Guild Season 7 Starts This Saturday

    • Guild Season 7 Starts This Saturday

      Guild Season 7 starts on Saturday, August 3, bringing all-new Guild Challenges, Castle Outposts, and more. And to mark the occasion, we've created a brand-new trailer:



      To read more about what's coming with this season and see the new AlbionTV broadcast schedule, click here: albiononline.com/en/news/season-7-starts-this-saturday
    • The only thing from my survey that hasn't been done , which is a shame. I am not sure what is supposed to mitigate this problem in season 7, outposts? I don't think that's enough.

      I believe if mega alliances abuse this mechanic we can see mid season change. So go ahead and lock maps, we will see lot of cryout on reddit and this is only way how we can force immediate change.
    • Remove alliances. Increase guild cap to 500 or 600. Watch competition sky rocket. Way more guilds would own territory to start the season which would drive insane battles before power is taken instead of current system where zerg alliances grab all Terri's immediately. Crystal system was a good thought but does not work when over half of them are not filled due to guilds owning way more territory than they can support.
    • Tabor wrote:

      Remove alliances. Increase guild cap to 500 or 600. Watch competition sky rocket. Way more guilds would own territory to start the season which would drive insane battles before power is taken instead of current system where zerg alliances grab all Terri's immediately. Crystal system was a good thought but does not work when over half of them are not filled due to guilds owning way more territory than they can support.
      As much as I would be in support for scrapping the Alliance system, I don't think it would happen.

      However, a good compromise would be to keep Alliances available but cap the amount of Guilds allowed in an Alliance. Capping Alliance registration to say 4 Guilds would see a maximum Alliance of 1,200 members.

      As you have mentioned, competition would definitely rise. Alongside this, crying would also rise from the current "powerhouses".
      Ricochet | Recruitment | Discord
      “Plant Earth’s #1 Racial Excuse Coordinator"
    • Capping alliances would hurt newer players. At least now a new player can quickly get into a competent alliance, see endgame content, and learn. Cap alliances, and everyone will want the best and probably won't have time for newbies.

      I wouldn't want to see capping alliances done unless other things were fundamentally changed as well, to keep newer players and guilds from being squeezed out entirely (like hideouts?).
    • Pow wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Remove alliances. Increase guild cap to 500 or 600. Watch competition sky rocket. Way more guilds would own territory to start the season which would drive insane battles before power is taken instead of current system where zerg alliances grab all Terri's immediately. Crystal system was a good thought but does not work when over half of them are not filled due to guilds owning way more territory than they can support.
      As much as I would be in support for scrapping the Alliance system, I don't think it would happen.
      However, a good compromise would be to keep Alliances available but cap the amount of Guilds allowed in an Alliance. Capping Alliance registration to say 4 Guilds would see a maximum Alliance of 1,200 members.

      As you have mentioned, competition would definitely rise. Alongside this, crying would also rise from the current "powerhouses".
      I don’t see that as a good compromise at all. All it would do is penalise smaller guilds looking to band together. If you’re going to do it at 1200 make it 1200 overall, be that 4 guilds of 300 or 24 guilds of 50. Capping guilds will just force guilds to disband and merge.
      Midgard
      T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
      T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
      T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
    • Midgard wrote:

      Pow wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Remove alliances. Increase guild cap to 500 or 600. Watch competition sky rocket. Way more guilds would own territory to start the season which would drive insane battles before power is taken instead of current system where zerg alliances grab all Terri's immediately. Crystal system was a good thought but does not work when over half of them are not filled due to guilds owning way more territory than they can support.
      As much as I would be in support for scrapping the Alliance system, I don't think it would happen.However, a good compromise would be to keep Alliances available but cap the amount of Guilds allowed in an Alliance. Capping Alliance registration to say 4 Guilds would see a maximum Alliance of 1,200 members.

      As you have mentioned, competition would definitely rise. Alongside this, crying would also rise from the current "powerhouses".
      I don’t see that as a good compromise at all. All it would do is penalise smaller guilds looking to band together. If you’re going to do it at 1200 make it 1200 overall, be that 4 guilds of 300 or 24 guilds of 50. Capping guilds will just force guilds to disband and merge.
      I'm slightly confused about this part. Seems contradicting? Or was you trying to clarify your point?

