Poll: Alliance Feature

  • Wynillo90 wrote:

    legrant wrote:

    Fuat wrote:

    Dont remove just make a limit for alliances... Like max 10 guild can be in an alliance...
    Like max 5 guild and limit guild member 200
    So you have 1000 players per ally and need to do something like BigAllyName1-5 for 5000 players.I don't see the improvement here.
    Rly? 5000 ppl online, many guild have member with different prime time, and guild in alliance has its prime time(because many alliance have NA and EU player).
    200 member in guild,100other people go to others guild filling out and threaten others guild. Because huge crowds do not stimulate development.
  • BruceLiChong wrote:

    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...
    words try them.

    Disregard wrote:

    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
    what is hard to understand, it literally has played out like this in Ultima Online, Eve Online, and black desert online. every major sandbox game of the last 20 years has been through this, why would Albion be any different I wonder? Please do explain.
  • Whether you have alliances in actual name or not, there will be alliances formally and informally. The alliance identification will benefit instead of detract from the game. Even if you limit the number of guilds in an alliance, there's nothing that stops groups from coordinating. The worse thing it does is slightly hinder potential hideouts and territories from housing large groups of individuals. But in all honesty if SBI wants to encourage people from different royal cities interacting against and with each other in the BZ (Martlock BZ vs Bridgewatch BZ vs Thetford BZ), having the alliance system is critical otherwise you'll just have small guilds and pseudo-alliances all staying in their little part of the BZ map without being able to venture out at all. Arthur's rest, the center of the map, etc won't be logistically and practically accessible by everyone by removing or limiting the alliance feature.
  • Big alliance destroy my 10 online guild and destroy my hideout BibleThump destoy alliance bcs i cant join/create alliance PLS DESTOY ALLIANCE BCS IM CRYBABY destroy alli bcs i cant be leader in guild raid and i cant control more than pve group in dung DESTROY alliance bcs i dont know meta and etc.

    pls dear developers destroy this shit i cant play when more skilled and brainy boys destoy me and my 10 online guild cryBaby

    if look objectively on this poll i can say that dont change nothing, more strongest wiil eat weak, this work in real world and work in AO, nothing change bcs this is a sandbox game without rules and i love AO for this, conditional pact will replace old alliance system, ofc this will weak alliance but ofc not strong cuz some ppl in this game have brain
  • Let me make this clear, I stand In the middle and believe alliances should remain, and let me explain why.
    Alliances allow guilds and groups to officially get together, this is extremely beneficial when you want to outstretch your content and interaction, and allows smaller guilds to get into bigger content, that’s a plus. Let me now get into the issues, Alliances allow large monopolies that annex guilds and become super powers such as Arch In the BZ, I feel instead of destroying all of our content over One big alliance why not put in restrictions? Here’s a start, remove 5 hideouts. If arch has 20 guilds in a 20x zone, with 1 hideout for each guild, all it takes is one guild defending all those hideouts, allowing them to monopolize them. And perhaps limits on the alliance? I do not see removing alliances as a whole as beneficial in a game designed for mass world PvP and community communication for end game content.

    please do not make another shit choice that ruins even more content.

    haven’t you’ve done that enough? If your solution is to remove it all then please do us a favor and shut down Albion, your not qualified as good enough.

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

  • yakojesus wrote:

    Big alliance destroy my 10 online guild and destroy my hideout BibleThump destoy alliance bcs i cant join/create alliance PLS DESTOY ALLIANCE BCS IM CRYBABY destroy alli bcs i cant be leader in guild raid and i cant control more than pve group in dung DESTROY alliance bcs i dont know meta and etc.

    pls dear developers destroy this shit i cant play when more skilled and brainy boys destoy me and my 10 online guild cryBaby

    if look objectively on this poll i can say that dont change nothing, more strongest wiil eat weak, this work in real world and work in AO, nothing change bcs this is a sandbox game without rules and i love AO for this, conditional pact will replace old alliance system, ofc this will weak alliance but ofc not strong cuz some ppl in this game have brain
    if there is no rules in a sandbox why is then there a rule that u don't have friendly fire??

    I mean keep you Alliance, but outside of group is friendly fire..and every terrie guard is afressive except to the guild that owns it..
  • Ximixurri wrote:

    The best way to solve this problem in my opinion is to cap Alliances in 3 guilds.

    I think Alliance concept is good and healthy for the game but there's no cap and some alliances take proffit of it.
    That would mean it’s still mega guilds and alliances my dude, you forget most of Albion is 100 under and these that aren’t tend to be zvz and the high end guilds.Punished lesser guilds.
  • This topic is irelevant. If SBI remove aliance, isnt problem make guilds with name BA Blue Army, BA blue Army freedom, BA Crimsons, BA Awful Company, BA Yaga etc...and make rule dont atack guild with Tag BA. In aliance is better funny from this game. Bigger=stronger=more profit. Each player have choise. In big aliance x small guild(without ally) x solo( ganky and HCE)

    EVERY PLAYER HAVE A CHOISE!!!!

