Poll: Alliance Feature

  • Akuti wrote:

    I like your way of trying to change the reward for massing big numbers! However for any guild in the game having to constantly defend their outland terries/hideouts whatever it might be is a MASSIVE ask. Even a large guild would struggle to keep a single piece of outland thing if one other guild wanted it gone. It is a very tall order to have 24/7 defence on anything.
    Just imagine this: Everyday you have to sit and defend a point or objective for 1 hr. It is just people storage 95% of the time. That to me is not a great way of doing it. I do agree that the way it works now is unfortunate (and im in Conflict). I am not sure exactly how it can be improved but I think you are onto something. But the "sit and defend" part of it seems very unrewarding.

    :)
    The idea that was proposed wasn't that guilds or alliances have to be constantly vigilant in order to defend their territories.
    It was that they have to utilize the zones around them to be able to keep hold of them.

    For the sake of brevity when I say you I mean you personally, your guild, and your alliance.

    You kill mobs in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.
    You kill players in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.
    You do dungeons in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.
    You gather resources in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.


    You can do these at any time.

    And in contrast.


    You kill mobs or players in someone else's territory zone, that's challenge points toward your attacker score.
    You attack mages in someone else's territory zone, that's challenge points toward your attacker score.
    You do dungeons in someone else's territory zone, that's challenge points toward your attacker score.
    You gather resources in someone else's territory zone, that's challenge points toward your attacker score.


    Also, can be done at any time.

    It would put territory control on a use it or lose it base, ownership wouldn't change just because someone attacked it at a predetermined time, but because it was being undefended and under utilized by whoever held it.


    Change in ownership would have to happen after prime-time of the zone.

    Members of alliances and guilds should always know their attacker/defender score for any given zone.

    During prime-time attacker scores should be made public.
    Guild Master of American Craftsman
    ~Discord gb5Xdpr~
    T8 Quarrier, Miner, Lumberjack, Skinner, Harvester
  • RenKatal wrote:

    Akuti wrote:

    I like your way of trying to change the reward for massing big numbers! However for any guild in the game having to constantly defend their outland terries/hideouts whatever it might be is a MASSIVE ask. Even a large guild would struggle to keep a single piece of outland thing if one other guild wanted it gone. It is a very tall order to have 24/7 defence on anything.
    Just imagine this: Everyday you have to sit and defend a point or objective for 1 hr. It is just people storage 95% of the time. That to me is not a great way of doing it. I do agree that the way it works now is unfortunate (and im in Conflict). I am not sure exactly how it can be improved but I think you are onto something. But the "sit and defend" part of it seems very unrewarding.

    :)
    The idea that was proposed wasn't that guilds or alliances have to be constantly vigilant in order to defend their territories.It was that they have to utilize the zones around them to be able to keep hold of them.

    For the sake of brevity when I say you I mean you personally, your guild, and your alliance.

    You kill mobs in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.
    You kill players in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.
    You do dungeons in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.
    You gather resources in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.


    You can do these at any time.

    And in contrast.


    You kill mobs or players in someone else's territory zone, that's challenge points toward your attacker score.
    You attack mages in someone else's territory zone, that's challenge points toward your attacker score.
    You do dungeons in someone else's territory zone, that's challenge points toward your attacker score.
    You gather resources in someone else's territory zone, that's challenge points toward your attacker score.


    Also, can be done at any time.

    It would put territory control on a use it or lose it base, ownership wouldn't change just because someone attacked it at a predetermined time, but because it was being undefended and under utilized by whoever held it.


    Change in ownership would have to happen after prime-time of the zone.

    Members of alliances and guilds should always know their attacker/defender score for any given zone.

    During prime-time attacker scores should be made public.

    I just want to say that I really like this idea. This sounds like a missing piece of the puzzle.

    Zeb
  • Akuti wrote:

    RenKatal wrote:

    Rictusempra wrote:

    RenKatal 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. :)
    worst idea ever.

    Thank you for misquoting me.Would you like to expand upon you thoughts, or just make blanket statements.
    Because at this point it's either a matter of abolishing or neutering alliances as a whole, or changing the mechanics of how territory control works.

