Poll: Alliance Feature

  • After they remove alliances and Squad/POE/1941 etc move to unofficial alliances and NAPs, what then?

    They'll have to remove the ability to see name tags in the black zone. What about after that when Squad (as 5 or so city-states) still owns all the inner ring?

    They'll have to limit it so only 40 people per guild can even enter the zone. What happens after that? They can remove the Custom permissions so guilds can no longer share hideout access. After that, they can hard cap towers to only 4 territories per guild.

    Before all this began, Blue Army was a solo guild of 300 strong men. Because some guilds are just a little too damn op, I suppose SBI will also have to cut those down to size. Only 150 per guild now.

    This is not about removing alliances. This is about asking SBI with tears in your eyes to undo the results of Squad's win in the initial war for Queen, undoing POE's empire in the green lock outlands, and so on.

    It doesn't matter what you do, the negative Nancy crowd is not gonna stop glooming and dooming and making demands no matter what. Once you begin catering to the 80% of very foolish very salty boys, its the beginning not the end. Once they get the taste of victory (having been denied such by the POEs and the BAs etc) they're not gonna stop complaining until they get Robin's job.

    Only if you remove alliances, remove view name tags, remove shared hideouts/workable NAPs, limit guilds to only 50, limit towers to only a few per guild, and stack huge zerg debuffs for 50+, only then maybe they'll be content for the first time in their Albion life.

    At some point, it stops being a sandbox and it becomes a central state engineered everyone gets a trophy farce.
  • TealMjM wrote:

    The Zerg debuff needs to be buffed massively; that is the real issue.
    It's really not, it's just one aspect of the problem from massive alliances. 50+ portal gankers not using comms swarming small groups is another massive problem with alliances. You chop alliances, you definitely reduce the numbers that is happening on that front. Won't stop completely but will definitely help.
    BoM, In our hearts and minds.
    Twitch
    Youtube
  • symanbg wrote:

    Make Albion Gathering Great Again

    JonahVeil wrote:

    TealMjM wrote:

    The Zerg debuff needs to be buffed massively; that is the real issue.
    It's really not, it's just one aspect of the problem from massive alliances. 50+ portal gankers not using comms swarming small groups is another massive problem with alliances. You chop alliances, you definitely reduce the numbers that is happening on that front. Won't stop completely but will definitely help.
    50 gankers on a portal? Lol what?
  • GluttonySDS wrote:

    symanbg wrote:

    Make Albion Gathering Great Again

    JonahVeil wrote:

    TealMjM wrote:

    The Zerg debuff needs to be buffed massively; that is the real issue.
    It's really not, it's just one aspect of the problem from massive alliances. 50+ portal gankers not using comms swarming small groups is another massive problem with alliances. You chop alliances, you definitely reduce the numbers that is happening on that front. Won't stop completely but will definitely help.
    50 gankers on a portal? Lol what?
    If you never experienced that, it's very probably because you are part of these gank squads. At this point, seeing all your posts I wonder if you are a troll or just very disconnected from the reality from players not being part of a mega alliance?

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

  • BruceLiChong wrote:

    GluttonySDS wrote:

    symanbg wrote:

    Make Albion Gathering Great Again

    JonahVeil wrote:

    TealMjM wrote:

    The Zerg debuff needs to be buffed massively; that is the real issue.
    It's really not, it's just one aspect of the problem from massive alliances. 50+ portal gankers not using comms swarming small groups is another massive problem with alliances. You chop alliances, you definitely reduce the numbers that is happening on that front. Won't stop completely but will definitely help.
    50 gankers on a portal? Lol what?
    If you never experienced that, it's very probably because you are part of these gank squads. At this point, seeing all your posts I wonder if you are a troll or just very disconnected from the reality from players not being part of a mega alliance?
    If you can show me some video of more than 50 people ganking in a portal zone, I'll gladly give you a few mil. Ive seen groups of 20 ganking in portal zones now (only because portal zones are one of the few places you can reliably find people since the map is so big now) but never seen anywhere close to 50.
  • GluttonySDS wrote:

    BruceLiChong wrote:

    GluttonySDS wrote:

    symanbg wrote:

    Make Albion Gathering Great Again

    JonahVeil wrote:

    TealMjM wrote:

