Poll: Alliance Feature

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

  • This will hose over the average alliance. Large mega groups will organize and work together no matter what arbitrary limit that is set on alliances or guilds. And this is kinda counter to this game being a sandbox. My suggestion is remove caps on guilds and alliances all together and allow groups to set standings so that smaller groups can band together easier and fight larger groups. More organized groups such as the current large alliances which are the best organized groups will find a way to operate around whatever arbitrary limits that is attempted to imposed on the sandbox.
  • So I know people like to blame the alliance system for everything.
    But mind, what is happening here that creates such powerful monopolization is the HAND-HOLDING, it's not a mega-duper-super alliance it's major guilds in agreement with each-other fighting X or Y targets.

    You will not see the monopolization stop if the alliance system was removed because they are already high coordinated and play hardcore, it would destroy the smaller alliance groups who are then stripped from any real chance to fight back unless they also hold hands at the high-level (aka strategic goals).


    For me gotta think beyond a simple "alliance system source of all evils" and look more about balancing the actual battle-field giving the smaller boys and better chance against the big boys, a sentiment that has been harmed on Queen with the devs "benefiting the rich" over the skill with mechanics like the IP efficiency and the smart cluster queue system.

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

  • It's funny seeing how detached from reality people are when they speak about removing the alliance system. This poll is a waste of time, it's well known that minorities are always the ones who vote on these things unless someone brings it to the attention of the majority which is impossible because the majority do not use the forums at all.

    To the nerds who think this will solve ANYTHING in a positive manner. Stop being nerds lol guilds will just form their alliances how they always have for the last 20 years of gaming without alliance systems. It's not hard and literally will uncap alliances instead of remove them, there would now not be any limits to how big they can grow. (literally it's all happened before, it's not even a guessing game) This of course has always been true though but there has always been no real incentive to do this but queen has made it way more viable. We can now see large alliances working together more often than ever to smash these "small guilds" that sbi say they want to help.

    Having a fairer system is much better for everyone than forcing guilds to create mega alliances. There's no point even trying to mess with anything on the alliance/guild side because the underlying problem is that this game encourages naps/alliances/coalitions to the point where you're actually severely punished for being a small guild. Removing alliances wouldn't even scratch this.
    Join our guild https://discord.gg/pejawjG
  • I support friendly fire, and would welcome expanding party sizes and changing it so only party members have friendly fire immunity. This completely removes the game mechanic incentive to game the grouping system while still allowing small groups to band together against big ones.

    I even think that removing alliance color indicators is worth trying. This in essence makes the alliance system an in-game manager of NAPs and inter-guild communication. In other words, remove all alliance game mechanics, but keep the communication tools.
  • How is anyone arguing that NAP's is not STRICTLY better than what we have now?

    It's more sandboxy, it allows for more drama to happen. IE, groups napped, grief eachother over a hellgate, they pop off, NAP is broken, drama ensues etc.

    It causes them to have friendly fire in large scale fights. It's NOTHING but positives, unless you're a fucking lemming.
    BoM, In our hearts and minds.
    Twitch
    Youtube
  • I don't express myself often on the forums, but when I do, it's because I feel like it's an important matter. So here I am on alliances.
    I think alliance are bad for the game and should be removed, mostly because they aren't capped in ANY WAY. So we could basically have all the playerbase into 1 mega alliance.
    Also, I've been into these mega alliances and all the guilds hate each other so much they would kill each other but cannot. If alliance are to stay they should be HEAVILY limited and freindly fire between guilds in the alliance should be enabled, but it would be better to remove them altogether and just go back to Non-Agression Pacts which encourage actual sandbox mechanics (politics).
    Some will ask what's the difference between NAPs and having friendly fire between the alliance's guilds. My answer is that with NAPs you actually have to use your head and know who you are allied to instead of braindeadly attacking reds and letting purples pass...
  • Voltel wrote:

    This will hose over the average alliance. Large mega groups will organize and work together no matter what arbitrary limit that is set on alliances or guilds. And this is kinda counter to this game being a sandbox. My suggestion is remove caps on guilds and alliances all together and allow groups to set standings so that smaller groups can band together easier and fight larger groups. More organized groups such as the current large alliances which are the best organized groups will find a way to operate around whatever arbitrary limits that is attempted to imposed on the sandbox.
    This is literally the dumbest thing I've read in my ENTIRE LIFE... I can't even...
  • There needs to be a *reason* to not be part of the biggest alliance or guild coalition.

    While we would like to award the stronger guilds for their efforts, unfortunately we have no advantages for weaker guilds to beat the stronger guilds, and instead it's more profitable and easier for weaker guilds to just team-up with the stronger guilds.

    A solution means
    1) Give advantages for guilds/alliances to remain small rather than form mega groups.
    • ensure that coalitions or by-pass systems are not effective long-term solutions
    2) Give advantages for weaker guilds to have a way to mildly compensate their weakness to exert SOME form of control on the map.
  • Voltel wrote:

    This will hose over the average alliance. Large mega groups will organize and work together no matter what arbitrary limit that is set on alliances or guilds. And this is kinda counter to this game being a sandbox. My suggestion is remove caps on guilds and alliances all together and allow groups to set standings so that smaller groups can band together easier and fight larger groups. More organized groups such as the current large alliances which are the best organized groups will find a way to operate around whatever arbitrary limits that is attempted to imposed on the sandbox.
    Words cannot describe how much i facepalmed reading this
    IGN: DungeonRealms
  • I'm fairly confident this poll could have been done at multiple points throughout the last few years and the results would say the same thing.

    Remove alliances, make guilds take precedence, give objectives and reasons for small groups to form and watch the game thrive.

    It's kind up upsetting that we had to wait until after the Queen zerg update hits to get this message across.
  • Please and thank you.

    My suggestion for ZvZ is this:


    First of all, alliances should be for guilds with less than 150 people, up to a max of 450-600. And the sharing also would be increased, so it doesn't encourage guilds to divide them and get all of them in an alliance.

    Second, for fights, if Guild A brings 40 folks, and Guild C brings 110, the area gets locked for 40v40, and it slowly allows guild C to get more members in. This would reward guild C in a certain way, but also would encourage them to divide their forces in other zones, making it more strategically, instead of just massing 12-20% blobs.

    Of course, it won't allow a guild to bring 10 people against 110, there should be a minimum for a zone to get locked in big numbers, and it could be tweaked.