So....with the leaked new territory system, could u pls remove alliances?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • So....with the leaked new territory system, could u pls remove alliances?

      The new leaked territory system is built upon open world presence which is an awesome change but with uncapped alliances it would result in unfun zone capping and content denying. this would be solved by removing/limiting alliances which would make it more competetive and fun for everyone.

      Yes, guilds would be able to form Naps etc but that would require a lot of coordination and it could also lead to more frequent opportunities for backstabbing and misunderstandings which results in a more active political scene in albion (e-politics=content), small guilds could also be a part of this system by striking at other known small guild terries or they could seek refuge under bigger guilds with the new hideouts. With removing alliances and territories being dictated by open world there should be plenty of terries for smaller guilds (an average larger guild could realistically only bring 20-40 ppl on a daily basis anyway, as seen from warcamps and castles). Removing alliances would also create better social communities where everyone know eachother (nobody knows 70% of ppl they are allied with in the current alliances).


      Pls consider removing alliances so when these new systems roll out, it would be the start of the best period of albion where EVERBODY MATTERS.
    • BalorXI wrote:

      Its simple. They want to punish guilds like MG, Scelti, 1pg, Conflict, Broke Boys who have built up a competent GvG department over time.

      GvG takes skill, time, exposure to risk. So now 300 core guilds get nothing, and mega zerg 10k+ alliances get everything.
      These guilds would still own terries with the new system if they remove alliances, they are all able to field atleast 20 players daily.
    • Ok, what I have noticed is that people are against the change to GvG

      To be honest, an entire alliance shouldn't be carried by 5-15 people who are good in GvGs, that leaves no opportunities for smaller guilds who are not willing to spend 300 hours into training GvGing to get territories, which shouldn't happen

      Having a ZvZ guild is way easier than having a GvG guild, there's no discussing that
    • So what makes the play style of those that want to be in massive zerg guilds of more value then my play style of preferring small tight knit guild with a couple gvg teams. I bought my 2 founder accounts and have been here playing as real life would let me since 2015. I have never complained and demanded change on the fact that on reset day the zergs get all the territories and that we must then slowly get a few via gvg's. It was what it was and we had our niche in the game and played it. I am not a gvger but these proposed changes will end my game just the same as it ends the game for all those that do gvg as well as all the other people in this game like me that have dedicated their time to developing and fostering a team.
    • They need to cap alliances.

      The devs will have to eventually realize that this GIGANTIC unbalance on the numbers of mega-alliances, such as ARCH with over 10 THOUSAND people, allows monopolization by numbers that nobody else can scale to without becoming or joining a mega-alliance, able to be extremely disruptive to any competition.

      If they want to make the open-world terris ZvZ, they MUST cap the alliance cap of total members, forcefully enforcing more strategy with the resources an alliance has instead of throw numbers at a large number of territories at the same time & disrupt the movement of enemy ZvZ teams with extra numbers over that on prime time.

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

    • Yes, you are right.

      Alliance need to cap, without a cap the hideout concept makes no sense

      Me: Hey Arch, we want a hideout in your Terries, that okay?
      Me: we will voluntary pay 10 k per day per member okay?

      Arch: no, you join alliance or get lost

      Me: but that is not our intention we just want live in black without mega alliances

      Arch: you are red, either you join or we ZvZ you



      -+++
      Sorry for taking arch as example, but why on Earth should a mega alliance tolerate a hideout if it simply can each day zvz it away ???

      That's just a dream that is same fail as srd not being ganked by 5+ gank squads

      Only way this works, if Ally is full aka has a cap
    • If the small guilds don't have manpower, experiences or resources, why they have to have more advantage than bigger ones?

      I mean, if you have only 20 people and you can't fight 1k arch, why don't you stay away from center of blackzone and try to capture the low tier one.

      If the mega alliance want to have territories in the center, let them have it. 10k for 10 territories is 1000 per territory, but 20 people for 1 territory is 20 per territory.
      20/T > 1000/T, right ?

      The new update gonna punish big guilds as well, because now, if they want to have more territories, they have to spread out their forces and defense them at the same time. (I guess it's gonna be like reset day everyday).

      Moreover, with the new hideout update, do you think do you need a territory to have presence in bz?

