[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    Diese Seite verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Seite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen. Weitere Informationen

    • Yeah, except that changes nothing. Rewards have been previously shared without any problem (PoE).

      Syndic gave terris to all the guilds, even though PoE's 5man team was responsible for 99% of the success and they could live without any Zerg.

      There is one word describing this situation, starting with cluster ending with K.
    • I will reiterate my standpoint:

      • Removing the in game mechanic for Alliances does not remove the possibility of their existence in game.
      • Restricting Alliance sizes feels like limitations on the sandbox.
      • Inversely removing Alliances creates more of a sandbox feel, putting natural and dynamic restrictions on Alliances by leaving it to the players to maintain the alliance, instead of giving them simple purple tags. This leaves more room for backstabbing, betrayal, subterfuge and spying, and all the other open points of game-play created by player only moderated alliances. Tensions could raise, players would each have a choice every time seeing a group of players in an allied guild, to maintain whatever diplomacy your guild holds, This also effectively adds the core concept of friendly fire, and creating higher skilled ZvZ co-operation between allied forces to focus their damage effectively without "blue on blue" damage.
      I really feel like removing the in game system for alliance management is needed. Otherwise we will simply rock back and forth between one mega alliance and the next. The state of the outlands is pretty dire right now. Mega alliances can flag any and all content in Alliance chat, and players can respond within minutes, meaning that you can never have any fight or activity lasting longer than 10 minutes without getting zerged up on beyond any hope of victory, with N+1 always being the strongest way to ensure a win.
      Hop on in to my Discord and Twitch ^^
    • I believe also that removing the tools to create alliance is the best solution atm.

      We can't deny NAP's and handolding in between guilds, is impossible to do that simply cuz humain way of thinking. That's a fact. But we can make in a way that managing NAPS and handholding is way more difficult with more coordination in ZvZ, risks of backstapping betrayal'n'stuff etc...

      Theat schrieb:

      A monopoly occurs, then over time, new guilds, players, and alliances work together to overthrow it.

      Sounds like fun to me

      Maybe but rn the BZ is a total wasteland with barely any activities in there.
    • Khladraven schrieb:

      I will reiterate my standpoint:

      • Removing the in game mechanic for Alliances does not remove the possibility of their existence in game.
      • Restricting Alliance sizes feels like limitations on the sandbox.
      • Inversely removing Alliances creates more of a sandbox feel, putting natural and dynamic restrictions on Alliances by leaving it to the players to maintain the alliance, instead of giving them simple purple tags. This leaves more room for backstabbing, betrayal, subterfuge and spying, and all the other open points of game-play created by player only moderated alliances. Tensions could raise, players would each have a choice every time seeing a group of players in an allied guild, to maintain whatever diplomacy your guild holds, This also effectively adds the core concept of friendly fire, and creating higher skilled ZvZ co-operation between allied forces to focus their damage effectively without "blue on blue" damage.
      I really feel like removing the in game system for alliance management is needed. Otherwise we will simply rock back and forth between one mega alliance and the next. The state of the outlands is pretty dire right now. Mega alliances can flag any and all content in Alliance chat, and players can respond within minutes, meaning that you can never have any fight or activity lasting longer than 10 minutes without getting zerged up on beyond any hope of victory, with N+1 always being the strongest way to ensure a win.
      IMO removing alliances is crucial, because guild-based system feels much better. For the last two years I played in many different alliances from small ones to big ones, I never cared too much about that. But even I have changed guild couple times, I still play with the people I met during the start of the game and this is the reason I still play the game. And I really wished SBI would help people get that feeling, because that's what differentiates MMO's from other games - you become part of community, that is bigger than the game they play.



      But to the point... I believe, because of the change in the population that happened since the release, we need way more reds in the game, less clustered armies. (So more armies with less soldiers). But again, that itself won't fix all the problems and will create effects that might mitigate wanted effect.

      I wrote some words on this problem long time ago here I have also tried to name the side-effects of proposed changes like limiting alliance numbers, limiting guilds numbers, adding friendly fire etc.

