[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • I really don't understand the vision here for the game. Friendly fire should not even be on the table for consideration between people in the same alliance. If you want to limit the effect of alliances then make alliances only able to have X guilds in them, and then each guild can only own X territories. Make people have choices that they can get to grips with and can see rewards for.

      To be at a stage in a game, where you are considering friendly fire as a direct riposte to alliance sizes and control is not going to achieve anything other than make you lose players. People play Albion for the friends they have made and play the game with, not because the game is amazing at all times, because it isn't as we all know.

      Very concerned.
      Pre Patch 16 UO Player - Casual PK/Carebear Crafter - Now Old.
    • This is the most stupid idea you ever announced before. This is absolutely insane shit.

      As leader and diplomat i will rather left the game than try to handle all that possible shit.

      - Game is lagging in huge ZvZ as fuck. A lot of players has turned of all nicknames to just 'kill reds'
      - How will they check in battle rush which red are they attack?
      - Friendly fire to your allies? WHAT!?

      :facepalm:

      I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE YOU POSTED IT...
      Blaze
      Blaze [AC, PVP] Приглашаем игроков
    • I disagree with the premise that alliances are a problem in this game. I prefer a sandbox to let players sort these things out. I believe over the history of albion, major alliances do sort themselves out and most of them have died over time. People just have trouble getting along with other people and large alliances make it more difficult to work together over a long period of time and have fun than smaller alliances do.

      But if we are to assume I’m wrong and that alliance size is a crippling problem for the health or growth or whatever of this game, then I still think friendly fire is likely a simple and bad fix.

      To be clear before I start, I think friendly fire in some form sounds interesting and fun and I like the thought of it for a lot of reasons — just not at all as a solution to alliance size and power reach.

      So when we decide that we have a problem in this game, we need to start detailing very specifically what the problem is and why. In this case, I assume that we have the three or four largest alliances holding the vast majority of acquired land (farms, towers, castles and cities). Presumably they are keeping deserving guilds and alliances away from land or fun end game content strictly on account of their sheer size (as in, if we fragmented the alliances, the guilds inside would not own the same amount of land and wield the same amount of power... resulting in the same amount of players remaining shut out from this content). Presumably there is a lack of content due to these large alliances as players join and don’t have fun or content but remain in these alliances anyway. Maybe they don’t know what is good for them. But presumably the smaller alliances also aren’t getting good content because they are bullied by the large guilds (who are struggling to get good fights but are always available to bully small alliances).

      Presumably this is happening simultaneous on gvg and open world. I assume the recent updates along with alliances fighting crystal gvg against each other is the ‘fix’ to the ‘gvg problem’ as it will curb the power of any single gvg team significantly. So this friendly fire change I assume is targeting open world power creep specifically. But what are we trying to fix exactly? Is it the alliances that own castles? Is it alliances securing war camps? Is it alliances that show up most regularly for world bosses? I’m not exactly sure specifically what we’re fixing with friendly fire yet except somehow vaguely... everything? This is a really huge change and I think you want to have a very concrete idea of what our problems are and whether the solution precisely targets the identified problem. I would like to hear more from SBI what they’re trying to fix so I can better decide for myself if they’re accomplishing that. I just do not have enough information to decide that right now.

      Beyond that, I’m against this change if it’s in the name of fixing alliances and presumably open world power creep because I believe nothing significant would actually change. We’ll just be shifting the complaint from large alliances to large guilds. To be clear, the dominant open world alliances are dominated by a small handful of large open world guilds. I have hardly been able to be at my computer for the past few weeks to get more concrete examples, but I believe there is probably 1 guild with 100+ active members in blue army. I believe there are not many guilds with much more than 70 active players and they might include team casualty, conflict, awful company and maybe a few others. A more typical number from decent sized guilds is to pull 30-40 active members. My point is, if you do this friendly fire solution as proposed, you’re just shifting power to the guilds that can pull the most active players in some ways. Nothing significant will change. Blue army will still secure basically the same number of castles. The largest guilds will generally be able to roam largely uncontested. If the largest open world guilds ally, then they don’t need to roam in the same zone. They can spread their power zergs for maximum impact and the large coalition of smaller guilds will have even less ability to do anything about it than they can now.

