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

    • NuffSed wrote:

      Removing or capping alliances instantly fixes everything everyone is concerned about in the new update. Even the mega alliances wouldn't argue with it simply because they love ZVZ. This would bring so much more content in regards of fighting in open world. One can hope.
      Completely agree with you!

      I've been BA for 1 year and a half before i was TC/Titanz, since launch I have been part of the end game guilds, and since launch i have been saying there has to be a cap on alliances..
      Capping alliance would result in alot of improvement: actually getting content and fights in openworld rather than massing 100+ players for a zvz that gets dodged by enemy alliance .. I imagine a future where alliances will have a cap (maybe 1000 players?) and I will be able to fight some of my old friends in a more fair environment rather than forming alliance with them cause its profitable...
      Alot of players state that we are 'free' to join small alliances too, but seriously if you check it out, its not worth it, its a sinking ship that can never catch up...
      Looking at my friendlist, when ppl leave one of the top alliances, where do they go? some random shitguild that will never get powerfull enough to fight these huge alliances? Only thing i see with end-game players is alliance hopping, 1 moment they fight with Squad, next moment they fight for OOPS, but none of them ever go to a small alliance cause atm that is not a viable option if you want end game content.. Either you join the 4K+ alliances and ZVZ every day and hope some1 equally strong shows up to fight you, or join the small alliances and get wrecked by these big ones every ZvZ.. Its not a choice, its logic that drives these big alliances, and without a cap on this,logic will only make it worse.

      TLDR:
      Capping alliances would be the best update since launch!
      -Improvement to server stability due to less big ZvZs
      -More ZVZ/GVG content actually getting fought for
      -More different Alliances, all trying to claim their part of Albion
    • Shablix wrote:

      NuffSed wrote:

      Removing or capping alliances instantly fixes everything everyone is concerned about in the new update. Even the mega alliances wouldn't argue with it simply because they love ZVZ. This would bring so much more content in regards of fighting in open world. One can hope.
      ...

      TLDR:
      Capping alliances would be the best update since launch!
      -Improvement to server stability due to less big ZvZs
      -More ZVZ/GVG content actually getting fought for
      -More different Alliances, all trying to claim their part of Albion

      Capping alliances would result in a concentration of elite players to a few alliances, who would still dominate the endgame content. Guilds would increasingly have insane recruitment requirements. Newer players would get squeezed out.

      Not an improvement. :(

      And capping is contrary to the very idea of a massively multiplayer game! :)
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Shablix wrote:

      NuffSed wrote:

      Removing or capping alliances instantly fixes everything everyone is concerned about in the new update. Even the mega alliances wouldn't argue with it simply because they love ZVZ. This would bring so much more content in regards of fighting in open world. One can hope.
      ...
      TLDR:
      Capping alliances would be the best update since launch!
      -Improvement to server stability due to less big ZvZs
      -More ZVZ/GVG content actually getting fought for
      -More different Alliances, all trying to claim their part of Albion
      And capping is contrary to the very idea of a massively multiplayer game! :)
      What? No it's not every game ever made has caps on things in one form or another...Everything in this game is capped from 5v5 GvGs to 5v5 HGs to 2v2 HGs to how many people can be in a single guild, etc, etc...there's caps EVERYWHERE and for good reasons. Imagine showing up to a 5v5 GvG and one team shows up with 40 people who're actually allowed to all fight instead of the 5.
      Caps exist for a reason and there's no reason alliances can't be capped as well. Just stating "it's an mmorpg" isn't an argument. Guilds are already capped might as well actually work on fixing the problem instead of doing nothing.
      I'm in a mega alliance btw and even I can see it's a problem for the game.

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

    • ViLEuo wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Shablix wrote:

      NuffSed wrote:

      Removing or capping alliances instantly fixes everything everyone is concerned about in the new update. Even the mega alliances wouldn't argue with it simply because they love ZVZ. This would bring so much more content in regards of fighting in open world. One can hope.
      ...TLDR:
      Capping alliances would be the best update since launch!
      -Improvement to server stability due to less big ZvZs
      -More ZVZ/GVG content actually getting fought for
      -More different Alliances, all trying to claim their part of Albion
      And capping is contrary to the very idea of a massively multiplayer game! :)
      What? No it's not every game ever made has caps on things in one form or another...Everything in this game is capped from 5v5 GvGs to 5v5 HGs to 2v2 HGs to how many people can be in a single guild, etc, etc...there's caps EVERYWHERE and for good reasons. Imagine showing up to a 5v5 GvG and one team shows up with 40 people who're actually allowed to all fight instead of the 5.Caps exist for a reason and there's no reason alliances can't be capped as well. Just stating "it's an mmorpg" isn't an argument. Guilds are already capped might as well actually work on fixing the problem instead of doing nothing.
      I'm in a mega alliance btw and even I can see it's a problem for the game.

