[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • DuendeBrek 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.
      Well, it would be just easier and more clear who is with who, who you should attack and who not to. Things would just stay clear I think.
      all caps: SOME PEOPLE ARE COLOUR BLIND

      what do you mean?

      do you really think that just changing the colour of someone's name tag will ensure co-operation between two players in a pvp zone?

      I wouldn't be surprised if NAP's are established through mutually beneficial financial agreement.

      It's not just the colour of a fucking name tag.
      » ᴘ ᴇ ɴ ɢ ᴜ ɪ ɴ • s ɴ ɪ ᴘ ᴇ ʀ « bit.ly/pokerface-albion
    • I think a neat change would be scaling team damage based on alliance size.

      The bigger the alliance, the more team damage with different guilds. For example, a 1000 member alliance would have 10 percent team damage taken, while 3000+ would have something like 50 percent team damage taken. This would scale in such a way where massive alliances would be especially disadvantaged in small skirmishes while on the same playing field in large skirmishes with other massive alliances. This way, small alliances could fight with less organization and easier engages while larger alliances would have to organize their engages around the team damage debuff.
    • Yojimbo wrote:

      I think a neat change would be scaling team damage based on alliance size.

      The bigger the alliance, the more team damage with different guilds. For example, a 1000 member alliance would have 10 percent team damage taken, while 3000+ would have something like 50 percent team damage taken. This would scale in such a way where massive alliances would be especially disadvantaged in small skirmishes while on the same playing field in large skirmishes with other massive alliances. This way, small alliances could fight with less organization and easier engages while larger alliances would have to organize their engages around the team damage debuff.
      I want no/small alliances but how does your idea even make sense... If i had a 1000 man alliance i could still fit 200 people in a map, meaning we would get an advantage in a even sized fight vs another alliance just because they have more virtual member slots in their alliance?
      You can't explain chess moves to Pokémon GO players
    • KingMoJo wrote:

      Yojimbo wrote:

      I think a neat change would be scaling team damage based on alliance size.

      The bigger the alliance, the more team damage with different guilds. For example, a 1000 member alliance would have 10 percent team damage taken, while 3000+ would have something like 50 percent team damage taken. This would scale in such a way where massive alliances would be especially disadvantaged in small skirmishes while on the same playing field in large skirmishes with other massive alliances. This way, small alliances could fight with less organization and easier engages while larger alliances would have to organize their engages around the team damage debuff.
      I want no/small alliances but how does your idea even make sense... If i had a 1000 man alliance i could still fit 200 people in a map, meaning we would get an advantage in a even sized fight vs another alliance just because they have more virtual member slots in their alliance?
      I think the whole point of what @Yojimbo is suggesting is to create a desincentive for being in larger alliances.
    • KingMoJo wrote:

      I want no/small alliances but how does your idea even make sense... If i had a 1000 man alliance i could still fit 200 people in a map, meaning we would get an advantage in a even sized fight vs another alliance just because they have more virtual member slots in their alliance?
      I've done some elaboration on 'alliance-lock' idea, that basically means a single alliance/neutral group can only put 50% of their players into the zone. If you have cap of 300 players, it would mean one alliance can be present only with 150 men in a single zone.

      This should be a temporary fix that at least partially solves the zone locking problem. Let's hope S7 will be fair trade for everyone so we don't need to massup 1.5h before the lord spawns...
    • glokz wrote:

      I've done some elaboration on 'alliance-lock' idea, that basically means a single alliance/neutral group can only put 50% of their players into the zone. If you have cap of 300 players, it would mean one alliance can be present only with 150 men in a single zone.
      This should be a temporary fix that at least partially solves the zone locking problem. Let's hope S7 will be fair trade for everyone so we don't need to massup 1.5h before the lord spawns...
      People don't casually lock zones, and when they do, they have good reasons for it. If a big alliance needs to lock CV or a portal zone, your suggestion doesn't do anything against that as the zones can still be locked either with guilds dropping for an hour or with alts.
    • Dacunetc wrote:

