Poll: Alliance Feature

  • Damn boy, you when all in on the right points!

    LordSilva wrote:

    Hollywoodi wrote:

    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?
    The questions presented in the pull were in no way asked correctly.It was the same as a doctor reaching cancer patient and asking, You want to keep the cancer or die? Without being given the option of possible treatments.
    And that's why the responses of less than 1,000 forum users are "remove".
    In this case we all know the causes of the problems, dozens of players pointed them out and dozens more gave them a way to treat them, just don't see the solution who doesn't want to see it, they were presented.



    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.
    Right now we are in a phase of the game where any attempt at competitiveness is based on a quantity system.This brings imbalances to the game because these quantitative systems have no limits, let alone cause a decrease in the advantages obtained.
    I live in a country where the higher your income, the higher the contribution rates, the big ones earn more, but also pay more.
    In the albino, the contribution is the same for everyone, play casually 1 hour a day or play intensively 6, 8 12 hours a day, the game always gives the same and always takes the same.
    Which is right, but if we look at the quantitative aspect of the rest of the game, we notice that everything that exists in the game is for the creation of groups, and the problem is exactly there.
    In the creation of groups, the advantages that the group receives gradually increase, they are no longer fixed as with an individual player. The larger the group, the greater their performance and influence in the game, but the counterparts are always the same, they do not keep up with the group's growth.
    Be it a group of 50, a group of 300 or a group of 4000, the penalties/tax/disadvantage are always the same and never organic.

    You don't need to apply HardCap to alliances, either in numbers and guilds or in the number of characters what needs to be done is to create ways to penalize these numbers so that after a certain level, it will no longer be completely viable to increase.
    In this way, players decide how far they will sacrifice their individual gameplay compared to the disadvantages caused by an increase in group power.


    Another situation that makes it "undesirable" to remove alliances from the game is the fact that we are no longer at a time when all the players would be at the same level.
    If when the game was released in 2017 it was without Alliances, it made sense, because everyone was at the same level and the impact of the change would not have an effect on the gameplay, but only on the game community. (all Betas with alliances and launch without alliances)

    Right now the change will have a negative effect on the gameplay as a whole, as the disparity between those considered elite groups and everyone else is huge and there is currently no way to balance that in the game.




    rujind wrote:

    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?
    300 characters is the hard cap created by the clusters.The ideal would be 40vs40 or 60vs60 but that will be in a game other than Albion. here as long as you don’t have the courage to make real debuffs like teams with more than 30/40 players in the same map, the game will always continue to be 400vs400 with CQ forcing players out of game content, simply because they’re new to the game and don’t have High IP.

    I personally, love a good 150vs150 fight, they are super fun for me, as a tank or rdps, but that love comes from my old EOS days. hehe! (the only PvP I hate is unbalanced irrational Gank) And yes, I like and I am against them, because they are restricting a game that I love even more than those battles that it provides me

  • Don't remove alliances because people will still do NAP's and that's fucking annoying without a system.

    The problem isn't alliances, is mega-alliances. Just cap it.
    A group of people can't have a system that allows them to dominate everything in Outlands.

    Talking about numbers, IMO the best way to cap it is:

    200 accounts per guild
    600 accounts or 3 guilds per ally.

    I guess you can't do something like 300 people per ally because guilds in alliance will limit each others slots.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Tanlor: Adding numbers ().

  • I still feel that we don't even need to go the route of removing or limiting alliances, We need the disarry debuff to really work on larger numbers, So for example. If you want alliances to split there zergs up make the disarry so bad after 100 players that they must bring 100 or less. So for example if you start bring players over 100 the disarry starts taking much more from the whole group, Which would include everything.


    • Stuns/CC Duriation
    • Health
    • Damage
    • Healing Power
    • Armor
    Once the group goes over 110 the disarry would get more powerful, this would rase the percent to 50% less power to everyone in all the things listed above, Then once again if the numbers of the whole alliance in the zone goes over say 115 the disarry percent increases again to say 75% less power to everyone in that zone in the same alliance. This would in return make zergs have to split down there numbers for that fight in the zone, This would make a "Limit" per zone system without hardcapping the zone its self to help when people are just traveling through zones and not fighting. This will also still allow small guilds to band together.

