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.

  • We all know that 90% of people who threaten to stop game will not do so..


    Always a lack of logic on the part of people against the update! This will benefit the big alliances but you complained and threatened to stop, or is the logic? It is certainly not the players in alliances of 100 people who complain about this change



    This change will also help to build which alliance is best
  • tabooshka wrote:

    Midgard wrote:

    Blackender wrote:

    My opinion this change will end the casual players.And I think the albion should be a game for everyone and not just for the elite that plays 24/7
    Totally.
    wrong.
    I totally belive that you 2 are with best intention believing but you both are right, and probably you are


    I think the conceptual work on SBI side is now to flank that clear feedback that people have enough of zone lock etc etc..

    Conclusion 1: 300 is still too big, i understand for mid season you cannot cut a guild, but sweet spot is 150, this also aligns with lag and sever ability
    Conclusion 2: There will be handholding, you need to remove the name tags and guild tags at least in conflict zones
    Conclusion 3: You need to wisely code this, i tell you one potential bug that i already will forsee is a risk: You will check if alliances are formed, that these are below 300 in total, that the easy part of coding. That will work. The thing that is tricky in coding how you make sure, not 10 guild of 20 players alliance, and then fill up to 300 per guild? that is not so easy to code..
    Conclusion 4: There needs to be competion among the top guilds. Why don't you bring in Super Zones? Super respawn + More Points, that there is if these zones and mages are under control, it is a garanted win
    Conclusion 5: Incentive to select what you own. If a guild has no hideout and no terrie, they have a permanent 20 % fame and 10 % Life and 10 % damage buff...By owning a terrie or a hideout these buff gets drained...by ownning too many, the mages creating the energie...take energie from the players...so any terrie above 10 costs permanent 5 % energie from each char..
    Conclusion 6: Hideout, for obvious reasons these need be public or gulld ownly...

    With these changes, you make it a success
  • tabooshka wrote:

    Midgard wrote:

    Blackender wrote:

    My opinion this change will end the casual players.And I think the albion should be a game for everyone and not just for the elite that plays 24/7
    Totally.
    wrong.
    Why wrong? Do you think that there are some "starting zones" for casual players and smaller/newer guilds in the Black zone? Royale territories are gone too. Is there any sort of protection for them against mega alliances? Maybe I am blind... So tech me, please.
    HankTheNoob | Battles in AO

  • H4nk wrote:

    tabooshka wrote:

    Midgard wrote:

    Blackender wrote:

    My opinion this change will end the casual players.And I think the albion should be a game for everyone and not just for the elite that plays 24/7
    Totally.
    wrong.
    Why wrong? Do you think that there are some "starting zones" for casual players and smaller/newer guilds in the Black zone? Royale territories are gone too. Is there any sort of protection for them against mega alliances? Maybe I am blind... So tech me, please.
    Like I said mutliple times, people worry about something they never had, territories are meaningless get over it.
  • H4nk wrote:

    Ok, those guild should forget about hideouts too, because they will be not able to defend them... Nice patch for them, GL :D
    HELLO!!
    They been complaining because they are losing hideouts now they are getting hit by 200+ mega alliance forces and being wiped out with no chance of defending, the same people suddenly interested in the survival of small guilds have been wiping them out of the black zone for last 2 weeks

    THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS CHANGE

    Cmon Man keep up bro.
  • idk why we even have guilds, honestly. Guilds are an archaic trove from when mmos had very little means of communication, so guilds helped players build communities.

    Now guilds are just used to hand hold and ruin the game for people playing the game organically. (No guild)

    we have discord now. Let players play the game without making us have to hold hands. Sick of seeing green names just to compete against hand holders.
  • Nice !

    Finally an update to decentralize power.

    A guild (or alliance) of 300 people can win the season (404 last month) so the number is good.

    More competitors there are, more interesting the pvp will be.

    Impossible today to overturn powers that have been in place for years.

