[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • Retroman wrote:

      1. 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.
      I disagree. Capping alliances would change a lot. NAPs will be different than formal alliances in the sense that capping alliances might have a small impact on gvgs because of NAPs, but it would have an immense impact on open world pvp, simply because there would be more reds for more people. Not to mention less places to hide. So, it would at least solve one problem and create more content. You can't control the gvg naps, that's true, so find a way to make it more profitable for people to gvg rather than nap.
    • MrsLove wrote:

      Retroman wrote:

      1. 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.
      I disagree. Capping alliances would change a lot. NAPs will be different than formal alliances in the sense that capping alliances might have a small impact on gvgs because of NAPs, but it would have an immense impact on open world pvp, simply because there would be more reds for more people. Not to mention less places to hide. So, it would at least solve one problem and create more content. You can't control the gvg naps, that's true, so find a way to make it more profitable for people to gvg rather than nap.


      The concept that NAPS are magically weaker than the current alliance is a "Self fulling prophecy". if anyone thinks a single member or group getting wiped will break a NAP has not been in diplomacy very much.

      Alliance disputes, deaths and NAP breaks are generally settled by high level members and result in financial compensation for the offended party.

      Group A gathers in your zone and you get proof, you get PAID. Group B kills your guy and shouldn't have. His gear gets replaced by a officer and is paid back 10x.

      Being in Sandbox games the majority play the LONG GAME and plan ahead. A few deaths today are water under the bridge in the year long war.

      Motivate players to seek a fight via rewards through PvP content, you can't force a fight..... If i have to loot the castle rewards and season points, that is content and a reward. Give both a personal and guild reward similar to crystals.
    • The whole idea that capping alliances won't work because of NAPS is what this poll should've been about. Testing the game without alliances or with a cap of 600-900 members. Not friendly fire.

      If you don't want to cap alliances, or remove alliances, why not tax alliances based on member size, to the point where it's so inconvenient to have large alliances that no one wants to be apart of them? But capping still seems the better way to go.

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

    • Fibo wrote:

      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
      What did you expect 80% in favor of a drastic change? A big change could never get more support than this. Some people actually voted NO because they think they won't be able to fame farm with alliance members (and fame farming is all they care about). Friendly fire obviously deserve a try. So while you agree again that there is a problem, any solution being too risky or hard to implement you won't do anything again...
      It's very disappointing, it's now time for me after 3 years of hooping the game would really be an hardcore pvp and economical game, like advertised in beta 1 trailler, to give up on this game. Crowfall is probably going to start beta in a few months anyway.
      lets play Crowfall.
      I will keep following your updates devs and comeback albion online someday when my mail box drop some news about albion saying: albion now is balanced to play for everyone.

      MrsLove wrote:

      Retroman wrote:

      1. 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.
      I disagree. Capping alliances would change a lot. NAPs will be different than formal alliances in the sense that capping alliances might have a small impact on gvgs because of NAPs, but it would have an immense impact on open world pvp, simply because there would be more reds for more people. Not to mention less places to hide. So, it would at least solve one problem and create more content. You can't control the gvg naps, that's true, so find a way to make it more profitable for people to gvg rather than nap.
      Correct definition.
    • I kinda agree now that we are getting jack all for season 5. Why not cap alliance at 300 members, and see why the NAPS are bad ideas?

      Can we get something? anything?

      Season point split is good.
      Capping alliance at 300 members seems reasonable (Same as getting rid of alliance, just allows smaller guilds to band together.)

      Didn't think it would turn into: Oh you don't like our idea? Then no soup for you....
    • It's already more profitable to win GVG's then to NAP with someone, because the gear looted is multiple times more valuable then that territory will yield over weeks/months. A single 6.3 Judicator Armor is worth more then the territory will produce in 2-3 weeks.

      It's not necessary to restrict alliances any more then it's necessary to restrict Armor types. Why should you be able to equip a Plate Helmet, a Cloth Chest and Leather Boots at the same time without penalties for not wearing the "correct" set?

