[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • I don't know but right now is so dumb. Literally Opps have control of everything, either GvG or either ZvZ. They keep bringing like x2 more numbers than us (Actually the only alliance who has the balls for fight them) + they just launch all the GvG's they want since all guilds have joined main teams into MG.

      So I don't know how many season we need wait for can see any change. Actually either 2k men alliance or solo guild, can't do shit.

      This is a bit frustrating tbh.
    • "This is why the current territory control system is at the root of all problems left in Albion..."

      It's really not though. The current map shows MG's GvG-dominant business model owning most of Mercia and half of Cumbria. I think most of us can agree that is rather odious.

      And yet, wouldn't the new map look exactly the same? Just replace MG with Take Care with its ZvZ-dominant model owning most of the map.

      Then you have alliances like June and Life who, currently able to compete with MG in GvG on near equal terms, may or may not bite the dust.


      No doubt, endless ZvZ is the favorite content for some people. If it were up to them: remove GvG, remove HG, remove RD and FF, remove gathering, just remove everything that isn't ZvZ, and change the name of the game to Mega Zerg Online.

      Many players will opt out if ZvZ season 8 is botched. Then SBI will look back and see that the game is truly dead, and many of us called it. And that they killed it for literally no reason at all, other than gratifying a tiny minority of the player base who want the game to be utterly dominated by ZvZ and gank zerg.
    • As in everything, there should be balance.

      Increase the time between reset day / when zergs win a territory and the time you can be attacked / gvg launched.

      Reduce the time between reset days.


      This way, we could have for example 1 week of territory ownership after reset day uncontested, and then 2 weeks contestest with gvg, and then reset day again. Would give everyone the chance to own a territory for the same time, either gvg or zvz.

      Else, well, change the system you had since alpha or beta and during 8 seasons and see how it goes. The game is pretty dead already apart from the mandatory CTA's some people still care about. Once they realize how dumb that is, bye bye.

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

    • Merzot wrote:

      in fact, most support the plan that Gvg will be excluded from the tenure system.
      stop denying it

      the open world is the best that is in this game. And the GWG affects him the most, not being part of it. It is very good that Sbi decided to fix it.
      I just hope they won't be surprised at the exodus that results from Albion changing to zerg online. That nonsense is why I don't have an island yet. I'll save my money for premium to see how the new map and new systems turn out. If it's more of this nonsense of huge alliances and map zergs denying content for anyone who doesn't want to be in a large group, then, I can find a better way to waste my time and money.
    • Dc1a0 wrote:

      Merzot wrote:

      in fact, most support the plan that Gvg will be excluded from the tenure system.
      stop denying it

      the open world is the best that is in this game. And the GWG affects him the most, not being part of it. It is very good that Sbi decided to fix it.
      I just hope they won't be surprised at the exodus that results from Albion changing to zerg online. That nonsense is why I don't have an island yet. I'll save my money for premium to see how the new map and new systems turn out. If it's more of this nonsense of huge alliances and map zergs denying content for anyone who doesn't want to be in a large group, then, I can find a better way to waste my time and money.
      You must have missed the part of the RT leak that described how bringing a massive zerg will get hit with pretty massive defuffs (50+ people and you're getting hit with 10% DMG and HP defuff, and it only gets bigger from there) - and the numbers and the mechanic is not even fully finalized, the debuff could end up being even more harsh.

      Thats one of the reasons I'd advise players not to give in to any kind of leaks - a lot of those "leaks" show incorrect, still "work in progress" data, and half of it is taken out of context anyway...
    • Captainrussia wrote:

      Dc1a0 wrote:

      Merzot wrote:

      in fact, most support the plan that Gvg will be excluded from the tenure system.
      stop denying it

      the open world is the best that is in this game. And the GWG affects him the most, not being part of it. It is very good that Sbi decided to fix it.
      I just hope they won't be surprised at the exodus that results from Albion changing to zerg online. That nonsense is why I don't have an island yet. I'll save my money for premium to see how the new map and new systems turn out. If it's more of this nonsense of huge alliances and map zergs denying content for anyone who doesn't want to be in a large group, then, I can find a better way to waste my time and money.
      You must have missed the part of the RT leak that described how bringing a massive zerg will get hit with pretty massive defuffs (50+ people and you're getting hit with 10% DMG and HP defuff, and it only gets bigger from there) - and the numbers and the mechanic is not even fully finalized, the debuff could end up being even more harsh.
      Thats one of the reasons I'd advise players not to give in to any kind of leaks - a lot of those "leaks" show incorrect, still "work in progress" data, and half of it is taken out of context anyway...
      That's why I said that I intend to wait and see how it turns out before I decide whether to put in or walk away.
    • BalorXI wrote:

      "This is why the current territory control system is at the root of all problems left in Albion..."

      It's really not though. The current map shows MG's GvG-dominant business model owning most of Mercia and half of Cumbria. I think most of us can agree that is rather odious.

