Poll: Alliance Feature

  • Eltharyon wrote:

    Hey everyone,

    thanks for all the feedback on this topic, so far it seems very clear. We'll leave the poll open for a while to collect additional data and think through our options. At the beginning of next week we'll let you know how we'll proceed on this topic.

    Sincerely,

    Robin 'Eltharyon' Henkys
    Game Director
    There is a known alliance that I will not mention to not make this comment more controversial which is making a mandatory for all members of the alliance to vote to keep alliances. As others said you have to be careful with this most have been asking for this a long time ago although the voting clearly shows this you have to keep it in mind that 20% of the community was forced to vote they want to keep alliances.
  • OriginalGangster wrote:

    Eltharyon wrote:

    Hey everyone,

    thanks for all the feedback on this topic, so far it seems very clear. We'll leave the poll open for a while to collect additional data and think through our options. At the beginning of next week we'll let you know how we'll proceed on this topic.

    Sincerely,

    Robin 'Eltharyon' Henkys
    Game Director
    There is a known alliance that I will not mention to not make this comment more controversial which is making a mandatory for all members of the alliance to vote to keep alliances. As others said you have to be careful with this most have been asking for this a long time ago although the voting clearly shows this you have to keep it in mind that 20% of the community was forced to vote they want to keep alliances.
    There were way more CTAs to remove them. Most large alliances want alliances gone.
    IGN: DungeonRealms
  • I'm too new to have real opinion on the whole alliance thing so I can't/won't comment on that.

    All I will say is that at the time of this posting only 854 votes were cast. I warn the Dev's from making any hasty decisions based on such low numbers in a game that from what I can see has 10's of thousands playing. Such a small number does not in any way give a correct representation of the actual player base out playing the game.

    Again I have no thoughts either way but I have found over the decades that games changed because of opinion polls by gamers who don't have all the necessary information to make decisions often create more issues for themselves.
    I'm a bomb technician...… If you see me running, try to keep up!
  • Tabor wrote:

    Reddit and forums do however represent a sizable chunk of the player base that actually care enough about the game to discuss issues and provide feedback. The 800+ votes in about 24 hours is actually astonishingly high.
    TBH I've found that the ones that are most vocal on the forums are often the ones with the biggest gripes that are more often than not really only trying to make 'their' game easier for them.

    Not saying it the case but experience has born it out at a silly hit rate so far.

    As for caring enough, well it's still the case that the majority of players are not very active in any online game forum community, and lets face it reddit pulls from the lower end of the internet barrel most of the time as well.

    All I'm getting at is for the Dev's to BE VERY VERY CAREFUL when making big fundamental changes to their game based on small numbers of vocal opinions of a small number of the actual players... as anyone should when making choices of such scale to their product.
    I'm a bomb technician...… If you see me running, try to keep up!
  • Remove alliances.

    Make joining a guild done via your "account".

    Guilds can fit a max of 300 accounts.(this also stabs the alt issues, but making new accounts isn't hard so not as if it solves it)

    Change AoE's to do more damage at their center, and increasing less dmg/effect the further into their radius. Promoting skill, allowing people to want to fight outnumbered more.

    Introduce a stronger Diminishing return, IE, if a locust was just used on a target within 10 seconds, another locust will do absolutely nothing. Causing people to have to coordinate more, and not just spam down E's with more numbers.

    Take a strong look at AoE damage increase based on targets hit. While I'll agree that it MAY help people who are outnumbered, it goes both ways. I would prefer to see long back and forth fights instead of 50 people getting one shot by something they could barely see coming from south screen.

    Allow us to spin our camera, ( or atleast explore the option ) South to north is a massive advantage and while we can argue it gives some tactics to fights, it also causes a lot of silly engagements to happen IMO. a Grovekeeper hitting you when you can't even see the cast animation from south screen is one example of silliness.

    Take a hard look at 2v2s, 5v5s, 10v10s, 20v20s. Balance the game around these forms of PvP. If you balance from the ground up, ZvZ will also in turn be better balanced. If you try to balance the game on ALL fronts, you end up with a mess, which is what we have now.

