[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • Khladraven wrote:

      Anisa wrote:

      What exactly is the point of having an alliance if your alliance mates can attack you? Just get rid of alliances then.
      The point isn't so alliance members can attack you, it's simply a counter to mega alliances, or lets say more of a restriction with the complexity friendly fire brings into zvz.
      It’s not really going to create complexity it going to create elitism cause you need all hands on deck to play 100%.

      No new guild or casual person will be welcome unless 10 hours a day play time.

      Alliances will just evolve into 300 elite members in the zvz guild to do objectives and the crafters and gvg people will be separated.

      Where will friendly fire hurt people not in mega alliances it’s the small guys banding together it hurts.

      Instead of opening gameplay it will just force the strong to become worse than they are now. No one guild has a 300 active zvz force but they will if they have to band together to remain dominant and not take friendly fire from an alliance member.
    • Bogul wrote:

      "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.
      2 weeks for each phase should be enough and the second month will become trolling online instead of albion online. i'll join albion at 3rd month and hopefully that's chosen permanent option.

      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
      For me and most of my clan (100 players) was the biggest problem of albion, anyways now is little bit late to recover the lost time but the good thing is that its not to late to improve that. hopefully you instantly know that if there is a cap of 300 for each clan we are gonna need more territories if not maps, which both are not enough right now, without care bear alliances. i think should be less but its acceptable, i prefer to be a medium clan fighting against full one instead of a medium clan fighting against 2000 players, i mean fighting with all aspects of the game not only with weapon. that's needed to clarify to those genius which i have seen before over here in this forum.

      Azu_Raged wrote:

      ... L O L

      rip zvz , just another part of content in the history books
      I do not know anything about this, does it mean that increasing or decreasing numbers on a pvp battle is more or less content?

      Gaheris wrote:

      I still think adding a SILVER SINK to big alliances is one way to go to deter their formation and sticking power. Who would want to be part of an 1800 person alliance that taxes every member 50% extra on top of guild taxes? 60%+ at 2000 etc. etc.
      who that use the current core design by own benefit instead of leave the game.

      Zhinto wrote:

      Khladraven wrote:

      Anisa wrote:

      What exactly is the point of having an alliance if your alliance mates can attack you? Just get rid of alliances then.
      The point isn't so alliance members can attack you, it's simply a counter to mega alliances, or lets say more of a restriction with the complexity friendly fire brings into zvz.
      Alliances will just evolve into 300 elite members in the zvz guild to do objectives and the crafters and gvg people will be separated.
      guild and social system could be improved to guild for account instead of for character

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

    • Midgard wrote:

      @Retroman no ... alliances aren’t the problem, they’re the outcome of your shitty map design which you were repeatedly told was a mistake to implement but went ahead and did it anyway.

      FF isn’t the solution. It will be to AO what the CU was to SWG.

      tabooshka wrote:

      Once again, people only view alliances as a problem because of your past decisions and how map layout works.

      Please take this seriously and dont put another bandaid thats gonna bring even more problems in the future.
      Can you explain what is so wrong with the current map layout?
    • Wadefu wrote:

      Sinuous wrote:

      Can you explain what is so wrong with the current map layout?
      Without making an essay, its far to easy to move large amounts of people around the map very quickly and that caerleon is the center of the game.
      If you want to implement caps and other things that effect large alliances I think the above has to be addressed first.
      Yes, but why are those bad for the game?

      Personally, I spend 90% of my time in Mercia and 10% of my time in Caerleon. Do you think there should be more zones/distance between Caerleon and the center of Mercia? If so, why? To me it just seems like an inconvenience, and travel for the sake of travel is not a fun part of the game.

      As for Caerleon being the central city - again I don't see the drawback here or what the benefit would be to changing this layout. If Caerleon was only connected to Mercia, it wouldn't change my gameplay at all because I don't play on the other continents. All it would do is make the market in Caerleon less efficient by unnecessarily spreading out players and creating barriers to movement within the world.
    • Sinuous I think he’s speaking more about the ability of strong open world groups to quickly pivot from Mercia to Cumbria to anglia to royals and back to Mercia depending where the content is at.

      In other words, if we limit the ability of a very strong open world Zerg to show up to fights all over the world, it may in theory allow smaller, lesser groups to get more localized content without being crushed by the super zerg that shows up out of nowhere.

      I’m other words, his hope is that the best zerg guilds and alliances will be in Mercia contesting Mercia castles and world bosses and raiding Mercia towers and hitting Mercia war camps. His hope is that the newer, noob guilds and alliances will have more chance to contest each other in anglia and royals over castles and world bosses and war camps there without the big boys showing up.

      I do not know all the repercussions of this but that I believe is the argument.
    • I have a question, are we playing a RELEASED GAME or EARLY ACCESS??

      Trial on live? - The majority appear to indicate greater player motivation to engage and create content is needed.
      - Crystals give rewards directly to the players and their effort rewards the guild - BOTH WIN
      -Open world content - Only losers -

      How long is the average player playing? Do they have time to login, prep gear, defend mages, run a crystal and FF?
      Do we see these activities as being something players do regularly or is it progression based?

