Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • This is whats going to happen:
    Guild A and Guild B are very strong and they dont wanna fight each other because It just too expensive, what they will gonna do? They will share their territories. If a Guild C set attack on Guild B the Guild A will help them, cause they dont wanna lose their peacefull security from their territories.

    This is will only make things worst and make the power more centralized than now, I wonder if any of the staff of Albion have brains.

    I agree limiting the number of GUILDS in an Alliance, but this is so broken.
  • You are so bad at understanding your own game it is sickening. You still haven't addressed any of the root issues and instead just threw the game to the wolves with 2 weeks to prepare.

    How are you going to do this in the middle of a season? It's like you have no idea how much preparation has gone into this season. Or for that matter how much work it takes to keep anything together for months.

    Now all hideouts that have been placed strategically for alliance goals are wasted. Now we have to go back through and re-perm anything that has Alliance perms. The whole 5 months leading up to the launch of queen was your "test". Now you expect us to beta test your "new" idea that people have been telling you for literal years. Instead, you decide you have to redesign the world to solve the problem. ZVZ for the world will work perfectly, there's no way people will exploit that. LITERALLY EVERYONE IN GAME KNEW THIS WOULDN'T WORK EXCEPT SBI EMPLOYEES.

    As developers, you need to let the season play out like it is and then for season 8 (or even better, in the off season). You can try out your brilliant "new" idea. However, before you do that, you need to change the game so that guild/alliance sizes are based on accounts in guild not characters in guild. Also, you need to allow guilds to move their hideouts. Also, you need to redesign the crystal realm because you suddenly just made the highest level towers even more powerful.

    The current state of the game is the whole server is ganging up on SQUAK. Historically, when the entire server fights back like this, it leads to alliances breaking and breathing fresh air into the game.

    TBH, I have been a proponent of eliminating alliances. However, this is literally the worst timing possible. Lots of guilds have already consolidated into lean powerful threats (Money Guild and Team Casualty, Mini Golf, CIR, etc.). These "Mega Guilds" are basically the core of entire alliances consolidated into one guild. Now, you are turning them into powerhouses over night.

    You are basing this decision on an extremely vocal minority with a data set that doesn't even account for any major alliance in game (2000+) and expecting people to respond on a forum?

    If you had to pick one of the two options below, would you rather 1,149
    1. Keep the alliance feature in the game (226)20%
    2. Remove the alliance feature from the game (923)80%


    I urge you, don't make rushed decisions that have this much impact on the game.
  • Interesting. Probably will shake things a lot. I have readed trought the forums the idea of implementing a feature where you hide alliance name from other players if you have a big dissarray. This means, external auxiliary forces can exist, but two big zergs will have issues with friendly fire even in naps.

    Is this a possibility?
  • Interesting change, love the concept behind it. Lets see if the implementation has the desired effect. I can see a scenario in-which this births the dawn of the Coalition akin to the blue donuts of eve online. Each Coalition distributing members evenly across multiple sectors/timezones. Intel channels being setup to share info across guilds on hostile locations, a strategic command relaying to each guild functioning as a unit, essentially this could backfire and make the zergs more regimented and organised.
  • I see a lot of people complaining saying big guilds will still work together.... yes that is true but currently there is no friendly fire so it will change things because it will change the fights, it will be harder to sandwich someone without killing your allies.

    so the big guilds will still work together but it will make that coordination harder.
  • Roccandil wrote:

    As a test, it will be interesting, but the worst effect will be guilds purging their ranks of newer players. That's not good, and unfortunately, that won't be immediately obvious; the downside is more of a long-term decay.
    I absolute hate this on that reason, we take new players in our guild also dedicated crafters / gatherers, now I have to get rid of them forced to optimize our ZvZ as much as possible to stand a chance? Hate it hate it hate it, this changes are short sighted --'
  • Derrick wrote:

    Not a good change. Organised entities will work around this change and those less organised alliances and guilds will be screwed.

    Imagine implementing this mid-season. Ridiculous.
    Derrick is enemy #1, but hes 100% right.

    DAZROUN wrote:

    Although the timing of the change is quite controversial, it should be an interesting one.
    No more POE or ARCH pepega zerg, finally.
    POE zerg was a biproduct of SQUAK zergs.

    KingMoJo wrote:

    One extreme to the other extreme.

    I think the 1000 player number we always voted for was perfect.

    This change literally means you gave top ZvZ guilds the excuse to drop alliance and NAP to avoid the debuff issue, and all those newer alliances who banded together to stay alive will get punished even more.

    Just seems like you clicked the panic button after looking at a Reddit vote.
    pretty much. Newer alliances will just get rolled over by non-zerg debuffed top tier guilds. Someone else also mentioned the issue of large guilds will have to purge lower skilled/newer/low fame members.

    SBI: We have the most amount of players that have ever played the game. How can we F this up???
  • it should be 1000 players, 300 isn’t even enough to form a stable small alliance, that gives you 5 guilds of 50 and anything over disbalances, great and all but now guilds will just drop players or alliances will to formulate harder groups. And this is coming from someone in a casual alliance and guild, another bad choice, make it the size of a max guild when it’s called a **Alliance** fuck man even 500 would do or 400
  • TheBacon wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    As a test, it will be interesting, but the worst effect will be guilds purging their ranks of newer players. That's not good, and unfortunately, that won't be immediately obvious; the downside is more of a long-term decay.
    I absolute hate this on that reason, we take new players in our guild also dedicated crafters / gatherers, now I have to get rid of them forced to optimize our ZvZ as much as possible to stand a chance? Hate it hate it hate it, this changes are short sighted --'

    Yeah. :(
  • Maaraken wrote:

    KingMoJo wrote:

    KickinMACHINE wrote:

    KingMoJo wrote:

    This change literally means you gave top ZvZ guilds the excuse to drop alliance and NAP to avoid the debuff issue, and all those newer alliances who banded together to stay alive will get punished even more.
    U can also finally try playing solo as the best ZvZ guild in the game, as u always wanted, nah? U'll still need 5 other strongest guilds by ur side? :/
    nothing changes for BA, just less debuff. Not going to stop working together with guilds I worked with for 2 years just because friendly fire being introduced :D
    What would it take for you to value content over points? Just because you fight each other doesn't mean you can't be friends and work together when a bigger enemy shows up. Then go back to playing the game.
    You literally have no idea how hard it is to get that many people working together for that length of time. Maintaining an alliance is a job, imagine being given a decision to quit your job or continue working and adapt. Everyone will attempt to adapt.
  • You had all the time to test this during the avalonian season which was useless. Implementing this during the season will just distort the ranking, it was either necessary to wait for the next one or to do it before the beginning of the season, a cap at 600 - 800 people would be more judicious.



    EDIT : its only MY opinion but delete the gvg didn't change anything in the end.

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

  • can we just agree that SBI is a discount activision Blizztard, do you take anything into rational effect (80%) of people vote no, but we won’t A. Make a game announcement to get their votes for non forum users (btw people were botting and forcing vote options or kick I’ll bet 100m silver on it, B. Hold a proper review of the cases and only selective pick (bet that was round table) C. Know little on how to run a MMORPG on world based mechanics. D. You continue continue to punish small and solos, and keep claiming it is “queens for everyone” do me a favor and your dedicated payers and players shut the fuck up and admit this update is a flunk, you managed to just ruin even more content Gg, time to find a new game, because I have to drop now anyone who doesn’t contribute and find a hard core alliance to even compete with content