    Why SBI should, anything choise? They made split points, zerg debuffs, and ppl are still in ally. In ally is more funny. I want play in big ally. In small guild player must go with others. Because you are online, you must go with us. In big aliance are ppl freedom. In big aliance isnt problem make 400ppl zerg, 50 men ganking, 50 man crafting, 20 players Play HCE. Everybody are happy. Next day somebody choise other aktivity.

    EVERY PLAYER HAVE A CHOISE!!!!

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

  • Hollywoodi wrote:

    yakojesus wrote:

    Big alliance destroy my 10 online guild and destroy my hideout BibleThump destoy alliance bcs i cant join/create alliance PLS DESTOY ALLIANCE BCS IM CRYBABY destroy alli bcs i cant be leader in guild raid and i cant control more than pve group in dung DESTROY alliance bcs i dont know meta and etc.

    pls dear developers destroy this shit i cant play when more skilled and brainy boys destoy me and my 10 online guild cryBaby

    if look objectively on this poll i can say that dont change nothing, more strongest wiil eat weak, this work in real world and work in AO, nothing change bcs this is a sandbox game without rules and i love AO for this, conditional pact will replace old alliance system, ofc this will weak alliance but ofc not strong cuz some ppl in this game have brain
    if there is no rules in a sandbox why is then there a rule that u don't have friendly fire??
    I mean keep you Alliance, but outside of group is friendly fire..and every terrie guard is afressive except to the guild that owns it..
    im not against friendly fire, i think this is cool cuz need active brain and look on tag, maybe my propose is ON ff, but dont on ff in claim, if player can kill player - its ok, if u cant use alli claim - its bad bcs u alli, alli dont need delete, but maybe need rework like a on ff, but in even guild exict braindead boys and newbies who can ruin this "alliance", i think need on ff and "mark" ur alliancer maybe something other, if every leader have brain and every ppl in game have brain this is dont need, humanity is not ideal and need make correction for this
  • A small brainstorm regarding alliances. Consider i want to basically get rid of anything beyond 300 players at most able to fight together without Friendly Fire and that i voted for YES.

    Also, consider i'm in POE, the second alliance with most territories, and we hold 3000 members until now.





    Suggestions and Reasoning:



    1. Cap alliances to 300 players.


    If alliances are capped to 300 players it is useless for a big guild (such as CIR) to make an alliance, since they already will be an alliance.

    Small guilds could join under the same alliance flag to fight big guilds.

    I'll also state that, in such cases, big guilds have advantages since they work under the same leaders and tend to be more coordinated. However, small guilds at least have 'a chance' to have a fair fight.




    2. Limit the ammount of Territories an alliance can have to 5

    Why 5 ?

    It's a simple logistic considering the max ammount of entrances a cluster can have.

    Example:




    This would be the core behind this limit in territories. Many territories have less entrances and would allow people to use those '5 slots' in other shapes.

    Some 'content hunters' guild would have to be at most at 4 terries if they wanted to keep engaging on new terries. To launch an attack one would have to be with at most 4 territories.

    Even if SQUAK guilds Blue Army, Blue Army Freemen, Black Order, Conflict and Agresor still NAP, they would only be able to hold 25 territories instead of the currently 90. That's 65 clusters to be conquered by other people.


    Centered guilds would EFFECTIVELY be attacked by more sides and small fights / dives / ganks would happen more frequently.

    What we have now is 4 alliances conquering more than 70% of all the available zones. If we had the max ammount of territories per cohalittion, there is potentially 60 guilds/alliances that could take 5 terries in the blackzones, since we have around 300 clusters available (300/5 = 60). Many more will have, actually, since most won't be able to keep 5 territories at once.



    Strong cohalittions would hunt for most valuables zones while weaker cohalittions would hunt for a space to live and farm, adding more small scale content to blackzones.





    3. Limit the ammount of hideouts a guild can have to 5. More than that, a guld can only upgrade ONE hideout to T3 and THREE hideouts to T2 (this would include the T3, if they have it).


    The most a guild could have, at maxed hideouts, is 1 T3, 2 T2 and 2 T1.

    This is to avoid power projection too, since hideouts are too hard to destroy and a biggies could harass newbies ahead from the 5 territories by planting hideouts in their territories.

    This way they would have to strategically position their hideouts. T3 for heavy fortification and pressure in a Core cluster. T2 for different purposes and T1 more like sentry posts.





    4. Hideouts will have only 3 permissions to enter it: Public (everyone enter), Alliance (everyone in the alliance can enter) or Private (everyone in the guild can enter it).

    This is to avoid NAPs abuse. If you want your NAPed allies to enter your hideout, you must allow EVERYONE to enter it.



    We can expect that NAPed allies will be able to use hideouts in each other map without retaliation, but they would be wasting potential offensive hideouts defensively.

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