    We need the 300 main zerg to split down this would create more fights and content for everyone because rather then a 300vs300 you could have 3 100vs100 fights over different locations/terris/hideouts/castles.

    This would also help when wanting to change the numbers brought to lower tier zones, So for example if you wanted zones near the portal to be more for small guilds you could change the debuff starting numbers from 100 to say 50 for zones near/next to the portal there for making it easier for small guilds then after so many zones this limit would change from 50 to 100 for zones closer to the center. This would be the way I would go if this was my game.

    The post was edited 6 times, last by Neef ().

  • Why not introduce caps to zetg debuffs by zone tier similar to IP cap introduced to 5 man content that intended to make the matches more fair. You could make the debuff unbearable punishing in the lower tier black zones to essentially force them to not be able to numbers bully smaller guilds living there. See below.

    T5 zone: 100% zerg debuff applied on alliance group clusters of 21 and above

    T6 zone: 100% zerg debuff applied on alliance group clusters of 31 and above

    T7 zone: 100% zerg debuff applied to alliance group clusters of 51 and above

    T8 zone: No zerg debuff let this be the playground for the groups who truly enjoy the cluster fuck massive battles.

    This setup would also make it much harder for the BAs of the world to just crush people's hideouts in low tier zones just because they can which is what they have been doing. It would also small guilds a chance to compete in reasonable size ZvZs in the low tier zones without getting numbers crushed.
  • Exponential costs of taking more and more territory would help. If, say, a huge alliance had so many terris that the next one would cost 100m silver to attack, and they were paying 1m silver per day per terri, and paying 100% more silver on everything in their hideouts due to "corruption", they might think twice about taking more.
  • Tabor wrote:

    Why not introduce caps to zetg debuffs by zone tier similar to IP cap introduced to 5 man content that intended to make the matches more fair. You could make the debuff unbearable punishing in the lower tier black zones to essentially force them to not be able to numbers bully smaller guilds living there. See below.

    T5 zone: 100% zerg debuff applied on alliance group clusters of 21 and above

    T6 zone: 100% zerg debuff applied on alliance group clusters of 31 and above

    T7 zone: 100% zerg debuff applied to alliance group clusters of 51 and above

    T8 zone: No zerg debuff let this be the playground for the groups who truly enjoy the cluster fuck massive battles.

    This setup would also make it much harder for the BAs of the world to just crush people's hideouts in low tier zones just because they can which is what they have been doing. It would also small guilds a chance to compete in reasonable size ZvZs in the low tier zones without getting numbers crushed.
    In no way can it be linked to the level of the maps, as the T8 is spread throughout the world and with T5, 6 and 7 next to it which means that the big zergs were still on the maps to walk from T8 to T8.
  • Tabor wrote:

    Why not introduce caps to zetg debuffs by zone tier similar to IP cap introduced to 5 man content that intended to make the matches more fair. You could make the debuff unbearable punishing in the lower tier black zones to essentially force them to not be able to numbers bully smaller guilds living there. See below.

    T5 zone: 100% zerg debuff applied on alliance group clusters of 21 and above

    T6 zone: 100% zerg debuff applied on alliance group clusters of 31 and above

    T7 zone: 100% zerg debuff applied to alliance group clusters of 51 and above

    T8 zone: No zerg debuff let this be the playground for the groups who truly enjoy the cluster fuck massive battles.