    The Zerg debuff needs to be buffed massively; that is the real issue.
    It's really not, it's just one aspect of the problem from massive alliances. 50+ portal gankers not using comms swarming small groups is another massive problem with alliances. You chop alliances, you definitely reduce the numbers that is happening on that front. Won't stop completely but will definitely help.
    50 gankers on a portal? Lol what?
    If you never experienced that, it's very probably because you are part of these gank squads. At this point, seeing all your posts I wonder if you are a troll or just very disconnected from the reality from players not being part of a mega alliance?
    If you can show me some video of more than 50 people ganking in a portal zone, I'll gladly give you a few mil. Ive seen groups of 20 ganking in portal zones now (only because portal zones are one of the few places you can reliably find people since the map is so big now) but never seen anywhere close to 50.
    Ahahah it's really funny to see your discussion Bruce, ahahaha do you know with who are arguing with? With the leader of the Arch a more than 5000 players alliance who usually do what exactly you are complaining...but call them gankers it's for me and others as me a big insult because solo gank or small group gank is an art and a difficult one. The people you are talking about are newbies with no skill and experience who just sit down in the portal zone in big numbers no skill required so don't call them gankers they don't deserve that name just noob is already a honor. Portal campering with no skill required and things like that should be flushed and wiped out from the game, that what we are asking to Dev.

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

  • hypnoticshadow wrote:

    GluttonySDS wrote:

    BruceLiChong wrote:

    GluttonySDS wrote:

    symanbg wrote:

    Make Albion Gathering Great Again

    JonahVeil wrote:

    TealMjM wrote:

    The Zerg debuff needs to be buffed massively; that is the real issue.
    It's really not, it's just one aspect of the problem from massive alliances. 50+ portal gankers not using comms swarming small groups is another massive problem with alliances. You chop alliances, you definitely reduce the numbers that is happening on that front. Won't stop completely but will definitely help.
    50 gankers on a portal? Lol what?
    If you never experienced that, it's very probably because you are part of these gank squads. At this point, seeing all your posts I wonder if you are a troll or just very disconnected from the reality from players not being part of a mega alliance?
    If you can show me some video of more than 50 people ganking in a portal zone, I'll gladly give you a few mil. Ive seen groups of 20 ganking in portal zones now (only because portal zones are one of the few places you can reliably find people since the map is so big now) but never seen anywhere close to 50.
    Ahahah it's really funny to see your discussion Bruce, ahahaha do you know with who are arguing with? With the leader of the Arch a more than 5000 players alliance who usually do what exactly you are complaining...but call them gankers it's for me and others as me a big offence because solo gank or small group gank is an art and a difficult one. The people you are talking about are newbies with no skill and experience who just sit down in the portal zone in big numbers no skill required. That's why things like that should be flushed and wiped out from the game.
    They will also run if they see even close to the same numbers when they are ganking, Its pretty sad that they only want to feed on content they know they can win because its 20vs2 or 20vs4, But if 15 or more come they mount and run for the hills, Pretty sad man. It would be one thing if they ganked small groups or solo in waits for a larger more closer to there numbers fight, But they don't they just want that risk free bullshit content. Now to combat the ARCH or Glutt reply, I will say they prob don't run 100% of the time, But i bet its almost 95% of the time, And I'm not talking about your CTA's for zvz, I'm talking about your portal gankers or hell all your gankers.

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

  • Repeat dont call them gankers because they are not, they know nothing about ganking nether the basics.
    Ambush and kill a t8 gatherer in t4.1 alone is high level gank. In a team of 4-5 catch and take down a platinum rhyno is high level gank. So please don't insult people calling them gankers or using the verb gank when talking about noobs doing shitty things. They have only one role in the game: panic and give juicy loot when ambushed, they should log in only to do that and then log off, keep the roles.

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

  • What can we do, to get a different result of the poll? I mean, it was potentially not expected to get this result ...

    The question was so harsh, keep or remove that i'd never expected this to happen.

    If u get the choice to complete remove or keep nobody could expect the people so done with that Zerg crap, that they vote remove if forced to decide..

    Now we have the mess with the result.

    We can

    A) change the questions till we get a result that fits us more
    B) make a system wide poll, maybe we address different player groups that change this 1K votes
    C) call this vote not representative and ignore it
    D) claim there is no alternative to the current system because all else is not gonna work
    E) Accept the fact that people are done with Numbers bigger greater more?
  • My few cents.