    I personally would prefer the later instead of the former, as it incentivizes not just territory defense, but zone defense.
    It would allow for individuals who can't contribute in a mass combat sense to still be able to help capture or defend territories.
    I like your way of trying to change the reward for massing big numbers! However for any guild in the game having to constantly defend their outland terries/hideouts whatever it might be is a MASSIVE ask. Even a large guild would struggle to keep a single piece of outland thing if one other guild wanted it gone. It is a very tall order to have 24/7 defence on anything.
    Just imagine this: Everyday you have to sit and defend a point or objective for 1 hr. It is just people storage 95% of the time. That to me is not a great way of doing it. I do agree that the way it works now is unfortunate (and im in Conflict). I am not sure exactly how it can be improved but I think you are onto something. But the "sit and defend" part of it seems very unrewarding.

    :)

    I hear you! :) In addition to what @RenKatal has posted about challenge points, I was thinking the territory tower should add defense points per day, and of course, the higher the level of the tower, the more added.

    I was also thinking it might be cool if you could build and upgrade optional defense structures on the terri itself, that also would add innate defense points per day. These structures could be destroyed by hammers and siege battlemounts, and if they are attacked, you get a warning similar to that for your mages getting attacked.

    That way the defenders get an advantage that doesn't involve idling on a territory.

    I'm also assuming the defenders will have a local hideout (or realmgate/Outpost) they can base from, so they can quickly respond to alerts. If you're trying to defend a far away territory, then it should, of course, be harder.

    RenKatal wrote:

    You kill players in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.

    I like this, but it's probably exploitable. I think your overall idea of challenge points is good, since they're already geared to that which isn't exploitable. And at the same time, you're rewarding challenge points gained in the Outlands over those gained in the Royals, so there's more reward for playing in the Outlands.
  • I really don't like this idea of whoever gets the most 'challenge points' automatically wins the territory. This promotes grinding and no-lifing over skill. It'll encourage guilds to choose members solely based on activity.

    I can believe people are seriously asking for mage raiding to replace territory battles.

    This idea is so incredibly bad.
  • Lanyday wrote:

    I really don't like this idea of whoever gets the most 'challenge points' automatically wins the territory. This promotes grinding and no-lifing over skill. It'll encourage guilds to choose members solely based on activity.

    I can believe people are seriously asking for mage raiding to replace territory battles.

    This idea is so incredibly bad.

    Do you prefer inactive, skilled veterans logging in for a window each day to zerg up, cluster cap, and dominate the Outlands? If I had to choose between them and active players, I'll choose the active players.

    I do think point acquisition should be throttled, such that bringing a huge zerg to a zone doesn't get you points any faster, which also throttles any grinding/no-lifing. But I also like the idea that the guilds living in a zone are the ones most likely to own it, as opposed to a distant zerg keeping zones for season points, but then not really using them.

    Even so, I could see making expensive, destructible fortifications buildable at terris that would mitigate the need for the owners to always be doing activities in the zone, and would require significant commitment on the part of attackers to reduce them. I just wouldn't want to reward huge zergs.

    And for those who just like logging in to zerg for a bit, I can see castle warfare remaining the domain of massive zvz. But I really like the idea of sustained smaller party PvP determining territory ownership.

    NineLivesNed wrote:

    To Roccandil and RenKatal. Your ideas are great! I really like them. This would also, I think, promote people to join any guild they wish, not one who has best/most convenient territory. Do unguilded people get points as well? How would this work?

    Thanks! :) I don't see how unguilded players could contribute one way or another to points (which might make them less of a threat). If you wanted to join territory wars, being in a guild seems a reasonable requirement.
  • Roccandil wrote:

    Do you prefer inactive, skilled veterans logging in for a window each day to zerg up, cluster cap, and dominate the Outlands?
    I prefer skill being the determining factor.

    I like how you have 'inactive' and 'logging in' describing the same thing here. You still have to show up to win territories in the current system.

    Of course there are issues with the game being too zergy right now. What did we expect when they changed GvG to this new open world territory control?