      If so then I think I understand where you're coming from and it makes a good point in regards to the smaller Guilds. If a smaller Guild was part of a "capped" Alliance at maximum capacity, then the a Guild would need to leave to continue growth, right? It's a dog eat dog world and with the games feel, that would fit in just fine (in my opinion). Alliances are forged and broken all the time. It's tactical, it's economical, it's war.
      Ricochet | Recruitment | Discord
      “Plant Earth’s #1 Racial Excuse Coordinator"
    • Pow wrote:

      I'm slightly confused about this part. Seems contradicting? Or was you trying to clarify your point?

      If so then I think I understand where you're coming from and it makes a good point in regards to the smaller Guilds. If a smaller Guild was part of a "capped" Alliance at maximum capacity, then the a Guild would need to leave to continue growth, right? It's a dog eat dog world and with the games feel, that would fit in just fine (in my opinion). Alliances are forged and broken all the time. It's tactical, it's economical, it's war.
      What im saying is 4 guilds of 20 people say, are screwed. Make it a 1200 cap in overall players and it doesnt matter how you meet that criteria ... 4 guilds of 300 each or 600 two man guilds ...
      Midgard
      T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
      T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
      T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
    • Midgard wrote:

      Pow wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Remove alliances. Increase guild cap to 500 or 600. Watch competition sky rocket. Way more guilds would own territory to start the season which would drive insane battles before power is taken instead of current system where zerg alliances grab all Terri's immediately. Crystal system was a good thought but does not work when over half of them are not filled due to guilds owning way more territory than they can support.
      As much as I would be in support for scrapping the Alliance system, I don't think it would happen.However, a good compromise would be to keep Alliances available but cap the amount of Guilds allowed in an Alliance. Capping Alliance registration to say 4 Guilds would see a maximum Alliance of 1,200 members.

      As you have mentioned, competition would definitely rise. Alongside this, crying would also rise from the current "powerhouses".
      I don’t see that as a good compromise at all. All it would do is penalise smaller guilds looking to band together. If you’re going to do it at 1200 make it 1200 overall, be that 4 guilds of 300 or 24 guilds of 50. Capping guilds will just force guilds to disband and merge.

      Midgard wrote:

      Pow wrote:

      I'm slightly confused about this part. Seems contradicting? Or was you trying to clarify your point?

      If so then I think I understand where you're coming from and it makes a good point in regards to the smaller Guilds. If a smaller Guild was part of a "capped" Alliance at maximum capacity, then the a Guild would need to leave to continue growth, right? It's a dog eat dog world and with the games feel, that would fit in just fine (in my opinion). Alliances are forged and broken all the time. It's tactical, it's economical, it's war.
      What im saying is 4 guilds of 20 people say, are screwed. Make it a 1200 cap in overall players and it doesnt matter how you meet that criteria ... 4 guilds of 300 each or 600 two man guilds ...
      Without trying to deviate too far from the initial debate, are you purposely trying to exploit confusion or am I just not understanding?

      - Capping the amount of Guilds allowed in an Alliance would only stop a Guilds progression in numbers once they hit the games current preset capacity of 300.
      - Capping the amount of players allowed in an Alliance would stop a Guilds progression in numbers, unless they left the Alliance. Using your example of 24 Guilds with 50 members.

      Stunting an individual Guilds growth due to being part of an Alliance is probably not something people would want. To make the argument valid, Guilds looking to expand would have to leave the Alliance and continue their growth alone. This is not following preset game capacities, this is incorporating tactics and economics in a war stricken, PvP orientated game.

      What I would like to know is, what would your argument for the 24 x 50 version be if the original suggestion is a bad compromise? (Baring in mind you've already said "Capping guilds will just force guilds to disband and merge.") - The part I'm most confused by ?( . It seems contradicting.
      Ricochet | Recruitment | Discord
      “Plant Earth’s #1 Racial Excuse Coordinator"
    • Pow wrote:

      Without trying to deviate too far from the initial debate, are you purposely trying to exploit confusion or am I just not understanding?