    In my opinion, no matter what arbitrary caps are placed on guild or alliance members social structures will always circumvent them. Alliances and guilds are already working together and removing alliances would disproportionately harm the less organized. Highly organized alliances are already planning around ramifications removing this system might have.

    While I don't have a good solution for power projection, I think a big and easily addressable issue with the current system is incentives. Here are my thoughts about what's not working and what might fix it.
    • The tribute system currently gives a huge silver incentive for the mega alliances to take as much territory as possible, and extort or evict anyone who decides to remain. This feature should be removed from the game as quickly as possible. Let the diplomats and alliance leaders negotiate and rely on each other group's word.
    • There currently isn't any limit to the amount of season points alliances can acquire from territories, motivating them to acquire as many as possible to have the largest empire possible. My preposition is to limit season points to only being acquirable from a fixed number of territories. This would consolidate the individual alliances, and make the more desirable territories more intensely fought over, hopefully giving more room for smaller alliances to skirmish against more equally matched opponents elsewhere.
    • As an inverse of a proposed cap on the amount of territories that generate season points, I believe a "capital cluster" system would help smaller alliances defend against larger ones. Perhaps each alliance can designate a single cluster where they own a territory as their capital, significantly shortening the length of the vulnerability window on hideouts and territory fights, making it more difficult for the largest groups to remove dedicated defenders or assault large numbers of territories in a single battletime. Perhaps other cluster-wide benefits could be added similar to upgrading the tower in the zone, to reward small groups for owning only a single territory increasing overall diversity and upward momentum for smaller groups.
    Separate but related to incentives, it is also incredibly difficult for smaller alliances to band together against a larger common enemy, without giving up their identity and merging into a single alliance. While a standing system (where certain players, guilds, or alliances could mutually consent to disable hostile fire) would also help the largest empires band together, I believe it would be disproportionately beneficial for the smaller alliances (which can use all the help they can get.) Large alliances are already working together, this would just make it easier for everyone else to do the same.
    Head Diplomat for the Brave Newbie Alliance
  • I'm new to this game but I'm confused - shouldn't the entire point of alliances be for small guilds to band together to take on ZvZ content? I'm surprised that medium and large guilds are allowed to ally at all. That said, as both players and devs have stated, "alliances" will still happen whether the feature exists within the game or not. I don't know how long the alliance feature has been in the game, but I would have to ask, does the game feel any different at all with or without it? Isn't most of the map dominated by the largest guilds/alliances either way? Aren't small guilds left with nothing either way? I just don't see how the game can be any different with or without the feature.

    What has to change is incentive. If we don't want giant guilds/alliances dominating the game, we need to give them reasons not to. We need to give them reasons to want to be in smaller guilds. Just some examples:
    -Increase the anti-zerg mechanics. If zergs were actually being beaten by smaller groups, what do you think those zerg groups would do? They'd stop zerging and start bringing smaller groups.
    -Increase rewards the smaller your guild is. The bigger your guild, the smaller the reward. Make the reward for big guilds nearly pointless.

    There are REASONS massive guilds exist. If you want to take away massive guilds you need to take away the REASONS they exist in the first place. What other reasons can you think of to be in a large guild, and how can we decrease or remove those reasons?

    I think one of the most important questions regarding this entire topic is this: how many players do the developers want in territory battles? I've heard horror stories of hundreds of players in the same zone attempting to murder one another in a slideshow. Is that actually fun for anyone? While huge battles sound neat, I've personally found way more excitement, enjoyment, and fulfillment in smaller scale PVP where each individual's actions or mistakes matter much more. Do the players in massive guilds actually want to be in massive guilds, or are they only doing so because it's what's necessary to dominate?

    Change/remove the incentive, reason, necessity.
  • rujind wrote:

    I'm new to this game but I'm confused - shouldn't the entire point of alliances be for small guilds to band together to take on ZvZ content? I'm surprised that medium and large guilds are allowed to ally at all. That said, as both players and devs have stated, "alliances" will still happen whether the feature exists within the game or not. I don't know how long the alliance feature has been in the game, but I would have to ask, does the game feel any different at all with or without it? Isn't most of the map dominated by the largest guilds/alliances either way? Aren't small guilds left with nothing either way? I just don't see how the game can be any different with or without the feature.

