Is it better to have mega alliances, or to have smaller alliances under the same banner?

    • Is it better to have mega alliances, or to have smaller alliances under the same banner?

      Players obviously gravitate to the playstyle that gives them the best advantage. And with season points sharing, disarray debuff, and the soft caps on territory ownership, alliances have clearly decided that it is better to have multiple smaller alliances than 1 large mega alliance. Any changes made to these will affect whether guilds group up or spread tags further.

      What I want to know is, which playstyle do you think is better from a gameplay perspective? From a conflict perspective? From a 'fun' perspective? ;p

      I started playing with Queen, when some of these changes started coming into effect, so I never played with 'real' mega alliances around. One thing that I think suffers from breaking them up is cluster queue, because obviously the queue can't tell who is allied out of tags, so doesn't work as intended to provide a more 'balanced' number of forces in the zone.

      As the game is right now, I don't see a third alternative between these two options. So, out of each you've played under, which do you prefer?
      Arcane shill - 700/700

      Looking for openworld PvP when the Lands Awakened update hits? TUSSLE is recruiting.

      https://discord.gg/Yct9bmh8tY
    • One idea is setting more and more attack timers to the same single timezone to force the zerg's to spread their forces more. This however does not really work since the point of multi time zones was to allow guilds to station around cities that fit more with their online times.

      The other idea would be an instanced 40v40 or 60v60 territory fight (function as it does now where the guild has to channel over the tower and defender has to channel the tower to pacify it.). Since multiple guilds are able to launch an attack on a territory, a new system would be in place to determine which of those guilds gets to do the attack. Basically a guild would have attack tokens it earns through PvE and maybe even some open world objectives. These token's continue to pile up and when a guild attacks it pays out all of it's tokens. If no other guild can match the tokens then the highest token guild wins the right to attack.

      The token system limits the power projection of the mega alliances since every attack requires the guild to regather points. Bigger guilds can amass points quicker and maybe launch more successful attacks but the smaller guilds will in enough time eventually make enough points that it would be hard to beat and thus give them a fair chance to try and take the territory. This would push alliances to have guilds which were active in much more daily activities opposed to just guilds which can have a bunch of people login for an hour or so each day to mass up and meet in one spot.

      Now to answer your question, I prefer to play with a smaller alliance of guilds opposed to an alliance that has 20+ guilds all in it which also can cause you to get certain fame debuffs and lose season points due to sharing. Though a lot of these guilds doing that are also applying NAP's with mega alliances and honestly its super annoying have to put up sticky notes all over my computer to remind me of which guilds and alliance tags to not attack ect.

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

    • Tipx wrote:

      Players obviously gravitate to the playstyle that gives them the best advantage. And with season points sharing, disarray debuff, and the soft caps on territory ownership, alliances have clearly decided that it is better to have multiple smaller alliances than 1 large mega alliance. Any changes made to these will affect whether guilds group up or spread tags further.

      What I want to know is, which playstyle do you think is better from a gameplay perspective? From a conflict perspective? From a 'fun' perspective? ;p

      I started playing with Queen, when some of these changes started coming into effect, so I never played with 'real' mega alliances around. One thing that I think suffers from breaking them up is cluster queue, because obviously the queue can't tell who is allied out of tags, so doesn't work as intended to provide a more 'balanced' number of forces in the zone.

      As the game is right now, I don't see a third alternative between these two options. So, out of each you've played under, which do you prefer?
      In my opinion, the point sharing mechanic is something that goes directly against the way of other game mechanics created to balance the power of same tags alliances. When a alliance has a guild pushing ranks, that guild will be split under other alliance tag making that alliance side weaker in a war if they're the side with less people, but that doesnt really affects the mega coalitions, since they will just keep 2-3 guilds aiming for same ranks under the same tags and circumvent the intended debuffs from disarray, soft caps, etc. Basically, its a mechanic that just helped isolating even more the casual guilds from the competitive ones.
    • one big alliance is better. it's funny how SBI itself doesn't know what they want the answer to this question be, they don't know what they want to do with alliances. all their forced mechanics to balance big alliances end up making things worse. look at debuff, point sharing, silver/siphon drainage and cluster queue. like Faisca said above, if you are trying to abuse one mechanic (debuff for example) and leave the alliance, you end up abusing ALL the mechanics. RN there is no advantage to staying in one alliance other than more people to play with. SBI should make both playstyles have advantages and disadvantages (eg: like remove point sharing in big alliances). so alliances have to pick which playstyle they want. friendly reminder that the push against megalliances postqueen is why NAPs are rampant now since everyone is used to have 2-3 guilds out of alliance because they want crystal, so why not NAP randomass alliances too?
    • Tabor wrote:

      None of the above. Answer is completely removing alliances. More competition is needed and advantageous ways to just bring more removed.
      An idea I support in theory, but I think this hurts smaller guilds more than it needs to. Although I think it would definitely prove too difficult to handhold through, you're essentially forcing smaller zvz guilds to merge and lose their identity if they want to be able to do anything in the bz.
      I'd prefer something along the lines of a soft cap similar to the current soft cap on territories with season point - based on the number of players. % reduction to points/fame/whatever past the x00 player mark in the alliance, high enough that you can have a few small guilds still playing together, but not so high that you have have multiple endgame 250+ man guilds grouped up and allied.

      Then again, removing alliances completely is one way to stop any mechanics being abused ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Could be worth it.
      Arcane shill - 700/700

      Looking for openworld PvP when the Lands Awakened update hits? TUSSLE is recruiting.

      https://discord.gg/Yct9bmh8tY
    • What I would of liked to see and a few years ago they did a poll about a similar suggestion is enable friendly fire between guilds that are in the same alliance, then do some sort of cap with the guild itself to limit the size of an army. Here's some of my thoughts.

      A) - guild size is changed to 50-100 players. (Not really ideal though since guilds might have a lot of fluff members & alts.)

      B) - keep guild size at 300 but only allow say 50 players from a guild to be in a single Black / redzone at a time. (can change the limit count to whatever size a ZvZ force should be)

      The idea is that big alliances can still exist like Arch or POE to allow members to meet up and form 20 man parties for various group content but the battle field becomes more chaotic when players can accidentally attack each other within the alliance. You then must limit the guild's too because if you don't the competitive guilds will still field 80+ man zergs by cramming as many alliance members into a single guild. That situation would be bad since it forces other competitive guilds to have to do the same. Ideally we just want to split the zergs up a bit to make it less about pulling massive numbers to single locations.

      200v200 man fights are cool on paper but they really don't play out too well from my experience and I hate all the queue games that have to be played to try and maneuver your 200 man group into the zone.

      Lastly I will say I don't mind seeing a mega alliance trying to take over the world but it would be nice if the guilds were all splitting up to attack multiple zones and area's at the same time in smaller groups of 20-40. Then the smaller but skilled groups can go 1v1 or 1v2 vs those split groups.