[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Valkyrior wrote:

      I do not disagree with you but unless new blood is injected in this game it will start suffering from organ failure and lead to a slow painful death.

      New players need less barriers to enjoy the game and although yes it is not impossible to do certain things in BZ it is much harder

      It is a fundamental problem in every progression based RPG and MMO I played. It's the reason I never started eve online. I thought I would not 'catch up'. However I did witness plenty of similar games that faced similar issues, die a slow painful death, even when they gave in to the tantrums and employed a gazzilion of artificial limitations and ways to prevent and halt progression.

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

    • If territories are indeed a problem and issue for new players, why not have them once a week or once a month or within a set periodic time period reset/switch ownership according to a draft system. (similar to NBA draft) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_draft

      Like every week or every month, you rank those top 20 or 30 or 40 or 60 or 100 guilds according to their kill fame for that time period, and THEN you give the top 1 first bid:

      probably they will take caerleon
      second on the list has second bid, they will probably take either a royal city or a mercia t8 zone
      third on the list has third bid, they will probably take either a royal city or a t8 mercia zone

      eventually once a week or once a month, every insgnificant guild in relation to how well they do in terms of pvp, they will temporarily hold something of value, and change dynamics in alliance forming, until the next draft in next week or next month.
    • sirina wrote:

      Valkyrior wrote:

      I do not disagree with you but unless new blood is injected in this game it will start suffering from organ failure and lead to a slow painful death.

      New players need less barriers to enjoy the game and although yes it is not impossible to do certain things in BZ it is much harder
      It is a fundamental problem in every progression based RPG and MMO I played. It's the reason I never started eve online. I thought I would not 'catch up'. However I did witness plenty of similar games that faced similar issues, die a slow painful death, even when they gave in to the tantrums and employed a gazzilion of artificial limitations and ways to prevent and halt progression.
      You can easily catch up in EVE Online, dude. Most top tier corps use fleet doctrines that you can easily fit into after a month or two. And they happily accept newish players.

      The entry barrier in AO is much, much higher.
      https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/82954-Guide-What-order-to-level-items-in-to-get-the-most-specialization-for-your-time/
    • sirina wrote:

      If territories are indeed a problem and issue for new players, why not have them once a week or once a month or within a set periodic time period reset/switch ownership according to a draft system. (similar to NBA draft) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_draft

      Like every week or every month, you rank those top 20 or 30 or 40 or 60 or 100 guilds according to their kill fame for that time period, and THEN you give the top 1 first bid:

      probably they will take caerleon
      second on the list has second bid, they will probably take either a royal city or a mercia t8 zone
      third on the list has third bid, they will probably take either a royal city or a t8 mercia zone

      eventually once a week or once a month, every insgnificant guild in relation to how well they do in terms of pvp, they will temporarily hold something of value, and change dynamics in alliance forming, until the next draft in next week or next month.
      Albion Online already has this system.

      Its fairly easy for a newish guild to take a territory or two on reset day. Reset day was invented for this exact reason.
      https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/82954-Guide-What-order-to-level-items-in-to-get-the-most-specialization-for-your-time/
    • Stravanov wrote:

      sirina wrote:

      If territories are indeed a problem and issue for new players, why not have them once a week or once a month or within a set periodic time period reset/switch ownership according to a draft system. (similar to NBA draft) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_draft

      Like every week or every month, you rank those top 20 or 30 or 40 or 60 or 100 guilds according to their kill fame for that time period, and THEN you give the top 1 first bid:

      probably they will take caerleon
      second on the list has second bid, they will probably take either a royal city or a mercia t8 zone
      third on the list has third bid, they will probably take either a royal city or a t8 mercia zone

      eventually once a week or once a month, every insgnificant guild in relation to how well they do in terms of pvp, they will temporarily hold something of value, and change dynamics in alliance forming, until the next draft in next week or next month.
      Albion Online already has this system.
      Its fairly easy for a newish guild to take a territory or two on reset day. Reset day was invented for this exact reason.
      people claim they don't have a chance on reset day against zergs (I don't agree though - those who do bad on reset day are mostly outplayed). With this suggestion you would be handing them over territories without having to zerg?
    • sirina wrote:

      Stravanov wrote:

      sirina wrote:

      If territories are indeed a problem and issue for new players, why not have them once a week or once a month or within a set periodic time period reset/switch ownership according to a draft system. (similar to NBA draft) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_draft

