Poll: Alliance Feature

  • Guilefulwolf wrote:

    Fred_the_Barbarian wrote:

    Dumb idea for a disarray buff: As your zerg size increases you start to deal friendly fire at an increasing amount of damage to allies. Bring 50 people and your siegebow is going to annoy your tank. Bring 300 and it'll deal full damage to him. Numbers are tweakable.
    That idea was already given.
    That's why my proposal was debuff of numbers in alliances
    1k - 10% debuff
    2k - 20% debuff
    Debuff will be for dmg deal,cc duration, heal
    Who want and like doing ZVZ can keep doing it,
    In rest of conent they will be much debuffed.. are you decide to join big alliances be ready your HG,RD,AVALONS, etc.. will be muich harded % of numbers in alliances.
    For now big alliances got full monopol for everything, resources,bosses,chests,HG,FF, etc..
  • UNFM wrote:

    Guilefulwolf wrote:

    Fred_the_Barbarian wrote:

    Dumb idea for a disarray buff: As your zerg size increases you start to deal friendly fire at an increasing amount of damage to allies. Bring 50 people and your siegebow is going to annoy your tank. Bring 300 and it'll deal full damage to him. Numbers are tweakable.
    That idea was already given.
    That's why my proposal was debuff of numbers in alliances1k - 10% debuff
    2k - 20% debuff
    Debuff will be for dmg deal,cc duration, heal
    Who want and like doing ZVZ can keep doing it,
    In rest of conent they will be much debuffed.. are you decide to join big alliances be ready your HG,RD,AVALONS, etc.. will be muich harded % of numbers in alliances.
    For now big alliances got full monopol for everything, resources,bosses,chests,HG,FF, etc..
    That idea is senseless and will never happen that way. Thers not any need to debuff or balance in any of those small scale contents.

    Devs r looking for a way to deal with the huge zergs overwhelming smaller ones and the expansion ability of alliances not to punish people just for being in them.

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

  • I love SQUAD
    I love handholding
    I want to slowly destroy the game
    I want only ''red vs blue'' fights all season
    I love 1 fps fights
    I enjoy zone locking
    I love to abuse smart cluster que
    I really do enjoy big alliance leaders RMT'ing their money out of the game
    I'm happy when i can run over small guildsI'm CTA warrior
    please consider keeping alliances and making minimum alliance size to 3000 atleast.

    Albion Online in 2020 OMEGALUL.
    Queen = biggest Update EVER. What changed ? The Map. Some Icons.
    WOOOOOOW.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Evas_Flarelight: Edited the last statement. ().

  • Instead of having mega alliances there should be some sort of amnesty /ceasefire agreement among the guilds which should be active for a limited time after that you shouldn't be able make the same agreements with the same guild instead you should look out for an another guild to help you out. Cool down i mentioned could be for 12hours (to prevent helping each other in both EU and NA zvz times) to help you out.
  • I’d like to thank SBI for giving us the opportunity to discuss this topic. This is an important issue and talking about it is a good thing.

    What are the positive things that an alliance brings, that only an alliance can bring, to the game and its players? And what are the negative things that only an alliance can bring to the game and its players?

    If we compare all the good and bad that only an alliance can bring, is it worth it for them to continue to exist?

    I’m talking about the entire game and all of its players here, not the alliance members. Most members probably wish for their alliance to continue to exist.

    I think the negative far outweighs the positive that an alliance brings to the game. Why do alliances exist anyway? They make sense in EVE, because that game is huge. Hundreds and hundreds of systems, thousands of players in a battle. It makes sense for alliances to exist in EVE but not in Albion. Albion is just too small for such things.

    And it has to remain small because otherwise we wouldn’t meet other players to engage with. Imo this game is made for guilds, no larger than 300. Breaking up an alliance frees hundreds of players who will fight each other, create content. That’s what a true pvp sandbox is all about. Constant conflict and pvp. There shouldn’t be a massive safe territory spanning half the map.
  • d1rtman wrote:

    Queen = biggest Update EVER. What changed ? The Map. Some Icons.
    It's barely a map change, they just took the same map layouts we ever had and arranged them in a different order... considering the hype I thought they were going map by map, making each of them have different things, different dungeons, mobs, some identity, but no, just the usual arranged in a different order.

    We got the raid too, which is lame as fuck... I already have mindless zergs in PvP, the last thing I want is zerg in my PvE.

    Queen was a joke.

    They need to improve gathering, crafting, add some content to the open world, nice mobs, cool loot, open world dungeons and places to farm, add identity to the zones... Albion world is the most lifeless thing I have ever seen in a videogame, we have like half a dozen square zones which are all the same, mobs are all the same, loot is all the same... even those procedurally generated games are more interesting.
  • I increasingly believe the best way to limit zergs is to stop rewarding them. Right now territories are conquered on a schedule, a single point in time, which rewards bringing as many players as possible to the fight. Mechanics like disarray are simply a bandaid on a broken bone.

