Why you should not blame Alliances. And why SBI got manipulated again!

    • Why you should not blame Alliances. And why SBI got manipulated again!

      Why all players wanna punish big alliance's for they hard work and being big?
      Then what? Punish the t8 players for killing t4 gankers group coth he is to strong?

      If you think its easy win by creating mega alliance - go make one and fight em. If you dont think its easy, then wtf punish someone for hard work and good play?

      So SBI can:
      1. Motivate mega alliances defend they terry instead of small guild.
      2. Motivate small guilds attack mega alliances terri every day and time. Just make it profitable.
      3. Make IP of small alliances higher. To motivate small guilds, but not punish the hard worked bigs.
      For example: if you alliance leass then 300 players, all you items gets +500 ip at the terri fights. But not more then 8.3 MP IP of the item was improved.
      So 4.0 will be get from 700 to 1200, but 8.3 normal will go from 1700 to 1800.

      Just dont let the jealous, stupid haters manipulate you.
      There is alot of ways to solve problems - except punishments and limitations.
      Motivational and rewarding way - is much better.
      Like in lol, you will have extra reward for season, if not get any chat bans, play fair and respective. And its works much better then punishments.


      After the DEV reply and reaction, I see the problem here, DEV thinks that they players are same smart and organized as EVE players. But you wrong @Korn you players are mostly just stupid kids, and selfish virtual big dicks.
      Like 90% of them, having fun in killing 1 by group of 10. So they will never set up the good NAP. And have no idea what the game need. Coth here is just one rule - red is dead.
      BTW this rule comes from UO, but here it is mean perfectly opposite thing in Albion. Just think about this silly fact.

      Maximum 10% of Albion players can play hardcore and smart economical MMO like EVE. Rest 90% can just play "greif PVP shit" like RUST. And they doing same here.
      So you SBI, should remember whom opinion you read, and who will play you game. Its Albion players - not EVE, so take it and work with it.

      Part 2: solutions. :!:
      I explained why is not correct to think the Albion players = EvE players.
      So. Albion players - will be also not happy without alliance. Why?
      Just because to make strong alliance is same hard as make a strong 300 players guild. So they will keep crying about "mega guilds". Why? Coth greif pvp RUST players dont wanna work hard and play hard. They want cheesy-easy wins, and punish someone if they lose.

      So you as a DEV - should think different.
      For example:
      1. If you remove alliances - it will be to much reds around, but as i suggest before, you can think opposite way:
      2. What if you change the black zone rule itself? Make it closer to red zone, just without reds counter. So all guilds will be blue for each other as default.
      3. Change the feature of alliances to the feature of declaring war.
      So guilds in "war" relationships, will be red for each other. Only war - can let the guild claim terrys/ attack hideouts.
      And the guild who "start the war" - will be red for all other players.
      4. Add a bit more punishment to PK if red fight blue (like in UO) for example.

      So aggressive and top guilds, still can be aggressive, but small guild will no need to do what they cant(read as "cooperate with each other") to fight back - coth the game already give em everything to fight back(they all blue for each other).

      Its one of the ways how you can clearly show all that crying pussyes players who dont wanna do anything to win, that if they are "lose" in system like that - it is only they own fail, not a game design or mega alliance. It will be clearly they choice and they fail, like - dont start the war if you cant win it.

      So now we know why in albion:
      1. Opinion of the masses like "remove alliances" - not mean they really want it. It is just a kind of manipulation. Not even close to problem solution.

      2. SBI really must watch at the reason of the problem (lazy greif PvP RUST like part of community, who dont wanna play hard to win, even if they are a big alliance, they still want to easy-cheesy wins and dominate).

      3. We have alot of options to solve a real problem, not just do useless moves like delete alliance feachur. And this one - is most important!
    • People will complain about mega guilds instead of mega alliances... when BA or Take Care can field 150-200 players and most other guilds are fielding 10 it wont change much except that smaller guilds will not have a chance to group together like they can now. I run an alliance of smaller/casual guilds and also run a mega guild so I really have nothing to gain or lose but I want what will get the most players playing the game and without alliances, I can see the MANY of the small guilds dying out with no effect on the mega-group issue.
    • GluttonySDS wrote:

      People will complain about mega guilds instead of mega alliances... when BA or Take Care can field 150-200 players and most other guilds are fielding 10 it wont change much except that smaller guilds will not have a chance to group together like they can now. I run an alliance of smaller/casual guilds and also run a mega guild so I really have nothing to gain or lose but I want what will get the most players playing the game and without alliances, I can see the MANY of the small guilds dying out with no effect on the mega-group issue.
      the degenerate personalities of some guild leaders within the albion community alone will mean no alliances = more content fighting.

      players can "avoid" certain personalities yet still benefit with being on the same side through alliances, take that away boom, fun.