      Is there a "correct" size of alliance? Numerically, Albion's largest alliance wouldn't even break into top 10 in EVE (reference: evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/memberCount ). Organizationally, most Albion alliances wouldn't even register on the radar but that's a completely different story. Currently there is no reason for anyone to exit from the established alliances because there is simply nowhere on the map where they can go that is far enough to escape retaliation. That is a consequence of two fundamental issues;

      - The world is too small
      - Power projection from Caerleon is too easy

      Until those two issues are resolved, things cannot change. Neither should they, sandbox games are about building and demolishing castles. Alliances are castles, they are built and should be demolished by the playerbase - not by developer intervention into the sandbox. Once a precedent is set, it's very easy to apply it to everything else. For example, why should a guild have 300 member cap instead of 50?
    • Wadefu wrote:

      thisismine wrote:

      and not really an idea that creates more content.
      You don't think by splitting up some of the larger alliances that they wouldn't start fighting each other?
      I think that just does what happened to crystal gvgs. We're exchanging content for content. Eg. we took mage raiding out of the game (at least in anglia), killed watchtower attack and defense content and instead, provided more gvg type content for existing watchtower owners. But we're essentially removing 1 type of content in hopes that it creates another. In the case of removing alliances, we kill large scale zvz, many pve events such as ff/boss killing, make it harder to organize groups for smaller guilds, in exchange for small scale pvp. And if there's NAP, which there always is, then we just essentially killed a ton of content for nothing.
    • Open the gates of the corral!

      Let the sheep come out,

      The wolves are howling,

      The wolves are craving!


      Open the gates of the barn,

      Let the cattle come out,

      The world is scarlet not lavender!

      Ready the creatures for the massacre!


      I shall butcher the pigs with the blade of my axe,

      I shall drink on their blood as I pray to our Gods!

      For too long have the beasts lived with their pacts,

      Lets once and for all even the odds!


      Bleed, squeal and wail as you're torn! Albion knows you're frauds!
    • Syndic wrote:

      It's already more profitable to win GVG's then to NAP with someone, because the gear looted is multiple times more valuable then that territory will yield over weeks/months. A single 6.3 Judicator Armor is worth more then the territory will produce in 2-3 weeks.

      It's not necessary to restrict alliances any more then it's necessary to restrict Armor types. Why should you be able to equip a Plate Helmet, a Cloth Chest and Leather Boots at the same time without penalties for not wearing the "correct" set?

      Is there a "correct" size of alliance? Numerically, Albion's largest alliance wouldn't even break into top 10 in EVE (reference: evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/memberCount ). Organizationally, most Albion alliances wouldn't even register on the radar but that's a completely different story. Currently there is no reason for anyone to exit from the established alliances because there is simply nowhere on the map where they can go that is far enough to escape retaliation. That is a consequence of two fundamental issues;

      - The world is too small
      - Power projection from Caerleon is too easy

      Until those two issues are resolved, things cannot change. Neither should they, sandbox games are about building and demolishing castles. Alliances are castles, they are built and should be demolished by the playerbase - not by developer intervention into the sandbox. Once a precedent is set, it's very easy to apply it to everything else. For example, why should a guild have 300 member cap instead of 50?
      if the world is too small copy paste and expand it. its like hey its done.

      everyone can gear different types of armor so if everyone can do it,its not unbalanced thing its just a preference of desing.

      sandbox game doesn't mean lego game.

      guilds could have cap of 50 which its more accurate of its player base.

      @Retroman My recommendation for dev team, its think about player group which is not too big neither small even if its 50 100 or 300 and make it for everyone as rule and develop the game around it. guild system could work in terms of account instead of character cause of alt things, if you think its worth like i do. just think about it and when you are going to make a system just answer yourself will be balanced for everyone so if it's yes, you did it. if don't keep working.

      PS: try it with alliance system, its balanced for everyone... yknow..

      The post was edited 8 times, last by Nailys ().

    • @Retroman

      Have you guys considered giving terri's more varied energy/season point values and then applying a diminishing returns multiplier across the alliance to both energy and sp gains based on the number of terris held?
      Something like (normal gain)*(.95^number of alliance terris) Castles/mages would need a change as well.

      .95 is arbitrary, pick a value that evens out at the number of terris an alliance should ideally hold.