      Now if you made it so everything outside of party resulted in friendly fire, then that’s a whole other ball game. That would be a real leveling force. Large guilds would still have some advantage as they could hopefully coordinate ahead of time but the numerical advantage of large guilds and alliances would finally truly be mitigated a small amount. I still think it wouldn’t have any real significant change in the game. Successful, organized large guilds and alliances will still be dominant. But highly competent mid size parties would in theory have more of a chance in some battles than before.

      I still think people underestimate how devastating friendly fire is on a healthy group culture, however. I think the only way it would have any sort of significant impact is to make it for guilds and alliances both but the griefing and drama will be unimaginable.
    • I refrain from laughing (or crying) when I try to think of what a reset day would look like with friend fire ... with lags ... or FF alliance sessions ...
      Moreover this would penalize (still a little more) the players who are not on the same continent as the servers, because the Friendly Fire with the ping that have some players would make certain phases of game unplayable ...

      In short ... Another step that will decrease a little more the number of regular players on this game.

      Between this discussion and the poll on the removal of alliances ... At some point do a survey "Do you want to group all players under the tag" Blue army " :')
    • i mostly prefer small alliances of 3-5 guilds than this friendly fire, is a bad idea in all the ways , albion has not the universe of people now and it should be 3-5 guilds per alliance and thats it, nothing more , not this friendly fire thing.


      Sky360;Líder del Único Gremio Hispano en llegar a Oro en una season;Por siempre los mejores, calidad y no cantidad,~The Revival~
    • "Madess has come over Albion, as the Crystal Realm is influencing the minds of the citizens."

      Season 5:

      Month 1: Add friendly fire for everyone except own guild.
      Month 2: In addition: add friendly fire for everyone except own party.
      Month 3: In addition: remove all Alliances.

      Some world-event at the end of the season where guilds kill some mega crystal giant elemental whatever boss to set things to "normal" again.

      A real seasonal shakeup for the core game mechanics. Temporary and re-evaluable after the season is over. Keep it fresh, keep it weird.

      I love it. Yes.

      Why are we having Seasons if there is no difference? No challenge or change to adapt to?

      Albion Online is an evolving game. This easily lets you add 'content' until you figure out prodexturaily (heh) pvp dungeons.

      Give it a stir, shake the sandbox and make a bunch of people build the castles again.
      Bogul#6397 - Merchants of the Mist - Founder & Head of "Management"

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

    • Just asking but wouldn't "no alliances" simply mean friendly fire between allied guilds and a lot more hassle for diplomacy?
      And capping alliance size would mean that if your alliance grows too big you have friendly fire between allied alliances this time.

      I'd say keep everything as is and add an "alliance upkeep".

      For every guild that wants to join the alliance you would have to pay more silver based on the amount of players that want to join and the amount of players already part of the alliance (increasing exponentially though linear progression might be enough).
      If a guild that is part of an alliance wants to invite a new player to their guild the alliance would have to pay an amount of silver based on how many players are already part of the alliance.
      The alliance has a shared bank for silver to pay for this and the alliance leader can give rights to guilds that are allowed to invite new players.

      The amount of silver payed on server start is less than it would cost to invite the same amount players into the alliance.
      If the alliance doesn't has enough silver at this time is set to inactive (meaning alliance only in name) until paying its debt.
    • Hey everyone,
      I wanted to emphasize a few points here

      This is just a proposal
      We haven't decided to implement this change and are still discussing it internally. But since this would be a very drastic change, we wanted to definitely get your input on this subject before we make a final call, if we want to test it for a limited time period. Basically trying to reach out in a more open dialogue before we make a decission. Especialy since we have such a wide variety of playstyles and perspectives in our player base. Thats why we are asking for your thoughts on this. So, I would like this to be more as a dialogue form, where we can use this thread to take all your points into consideration, before we decide how to proceed.

      The proposal is for a temporary change
      If we decide to implement it, we are talking about a test period. And depending on how this time performed we would decide if we keep this change and potentially make more adjustments (i.e. bigger party sizes), or if we are not happy with the result we would revert this change. Changing the hostility rules is something which could be changed on our side relatively quick, with not much dev time needed. However the implications on the guild politics are very big, hence why we are reaching out like this, to see if you would support a test like this.

