Poll: Alliance Feature

  • - Cap alliances to 5 guilds
    - Cap guilds to 200 members
    - Cap obtaining season points according number of guilds in your alliance: 100% 1 guilds, 85% 2 guilds, 70% 3 guilds, 55% 4 guilds, 40% 5 guilds

    NAP hidden, as it is something that can not be controlled, we should not worry, if anyone has the ability to organize to fight alongside non-allied guilds, good for him.

    How access to hideouts can be currency to receive aid from non-allied guilds, I would also modify the access rights so that a hideout could only be public (worldwide) or private (alliance) ... without any intermediate option
  • Hi all,

    Somee time ago, I made a suggestions for this regard.

    Alliances are not a bad feature for a game like AO, the bad thing, it's the current design that's so simple and not elaborate.



    So, for the actual alliances system, my vote is for Remove it and improve it.
  • Or maybe smaller guilds should make realistic plans and not trying to build a hideout in the center of the map? Or they could form alliances with other smaller guilds and capture a territory in the OUTER ring of the map?
    Big alliances are not the problem. They achieved what they have, because they are GOOD at the game.
    Stop crying.
    One suggestion tho. There should be smaller hideouts for smaller guilds with lot less benefit. They can not be build with 40+ members and it would stop functionung once the guild surpasses that number. Also it could be used only by the guild members, inside there would be only a chest/repair/market/artifact foundry. Also it could be only placed in T5 T6 zones.
    It would be attackable only during the building phase, and maybe once a week?
  • RIP alliances, and good riddance.

    If system protected alliances disappear, it will really improve the current insanity of ZvZ. Instead of 250vs100, you get 100v100v50 V 80v20. YES there will be friendly fire, and that is GOOD. Black zone should definitely be susceptible to friendly fire if the shotcallers make a mistake. Mega alliances will still work to take more than others, but they will always have to consider their position in that alliance and the position of others. And no guild will be "safe" from their allies if they act like they are untouchable and do not respect the smaller groups that work with them. NAPs work in lots of games, Mega alliances just increase the gap between the top and the bottom.

    Why is SBI supporting that gap? Shouldn't you be working on balance?
  • I voted "Remove."

    As mentioned previously, the fault isn't with the idea of alliances but with their current implementation. (1) The server architecture has never effectively supported it. (2) Its existence disincentives conflict and (3) promotes the existence of super squads which drastically minimizes (or outright eliminaties) risk.

    The current map showing alliance territory control should be all the proof you need showing the development team has and still is ill-equipped to meaningfully tackle the control these super alliances exert. (SIDE NOTE: Opening these development questions up beyond your round-table is a great idea)

    CaptHempbeard, one of the staunchest opponents to alliances I've seen, finally gave up and joined [ARCH]. He built his whole platform on Solo/GvG gameplay and even he couldn't manage anymore.

    Also, Jonah Veil would be a perfect replacement for game balance (Henky/Retroman). Not only are his adjustments to the game intelligent and insightful, but his Dev Spotlights would be hilariously entertaining.


    The post was edited 4 times, last by JukeboxHero ().

  • Alliances need to go. At least the way they exist now.

    I like that some guilds (who would otherwise not be able to take part in the end game) like Arch are able to bring a lot of noobs together and achieve things together. This is an example of where the alliance system is great.

    What I don't like, is when guilds who are perfectly able to ZvZ without eachother, are holding hands instead.

    Guilds who can be on their own, should be on their own.

    This game is best when it's 50v50 and 100v100. Right now it's 100vs400 most of the time because alliances like squad have no spine and bring as many people as possible. Ruins the game for the rest but that's just how the game works at the moment.

    As someone else said, it would probably be a good idea to explore limiting the alliance member cap to the same as a guild cap. This way smaller guilds can team up to fight organised guilds.

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

  • Anyone with braincells can open the map and see that one alliance is controlling the entire game and owns every single city. If this doesn't get fixed quickly people will just end up giving up on the game all together.

    Alliances are good to have, just not in the way they are currently implemented.
    Limit their numbers, discourage hand holding, limit the number of terri's/castles/outposts an alliance can own. Make hideouts require more maintenance to discourage from having a lot everywhere or just limit the number of hideouts per alliance.