    +1
    The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you would ever look
    Julius Caesar. 75 BC
  • Xezqez wrote:

    H4nk wrote:

    Ok, those guild should forget about hideouts too, because they will be not able to defend them... Nice patch for them, GL :D
    HELLO!!They been complaining because they are losing hideouts now they are getting hit by 200+ mega alliance forces and being wiped out with no chance of defending, the same people suddenly interested in the survival of small guilds have been wiping them out of the black zone for last 2 weeks

    THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS CHANGE

    Cmon Man keep up bro.
    I am maybe member of big alliance (I need protect my guild and community), but I still have my own opinion that this is wrongly designed... What is wrong on that?
    HankTheNoob | Battles in AO

  • Hello Developers of SBI


    I still enjoy how you disrespect your player base in every turn and how simple minded you areThousands of people have put in hundreds of hours in,set themsleves of accordingly to the rules YOU declared this season.

    And you are disregarding your entire player base and going for a rule change I would really like to type a wall of text to explain how simple minded you are,

    but I will cut it shortIn no sport or anything related that is competitive, rules are not changed whilst the game is played. If a rule change is deemed necesarry, It will only be PUT in place after the game is over. (In this case the season)Shame on you, and pity on all of us who have bought legendary accounts.


    PS: In Season 6 my solo guild finished 3rd in the season. We've never cried & complained like the people did. Because we read the rules before the season season started and knew the rules would not change till the next season.

    Articulo Mortis #1
    Fuck Poneyboy


    Best Regards
    Vasort

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

  • Hollywoodi wrote:

    I think the conceptual work on SBI side is now to flank that clear feedback that people have enough of zone lock etc etc..

    Conclusion 1: 300 is still too big, i understand for mid season you cannot cut a guild, but sweet spot is 150, this also aligns with lag and sever ability
    Conclusion 2: There will be handholding, you need to remove the name tags and guild tags at least in conflict zones
    Conclusion 3: You need to wisely code this, i tell you one potential bug that i already will forsee is a risk: You will check if alliances are formed, that these are below 300 in total, that the easy part of coding. That will work. The thing that is tricky in coding how you make sure, not 10 guild of 20 players alliance, and then fill up to 300 per guild? that is not so easy to code..
    Conclusion 4: There needs to be competion among the top guilds. Why don't you bring in Super Zones? Super respawn + More Points, that there is if these zones and mages are under control, it is a garanted win
    Conclusion 5: Incentive to select what you own. If a guild has no hideout and no terrie, they have a permanent 20 % fame and 10 % Life and 10 % damage buff...By owning a terrie or a hideout these buff gets drained...by ownning too many, the mages creating the energie...take energie from the players...so any terrie above 10 costs permanent 5 % energie from each char..
    Conclusion 6: Hideout, for obvious reasons these need be public or gulld ownly...

    With these changes, you make it a success"


    ah yes ofcourse ruin the game for the people who play it the most! fantastic idea!
  • 90% of my Friend are playing this game For huge ass zvz. Politics, NAP and Alliances are core of all MASS PVP games. If you remove it You kill a game. Creating a artificial obstracles will only make game less enjoyable. An attempt to change something by force will not come out, large alliances will continue to increase their strength and will only share their territories in a different way. we will see a TakeCare of 100 player in the center of the map comes BA, BAF and June in the number of 100 Map Cap saved 400 score 4 guilds 3v1 even more debalant than before changes. OFC BA BAF And June are under same command. And attack from difrenct side...

    Let's see this from another side TK has (300) 100 online Players are calling other Guilds 2.3 or even 5 guilds in the strength of 100 people who do not like BA They occupy defensive positions and friendly fire works. What is more sensible and thoughtful?


    After the changes, the guilds will look like you're out of work for 3 CTA a day you get a kick. The game is to bring pleasure and not obligation. Before the changes I collected raw materials for pleasure, now leaving anywhere in the set for 4mil + include pet and Avalon Gathering gear is pointless, after 2h collecting raw materials for 300-500k if I go back to town / HO
  • Trying to cap Alliance member is a welcome move but 300 is just too damn small of a number. Many, if not all of the non ZvZ players will get kicked from the guild for sure, because they have very little use in the guild. Guilds can no longer recruit new players if they are not experienced or does not want to do ZvZ. Guilds will need to create sister guild just so they can recruit new players which sucks. Increase the CAP or just remove the Alliance feature all together.