      ZvZ fights with accidently killing allies
      The premise is, that after this change, alliances members are not fighting in the same big battles side by side. But instead we would assume you coordinate it, so battles are only fought on a guild or party level. No spontanous alliance zergs. Which would be a big benefit for us on a technical level, as it promotes a natural limit on battle sizes. I already read, that various players have voiced concerns with excluding small guilds from ZvZs. Do you think this problem would be diminished by increasing the maximum party size.

      Are alliances a problem?
      Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whole thread i got the impression that most in here seem to agree, that alliances in the current state are a problem. If you think alliances are problematic right now, I would like to ask you in what situation exactly they are having a negative impact on your game experience? This would help us get a better understanding of what part of the game exactly you would like us to make adjustments to and if our changes will affect your situation in a positive way.

      Cheers,
      Retro
    • Retroman wrote:

      Are alliances a problem?
      Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whole thread i got the impression that most in here seem to agree, that alliances in the current state are a problem. If you think alliances are problematic right now, I would like to ask you in what situation exactly they are having a negative impact on your game experience? This would help us get a better understanding of what part of the game exactly you would like us to make adjustments to and if our changes will affect your situation in a positive way.
      If we limited the number of Territories an alliance could hold or, by proxy, limited the number of territories a guild could hold, or both, for instance, an alliance can only hold 14 territories, but a guild can hold 8. so, two large powerful guilds might be better off together, with vessel guilds supporting/ providing the zvz and GVG player here and there however, two big guilds could never be "Max" power being formal allies.

      you could even put a stipulation that in an alliance, If the alliance holds 8 territories at least two guilds must own them and if they own 12 territories 3 guilds and 14 territories 4 guilds. (or something like that) this would further dilute the power that one guild has and increase the difficulty of holding an alliance together through a single guild.


      (all numbers are hypothetical)
      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 3 times, last by TomatoBisque ().

    • @Retroman

      IF yall really wanna do this for a TEMP change please do it during the offseason between Christmas(2 weeks) and not during season 5


      also people think alliances are a problem because there is 10k players inside 3 alliances put a cap on alliances and we have more of a intesting game play make it say 1k limit now with that same 3 alliances we now have 10 alliances . yes some may still work together but it will more wide spread and different targets and objectives

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

    • Retroman wrote:

      Hey everyone,

      Are alliances a problem?
      Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whole thread i got the impression that most in here seem to agree, that alliances in the current state are a problem. If you think alliances are problematic right now, I would like to ask you in what situation exactly they are having a negative impact on your game experience? This would help us get a better understanding of what part of the game exactly you would like us to make adjustments to and if our changes will affect your situation in a positive way.

      Cheers,
      Retro

      Alliances were introduced because SBI wanted to help guilds that held hands in a hardcore PvP MMO. Easier to handle everything under one system.

      But Alliances offer a massive safety net for 1,000's of players in an Alliance if they hold territories across the world map, even though 99% of those players haven't worked to secure these territories (maybe Warcamps but most only pull up-to 100 players for these OBJ's).

      Alliances also offer the ability for ZvZ's to turn into a "who can call to arms the most in the whole Alliance wins" play style right now. Even though friendly fire would counter this, you'll see even less activity in the Open World because you'll see the much less coordinated Alliance's just fail at having multiple fronts and end up killing each other.

      Zone caps are a thing and a whole Alliance right now can lock down a zone if a certain OBJ is needed (town plot drops, territory drops, etc) and just sit there if they wanted to until it became claimable. If Alliances were taken away, this wouldn't be a thing, with even some of the most popular guilds pulling peak numbers of about 70-100 depending on the situation.

      That brings me to a more fun and enjoyable ZvZ setting, less players = less lag = more fun for everyone, no more massive number fights but more equal and fun fights for all. I feel if Alliances were removed, so should the "red blob" feature, as you'll be going up against a Guild and not a full blown Alliance. Bringing back that rush of not knowing numbers of the other side and fighting any way.

      Alliances also offer the ability of them holding MASSIVE parts of the world map via territories, having the ability to "merge" the best GvG teams into one Alliance and holding everything. Remove Alliances and you won't have that, NAP's between the top GvGer's might happen, yes... but you'll also give the chance of new guilds or new GvG teams coming into fight and not being met by the top dogs after they won a couple GvG's from another guild that doesn't own that territory, but because they're in the same Alliance they can fight for it.

