of elitism.

      A party cap of 20 is problematic because it would mean make groups of 15-20 people from small guild fight together against larger groups it's not enough (also if 2 small guilds have 12 players they can group and fight with 20 leaving 4 players behing and make two groups of 12 that are too small for figthing zergs.

      I suggest a raise of party limit to 40 or 50 (eventually 60). If there is a technical limitation you could create "super parties" that would actually be a group of 2 or 3 parties without friendly fire.

      You could also decrease the guild cap to 150 or 100 thought with only 20 people in a party. It would still be a big disadvantage for a small guild against very active guilds and still create some elitism while reducing the spots avalaible for new players in top guilds. So I'd rather go with a party cap raise.

      Third solution, hardcore so it's my favorite, but probably won't be appreciated by the carebear population. you could enable friendly fire within a guild and just disable it in a party. It would create very interesting scenarios, 20 vs 20 would really be reinforced. zergs fights would really be more about skills and tactics than numbers. Additionnaly, you would add an option that players could enable or disable. That would allow you to join the "guild official party" in every zone. When enabled, when a player enter a zone (or log in), he would join an official party with its guild members (if there is room), if the parties are full he create a new one. When a player logs off, is killed or leaves the zone, he would leave the party and there would be a check if some parties can be merged (the merge could be disabled during fights). In practise, there wouldn't be friendly fire between guildmates unless they are zerging or disabled the option.



      IMO friendly fire is an amazing solution, but with the current caps (and political map) I really think it would just reenforce some kind of elitism (and gvgs are already a big enough issue in that matter). With a few adjustement it could be amazing and would definitelly create more content and more interesting fights (tactically, politically, ...)

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

    • Wadefu wrote:

      The below is assuming their isn't friendly fire in parties

      Another aspect of friendly fire in alliance is their will be a lot of party management to put certain AOE DPS with tanks and so forth to try to avoid friendly fire in large ZvZ's... Something I don't think the game wants people spending time doing...
      You would just have to move as separate units, and attack in a coordinated manner not unlike real military engagements where you have friendly fire possible even for people in your group. we should make group size bigger though if that's the case.
      Extravirgin olive oil
      3medium onions, chopped
      Salt,black pepper
      4cloves garlic, minced
      1tablespoon tomato paste
      3cups chicken broth
      Freshbasil
      15medium or 10 large ripe tomatoes, Chopped + Juice

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

    • Syndic wrote:

      Why don't you just turn on friendly fire period regardless of guild/alliance?
      I have played previous games where they implemented friendly fire to battle stacking and zerg(blobl) play.

      Explosions of friendly fire is beautiful, its too bad players wont explode like ships going down.

      Friendly Fire should extend to guild/alliance, not just the alliance level or your simply forcing guild mergers to cap 300 and alt guild.s
    • This idea is just bad:
      • It will just make it harder for small guilds to fight zergs
      • It will create drama only and removes the whole concept of alliances (alliances just become a NAP basically)
      Also removing alliances is a bad idea too since it does the same:
      • small guilds cannot complete in OW anymore
      • only NAPs will exist
      • guilds will just be filled with active players (so the "casuals" will issue this)
      • zergs of 100+ players will almost never happen again.
      Capping alliances is "a more reasonnable" solution but:
      • adds a limit to the sandbox
      • limits Albion warfare system.
      Let me be clear with the last one:
      Alliances themselves aren't the issue but the consequence.
      They are the consequence of snowball, of the lack of protections / lack of possibilities for a small guild to setup.

      Right know if a guild wants to take some territories in black zone, it will face one of the best team of the game for sure (the mmain team of the alliance its fighting). So it cannot hold for a long time.
      The lock system is broken currently since main GvG teams have multiple alts. So if a random guild attacks one terri in the far west of anglia the alliance attacked can defend with the best team.
      Also there is no possibility for a small guild to hold a townplot, even with a 'decent but not the best' team since 5% defensive bonus works only if you can show a team as good as the enemy team / slightly weaker at max.

      If you look at it, most of the guilds in the main alliances do not have any GvG team or couldn''t hold their CP / territories if they weren't in an alliance. They cannot rely on themself only anymore since they will always face the best (thing that couldn't happen when the lock system worked since main teams had to be able to defend at the most strategic positions).

      So now how to fix this:
      • fix the lock system so the best teams of the game cannot show up to gvgs everywhere in the blackzone + redzones. (account-wide locks?)
      • create some incentives for small alliances / guilds alone that want to hold a few territories with their modest gvg team.
      As soon as people can rely only on themself to defend their own part of land alliances are just optionnal / big warfare stuff.


      If people think that alliances are made for zergs, i'll just let you know that blue army (#1 zerg guild) would profit of any of 3 ideas i quoted at the beginning.
    • Gugusteh wrote:

      This idea is just bad:
      • It will just make it harder for small guilds to fight zergs
      • It will create drama only and removes the whole concept of alliances (alliances just become a NAP basically)
      Also removing alliances is a bad idea too since it does the same:
      • small guilds cannot complete in OW anymore
      • only NAPs will exist
      • guilds will just be filled with active players (so the "casuals" will issue this)
      • zergs of 100+ players will almost never happen again.
      Capping alliances is "a more reasonnable" solution but:
      • adds a limit to the sandbox
      • limits Albion warfare system.
      Let me be clear with the last one:
      Alliances themselves aren't the issue but the consequence.
      They are the consequence of snowball, of the lack of protections / lack of possibilities for a small guild to setup.