      Like every week or every month, you rank those top 20 or 30 or 40 or 60 or 100 guilds according to their kill fame for that time period, and THEN you give the top 1 first bid:

      probably they will take caerleon
      second on the list has second bid, they will probably take either a royal city or a mercia t8 zone
      third on the list has third bid, they will probably take either a royal city or a t8 mercia zone

      eventually once a week or once a month, every insgnificant guild in relation to how well they do in terms of pvp, they will temporarily hold something of value, and change dynamics in alliance forming, until the next draft in next week or next month.
      Albion Online already has this system.Its fairly easy for a newish guild to take a territory or two on reset day. Reset day was invented for this exact reason.
      people claim they don't have a chance on reset day against zergs (I don't agree though - those who do bad on reset day are mostly outplayed). With this suggestion you would be handing them over territories without having to zerg?
      Those people are wrong, like you said.

      They're trying to get a territory on Mercia. Go to Anglia and you'll get free and almost uncontested territories.
      https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/82954-Guide-What-order-to-level-items-in-to-get-the-most-specialization-for-your-time/
    • Syndic wrote:

      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?
      I'd rather they develop the game instead of redesigning core game mechanics because a small gang of kids is crying on reddit. Here's a list of pie-in-the-sky things I'd implement yesterday instead of reinventing the wheel every 2 weeks to fix problems that don't exist;

      - Caerleon realmgate would only connect to Anglia
      - Ownership of Royal cities would be removed as an option
      - Stall ownership would be completely revamped to discourage cartels and fixed prices
      - Castles would be the new weekly 20v20 GVGs
      - Territories would be upgradeable and customizable with a scaling upkeep/socket limitation
      - More tiles would be added (approx 100), some without territories (approx 50)
      - Tiles without territories would have cycling 24hr connections to other tiles with a "person cap" per connection that wouldn't be visible on the main map
      - OW POS system would be implemented to allow guilds without territories to base out somewhere
      - Building Territories would be buffed with more bindspots, 48% return rates (returned) and personal island connections (this would need pondering on how best to balance it if personal islands were in a CP that was lost) perhaps even an extra farm territory or two
      - Connections between tiles in BZ would be revamped in an asymmetrical way to allow pockets, pipes and highways to promote natural emergent OW gameplay
      - Stop reading reddit and developing blindly according to loudest QQ
      What I think about it:


      - Caerleon realmgate would only connect to Anglia
      - Ownership of Royal cities would be removed as an option
      - Stall ownership would be completely revamped to discourage cartels and fixed prices | I don't know about that one
      - Castles would be the new weekly 20v20 GVGs | 20v20 HG's are coming. But, there could be new castles with fixed numbers like 20v20 for GvG's only.
      - Territories would be upgradeable and customizable with a scaling upkeep/socket limitation
      - More tiles would be added (approx 100), some without territories (approx 50) | Ymmm, less content - would be up for that if devs would give extra MS on roads.
      - Tiles without territories would have cycling 24hr connections to other tiles with a "person cap" per connection that wouldn't be visible on the main map
      - OW POS system would be implemented to allow guilds without territories to base out somewhere
      - Building Territories would be buffed with more bindspots, 48% return rates (returned) and personal island connections (this would need pondering on how best to balance it if personal islands were in a CP that was lost) perhaps even an extra farm territory or two
      - Connections between tiles in BZ would be revamped in an asymmetrical way to allow pockets, pipes and highways to promote natural emergent OW gameplay
      - Stop reading reddit and developing blindly according to loudest QQ
    • I still think an alliance cap is better. An alliance cap would give a slight advantage to small alliances under the cap. Allowing small alliances more ability to compete large guilds in major alliances that exceed the cap. With this small guilds will be even less effectual though the limitation to large guilds would be a positive. Small guilds in major alliances would suffer under a cap the most if that is a problem. Just what occurred to me.
    • Raithe wrote:

      I still think an alliance cap is better. An alliance cap would give a slight advantage to small alliances under the cap. Allowing small alliances more ability to compete large guilds in major alliances that exceed the cap. With this small guilds will be even less effectual though the limitation to large guilds would be a positive. Small guilds in major alliances would suffer under a cap the most if that is a problem. Just what occurred to me.
      So you're implying a solution where an alliance above the cap gets a debuff (somethink like -5% to offense and defense) while an alliance below the cap gets a buff (something like +5% to offense and defense).