      Open World would feel more "alive" for everyone, more fights and dungeon dives happening, more ganking as if Alliances were removed... red = dead. Not purple = safety.

      Use this LINK & code 'ROBIN' for 20% off any plan!
    • Retroman wrote:



      Are alliances a problem?
      Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whole thread i got the impression that most in here seem to agree, that alliances in the current state are a problem. If you think alliances are problematic right now, I would like to ask you in what situation exactly they are having a negative impact on your game experience? This would help us get a better understanding of what part of the game exactly you would like us to make adjustments to and if our changes will affect your situation in a positive way.

      Cheers,
      Retro
      Alliances are a problem to me in the sense that i feel "obliged" to join one of the 3 Mega Zergs to access end game content , be able to gather t8 resources , fame freely in black zones , participate in ZvZs and GvGs.

      If i had the choice i would never have joined one of those Zergs with their abundance of rules and and hand holding. It is safer nowadays to be in a black zone than a red zone and this alone says alot...

      Alliances nowadays dictate our playtime and even what gear we have to wear!

      FREEDOM FOR ALBION!

      make Friendly fire ON for anyone not in your party!
    • You just provide to many easy mode incentives to large alliances. This by default discourages competition. Strong GvG guilds are capable of ontrolling mass territory acquisition and have the zerg war camp backing of many other guilds due to all alliance guilds having access to territory. Keep it to only the guild owner can access and GvG out of said territory. It should be somewhat challenging to hold land and require some thought on how much to try to hold. This obviously has not been the case since launch which is easily verified by looking at territory control over any period of Albion history.

      With such mass zerg alliances 1k+ holding giant areas of the map it completely flips the risk/reward dynamic to high risk/little reward for any people not part of that zerg to venture into those area dungeons or other content. Once again discouraging competition. These alliances essentially hold non aggression pacts with each other and sit peacefully getting fat on black zone profit.

      That leaves red zone for those who do not want to participate in zerg life. That does not even work either because now we have to deal with the bored black zergs gunning for Royal plots as well since they do not fight each other in black. All points back to being a very difficult, challenging, and costly life for anyone choosing to fight the zerg compared to that of easy mode being part of the zerg alliance. Thus they continue to spread and dominate because the game rules make it so.
    • Retroman wrote:




      ZvZ fights with accidently killing allies
      The premise is, that after this change, alliances members are not fighting in the same big battles side by side. But instead we would assume you coordinate it, so battles are only fought on a guild or party level. No spontanous alliance zergs. Which would be a big benefit for us on a technical level, as it promotes a natural limit on battle sizes. I already read, that various players have voiced concerns with excluding small guilds from ZvZs. Do you think this problem would be diminished by increasing the maximum party size.
      If you increase the maximum party size it defeats the purpose of introducing<friendly fire> to the picture, because you'll be back to the lags and servers won't be able to handle it...

      Retroman wrote:



      Are alliances a problem?
      Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whole thread i got the impression that most in here seem to agree, that alliances in the current state are a problem. If you think alliances are problematic right now, I would like to ask you in what situation exactly they are having a negative impact on your game experience? This would help us get a better understanding of what part of the game exactly you would like us to make adjustments to and if our changes will affect your situation in a positive way.
      Having huge alliances impacts the game negatively in numerous ways:
      - There's no real option when choosing an ally (as a guild).
      - No access to territories or crystal gvg (with a few exceptions, most crystal gvgs happen in the 3 big alliances)
      - discouraging new gvgers (I'm speaking about normal gvg not crystal gvg). Newer teams cannot compete against teams that have been around for years, let's be honest, especially that gvg is not cheap. On the other side of the picture how many of the big alliances allow the newer teams to fight their battles?! It's always the best gvg team has priority... so unless attacks happen at the same time the same gvg team will be used over and over again.
      - discouraging new players (from the perspective of new players you can just aspire to get into one of those big alliances as opposed to help a new guild or alliance grow).
      - discouraging gatherers outside of those alliances (it's much easier to gather and deposit and run on a safe terry path to bring the goodies back to carleon, than adventuring into the wild and maybe gathering around a war camp and taking an unsafe route back, and risk being attacked by a group of gankers (off topic a bit, but you should really give some buffs/ debuffs to make 1v5 possible)
      - discouraging fame farms in the blackzones (because we all know there are certain dungeons which are claimed by the alliances which hold terries in certain areas, and this is ok, but the game is not ballanced since most mercia/ cumbria/ anglia dungeons 'belong' to the same alliances.
      - discouraging pvp - there are definitely too many safe spots for ppl in those huge alliances. If you wanna dungeon dive they have terry nearby, if you wanna gank they have terry nearby. And problem is it's not one terry, but they will have a safe spot on each map till the portal map (including the portal map).