    Battlemounts are the only thing that counters battlemounts, which we could argue is a form of balance, but at the same time, they should have DR's so that it doesn't come down to more battlemounts = who wins.

    Take a look at focus fire protection and see if it's actually doing what it was intended for. I'll say when I get 10v1'd and die in 2 seconds, I sure as hell don't notice it. The only part it's noticeable is when a max spec tank in 8.1+ is frontlining in a ZvZ, is that really what it was intended for? Does this mechanic even serve a purpose? Shouldn't people out of position be getting punished by people FOCUS FIRING them? We even have focus fire protection in 5v5s, it makes next to no sense.

    Stand time is not a fun mechanic. It makes the game and a lot of weapons feel clunky. Change stand time for cast time which opens up windows of interrupt for counter play. Or no cast time at all in some cases. If stand time is in place to balance for people with higher ping, I'll just have to state that you can't balance a game around different ping variations. Balance from the ground up and players will learn to compensate.

    There's a million other suggestions and ideas I could throw out, but we can start here.
    BoM, In our hearts and minds.
    Twitch
    Youtube
  • glokz wrote:


    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
    I mean, that's just where I heard it from so I wanted to give credit to the source I got it from.

    That #3 is a little iffy IMO, I personally don't think capping any of that will matter if alliances are removed and I honestly enjoyed the day that the minorities became the majority when over throwing both OOPs and then PoE when they controlled all of Mercia.
  • blappo wrote:

    Madrax573 wrote:

    All I will say is that at the time of this posting only 854 votes were cast.
    there is another active poll that has been up for like 4 more days than this and only has 100 votes, most players do not use the forums they are too casual to care about changing the game for the better.
    These forums have become extremely dead honestly, used to be more active in betas.
    BoM, In our hearts and minds.
    Twitch
    Youtube
  • Keep alliances. I’m in a small alliance (around 400 players) with good presence in BZ. We have been doing great. By removing alliances, we will be forced us to merge in one guild to keep playing together.
    I get all the complaints but sometimes looks like it is because most strong alliances can’t compete against the dominating alliance. Tbh, with alliances or not, it won’t change much, they will still dominate because they still have numbers/active players. It will just make alliances like mine merge into one guild.
  • Im an active player who never uses the forum, i found this thread through my guild's discord.
    As a member in a big alliance i would choose to remove the alliances if that's my only two choices.

    I would like to see a cap on total players within a alliance or a "better" zerg debuff.
    If you have for ex. a zerg debuff on 20%, it should also give you 20% longer CD, 20% less CC-duration, 20% increased energy cost etc.
  • . Guild to 50 accounts max.
    . Remove alliance
    . Limit the number of territories/castles/hideouts like 3 territories, 1 castle, 3 hideouts ( public or guild permissions)

    Leave the space to everyone, don't listen to big alliances boys that again try to find excuses to save their ass. Small scale pvp is albion not stupid laggy zerg of sheeps who blast with open palm on keyboards. And give more space to solo players.
  • I know that the game allows the transmission of information to all the characters at the same time.

    However, whenever we have any relevant information on the forum, or in this particular case when a Pull is created on the forum to collect feedback from the community, these PMs are not sent to request players' participation.

    This Pull in no way represents the community because in a topic created at 05/02 12:40am and where only less than 1,000 forum accounts answered, this in no way represents what this community really wants, to someone at 02h41pm answer "so far it seems very clear."
    We need more participation than just those 890 votes.
    @Eltharyon open your eyes plz, dont destroy your game!
  • 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.
    This is what I want :)
  • AlterEgo wrote:

    I know that the game allows the transmission of information to all the characters at the same time.

    However, whenever we have any relevant information on the forum, or in this particular case when a Pull is created on the forum to collect feedback from the community, these PMs are not sent to request players' participation.

    This Pull in no way represents the community because in a topic created at 05/02 12:40am and where only less than 1,000 forum accounts answered, this in no way represents what this community really wants, to someone at 02h41pm answer "so far it seems very clear."
    We need more participation than just those 890 votes.
    @Eltharyon open your eyes plz, dont destroy your game!
    Yeah Eltharyon just don't listen to big alliances boys who doesn't want to sink. The pull speaks clear. Blablabla a lot of excuses, facts not words.