    The solution is to limit alliance population or territories owned by alliances, not come up with some poorly thought out back-seat developer idea that completely changes the game and heavily encourages playing 24 hours a day.
  • Roccandil wrote:

    Akuti wrote:

    RenKatal wrote:

    Rictusempra wrote:

    RenKatal 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. :)
    worst idea ever.

    Thank you for misquoting me.Would you like to expand upon you thoughts, or just make blanket statements.Because at this point it's either a matter of abolishing or neutering alliances as a whole, or changing the mechanics of how territory control works.

    I personally would prefer the later instead of the former, as it incentivizes not just territory defense, but zone defense.
    It would allow for individuals who can't contribute in a mass combat sense to still be able to help capture or defend territories.
    I like your way of trying to change the reward for massing big numbers! However for any guild in the game having to constantly defend their outland terries/hideouts whatever it might be is a MASSIVE ask. Even a large guild would struggle to keep a single piece of outland thing if one other guild wanted it gone. It is a very tall order to have 24/7 defence on anything.Just imagine this: Everyday you have to sit and defend a point or objective for 1 hr. It is just people storage 95% of the time. That to me is not a great way of doing it. I do agree that the way it works now is unfortunate (and im in Conflict). I am not sure exactly how it can be improved but I think you are onto something. But the "sit and defend" part of it seems very unrewarding.

    :)
    I hear you! :) In addition to what @RenKatal has posted about challenge points, I was thinking the territory tower should add defense points per day, and of course, the higher the level of the tower, the more added.

    I was also thinking it might be cool if you could build and upgrade optional defense structures on the terri itself, that also would add innate defense points per day. These structures could be destroyed by hammers and siege battlemounts, and if they are attacked, you get a warning similar to that for your mages getting attacked.

    That way the defenders get an advantage that doesn't involve idling on a territory.

    I'm also assuming the defenders will have a local hideout (or realmgate/Outpost) they can base from, so they can quickly respond to alerts. If you're trying to defend a far away territory, then it should, of course, be harder.

    RenKatal wrote:

    You kill players in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.
    I like this, but it's probably exploitable. I think your overall idea of challenge points is good, since they're already geared to that which isn't exploitable. And at the same time, you're rewarding challenge points gained in the Outlands over those gained in the Royals, so there's more reward for playing in the Outlands.
    We need balance everything not only terri system, and this system what you propose its same shit like was before queen, CD system is worst idea ever, how many alts and new acc gonna be made just for skipping CD..

    We need capped alliances and spread 7k people to small group and unlock whole content to everyone not only to 1-2 alliances rest of content is locked. FUCKING MONOPOLS.

    Sometime I think you are scared approfe delete alliances, scary to be shit without few K people behind you ?

    Leave big alliances for few weeks you will se how fun is this game fight at every step. not boring PK RZ noobs..

    Also hideout is great idea, have no sense with big alliances, few days ago I got msg from "POE" pay 2m per day otherwise we smash your HO" nice balance.

    Keep cry, you try hold mostprofit for himself, we want changes for everyone not only for MONOPOLS.

    Please stop talk only about terri is one of many problems with big alliances not only one..
  • UNFM wrote:

    CD system is worst idea ever, how many alts and new acc gonna be made just for skipping CD..

    Any CDs would be on the terris, not the players. Guilds could defeat the mage and channel the tower every X minutes for more attacker points, but only one guild at any one time. That would lead to battles over territories, but with fewer numbers than the huge zergs that are currently required.

    In short, it's activity that would count. Alts would be meaningless.

    Lanyday wrote:

    I prefer skill being the determining factor.

    Who says skill won't be? The system I propose simply lowers the number of players contesting a single territory at any one time by stretching out the time involved in taking territories.

    It doesn't change the effects of skill. Skilled players will inherently be more efficient than unskilled players, and will be able to do more.

    At the same time, however, guilds won't need to mass huge zergs to compete, so smaller guilds and alliances won't be squeezed out. And those guilds that are living in or near territories they are contesting will have a much bigger advantage.

