GvG Season 7 Changes

    • zerfaxx wrote:

      I would strongly suggest capping alliances to four or maybe five guilds.
      Please consider capping alliances!
      Smaller alliances = keep mercenaries!

      In a game that is supposed to be all about constant war, giant alliances of 5,000 - 10,000 is ridiculous.
      Instead of new guilds and alliances trying to fight and gain ground, they just go with "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality.

      Make the big alliances really have to pick between guilds, create some tension, and start some fights!
      If a guild isn't contributing to the alliance there will actually be incentive for the alliance to kick them!

      It could make the territory control more like the game 'Risk'.
      Sure, a few alliances could agree not to attack each other.
      But someone could always betray and attack anyways. Multiple alliances could even coordinate group attacks/ambushes.
      Even just the possibility helps create more tension. Someone might be worried about getting attacked, and decide to launch a preemptive attack instead!
    • 1) Alliance Members cannot GvG
      It does not stop mercing (cause of more Alts), just makes it harder / grindier.
      I think this is a needed change. Whine all you want, but capping alliance in at least some way is welcome.
      But then you say you can make Alts? Alright cool, make alts and dont compain xD.

      2) TImezone consolidating
      I think this was not needed if you add more warcamps, making it easier to attack who you want. But it helps nonetheless.
      No SEA/OCE Timezone even after F2P Release??? Why

      3) Castle Outposts
      "We will also fix some quality-of-life issues, like allowing alliance members to use castle doors." - Good

      4) Crystal Change
      "We are increasing the number of tower levels to 7" - Good
      "Crystal Realm Battles are now also available in the Off-Season, i.e. between Season 6 and Season 7" - Good

      5) Warcamps (Suggestion)
      I would like to see more points of attack to dethrow the top teams controlling a large area. More warcamps in Blackzone would be good.
      More Warcamps in Royals are definitely needed imo - I am guessing a lot of the time you have blackzone teams doing Royal GvGs on Alts for some reason, cause they get no fights in mercia / cumbria?

      6) Remove Retaliate feature cause it can be abused by Alts (Suggestion)
      This would be a really welcome change to fuck with Alts abusing this mechanic. Thanks.

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

    • Oops alliance holding 40% of map and 80% of competetive map, this tears are real.

      Please remove GvG from territory control -- make as much 5v5 content/GVG content you want, but stop making territories tied to this broken system. (c)
      The number of ppl enjoyin that system is only like 100? The numbers whos dying on "retarded" castles everyday is more than 500. In archganistan you have more ppl daily than ppl in gvg per month, just think about it.
      p.s. Watch again on this sweet RMT rats tears , it's amazing SBI it's amazing, I hope someday you will realize you dont need GvG at all, 5 selfish nolife nerds cant reign. This system was cancer from the start and you realized it.

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

    • PlaeschZ wrote:

      Well it's obvious that BA is at the RT and BA also have a voice at the RT, if they complaining, SBI gonna change the game into BAs direction. It happend in the past and it will happen in the future, sadly.

      I dunno why to put so much efford the bring a Guild in #1 and forget about the most of the others.
      Ask Gluttony he can answer your questions, Gluttony should have the loudest voice in this game by your logic.
    • forum.albiononline.com/index.p…?postID=336954#post336954

      bring resource extractors, make territories valuable again and let people choose their own time slot from 4 hour window or just remove gvgs and let just let everyone fight in crystal realm without owning territory cuz this clearly isnt going to work

      This is what the game could have been, instead we have 7 tiers of crystal gvg incoming, even though, theres 13 CRYSTAL MATCHES DURING EU, 13 matches divide 13 by 7, and you have a great number of evenly matched teams Kappa

      now we have mages LUL

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

    • The new gvg timers imo are excellent for locking out 5 alt teams except not having any gvgs between 04 and what was it 16 utc? It eliminates half of the days for gvg timing and as people have said before it does not allow SEA to have a decent time to gvg, even if they have 300 ping ;) Cutting off a whole demographic of players from essentially "end game" content is not only unfair but unhealthy for the game state.

