Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

  • tabooshka wrote:

    Voltel wrote:

    Sinatra.SUN wrote:

    @TheBacon

    dude you have a 2600 man alliance (bacons) coordinating with a 700 man alliance (Surf) AND another 700 man alliance (newby) against a 300 man guild (sun).

    I am pretty sure it will have a effect on your collaboration, and im more than sure that it has a effect for the 300 man guild that your combined forces is fighting.

    You might be right and it changes nothing, but as the one representing the solo guild (me), i am incredibly happy to at least have increased chances in fighting your giant nutcup
    Solo guild that is funny as hell. You broke an agreement worked with 404 alliance and Poe to attack our hideout that is some spin right there frank...
    You seem pretty uninformed for a person that leads albion newsDont worry though, Shozen doesnt know shit either
    Please enlighten me.
  • Raogun wrote:

    Xezqez wrote:

    Raogun wrote:

    con ese límite de jugadores por alianza realmente no tendrá sentido hacer una alianza, tuvieron que limitar el número de gremios por alianza en lugar del número de jugadores, después del cambio los pequeños gremios serán dejados a un lado, y perderán cualquier ayuda que hayan tenido en un alián Ce
    Debería haber leído todo el postLos gremios pequeños aún pueden acoirse, no todos los gremios tienen 300 personas y no todos los gremios quieren fusionarse en un gremio zerg
    Well friend, if I read the whole post and immediately take out the accounts, the small guilds within the alliances will be left aside, what weight will have 2 or 3 small guilds against an entire hordcore guild? instead of trying to correct others think of the big picture, it was better to limit the number of guilds per alliance than the number of players
    what chance do they have now? Ride coat tails of blue army or some other high skilled group? or maybe now they can work with each other and build up a team of they're own they can learn to stand on 2 feet like a blue army guild does. This change might not make life easy for some guilds that are in a mega alliance but it does create opportunities to put more guilds in the "elite" category rather than just 3 massive zergs controlling everything with a few mini alliances fighting over scraps.
  • UNFM wrote:

    shaghag wrote:

    Let’s be clear what will happen here . Let’s say top guild a, for example BA, will produce a 300 man guild. It will take its 300 best, most active players and form one guild .

    At 1800 utc it will fight another 300 man guild over a Terry or a hideout and it will wipe them , because they are not as good, not as coherent and not as well organised ... at 2000 utc another guild of 300, shall we call them freemen , will fight another solo 300 guild and wipe them ... there is no friendly fire here ... only 350 people are allowed on a zone at one time, so they have more than enough numbers ... at 2200 utc another 300 man guild let’s calm them black order , will again have organised its 300 best players and will wipe another guild over a territory or hideout ... no friendly fire here ... at 0000 utc etc etc etc ... at 0200 another guild .. let’s call it conflict will wipe ... none of these will fight each other and they will control all Terry’s and hideouts ...
    Nothing has changed except the names ...


    for ba/ freemen/ black order / conflict substitute crimson reborn/ crimson newborn / hammer and sickle/ scoiatel/ yaga/ bloco/

    nothing will changed except guilds will be even more elite , non elite players will be dropped and leave the game , non elite guilds will get tired of being wiped and will leave the game ...

    Small guilds will not do better , joining small guilds together will not work, the same alliances that control Terry’s now will continue to do so

    At least at the moment the 2 big alliances fight each other.

    This will not rebalance the game.
    nice try
    lol what do you think is happening now? blue army is taking its 300 man guild along with 5 other quality guilds and running over people. How do you use an argument against something when that something happens already on a massive scale.
    What happens when 10 guilds all attack blue army in different locations and they have to try and move that 300 man force around to those locations fighting back to back to back?? you think nobody else can form groups to combat it? Do you think you have to stop being freinds with someone just cause you fight each other? open your mind for change that might make the game even better, least give it a chance and see what happens before screaming the sky is falling
  • Xezqez wrote:

    UNFM wrote:

    shaghag wrote:

    Let’s be clear what will happen here . Let’s say top guild a, for example BA, will produce a 300 man guild. It will take its 300 best, most active players and form one guild .