    I like that, because it's more immersive: territories will tend to be owned by guilds actually living in them, and dominance will be logistically harder to achieve.
  • NineLivesNed wrote:

    To Roccandil and RenKatal. Your ideas are great! I really like them. This would also, I think, promote people to join any guild they wish, not one who has best/most convenient territory. Do unguilded people get points as well? How would this work?
    If you as a solo player could amass more attacker points than an entire guild or alliance, I think you deserve to hold a territory, sure. Good luck with that though.

    Lanyday wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    Do you prefer inactive, skilled veterans logging in for a window each day to zerg up, cluster cap, and dominate the Outlands?
    I prefer skill being the determining factor.
    I like how you have 'inactive' and 'logging in' describing the same thing here. You still have to show up to win territories in the current system.

    Of course there are issues with the game being too zergy right now. What did we expect when they changed GvG to this new open world territory control?

    The solution is to limit alliance population or territories owned by alliances, not come up with some poorly thought out back-seat developer idea that completely changes the game and heavily encourages playing 24 hours a day.
    If you and your alliance only have to show up for 2 hours a day to control almost all the territory in a large swath of the Outlands how is that fair.

    Limiting alliance populations is just a band-aid, the current Mega Alliances are already working on forming coalitions to control the Outlands in the event of Alliance restriction or removal.

    Making it so that a territory has to be used to be controlled makes it so that if you want to monopolize multiple areas on the map you, your guild, and your alliance need to use them as opposed to just popping on during a rotation of prime-time hours.


    Roccandil wrote:

    RenKatal wrote:

    You kill players in your guilds territory zone, that's challenge points toward your defender score.
    I like this, but it's probably exploitable. I think your overall idea of challenge points is good, since they're already geared to that which isn't exploitable. And at the same time, you're rewarding challenge points gained in the Outlands over those gained in the Royals, so there's more reward for playing in the Outlands.
    What I was thinking was Challenge points would be awarded biased upon the IP of the player killed.

    I imagine a rate of 1/20 the average IP of the character.

    You already cannot kill guild or alliance members.Slight modifications to the guild removal/joining system might be necessary.
    Extend the 48 hour rejoining period to cover rejoining the same guild, and extend it to guilds joining and quitting alliances as well.

    Paying people to be sacrificial lambs would get fairly expensive over time.
    Guild Master of American Craftsman
    ~Discord gb5Xdpr~
    T8 Quarrier, Miner, Lumberjack, Skinner, Harvester
  • Voltel wrote:

    allow groups to set standings
    I wonder....

    What if standings were automatic and worked somewhat like the Reputation system. This does not impact loot or fame or anything -- it's purely meant to be a system to let you know, on sight, whether or not this is a guild that is new/unknown (yellow), is known to be aggressive (red) or is known to be not-aggressive (green).

    Reputation moves towards green over time based on fame gained while in the Outlands.
    Reputation moves towards red when you attack green guilds.

    Just thinking for guilds that want to avoid the mega-alliance game, it might be interesting to see, very quickly, if this group we just bumped into is probably a bunch of KOS murderers or probably a group of farmers.

    Albion's limited line of sight and short TTK basically invites a shoot-first-ask-questions-never style of gameplay. There's actually not as much politics in this game as I thought there'd be because there's hardly a point in stopping and saying "Hello, traveler! What are you up to on this fine day!" because 9 times out of 10 you'll be dead before you finish typing the sentence.

    Versus, say, a game like Atlas where you can spot someone from miles away, while hiding in a bush, and have all the time in the world to try and communicate and sort out whether you should murder them or not. Atlas has tons of politics. Albion lacks tools to make up for its shortcomings in perspective/TTK.
  • To solve these problems of massacre of big ones on top of small ones, either you limit something, or put an extraordinary reward for a guild only in the center of the map, to turn your attention to that objective, as to attack the adjacent areas nor portals, perhaps create a daily cost per territory taken, that cost would serve to pay the guards, for example. So, it would be based on the assumption that you have a cost to maintain the territory and use that area, so taking just to take it, and not using the territory ends up being a waste of time, another issue the score of territories should vary according to the tier of the map.
  • RenKatal 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. :)
    This is probably the best solution, that doesn't involve abolishing Alliances entirely.
    The use of challenge points in a zone to determine territory control would be a welcome addition for smaller guilds and alliances.
    Any challenge points earned by you or your alliance members in a zone with a territory you control would count toward your defender total.

