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.

  • arifur wrote:

    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.
    It is forcing elitism and I know of at least half a dozen more casual groups that are disbanding. I think SBI is in for a rude awakening when most people are kicked and they end up quitting the game. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50k people unsub over how poorly this whole thing has been executed and communicated not to mention the actual substance.
  • Voltel wrote:

    arifur wrote:

    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.
    It is forcing elitism and I know of at least half a dozen more casual groups that are disbanding. I think SBI is in for a rude awakening when most people are kicked and they end up quitting the game. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50k people unsub over how poorly this whole thing has been executed and communicated not to mention the actual substance.
    I hope they make changes before they implement it even if just for a test. We have a small Alliance and our guild is very welcoming to new players. We get ton of requests almost everyday. I would hate see that go away.
  • Hahah small guilds/alliances are already not competitive in the BZ. Nothing changes on that front at all with this change except if the 1 zone you try to control gets attacked it may be by a smaller force instead (which would be a benefit). If anything this impacts the medium size groups but has next to know impact on the small ones.
  • Polizek wrote:

    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
    interesting ... 90% of my friends including me dont like zvz at all :D
    what the hell is so fun about being a sheep?
    small scale pvp is MUCH more fun
    "Montaron, you are so aggravating! 'Tis disturbing to my demeanor!" - Xzar
  • H4nk wrote:

    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?
    Opinions are fine but when ya talk about small guilds not able to defend themselves and I tell you that is already the case we are dealing with facts and not so much opinion.
    You have an opinion that they wont be able to survive post patch, when they are already dying out. I mean ya get what I am saying? no risk in testing this change if the end result is the same. If it is wrong they change it back or try something else, they increase alliance cap or whatever if it is right though.... Never know til ya go
  • I had this insight. I'd like to add to the conversation.

    I believe one of the problem is that the game is under feeding hardcore players. They need more preoccupation. How? Extend the primetime for top-end zones. A top-tier zone could be 12h (24h?) in conflict this way. They could be attacked at any time, from any side, from anybody, maybe simultaneously. This way, the gameplay for top-end zones would never "get stale".

    On the flip side, the game is overfeeding the casual players. Those don't want (or don't have hte the means) to engage in conflict as often, their guilds don't even have a re-gearing scheme. Those players mostly want to get away with they fame farming, gathering etc.
  • Good idea from Potter above. Since T8 zone is considered more valuable it should be under much more difficult to hold and should not follow the same rules as T6 for example. Guilds holding that high level territory should have to devote much higher player resources and time to hold it. This would make the hardcore fight each other more often and leave the lower tier zones more open for smaller groups to fight over.
  • Tabor wrote:

    Good idea from Potter above. Since T8 zone is considered more valuable it should be under much more difficult to hold and should not follow the same rules as T6 for example. Guilds holding that high level territory should have to devote much higher player resources and time to hold it. This would make the hardcore fight each other more often and leave the lower tier zones more open for smaller groups to fight over.
    THIS -
    T8 zone and hideout in T8 7x24 attackable mages give tripple points
    T7 zone and hideout in T7 7x12 attackable mages give double points
    T6 ...
  • Vasort wrote:

    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
    thats not a season point rule tho, thats the rule of the game and the game is not over anytime soon especially with this change
  • Lolpetijn wrote:

    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!
    well then just leave the game, show it through your action, all these changes are made cause you stayed lmao you need the game more than the game need you
    no one forced you to be on the forum complaining too
  • @Gugusteh

    The main reason why SBI decided to move from 5v5 to ZvZ conquering system was to avoid a single guild/alliance being able to get so many territories by having a relatively small group of 20-25 good 5v5 players. The same is now possible to happen with good ZvZ guilds, the ability to hyper expand undisputedly. The problem is not being too good at ZvZ or too big in numbers but the ability to conquer so much without brake. This is happening because bigger alliances can mass up more players and send them to overwhelm smaller forces.

    U ask for ideas to stop and avoid this? here r some:

    -Hide outs need to be a bit harder to be spotted. Make hide outs under construction totally invisible in the maps even if being in the same land. Once they r finished keep them totally invisible for everyone except for the players of the alliance controllling the clusters where they r at.

    -Make the zerg debuff much stronger. So strong that actually makes it unworthly to send more than 80 or 100 players to fight in the same cluster. It should actually affect the players IP to properly debuff everything and not only damage dealt and received.

