Poll: Alliance Feature

  • The issue at the heart of the matter aren't alliances themselves it's that the current systems intended to manage alliance sprawl are open to abuse.

    Dropping alliance to circumvent cluster queue rules doesn't offer any real punishment only a cooldown on re-joining. If dropping and re-joining an alliance contained a genuine punishment then gaming the system wouldn’t be worth it. I'd suggest that during the season if a guild drops then re-joins the all guilds within the alliance lose 10% of their current season points. If guilds drop from an alliance but create a new one then if 50% or less of original guilds join new alliance 5% season points cost to each guild if more than 50% of original guilds join the new alliance then the 10% cost applies. A guild losing then regaining points don't get the bonus for reaching a new level instead guild rewards are paid to guild at end of season same as for members final points determine the rewards earned. Some guilds will say they don't care about points but honestly can they say that all members don't want the mounts?

    Cluster queue needs a rework, I've not experienced it personally yet, playing in a solo guild it's not often an issue. If there was a hard limitto members of a single alliance or guild to 150 players per zone, smart queue shouldn't push out players from the map it should balance reinforcements prioritising higher IP members but as no side can have more than 150 so long as you havemembers waiting you won't lose by default to other sides reinforcements. Again I've not played with cluster queue so there may be an obvious flaw but coupledwith alliance dropping consequences should reduce opportunities to use systems to gain advantages that were not intended.

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

  • Hi @Korn

    I think the result of poll is showing only that everyone is pissed off how works game mechanics.
    And how to solve this? Basically we should start to think about how to fix causes not consequences of the current issue.

    I suggest a few things:

    1. Hard cap per alliance for T5-T6 black zone ZvZ fight. For example, 30 players in T5 zone from one alliance, 50 players in T6 zone, 70 players in T7 zone, 100 players in T8 zone. So there will be ZvZ territory fights in low zones suitable for smaller guilds and alliances but ZvZ oriented guilds and alliances still have where to shine (T7-8). And ofcourse you need to punish guilds for leaving alliance hard or every limit will be circumvent.

    2. Limit for players in the alliance. I think something like 300-500 will be fine because you can mass still enough players for high-end content (WB, T7+ ZvZ fights, Hideouts, etc.) and there will be more "stakeholders" in best black zones (there will be not only 1-3 mega alliances). This will lead to more opportunities and content overall.

    3. Motivate players to be in smaller alliances by max owned territories and hideouts per alliance. If the alliance can own only 5 territories (or maybe 7?), they will need to be smarter and choose only those they really want to own (There will be more space for others and there will be still a way to get more season points - by level up territory in CGvG or kill enemy mages). Or you can own more territories, but you need to pay linearly increasing upkeep for territories above the limit of owned territories.

    Regards
    HankTheNoob
    HankTheNoob | Battles in AO

    The post was edited 3 times, last by H4nk ().

  • Gerrit wrote:

    H4nk wrote:

    There will be more space for others
    Like there are a lot of players outside big alliances who are ready for daily CTAs to protect their territory.
    I think there are players in small and new guilds with like 50-100 members who can still manage have own low territory and hideout on my own... But they need to get a chance (some sort of protection - for example by zone cap). Everybody has to start somehow...
    HankTheNoob | Battles in AO

  • H4nk wrote:

    1. Hard cap per alliance for T5-T6 black zone ZvZ fight. For example, 30 players in T5 zone from one alliance, 50 players in T6 zone, 70 players in T7 zone, 100 players in T8 zone. So there will be ZvZ territory fights in low zones suitable for smaller guilds and alliances but ZvZ oriented guilds and alliances still have where to shine (T7-8). And ofcourse you need to punish guilds for leaving alliance hard or every limit will be circumvent.
    what you gonna do, when 2 different alliances will zone in, as NAP with coms? =)
    WTB skill
  • It would change nothing.
    An alliance is a big community that plays together.
    It wouldn't divorce because there is no ingame function for it.
    Small players that are not part of that community, wouldn't be able to settle in the territory of that community either.
    It would turn out even worse for small guilds, because communication and organization is king.
    And a few big guilds that are organized well and communicate well are easier to handle, than tons of small guilds that are loosely grouped together.

    It would only make live harder for all organizators, be it guild or alliance master.
    And small guilds would have even less content out of it imho.
  • gmatagmis wrote:

    legrant wrote:

    Dear SBI,"Remove the alliance feature from the game" will not affect the game because mega alliance make secret agreements:help in war,dividing territories,etc.
    Even worse, it will promote dissaray abuse.160 from one alliance have close to zero chances versus 80+80 in NAP with FF due dissaray equal to 400IP difference.
    Ну и да в основном ноют те у кого маленькие гильдии, и думаю что если удалить алянс то все начнут друг против друга воевать как бы не так, и по итогу у нас все те же альянсы только без тага али.
    А про абуз теперь не надо ливать с альянса что бы понизить анти-зерг дебаф.