    If, however, territories had to be conquered bit by bit throughout the day, huge zergs would no longer be rewarded. Instead, consistent numbers over time would be rewarded.

    I see this as a point system: defenders accumulate fortification points per day (via CGvGs, silver, and resources), and attackers accumulate assault points per day (by killing guards, mages, the Tower mage, and channeling the tower on a single-threaded CD). If by terri primetime, the attacking guilds have more assault points than the defenders have fortification points, the guild with the highest attack points win the terri.

    That instantly zaps the reward for zergs, especially if point accumulation per hour can be maxed with a small group (think a mage raiding or boss team party). :) That means PvP would far more likely be small group action, and it would be always there. There would be no single scheduled point in time to attract masses of players, nor would having a mass of players on a terri get you any more points per hour.

    Also, an alliance with many terris would suddenly need to be constantly guarding each terri against raids, and deciding how much they want to invest in getting defender points each day. In that environment, even a small, unallied guild doing raids can be a serious problem to a huge alliance, since they can stack attacker points anywhere.

    Rebalance hideouts in this paradigm, and I suspect a small alliance/guild would be in far better shape to hang on to a hideout, because attacking a hideout would no longer be a matter of massing the biggest zerg at a point in time, but of a continual presence at the hideout, which is an enormous opportunity cost (since everything else a huge alliance owns would be vulnerable at the same time), and also something even a small guild can do well.

    Albion Outlands warfare would thus be vastly different, balanced around endless small group fighting, without the need for zerg bandaid mechanics or restructuring alliances.

    I think that's a good thing. :)
  • Roccandil wrote:

    I increasingly believe the best way to limit zergs is to stop rewarding them. Right now territories are conquered on a schedule, a single point in time, which rewards bringing as many players as possible to the fight. Mechanics like disarray are simply a bandaid on a broken bone.

    If, however, territories had to be conquered bit by bit throughout the day, huge zergs would no longer be rewarded. Instead, consistent numbers over time would be rewarded.

    I see this as a point system: defenders accumulate fortification points per day (via CGvGs, silver, and resources), and attackers accumulate assault points per day (by killing guards, mages, the Tower mage, and channeling the tower on a single-threaded CD). If by terri primetime, the attacking guilds have more assault points than the defenders have fortification points, the guild with the highest attack points win the terri.

    That instantly zaps the reward for zergs, especially if point accumulation per hour can be maxed with a small group (think a mage raiding or boss team party). :) That means PvP would far more likely be small group action, and it would be always there. There would be no single scheduled point in time to attract masses of players, nor would having a mass of players on a terri get you any more points per hour.

    Also, an alliance with many terris would suddenly need to be constantly guarding each terri against raids, and deciding how much they want to invest in getting defender points each day. In that environment, even a small, unallied guild doing raids can be a serious problem to a huge alliance, since they can stack attacker points anywhere.

    Rebalance hideouts in this paradigm, and I suspect a small alliance/guild would be in far better shape to hang on to a hideout, because attacking a hideout would no longer be a matter of massing the biggest zerg at a point in time, but of a continual presence at the hideout, which is an enormous opportunity cost (since everything else a huge alliance owns would be vulnerable at the same time), and also something even a small guild can do well.

    Albion Outlands warfare would thus be vastly different, balanced around endless small group fighting, without the need for zerg bandaid mechanics or restructuring alliances.

    I think that's a good thing. :)
    half in correct, but this not fix current problem with other stuff in game, otherwise they still will got full monopol of everything.
  • UNFM wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    I increasingly believe the best way to limit zergs is to stop rewarding them. Right now territories are conquered on a schedule, a single point in time, which rewards bringing as many players as possible to the fight. Mechanics like disarray are simply a bandaid on a broken bone.

    If, however, territories had to be conquered bit by bit throughout the day, huge zergs would no longer be rewarded. Instead, consistent numbers over time would be rewarded.

    I see this as a point system: defenders accumulate fortification points per day (via CGvGs, silver, and resources), and attackers accumulate assault points per day (by killing guards, mages, the Tower mage, and channeling the tower on a single-threaded CD). If by terri primetime, the attacking guilds have more assault points than the defenders have fortification points, the guild with the highest attack points win the terri.

    That instantly zaps the reward for zergs, especially if point accumulation per hour can be maxed with a small group (think a mage raiding or boss team party). :) That means PvP would far more likely be small group action, and it would be always there. There would be no single scheduled point in time to attract masses of players, nor would having a mass of players on a terri get you any more points per hour.

    Also, an alliance with many terris would suddenly need to be constantly guarding each terri against raids, and deciding how much they want to invest in getting defender points each day. In that environment, even a small, unallied guild doing raids can be a serious problem to a huge alliance, since they can stack attacker points anywhere.