      In the experience with the game, all of the updates with regard to new openworld contents are always the good updates ( eg: faction warfare, RD, mage raid, etc.)
      And the one with instances are usually the bad one ( eg: HCEs)

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

    • tarnator wrote:

      If the small guilds don't have manpower, experiences or resources, why they have to have more advantage than bigger ones?
      The problem is that those small guilds have no options...they cant get the resources because if they dont have territories in blackzone, their gatherers will have a very hard time and wont be as efficient. They cant get the man power because the mega alliances take away most of the players. They cant get experience because without the resources or man power they cant even try...they just going to be crushed.

      tarnator wrote:

      I mean, if you have only 20 people and you can't fight 1k arch, why don't you stay away from center of blackzone and try to capture the low tier one.
      Because the low tier zones are also captured and defended by the mega alliances.


      tarnator wrote:

      If the mega alliance want to have territories in the center, let them have it. 10k for 10 territories is 1000 per territory, but 20 people for 1 territory is 20 per territory.
      20/T > 1000/T, right ?
      Sure, let them have it if they win using their skill, not their numbers. Amassing 200 or 300 noob players is pretty easy for the mega alliances. If we were talking about skilled players but no skill is involved here.

      tarnator wrote:

      The new update gonna punish big guilds as well, because now, if they want to have more territories, they have to spread out their forces and defense them at the same time. (I guess it's gonna be like reset day everyday).
      How does that harms big guilds? Big guilds will be in big alliances.Basically their neighboors will be their own alliance, not many guilds will be attacking them. If a big guild needs to spread its forces, instead of spreading its forces all it needs to do is to call the alliance so they capture nearby terries or atleast to become anoyance...that way big guilds wont need to spread too much.



      tarnator wrote:

      Moreover, with the new hideout update, do you think do you need a territory to have presence in bz?
      Smaller guilds will still have to answer to the big alliances. Hideouts will require a tax from the owner of the territory. And If those mega alliances dont want the small guilds nearby, they will be able to destroy the hideouts. And if you wish to get a good amount of season points you need territories.


      For a sandbox, Albions is really not giving much options.

      Its either join the mega alliances or have no chance at all. Where is the sandbox in that?

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Holoin ().

    • The mega alliance can't cover all the outlands, take the nearest reset day for example, Arch only got East Siluria while they are the biggest one in the game. True that squad, oops get lots of terri as well, but most of them are mercia and crumbia; however, there're WIN, MOUNT, BMATs, etc. as well.

      The low tier territories in Anglia actually got captured by small and medium guilds in the reset day, but they couldn't hold them for long because of GvGs.

      Imagine all of the guilds have to defend and capture new territories at the same time, even though the alliances are big, they are not that big to cover everything in the outland.
      In my opinion, if they want to have center territories, they must leave the outer zone (low tier bz), or they have to really spread out their forces, which decreases their manpower by a lot.
      And it's not like all the big guilds in big alliances are friends to each other, they have to fight to protect their land at the center of the new outland map.

      Regarding the hideout, yes, they can be attacked, but also, they have shield (6 is max i think), which may not make your guild's hideout vulnerable as you described.
    • tarnator wrote:

      The mega alliance can't cover all the outlands, take the nearest reset day for example, Arch only got East Siluria while they are the biggest one in the game. True that squad, oops get lots of terri as well, but most of them are mercia and crumbia; however, there're WIN, MOUNT, BMATs, etc. as well.
      I never said they can take the entire outlands. However, they do get the mayority of the terris. That gives them a big advantage in the season.

      tarnator wrote:

      The low tier territories in Anglia actually got captured by small and medium guilds in the reset day, but they couldn't hold them for long because of GvGs.
      really? My alliance is based in the lower blackzones....Sauce alone got around 150 terris on reset day. Yes, there where a few terris that got captured by mediun size alliances, but again, the mayority of the terris got captured by the mega alliances.

      tarnator wrote:

      Imagine all of the guilds have to defend and capture new territories at the same time, even though the alliances are big, they are not that big to cover everything in the outland.

      In my opinion, if they want to have center territories, they must leave the outer zone (low tier bz), or they have to really spread out their forces, which decreases their manpower by a lot.
      And it's not like all the big guilds in big alliances are friends to each other, they have to fight to protect their land at the center of the new outland map.
      They are big enougth so that 4 or 5 alliances control around 90% of a continent.Yes, they do need to leave the outer zone, however the advantage they get is simply too big...they get to control territories thay give more points. And even still, the ones that end up controlling the outer zones are big alliances. And I know that not all guilds in an alliance are friendly...but they cant attack each other. So there is little competition between them.