      If that's what you're suggesting, its a super weird change.

      Rather just have it cost silver to be above the cap or something.
      https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/82954-Guide-What-order-to-level-items-in-to-get-the-most-specialization-for-your-time/
    • Hello everyone,

      after taking in all your feedback and more internal disucssions, we decided to NOT implement the proposed friendly fire change.

      The alliance system in this regard will stay unchanged for season 5.

      We are aware, this would have been a very big change in a running game, even for a test period. That is why we wanted to evaluate this proposal with you, the community, before trying it in the live game. Obviously the opinions on this are quite divided and there is no clear agreement on this. Therefore we are looking at other options instead.

      Our Take Away for the future:
      From the feedback in this thread, I noted these as your main problems with alliances:

      1. The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)
      2. Only a few top GvG teams fight the majority of all fights, making it extremely difficult to get fresh blood into this scene. Since the top teams circumvent most locking mechanics and potentially fight alliance-wide
      3. Alliance armies are too mobile. An Alliance can spontanously accumulate all online members fast at any spot of the world. They are not regionally bound in any sense. Making it hard to have smaller skirmishes, because battles easily escalate in numbers, due to reinforcements getting there very fast.
      4. There is not enough incentives to fight enemies in the open world; outside of the structured fights.
      5. Mega Alliances lead to a lot of no-shows and auto wins in crystal realm battles.


      These are all things which needs more fundamental changes and / or reevaluation of some existing features and content in the game. Which is why we won't be able to adress these points for the short time left until season 5. But we are aware of these problems and will prepare solutions to see how we can best improve those aspects in the long-run.

      Regarding Point 5), we will make a change to Crystal Realm battles for Season 5:
      In Season 5, Auto Wins (aka No Shows) will not generate any season points anymore. This way we want to make it less attractive to have a majority of towers queuing from one alliance. Which creates a bigger incentive to not accumulate too many guilds in one alliance. Potentially leading to less No Shows.

      To conclude:
      I got the impression that the main concerns with alliances are rather with the game's main structure encouraging this playstyle, instead of the alliance systems which are currently in the game.

      Capping Alliance Members:
      We are quite confident that players would circumvent it by creating NAPs. On the top end it wouldn't change much, but it potentially makes it harder for the mid and small guilds. Because of the added hassle NAPs are, it is likely to only involve the strongest forces. So, we don't think this would change any alliance dynamic on the top end.

      Alliance Removal:
      Some wanted to remove allianes alltogether. But this thread's friendly fire proposal is basically a more variation of an alliance removal. Just without the QoL and in-game UI. And of course the mentioned NAPs would still be formed between the most important participants.

      If you disagree on this conclusion, please let us know in which specific scenario you think an alliance removal or alliance cap would end up differently.

      Please let me know if you think this list is missing a major point in the discussion.

      Thanks also for everyone elaborating their thoughts and reasonings in this thread, it definitely helps us to get a better picture of why a good amount of players are unhappy with the current alliance situation.


      Cheers,
      Retro
    • How about. 600 cap which means 2x300 guilds in alliances max and smaller guild could mass up to reach the 600. Then limit Terri ownership by alliance to say 5? (Arbitrary number... could be 3 or 10 etc) and then have an IP or off/def Debuff to the gvg team for each additional terri over and above that. This wouldn’t cap ownership of territories nor make them less profitable, but would make it more and more difficult to sustain allowing smaller guilds/alliances a shot.

      Not that I’m for alliance caps, but if you’re gonna do it that night work.
      Midgard
      T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
      T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
      T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
    • @Retroman

      I just want to say thank you for the openness in this process. It's a refreshing new take from a company that has generally been fairly silent about it's motives.

      I am also positive regarding your identification of some of the core problems in the game, summed up in this quote:

      Retroman wrote:

      Our Take Away for the future:
      From the feedback in this thread, I noted these as your main problems with alliances:

      1. The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)
      2. Only a few top GvG teams fight the majority of all fights, making it extremely difficult to get fresh blood into this scene. Since the top teams circumvent most locking mechanics and potentially fight alliance-wide
      3. Alliance armies are too mobile. An Alliance can spontanously accumulate all online members fast at any spot of the world. They are not regionally bound in any sense. Making it hard to have smaller skirmishes, because battles easily escalate in numbers, due to reinforcements getting there very fast.
      4. There is not enough incentives to fight enemies in the open world; outside of the structured fights.
      5. Mega Alliances lead to a lot of no-shows and auto wins in crystal realm battles.