      It explains my point of view on below problems that are partially fault of the alliance system as it is today:

      • Lots of content is not accessible to new players / part-time gamers
      • Small bunch of players control almost everything that matters
      • Outlands are too safe - majority of players that live in outlands are part of top 3 biggest alliances, they have safehouse where they can drop gear and suicide
      • Outlands are too dangerous - big alliances form big zergs that deny content for smaller groups (so we barely ever see fights like 20v20, it's always 40v20 or blue balling). So a standalone guild without alliance can't really find satisfying content.
      • Alliance vs Alliance fights (150v150) are not really supported with current engine version (lags, rubberbanding etc.)
    • Neu

      glokz schrieb:

      1. Lots of content is not accessible to new players / part-time gamers
      2. Small bunch of players control almost everything that matters
      3. Outlands are too safe - majority of players that live in outlands are part of top 3 biggest alliances, they have safehouse where they can drop gear and suicide
      4. Outlands are too dangerous - big alliances form big zergs that deny content for smaller groups (so we barely ever see fights like 20v20, it's always 40v20 or blue balling). So a standalone guild without alliance can't really find satisfying content.
      5. Alliance vs Alliance fights (150v150) are not really supported with current engine version (lags, rubberbanding etc.)

      1. Which is terrible considering it rewards people who are able to play all day every day without much restriction.

      2. With it being so easy to simply join for a purple tag, many players will always take the easy option. Game is a lot less difficult when half the server cant touch you, and you can all spam AOE's on top of each other without even thinking
      .
      3. Agreed, something that has frustrated me with territories being so strong now against players diving. As much as people will moan about them having no financial advantage, their position in game as a safe haven/strongpoint has never been so strong. Mainly due to increase guard ranges. Between owning so many territories in the outlands, and with the faction outposts in the royals, players never seem to be more than one minute away from safety...

      4. I think that's honestly the long and short of it, and why small scale and solo PvP peaked the community interest for the focus topics we are now discussing, sad part is that it is these large organizations that are effectively denying the content their own communities are crying out for.

      5. I feel like this is a selling point for SBI "Amazing 150v150 warfare", I mean... yeah, sounds cool on paper, but in reality it just encourages and rewards a "tag along" playstyle. Whilst I understand not every players should need to be a general, and that for large guilds to fight these battles they need soldiers, I feel like individual skill currently matters little compared to the numbers advantage, and is not rewarded anywhere near as much in the game's current format. Not to mention that nearly any large scale fight you take with a large alliance often ends in defeat, as even if you win the battle, more alliance zergs, waiting for content, will be riding out as soon as that fight starts. Often leading to you being combat locked in a zone, fighting with diminishing numbers against a constantly replenishing force.

      I think it is important to remember that it is not simply Alliances that are at fault, but their ability to move around their players with such ease, something @Syndic highlighted a while back in a thread about zerg power projection. I feel these two factors right now are the main contributors to the frankly stale gameplay in the outlands right now.
      Hop on in to my Discord and Twitch ^^
    • Neu

      Theat schrieb:

      The alliances are fine, and has created a very interesting story of politics and change to the game over the past year or two.

      To those who have rose up, and fallen, there are a lot of epic battles in between.


      Keep alliances as they are.
      Exactly, you are right.

      Except one thing, you haven't read a single comment in this thread but you know it all.

      Problem solved, please close this thread.
    • Neu

      Just remove Aliances. It is a sandbox leave the diplomatics between 2 guilds to the players auto control. Will make it more fun for spies attacking other guilds to start wars between 2 guilds and stuff like that.
      Small guilds will have an opportunity to get into Outlands more often without getting smashed by an zerg.
      More pvp will come up since most of the guild members will attack oranges on first contact without caring about if there is a NAP.
      In my opinion it will make the game more fun and with more action for everyone.

      I will miss the ZvZ, but to be honest I prefer small ZvZ groups. Less lag = more fun.