      And yet, wouldn't the new map look exactly the same? Just replace MG with Take Care with its ZvZ-dominant model owning most of the map.

      Then you have alliances like June and Life who, currently able to compete with MG in GvG on near equal terms, may or may not bite the dust.


      No doubt, endless ZvZ is the favorite content for some people. If it were up to them: remove GvG, remove HG, remove RD and FF, remove gathering, just remove everything that isn't ZvZ, and change the name of the game to Mega Zerg Online.

      Many players will opt out if ZvZ season 8 is botched. Then SBI will look back and see that the game is truly dead, and many of us called it. And that they killed it for literally no reason at all, other than gratifying a tiny minority of the player base who want the game to be utterly dominated by ZvZ and gank zerg.
      I think the change to ZvZ focused territory control is going to suffer from the same problems as the current 5v5 control mechanics.

      Whoever has the best ZvZ force is going to be able to control most if not all of Mercia. Already you see OOPS getting almost all of the points from castles and outposts in Cumbria and Mercia. And in my opinion, it is just as hard if not harder to train a shotcaller and 40+ competent ZvZ players as it is to get a decent 5v5 team going.

      I also don't see why it's bad for a single alliance to control most of Mercia and Cumbria. That's only a fraction of the entire black zone. And the benefits of owning a Mercia territory over other continents is only slightly higher enchantment rates and some extra season points /energy. The downside is that since Mercia mages are worth the most, they're constantly being killed so you don't get as much passive energy point generation as a Anglia territory.


      SkuzKabel wrote:

      Lately, each day I'm losing more people in my guild , basicly they don't want play anymore, becouse all the fights are outnumbered by a lot of more people, you can't play GvG's unless you have 3-4 teams GvG's rdy + WoW Classic. If we keep in the same way we will lose a lot of people.
      Yes - and the part I highlighted in bold is only going to be worse in season 8. I don't think the battle confusion mechanic is going to be a great counter to the n+1 problem.

      At the end of the day, Albion's main challenge is the same issue that has haunted other hardcore, full loot PvP games in the past (like Shadowbane or Darkfall). Groups of players will always use whatever tools or strategies they can to maximize their dominance over others - and those on the bottom rungs of the ladder are going to have a hard time keeping up with the costs and maintaining morale among their members to be able to continue trying to climb up.
      AO Quick Reference Guide
      Discord: Grimhawke#9254

    • I like the GvG changes but it needs to be followed by the complete removal of alliances.

      Guilds can form NAPs, but those are hard to maintain and it's hard to ZvZ with friendly fire.

      A very well structured guild would be able to have 100 players online, and then it comes down to strategy the allocation of these players to ZvZ and attack/deffend terries.

      Are you going to split those 100 players in 2 groups and hold 2 terries? One 50 men group and two 25 men group?

      It's up to the guild leader to manage and organize his forces.

      Each guild would then have at most 4 or 5 terries, and alliance terries would simply not be a thing because alliances would be gone.

      ZvZ are fun but they need to be toned down from the 200 men fights to around 100 men fights, it would help with lag and the Zone Locking issues.

      Another benefit is that guilds would need to be active, individual contributions would count a lot more, inactive players would be kicked and tighter groups would be formed around a restricted group size.
    • There's obvious issue with the game mechanics.
      The most obvious proof of that is the alliances. If you ever want to participate in any territorial fight, you must join the big alliances - Sadly, that is how it is. You can have a guild, bring your 20 players to territory, then a zerg of 50 just destroy you.

      If the GvG will be removed, and everything will be ZvZ, it will force the Join the zerg in order to survive - That's is forcing a player / guild, to do, perhaps, what they do not want to do.
      People are bored to be the underdogs, all the time. If you want to fight for a territory, you must join the big zerg.


      In my opinion, the only way to fix these issues, is to limit amount of territories, controlled by a alliance - this will make stronger alliances to go for the best territories, and actually have some fight over them, instead of claiming the whole region for them, some guilds will leave the alliances, in order to be able to capture territories. Something is obviously wrong, when you see even the "Low" zones being controlled by the biggest alliances in the game. That pretty much removes any other alliances, from being able to participate.

      What is the point of letting, big alliances to take even more, and more territories? That destroys the smaller alliances in long-term.. If each guild is allowed to own One of each type of territory (castle, farm, town), and there is a cap for each alliance, then there is no benefits of having an massive alliance. Guilds will leave alliances, make their own, in order to be able to control territories. There should be constant battles with each other, to control zones, etc.

      Capping alliances would not work as efficiently.
      For example, cap of 2000.
      ARCH has roughly 13000 people, new alliances would be made:
      ARCH1, ARCH2, ARCH3, ARCH4... - Yes, it would be harder to organize stuff, there would be friendly fire, but the zone locking, etc, could still be organized, so there would be no real benefits of doing this.

      The blackzone changes, alone, will not give us anything. Smaller guilds / alliances would still be left out of participating in the territory wars, the zergs would still rule.