      - Capping the amount of Guilds allowed in an Alliance would only stop a Guilds progression in numbers once they hit the games current preset capacity of 300.
      - Capping the amount of players allowed in an Alliance would stop a Guilds progression in numbers, unless they left the Alliance. Using your example of 24 Guilds with 50 members.

      Stunting an individual Guilds growth due to being part of an Alliance is probably not something people would want. To make the argument valid, Guilds looking to expand would have to leave the Alliance and continue their growth alone. This is not following preset game capacities, this is incorporating tactics and economics in a war stricken, PvP orientated game.

      What I would like to know is, what would your argument for the 24 x 50 version be if the original suggestion is a bad compromise? (Baring in mind you've already said "Capping guilds will just force guilds to disband and merge.") - The part I'm most confused by . It seems contradicting.
      What Im saying is that some guilds are small guilds and thats fine .. guilds dont have to mass recruit. Whats to stop several small guilds banding together and growing as an alliance? Your system would prevent that as once they hit 4 in number no more small guilds could be added to the alliance. They'd be forced to recruit to grow, and not all guilds wish to mass recruit or operate as a large guild . For many recruiting is diffi

      Setting the player count to 1200 would allow a few large guilds to band together or multiple small guilds who cant attract the numbers individually but who can then compete.
      Midgard
      T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
      T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
      T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
    • Midgard wrote:

      Pow wrote:

      Without trying to deviate too far from the initial debate, are you purposely trying to exploit confusion or am I just not understanding?

      - Capping the amount of Guilds allowed in an Alliance would only stop a Guilds progression in numbers once they hit the games current preset capacity of 300.
      - Capping the amount of players allowed in an Alliance would stop a Guilds progression in numbers, unless they left the Alliance. Using your example of 24 Guilds with 50 members.

      Stunting an individual Guilds growth due to being part of an Alliance is probably not something people would want. To make the argument valid, Guilds looking to expand would have to leave the Alliance and continue their growth alone. This is not following preset game capacities, this is incorporating tactics and economics in a war stricken, PvP orientated game.

      What I would like to know is, what would your argument for the 24 x 50 version be if the original suggestion is a bad compromise? (Baring in mind you've already said "Capping guilds will just force guilds to disband and merge.") - The part I'm most confused by . It seems contradicting.
      What Im saying is that some guilds are small guilds and thats fine .. guilds dont have to mass recruit. Whats to stop several small guilds banding together and growing as an alliance? Your system would prevent that as once they hit 4 in number no more small guilds could be added to the alliance. They'd be forced to recruit to grow, and not all guilds wish to mass recruit or operate as a large guild . For many recruiting is diffi
      Setting the player count to 1200 would allow a few large guilds to band together or multiple small guilds who cant attract the numbers individually but who can then compete.
      Okay, I get what you're getting at now and that is a fair and valid point.

      It doesn't really answer the part about small Guilds future growth if Alliance capacity is met. If Alliance capacity is met in "24 smaller Guilds" then absolutely none of these Guilds would be able to recruit a single person, unless they leave, right?

      Edit: I still prefer the idea of just getting rid of Alliances and having a slight increase to Guild capacity :P . Just looking at other potential options
      Ricochet | Recruitment | Discord
      “Plant Earth’s #1 Racial Excuse Coordinator"
    • Pow wrote:

      Midgard wrote:

      Pow wrote:

      Without trying to deviate too far from the initial debate, are you purposely trying to exploit confusion or am I just not understanding?

      - Capping the amount of Guilds allowed in an Alliance would only stop a Guilds progression in numbers once they hit the games current preset capacity of 300.
      - Capping the amount of players allowed in an Alliance would stop a Guilds progression in numbers, unless they left the Alliance. Using your example of 24 Guilds with 50 members.