      I understand and experienced the problem, but I think your solution won't solve anything because guilds can drop alliance for 1h and fill the area. If you still don't get it: 300 [zone cap] - 150 OOPS - 100 (non-OOPS H&S) = 50 other people can enter.

      i.imgur.com/OQVkw7r.jpg
      So make an invisible "debuff" that stays on your character for 24 hours(or however long) still aligning you with your previous alliance for zoning purposes so you'd still count towards the 150.
      So even if you dropped alliance you'd still count towards their 150 people for 24 hours in a zone.
    • ViLEuo wrote:

      Dacunetc wrote:

      I understand and experienced the problem, but I think your solution won't solve anything because guilds can drop alliance for 1h and fill the area. If you still don't get it: 300 [zone cap] - 150 OOPS - 100 (non-OOPS H&S) = 50 other people can enter.

      i.imgur.com/OQVkw7r.jpg
      So make an invisible "debuff" that stays on your character for 24 hours(or however long) still aligning you with your previous alliance for zoning purposes so you'd still count towards the 150.So even if you dropped alliance you'd still count towards their 150 people for 24 hours in a zone.
      And that's where naps and politics come into scene... the exact reason SBI gave when explaining why they wanna keep alliances in game (to prevent naps from forming)... I know it's frustrating for people not part of the huge alliances, but I think SBI should rather create incentives for being part of somthing smaller than even try to create des-incentives for being part of something big, because players will always find a workaround des-incentives...
    • ViLEuo wrote:

      Dacunetc wrote:

      I understand and experienced the problem, but I think your solution won't solve anything because guilds can drop alliance for 1h and fill the area. If you still don't get it: 300 [zone cap] - 150 OOPS - 100 (non-OOPS H&S) = 50 other people can enter.

      i.imgur.com/OQVkw7r.jpg
      So make an invisible "debuff" that stays on your character for 24 hours(or however long) still aligning you with your previous alliance for zoning purposes so you'd still count towards the 150.So even if you dropped alliance you'd still count towards their 150 people for 24 hours in a zone.
      Do you think BA travels 30min to Anglia to fight over their castles there, or that they have alts? Do you see where I'm going? You don't need a high spec alt, you just need a person from a neutral alliance to stay in a corner on that map. How do you solve that?
    • Captainrussia wrote:

      Theat wrote:

      The big guilds and alliances deserve every penny of silver they make; it takes a lot of work, time, energy, sacrifice, risk, that the plebs will never understand.

      Whiners you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
      says the guy from a small guild, whose entire alliance owns 1 terri
      WTF you talking about??? LOL

      Captain Delusion, still delusional?
    • Theat wrote:

      Captainrussia wrote:

      Theat wrote:

      The big guilds and alliances deserve every penny of silver they make; it takes a lot of work, time, energy, sacrifice, risk, that the plebs will never understand.

      Whiners you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
      says the guy from a small guild, whose entire alliance owns 1 terri
      WTF you talking about??? LOL
      Captain Delusion, still delusional?
      oh I see. Last time I checked (about a month or two ago, was it?) you were in some random guild in some random alliance that only had 1 terri. yes - that entire alliance had 1 terri.

      I see you went back to OOPS now... Your guild still has 0 terries tho... not much has changed... I guess you couldn't "hack" it vs the big alliances so you had to go and join one?
    • Theat wrote:

      As always Captain Delusion, you have no clue what you're talking about.

      I've been in all areas of the game. Small guilds, big guilds, small alliances, big alliances. If you think you're making some kind of a point here, you're not.
      oh I definitely am.

      You were screaming a while back that small alliances should unite, and they can fight the big alliances, and that everything is fine as long as small guys keep focusing and attacking big alliances constantly and not giving them any breathing room, and yadda-yadda-yadda.

      Then you went ahead and just joined a big alliance. (or should I say "rejoined"?)

      Hypocrite much?