    This setup would also make it much harder for the BAs of the world to just crush people's hideouts in low tier zones just because they can which is what they have been doing. It would also small guilds a chance to compete in reasonable size ZvZs in the low tier zones without getting numbers crushed.
    There is no reason not to cap t8 zones, Because 300vs300 fights are stupid anyways, If you were going the per zone tier, I would cap t8 zones around 100 to 125 players. No limits are the problem currently and not making them capped for t8 zones isn't fair to smaller or med guilds, Why should only mega alliances get t8 zones, This would also create the problem of the main mega alliances holding all t8 zones on the map. There needs to be a cap on t8 zones also, Because there are t8 zones everywhere not just the center and even if they were only in the center I still feel that anything over 125 is pointless and messy.
  • JugoDG wrote:

    People should stop complaining about getting overrun by the big alliances. Either fight against it or join them it is simple. If just any 20man guild could place down a hideout the entire map would be flooded with them.
    Hahaha looool. Currently Poe has a safe spot every 50 meters on the Outlands and they are still expanding this network. I think most people misunderstand the intentions here.

    I see that cta and big fights is essential part of the game. But everything else has been killed with the new map. Dungeons where most of mega alliance players ff are surrounded by friendly hideouts, hundreds of people are in the area ready to respond the call In case of enemy infiltrating them.

    The only hardcore way left in the game is to stay out of mega ally. Its only matter of time when people will be more bored with duties than excited about the everyday battles. This can't stay as it is.
  • After reading bunch of ideas on this topic I would summarize the following points should be implemented as a temporary solution first before any other permanent solution:
    • Bind account instead of character to guild.
    • Limit alliance accounts to X where X is the exact amount of the guild accounts limit.
    • There should be no limit to guilds in alliances.
    As for permanent solutions the following points could be applied (if alliance has more accounts then the limit):
    • Friendly-fire between allies
    • Global debuff based on the amount of players in the alliance
    • Debuf based on tier of cluster and amount of allied players in the same cluster
    • Increase cost of territories/hideout attacks based on the amount accounts linked to the alliance
    I think the best approaches are focused on discouraging alliances to be big and not really removing/limiting them.
    But for now we urgently need some kind of limitation.
  • Tanlor wrote:

    Don't remove alliances because people will still do NAP's and that's fucking annoying without a system.

    The problem isn't alliances, is mega-alliances. Just cap it.
    A group of people can't have a system that allows them to dominate everything in Outlands.

    Talking about numbers, IMO the best way to cap it is:

    200 accounts per guild
    600 accounts or 3 guilds per ally.

    I guess you can't do something like 300 people per ally because guilds in alliance will limit each others slots.

    you are contradicting yourself, the fact that its gonna be annoying just adds more juice to the gameplay

    Problem is its in people's nature to solve problems with numbers, removing alliances opens up more options in open world, majority of players dont even want to be competitive


    Just forget about season and territories, and think about how much more small scale fights there will be daily since everyone will be red

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

  • Roccandil wrote:

    Exponential costs of taking more and more territory would help. If, say, a huge alliance had so many terris that the next one would cost 100m silver to attack, and they were paying 1m silver per day per terri, and paying 100% more silver on everything in their hideouts due to "corruption", they might think twice about taking more.

    isnt the cost defending it daily, if you overextend yourself you gonna lose territories

    punishing people for owning worthless territories is not the way to go.

    just remove alliances, no access to terris for people other than the guild owning it and ez.
  • I'd really like changes that allow the flexibility of organization within alliances, but that severely pulls back on their advantages in open world and competitive play.

    The structure of alliances in game and players ability to organize in various ways are great. It's just that within the context of open world and season game play they are far too powerful.

    I will be a little sad if I don't get the chance to create my own zerg mega alliance in the future, but I am for things that make the game world better for everyone.
    Discord: Piddle#7413 "The purpose of existence is simple: everything is fuel for the magmaw." —Jaji, magmaw worshipper
  • tabooshka wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    Exponential costs of taking more and more territory would help. If, say, a huge alliance had so many terris that the next one would cost 100m silver to attack, and they were paying 1m silver per day per terri, and paying 100% more silver on everything in their hideouts due to "corruption", they might think twice about taking more.
    isnt the cost defending it daily, if you overextend yourself you gonna lose territories

    That's not how it's working, due to different primetimes and the fact that once an alliance gains many terris, they only need to defend the perimeter. So they can keep adding terris without increasing the practical number they have to defend.

    Innate, exponential cost to owning many terris would discourage that. But, if a small guild/alliance only had a few terris, they wouldn't be punished at all.