      This would incentivize the power players to fight over the high value terris because taking a low value terri would actually reduce the net gains at some point, and would let smaller players in the scene participate because they gain from taking low value terris

      Also perhaps sharing points across the alliance in a ratio based on active players in each guild each day.
    • The point of a territory warfare game is to capture as much as you can and hold it for as long as you can before someone knocks you down, rinse and repeat.

      Not sure what are you talking about with "defining how many territories an alliance should hold", but whats the point? Wouldn't it be simpler to just give every guild a welfare-territory or 5 for perpetuity and call it a day at that point, just leave crystals in 3-4 times a day?

      That way everyone has territories and nobody loses them.
    • Syndic wrote:

      The point of a territory warfare game is to capture as much as you can and hold it for as long as you can before someone knocks you down, rinse and repeat.

      Not sure what are you talking about with "defining how many territories an alliance should hold", but whats the point? Wouldn't it be simpler to just give every guild a welfare-territory or 5 for perpetuity and call it a day at that point, just leave crystals in 3-4 times a day?

      That way everyone has territories and nobody loses them.
      I agree that is the point, but the more you have the harder it should be to hold.
    • I started with 1 tower in Bleak Moor, plenty of newer guilds started with 1 tower somewhere. Most alliances from release to today collapsed and split up.

      It is harder to hold the more you have, yes. That's up to the playerbase though to make it harder by attacking, not up to the developers with interventions in the sandbox and hostile development pissing on everyone's efforts because its fun to test FF for a month.
    • Fibo wrote:


      Retroman wrote:

      Hello everyone,

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


      Syndic wrote:

      I started with 1 tower in Bleak Moor, plenty of newer guilds started with 1 tower somewhere. Most alliances from release to today collapsed and split up.

      It is harder to hold the more you have, yes. That's up to the playerbase though to make it harder by attacking, not up to the developers with interventions in the sandbox and hostile development pissing on everyone's efforts because its fun to test FF for a month.
    • 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 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.



      Cheers,
      Retro
      Farmer.
    • @Retroman friendly fire is a step in the right direction but that only partially solves the mega alliance issues. Like someone was saying before. Alliances are filled with vassal guilds, either bringing ow presence or by donating to the main guild of that alliance. In turn they get the use of the terris and less people can kill them. So a lot of pvp doesnt happen that normally would. NAPS are enforced by the alliances themselves. If a player kills someone, then they might get kicked. They will join an alliance where they dont have open world naps so they can get more pvp. Some alliances might not even have a open world nap if ff became a thing, more content.

      I would not allow safety inside a territory if friendly fire was allowed. The main reason why a guild joins an alliance is the safety of territories. Take that away and they wont need that alliance as much.

      Myself and others were concerned with what is going on with crystals before they were added. You had to have crystal fights between alliance members. Also mercing is a huge problem and it shouldnt be allowed anymore. Im sure that 5% or less of players can still find gvg's. You want to have guilds fight their own gvg's. Adding a NA and a eu time or two for each would help with this also, like crystals. So many tombed up alts cant control the world.

      Also it would be nice if every week or something, you could win a territory in the open world. Like on reset day but less terris, Or a town plot could drop. Speaking of town plots dropping and reset day. Please only allow 150 players of one alliance in a zone if the cap is 300. you want only half of one alliance allowed. Or teleported out if another alliance comes in. This would allow more fights with the maximum pop. if more than 150 enter a zone atm, the other side will rarely take the fight since the numbers arent fair.

      I would remove alliances all together, People will just have to adapt, its for the health of the game, i dont really care if it makes a few mad, in the long run they will agree that alliances are a big problem in its current state. The friendly fire is a good way to ease into it. But you dont need to ease into it. Its something that needs to be fixed. It would create more drama and killing and that is great, thats not a bad thing at all people. More conflict, more backstabbing, more fighting.