    Rebalance hideouts in this paradigm, and I suspect a small alliance/guild would be in far better shape to hang on to a hideout, because attacking a hideout would no longer be a matter of massing the biggest zerg at a point in time, but of a continual presence at the hideout, which is an enormous opportunity cost (since everything else a huge alliance owns would be vulnerable at the same time), and also something even a small guild can do well.

    Albion Outlands warfare would thus be vastly different, balanced around endless small group fighting, without the need for zerg bandaid mechanics or restructuring alliances.

    I think that's a good thing. :)
    half in correct, but this not fix current problem with other stuff in game, otherwise they still will got full monopol of everything.

    It would fix huge zergs, which is a lot of fix. :)

    To really limit huge alliances, however, might be as simple as exponentially increasing the costs of getting defense points based upon how many territories are already owned. The costs would increase to the point where the huge alliance couldn't possibly defend everything.
  • @Roccandil That would take the zvz skill away of the game and would become a matter of having more active players along the day.

    Basically that idea sounds like a paradise for an alliance like ARCH that even not being good at big scale fights they could have a bounch of people 24/7 to do quick hit and run attacks over and over again.

    Instead of this, why not change the conquering mecanic and make every cluster claimable every day at its prime time without any previus attack declaration required, alike to how castles and outposts work. So guilds would be forced to stay and watch their already controlled clusters instead of going to attack and conquer other lands when they have no attacks scheduled.

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

  • Roccandil wrote:

    I increasingly believe the best way to limit zergs is to stop rewarding them. Right now territories are conquered on a schedule, a single point in time, which rewards bringing as many players as possible to the fight. Mechanics like disarray are simply a bandaid on a broken bone.

    If, however, territories had to be conquered bit by bit throughout the day, huge zergs would no longer be rewarded. Instead, consistent numbers over time would be rewarded.

    I see this as a point system: defenders accumulate fortification points per day (via CGvGs, silver, and resources), and attackers accumulate assault points per day (by killing guards, mages, the Tower mage, and channeling the tower on a single-threaded CD). If by terri primetime, the attacking guilds have more assault points than the defenders have fortification points, the guild with the highest attack points win the terri.

    That instantly zaps the reward for zergs, especially if point accumulation per hour can be maxed with a small group (think a mage raiding or boss team party). :) That means PvP would far more likely be small group action, and it would be always there. There would be no single scheduled point in time to attract masses of players, nor would having a mass of players on a terri get you any more points per hour.

    Also, an alliance with many terris would suddenly need to be constantly guarding each terri against raids, and deciding how much they want to invest in getting defender points each day. In that environment, even a small, unallied guild doing raids can be a serious problem to a huge alliance, since they can stack attacker points anywhere.

    Rebalance hideouts in this paradigm, and I suspect a small alliance/guild would be in far better shape to hang on to a hideout, because attacking a hideout would no longer be a matter of massing the biggest zerg at a point in time, but of a continual presence at the hideout, which is an enormous opportunity cost (since everything else a huge alliance owns would be vulnerable at the same time), and also something even a small guild can do well.

    Albion Outlands warfare would thus be vastly different, balanced around endless small group fighting, without the need for zerg bandaid mechanics or restructuring alliances.

    I think that's a good thing. :)
    if u link this points now on top to the total number of people in the alliance u have a good system...

    U do u points during the day.. and these points get set into relationship how man people the alliance has...

    GG
  • Guilefulwolf wrote:

    @Roccandil That would take the zvz skill away of the game and would become a matter of having more active players along the day.

    Basically that idea sounds like a paradise for an alliance like ARCH that even not being good at big scale fights they could have a bounch of people 24/7 to do quick hit and run attacks over and over again.

    Instead of this, why not change the conquering mecanic and make every cluster claimable every day at its prime time without any previus attack declaration required, alike to how castles and outposts work. So guilds would be forced to stay and watch their already controlled clusters instead of going to attack and conquer other lands when they have no attacks scheduled.

    Castles and outposts could remain as they are and be the place for massive zvz, and anyone who really wanted to compete for season title would need to do castles, and thus need zvz skill.

    And I don't mind if a horde of newer players in 4.1 gear could gain a lot of territory under my system, since they would still be much less efficient than veteran players with top-notch gear.

    tabooshka wrote:

    stop bringing up territory control, has nothing to do with alliances effect

    Given that most of the Outlands is now controlled by a few huge alliances, thus triggering this thread, I fail to see how territory control has nothing to do with alliances. :P
  • Roccandil wrote:

    Guilefulwolf wrote:

    @Roccandil That would take the zvz skill away of the game and would become a matter of having more active players along the day.

    Basically that idea sounds like a paradise for an alliance like ARCH that even not being good at big scale fights they could have a bounch of people 24/7 to do quick hit and run attacks over and over again.