      No mercing is an arrow hoping to hit a target 100 miles away. I get the idea but like MG themselves have said, it only promotes larger guild monopolies and sways smaller guilds from growing and instead merging into the monopoly. The idea needs some tweaking imo.

      Mini castles are awesome tho glad to hear about those. Where are my 20v20 HGs tho xDD
    • tabooshka wrote:


      bring resource extractors, make territories valuable again and let people choose their own time slot from 4 hour window or just remove gvgs and let just let everyone fight in crystal realm without owning territory cuz this clearly isnt going to work
      Each territory has a resource extractor, as energy is a resource which can be exchanged vs any other resource using market. An additional long time resource would be season points as season mounts have a real value.

      If the guards would help more against resource raid the resource located within guild territory could be easy extracted.

      In my opinion it is more needed that a guild need to gather in their territory everything active. There should be no passive reward from holding 100 terries.
    • First of all i would like to add that i rly like the new open world changes aswell as the guild challenge, since now a non gvg guild member can actually do something beside mage slavery or castles to generate season points for their guild.

      The horrible mistake that the developers are making right now is assuming that less GvG timers will make GvG more accessible to more players. In my opinion it will just increase the handholding of current landowners, since they will just be more busy removing the newer guilds from the blackzone.

      How about we tackle the issue that 99.9% of the population of this game actually cant win in 5v5 and that the GvG gatekeeping isnt done by strong teams never letting the weaker teams play, but by there being no option to consistently train or learn 5v5. Every actively playing GvGer will actually explain to you that by adding those timers it will just create noshow spam and 150 0 GvGs and new teams will not be sent to win GvGs, but to waste GvGers time.
    • Fred_the_Barbarian wrote:

      What he means is that territory ownership will be consolidated under fewer guilds, while the overall number of territories owned by alliances will remain roughly the same. Under the current system, if you have a few guilds in the alliance that are really good at ZvZ, and a few that are good at GvG, the ZvZ guilds can pacify warcamps while the GvG guilds defend territories from attacks, and territories can be distributed between them roughly evenly, i.e. even though Guild X in Alliance A doesn't have a good team to take/hold territory, Guild Y can help them hold territories as a reward for their ZvZ participation. Under the new system, guild X would have to defend the territory on their own without any help from alliance players. This means that no matter how good guild X is at ZvZ giving them any territory would be a liability. So Guild Y will hold most/all of the territory in the alliance, which is what Sam is trying to say.
      TL;DR: Current system - Many guilds can have territory with alliance support. New system - one/few guilds will hold all the territory since they have all the GvGers.


      One super guild of GvGers + all other zvz guilds. How is that healthy in an alliance? Territory ownership + rewards need to be seriously re-examined or removed in favor of a more balanced approach that favors the majority. I think you're absolutely hamstringing yourselves by trying to make this system work. It will never work, it's illogical in theory and impractical in reality. This is why you see very few GvG teams. The illogical piece is the idea that a "cease-fire" or "truce" is established between guilds so that 10 players could determine who owns what.

      Do we really believe that they could have a 5v5 style brawl for control of their land?

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Evas_Flarelight: Edited a statement that's opening a can of worms. ().

    • I think many of the ideas make sense but are counterintuitive to a lot of people.

      The devs have thought hard about this and the proposed mechanics are not obvious at first sight. The main reason is that the proposed changes are not meant to operate in the current system with current behavior and instead rely on players changing their behavior, creating a new organization.

      *For example, consolidating gvg times reduces the power of a single team and encourages multiple teams. As a result, the average competitive level of gvg's should fall and this is beneficial as it makes gvg's cost less (need to train less, which is the main cost).

      *Existence of gvg-only guilds within an alliance assumes that the current alliance structure remains the same. However, I think the whole idea here is that after the changes the current alliance structure will not be optimal. Instead, smaller alliances seem favored here.
    • 5v5 territory combat has been one of Albions core principle since Alpha. Making the game just a zerg fest numbers game (we already have to much of this as is) would remove a huge skill component from the game. I agree the current GvG mechanics still need some work but the 5v5 should stay as a major piece of the game. They have slowly improved balancing ZvZ driven season point objectives (incoming next season) with that of GvGs but I agree more impactful objectives still need to be available for ZvZ types.