      Stunting an individual Guilds growth due to being part of an Alliance is probably not something people would want. To make the argument valid, Guilds looking to expand would have to leave the Alliance and continue their growth alone. This is not following preset game capacities, this is incorporating tactics and economics in a war stricken, PvP orientated game.

      What I would like to know is, what would your argument for the 24 x 50 version be if the original suggestion is a bad compromise? (Baring in mind you've already said "Capping guilds will just force guilds to disband and merge.") - The part I'm most confused by . It seems contradicting.
      What Im saying is that some guilds are small guilds and thats fine .. guilds dont have to mass recruit. Whats to stop several small guilds banding together and growing as an alliance? Your system would prevent that as once they hit 4 in number no more small guilds could be added to the alliance. They'd be forced to recruit to grow, and not all guilds wish to mass recruit or operate as a large guild . For many recruiting is diffiSetting the player count to 1200 would allow a few large guilds to band together or multiple small guilds who cant attract the numbers individually but who can then compete.
      Okay, I get what you're getting at now and that is a fair and valid point.
      It doesn't really answer the part about small Guilds future growth if Alliance capacity is met. If Alliance capacity is met in "24 smaller Guilds" then absolutely none of these Guilds would be able to recruit a single person, unless they leave, right?

      Edit: I still prefer the idea of just getting rid of Alliances and having a slight increase to Guild capacity :P . Just looking at other potential options
      If a small guild wishes to grow and their current alliance is full, there's nothing stopping them from changing alliances or starting a new one is there?
    • Dc1a0 wrote:

      Pow wrote:

      Midgard wrote:

      Pow wrote:

      Without trying to deviate too far from the initial debate, are you purposely trying to exploit confusion or am I just not understanding?

      - Capping the amount of Guilds allowed in an Alliance would only stop a Guilds progression in numbers once they hit the games current preset capacity of 300.
      - Capping the amount of players allowed in an Alliance would stop a Guilds progression in numbers, unless they left the Alliance. Using your example of 24 Guilds with 50 members.

      Stunting an individual Guilds growth due to being part of an Alliance is probably not something people would want. To make the argument valid, Guilds looking to expand would have to leave the Alliance and continue their growth alone. This is not following preset game capacities, this is incorporating tactics and economics in a war stricken, PvP orientated game.

      What I would like to know is, what would your argument for the 24 x 50 version be if the original suggestion is a bad compromise? (Baring in mind you've already said "Capping guilds will just force guilds to disband and merge.") - The part I'm most confused by . It seems contradicting.
      What Im saying is that some guilds are small guilds and thats fine .. guilds dont have to mass recruit. Whats to stop several small guilds banding together and growing as an alliance? Your system would prevent that as once they hit 4 in number no more small guilds could be added to the alliance. They'd be forced to recruit to grow, and not all guilds wish to mass recruit or operate as a large guild . For many recruiting is diffiSetting the player count to 1200 would allow a few large guilds to band together or multiple small guilds who cant attract the numbers individually but who can then compete.
      Okay, I get what you're getting at now and that is a fair and valid point.It doesn't really answer the part about small Guilds future growth if Alliance capacity is met. If Alliance capacity is met in "24 smaller Guilds" then absolutely none of these Guilds would be able to recruit a single person, unless they leave, right?

      Edit: I still prefer the idea of just getting rid of Alliances and having a slight increase to Guild capacity :P . Just looking at other potential options
      If a small guild wishes to grow and their current alliance is full, there's nothing stopping them from changing alliances or starting a new one is there?
      No, there isn't. I even agreed earlier (below). I was simply trying to see it from Midgard's angle.

      Pow wrote:

      I'm slightly confused about this part. Seems contradicting? Or was you trying to clarify your point?
      If so then I think I understand where you're coming from and it makes a good point in regards to the smaller Guilds. If a smaller Guild was part of a "capped" Alliance at maximum capacity, then the a Guild would need to leave to continue growth, right? It's a dog eat dog world and with the games feel, that would fit in just fine (in my opinion). Alliances are forged and broken all the time. It's tactical, it's economical, it's war.
      Ricochet | Recruitment | Discord
      “Plant Earth’s #1 Racial Excuse Coordinator"