[Updated] Possible Alliance Change

    • tabooshka wrote:

      its called hellgates

      Hellgates aren't an immersive world.

      tabooshka wrote:

      That sounds like you problem, not the system, being on daily without rotating players because you have no room, KEKW

      Clans had a max membership of 100, there were only so many officers/shotcallers to go around, and there was constant pressure to get as many season points as possible.

      The problem is that it's all-or-nothing: either you're all-in, or you don't participate. Being all-in for one season can be fun, but then burnout sets in. That hurts player retention.

      A more immersive sandbox world would require more time for change to develop (due to logistics, geographical immensity, etc.). And the best sandbox worlds wouldn't need to be periodically reset.
    • The root cause of the people leave is this:

      Elitists control the game, be it ZvZ or GvG.

      And these control most of the areas controlling the content.

      Now in order to be in these Elitist mega alliance you have to obey rules, which makes sense.

      I played a lot of these, I was in POE, I was CIR, I was OOPs and a lot of these..

      The power play you need to be accepted is fun, but life is different..
      Some days you really have the time to play some don't
      At the end of the day you have periods of time where you just want to farm srd or do small scale

      And then you no longer stay in your position of power in the mega Alliance you go to something smaller

      In order to operate in the mega Alliance area you need a group, and suddenly the smaller Alliance enforces rules to be in that group..

      Long story short, however you twist and bend it, you need people be it for hg for whatever simply to srd t8 cause the gank groups are 3 plus

      In order to maintain your group you need log on and be present..

      Life is different, and then the burnout starts

      Albion is no game you can consume allone, the 10+ gank groups, the zoning groups

      Yes you can work all around that but it is always:

      N+1 one rules you

      Yes these is a Zerg debuff now leaked but it will always fuck the player that is just on an hour to do something

      And this content is hidden behind groups, bigger groups, and at the end of the day mega alliances..

      And most people from time to time are forced or want to play the small scale without n+1 penalty..

      And there is tons of good ideas to do something.. like if 10 players attack solo player then trash rate explodes to break the stupid risk vs Reward of n+1

      But I doubt it is even called an issue at develop state or devs even read it if not bold at round table..
    • capping the alliances would not solve anything. People are smart and they will just adapt.

      Instead of bringing one 10k alliance, they'll bring two 5k, or whatever you cap it at... 1k allance caps? Sure - no problem, bring 10 alliances called SQUAD1, SQUAD2, etc... etc...

      Fully remove alliances? So what? People will just bring 300 man guild and (nearly) cap out a zone... even bringing 100 man group is unplayable enough to have a "win" - as the other group will just DC and crash...

      Should we now cap all guilds to 100 men? Nonsense...
    • Captainrussia wrote:

      capping the alliances would not solve anything. People are smart and they will just adapt.

      Instead of bringing one 10k alliance, they'll bring two 5k, or whatever you cap it at... 1k allance caps? Sure - no problem, bring 10 alliances called SQUAD1, SQUAD2, etc... etc...

      Fully remove alliances? So what? People will just bring 300 man guild and (nearly) cap out a zone... even bringing 100 man group is unplayable enough to have a "win" - as the other group will just DC and crash...

      Should we now cap all guilds to 100 men? Nonsense...
      Actually, only time will tell if it's nonsense or not. I will say though, having any kind of group limit higher than the map limits is bad design for competitive play.
    • New

      Remove the alliance system or change the name of the game to oops onlineWe were a small team who enjoyed the game for 30 people. We didn't want to join the alliances and we were having fun among ourselves. but after a while, alliances did not enter the high regions because of our progress. and 27 friends left the game. Our last hope as the remaining 3 people is the abolition of the alliance system. otherwise goodbye albion. If you continue this mind already in 3 months, your player will not stay, dear managers
    • New

      Henks wrote:

      Remove the alliance system or change the name of the game to oops onlineWe were a small team who enjoyed the game for 30 people. We didn't want to join the alliances and we were having fun among ourselves. but after a while, alliances did not enter the high regions because of our progress. and 27 friends left the game. Our last hope as the remaining 3 people is the abolition of the alliance system. otherwise goodbye albion. If you continue this mind already in 3 months, your player will not stay, dear managers


      I want to reach heights, but I do not want to do what is needed. I want to do what I want. that's how i see what you said.I believe that the need for alliances to achieve goals is good.And in season 8 it will be even better
    • New

      @Merzot


      I think you need to read something twice. Play with a small group, not to the heights, developing and having fun. In a t8 zone, an oops ping you 50 pounds. So how do we play in those areas? the rulers are already worried about making places to hide the little guilds so much cowardly to the pressures. small guilds should be kept in the limits of the big. their minds are still attached to people they will lose by deleting alliances. however, many more people who will lose official visuals will return to the game after their courage. but because of the pressure of you and others like you, they're still cowards and I don't think they're gonna get better. Albion's two largest and most popular publishers; Why is Lewpac and Jonahveil not broadcasting albions anymore? Although the wow classic is lower than albion. they even lost them, because of their cowardice. 41 days to the end of the season, and they continue to postpone the events at the end of the season. but every day it works against them. why do they do such a game boldly and still can't fix a bad system because of the pressures of 3 or 5 people. they should ask themselves this question first.