      But I would add point sharing for alliances on top of that if they wernt removed. That way yes, Your guild will have to improve. You could merge and then organize that how you see fit, with whatever types of rules that guild sets. But the people who dont make it into a 300 player guild? well yes now more B and C tier guilds will actually get buffed since there needs to room for the playerbase. So some shuffling and merging would occur. Many guilds would be dropped from an alliance just because they are not worth sharing the points with, sure its sad for those guilds but guilds get dropped, die, merge all the time. The greed of the guild leaders are the main ones getting hurt. Either have joint leadership or step down, leaders will have to figure it out on their own. This way every last member will matter. You will want quality over quantity. Which is a good thing. The second rate people might get put into an alt guild sure, they wouldnt be in the same alliance tho and would have to use tactics and coordination to be effective. So this would open up the world for many more smaller alliances and guilds to be able to actually possibly take a slice of land somewhere. A lot of people cant even crystal becaues you need to first take a tower, which is a huge step for a new gvg team. Crystals could be attacked from a warcamp perhaps, that way you dont need to already own land to launch one. Speaking of warcamps, with alliances broke up, you would actually start seeing some fights around warcamps again, right now you hardly ever do. A lot of that reason is because if you get the launch off you will be facing an A team of an alliance. So that alone is a deterrent for the defenders to show up since a lot of the time they want to get launched on. Its also a deterrent for the attacker since they likely wont have a gvg team that can win let alone hold the area for more then a few days.

      Blob mechanics also deter fighting since less spontaneous fights occur cause of it.
      Coordinated open world zergs already have multiple fronts and sure some hilarious friendly fire could occur. Some that could even turn the tide. You would need to be disciplined to have minimal casualties do to ff. timing cooldowns and yes maybe people caught might get bombed by your allies and die. Tanks getting left behind. Having to hold dps or engages because of allies being deep into enemy lines. Hitting larger zergs from the rear and flanks. This type of stuff already happens but it will force adaption by people who have not already done this.

      The main issue with alliances isnt so much the size of the zerg they bring. Its stagnant world they create. Gatherers not fighting each other for resources, less ganking, less small scale, less zvzing, less contesting of open world objectives, less gvg's less crystals. Its turned a full loot pvp game into a mostly pve game, Its very hard to find content so many dont log until someone has found a fight. The world needs more conflict, more pvp. Alliances go against that unless the two alliances are very actively fighting each other on the daily. season 1 and season 3 were like that.

      So if you want the game to be healthy, active and full of action, with lots of little things happening all over id remove alliances, or cap player numbers. That spreads out the playerbase to many alliances or guilds. Not everyone together. There isnt enough pvp right now and the main reason is everyones on the same team. If there wasnt alliances than small fights would be happening all over. Spread the season points and even energy over an entire alliance, To where alliances and guilds will have to reform. More alliances/guilds will have to be created, since not everyone can fit. Make the benefits of a nap to be minimal, especially for gvg, Id want the world map to have more variety instead of mega alliances holding the whole world as they get rich.
    • I like how SBI handled this whole discussion. They took a question that could have been posed to the round table and made it public for the entire community to participate. They stayed involved by nudging the conversation a little bit with specific follow up questions.

      Regardless of the result of this topic, I liked how SBI presented and handled it. I feel there was a lot of good discussion here as well. It’s a lot of work for SBI to watch a public thread like this, but I think it’s healthy for our community to have this sort of thing on occasion.

      I’m pleased how concisely and clearly retroman summarized 10+ pages of discussion. The communication here was really promising all around.
    • Albion has progressed to the point where you cannot change the game to improve the game.

      Instead everybody is at the point where you must add content to the game to improve the game.

      And I don't mean crystal-gvgs, more instanced combat.


      The game needs new buildings, new goals, new maps, new dungeons, new pve (actually difficult dungeons and unbeaten world bosses).

      The game needs new challenges, otherwise, everybody is going to continue to argue about mundane and pointless topics.


      I want to say one more thing about alliances. Without the big alliance, I wouldn't meet a lot of interesting players and people, from around the world. "Capping" alliances would remove a very enjoyable aspect of the game. I believe that many other players have fun meeting teammates, and working together with others, from different languages, and from around the world. Fighting with the Italians, the Russians, the Spanish, it's one of the best parts of the game IMO. All this talk about "capping" would make new players miss out on this. Bad idea, IMO.