Poll: Alliance Feature

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

  • Poll: Alliance Feature

    If you had to pick one of the two options below, would you rather 1,253
      Keep the alliance feature in the game (270) 22%
      Remove the alliance feature from the game (983) 78%

    Hi all,

    as there is a lot of discussion going on about the power of large alliances in multiple forum threads, we'd like to use this poll to get a general sentiment on the issue.

    This poll is a deliberate simplification. We know that there are many valid "yes, but" and "no, but" arguments to be made.

    We kept the poll simple to get a clear initial picture at first. Based on that, we can then take the discussion further.

    Please note that this poll is not an official vote on the matter.

    To not influence the poll, we chose not to present any arguments in this thread. Related discussion threads can be found here:
  • The best way i can put this ... think on it

    The tribute system makes it so a guild who pays tribute to keep their hideout alive may still be backstabbed and it will be destroyed.

    The alliance system is the opposite, once a guild opts in a Tag appears with their name and they would know instantly if their guild was kicked from the alliance thus they are betrayed.
    With out the friendly fire mandated and alliances tagged next to player names, politics could become deadly. 3 guilds vs 3 guilds could easily become a 5 on 1 re-alignment of their NAP

    If you have never played the board game / net game Diplomacy please go take a look. people must play politics to win, strength is their only bargaining chip and they make alliances, but then backstab people as there is no mandate and they all want to win. In a similar fashion the NAP is not just a workaround but an opportunity for some great politics and story making. watching reset day come around and a blob turns inward to destroy an unsuspecting member of an NAP what a great catch it would be for AOTV,.

    Aside from that it means guild must keep track and spread information on who is in or out. and no 1 person is incharge of it all. It could be a round table of guild leaders or electing 1 of them to the top

    People could post to a section of albion forums created "Guild Politics" or something similar, the new pacts they have made, who they kick out ect. They could spread information or guard it greedily. Perhaps, they could spread misinformation telling people lies that their guild is working with XYZ and they are truly solo as can be.

    The story telling, and gameplay that could stem from removing the very "video gamish" mandate of not being able to kill people with friendly fire maybe shouldnt be spread to guilds... however if it did i would still test it out on the PTR it sounds fun ...

    My point is you view it as people will work around it , however those of us playing the game especially in smaller guilds, think it would be refreshing, vital to our survival, and damn it I think it would be fun as hell to watch ARCH guilds just start demolishing each other because they dont know the 100 other guilds names in their alliance.

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

  • Devs saying that casual guids cannot create NAPS cause it is so hard, is very puzzling to me.

    What is exactly hard about making an agreement with another guild leader? Easy. I'm an officer in a more casual guild for reference. Whether we would want to create a NAP is a different story.

    NAPS I would imagine are harder to maintain. NAPS create more drama & potitics. NAPS involve friendly fire, so weaker zergs. Weaker zergs, potential to break a NAP at any time, friendly fire drama.

    Which is the better option?
    The one which is slightly better at least.
  • Here is what I see if you remove alliances.

    1. alliances will be allies, still working together but it will be harder.

    2. A lot of smaller guilds will collapse into larger ones.

    3. The strongest guilds will start roaming or hired out as 3rd parties in all kinds of fights.

    4. Organization off loaded to the leadership of guilds vs in game systems.

    5. fix tribute system so that hideout owners pay it and get their hideout protected by the game system.

    When I look over these things, I just see what Albion loses. smaller alliances, smaller guilds. More pressure on guild leaders to dedicate more time to a game. The biggest problem, hand holding guilds that conquer the whole of the game and push everyone else out won't even really be effected.(mainly because it's the objective of the game) The best guilds will just get better at countering disarray making numbers even more important. I don't think its gonna solve much, fairness was patched out of albion with queen and the new GvG system. This would just be patching out all of the small alliances. The nature of the game is now to convince as many people as you can to help you win.
  • 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 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.

    So. As Albion players - they 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 to fight back - coth the game already give em everything to fight back(they all blue for each other).

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