Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 1,000. There are more results available, please enhance your search parameters.

  • Quote from Novan: “what about the people that went in and got rewarded with extremely expensive stuff as battlemounts? i've seen more than one player bragging how they got 3 batllemounts ” Our usual exploit policy applies here. Surplus rewards will be clawed back. Anybody trying to dodge a clawback will be sanctioned accordingly.

  • Quote from tabooshka: “well looks like this game will always cater to zergs first and foremost ” The modified test includes a set of elements that exclusively target the hardcore mega alliances. They are specifically designed to make them less powerful. - Very strong "soft" cap on territories held via exponentially increasing upkeep costs for territories held - A significant silver and fame reduction for *all* members of a mega alliance if they hold more than a certain number of territories. For…

  • Quote from Neef: “Then why the fuck did you go and post about making a limit before thinking about what it would do to the more casual players? ” That was indeed a very clear mistake that we made for which we can only apologize. We simply underestimated the downside potential of a cap and only realized how bad it could be after the announcement had already been made and we saw purges happening already. In an ideal world, we would have communicated the modified test from the get go, without first…

  • Suggestion to RD loot

    Korn - - Feedback & Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from Sinatra.SUN: “@Korn I heard you on last nights stream on Jonhah's The problem with your system is that the player will expect loot based on the chest. So when you find a legendary chest you expect loot. The gamelogic if ofc a bigger chance for loot, but thats not how its perceived. What you should do is to make the loot roll before giving the chest color. There should be a roll for treasure, and then the chest color should represent the amount of treasure inside. So a non green chest …

  • Quote from Forneus: “ If your new change doesn't work though, you need to react swiftly. Having data from the remaining half of this season should be enough. Don't drag it out over several seasons like you've done previously with broken battlemounts etc. You've opened pandoras box with the hard cap annoucement, something many of us have been wanting for ages. ” We are 100% committed to addressing the power block issue as Queen on it's own did not properly solve it. We know that in the gaming ind…

  • Quote from Equart: “@Korn At least tell us for how long you will test this change.” The same logic applies here. We'd see an immediate impact on reset day already. How will territories be distributed after reset day? What's the game play in the 1-2 weeks after it? We'll do a structured email survey for the players (more accurate than a forum poll) and ask them for their views. We'll then share our findings with the community and take it from there.

  • Quote from Equart: “Quote from Handsome: “Robin is pretty much depressed because he expect anonther scenario.... ” @Eltharyon Robin, if it is true - i feel sorry. We all want to make Albion better , we got same aim ,and i sincerely wish you and your team good luck and prosper. But this reaction - it is what it is, we all learn from mistakes. ” I think you mention a very critical point here, one that it's often poorly understood. And it's this: We really do share the same goal here. We do conside…

  • Quote from Akise: “Let's assume that this proposal will go through. What would stop alliance A from having alliance b, c, d, e, and f exclusively for terry holding, having a hideout in every important terry open for all alliances and all the main forces in alliance A. Alliance A would be able to hold 60 terries without any repurcussions, having safe zones in all the zones via hideouts. The only downside would be the loss of season points. But trading this some season points in turn for massive s…

  • Quote from Throatcutter: “Quote from Korn: “Quote from Dadice: “Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution. ” If they break up though, the net effect is the same as forcefully breaking them up via a hard cap. The key difference is that it would only be the power block who'd break up, the casual guilds and alliances can keep playing as they have b…

  • Quote from Dadice: “Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution. ” If they break up though, the net effect is the same as forcefully breaking them up via a hard cap. The key difference is that it would only be the power block who'd break up, the casual guilds and alliances can keep playing as they have been playing before.

  • Quote from Brobacca: “I just dont get it casual players are not even in the mega alliances..... so how does it hurt them? Also going back on an official post? When your previous poll shows 80% of players do not want the mega alliances in the game. Why run a poll if it isn't going to be listened to. ” There are a lot of casual alliances with more than 300 members. The problem is that if we do a higher cap, say, 1000, the impact on the power blocks would have been close to 0. With 1.000 slots, we …

  • Hey there, no final decision has been made on the matter. We are 100% committed to address the issue of the large power blocks. It will be fixed. The core issue we see with the original test plan is that it's almost certainly going to cause a massive "purge" of casual players from their guilds and alliances. We have gotten a lot of reports of this already happening - despite the fact that the test had not even started. Such a purge, once it has happened, is not easily reversible and could do mas…

  • Quote from Headquake: “they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday . ” Here is a breakdown of the current territo…

  • Quote from haraj: “Why are you testing stuff in the middle of a season? ” Waiting until the end of the season carries the risk of the alliance issue getting worse. It would also become more ingrained, meaning that a shake up could have more side effects than it has if we carry on the test while things are still fresh. We aim to get conclusive test results quickly. How? 1. We'll see how the invasion day goes under the new conditions. 2. We'll closely watch what happens after the invasion day 3. W…

  • Quote from Theat: “Good idea, But limit alliances to 600-900, would be more realistic and practical. ” We considered these options as well. However, keep in mind that this is a test. A cap of 300 for the test will make sure that we get very conclusive results. With a cap of 900, say, there is a risk that not much would change, making the information gotten from the test less useful. Rather than having a situation where we go for 900 and then, if that does not work that well, trying out 300 after…

  • Poll: Alliance Feature

    Korn - - Feedback & Suggestions

    Post

    . Hi all, as there is a lot of discussion going on about the power of large alliances in multiple forum threads, we'd like to use this poll to get a general sentiment on the issue. This poll is a deliberate simplification. We know that there are many valid "yes, but" and "no, but" arguments to be made. We kept the poll simple to get a clear initial picture at first. Based on that, we can then take the discussion further. Please note that this poll is not an official vote on the matter. To not in…

  • Quote from Hollywoodi: “don't you think if you limit an Alliance to 300 people it would remove the giantic safe zone they created through the black?? ” It almost certainly won't - based on all we have learned about sandbox games in the past 8 years. Also, if you look at Eve Online, alliances there do not stop you from killing and looting everyone you like. Still, you see close to 0 kills between alliance members. It would almost certainly be the same for the top de facto alliances in Albion - th…

  • Hey there and thanks for the excellent and detailed posts! Before entering into a deeper discussion, there is one critical assumption that you make that sits at the core of the entire "alliance feature" discussion. It's this: Quote from glokz: “We have 300 maps, let every alliance own 6 territories. That leaves us with 50 alliances at minimum. Wouldn't that be perfect to see a soup of 50 different hostile armies fighting for their ranking, their own brand, having many-sides fights? ” Our view he…

  • Quote from Tabor: “Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature. ” I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to c…

  • Poll: Disarray Balance

    Korn - - Feedback & Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from Hollywoodi: “I miss an option String for 25 vs 50 and strong for 50 vs 100 Because anytime someone gets completely outnumbered it sucks especially if enemy has double numbers.. ” The problem here is that the debuff would be so insanely strong then at 100 players that you'd effectively force people to work around it by "artificial" group splits.