Queen Update is likely to backfire at SBI, what will defeat the design

    • Why you all wanna punish big alliance's for they hard work and being big?
      Then what? Punish the t8 players for killing t4 gankers group coth he is to strong?

      If you think its easy win by creating mega alliance - go make one and fight em. If you dont think its easy, then wtf punish someone for hard work and good play?


      You can:
      1. Motivate mega alliances defend they terry instead of clap noobs.
      2. Motivate noobs attack mega alliances terri every day and time. Just make it profitable.
      3. Make IP of small alliances higher. To motivate small guilds, but not punish the hard worked bigs.
      Like: if you alliance leass then 300 players, all you items gets +500 ip at the terri fights. But not more then 8.3 MP IP of the item was improved.
      So 4.0 will be get from 700 to 1200, but 8.3 normal will go from 1700 to 1800.


      Just dont be jealous, stupid haters. There is alot of ways to solve problems - except punishments and limitations.
      Motivational and rewarding way - is much better.
      Like in lol, you will have extra reward for season, if not get any chat bans, play fair and respective. And its works much better.


      After the DEV reply, I see the problem here, DEV thinks that they players are same smart and organized as EVE players. But you wrong @Korn you players are mostly just stupid kids, and selfish virtual big dicks.
      Like 90% of them, having fun in killing 1 by group of 10. So they will never set up the good NAP. Coth here is just one rule - red is dead.( BTW this rule comes from UO, but here it is mean perfectly opposite thing in Albion. Just think about this silly fact.)

      Maximum 10% of players can play hardcore and smart economical MMO like EVE. Rest 90% can just play "greif PVP shit" like RUST. And they doing same here. So you SBI, should remember who opinion you read, and who will play you game. Its Albion players - not EVE, so take it and work with it.

      The post was edited 6 times, last by iRawr ().

    • It is has nothing to do with creating a counter mega alliance. It is the fact a sizable amount of the player base wants NOTHING to do with mega alliances. However since the content everywhere in all tier zones is being dominated by mega alliances they feel stuck in this position to just cave and join or not play the content. That is the side effect of mega alliance domination. Some people just want to do the 15 or 20 size fights (which I think was the devs target anyway for the new territory warfare) but instead these zergs are bringing 100 plus everywhere.
    • Korn wrote:

      Hollywoodi wrote:

      don't you think if you limit an Alliance to 300 people it would remove the giantic safe zone they created through the black??
      It almost certainly won't - based on all we have learned about sandbox games in the past 8 years. Also, if you look at Eve Online, alliances there do not stop you from killing and looting everyone you like. Still, you see close to 0 kills between alliance members. It would almost certainly be the same for the top de facto alliances in Albion - they would set up NAP system and back it up with proper enforcement.

      We don't think it would be smart game design to implement a feature that we are convinced won't work just for the sake of it, as it comes with very real downsides. Beyond that, there is a very real backfire risk as well - we are pretty certain that if we announced the removal of the alliance feature, it would generate initial hype. This however would almost certainly be followed by a significant backlash and turn into the opposite once it becomes evident that the top end power blocks are just working around it.
      @Korn

      There is a big thinking mistake inside..

      While I fully agree that you can manage Naps, delimit the giantic safe zone is not linked at all to Naps

      The today usecase for e.g. BA or POE is, they can travel the entire map from terrie to terrie, no risk in gathering or any logistics..

      Now looking at your NAP, yes works, but u usecase is wrong

      Even with NAP between e.g. CIR and Redarmy the typical CIR guy, still needs to pass the map and had no gigantic safe zone... Assume now NAP works he has to fear Arch, BA and every small guild ganking and has no terries to hop..

      Suddenly there is a risk
    • Korn wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.
      It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
      By implementing Alliance Season point sharing - any kind of "benefit that alliance provides to casual guilds" has been erased from the game. "Pre-point-sharing", I was part of a casual guild who was part of a bigger alliance, and we had very little pressure on having to raid mages (unfun content, as it gets very repetitve after a while, although it kind of is Ok once every other week, or once a week, but not every god damn day) or to keep our points up. We were content with hitting silver rank.

      After the alliance point sharing, we are no longer part of any alliance, and actually not part of an alliance at all, and people are kind of just taking time off, trying to observe how Queen goes and trying to figure out "does it make sense to play Albion as a guild that has no alliance". My guild was always good at small scale PVP - and that was our selling point to any alliance in the past (i.e - we protect your terries locally and kill all the small gankers and gank groups, while you guys do the big ZvZ stuff), but now that advantage seems to be useless.