    Saying that limitations isn't the solution and leaving the game as is, is the worst thing you can do, doing nothing will just end the game.
  • Coming from other games with open world territory conquest and no alliance system, the alliance system has to go. Our alliance system kills a lot of the fun interactions that a game like this would normally have. We have too many options to create stability, reduce drama, reduce opportunities for betrayals, there's just too much rigidity. The content in a game like this is the players, you shouldn't tie the player's hands so tightly. In the current system we have to do so little diplomacy, and once that diplomacy is done it's done for a long time. People are building their guild systems around what alliance they are planning to be in for a season because that is the system we are given and have to deal with.

    I think one of the biggest hurdles to getting rid of alliances is the stodgy nature of hideout logistics. They seem designed as if they were meant to be only used if they were established as absolutely permanent objects with no danger of ever getting removed. It's really hard to move items around in bulk with how big the outlands are now, and we have to deal with hideout item pools getting stuck for a month and paying silver to recover them. I always envisioned the item storage system going the other way. Micromanaging bulk loot isn't really the most fun part of Albion, we should have systems to improve it rather than make it more difficult. We got rid of siege camps for the most part, but I think they should have stayed and been improved. Imagine if rather than territory storage, siege camp storage, and hideout storage, we had a unified zone storage that could be accessed from the hideout, the territory, or the siege camp. That would solve nearly every logistical annoyance without removing the logistics of moving items in and out of a zone. Once you get your items into a zone they are there until you break them or transport them away. This would add so much fluidity to the system and allow the developers to experiment with things like alliance system challenges without ruining their entire player base's item experience.
  • I wonder, if alliances get removed would the zerg debuff still be necessary? I mean, if guilds will have no more back up but the amount of players they can mass up at a certain time then it would be fair to win if u can mass up more players of ur guild than the others. Therefore zerg debuff could be removed along with the alliances feature. This if the guild´s players cap stays at 300. If it is raised up then it is fine to keep and inprove the zerg debuff to successfully discourage zergs of 100+ in the same cluster.

    For those claiming to cap the alliances to 3 or 4 guilds per alliance, i think it would be simpler to just remove the alliances feature and increase the guild´s players cap to 500 or 1000 but that wouldnt change much the current situation.

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

  • Guilefulwolf wrote:

    I wonder, if alliances get removed would the zerg debuff still be necessary? I mean, if guilds will have no more back up but the amount of players they can mass up at a certain time then it would be fair to win if u can mass up more players of ur guild than the others. Therefore zerg debuff could be removed along with the alliances feature.

    For those claiming to cap the alliances to 3 or 4 guilds per alliance, i think it would be simpler to just remove the alliances feature and increase the guild´s players cap to 500 or 1000.
    And then cry till SBI "poll: Guild feature"? What a great solution!
  • It would be better not to take away allainces because small guilds need a
    system to group up, There really is no reason to remove alliances if
    they limit how many alliance members can enter a zone, If they capped
    alliance members in a zone @ 150 this would fix alot of problems, Also
    if you were in that alliance and you leave you have to wait say 5 days
    to join a new alliance and during that time you still "count" as still
    part of the allaince you left so guilds can't just drop alliance to beat
    the 150 cap then just rejoin there alliance, Yes they could make 2
    alliances but they would have Friendly Fire and would make taking down a
    castle or hideout much harder with Friendly fire. This system would
    fix alot of problems. @Korn

    Also there isn't really ever 150 people from the same alliance in the
    same zone inless there is a fight going on so it wouldn't hurt anything
    not related to combat, Also for massing it could be done in two
    different hideouts in different zones because well you couldn't bring
    more then 150 to the fight anyways so the other people that can't get in
    the 1 fight could group in another zone with a hideout(Because well
    each guild can have up to 6 hideouts in different zones) and find
    another fight to take therefor createing more content.
  • Ayvidace wrote:

    If you want to limit your alliances, let them increase the number od people on your guild. This should be the most reasonable option.
    Don't think this is a good idea. This is against the point of removing alliances. What have we achieved by removing allianced if they all just join the same guild?

    If something like this is explored, it should only count for guilds that are performing poorly (casuals). But I don't think it's easy to determine something like this.

    They could keep alliances in the game, but have the member cap be the same as alliances. This way smaller guilds can band together to compete with large guilds.

    The age of 100vs400 needs to end. The sooner the better. I say kill alliances and ask questions later.