Poll: Alliance Feature

  • 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.
    Realy? Do you know that this would be used to cancel the Disarray and Cluster Queue.
  • LordSilva wrote:

    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.
    Pretty much this -- the strong guilds now (the ones in squak 1941 poe) will become EVEN stronger now with less of an ability to group against them.
  • Wilburn wrote:

    Guilds are capped at 300 characters.

    Cap Alliances at 300 characters.

    This allows small guilds to band together to fight against a large guild.

    NAPs will happen and that's ok.
    This but like this


    Guilds are capped at 300 Accounts.


    Cap Alliances at 300. Accounts also



    This allows small guilds to band together to fight against a large guild.


    NAPs will happen and that's ok. Friendly Fire will destory them, This game is not Eve Online.

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

  • @Neef

    No I'm talking about Having a NAP System only when you're renting a HO in a Zone from a guild that owns that Zone. It could be tweaked to only 1 guild you can have a NAP with. This is different from alliances, alliances have to share season points this is a different system, that I feel should be implemented so that smaller guilds that want to rent can feel safer in doing so.

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

  • MadamJayXD wrote:

    @Neef

    No I'm talking about Having a NAP System only when you're renting a HO in a Zone from a guild that owns that Zone. It could be tweaked to only 2 guilds you can have a NAP with. This is different from alliances, alliances have to share season points this is a different system. That i feel should be implemented so that smaller guilds that want to rent can feel safer in doing so.
    But your also making them not red, Not attackable therefor making this highly exploitable. Why do you need to NAP to rent a hideout, If the guild agrees to not attack your hideout that should be all you need, If they do you will have plently of time to move stuff if its fully built because it has shields and takes a few days even @ level 1, Also you shoud only pay them each day or every few days so you don't "lose" a months worth of payments.
  • The problem with the game is that a large alliance manages to bring 600 players together in a ZvZ:
    Disarray needs to be stronger, be connected to players IP and affect HP, CC and Ability timers. Cluster Queue must be connected to players IP too and the number of players waiting in queue in adjacent territories also need to affects the Disarray system.

    The problem with the game is that a large alliance can control an absurd number of towers:
    The more territories the alliances control, the more fees they should pay and for everything in the game, from repair to markets, from craft to refining etc.
    The attack values for the towers must be linked to towers LvLs and the number of towers in control of the attacking alliance. Tie launch cost to tower level. Level 1 tower = 500k cost. L2 = 1m. L3=2m, L4=4m, L5=8m, L6=12m, plus an % for every tower the attacking guild control's. (more towers you control, more you will paid to make another attack and according to the tower level)

    The problem with the game is that a large alliance power projection in the map:
    Reduce the number of hideouts to only two. Only the guild that owns the hideout can set as Home in that hideout and have one controlled access exactly like this:
    Public (everyone enter), Alliance (everyone in the alliance can enter) or Private (everyone in the guild can enter it).



    FF will penalize everyone in the game whether on a small scale or on a large scale, will all be affected in the same way and exactly the same thing will happen as the Overcharge that was supposed to create a greater balance between small and large, but it didn't balance anything at all. FF will keep the current problems in the game with the aggravation of penalizing all new players, making the game even more elitist! The same with the removal of Alliances.

    And no, in this game the NAPs will be much more fragile than what the players think, they can last for a while, sooner or later, in a castle or in a tower, someone in both forces will do crap and the NAP ends and they become rivals.
  • Guilefulwolf wrote:



    1. Make every cluster tower claimable by anyone for free at the beginning of the cluster´s prime time every day (If the owner of the cluster canalices the tower then it remains under its control). This would force guilds to stay and watch their already controlled clusters alike to how castles/outposts mechanic works. So they cant go so easily to conquer other lands when they have no declared attacks to defend.

    1.1 Instead of food, Charge a daily fee to guilds depending on the amount of controlled clusters they have. It could be in an exponential way like: 1 cluster = 1M/day, 2 = 4M/day, 3 = 9M/day and so on. I doubt any guild will want to go over 2 or 3 clusters this way because yes, 6 clusters would mean a daily fee of 36 millions and 10 cluster would mean a 100 millions daily fee.

    2. Another way to limit the ability of alliances to hyper expand could be to change the attack declaration price. Instead of a fixed 2M pay, make it 1M*controlled clusters by the alliance. I.E. if an alliance controls 20 clusters the cost for declaring attacks for that alliance would be 20 millions each.

    This could also encourage guilds to use the tributes system and charge small guilds to let them have their own hide outs.

    I´d like to know what guys like @LordSilva @Neef and @ImaDoki think about this.

    1. There is an issue here to me that is forcing people to tryhard every single day. If there are no attacks or defenses for a given day i believe the guild can go on a 'vacation' to rest a little. It can be very time consuming and will also hurt small guilds. (specially them)

    1.1 I would have both food and silver cost, nothing against it and would also work as a silver sink. But again, might hurt small guilds. Even 1m/day can hurt.

    2. nothing against here.



    I would still keep the 5 territories max per alliance, but would have nothing against adding extra costs to keeping them. Always remember, though, that big alliances/guilds don't care much about this kind of costs. It will mostly hurt small guilds unless they start really low and scale BRUTALLY fast.
  • Neef wrote:

    Wilburn wrote:

    Guilds are capped at 300 characters.

