Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

  • It's funny how I see people complain the game will lose so many players over this shit, are mad about it happening mid season.

    BUT AT THE SAME TIME

    They say it won't change anything or even that it will be beneficial to mega-alliances and bad to small entities.

    Pick one, seriously...

    Also, these people are acting like they care about new players when they are the very ones making most new players quit due to overly zerg-ganking everybody at the portals, including some randos in t3 with under 1m total fame or hell even NAKED NEWBIES just out exploring the game for the first time! What a glorious first impression it must give, very compelling to keep playing I'm sure! It makes me laugh so very much seeing people so very disconnected from the solo / small-scale gameplay advocate this change would hurt this kind of content they just don't realize that it can't make it any worse than it is right now because small scale has hit rock bottom because of their egotistical, megalomaniac and narcissist self.

    Imagine thinking that "This change will split a lot of friends from playing together simply because either they are focused or wanting to do the same thing or they won't end up on the same group and community. I don't know how can this be a good thing..." this one is contradicting itself for fuck's sake, do you really need to be in the same community to communicate/keep contact with someone? You can be social/friendly between different guild while each enjoying the content you actually like with similar-minded individuals in your own community. And that isn't even necessary, leading to my next point.

    Another nonsensical trash coming out of their mouth is that the cap should be something like 1000 players, which would 100% remove the purpose of this change. You should have PLENTY of 300 people, including gatherers and other less PvP oriented people, to do anything in this game, hell I think the biggest group fights should be something around 50v50 or even less. anything above 20v20 doesn't add to the skill requirement AT ALL. If it was only according to me, I would cap guilds to 100 accounts and alliances to 300 accounts.

    On a side note, I've noticed everybody argue with ONLY territories control in mind, but some people are legit not interested in that content, either because they don't like ZvZ or they absolutely CAN'T ZvZ due to the game having a lot of optimization issues when it comes to players massing in a map. I mean we don't all having top-end gaming PCs and even when you do, FPS gets crappy in massive ZvZs... It's easy to say to just join the zergs if you can't fight them, but some people literally can't without dropping to 1fps, or just HATE that kind of content.

    I also agree with many points already brought up in this thread, which includes the following, but I might forget some:
    • Removing Name/Guild Tags in BZ
    • Gatherers complaining should understand that if they want no risk gathering, they should go to a no risk zone. If you never experienced risk while gathering before, you had a huge privilege that should never have existed and was a problem.
    • This will be VERY good on an economic standpoint, since there will definitely be more deaths, hence more gear buying.
    • I don't mind the NAPs because I can foresee all the drama stemming from them, and that if they even happen, lots of allied guilds absolutely HATE each other guts, but work together only because they both like alliance leader or leader guild. How many times have I witnessed people threatening to drop guild to kill an allied member or literally doing it! Such healthy game mechanics these alliances!
  • BruceLiChong wrote:

    It's funny how I see people complain the game will lose so many players over this shit, are mad about it happening mid season.

    BUT AT THE SAME TIME

    They say it won't change anything or even that it will be beneficial to mega-alliances and bad to small entities.

    Pick one, seriously...

    Also, these people are acting like they care about new players when they are the very ones making most new players quit due to overly zerg-ganking everybody at the portals, including some randos in t3 with under 1m total fame or hell even NAKED NEWBIES just out exploring the game for the first time!
    I've been wanting to post the exact same thing lol. The best part is that the devs specifically (and in bold!) said it would be a test, meaning if the results aren't satisfactory the changes would be reverted. But as usual, anytime a game goes through a change, you've got some vocal people threatening cancelled accounts and the apocalypse. Always pointless overreacting.

    And I could almost guarantee this won't be the last change, IMO it's just one of many coming changes regarding zerg mechanics.
  • rujind wrote:

    BruceLiChong wrote:

    It's funny how I see people complain the game will lose so many players over this shit, are mad about it happening mid season.

    BUT AT THE SAME TIME

    They say it won't change anything or even that it will be beneficial to mega-alliances and bad to small entities.

    Pick one, seriously...