      I hate to be that guy. But the community pointed out a lot of these mistakes when you changed the map. There was generally an uproar on the forums, because the community foresaw that this exact thing would happen as a consequence of the new map and very easy access. (The other major subject was lack of immersion, which also hurts the game, but that's a different topic).

      I do understand your motivation behind the current map design. If players are more mobile, we can potentially get more PvP fights and more content in general.
      Now we're just seing the negative impact of the high mobility. We have to carefully judge the negative and the positives before we proceed with any changes.

      In order to help us with future discussion, it would be nice to know what types of changes are acceptable.

      Would it be acceptable for SBI to change something as core as the map design and philosophy behind it, if there was a compelling argument for such a change?

      Or will changes have to be less "core" in nature, and as such be restricted to a more "gimmicky" solution like friendly fire or hard caps on member count?
      https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/82954-Guide-What-order-to-level-items-in-to-get-the-most-specialization-for-your-time/

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

    • Retroman wrote:

      Our Take Away for the future:
      From the feedback in this thread, I noted these as your main problems with alliances:

      1. The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)
      2. Only a few top GvG teams fight the majority of all fights, making it extremely difficult to get fresh blood into this scene. Since the top teams circumvent most locking mechanics and potentially fight alliance-wide
      3. Alliance armies are too mobile. An Alliance can spontanously accumulate all online members fast at any spot of the world. They are not regionally bound in any sense. Making it hard to have smaller skirmishes, because battles easily escalate in numbers, due to reinforcements getting there very fast.
      4. There is not enough incentives to fight enemies in the open world; outside of the structured fights.
      5. Mega Alliances lead to a lot of no-shows and auto wins in crystal realm battles.


      These are all things which needs more fundamental changes and / or reevaluation of some existing features and content in the game. Which is why we won't be able to adress these points for the short time left until season 5. But we are aware of these problems and will prepare solutions to see how we can best improve those aspects in the long-run.

      Regarding Point 5), we will make a change to Crystal Realm battles for Season 5:
      In Season 5, Auto Wins (aka No Shows) will not generate any season points anymore. This way we want to make it less attractive to have a majority of towers queuing from one alliance. Which creates a bigger incentive to not accumulate too many guilds in one alliance. Potentially leading to less No Shows.

      Cheers,
      Retro
      @Retroman - Editing - Posted before typing up response, lol.

      In Regards to point 5 - I follow the logic here but in the same time this demotivates the players to participate and when content denial is a real stratagy we want to motivate individual players.

      As long as player rewards are still there but season points are limited this could be a good direction. Including Castles in this, requiring a player to actively gather the season reward rather than it being simply auto applied can help create more content engagement points.

      i.e. a unlooted castle reward can be 'stolen' by anyone who breaks into the keep.

      This creates multiple layers of engagement around existing content. Right now you can catch crystal players hauling gear -> in and out. Adding Castles to this content layer would be great.

      Making this content known to new players is key too. i.e. letting players know a castle has loot awaiting to be 'stolen' or 'sacked' because it was not collected.

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

    • Stravanov wrote:

      @Retroman

      I just want to say thank you for the openness in this process. It's a refreshing new take from a company that has generally been fairly silent about it's motives.

      I am also positive regarding your identification of some of the core problems in the game, summed up in this quote:

      Retroman wrote:

      Our Take Away for the future:
      From the feedback in this thread, I noted these as your main problems with alliances:

      1. The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)
      2. Only a few top GvG teams fight the majority of all fights, making it extremely difficult to get fresh blood into this scene. Since the top teams circumvent most locking mechanics and potentially fight alliance-wide
      3. Alliance armies are too mobile. An Alliance can spontanously accumulate all online members fast at any spot of the world. They are not regionally bound in any sense. Making it hard to have smaller skirmishes, because battles easily escalate in numbers, due to reinforcements getting there very fast.
      4. There is not enough incentives to fight enemies in the open world; outside of the structured fights.
      5. Mega Alliances lead to a lot of no-shows and auto wins in crystal realm battles.