      Writing been on the walls since ZergvEnvy days in beta 1. Bout god damn time.
      Beta 1 > Beta 3 > Release > Beta 2
    • GluttonySDS wrote:

      People will complain about mega guilds instead of mega alliances... when BA or Take Care can field 150-200 players and most other guilds are fielding 10 it wont change much except that smaller guilds will not have a chance to group together like they can now. I run an alliance of smaller/casual guilds and also run a mega guild so I really have nothing to gain or lose but I want what will get the most players playing the game and without alliances, I can see the MANY of the small guilds dying out with no effect on the mega-group issue.
      That's absolutely right. That why removing alliances - cant be solution.
      Because the mega alliances are the consequence, not the cause of the problem.

      The consequence will only move to another plane.
      If SBI solve the problem by deleting alliances, then they will have to delete the guilds, then the groups?

      Problems can't be solved by removing consequences.

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

    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      They could as a start have an exponentially growing food demand on terries

      One as of today for all terrie
      Two double as of today for all
      Four 4 times as of today
      ...
      How do you think how much money have a regular old player?
      Average its 2.000.000.000 silver. For not a reach ones.
      How much have an alliance or guild of such players?
      I am pretty sure, such change will affect a new players small guild, coth old players dont care on money or resourses. They can regear all server for whole year, or many years.
    • iRawr wrote:

      GluttonySDS wrote:

      People will complain about mega guilds instead of mega alliances... when BA or Take Care can field 150-200 players and most other guilds are fielding 10 it wont change much except that smaller guilds will not have a chance to group together like they can now. I run an alliance of smaller/casual guilds and also run a mega guild so I really have nothing to gain or lose but I want what will get the most players playing the game and without alliances, I can see the MANY of the small guilds dying out with no effect on the mega-group issue.
      That's absolutely right. That why removing alliances - cant be solution.Because the mega alliances are the consequence, not the cause of the problem.

      The consequence will only move to another plane.
      If SBI solve the problem by deleting alliances, then they will have to delete the guilds, then the groups?

      Problems can't be solved by removing consequences.

      Guilds are capped at 300 accounts

      Cap Alliances at 300 accounts.

      This allows small guilds to band together to fight against a large guild.

      NAPs will happen and that's ok. Friendly Fire will destory NAP's anyways.
    • Man, this post clearly explain why the punish someone for hard play is not a solution.
      Just try to think on the motivation aspect for small and medium guilds.

      iRarw wrote:

      So SBI can:
      1. Motivate mega alliances defend they terry instead of small guild.
      2. Motivate small guilds attack mega alliances terri every day and time. Just make it profitable.
      3. Make IP of small alliances higher. To motivate small guilds, but not punish the hard worked bigs.
      For example: if you alliance leass then 300 players, all you items gets +500 ip at the terri fights. But not more then 8.3 MP IP of the item was improved.
      So 4.0 will be get from 700 to 1200, but 8.3 normal will go from 1700 to 1800.
      Its can be more then just solution. Can make alot of old gameplay aspects shine.
      Like:
      • Bring more players to high end content.
      • Let the more players feel the power of hight tier builds, for less costs.
      • Refresh the market of all tier items, coth all tiers will be useful in ZvZ.
      • Refresh the resourses market.
      • Help for low lvl crafters.
      • Help to new players to see the "Albion beauty".
      • Give old players alot of content.
      And alot of more good things.

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

    • Instead of removing alliances, 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.
    • Redsaw wrote:

      Once again evidence that SBI's vision doesnt align with what its playerbase wants.

      Next up:

      Poll: Guild Feature
      Should guilds be removed from albion online?
      The poll was in no way saying if we all vote to remove alliances thats what we are going to do, They wanted to see how many people wanted to remove them because of the problems they currently are creating, This way they can get an idea on how many people are on the same page. This way they can focus there devness on fixing the problem with alliances which doesn't mean they will remove them but maybe limit or come up with a new idea to deal with them, They also prob wanted us to post ideas they could either use or put together to make something new.
    • Neef wrote:

      Redsaw wrote:

      Once again evidence that SBI's vision doesnt align with what its playerbase wants.

      Next up:

      Poll: Guild Feature
      Should guilds be removed from albion online?
      The poll was in no way saying if we all vote to remove alliances thats what we are going to do, They wanted to see how many people wanted to remove them because of the problems they currently are creating, This way they can get an idea on how many people are on the same page. This way they can focus there devness on fixing the problem with alliances which doesn't mean they will remove them but maybe limit or come up with a new idea to deal with them, They also prob wanted us to post ideas they could either use or put together to make something new.
      Mat be, but why they didn't just say so? Why they make a clearly poll, with exactly 2 options, without discussions option?
      The poll description is pretty clear.
    • iRawr wrote:



      For example: if you alliance leass then 300 players, all you items gets +500 ip at the terri fights. But not more then 8.3 MP IP of the item was improved.
      This would be instantly abused by big guilds.

      iRawr wrote:

      After the DEV reply and reaction, I see the problem here, DEV thinks that they players are same smart and organized as EVE players.
      Btw eve devs are way smarter than albion devs.