      Cap the territory amount, which a alliance can control. Worse territories will be owned by "worse" guilds/alliances, making the food chain real.
      "Worse" guilds will fight over worse territories, against "worse" enemies. And top guilds will be fighting top enemies.
      Of course, there will be underground pacts made, etc.

      Stop forcing players to join the zergs / big groups. Rather split the big factions into smaller factions - There will be way more fights, over territories, etc.

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

    • Satyrns wrote:

      There's obvious issue with the game mechanics.
      The most obvious proof of that is the alliances. If you ever want to participate in any territorial fight, you must join the big alliances - Sadly, that is how it is. You can have a guild, bring your 20 players to territory, then a zerg of 50 just destroy you.

      The alliances must be removed, period.
      If the GvG will be removed, and everything will be ZvZ, it will force the Join the zerg in order to survive - That's is forcing a player / guild, to do, perhaps, what they do not want to do.
      People are bored to be the underdogs, all the time. If you want to fight for a territory, you must join the big zerg.


      In my opinion, the only way to fix these issues, is to limit amount of territories, controlled by a alliance - this will make stronger alliances to go for the best territories, and actually have some fight over them, instead of claiming the whole region for them, some guilds will leave the alliances, in order to be able to capture territories. Something is obviously wrong, when you see even the "Low" zones being controlled by the biggest alliances in the game. That pretty much removes any other alliances, from being able to participate.

      What is the point of letting, big alliances to take even more, and more territories? That destroys the smaller alliances in long-term.. If each guild is allowed to own One of each type of territory (castle, farm, town), and there is a cap for each alliance, then there is no benefits of having an massive alliance. Guilds will leave alliances, make their own, in order to be able to control territories. There should be constant battles with each other, to control zones, etc.

      Capping alliances would not work as efficiently.
      For example, cap of 2000.
      ARCH has roughly 13000 people, new alliances would be made:
      ARCH1, ARCH2, ARCH3, ARCH4... - Yes, it would be harder to organize stuff, there would be friendly fire, but the zone locking, etc, could still be organized, so there would be no real benefits of doing this.

      The blackzone changes, alone, will not give us anything. Smaller guilds / alliances would still be left out of participating in the territory wars, the zergs would still rule.

      Cap the territory amount, which a alliance can control. Worse territories will be owned by "worse" guilds/alliances, making the food chain real.
      "Worse" guilds will fight over worse territories, against "worse" enemies. And top guilds will be fighting top enemies.
      Of course, there will be underground pacts made, etc.

      Stop forcing players to join the zergs / big groups. Rather split the big factions into smaller factions - There will be way more fights, over territories, etc.
      Do not you think that to achieve something you need to do not only what you like?
    • The thing is: you had 2 choises to make a good change in alliances.

      1 - Maximum number of players in alliance. This could stop mega alliances even if other alliances make pacts with others.
      2 - Get rid of alliances at all and the game will became super competitive.

      But, insted of that, you guys chose to put friendly fire in alliances. Whats the point? This is the same thing of get rid of it. Ok, other guilds will have acess to territories that the major guild in the alliance have, but this will make ppl PK each other inside territories. Oh, and i almost forgot about the alts and secondary guilds from bigger guilds like Money Guild and Money Guild 2, for example. Well, nice idea, mate. You should get promoted for that.
    • One current downside to both ZvZs and GvGs is a relentless, daily schedule that wears people out. I saw that in World of Tanks clan wars (which has no alliances or zergs, just GvG-style content). Whoever suggested a week between territory changes, I like it! :)

      As a newer player, I was disappointed to learn that the black zone is just an extended PvP arena with a schedule, rather than a long-term sandbox world to live, fight, and build in. If I were to "fix" Albion, I'd start there and work up.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      One current downside to both ZvZs and GvGs is a relentless, daily schedule that wears people out. I saw that in World of Tanks clan war

      Thats why you have more than 15 people doing the content, daily fights are good, World of tanks has probably one of the best systems when it comes to clanwars, and you can be average just to earn free gold

      whats bad for albion is time restrictions which are only hurting more casual players
    • tabooshka wrote:

      Thats why you have more than 15 people doing the content, daily fights are good, World of tanks has probably one of the best systems when it comes to clanwars, and you can be average just to earn free gold

      Hmm. When I did clan wars, we had to be on daily for months, which ground us down. Also, we constantly had to put players who showed up on the bench, because we didn't have room in the battles for them.

      ZvZ-style content doesn't have to be scheduled, and has room for everyone, which is why I prefer it to GvG-style.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      ZvZ-style content doesn't have to be scheduled, and has room for everyone, which is why I prefer it to GvG-style.
      its called hellgates



      Roccandil wrote:

      Hmm. When I did clan wars, we had to be on daily for months, which ground us down. Also, we constantly had to put players who showed up on the bench, because we didn't have room in the battles for them
      That sounds like you problem, not the system, being on daily without rotating players because you have no room, KEKW