    What has to change is incentive. If we don't want giant guilds/alliances dominating the game, we need to give them reasons not to. We need to give them reasons to want to be in smaller guilds. Just some examples:
    -Increase the anti-zerg mechanics. If zergs were actually being beaten by smaller groups, what do you think those zerg groups would do? They'd stop zerging and start bringing smaller groups.
    -Increase rewards the smaller your guild is. The bigger your guild, the smaller the reward. Make the reward for big guilds nearly pointless.

    There are REASONS massive guilds exist. If you want to take away massive guilds you need to take away the REASONS they exist in the first place. What other reasons can you think of to be in a large guild, and how can we decrease or remove those reasons?

    I think one of the most important questions regarding this entire topic is this: how many players do the developers want in territory battles? I've heard horror stories of hundreds of players in the same zone attempting to murder one another in a slideshow. Is that actually fun for anyone? While huge battles sound neat, I've personally found way more excitement, enjoyment, and fulfillment in smaller scale PVP where each individual's actions or mistakes matter much more. Do the players in massive guilds actually want to be in massive guilds, or are they only doing so because it's what's necessary to dominate?

    Change/remove the incentive, reason, necessity.
    the tons of disincentive was proposed long time ago often ..

    - increased trash rate based on assist vs small / ungriuped
    - exponentially food increase per hideout ) terrie
    - season points divided by player in alliance
    - tax based on total players in Alliance
    - decreased move speed based on total players in zone of same group / Alliance
    - limit total amount of terries someone can own and incentive for the best terries
    - friendly fire outside groups
    - list is endless

    But not put in so far
  • Hollywoodi wrote:

    the tons of disincentive was proposed long time ago often ..
    - increased trash rate based on assist vs small / ungriuped
    - exponentially food increase per hideout ) terrie
    - season points divided by player in alliance
    - tax based on total players in Alliance
    - decreased move speed based on total players in zone of same group / Alliance
    - limit total amount of terries someone can own and incentive for the best terries
    - friendly fire outside groups
    - list is endless

    But not put in so far
    The thing is, hardcore guilds like BA can and will circumvent this limitations. However such changes would be devastating to less organized guilds trying to band together.
  • Gerrit wrote:

    Hollywoodi wrote:

    the tons of disincentive was proposed long time ago often ..
    - increased trash rate based on assist vs small / ungriuped
    - exponentially food increase per hideout ) terrie
    - season points divided by player in alliance
    - tax based on total players in Alliance
    - decreased move speed based on total players in zone of same group / Alliance
    - limit total amount of terries someone can own and incentive for the best terries
    - friendly fire outside groups
    - list is endless

    But not put in so far
    The thing is, hardcore guilds like BA can and will circumvent this limitations. However such changes would be devastating to less organized guilds trying to band together.
    Really? Hardcore guilds are going to circumvent all of those completely unopposed? I'm pretty sure one in many of those would completely change the way the game is played. If Alliances were harder to keep up, less players would be in them. You don't think there's not dozens upon dozens of people in these mega alliances that would split off to form their own guilds and take their own territories if they had incentive to do so? That don't want to deal with leadership in these mega alliances?
  • When you introduce something new in the game that you SUPPOSE would work in a certain way IF people do not do something is childish.
    As I was saying before for example when you introduced solo dungeons but give possibility to enter to 200 people of course a group will go in don't care if everything crash is just fun kill without any risk or skill for sheeps. So is so simple solo dungeons? Solo means 1 person and that how it should be. let 1 person in and dungeon disappear end of discussion.
    Same for hideouts... you said EVERYONE WILL HAVE THE POSSIBILITY TO HAVE HIS OWN HIDEOUT and then let possible to destroy them just hoping bigger guild/alliance will be busy doing something else....how naive is this! Of course they will stay all day to search and destroy hideouts of people who can't defend properly by big ones just for fun. Make every one have an hideout, you place it and stays.
    If this is not your way of thinking at this point why you don't make also the gate of hellgates stay open and just saythey are supposed to be 2v2 so bigger groups will be busy doing something else...come on of course a 15 crew of sheeps will go in and take everything. Give LIMITATIONS that's the key don't leave that to human behavior.