      Right know if a guild wants to take some territories in black zone, it will face one of the best team of the game for sure (the mmain team of the alliance its fighting). So it cannot hold for a long time.
      The lock system is broken currently since main GvG teams have multiple alts. So if a random guild attacks one terri in the far west of anglia the alliance attacked can defend with the best team.
      Also there is no possibility for a small guild to hold a townplot, even with a 'decent but not the best' team since 5% defensive bonus works only if you can show a team as good as the enemy team / slightly weaker at max.

      If you look at it, most of the guilds in the main alliances do not have any GvG team or couldn''t hold their CP / territories if they weren't in an alliance. They cannot rely on themself only anymore since they will always face the best (thing that couldn't happen when the lock system worked since main teams had to be able to defend at the most strategic positions).

      So now how to fix this:
      • fix the lock system so the best teams of the game cannot show up to gvgs everywhere in the blackzone + redzones. (account-wide locks?)
      • create some incentives for small alliances / guilds alone that want to hold a few territories with their modest gvg team.
      As soon as people can rely only on themself to defend their own part of land alliances are just optionnal / big warfare stuff.


      If people think that alliances are made for zergs, i'll just let you know that blue army (#1 zerg guild) would profit of any of 3 ideas i quoted at the beginning.
      I agree with you 100% that this idea is bad and that alliances are the consequence of the issue, not the cause. But I disagree that GvG locks are the way to get around it. Even if locks were account wide, as opposed to per character - the simple workaround to that would be to have characters spread across multiple accounts.

      I think the solution then, which SBI has already started to implement, is to disincentivize guilds and alliances from holding too many territories. Already with season points and energy being moved to the crystal realm GvG plus T8 resources being moved out to the open world, the base value of most territories is low enough that it doesn't make sense for a guild to expand beyond a certain number of territories. IE why would a mercia guild like CIR, GvG for a random Anglia territory that they can't send a crystal GvG team to, and offers nothing in terms of T8 resources?

      I believe that building similar solutions like this is the key to removing the cause that leads to mega alliances.

      I am in POE and even though on paper we have 2500, it's very rare that we mass up at the alliance level because there are very few objectives that require this as of late. I'd say we're mostly operating in group sizes 20 and under in the open world and between changes to T8 and Crystal GvG's I've been having more fun in the game than every before.

      People seem to have some political agenda against POE being a mega alliance, but fact of the matter is while on paper we're large, we are spread out more across both NA and EU time zones and across languages (english, russian, spanish, polish, etc). Our size is constantly shrinking (currently 2500 characters) and I won't be surprised if soon we're the 3rd largest alliance behind SAVE (2800 characters and SQUAD (2000 characters).
      AO Quick Reference Guide
      Discord: Grimhawke#9254


    • Hi all,

      I'd like to give some further background on the matter as it is - as always - far more complex than it might appear at first.

      Let's look at GvGs first. Here, the benefits that alliances provide is that people can merc for each other. Some time back we did an evaluation of this and found that the clear majority is guilds were in favour of keeping the merc system in the game. The downsides are clear, a key upside is though that it allows smaller guilds to hold their own as part of an alliance. Another topic is whether to allow guilds in the same alliance to fight crystal GvGs.

      Let's look at large scale fights first. The only advantage that the alliance feature provides in large scale fights is that it stops friendly fire. Turning friendly fire off removes that benefit.

      Putting a cap on alliance members potentially limits that benefit, in reality, it almost certainly won't. Even a low cap - somebody suggested 300 players - would simply turn into an exercise for implicit alliances to make sure that people taking part in ZvZ are in the "in-game alliance" when large fights happen - as even the very largest ZvZ fights don't have 300 players per side. This will encourage gameyness. Even if we put a lot of restrictions and mechanics against this (draining lots of dev time) it would still become a game of "who can outsmart the restrictions the best".

      Turning friendly fire on for alliances is essentially just a neater way of doing a player cap on the alliance level. Same effect, less gameyness.

      However, even in our tentative proposal, similar issues exist as there now would be an incentive to create artificial "open world fighter" guilds. In reality, any sort of artificial cap will create a huge meta game on how to play around that cap in the best way possible. This is also why the "friendly fire" proposal would have be run as a 1 month trial, with uncertain outcome.

      Another proposal made in this thread was to turn on friendly fire fully for everybody, no matter what - even if they are inside the same party. Consequently, we'd also have to turn on enemy healing. We did some large scale combat analysis a while back (anybody can check for themselves by simply looking at videos of large fights on YouTube) and are quite certain that this won't have much on an affect on battle dynamics. Usually, opposing players do not stand on top of each other with minor exceptions. And Independent from that, the power balance in a fight where one side outnumbers the other is very likely not going to change here.

      That brings me back to a very old and somewhat complex idea: we once looked into an algorithm that would identify who fights together with whom (based on actual behaviour as opposed to just guild/alliance membership to prevent "tricking the system"). Based on that, one could apply a debuff if one side is too large / much larger than the other. The reason why we have not looked into this further is that it's highly complex and with an uncertain outcome, as their can be no guarantee that it will work in practice. A simpler version would be this: if you are close to a certain large number of players for an extended period of time, you'd get a debuff. That could work as you are usually - in a black zone - not standing next to a large number of enemies for an extended period of time, hence, "number of players close to you for longer than X seconds" is a possible way to identify that you are running in a large zerg.