    -Make the zerg debuff keep the negative bonus even if the zergs´ sizes change along the battle until its end and increase it if more players join in the mid of the fight from the surrounding lands, from random dungeons or from hide outs in the same cluster.

    -Different population caps for cluster depending on their tier. 150 for T5, 200 for T6, 250 for T7 and 300 T8. Allowing smaller battles for lower tier lands and leaving the biggest battles for the higher ones.

    -Link the attacks declarations cost to the amount of clusters controlled by the alliance to 1 or 2 millions per controlled cluster at the moment of paying. One of the reasons why small/weak groups stop disputting territories to the stronger ones is because even if 2M couldnt sound as too much, it would still be a waste of money if u have near to zero chances of winning. If ur guild/alliance have no clusters yet the cost to declare attacks for u would be for free as well and once u have 1+ territories the cost would be bigger the more cluster u control. This would also punish medium and big size alliances because the costs for each attack would be also very expensive. Imagine now BA paying 90 or 180M per attack every day or any of the other big alliances paying 50 or 100M.

    As u can see there r other ways to deal with the hyper expand issue. This measure will not make a big change for small/weak groups which is the real problem.
  • To the people who think NAPS will work the same as alliances now, It wont, you cannot backup your allies in the same way anymore, You cannot come in from behide your current allies already fighting, You cannot heal any of your NAP'd allies, You cannot DPS on the same clump, Really the only way for a NAP'd ally to backup would be to come in from the other side and this could be learned to be avoided by fighting with your back againest the walls, Fighting in castles will also create major issue's for NAP'd alliances terris are also hard to push in if held correct which will also cause issues for NAP'd allies,Hideouts too, Its such a small area to attack it will be super hard to have to allies around a hideout helping each other take on 1 guild, AOE's would be going everywhere and I just don't see NAP's lasting long. AOE is going to be the death to NAP'd allies and not being able to heal each other, I feel this is a great change to the world of albion and hey guess what if it goes so badly its only a test. But I do feel the cap @ 300 might be a bit low, maybe around 400 to 500 and also not allowing the whole player account count as 1 guild member is a problem. Player accounts should 100% count as 1 guild member allowing for 2 alts in your guild. Its not like you could play the other 2 at the same time which still makes it a 300 member cap or w,e the cap maybe. Cough 400 to 500 Cough

    The post was edited 4 times, last by Neef ().

  • Eternalhaze wrote:

    Roccandil wrote:

    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.
    All these points you made were true with 5v5 gvg too, with the exception that small guilds were irrelevant...

    This is why I'd like to see territory control be largely dependent on persistent zone activity, not a single spike of activity to cater to huge zergs.

    Narrow primetime windows and one-shot tower channels drive the cluster-capping zerg meta. That's the fundamental problem, and capping alliances doesn't change that.
  • Neef wrote:

    To the people who think NAPS will work the same as alliances now, It wont, you cannot backup your allies in the same way anymore, You cannot come in from behide your current allies already fighting, You cannot heal any of your NAP'd allies, You cannot DPS on the same clump, Really the only way for a NAP'd ally to backup would be to come in from the other side and this could be learned to be avoided by fighting with your back againest the walls, Fighting in castles will also create major issue's for NAP'd alliances terris are also hard to push in if held correct which will also cause issues for NAP'd allies,Hideouts too, Its such a small area to attack it will be super hard to have to allies around a hideout helping each other take on 1 guild, AOE's would be going everywhere and I just don't see NAP's lasting long. AOE is going to be the death to NAP'd allies and not being able to heal each other, I feel this is a great change to the world of albion and hey guess what if it goes so badly its only a test.

    The rules affect everyone the same way, and massive zergs are still rewarded by the territory control system. I have no doubt that top guilds will find an effective way to work together to maximize their zerg potential, and they will do so better than everyone else.
  • I see this as a quick fix for the problem of large alliances owning large expanses of the map. I think NAP agreements are going to make the game more interesting, but only allowing 20 people in a group is a limitation which is going to make large scale ZvZ much harder.

    I still think the game needs a way to exponentially increase the cost of owning territories. If you cant pay you simply lose the territory.

    Anybody else find reset days to be a rather convoluted mechanic to fight for territories now? Hideouts are not reset after all.

    I hate the time zones of territory/hideout vulnerabilities. They are simply too random. There should be a way to set your vulnerability time once after you take the territory or build your hideout.


    I am looking forward to seeing what this does to the game.