      No matter how you look at it, mega alliances simply have the advantage at winning the season. Its always the same, the top guilds are always from mega alliances...and many of them are from the same alliance.

      So, if you want a chance at winning the season but dont want to join a mega alliance...you are out of options. Again, where is the sandbox in that?
    • My two cents .

      Maybe , lets make this - Friendly Fire , when new patch with new Bz Zones goes live? As a test option for one month? I think it is the best time to test it.

      And after 1 month make a global survey from players (via emails), as you did before.

      My main argument - why not?

      P.S You think im crazy? Maybe, but i think it is masterpiece decision according to leaked info about future update.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Equart ().

    • @Holoin
      I get your frustration about the mega-alliance situation. To think about it, only a few guild in those big alliance get the chance to win the season, the rest is just there for contents or territories (i think).

      You know, we complain about how we don't have any chance to beat those mega alliances. My suggestion, how about, we try to create an alliance for ourselves, put out our resume, calling for help. It doesn't need to be big, starting with that, like every strong alliance at the beginning. Mega Alliances are not successful by luck, people take a lot of time in diplomacy, logistic, coordination between a large amount of players.

      You can't just put a lot of guild in one alliance, and magically they have lots of territories in high tier area. People will leave if they are upset. You have to put rule. You have to persuade every guild in the alliance to stay. You have to convince them gong to the warcamp. You have to have a good shot caller and everyone need to listen to that guy, or else it's gonna be a massacre by a smaller but good coordinated group.

      All the alliances in crumbia and mercia you see on the world map, number is only a factor of a list of lots of things you must have, to be able to become a top guild.

      We say that's not fair for small guilds, but how much small guilds put their effort into achieving that. The one, who tried, already became big guilds and created their own alliance.

      There's so much time and effort of those alliances put out to maintain their ranks through out the season. Therefore, of course, they earn their place.

      Why should 20 people have more advantage than 40, 60 or 100 people? Should the guild with 300 people get higher rank and the 20-member guild gets a lower rank ?

      Think about the real world, why do alliance between countries or big corporations exist in the first place? Why do people tend to stay together but not separate their groups into smaller one?

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

    • tarnator wrote:

      I get your frustration about the mega-alliance situation. To think about it, only a few guild in those big alliance get the chance to win the season, the rest is just there for contents or territories (i think).


      You know, we complain about how we don't have any chance to beat those mega alliances. My suggestion, how about, we try to create an alliance for ourselves, put out our resume, calling for help. It doesn't need to be big, starting with that, like every strong alliance at the beginning. Mega Alliances are not successful by luck, people take a lot of time in diplomacy, logistic, coordination between a large amount of players.
      The problem with creating a mega alliance full of new/smaller guilds is that the longtime large alliances in the black zone has already accumulated so much wealth that it's almost impossible to go against them. Especially with the current system where gvg=territory control where a scenario like this would play out:

      - new guild wins a gvg against a big alliance
      - big alliance launches over and over again on the new guild because they got infinitely more money than them
      - New guild would get out-sustained and eventually lose the terri

      With the amount of experience and wealth the mega alliance has gotten over time it would take a lot of time and dedication for a fresh guild to catch up or be a real threat to them
    • Malicious wrote:

      tarnator wrote:

      I get your frustration about the mega-alliance situation. To think about it, only a few guild in those big alliance get the chance to win the season, the rest is just there for contents or territories (i think).


      You know, we complain about how we don't have any chance to beat those mega alliances. My suggestion, how about, we try to create an alliance for ourselves, put out our resume, calling for help. It doesn't need to be big, starting with that, like every strong alliance at the beginning. Mega Alliances are not successful by luck, people take a lot of time in diplomacy, logistic, coordination between a large amount of players.
      The problem with creating a mega alliance full of new/smaller guilds is that the longtime large alliances in the black zone has already accumulated so much wealth that it's almost impossible to go against them. Especially with the current system where gvg=territory control where a scenario like this would play out:
      - new guild wins a gvg against a big alliance
      - big alliance launches over and over again on the new guild because they got infinitely more money than them
      - New guild would get out-sustained and eventually lose the terri

      With the amount of experience and wealth the mega alliance has gotten over time it would take a lot of time and dedication for a fresh guild to catch up or be a real threat to them
      I agree.
    • I played World of Tanks for a while a couple years ago, and it had some of the features I've seen requested on these forums (not necessarily in this thread):

      - No alliances
      - Friendly fire
      - GvG-style clan wars (no zergs)

      What was the result? The best players all flocked to a few elite clans, who then dominated clan wars, divided up the best territory, and stopped attacking each other. And because the best players were concentrated to a few clans, newer players didn't get to play alongside them and learn from them.