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

    • New

      Merzot wrote:

      Henks wrote:

      Remove the alliance system or change the name of the game to oops onlineWe were a small team who enjoyed the game for 30 people. We didn't want to join the alliances and we were having fun among ourselves. but after a while, alliances did not enter the high regions because of our progress. and 27 friends left the game. Our last hope as the remaining 3 people is the abolition of the alliance system. otherwise goodbye albion. If you continue this mind already in 3 months, your player will not stay, dear managers
      I want to reach heights, but I do not want to do what is needed. I want to do what I want. that's how i see what you said.I believe that the need for alliances to achieve goals is good.And in season 8 it will be even better
      If opening your mouth when the big alliance leaders unzip is what's needed to play, I guess it's not worth playing is it?
    • New

      willing to re-post this on every page in this thread...

      Captainrussia wrote:

      capping the alliances would not solve anything. People are smart and they will just adapt.

      Instead of bringing one 10k alliance, they'll bring two 5k, or whatever you cap it at... 1k allance caps? Sure - no problem, bring 10 alliances called SQUAD1, SQUAD2, etc... etc...

      Fully remove alliances? So what? People will just bring 300 man guild and (nearly) cap out a zone... even bringing 100 man group is unplayable enough to have a "win" - as the other group will just DC and crash...

      Should we now cap all guilds to 100 men? Nonsense...
      EDIT: oh and I mostly play solo or in small 5-10 man groups...
    • New

      Willing to re-post a variation of this reply to every time this is re-posted:

      Captainrussia wrote:

      willing to re-post this on every page in this thread...

      Captainrussia wrote:

      capping the alliances would not solve anything. People are smart and they will just adapt.

      Instead of bringing one 10k alliance, they'll bring two 5k, or whatever you cap it at... 1k allance caps? Sure - no problem, bring 10 alliances called SQUAD1, SQUAD2, etc... etc...

      Fully remove alliances? So what? People will just bring 300 man guild and (nearly) cap out a zone... even bringing 100 man group is unplayable enough to have a "win" - as the other group will just DC and crash...

      Should we now cap all guilds to 100 men? Nonsense...
      EDIT: oh and I mostly play solo or in small 5-10 man groups...
      Group limits bigger than a fraction of map limits is bad design, period. It's not nonsense as long as groups can be used to block content, either through reaching map limits or making fights unwinnable at 30 to 1.
    • New

      Dc1a0 wrote:

      Group limits bigger than a fraction of map limits is bad design, period. It's not nonsense as long as groups can be used to block content, either through reaching map limits or making fights unwinnable at 30 to 1.
      Okay, your post is correct, but it has not relevance here - because nobody is going to cap alliances or Guilds at below 300! That proposition is not even on the table.

      So you can keep repeating this over and over, but its not a sound solution for the current situation.

      However - as was already leaked multiple times from the Round Table - DEVs are working on a "zerg debuff", making it disadvantageous to bring 50+ to a map. TLRD: the issue is with 300+ man zergs, not with alliance sizes. If an alliance can only bring 50 people, before they start hitting some pretty serious drawbacks - we shouldn't even care if the alliance has 100,000 men...
    • New

      Dc1a0 wrote:

      Group limits bigger than a fraction of map limits is bad design, period.

      That assumes the group will all pile onto one map. A big, bad, successful alliance, though, tends to have a lot of territory to defend, so that huge group is more likely to split into many smaller groups.

      One effect of forcing alliances to fight for territories instead of warcamps may well be splitting the groups even more (there are significantly more terris than camps).
    • New

      Captainrussia wrote:

      Okay, your post is correct, but it has not relevance here - because nobody is going to cap alliances or Guilds at below 300! That proposition is not even on the table.

      So you can keep repeating this over and over, but its not a sound solution for the current situation.

      However - as was already leaked multiple times from the Round Table - DEVs are working on a "zerg debuff", making it disadvantageous to bring 50+ to a map. TLRD: the issue is with 300+ man zergs, not with alliance sizes. If an alliance can only bring 50 people, before they start hitting some pretty serious drawbacks - we shouldn't even care if the alliance has 100,000 men...
      It's actually the only effective solution for the situation.

      The "zerg debuff" as stated, will not be effective in addressing either content blocking situations I laid out.
      • It will not fix overpopulating the map. Who cares how debuffed you are if the enemy can't show up in the first place?
      • it will not fix outnumbering 30 to 1 except in zerg situations which still excludes much of the potential player base that doesn't want huge groups. If they did they would be in the big alliances and not stating there's a problem or leaving.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Dc1a0 ().

    • New

      Dc1a0 wrote:

      It's actually the only effective solution for the situation.
      Lol its not. Capping alliances or guilds at 50 people? Lol did you listen to yourself? No, no, and NO! Thats nonsense!