      Just look at hideouts design.
      No ordinary player would seriously consider hideout as a real home because leaving guild means losing assets in guild's hideouts effectively forever. No means to recover or sell assets like jump clones, contracts or out of station trade orders which exist in eve online.
    • Gerrit wrote:

      iRawr wrote:

      For example: if you alliance leass then 300 players, all you items gets +500 ip at the terri fights. But not more then 8.3 MP IP of the item was improved.
      This would be instantly abused by big guilds.

      iRawr wrote:

      After the DEV reply and reaction, I see the problem here, DEV thinks that they players are same smart and organized as EVE players.
      Btw eve devs are way smarter than albion devs.
      Just look at hideouts design.
      No ordinary player would seriously consider hideout as a real home because leaving guild means losing assets in guild's hideouts effectively forever. No means to recover or sell assets like jump clones, contracts or out of station trade orders which exist in eve online.
      1. There is not a final conception, its just a example to show there is a way to motivate weaker, to boost em. Just other point of view, not a punish the strong, but improve and motivate the weak side.

      2. That's right, DEV long time ignore such problems as 9 vs 4/5 vs 1 dives. Portal camping, HG ratting, and etc activity with huge snowball effect coth they are broken concept of more risk - more reward.
      DEV supported this no risk - huge reward things, by ignoring and saying just "oh its a sandbox".

      So in result, they get a community of players who love 10 vs 1 ganks, but dont want and hate real, fair fight. That why strong alliances and guilds feels soo good. They just dont have opponents, coth fight vs em not a "no risk - huge reward".
      So players just chose go zvz gank roam for 20 vs 10 fight instead of cooperate and attack the big and strong guilds.

      And that why is important to change players mind, and motivate em to join the real PvP, not that "greif PvP like" shit.

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

    • iRawr wrote:

      Why all players wanna punish big alliance's for they hard work and being big?
      Then what? Punish the t8 players for killing t4 gankers group coth he is to strong?

      If you think its easy win by creating mega alliance - go make one and fight em. If you dont think its easy, then wtf punish someone for hard work and good play?
      Being that you defend so close to the great alliances I will assume that you belong to one. First, I don't think putting yourself in the victim's place suits you when you own 1/2 or 1/4 of outlands.
      On the other hand, i do not believe that SBI is trying to "punish" the great alliances, but to balance. As far as Terris is concerned, i see this game as Monopoly (board game) if you have 25 people playing Monopoly and 4 each have 1/4 of the properties, it's not fun for the other 21 ... it's As simple as that, the game stagnates, it ends up being 21 people throwing dice to pay taxes to the 4 who have the monopoly. The nice thing about that game is to be able to negotiate, trade and eventually, yes... have it all and that the rest of the players go bankrupt. But in AO that can't happen, if it happens it's the end of the game.
      It happened to me in Lineage 2 when an alliance to which I belonged (on an unofficial server), had ALL the castles of the game, it's like saying that I had ALL the terris of AO, Royal cities included. There was no one to face us ... hard months until half of the alliance stopped playing because there was nothing to do, everyone ran when they saw a "12 crowns" approach.
      In short, it is about balancing, leveling power, creating situations that they want to exist, not punishing. Stop putting yourself in the victim's place.
    • IILeKanouII wrote:

      iRawr wrote:

      Why all players wanna punish big alliance's for they hard work and being big?
      Then what? Punish the t8 players for killing t4 gankers group coth he is to strong?

      If you think its easy win by creating mega alliance - go make one and fight em. If you dont think its easy, then wtf punish someone for hard work and good play?
      Being that you defend so close to the great alliances I will assume that you belong to one. First, I don't think putting yourself in the victim's place suits you when you own 1/2 or 1/4 of outlands.On the other hand, i do not believe that SBI is trying to "punish" the great alliances, but to balance. As far as Terris is concerned, i see this game as Monopoly (board game) if you have 25 people playing Monopoly and 4 each have 1/4 of the properties, it's not fun for the other 21 ... it's As simple as that, the game stagnates, it ends up being 21 people throwing dice to pay taxes to the 4 who have the monopoly. The nice thing about that game is to be able to negotiate, trade and eventually, yes... have it all and that the rest of the players go bankrupt. But in AO that can't happen, if it happens it's the end of the game.
      It happened to me in Lineage 2 when an alliance to which I belonged (on an unofficial server), had ALL the castles of the game, it's like saying that I had ALL the terris of AO, Royal cities included. There was no one to face us ... hard months until half of the alliance stopped playing because there was nothing to do, everyone ran when they saw a "12 crowns" approach.
      In short, it is about balancing, leveling power, creating situations that they want to exist, not punishing. Stop putting yourself in the victim's place.
      What if i tell you the you account name on forum can be the in-game name?
      Imagine if you can put this name in killboard and see that i am in the biggest and dominating by numbers alliance...
      Killboard
      And i didn't say that SBI wanna punish. The lazy, unskilled players want it. Coth they are not a game developers, and they just trying to force what will be good for them, to get maximum rewards, for doing nothing.
      SBI just don't know what to do, so they doing what community crys more about. Just read my post more then for 3 first words, the idea here is pretty simple, and it is not about "protect the big alliances".