      Other than the map limits themselves (which I'd say are driven more by performance than anything else), dungeons, warcamps, mage raiding, castles, world bosses, ganking, and pretty much anything else open world isn't capped.

      Capping is more the exception, and I don't like capping in GvGs, and wouldn't mind seeing guild caps removed.

      Cap alliances, and you'll wind up seeing GvG-like entry requirements to guilds.
    • I love how people go crazy over a screenshot. Boys its not even close to being ingame right now there is no need to go crazy before we even see what is really going to be changed or before anything is even tested. Come on boys keep it together and lets just wait for the real finished patch notes when they come and are being tested.
    • Acquiring territories is suppose to be end game content. If you make it so 30-40 average Joe's can group up in flat 7 gear and go steam roll some zone to acquire a territory it takes out the end game component. I 100% agree the current WC shit is broken and needs to be fixed. I feel they would fix that by the first part of the recommended changes. Make ALL resource territories launchable at the same time by raiding the Terri's but that should still be to just launch the 5 man GvG.

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

    • Just throwing an artificial restriction for alliance membership doesn't seem very sandboxy to me. It's like you're trying to build a company in real life but then God decides you can't have more than 100 employees. Like.. what does he have to do with my company? Let me expand it if I have the resources for it.

      But thats the key: Resources. I feel like having a huge number of members should have some costs for the alliance, it shouldn't be free. Some sort of maintenance cost for having members, just like in real life you pay taxes after your employees. So, ok, you got 10,000 people, but now it's very expensive to maintain them, so maybe 1,000 people is enough for your needs.
      That way alliances will regulate themselves, without using hard-coded caps.
    • Rixlette wrote:

      Capping alliances wont work because after the allaince is full they just gonna start alliance [2]
      That's why I've been for removing them entirely.


      The largest possible group size should be no more than half of the limit for a single map. Want the possible group size to get bigger, work on improving the map limit.

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

    • Rixlette wrote:

      Capping alliances wont work because after the allaince is full they just gonna start alliance [2]
      Alliance (2) would be red to alliance one and with the new territory system alliance (2) wouldnt benefit from the territories/hideouts that alliance (1) captured the same way it would with the current system (alliance 2 would still have to pay alliance one for their hideouts, if alliance 2 and alliance 1 zonecaps a zone together alliance 2 wouldnt get anything from it at all).

      It would also require a lot more coordination and planning from the 2 alliances and the alliance (2) could now possibly betray alliance 1 for their own gain etc.

      More ingame-politics = more content
    • Malicious wrote:

      Rixlette wrote:

      Capping alliances wont work because after the allaince is full they just gonna start alliance [2]
      Alliance (2) would be red to alliance one and with the new territory system alliance (2) wouldnt benefit from the territories/hideouts that alliance (1) captured the same way it would with the current system (alliance 2 would still have to pay alliance one for their hideouts, if alliance 2 and alliance 1 zonecaps a zone together alliance 2 wouldnt get anything from it at all).
      It would also require a lot more coordination and planning from the 2 alliances and the alliance (2) could now possibly betray alliance 1 for their own gain etc.

      More ingame-politics = more content

      As I pointed out earlier, World of Tanks already has no alliances, and when I played, it was a common complaint that the elite guilds rarely attacked each other. Why? It was easy. :) They just carved up the good provinces among themselves and stayed home.

      The idea of massive, organized betrayal sounds cool and all, but it's really too much work to be feasible! :P Stasis is more likely.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Shablix wrote:

      NuffSed wrote:

      Removing or capping alliances instantly fixes everything everyone is concerned about in the new update. Even the mega alliances wouldn't argue with it simply because they love ZVZ. This would bring so much more content in regards of fighting in open world. One can hope.
      ...
      TLDR:
      Capping alliances would be the best update since launch!
      -Improvement to server stability due to less big ZvZs
      -More ZVZ/GVG content actually getting fought for
      -More different Alliances, all trying to claim their part of Albion
      Capping alliances would result in a concentration of elite players to a few alliances, who would still dominate the endgame content. Guilds would increasingly have insane recruitment requirements. Newer players would get squeezed out.

