Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

  • Great change, no healing, shield, cleanses or any positive effects shared with NAP's, zerg debuff should be adjusted to be more agressive on 100+ zergs, and less punishment on 40-80 size zergs, this will push guilds to specialize their ZvZ players and have strong warriors instead of brainless barbarians (aka new people for the sake of numerous zergs)

    Restrict HO to Open/Guild only, no special perms to another guild, this will punish NAP's even more and force them to build their own HO for NAPs.
  • Very good change. It is known that there will be a crying Derick, Mojo and rests of founders of the farm of people, but it it is necessary to ignore, and to build the game farther. Very good move after 3 years of the translation, that mega alliances are destroying this game. Applause.

    Remember that children's combinations can be and "boycott" by leaders, therefore give the time to ordinary players (a few months) so that acquire themselves, both alone they started forming something, to establish smaller guilds and saw that it was possible differently.

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

  • Maszke wrote:

    Great change, no healing, shield, cleanses or any positive effects shared with NAP's, zerg debuff should be adjusted to be more agressive on 100+ zergs, and less punishment on 40-80 size zergs, this will push guilds to specialize their ZvZ players and have strong warriors instead of brainless barbarians (aka new people for the sake of numerous zergs)

    Restrict HO to Open/Guild only, no special perms to another guild, this will punish NAP's even more and force them to build their own HO for NAPs.
    You're actually stupid since they're limiting the size of guilds/alliances you want to force people with gathering alts to get fucked too.
  • FriendlyFire wrote:

    FrozenIce wrote:

    How are you going to do this in the middle of a season
    Lol they are supposed to wait to fix the game 2+ months because you wanted to hand-hold your way to a season win via a mega-alliance?

    TheBacon wrote:

    I absolute hate this on that reason, we take new players in our guild also dedicated crafters / gatherers
    Oh no, depriving new players the opportunity to gather and craft for you.. the tragedy.
    So you think that an Albion where only ZvZ players have a chance of joining guilds that territories and/or good hideouts is a good thing?!

    Because this is what this will cause, there is no other choice because it forces guilds to optimize their setup to be ZvZ only to compete on that level.
  • FrozenIce wrote:

    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.

    Excellent points. This "test" will be fundamentally flawed, because everyone moved islands and built hideouts based on the current system. For those reasons alone the existing mega-alliances are more likely to stick together, despite friendly fire.

    The only way to truly test this would be to wipe the slate clean and start over. If it really needs to happen now, end the season early, adjust brackets accordingly, give guilds a chance to remove stuff from hideouts, delete the hideouts (with compensation), and once again allow free island moves.

    By doing this mid-season SBI is destroying player trust in SBI. :(
  • KingMoJo wrote:

    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.
    I think 3 seasons was enough for me, I don't care about points.
    Then why carry on with this? Would BA vs sex with ex, or black order, or whoever not be glorious fights? You could literally have a constant stream of content. And if you are actually on good relations with these people, it wouldn't have to affect your relationship. And if POE or whoever still shows up with a Mega zerg then you group up to fight them.

    Working for your ally's points is not a significant difference (imo).
  • Deadlesszombie wrote:

    Shamtu wrote:

    Very good change. It is known that there will be a crying Derick, Mojo and rests of founders of the farm of people, but it it is necessary to ignore, and to build the game farther. Very good move after 3 years of the translation, that mega alliances are destroying this game. Applause.
    Can I join your guild? You seem like a 7Head player
    Wine and Baguette is recruiting ;)
  • Voltel wrote:

    RakBR wrote:

    It's funny to see most people that are in mega alliances saying this change would only benefit mega alliances.
    Why they are carring so much if this would theoretically only help them and not smaller guilds.
    because this will kill off any chance for a small casual group to survive and it will just compound the problem.
    Have you not been paying attention?
    Small casual guilds cannot compete as the game is now, mega alliances are not just fighting each other they are wiping out the smaller guilds and alliances
  • Maybe 300 is too low limit, possibly going up to 400 or 500 in the future.

    Now that guilds with NAPs can't share territories, it would be necessary to enable access rights of hideouts as public or only alliance.


    What is clear is that this new system can't be worse than the previous one, at the most it will not have the desired effect, and if so, they will think of new limitations and restrictions, considering even if a non-fighting and abusive game proliferates, to include in ToS behaviors related to this way of playing and punishable.


    Newbie and casual players have to enter fluently, play and have their place in Albion, this pays the server and the PROplayers must fight each other. This is the official SBI decision beyond today's changes to work or not. I think they have finally realized, after many critical moments of the game, that it is the only way Albion has a future
  • Xezqez wrote:

    Voltel wrote:

    RakBR wrote:

    It's funny to see most people that are in mega alliances saying this change would only benefit mega alliances.
    Why they are carring so much if this would theoretically only help them and not smaller guilds.
    because this will kill off any chance for a small casual group to survive and it will just compound the problem.
    Have you not been paying attention? Small casual guilds cannot compete as the game is now, mega alliances are not just fighting each other they are wiping out the smaller guilds and alliances
    This is not true.

    At the moment you CAN join an alliance with territories as a GATHERER, you pay a gathering tax and contribute that way and do your own thing.

    But with this change, either you are dedicated to ZVZ or you'll be excluded from ever being on guilds with terris, it is an exclusive change not an inclusive one!
  • Raogun wrote:

    with that limit of players per alliance it really won't make sense to make an alliance, they had to limit the number of guilds by alliance instead of the number of players, after the change the small guilds will be put aside, and they will lose any help they had in an alliance
    Should have read the entire post
    Small guilds can still ally up, not every guild has 300 people and not every guild wants to merge into one zerg guild
  • ThePottersky wrote:

    TheBacon wrote:

    people are delusional if they think this will balance the game and stop monopolization via hand-holding.
    but what would you suggest then? at least they're trying.
    Severe restrictions over large-scale ZvZ that stops rewarding it and discourages it as much as possible, making the game ZvZ be more about smaller skirmishes and not about using the numbers of an alliance to swarm and overwhelm any enemy.