Poll: Alliance Feature

  • Guilefulwolf wrote:

    tabooshka wrote:

    no access to terris for people other than the guild owning it and ez.
    WTF
    Im not sure if i get what this guy propposes but it could be the dumbest idea here if it is what i understood.
    I think I did understand it in the same way and even being angry sometimes being killed that closing zones and allow only guild memebers that guild owns the terries would just kill the Albion spirit. This game is not softcore version.

    About alliances.... well they are way too big, way too strong and people saying that "why not make one big alliance and fight" are just not thinking at all. Of crouse big alliances put alot of work to actually be on that position, but because they did that for long time (growing) it's impossieble to create one on the same level, because simply they won't let you do it and other half defending people are just saying alliances are fine, because yea being in one let you "free" farm black zones where on every zone you have terries or hideouts own by allied guilds, so for sure you won't touch it and remove alliances.

    NAPs are "ok" solution because of the friendly fire and stuff, but for now I think that limitations could work best. Like lets say your alliance can have max cap of 600 (just example) players that doesn't block you with creating some NAP and coordinate attacks with two different guilds with a pact. Yes, it would be harder, but also challenging and letting smaller groups be on lets say same level to balance the chances.
    "The wolf on the hill is never as hungry as the wolf climbing the hill."

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

  • DoomRawrus wrote:

    I think more needs to be done to limit big alliances but simply removing alliances wont fix the problem many people are complaining about. Basically its going to go down like this, you remove alliances, then the big zerg guilds condense as many heavily active players as they can into single guilds.

    The next thing you will be seeing is small guilds who can only pull around 20 players getting obliterated by 300 man guilds that can pull 100+ members each CTA. All the alts and less combat oriented members (aka guild fat) will be purged into secondary guilds.

    The new meta will be either maximize your 300 slot limit with no life highly active members or go play WoW. Then, we will be seeing a new post called. "Please nerf guild sizes to 50 people max so small guilds can survive!"
    that is why u freaking limit guild/alliance max member limit TOGETHER to the same SIGNIFICANTLY LOW limit (50-150 member max).

    Theres no other ways, hardcore players will find any ways to dominate. This is the only way to save the game, you need to pit more hardcore players against each others in small groups (keeping each others in check).

    300 max guild/alliance limit doesnt freaking help because thats the amount in zergs mega alliance usually have.
  • Instead of this, can we just get the zerg debuff to only be able increase for players in a zone and not dynamically update to a lower value? The only time it should be able to lower is upon zone change in my opinion.

    This would make uneven zvz fights much more fair than they are now and remove the need for cluster que which doesn’t seem to be working well anyways. Dynamically updating this debuff for players in a zone every 30 seconds kinda defeats the purpose of it.
  • My take so far would be that, while an alliance feature removal would make cooperation harder, it would still be rather easily circumventable in a way that would create only little change compared to the current situation. Hence here are my propsals:
    1. The most important issue I see would be hideouts. A guild could keep the hideout open to all 'alliance members', hereby making it possible for alliances to continue rather easily. My proposal would be, that hideouts have only two settings: Private(=open to guild members) and Public(open to everyone).
    2. Secondary, while NAPs during ZvZs are extremely hard to manage, but in the eyes of the current big players it could become necessary to do this in order to guarantee an objective. In order to make this even more difficult(to ensure mostly pure guild vs guild fights) my suggestion would be, that when there are more than X amount of players in a cluster, Alliance/Guild Tags from enemies(reds) are hidden.
    3. And finally, there should be a lower cap(either hard or soft) on the amount of terries/hideouts a single guild can have. What the exact cap should be, I don't know. But situations like the current ones must be avoided.
    Will those changes prevent the top 5% of guilds of having the best 10-15% of terries? No. And that's absolutely fine. The best ZvZ guilds should have the best Terries and probs more terries than other guilds. But most guilds(40-70% of guilds with over 50 ZvZ members) should be able to have/defend at least one hideout/terry. And that is the issue at hand that needs to be looked at.
  • I don't think removing alliances solves anything and I think it would be most damaging specifically to smaller guilds. What is going to happen? We're going to see guild mergers into 300 person guilds where if you're not a part of one of these "mega guilds" you essentially are going to be irrelevant as a guild. At least now with an alliance, you can have a 30-40 man guild and be a part of a larger alliance, whereas having 300 people under one guild is going to be a significant advantage. Because 300 man guild A, is going to "alliance" with 300 man guild B and C, divy up the map and stomp every 30-40 man group that tries to contest them. So now that 30-40 man group needs to merge into another larger guild or they will not be able to compete with those "mega guilds".