      Dc1a0 wrote:

      The "zerg debuff" as stated, will not be effective in addressing either content blocking situations I laid out.


      It will not fix overpopulating the map. Who cares how debuffed you are if the enemy can't show up in the first place?

      it will not fix outnumbering 30 to 1 except in zerg situations which still excludes much of the potential player base that doesn't want huge groups. If they did they would be in the big alliances and not stating there's a problem or leaving.
      Ah you must have missed the other part of the Round Table leak where they talked about 2 options (2 - because they are still finalizing how it will work out):
      OPTION 1: the shadow cluster (i.e - you cannot cap a cluster, as a new one will spawn under it)
      OPTION2: There will be a queue system in place based on player IP, so if you were to try and cap, and another guild/alliance tries to join - it will kick some of your players out to let their players in

      TLDR: capping zones will be either impossible or unprofitable (queue system or shadow cluster) and bringing more then 50+ ppl to a zerg you get "Zerg debuff".
    • New

      Captainrussia wrote:

      Lol its not. Capping alliances or guilds at 50 people? Lol did you listen to yourself? No, no, and NO! Thats nonsense!
      That's more than enough. IMO even 50 is too much, I admit, I'm very biased in not liking big groups.


      Captainrussia wrote:

      capping zones will be either impossible or unprofitable (queue system or shadow cluster) and bringing more then 50+ ppl to a zerg you get "Zerg debuff".
      That still only addresses half the issue. But, it will be funny to watch when the smaller alliances and guilds disappear, not wanting to be just prey. The train wreck that will follow will be spectacular.
    • New

      Dc1a0 wrote:

      But, it will be funny to watch when the smaller alliances and guilds disappear, not wanting to be just prey. The train wreck that will follow will be spectacular.

      That assumes SBI won't be successful in making it hard on the big alliances to hold many terris.

      I can, for instance, see the following scenario in Avalon:

      - Large alliances has many terris to defend
      - Small guild has none
      - Small guild sets a hideout in a black zone far from the realmgate and sets hideout to home
      - Small guild prepares a lot of cheap sets in hideout
      - The small guild attacks a single terri owned by a large alliance in the map.
      - If terris can no longer be home or have chests, the large alliance has to reinforce from far away, while the small guild can instantly replace losses straight from the hideout

      Even if outnumbered at first, a small guild willing to fight and die has a good chance to get the upper hand (and they'll learn a lot). And if many small guilds do this simultaneously on varying maps, large alliances will have their hands full fighting small guilds for terris (not even counting wars between large alliances).

      So, before trashing the concept of Avalon, I'd really like to see it in action first. :)
    • New

      Roccandil wrote:

      That assumes SBI won't be successful in making it hard on the big alliances to hold many terris.

      I can, for instance, see the following scenario in Avalon:

      - Large alliances has many terris to defend
      - Small guild has none
      - Small guild sets a hideout in a black zone far from the realmgate and sets hideout to home
      - Small guild prepares a lot of cheap sets in hideout
      - The small guild attacks a single terri owned by a large alliance in the map.
      - If terris can no longer be home or have chests, the large alliance has to reinforce from far away, while the small guild can instantly replace losses straight from the hideout

      Even if outnumbered at first, a small guild willing to fight and die has a good chance to get the upper hand (and they'll learn a lot). And if many small guilds do this simultaneously on varying maps, large alliances will have their hands full fighting small guilds for terris (not even counting wars between large alliances).

      So, before trashing the concept of Avalon, I'd really like to see it in action first.
      We'll see how that all plays out but 30 to 1 is still going to be 30 to 1. Without a good way for a small guild to protect their hideout from a larger force, that could end up being a moot point.
    • New

      I hear hideouts will be hard to remove. If so, it's then a question of how many hideouts small guilds make: if they flood the black zone with them, a large alliance will basically be playing whack-a-mole trying to remove them, possibly to the point where it won't be worth trying.

      I'll add that I'm really hoping I can connect my personal island to a hideout instead of a royal city, because wherever my island is connected, that's home, and I want to be able to be home in the black zone.

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

    • New

      I just remember the "shields" proposal about hideouts. With a limited number of shields, it wouldn't be hard for a large alliance to simply throw waves at it to exhaust the shields in short order. If guilds can have more than one in an area, it will then become balance of cost to create vs cost to destroy; cost in terms of time and resources.
    • New

      Roccandil wrote:

      I hear hideouts will be hard to remove. If so, it's then a question of how many hideouts small guilds make: if they flood the black zone with them, a large alliance will basically be playing whack-a-mole trying to remove them, possibly to the point where it won't be worth trying.

      I'll add that I'm really hoping I can connect my personal island to a hideout instead of a royal city, because wherever my island is connected, that's home, and I want to be able to be home in the black zone.
      I can already tell you that will never happen. Islands are huge economic centers for farming and resources. Those are tied exclusively to royal cities. Even the upcoming black cities wont have farm connections. How could you think thats a good idea to allow infinite farm plots access to a random blackzone?