Poll: Alliance Feature

  • ImaDoki wrote:

    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.
    Hey uh Bud, 300 is the Guild limit, that makes no sense.
  • @Korn @Mytherceria @Eltharyon
    Can we find out the reason why this pull is not performed by the game or because it is not shown in the game by PM and is only here on the forum where only a portion of the players notice?
    The impact of this pull on the game is enormous and you have an obligation to present it to all game accounts and not just the forums.

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

  • KingJokerz wrote:

    I actually like one of JonahVeils suggestions that he had on his stream, where I think if we remove alliances, guilds should be based on the account being in the guild rather than a single character. I don't know if it's possible to do in this game or how hard something like that would be but I think it's a great idea that is implemented in many games. Seasonal rewards as well as any other kind of guild/player reward would obviously be corrected to be account based as well.
    (Meaning 1 rewards per account)
    Let's not forget that the game is free to play so if you wanted to make separate accounts, it's free to do that.
    Oh, JonahVeils you say,

    I have said that in 2018 :P

    forum.albiononline.com/index.p…at-I-personally-feel-are/

    My proposition of long-term solution:

    1. Remove alliances.
    2. Make guilds capped at 300 accounts, not 300 characters.
    3. Implement a maximum number of territories / farms / villages / castles a one guild can own at the same time. I propose maximum 10 territories, 10 farms, 2 villages, 2 castles.
    4. Scale the season rewards per continent accordingly (everything that generates season points)
    5. Scale the open world rewards accordingly
  • Voltel wrote:

    This will penalize more casual groups or groups like Newby. Groups like Squak or Poe it will barely slow them down before they organize around whatever system is implemented. The thing is why are these groups a problem. Power projections and Rental is the reason these groups are doing what they are doing. Nerf power projection, fix the IP issue with the que system, and make rental a bannable offense and I am pretty sure that most of the issues disappear. To be clear these mega alliances are already working with other alliances and they will just take how they are doing that and scale it to whatever system is implemented in my opinion.
    shut mega alliance member we little people will not be slowed down because we can fit all our allies into 1 guild tard
  • How about removing alliances but allowing a guild to have 1 friendly guild and 1 nemesis guild. Friendly guild would of course allow for non friendly fire and show up as purple now. Nemesis guild would allow for Guild vs Guild full loot pvp action anywhere in the game except for Royal Cities. In order to be nemesis both guilds have to have each other as enemies.
  • Jerek wrote:

    How about removing alliances but allowing a guild to have 1 friendly guild and 1 nemesis guild. Friendly guild would of course allow for non friendly fire and show up as purple now. Nemesis guild would allow for Guild vs Guild full loot pvp action anywhere in the game except for Royal Cities. In order to be nemesis both guilds have to have each other as enemies.
    Never liked the option to remove full open world PVP, This in return kills the game for most players, its not the small fights that are the problem its the large ones.
  • People will complain about mega guilds instead of mega alliances... when BA or Take Care can field 150-200 players and most other guilds are fielding 10 it wont change much except that smaller guilds will not have a chance to group together like they can now. I run an alliance of smaller/casual guilds and also run a mega guild so I really have nothing to gain or lose but I want what will get the most players playing the game and without alliances, I can see the MANY of the small guilds dying out with no effect on the mega-group issue.
  • GluttonySDS wrote:

    People will complain about mega guilds instead of mega alliances... when BA or Take Care can field 150-200 players and most other guilds are fielding 10 it wont change much except that smaller guilds will not have a chance to group together like they can now. I run an alliance of smaller/casual guilds and also run a mega guild so I really have nothing to gain or lose but I want what will get the most players playing the game and without alliances, I can see the MANY of the small guilds dying out with no effect on the mega-group issue.
    This is why alliances should be limited to 300 to 500 players to help with the guilds that can pull 100 to 200 in one guild, This is why a cap for total guilds isn't good and a set number limit is much better. I understand why they made the poll two options but really most the people who voted to remove alliances really just want a limit of around 300 to 500 players in a alliance.. 300 or 400 sounds good to me. This would give guilds with 300 another 100 alts or make guilds account and not single chars

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

  • With how Queen works you're able to rent out a HO in a Zone where another guild owns it.

    I believe that smaller guilds don't trust to rent out a zone. So I suggest that you create a system called Naps, where guilds can use this system for guilds who are renting. They can choose whether they want the nap with the alliance of the owners or just the guild owning the zone. So the guild under the nap will not be able to be attacked and vice versa. When these two guilds see each other they can be blue or another color, but basically they can't attack each other.

    I believe this will help Big guilds and small guilds to work with each other in the Black Zones.
  • Removing alliances affects smaller guilds more than large guilds.
    We are going to create individual specialized forces in the game so that only with another specialized force they can be confronted. We are not going to solve what causes the current problem but we are going to take the easiest path and end up creating another problem without any way to be corrected except going back.

    Removing alliances in the game will give even greater strength to large guilds. Guilds like BA, highly specialized in the new Albion Queen Online will continue to have the same strength in the game with the same quality in ZvZ and all other guilds will not be able to do anything in an equal number situation (or if they win it will be in one in every hundred) the only difference is that they now control 90 territories and have stopped securing so many numbers.

    This topic or the numbers of the pull does not represent the game community, only players in the forums.
  • MadamJayXD wrote:

    With how Queen works you're able to rent out a HO in a Zone where another guild owns it.

    I believe that smaller guilds don't trust to rent out a zone. So I suggest that you create a system called Naps, where guilds can use this system for guilds who are renting. They can choose whether they want the nap with the alliance of the owners or just the guild owning the zone. So the guild under the nap will not be able to be attacked and vice versa. When these two guilds see each other they can be blue or another color, but basically they can't attack each other.

    I believe this will help Big guilds and small guilds to work with each other in the Black Zones.
    That system is already in effect, its called Alliances. Or are you asking for two types.. Alliances and NAPS? really its the same if the small guilds want to ally with another they could just join the alliance.... So really two systems arn't needed and if they did then we would just see two large alliances NAP together and become even more powerful. Like BA and POE making a NAP that would be worse.

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

  • Unfortunately having so many time slots available causes the power projection problem as zergs can just move from zone to zone conquering. But I also understand time slots are needed to make content available at prime time for all players around the world. If this balance could be fixed in some way to force zerg blobs to split to conquer multiple areas instead of simply moving from zone to zone as a giant army that would also help massively.

    On another note I have always been a strong advocate of removing alliances altogether but can see how having a max player cap instead at somewhere between 300 to 500 would also accomplish the same objectives while allowing opportunities for small guilds to work together.