      TL:DR better motivation to play the game at a smaller scale is best. Stop increasing the difficulty and tear down barriers.
    • Elenol wrote:

      Sinuous I think he’s speaking more about the ability of strong open world groups to quickly pivot from Mercia to Cumbria to anglia to royals and back to Mercia depending where the content is at.

      In other words, if we limit the ability of a very strong open world Zerg to show up to fights all over the world, it may in theory allow smaller, lesser groups to get more localized content without being crushed by the super zerg that shows up out of nowhere.

      I’m other words, his hope is that the best zerg guilds and alliances will be in Mercia contesting Mercia castles and world bosses and raiding Mercia towers and hitting Mercia war camps. His hope is that the newer, noob guilds and alliances will have more chance to contest each other in anglia and royals over castles and world bosses and war camps there without the big boys showing up.

      I do not know all the repercussions of this but that I believe is the argument.
      The only ones who do that are BA/Squad with the castles because points earned by castles were grossly inflated compared to mages & territories, especially considering the amount of time & effort required to get the full daily point value. Now that the season is essentially won by BA, they're not doing it anymore and you're seeing other guilds start to contest castles again. With castle points being nerfed on the test server, hopefully this will continue to be the case.
    • slizzard wrote:

      Syndic wrote:

      I have to agree with Wadefu here, changing core game mechanics for lulz-lets-test and the attitude displayed doesn't inspire any confidence whatsoever.
      So you'd rather them try nothing at all and we sit in this whirlpool for the ride?
      Sure he does.

      His little world of hand holding is working well for him, why would he want that changed at all?

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

      1. There is no real problem with "alliances".

      Most of the talk about "nerfing alliances" is coming from forum trolls and a portion of the playerbase who feel they cannot compete against the "BIG 3" (POE, SAVE, SQUAD). First of all, these forum "whiners" should not be listened to. The biggest problems of the game, right now and forever, are not alliance related. They are zone-related. They are castle-related. They are territory-related. They are world-map related. So many players, usually newer players, don't understand the middle and "end game" of Albion. Politics is necessary. Working with, or against others, is a big aspect of the game. Politics doesn't need to be nerfed. And really, you can't nerf it anyway. Because the players, guilds, and alliances who currently enjoy each-other's company, are going to continue to work together however possible or however you change the game.

      So again, my first point is, simply ignore the forum trolls and whiners. Really these calls to "nerf alliances" are going to hurt the average player, and the newer player, more than the experienced. "Nerfing" alliances will not affect the top. It will not affect TC. It will not affect BA. It will not affect Conflict. It will not affect CIR. So all of these recommendations are misguided from the start. Newer and average players need to learn, that if you want to compete, you have to work together as a team, and engage politics. You have to build a guild, or an alliance, to suit your needs.


      2. There is no real problem with mega-zergs.

      On reset days, most people have fun. Most of the playerbase, in my experience, really enjoy reset day and the big zergs. Nerfing alliances or forcing friendly-fire, is going to destroy a lot of enjoyment of the playerbase. This is completely out-of-touch with reality. Why the devs even suggest this, makes me laugh. It's ridiculous. Squad-BA and SAVE are the mega-zergs. They enjoy big fights. So if you nerf mega-zergs, then really it's a nerf against BA and SAVE. It's not really going to negatively affect POE, since POE has a different activity rate of members.


      3. The ones crying about "no content" are the ones who removed content from the game.

      Over the past 6 weeks, 2 months, on the forum, most of the players crying about "lack of content", are from Squad/BA, and they shot themselves in the foot. The zerg-recruited 90% of the active playerbase who want to "ZVZ". So they roamed around Black Zone looking for content, and finding very little. You have to have 2 equal sides against each other if you want constant zerg battles. So the zerg-recruitment strategy of Squad, destroyed Squad's game plan. This is not the fault of anybody else in the game. And the ones crying, are themselves, responsible for their own trouble.

      If Squad really wanted to "save the game" then they would split themselves, which kind of happened anyway. Squad and Save regularly fight large ZVZ battles.


      So where are the real problems and complaints?


      This thread lets me form my conclusion. SBI really you don't know what you're doing. And it proves to me that SBI Developers don't actually play the game, which is probably the biggest problem of all.


      TL;DR

      Ignore whiners on the forum. They are crying about fake-problems and fake-issues that don't actually reflect the majority of players. The game is actually in a good spot. Other core problems of the game (world-map design, territory mechanics, repetitive zone designs, PVE, failed faction warfare system) are much bigger issues. The Devs have priorities all wrong. And if Devs keep coming up with silly suggestions and reactions, the game may become depopulated. I hope not.
    • @Theat Im not agree with all your post , but you are partially right.

      Devs need to focus on foundation - as you said before

      Theat wrote:

      (world-map design, territory mechanics, repetitive zone designs, PVE, failed faction warfare system)
      + to this -
      1. more small scale, and solo activity of any kind PvP/PvE.
      2. Competitive monthly(or week) rewards for being in top of any activity in the game (Just add season for any existed activity in the game ,like we already have top-100 gatherers , top -100 pvp , etc.) So anyone could participate in what he likes to do in the game.


      When you build a house, you dont start building the roof. So please do the same. Make the foundation , and after focus on zergs mechanic, otherwise sooner or later - you will have no zergs fights at all.
      Youtube/Equart