    Cap Alliances at 300 characters.

    This allows small guilds to band together to fight against a large guild.

    NAPs will happen and that's ok.
    This but like this

    Guilds are capped at 300 Accounts.


    Cap Alliances at 300. Accounts also



    This allows small guilds to band together to fight against a large guild.


    NAPs will happen and that's ok. Friendly Fire will destory them, This game is not Eve Online.
    Capping at 300 accounts wouldn't be bad... but how to solve acconts with already 3 characters with personal/individual guild islands?
  • Alliance removal ingame wont change anything
    And if it was a thing nothing would stop BA... A guild solo zvz wise they are by far the best atm and pulling big numbers 24/7
    Sbi made the game even more zergy with Queen and now are trying to reduce zergs....lool
    Also shouldnt they have thougt about alliance removal before everyone made Alliance wide decisions about locations and HO placements
    Some maps have entire alliances HO next to eachother
    Now they just gonna make everyone enemies and fck HOs of weaker guilds in alliances atm?
    Or they gonna give free HO moves if they do remove alliances
    Lolol
    Sbi are clueless
    Huge alliances been a problem since betas and now that HO decisions of alliances are a big thing is when they decide to address the problem.
    Hahahah. Pathetic
  • ImaDoki wrote:

    Neef wrote:

    Wilburn wrote:

    Guilds are capped at 300 characters.

    Cap Alliances at 300 characters.

    This allows small guilds to band together to fight against a large guild.

    NAPs will happen and that's ok.
    This but like this
    Guilds are capped at 300 Accounts.


    Cap Alliances at 300. Accounts also



    This allows small guilds to band together to fight against a large guild.


    NAPs will happen and that's ok. Friendly Fire will destory them, This game is not Eve Online.
    Capping at 300 accounts wouldn't be bad... but how to solve acconts with already 3 characters with personal/individual guild islands?
    Well personal island wouldn't be effected because guild doesn't matter, Also if you had a guild island for your alt you should have to either make another account and make the alt the lead of the guild and the ownership then could be transfered to that char. Ownership of the island is part of being GM, So you would just need another account Also you don't need prem for guild islands. 1 time kinda like the island move, Or you could just transfer leader to an alt and keep ownership of the guild island on the same char as owning the island shouldn't effect really anything other then if you are the guild leader of your main guild then you would just have two guild islands on that 1 char, Not really game breaking.

    EDIT: Also I feel like the ownership of a guild island should be set by the guild leader anyways, So like if you ever wanted to quit the game once you hand over GM that person then would become the "owner" of the guild island anyways.

    EDIT2: Well I just tested this and when you make another char GM they become the island owner anyways, So yeah if you had a guild island on your alt on your main account you could just make another account and transfer the GM over to a char on that account, Problem fixed.

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

  • Hey, no one gonna read this but hey if you wanna change mega alliances.
    You say open world, but players say law.

    You can set a max alliance territory number.(exp x territory/ alliance).
    You can capture more, but
    • territories guard, mage etc get weaker to the point your guard say bye bye to defend this many territory.
    • after x territory the silver price constantly going up for the point is it worth it?
    The alliance will bring more people to defend this x territory.

    Mega and Strong alliances guilds will make smaller alliances but it wont stop anything,
  • Neef wrote:

    Wilburn wrote:

    Guilds are capped at 300 characters.

    Cap Alliances at 300 characters.

    This allows small guilds to band together to fight against a large guild.

    NAPs will happen and that's ok.
    This but like this

    Guilds are capped at 300 Accounts.


    Cap Alliances at 300. Accounts also



    This allows small guilds to band together to fight against a large guild.


    NAPs will happen and that's ok. Friendly Fire will destory them, This game is not Eve Online.
    Personally think 300 is still too much, 100-150 will be a good numbers (for both guild and alliance). No one cares about alts u r not supposed to have alt in the first place according to albion online T&C .

    You wanna encourage 20-50 players vs 20-50 players fights
    reasons:
    1.Signifcantly reduce mega zergs, solve the CURRENT ISSUE
    2.lower barrier of entry : this size of fight is very easy for for most people to participate and easier for new shotcallers because people will follow their lead, fights with more than that number is just mega zergs and easily failed due to players cchoosing better shotcallers. With this number of players, group of players can more easily group up an army to fight any fights.
    3.More people's pc CAN ACTUALLY HANDLE IT ( u designed this game to be cross platform JHESUS)

    Dont say bullshite like this cant work, if this cant work, YOU MAKE CHANGES IN OTHER AREAS to make this work.
    This is literally the only way to solve the current issue.
    @Korn

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

  • Limit the numbers

    Guild max member to 60.
    Alliances to 3-5 guild.

    I know NAPs will still be made by many alliance but the high tier resources(season pts included) of zone is limited.
    We can expect NAPs broken because of this.



    Developers should use a bit of the dark forest theory and make this more immersive
    by removing nametags(name in game chat/stats/inspect) of non allied guild in the blackzone when the zone you are in is territorial battle.
    or by completely removing nametags(name in game chat/stats/inspect) of non allied guild in blackzone.
    afterall it's called BLACKZONE

    teamspeak and other communication software even with those mistake can be made during engage as only guild leaders are talking.
    This should allow small guild to contest for territories with less contested resource(season pts included)/zone to start up their guild and make way to the top.



    @Korn

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