    At 1800 utc it will fight another 300 man guild over a Terry or a hideout and it will wipe them , because they are not as good, not as coherent and not as well organised ... at 2000 utc another guild of 300, shall we call them freemen , will fight another solo 300 guild and wipe them ... there is no friendly fire here ... only 350 people are allowed on a zone at one time, so they have more than enough numbers ... at 2200 utc another 300 man guild let’s calm them black order , will again have organised its 300 best players and will wipe another guild over a territory or hideout ... no friendly fire here ... at 0000 utc etc etc etc ... at 0200 another guild .. let’s call it conflict will wipe ... none of these will fight each other and they will control all Terry’s and hideouts ...
    Nothing has changed except the names ...


    for ba/ freemen/ black order / conflict substitute crimson reborn/ crimson newborn / hammer and sickle/ scoiatel/ yaga/ bloco/

    nothing will changed except guilds will be even more elite , non elite players will be dropped and leave the game , non elite guilds will get tired of being wiped and will leave the game ...

    Small guilds will not do better , joining small guilds together will not work, the same alliances that control Terry’s now will continue to do so

    At least at the moment the 2 big alliances fight each other.

    This will not rebalance the game.
    nice try
    lol what do you think is happening now? blue army is taking its 300 man guild along with 5 other quality guilds and running over people. How do you use an argument against something when that something happens already on a massive scale.What happens when 10 guilds all attack blue army in different locations and they have to try and move that 300 man force around to those locations fighting back to back to back?? you think nobody else can form groups to combat it? Do you think you have to stop being freinds with someone just cause you fight each other? open your mind for change that might make the game even better, least give it a chance and see what happens before screaming the sky is falling
    nice try vol2
  • Who is going to take on squak or POE? Who is taking them on now?

    Squak are wiping ego
    Poe are wIPING CLAP

    who is going to take on these 2? And don’t say you are going to get little guilds together and make one guild because it won’t work ... they have good players, higher tiered kit so they don’t get zoned out and a leadership structure that is battle hardened..

    If anyone was going to take them on, then the map would be balanced now .. it isn’t
  • I swear this game is going in reverse order of development. The consistent "development" isn't real, it's just people saying things and you guys agreeing to do so.

    If no ones noticed, things just continue to be removed. Sure some weren't as bad, but it's as if the game is working backwards in development. Development clearly does not know what happens in game, and the real fact is removing alliances would not only hurt gameplay but the game itself. You'd think after finally doing a few good updates, they'd continue to push good updates. But, no.

    Through a developer standpoint, this looks like a shit plan that you guys are throwing out and hoping it can go well. Not knowing the outcome, poor development.
    Through a researching standpoint, this is poor as well. Simply because you've conducted a small sample and after approximately two days, you have your answer.

    Another big thing is pushing this update during the season. Like, what? Who okayed this in the development team?
    So we agree with 1100 players after we have 350,000 monthly active players? WOW, what.
    Is this downscale to guild/alliances not too an extreme?
    Do you guys not realize, some guilds aren't 300 purely active players?

    From a player that's played solo, with a big alliance,in a solo guild and spent months of in game hours. What are you doing? Do you not know your game and the players in it?
  • Isolate wrote:

    I swear this game is going in reverse order of development. The consistent "development" isn't real, it's just people saying things and you guys agreeing to do so.

    If no ones noticed, things just continue to be removed. Sure some weren't as bad, but it's as if the game is working backwards in development. Development clearly does not know what happens in game, and the real fact is removing alliances would not only hurt gameplay but the game itself. You'd think after finally doing a few good updates, they'd continue to push good updates. But, no.

    Through a developer standpoint, this looks like a shit plan that you guys are throwing out and hoping it can go well. Not knowing the outcome, poor development.
    Through a researching standpoint, this is poor as well. Simply because you've conducted a small sample and after approximately two days, you have your answer.

    Another big thing is pushing this update during the season. Like, what? Who okayed this in the development team?
    So we agree with 1100 players after we have 350,000 monthly active players? WOW, what.
    Is this downscale to guild/alliances not too an extreme?
    Do you guys not realize, some guilds aren't 300 purely active players?

    From a player that's played solo, with a big alliance,in a solo guild and spent months of in game hours. What are you doing? Do you not know your game and the players in it?
    nice try
  • shaghag wrote:

    Let’s be clear what will happen here . Let’s say top guild a, for example BA, will produce a 300 man guild. It will take its 300 best, most active players and form one guild .