      I think the biggest problem the game has is that it discourages new players from trying to achieve something on their own. The player base won't grow unless you do some real changes. It's a full loot pvp game so you shouldn't need to be backed up by 3000 people to reach the end game. You should be able to have a 50 man guild and easily own a terry and reach the end game with a small and strong community. This pvp has turned into huge zvz fights where individual input doesnt matter at all. Make small good fights the server can handle, and rethink guilds cap, introduce alliance caps on members and on how many terries they can own.
    • Retroman wrote:

      Hey everyone,
      I wanted to emphasize a few points here

      This is just a proposal
      We haven't decided to implement this change and are still discussing it internally. But since this would be a very drastic change, we wanted to definitely get your input on this subject before we make a final call, if we want to test it for a limited time period. Basically trying to reach out in a more open dialogue before we make a decission. Especialy since we have such a wide variety of playstyles and perspectives in our player base. Thats why we are asking for your thoughts on this. So, I would like this to be more as a dialogue form, where we can use this thread to take all your points into consideration, before we decide how to proceed.

      The proposal is for a temporary change
      If we decide to implement it, we are talking about a test period. And depending on how this time performed we would decide if we keep this change and potentially make more adjustments (i.e. bigger party sizes), or if we are not happy with the result we would revert this change. Changing the hostility rules is something which could be changed on our side relatively quick, with not much dev time needed. However the implications on the guild politics are very big, hence why we are reaching out like this, to see if you would support a test like this.

      ZvZ fights with accidently killing allies
      The premise is, that after this change, alliances members are not fighting in the same big battles side by side. But instead we would assume you coordinate it, so battles are only fought on a guild or party level. No spontanous alliance zergs. Which would be a big benefit for us on a technical level, as it promotes a natural limit on battle sizes. I already read, that various players have voiced concerns with excluding small guilds from ZvZs. Do you think this problem would be diminished by increasing the maximum party size.

      Are alliances a problem?
      Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whole thread i got the impression that most in here seem to agree, that alliances in the current state are a problem. If you think alliances are problematic right now, I would like to ask you in what situation exactly they are having a negative impact on your game experience? This would help us get a better understanding of what part of the game exactly you would like us to make adjustments to and if our changes will affect your situation in a positive way.

      Cheers,
      Retro
      I think FF for a full loot open world game with so much focus on AOE damage is a bad ruleset, especially if it applies only between alliance members and not within guild as well as this just provides huge advantage of large guilds that can field 40+ players vs smaller guilds that have to band together to field 40+.

      I don't think alliances are a problem either - over the last year a number of alliances have formed and fallen (see ARCH, WOKE, OOPS as the biggest examples) and the current mega alliance aren't guaranteed to stick around either. Human behavior drives players to band together to achieve common objectives, but also leads to conflict which eventually breaks these alliances apart.

      On the other hand - alliances offer a lot of tangible benefits, especially to players who are more casual or don't have the economy to fund and wage a GvG war themselves. Alliances give you a larger pool of players to group with for content and give smaller guilds at least some access to territories in the black zones. If alliances were removed you'd have maybe 10-15 guilds owning the majority of territory across Anglia/Cumbria/Mercia and everyone else would just be sitting ducks or relegated to Royals.

      I say - keep alliances as they are - stay true to your name - Sandbox Interactive - and allow players to dictate the solutions.
    • Alliances in a sandbox are not a problem by any means.

      The day you devs successfully devise a way to force players to play in the way you want them to play, is the day every company on the market gives you a big fat check for the trade-secret. Otherwise, you should expect a lot of players to quit as their guilds fall apart, disband or get merged.

      You can't complain about there being no GVG's when you single-handedly made only 20 out of 200 territories worth GVGing for.