      I was a big opponent of alliance caps historically in this game (and as someone who is coming from Eve Online), but that was before the point sharing change. Now I don't even know what to say. The point sharing is definitely hurting the smaller guys - and it forces them to "nolife" it like the top dogs. By creating "alliance point sharing" - you have flipped your entire "baseline" upside down. Before the lowest common denominator was "the casual guild". Now that had changed to "the most hardcore guild" - or to paraphrase - all guilds in the alliance must be on the same level to succeed. Alliance point sharing - added segregation.

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

    • Korn wrote:

      Hollywoodi wrote:

      don't you think if you limit an Alliance to 300 people it would remove the giantic safe zone they created through the black??
      It almost certainly won't - based on all we have learned about sandbox games in the past 8 years. Also, if you look at Eve Online, alliances there do not stop you from killing and looting everyone you like. Still, you see close to 0 kills between alliance members. It would almost certainly be the same for the top de facto alliances in Albion - they would set up NAP system and back it up with proper enforcement.

      We don't think it would be smart game design to implement a feature that we are convinced won't work just for the sake of it, as it comes with very real downsides. Beyond that, there is a very real backfire risk as well - we are pretty certain that if we announced the removal of the alliance feature, it would generate initial hype. This however would almost certainly be followed by a significant backlash and turn into the opposite once it becomes evident that the top end power blocks are just working around it.
      That is all fine, If you don't want to limit alliances at least limit the amount one alliance can pack in a zone, This would fix alot of problems, For example a limit of 150 players in 1 zone/cluster would help the game a lot more then an alliance limit. We need a fix to this problem of 350+ from one alliance being packed in a zone. Do something please. @Korn Now i understand this may be a problem for hideout zones but guilds can have up to 6 hideouts per guild therefor there isn't a need to have more then 150 players at one time in one zone which doesn't really happen anyways inless there is a fight going down.

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

    • Lanyday wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      I'd consider diminishing returns (over hard caps) for controlling more and more territories, such as increased unrest leading to territory revolt, higher costs to attacking/feeding territories, lower season point return from territories, etc.
      I understand the desire for soft caps (not hard caps) but I'm worried the most powerful guilds are so rich that there is no soft cap that would realistically limit them. Costs to feeding territories would just put more logistics on the players forced to deal with that stuff which isn't really fun. Guilds will still feed territories even if they're more expensive to feed, it'll just be annoying.

      I hear you, but what if the costs of owning massive swaths of territory could be made greater than the income of the most powerful guilds, such that it would eat into their capital?

      Long-term, that might get some of the wealth back into general circulation.
    • @Roccandil It would likely take the wealth out of the game as a sink (not go back into general circulation). The top guilds are capable of producing insane wealth. There are players sitting on billions of silver that will finance world domination just for giggles. I think exponentially scaling taxes risks turning more players into slaves in order to uphold the status quo instead of actually limiting alliances.
    • Korn wrote:

      Hollywoodi wrote:

      don't you think if you limit an Alliance to 300 people it would remove the giantic safe zone they created through the black??
      It almost certainly won't - based on all we have learned about sandbox games in the past 8 years. Also, if you look at Eve Online, alliances there do not stop you from killing and looting everyone you like.
      I started playing Eve around 2007, read up on its history and have followed it ever since - even though I no longer play. To my mind the lessons from Eve do not align with what you are saying about large alliances and the game tools which facilitate this..

      Early on in Eve there were no alliances and the work around's you talk about were in place. Informal alliances which fought together and took part in large wars. Over time alliances where added followed by more and more tool to facilitate larger scale conflicts. Not surprisingly the conflicts grew larger and larger. As the tools for mass organisation increased, and as the ability to handle larger numbers of people on one node grew, so did the size of the blob/zerg. The term Blue Donut emerged to describe the huge areas of peace that came with the ever larger scale of alliances. The complex weave of interactions that had shaped Eve became much more reducible to a few mega conflicts often decided by diplomats.

      The reason I kept following Eve was the stories. The incredible stories of crazy conflicts and balls to the wall decisions. I used to love reading battle reports and the associated political intrigues. Nowadays there isn't much to read, very few battle reports and not a lot of political intriguing outside of a small cadre of high ups in the top alliances.