      I hate to be that guy. But the community pointed out a lot of these mistakes when you changed the map. There was generally an uproar on the forums, because the community foresaw that this exact thing would happen as a consequence of the new map and very easy access. (The other major subject was lack of immersion, which also hurts the game, but that's a different topic).

      I do understand your motivation behind the current map design. If players are more mobile, we can potentially get more PvP fights.
      Now we're just seing the negative impact of the high mobility. We have to carefully judge the negative and the positives before we proceed with any changes.

      In order to help us with future discussion, it would be nice to know what types of changes are acceptable.

      Would it be acceptable for SBI to change something as core as the map design and philosophy behind it, if there was a compelling argument for such a change?

      Or will changes have to be less "core" in nature, and as such be restricted to a more "gimmicky" solution like friendly fire or hard caps on member count?
      I beleieve he is open to fix the game. without hasitating to make 'core' changes, which however will need time.
    • Retroman wrote:

      Hello everyone,

      after taking in all your feedback and more internal disucssions, we decided to NOT implement the proposed friendly fire change.

      The alliance system will stay unchanged for season 5.

      We are aware, this would have been a very big change in a running game, even for a test period. That is why we wanted to evaluate this proposal with you, the community, before trying it in the live game. Obviously the opinions on this are quite divided and there is no clear agreement on this. Therefore we are looking at other options instead.

      Our Take Away for the future:
      From the feedback in this thread, I noted these as your main problems with alliances:

      1. The entry Barrier is too high. New and smaller guilds are more or less forced into one of the big alliances. Because it is too difficult to get involved in any kind of end game content without joining them. (i.e. GvG scene / crystal realm / castle fights, etc.)
      2. Only a few top GvG teams fight the majority of all fights, making it extremely difficult to get fresh blood into this scene. Since the top teams circumvent most locking mechanics and potentially fight alliance-wide
      3. Alliance armies are too mobile. An Alliance can spontanously accumulate all online members fast at any spot of the world. They are not regionally bound in any sense. Making it hard to have smaller skirmishes, because battles easily escalate in numbers, due to reinforcements getting there very fast.
      4. There is not enough incentives to fight enemies in the open world; outside of the structured fights.
      5. Mega Alliances lead to a lot of no-shows and auto wins in crystal realm battles.


      These are all things which needs more fundamental changes and / or reevaluation of some existing features and content in the game. Which is why we won't be able to adress these points for the short time left until season 5. But we are aware of these problems and will prepare solutions to see how we can best improve those aspects in the long-run.

      Regarding Point 5), we will make a change to Crystal Realm battles for Season 5:
      In Season 5, Auto Wins (aka No Shows) will not generate any season points anymore. This way we want to make it less attractive to have a majority of towers queuing from one alliance. Which creates a bigger incentive to not accumulate too many guilds in one alliance. Potentially leading to less No Shows.

      To conclude:
      I got the impression that the main concerns with alliances are rather with the game's main structure encouraging this playstyle, instead of the alliance systems which are currently in the game.

      Capping Alliance Members:
      We are quite confident that players would circumvent it by creating NAPs. On the top end it wouldn't change much, but it potentially makes it harder for the mid and small guilds. Because of the added hassle NAPs are, it is likely to only involve the strongest forces. So, we don't think this would change any alliance dynamic on the top end.

      Alliance Removal:
      Some wanted to remove allianes alltogether. But this thread's friendly fire proposal is basically a more variation of an alliance removal. Just without the QoL and in-game UI. And of course the mentioned NAPs would still be formed between the most important participants.

      If you disagree on this conclusion, please let us know in which specific scenario you think an alliance removal or alliance cap would end up differently.

      Please let me know if you think this list is missing a major point in the discussion.

      Thanks also for everyone elaborating their thoughts and reasonings in this thread, it definitely helps us to get a better picture of why a good amount of players are unhappy with the current alliance situation.


      Cheers,
      Retro
      You correctly addressed all of my concerns regarding alliances and i respect the fact that a lot of thinking and tweaking needs to be done before any structural game changes are implemented yet i was hoping that something , even a baby step , would be taken in that direction during or before season 5 , like season sharing between alliances , a limitation to the mobility the zerg armies have or even a cap to the alliance/guild sizes...

      Anyways , having said that , looking forward to the changes in the near future!