    Also, these people are acting like they care about new players when they are the very ones making most new players quit due to overly zerg-ganking everybody at the portals, including some randos in t3 with under 1m total fame or hell even NAKED NEWBIES just out exploring the game for the first time!
    I've been wanting to post the exact same thing lol. The best part is that the devs specifically (and in bold!) said it would be a test, meaning if the results aren't satisfactory the changes would be reverted. But as usual, anytime a game goes through a change, you've got some vocal people threatening cancelled accounts and the apocalypse. Always pointless overreacting.
    And I could almost guarantee this won't be the last change, IMO it's just one of many coming changes regarding zerg mechanics.
    I think they should make Zerg vs Zerg five players per side at most...
  • UNFM wrote:

    blappo wrote:

    Eltharyon wrote:

    Based on that impact and on the community’s feedback, we will decide on whether to keep, adjust or reverse the change.
    Trust me reverse = 50% players base just leaves300 is a bit extreme no cap to guild cap... but W/e so long as there is a cap i am happier.
    I think only fans of full monopoly adn endless himself profit will leave game for sure BUT maybe not who knows
    Each of this posts show the change is exactly spot on..

    The rulers tears are the fuel of the change

    Let me summarize your tears we know

    -naps will make it worse of today and you will rule more and make more money
    -but nothing will change there is no need to do it
    -and as nothing will change all players will quit and the game is broke
    -and you are afraid about new players, the one you ganked with blobs before that they don't have a future
    -and if this change happens the sky will fall apart

    And the devil thing would be no name / guild tags of non friendly in bz, because that would be diabolical as it be the final nail in the coffin for handholding..

    We know
  • ImaDoki wrote:

    What we have now:

    No cap on alliances
    Small guilds leeching big alliances
    Power projection based on sheer numbers
    Guilds not affiliated to big alliances denied influence of the outlands
    Tons of stale areas due to handholding

    What we will have with this change:

    Max 300 players per alliance
    Small guilds having to actively fight for space by allying with other small guilds
    Power projection based on strategy
    More conflict overall



    What will guilds win with the change:

    More content
    Less opression based on sheer numbers
    More space to explore the new outlands

    What will they lose?

    Allied territories
    Allied Battle mounts buff
    Allied healing
    Suffer FriendlyFire

    And the economy?

    More deaths all around = more gear trashed = more market activity.
    This is so true
    and the "big" guys in the game thought this change is for them, nobody cares about their big ass fights, go bored yourself with your nap simulator.
    they keep crying nothing will change. If nothing will change, go keep playing your game stop your "nothing will change" opinion lmao thats why dev TRY to change it for other guys, not everyone in the game is interested in forming up a group to fight you , you are not that important. Nothing changes for you cause you chose to bore yourself, go on with your game, nobody cares.
  • ImaDoki wrote:

    What we have now:

    No cap on alliances
    Small guilds leeching big alliances
    Power projection based on sheer numbers
    Guilds not affiliated to big alliances denied influence of the outlands
    Tons of stale areas due to handholding

    What we will have with this change:

    Max 300 players per alliance
    Small guilds having to actively fight for space by allying with other small guilds
    Power projection based on strategy
    More conflict overall



    What will guilds win with the change:

    More content
    Less opression based on sheer numbers
    More space to explore the new outlands

    What will they lose?

    Allied territories
    Allied Battle mounts buff
    Allied healing
    Suffer FriendlyFire

    And the economy?

    More deaths all around = more gear trashed = more market activity.

    That seems idealistic at best. :) This is some of what I see happening:
    • Small guilds will be irrelevant in the Outlands, regardless of whether or not they ally. Three hundred players in a single guild will tend to be far more efficient and coordinated than X guilds in a 300 player alliance (and the more guilds in the alliance, the more inefficient and uncoordinated they'll tend to be).
    • Zvz players will increasingly be attracted to zvz-first mega-guilds, and will ditch smaller guilds.
    • Part-time zvz players will increasingly get pushed out of zvz guilds in favor of full-time zvz players.
    • New zvz players will have a harder time finding experienced zvz players to play with and learn from.
    • Big zvz guilds will tend to orient their players to narrower primetimes, to maximize their zerg potential (a half EU/NA guild will be clobbered by full-EU guilds in EU primetime and full-NA guilds in NA, assuming equal skill/gear); it wouldn't surprise me if we saw ARCH_EU_1 and ARCH_NA_1, etc.
    • NAPs will be more likely to form along primetime boundaries.
    All that seems bad to me.
  • Those talking about removing name tags and reducing guilds:

    That is where this movement is heading. Indeed, its already virtually a guarantee. What SBI means by a test is, SQUAK will most likely maintain the dominant world empire using a NAP structure. After they win a few big fights on the new no alliance map, the overflowing of tears from the carebears will be torrential.