      Is this what you want to create? Is later day Eve really your goal? Eve is slowly being strangled by its indulging of the big is better philosophy.

      Yes work around's exist to all attempts to limit co-operation in MMO's but the history of MMO's shows us that the efficiency varies depending on the convenience of marshelling large numbers of people. The tricky it is the more efficient smaller organisations are. The easier it is to organize, arm and co-ordinate the foot soldiers the more efficient it is to do so on a large scale.

      Korn I find your 100% sure answers rather demoralizing. What becomes clear reading your responses is that it is no coincidence that Albion is moving into big is better mode.
    • Taniwhaa wrote:

      Korn I find your 100% sure answers rather demoralizing. What becomes clear reading your responses is that it is no coincidence that Albion is moving into big is better mode.
      yes, they have a clear "we are better than thou" view alwasy have and that is why they continue to push people into no PvP harcorePVP - 1 alliance is only so far away, as every player joining simply will choose the safest place and why would you need to alliances if we all join together then there is no fighting. meaning all gatherers can do what they want ganking wont exist boom problems solved this is SBI decision and drive is no combat
    • If you remove alliances people will just complain about mega guilds.... then what? When BA can the top guilds can field 150 people and most other guilds are fielding 30 its gonna be the same shit... at least now alliances allow smaller guilds to band together to fight the bigger ones (though debuff kind of hurt these smaller guilds as theyre usually not filled with hardcore/high spec players).
    • What if disarray was reworked (or a new debuff)) and was cluster-wide, like zones within 3 of yours in any direction? Just a thought, but that would make it harder for alliances to just pack a thousand people in their zone or have multiple huge alliance hideouts near each other and would require them to spread out more which stretches resources thinner? Like if you have 200+ Alliance Members within zones of you your overall power is diminished on top of the normal disarray debuff? And this is permanent as long as those people are nearby, so all content your stats are reduced. This includes those in dungeons in the zone and hideouts.

      I'd also like to see movement debuffs start happening with disarray if there's a certain threshold reached, as that would really hurt massive armies.

      My theory is that it would make it far more difficult for leaders to manage multiple buffs from multiple zones with such limited ways to gather intel and stretch things out to the point of breaking.

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

    • I explained why is not correct to think the Albion players = EvE players.
      So. Albion players - will be also not happy without alliance.
      Coth make strong alliance is same hard as make a strong 300 players guild. So they will keep crying about "mega guilds". Why? Coth greif pvp RUST players dont wanna work hard and play hard. They want cheesy-easy wins, and punish someone if they lose.

      So you as a DEV - should think different.
      If you remove alliances - it will be to much reds around, but as i suggest before, you can think opposite way:
      1. What if you change the black zone rule itself? Make it closer to red zone, just without reds counter. So all guilds will be blue for each other as default.
      But... If you change the feature of alliances to the feature of declaring war.
      So guilds in "war" relationships, will be red for each other. Only war - can let the guild claim terrys/ attack hideouts.
      And the guild who "start the war" - will be red for all other players.
      And also - add a bit more punishment to PK if red fight blue (like in UO).

      So aggressive and top guilds, still can be aggressive, but small guild will no need to do what they cant(read as "cooperate with each other") to fight back - coth the game already give em everything to fight back(they all blue for each other).

      Its one of the ways how you can clearly show all that crying pussyes, that if they are "lose" in system like that - it is only they own fail, not a game design or mega alliance. It will be clearly they choice and they fail, like - dont start the war if you cant win it.

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

    • Korn wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.
      It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
      @Korn I agree there is a big problem if the alliance system falls, it hurts the non-hardcore groups that won't be as coordinated or disciplined.

      So hitting the alliance system directly is going to cause more harm to the chances the smaller / non-hardcore group have while the big ones can work around it with NAPs.

      So how do we really balance this? I think it's insane but the open design of the game allows this groups to work-around anything you come up with. For now, queen as only turned the table of how the big boys can monopolize, via ZvZ instead of GvG, and It saddens to see mega-allies like POE bullying non-hardcore groups out of the borders of the map on massive swarms they can't really fight back, like with Fricks @Veetus.