    At 1800 utc it will fight another 300 man guild over a Terry or a hideout and it will wipe them , because they are not as good, not as coherent and not as well organised ... at 2000 utc another guild of 300, shall we call them freemen , will fight another solo 300 guild and wipe them ... there is no friendly fire here ... only 350 people are allowed on a zone at one time, so they have more than enough numbers ... at 2200 utc another 300 man guild let’s calm them black order , will again have organised its 300 best players and will wipe another guild over a territory or hideout ... no friendly fire here ... at 0000 utc etc etc etc ... at 0200 another guild .. let’s call it conflict will wipe ... none of these will fight each other and they will control all Terry’s and hideouts ...
    Nothing has changed except the names ...


    for ba/ freemen/ black order / conflict substitute crimson reborn/ crimson newborn / hammer and sickle/ scoiatel/ yaga/ bloco/

    nothing will changed except guilds will be even more elite , non elite players will be dropped and leave the game , non elite guilds will get tired of being wiped and will leave the game ...

    Small guilds will not do better , joining small guilds together will not work, the same alliances that control Terry’s now will continue to do so

    At least at the moment the 2 big alliances fight each other.

    This will not rebalance the game.
    You are correct in that the elite guilds will continue to be elite and control the most desired territories...this proposed change in alliances will not change that fact. They will also have NAP's with guilds they trust, and that will extend their reach and give them a cushion between them and their rivals.

    However, unless they have 300 people that play the game 24hrs a day non-stop, there will be times that they are off line and there will be a limit to how much territory they can actually defend at any given moment. The elite guilds will have to prioritize which territories are the most important to them, and make sure the launch times are during hours that they can defend it. NAP's are fantastic, but they only really mean the other guild won't attack you...if the decision comes down to protect your own territory or help a another guild in a NAP defend theirs...well the choice will be simple, protect your own.

    So in the end the Elite guilds will absolutely be able to role the smaller guilds in a straight up fight, but they might not be in that fight to begin with if they have decide between attacking a Hideout in a T5 zone, or protecting their T8 zone from a rival that's getting uppity next to them.
  • Mofrix wrote:

    Good changes despite what some say. Making non-aggression pacts will be risky :)
    exact. friendly fire, an accident here and there, open world encounters and as time goes by will slowly make non aggression pacts unattractive. maybe not, but we had alliances for so long, it is good to try some new dynamics. after all it is a test, if it is so bad as some people are thinking and the game pop drops, SBI will most definitely reverse this change.
  • Voltel wrote:

    So newby has already started implementing our plan to address these arbitrary roadblocks that SBI has decided to set up to make it harder for player communities to organize. Once we are done and have fully rolled out our plan I will write up how we did it for any casual group that is being severely negatively impacted by this arbitrary limit. As always while I completely disagree with this change this is a sandbox and we will all find a way to continue building sandcastles. While this change is already being circumvented by the larger more organized groups we intend on leveling the playing field by showing any casual group how to replicate what the larger organized groups are implementing as we speak.
    Casual groups are already being impacted by dick-holding from big alliances so whats the problem??? if a casual group wants to do something on black zone they have to either suck a dick or die with dignity.
  • This is literally gonna accomplish 5 things:

    - GVG-like elitism for ZVZ as well, will make it very hard for new players to get into the game
    - Casual players can go get fucked
    - Disarray being totally fucked, since the top tier zerg can operate allianceless anyway
    - People complaining about mega alliances will now complain about 'mega guilds' and 'handholding via NAPs'

    Would've posted the 5th one, but too busy kicking anyone that hasn't logged in for more than a week..
  • DartheIncarnate wrote:

    This is literally gonna accomplish 5 things:

    - GVG-like elitism for ZVZ as well, will make it very hard for new players to get into the game
    - Casual players can go get fucked
    - Disarray being totally fucked, since the top tier zerg can operate allianceless anyway
    - People complaining about mega alliances will now complain about 'mega guilds' and 'handholding via NAPs'

    Would've posted the 5th one, but too busy kicking anyone that hasn't logged in for more than a week..
    1. so according yo you right now there is no zvz-elitism now?? (Kappa)
    2. casual players aren't being fucked right now?
    3. Disarray is going to be changed
    4. I prefer people complaining about mega guilds rather than mega alliances, dick holding via NAPs are not going to last much, how many ppl do you think play with tags on in a big zvz? how much friendly fire will dick-holders going to take?? how long until they stop holding dicks?? This change is good, accept it.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by vertiguin2 ().