    Instead of this, why not change the conquering mecanic and make every cluster claimable every day at its prime time without any previus attack declaration required, alike to how castles and outposts work. So guilds would be forced to stay and watch their already controlled clusters instead of going to attack and conquer other lands when they have no attacks scheduled.
    Castles and outposts could remain as they are and be the place for massive zvz, and anyone who really wanted to compete for season title would need to do castles, and thus need zvz skill.

    And I don't mind if a horde of newer players in 4.1 gear could gain a lot of territory under my system, since they would still be much less efficient than veteran players with top-notch gear.
    Dont try to fool us all because we are not. Of course u r aware that those hordes of new players in 4.1 gear would go and attack when most of the veteran players are sleeping and wont get a response. Thus becoming a pure matter of who has the more active players along the 24 hours of the day even if they r crap at zvz content.

    Devs designed Queen to change the conquring system in a way that cluster become disputed by large scale battles instead of small scale. If they wanted it to stay in small scale they would have changed nothing and would keept the 5v5 GvG system.
  • Guilefulwolf wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    Guilefulwolf wrote:

    @Roccandil That would take the zvz skill away of the game and would become a matter of having more active players along the day.

    Basically that idea sounds like a paradise for an alliance like ARCH that even not being good at big scale fights they could have a bounch of people 24/7 to do quick hit and run attacks over and over again.

    Instead of this, why not change the conquering mecanic and make every cluster claimable every day at its prime time without any previus attack declaration required, alike to how castles and outposts work. So guilds would be forced to stay and watch their already controlled clusters instead of going to attack and conquer other lands when they have no attacks scheduled.
    Castles and outposts could remain as they are and be the place for massive zvz, and anyone who really wanted to compete for season title would need to do castles, and thus need zvz skill.
    And I don't mind if a horde of newer players in 4.1 gear could gain a lot of territory under my system, since they would still be much less efficient than veteran players with top-notch gear.
    Dont try to fool us all because we are not. Of course u r aware that those hordes of new players in 4.1 gear would go and attack when most of the veteran players are sleeping and wont get a response. Thus becoming a pure matter of who has the more active players along the 24 hours of the day even if they r crap at zvz content.
    Devs designed Queen to change the conquring system in a way that cluster become disputed by large scale battles instead of small scale. If they wanted it to stay in small scale they would have changed nothing and would keept the 5v5 GvG system.
    why should the devs have any preference how territory control is done??

    They need to make a maximum number of paying customers happy and get new ones.

    Whatever this delivers, is their preferred.

    Actually u see a lot of resist against the way queen handles that.

    So it is potentially to be fixed
  • I don't really think that COMPLETELY removing the alliance system is gonna work tbh.

    I did like some ideas such as: limiting guild member per account, making AoE spells deal more damage closer to the center of the skill, reducing incentive for guilds to dominate the whole bz.
    And for the camera problem, I think that being able to move it is not that easy to do though, why not just change the camera position so that you have the same view range in all directions?

    But, coming back to the main topic, fully removing alliance would still make small guilds have nothing at all, because it's going to be like 10 massive guilds running over the smaller ones and conquering everything anyway.
    I think that limiting the guild by account numbers is a great idea but it should be something more than just bounding rewards to the account, because it would still give massive guilds advantage, since they would have 3 characters of the account able to fight in different areas, just like they were doing after the suicide to home change.

    I came up with the idea of creating tiers of guilds and alliances, IE. Tier 1 guild would cap on 50 accounts, Tier 2 cap on 100 and Tier 3 to 150.
    Tier 1 alliances would accept 5 Tier 1 guilds, capping to 250 accounts. Tier 2 alliances 2 guilds Tier 2, capping to 200 and Tier 3 guild having no alliance at all (they're strong enough to fight by themselves).

    To stop strong guilds to split into 5 Tier 1 guilds and have a powerful 250-account-alliance there should be a mechanic that would determine what tier your guild should be. Maybe it should be determined by summing the PVP fame of the most farmed member of each account on the guild. Each season the minimum pvp fame requirement for each tier could be updated.

    On top of that, we would have to give incentives for guilds to be on a higher tier, IE, making higher tier guilds be more rewarded, be that by earning more season points, being able to own higher tiers territories (that should be concentrated on the inner ring) and so on. This way we would force big guilds to focus on the inner ring of BZ and put up extremely competitive fights, because they want to win the season, and it's completely acceptable to see higher tiers guilds winning season rather than smaller ones. But we would still give lower tier guilds the ability to sum up with others to defend themselves and still be somewhat competitive or just be able to escalate and reach a higher tier later on.

    Summarizing: Stronger players would fight in stronger guilds for better rewards without the need to run over smaller ones that are just trying to get stronger. Hence, inner ring of BZ would be for hardcore players and hardcore players should be used to be based farther from town portals.