      I can only think of making the game balance quite strict on the aspect that right now you will run into fights of for starts being hugely outnumbered (T4/5 Blobs it's like it's Mercia everywhere now), that over that are benefited by the queue system with their much higher overall IP that gets prioritized, and also benefiting from the gear efficiency bonus (T8), it is destroying the chances of everyone but the main hardcore ZvZ guilds of the game. That or reducing the amount of prime-times forcing the zergs to focus their targets more instead of being able to fight for many territory claims per day.

      The post was edited 5 times, last by TheBacon ().

    • I still feel that we don't even need to go the route of removing or limiting alliances, We need the disarry debuff to really work on larger numbers,
      So for example. If you want alliances to split there zergs up make the
      disarry so bad after 100 players that they must bring 100 or less. So
      for example if you start bring players over 100 the disarry starts
      taking much more from the whole group, Which would include everything.



      • Stuns/CC Duriation
      • Health
      • Damage
      • Healing Power
      • Armor
      Once the group goes over 110 the disarry would get more powerful, this would rase the percent to 50% less power to everyone in all the things listed above, Then once again if the numbers of the whole alliance in the zone goes over say 115 the disarry percent increases again to say 75% less power to everyone in that zone in the same alliance. This would in return make zergs have to split down there numbers for that fight in the zone, This would make a "Limit" per zone system without hardcapping the zone its self to help when people are just traveling through zones and not fighting. This will also still allow small guilds to band together.


      We need the 300 main zerg to split down this would create more fights
      and content for everyone because rather then a 300vs300 you could have 3
      100vs100 fights over different locations/terris/hideouts/castles.


      This would also help when wanting to change the numbers brought to lower
      tier zones, So for example if you wanted zones near the portal to be
      more for small guilds you could change the debuff starting numbers from
      100 to say 50 for zones near/next to the portal there for making it
      easier for small guilds then after so many zones this limit would change
      from 50 to 100 for zones closer to the center. This would be the way I
      would go if this was my game.
    • Korn wrote:

      Hollywoodi wrote:

      don't you think if you limit an Alliance to 300 people it would remove the giantic safe zone they created through the black??
      It almost certainly won't - based on all we have learned about sandbox games in the past 8 years. Also, if you look at Eve Online, alliances there do not stop you from killing and looting everyone you like. Still, you see close to 0 kills between alliance members. It would almost certainly be the same for the top de facto alliances in Albion - they would set up NAP system and back it up with proper enforcement.

      We don't think it would be smart game design to implement a feature that we are convinced won't work just for the sake of it, as it comes with very real downsides. Beyond that, there is a very real backfire risk as well - we are pretty certain that if we announced the removal of the alliance feature, it would generate initial hype. This however would almost certainly be followed by a significant backlash and turn into the opposite once it becomes evident that the top end power blocks are just working around it.
      Albion aint eve bro, look at the scale of that game and the scale of albion, its totally on a different scale.
      NAP doesnt stop 3rd party interference, no one cares if big alliance wants to go NAP, the importance here is that 3rd party can always play with the NAP of other guilds. This ain't eve, the combat is totally different, NAP is only protective, big actual alliance system is aggressive in nature
    • Korn wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.
      It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
      better think to change it how fast it is possible, casuals and small/medium guild make you much more prfoit then big alliance, big alliances spend ingame gold for $$ and slowly killing game.

      otherwise, big alliances do nothing for game, they just abuse non caped numbers of alliances, to make for himself biggest profit, price of it is so many people leave the game, its unplayable at all, how long someone can be at yellow/red zone.

      also hideout idea is great but not with big alliances in game, few days ago I got letter from "POE" "Pay 2m per day otherwise we smash your hideout with everything"

      what should I do with this.. I have no chance to defend it and wont pay for this.. so 1 part of content is blocked for me..

      same shit is with world bosses, I can only dream about it, everything camped by big alliances, resources ? everything camped, FF? dont be funny, every static t7/8 is camped 24/7

      what left to do from whole content, some low tier dungeons, HG, ganking,gather low tier resources rest of content is locked.

      NAP is not key to fix current problems with big alliances..
    • The solution is here:
      . remove alliances
      . guild cap to 50 accounts
      . max 3 territories owned by one guild, 1 castle for guild, 2 hideout for guild all decided by the system no bigger expenses to discourage or other weak trying just denied more than the limits. And of course access to territories, castle and hideouts strictly limited to the guild that owns it ONLY. Absolutely no access to other guilds.

      Do this and let's see