    That's when you'll get the "remove ability to see name tags" addition. Look at what Final Order has accomplished within the 300 man cap. They fight all the big alliances and do pretty well. Blue Army, Take Care, other top ZvZ guilds. They're just too good. Its not fair. Its not right.

    The carebears want Squad players ganking Squad players along the road where we all moved islands and placed hideouts. Expectations were made. And when the carebears' attempt to force the alliance players (14,000 players represented among the Big 4) to play the "correct way" fails, that's when devs will have to cut those "mega guilds" down to size. Dozens of clans who have been together for many seasons even years, but who cares about any of that.

    Right now ARCH, POE, SQUAK, 1941, Final Order, they all fight each other in epic battles for tangible open world goals (season points and territories) every single day in a rolling ZvZ that covers the entire map. Indeed this is the very same system (cluster queue, disarray, ZvZ for territory) that SBI justimplemented and it works.

    You think its as simple as sending SBI a bunch of tears and literally begging them to dismantle SQUAK, POE, ARCH, and so on. By forming a mob of carebears you have already failed, and I guarantee you that SQUAK will win the first post-alliance invasion day.
  • That's not to say there wont be other winners. The point is that the current kingpins will evolve and translate just fine onto the post-alliance map, and the sore losers will see that their lives have not been improved in any meaningful way, despite their wild fantasies of a World without World Empire. Then they will say to SBI, ahem, excuse me, this is terrible thing just happened now what are you gonna do about it
  • A few wild mistakes

    It will get worse and they still win

    Assume they collect the 300 best ZvZ players

    Assume they no life - all unemployed all play

    Then they cover 12 hours permanently.. that means either they just focus on these 12 hours or they stand up in the middle of the night for ZvZ.. they might do this a month but that ends

    Result, they either focus on their tinezone making room and we have not 6 Alliance to rule all but 12 - big win ..or they just split forces and are roughly just 100 if they focus on one objective..

    Also big win..
  • Oof. Lots of talk of more casual or newer players being removed from their groups, and I agree with that prediction. Whether SBI reverts the change or not, the damage this will cause to those kinds of players will be irreversible.

    Disclaimer: as head diplomat for a new player group (Brave Newbie), and a relatively new player to Albion myself, my perspective is obviously biased toward newer players. Here are some other reasons why I don't like this change:
    • Groups are mechanically encouraged to consolidate their fighting force to a singular guild/alliance, leaving fewer spots for less skilled, less active, or newer players. This is exclusionary and is especially detrimental for new player retention.
    • Large amounts of people currently in alliances will be removed or shuffled to feeder organizations or secondary guilds, ostracized from some or all of their social structures and without PvP skills or experience to get into the much higher-bar-to-entry groups. This is a deeply social game and this could cause many players to quit.
    • As noted by Robin, in-game alliances will adapt and continue to exist with non-aggression pacts. The difference to me is that the mega-alliances are already much more organized than all others and it is now significantly more mechanically difficult for smaller groups to unite to a similarly competitive level to oppose them.
    I don't think alliances or their size is the root of the issue with the current state of the Outlands. I believe the problem is there are too many incentives to own large amounts of territories and not enough conflict drivers for the top groups to focus their fights on each other and the valuable territories rather than stomping on all the smaller groups to acquire as much rental tribute silver/influence as possible.

    All things being said, our newbro organization is well organized and we will be fine regardless of how these changes shake out. We've already released plans for how we're dealing with these changes and continuing to act as a single cohesive group dedicated to supporting new players no matter how hostile or detrimental game mechanics are to harboring them in our group(s?).
    Head Diplomat for the Brave Newbie Alliance

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