    Under the current system that smaller guild could join an alliance to "gain power", under a guild capped system, the guild basically needs to disband and merge its membership somewhere. Removing alliances solves nothing and is only going to indirectly kill any chance smaller guilds have. The hand holding isn't going to go away if alliances are removed, the mega-alliances/guilds are already good at managing the politics of complicated relationships. The smaller guilds are going to be the ones screwed because now it's significantly harder for them to "team up" with other guilds.
  • tabooshka wrote:

    Vindrax wrote:

    . The smaller guilds are going to be the ones screwed because now it's significantly harder for them to "team up" with other guilds.
    or theres gonna be more independent small guilds since they wont be forced to join an alliance creating competitive environment between themselves
    So when the 300 man guild comes for the territory the 25 man guild took on reset day, they're just going to beat them away with their superior skill? So the smaller independent guilds can own territories for 2-3 days after reset before losing them to mega-guilds, sounds like a great competitive environment.

    The same thing that is happening now with a mega alliance situation will still happen exactly the same without alliances. Or do you not remember entire seasons where OOPS/POE wouldn't launch attacks on each other and just divided up Mercia/Cumbria then GvG'ed in Anglia? Those same deals will be present, it's just going to be done on a mega-guild level versus mega-alliance level. Please explain where this competitive smaller guild environment is going to flourish, because I don't see it happening. Like realistically, what is a 25 man guild going to do if a 300 man guild comes into their section of the map and starts taking their territory and attacking their hideout?
  • All theses post about OMG but small guilds will get owned by big 300 man guilds, Its simple limit guilds to 300 accounts and alliances to 300 accounts, That way the small guilds can join alliances to makeup for there small 50 player guild numbers, If you took 6 50 man guilds and put them in a alliances boom there @ 300. Same as the big guild all alone. Problem fixed.


    Though I still think the disarry zerg buff should be the fix to theses problems, If it was buffed so strong that it made zergs split boom problems fixed, Also I feel that what DIP said is correct the debuff should remain for the whole fight that way it makes it more required to split down there force. Only way the debuff would go down is if they enter a new zone. A strong disarry would make a "CAP" on how many can be brought to 1 zone without limiting the zone itself. Best option I think. This also keeps alliances for small guilds or mega alliances that want to split up there numbers and have many fights over 1 large fight. I don't understand this need to bring 300vs300 why can't we have 3 100vs100 I would think that would be more fun hell even 6 50vs50 would be more fun, This is the way it should be. More fights overall more things being taken/defended overall.
  • That doesn't matter, we just want everyone on the same playing field one guild vs one guild is far game. If you are in a guild of 100 trying to take land from one with 300 you might lose because of numbers but you always have the chance to recruit and grow to challenge them next season or week or how ever long it takes. With alliances a single guild will almost never have a chance right?

    I have no idea what I'm talking about tho.


    Vindrax wrote:

    tabooshka wrote:

    Vindrax wrote:

    . The smaller guilds are going to be the ones screwed because now it's significantly harder for them to "team up" with other guilds.
    or theres gonna be more independent small guilds since they wont be forced to join an alliance creating competitive environment between themselves
    So when the 300 man guild comes for the territory the 25 man guild took on reset day, they're just going to beat them away with their superior skill? So the smaller independent guilds can own territories for 2-3 days after reset before losing them to mega-guilds, sounds like a great competitive environment.
    The same thing that is happening now with a mega alliance situation will still happen exactly the same without alliances. Or do you not remember entire seasons where OOPS/POE wouldn't launch attacks on each other and just divided up Mercia/Cumbria then GvG'ed in Anglia? Those same deals will be present, it's just going to be done on a mega-guild level versus mega-alliance level. Please explain where this competitive smaller guild environment is going to flourish, because I don't see it happening. Like realistically, what is a 25 man guild going to do if a 300 man guild comes into their section of the map and starts taking their territory and attacking their hideout?
    That doesn't matter, we just want everyone on the same playing field one guild vs one guild is far game. If you are in a guild of 100 trying to take land from one with 300 you might lose because of numbers but you always have the chance to recruit and grow to challenge them next season or wekk o
  • Perhaps a simpler solution for the whole problem could be to change the regions´ population cap from 300 to 200 or 150 players max.

    Regions could also have different caps depending on their tier. Like 150 max. for T5, 200 max. for T6, 250 max. for T7 and 300 max. for T8. This way smaller tier regions would be disputed by smaller forces.

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

  • Guilefulwolf wrote:

    Perhaps a simpler solution would be to change the regions´ population cap from 300 to 200 or 150 players max.

    Regions could also have different caps depending on their tier. Like 150 max. for T5, 200 max. for T6, 250 max. for T7 and 300 max. for T8. This way smaller tier regions would be disputed by smaller forces.
    I don't think an overall cap it the way to go, If anything the cap should be alliance caps for zones, Like only 150 from the same alliance can be in that zone, But then again the disarry buff could do this without putting a cap on any of this, It just needs to be strong to make players follow the cap while also not decreasing the cap while players fight, The debuff should only change when the zone is changed. So like if you had 150 players with a 75% decrease stat buff this buff would remain 75% even if half the people died, That way it makes them think more about bring-ing that 150 players, The debuff should only change on zone change, So if half the people died and they run to a different zone then the debuff will scale down to the new numbers of the zerg, This would make people think more about how many come to that fight. While the people left could go find another fight which also would create more content and fights overall.