      Furthermore, the limits on battle participation in clan wars meant I was always having to put eager players on the bench, which I didn't like doing, and which (understandably) caused a lot of drama.

      Coming to Albion is a breath of fresh air. :) The lack of restrictions on alliances and zergs means that newer players are constantly sought after by big alliances, because you always need active people for zergs, and no one is left on the bench due to artificial restrictions. The newer players (like me) get to play alongside veterans and learn, and aren't squeezed out.

      I really like that, and hope Albion keeps it. This is a massively multiplayer game, and I love the fact that there are alliances with 10K+ players! :)

      And, if all the players decide to join the same alliance, they're effectively stating they don't like PvP, and want to PvE. Given Albion's player base, that seems extremely unlikely. :)
    • tarnator wrote:

      @Holoin
      I get your frustration about the mega-alliance situation. To think about it, only a few guild in those big alliance get the chance to win the season, the rest is just there for contents or territories (i think).

      You know, we complain about how we don't have any chance to beat those mega alliances. My suggestion, how about, we try to create an alliance for ourselves, put out our resume, calling for help. It doesn't need to be big, starting with that, like every strong alliance at the beginning. Mega Alliances are not successful by luck, people take a lot of time in diplomacy, logistic, coordination between a large amount of players.

      You can't just put a lot of guild in one alliance, and magically they have lots of territories in high tier area. People will leave if they are upset. You have to put rule. You have to persuade every guild in the alliance to stay. You have to convince them gong to the warcamp. You have to have a good shot caller and everyone need to listen to that guy, or else it's gonna be a massacre by a smaller but good coordinated group.

      All the alliances in crumbia and mercia you see on the world map, number is only a factor of a list of lots of things you must have, to be able to become a top guild.

      We say that's not fair for small guilds, but how much small guilds put their effort into achieving that. The one, who tried, already became big guilds and created their own alliance.

      There's so much time and effort of those alliances put out to maintain their ranks through out the season. Therefore, of course, they earn their place.

      Why should 20 people have more advantage than 40, 60 or 100 people? Should the guild with 300 people get higher rank and the 20-member guild gets a lower rank ?

      Think about the real world, why do alliance between countries or big corporations exist in the first place? Why do people tend to stay together but not separate their groups into smaller one?
      The problem with trying to make a new alliance to try to take down the big ones is that the mega alliances are taking the most important resource of all...Players. I mean...10k players in an alliance....you can make 4-5 different alliances from that if alliances where capped.

      There are some new guilds that just started and are growing fast this season...however, those guilds are basically players that where in a mega alliance before, made some friends and then took those friends with them...

      However they still end up joining a mega alliance. The only option is to go big. What about those guilds that dont want to join an alliance? They have no chance.What if a player wants to make his own alliance..but he doesnt have allies inside the mega alliances? He has no chance. Big alliances is the only way to have a chance at winning the season.

      Capping alliances also creates more content...something that is needed.
      I have been inside many of these mega alliances, and they all suffer from the same problem. They have a hard time to find content. Many simply dont want to fight against them, and the guilds that can fight them are probabily inside their alliances. The ones that end up showing up most of the time just do one puch and then retreat after.

      Thats one of the reasons I got out of those alliances...I got tired of waiting 2hours just to find that no guild shows up to fight.
      (Toxicity being another reason...the top guilds of those alliances are mostly toxic).
    • It was about time they took the GvG 5 man crap out of gaining terries. Now it will land up being a numbers game yea and yes bigger alliances will hold more terries than smaller alliances that should be a given anyway. Maybe they can look to limit alliance sizes to 1k members to even the field more but that will be seen if they do that.

      Personally I love the change and think it will be good for the game.