      Not an improvement. :(

      And capping is contrary to the very idea of a massively multiplayer game! :)
      This is going to happen regardless. Like any other game or competitive aspect. Those people will find each other regardless. Like any other he however, it's always changing and evolving. Just because you're at the top doesn't mean you stay there. I just picture how it could be. Endless fights, every zone with that 40-50 blob. It would be madness. Sure they would try to establish multiple alliances but that's near impossible to pull off.
    • NuffSed wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Shablix wrote:

      NuffSed wrote:

      Removing or capping alliances instantly fixes everything everyone is concerned about in the new update. Even the mega alliances wouldn't argue with it simply because they love ZVZ. This would bring so much more content in regards of fighting in open world. One can hope.
      ...TLDR:
      Capping alliances would be the best update since launch!
      -Improvement to server stability due to less big ZvZs
      -More ZVZ/GVG content actually getting fought for
      -More different Alliances, all trying to claim their part of Albion
      Capping alliances would result in a concentration of elite players to a few alliances, who would still dominate the endgame content. Guilds would increasingly have insane recruitment requirements. Newer players would get squeezed out.
      Not an improvement. :(

      And capping is contrary to the very idea of a massively multiplayer game! :)
      This is going to happen regardless. Like any other game or competitive aspect. Those people will find each other regardless. Like any other he however, it's always changing and evolving. Just because you're at the top doesn't mean you stay there. I just picture how it could be. Endless fights, every zone with that 40-50 blob. It would be madness. Sure they would try to establish multiple alliances but that's near impossible to pull off.

      My experience in Albion has been enormously different from my experience in World of Tanks: here it's easy to get into a good alliance and learn while playing endgame content. World of Tanks? Nope.

      You put caps on alliances, and you're on the road to the exclusive eliteness of World of Tanks.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      NuffSed wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Shablix wrote:

      NuffSed wrote:

      Removing or capping alliances instantly fixes everything everyone is concerned about in the new update. Even the mega alliances wouldn't argue with it simply because they love ZVZ. This would bring so much more content in regards of fighting in open world. One can hope.
      ...TLDR:Capping alliances would be the best update since launch!
      -Improvement to server stability due to less big ZvZs
      -More ZVZ/GVG content actually getting fought for
      -More different Alliances, all trying to claim their part of Albion
      Capping alliances would result in a concentration of elite players to a few alliances, who would still dominate the endgame content. Guilds would increasingly have insane recruitment requirements. Newer players would get squeezed out.Not an improvement. :(

      And capping is contrary to the very idea of a massively multiplayer game! :)
      This is going to happen regardless. Like any other game or competitive aspect. Those people will find each other regardless. Like any other he however, it's always changing and evolving. Just because you're at the top doesn't mean you stay there. I just picture how it could be. Endless fights, every zone with that 40-50 blob. It would be madness. Sure they would try to establish multiple alliances but that's near impossible to pull off.
      My experience in Albion has been enormously different from my experience in World of Tanks: here it's easy to get into a good alliance and learn while playing endgame content. World of Tanks? Nope.

      You put caps on alliances, and you're on the road to the exclusive eliteness of World of Tanks.
      He does have a point on the alliance cap.
    • I definitely feel there needs some adjustments on the current Alliance system. Capping removes the sandboxing capability of the game, as was mentioned, but the idea of alliance upkeep is an interesting one.

      Or a suggestion perhaps, have a politcal diplomacy with other guilds or so, that you can get into, like anno, just throwing a thought out here.
    • Moznic wrote:

      I definitely feel there needs some adjustments on the current Alliance system. Capping removes the sandboxing capability of the game, as was mentioned, but the idea of alliance upkeep is an interesting one.

      Or a suggestion perhaps, have a politcal diplomacy with other guilds or so, that you can get into, like anno, just throwing a thought out here.
      Some kinda of tax for allliances with more then 10 guilds would be a decent way to keep things from getting too crazy, If the alliance has 10+ guilds each guild gets taxed 2mil a week for being in that alliance and no the money doesn't go to the guild that owns the alliance it would just be a silver sink. 2mil a week might be a high number or low not sure about that but yeah a tax would be a lot better then a cap.
    • Tax is still a soft cap, and the results would be much the same: instead of throwing a wide net to try out new players, alliances would become choosier.

      I'd rather see the flat alliance system (with a leader and X followers) changed to be individually guild-to-guild. That would, for instance, allow the following scenario:

      - Guilds A and B are allies
      - Guilds B and C are allies
      - Guilds A and C are at war

      Human factors are constantly working to split apart big groups of people (personalities, drama, etc.), and this would tend to increase that tension on guilds, while also allowing a Byzantine web of alliances, rather like those that existed pre-WW1.

      Also, forming a huge alliance would be a lot of paperwork (every guild would have to ally with every other guild). :P