    EDIT: I also want to add in about bypassing the Disarry debuff by having two alliances for the "same" alliance this would prob/maybe happen weither they remove alliances or limit them anyways, So really it doesn't matter which option you choice on this point, Though I still feel that the Friendly Fire will create more problems then its worth therefor fix itself at the end of the day, Friendly Fire in this game will be to hard to manage, I am willing to bet on it. This is not Eve Online with space ships flying around.

    Also want to say Its not working the way it is, Why not try something new, If its more of a problem we can address that then, But lets not say well they will just create two alliances and fight together anyways, We don't know what will happen but We do know there is a problem right now. its better to try something then nothing.

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

  • Neef wrote:

    Guilefulwolf wrote:

    Perhaps a simpler solution would be to change the regions´ population cap from 300 to 200 or 150 players max.

    Regions could also have different caps depending on their tier. Like 150 max. for T5, 200 max. for T6, 250 max. for T7 and 300 max. for T8. This way smaller tier regions would be disputed by smaller forces.
    I don't think an overall cap it the way to go, If anything the cap should be alliance caps for zones, Like only 150 from the same alliance can be in that zone, But then again the disarry buff could do this without putting a cap on any of this, It just needs to be strong to make players follow the cap while also not decreasing the cap while players fight, The debuff should only change when the zone is changed. So like if you had 150 players with a 75% decrease stat buff this buff would remain 75% even if half the people died, That way it makes them think more about bring-ing that 150 players, The debuff should only change on zone change, So if half the people died and they run to a different zone then the debuff will scale down to the new numbers of the zerg, This would make people think more about how many come to that fight. While the people left could go find another fight which also would create more content and fights overall.
    EDIT: I also want to add in about bypassing the Disarry debuff by having two alliances for the "same" alliance this would prob/maybe happen weither they remove alliances or limit them anyways, So really it doesn't matter which option you choice on this point, Though I still feel that the Friendly Fire will create more problems then its worth therefor fix itself at the end of the day, Friendly Fire in this game will be to hard to manage, I am willing to bet on it. This is not Eve Online with space ships flying around.

    Also want to say Its not working the way it is, Why not try something new, If its more of a problem we can address that then, But lets not say well they will just create two alliances and fight together anyways, We don't know what will happen but We do know there is a problem right now. its better to try something then nothing.
    I agree that half the problem would be fixed with a much stronger zerg debuff which makes it worthless to send more than 100 players to fight per cluster while the other half would be solved by limitting the expansión ability,like higher attack declarations costs as more clusters controls the alliance when paying for them.

    But devs dont look like wanting to change much more the zerg debuff and if the alliances feature get removed it would not change the situation for smaller alliances at all because former alliated guilds GMs will still work together. This will give a big advantage because instead of sending 200 players sharing alliance to fight in a cluster with its consecuent zerg debuff, there will be now 2x100 or 3x70 men zergs fighting together to flank non alliated zergs being less affected by the zerg debuff and the smart queue.

    The high regions population cap is what is propitiating this whole problem to happen. Being 150, 200, 250 and 300 for T5-T8 respectively would make each tier land accessible for different forces sizes.
  • Vindrax wrote:

    tabooshka wrote:

    Vindrax wrote:

    . The smaller guilds are going to be the ones screwed because now it's significantly harder for them to "team up" with other guilds.
    or theres gonna be more independent small guilds since they wont be forced to join an alliance creating competitive environment between themselves
    So when the 300 man guild comes for the territory the 25 man guild took on reset day, they're just going to beat them away with their superior skill? So the smaller independent guilds can own territories for 2-3 days after reset before losing them to mega-guilds, sounds like a great competitive environment.
    The same thing that is happening now with a mega alliance situation will still happen exactly the same without alliances. Or do you not remember entire seasons where OOPS/POE wouldn't launch attacks on each other and just divided up Mercia/Cumbria then GvG'ed in Anglia? Those same deals will be present, it's just going to be done on a mega-guild level versus mega-alliance level. Please explain where this competitive smaller guild environment is going to flourish, because I don't see it happening. Like realistically, what is a 25 man guild going to do if a 300 man guild comes into their section of the map and starts taking their territory and attacking their hideout?
    Im baffled how cant you see thats a good thing, mega guilds are way better for the game than alliances currently. Game shouldnt be balanced around 1 guild that can pull massive numbers because of their members being dedicated to the game. If they can and are willing to put in the work and attend every CTA then they deserve every territory they have.

    Also not a single "mega guild" will bother with a small guild that took meaningless territory on reset day most of the time, however you will see medium sized guilds for sure going for you anyway like we see currently
    There are exceptions of course, just like big alliances running over medium solo guilds currently. Season wise not much changes, however outside of the season content amount and opportunity increases as theres more small groups around.


    Like I said, forget about territories and season, and focus on open world, economy and pvp. Endless benefits of removing alliances. THE MORE SMALL GROUPS IN OPEN WORLD THE BETTER

    You could own few terris with a 5man team before, people complained now you cant so I dont understand gvg argument, you still didnt have any territories.

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