    Any challenge points you and your alliance members earn in a zone with a territory you don't control would count towards your assault total.

    Guild with the highest amount in the winning alliance would get control of the territory.
    This means you could even lose a territory to an ally if you don't spend enough time defending it.

    It would essentially allow you to do chip damage to larger and mega alliances control over territories.
    This is a really great idea. I'm just wondering who exactly would be able to contest for territory though? Can a random small guild win a territory in the middle of nowhere just by grinding there? Can 10 or even 20 different guilds be fighting over the same territory?
  • Maori wrote:

    This is a really great idea. I'm just wondering who exactly would be able to contest for territory though? Can a random small guild win a territory in the middle of nowhere just by grinding there? Can 10 or even 20 different guilds be fighting over the same territory?

    Yes, a small guild could gain a terri if they're constantly farming it more than anyone else. And yes, many different guilds could be fighting over the same territory. :)

    RenKatal wrote:

    What I was thinking was Challenge points would be awarded biased upon the IP of the player killed.

    I imagine a rate of 1/20 the average IP of the character.

    You already cannot kill guild or alliance members.Slight modifications to the guild removal/joining system might be necessary.
    Extend the 48 hour rejoining period to cover rejoining the same guild, and extend it to guilds joining and quitting alliances as well.

    Paying people to be sacrificial lambs would get fairly expensive over time.

    I hear you, but if you could get unlimited attacker points by killing players, you could theoretically have an enormous zvz between alliance A and alliance B, one of whom racks up so many attacker points in the fight they take the terri from the owning guild C (who had nothing to do with the fight).

    One way or another, I'd want to throttle the maximum attacker points that could be earned per hour, to prevent rewarding massive zvz (although I could potentially see rewarding more points during primetime).

    If challenge points from gathering, killing mobs/aspects, killing mages/guards, and clearing dungeons in a map contributed to attacker or defender points, that in itself would attract a lot of PvP (and killing in Albion generally has plenty of intrinsic reward anyhow).
  • Roccandil wrote:

    Maori wrote:

    This is a really great idea. I'm just wondering who exactly would be able to contest for territory though? Can a random small guild win a territory in the middle of nowhere just by grinding there? Can 10 or even 20 different guilds be fighting over the same territory?
    Yes, a small guild could gain a terri if they're constantly farming it more than anyone else. And yes, many different guilds could be fighting over the same territory. :)
    People would be forced to actually defend and inhabit their land in real time lol. And it wouldn't matter what time your guild is active, because there will always be ways to earn points. I really hope this gets looked into. Lifting a lot of those restrictions will make it feel like more of a sandbox, and less of a shapebox.

    Imagine actually feeling immersed in Albion lol.

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

  • Maori wrote:

    RenKatal 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. :)
    This is probably the best solution, that doesn't involve abolishing Alliances entirely.The use of challenge points in a zone to determine territory control would be a welcome addition for smaller guilds and alliances.
    Any challenge points earned by you or your alliance members in a zone with a territory you control would count toward your defender total.

    Any challenge points you and your alliance members earn in a zone with a territory you don't control would count towards your assault total.

    Guild with the highest amount in the winning alliance would get control of the territory.
    This means you could even lose a territory to an ally if you don't spend enough time defending it.

    It would essentially allow you to do chip damage to larger and mega alliances control over territories.
    This is a really great idea. I'm just wondering who exactly would be able to contest for territory though? Can a random small guild win a territory in the middle of nowhere just by grinding there? Can 10 or even 20 different guilds be fighting over the same territory?
    The mechanic would award the territories in a zone to the top one or two scoring guilds for that day, depending on the number of territories in the zone.
    unless your alliance scored twice as much then any other alliance in the zone, the they go to the top two guilds in the alliance, or the top one if they scored twice as much as any guild in their own alliance.

    Yes a small random guild could take a territory by grinding.

    Yes, any number of guilds could compete for the same zone.
    Guild Master of American Craftsman
    ~Discord gb5Xdpr~
    T8 Quarrier, Miner, Lumberjack, Skinner, Harvester