GvG Season 7 Changes

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • it is better to remove the alliance system instead of storing small guilds. Like squad, alliance is overwhelming people everywhere and cooling the game. we've started twenty friends and I'm the only one who can continue the game. Why is it because of the shitty alliance system. Thousands of people alliance people because of the game. Do not be cowardly remove that system game becomes much more beautiful
    • If the alliance system doesn't get up, you won't have any more players because you're overwhelmed by big groups like squad. Why do you think you fell into three thousand from onbin steam online? Because of the great alliances other players do not play the game. If you do not remove the alliance system, you will continue to play with a thousand online players with only squad.
    • It'a dissapointing that the consolidated timers have been pushed through with today's patch, despite pleas from SEA/OCE for the devs to reconsider.

      If the proclaimed emphasis on "listening to community feedback" is indeed true, can there at least be a response from the Devs addressing this topic? Thus far there has only been silence.

      Even if the changes will not be implemented, can there at least be a response on the rationale behind "why not", or some hints on whether there will be any provisions made to allow greater participation in timegated endgame content for our SEA/OCE community?
    • VariancePlay wrote:

      It'a dissapointing that the consolidated timers have been pushed through with today's patch, despite pleas from SEA/OCE for the devs to reconsider.

      If the proclaimed emphasis on "listening to community feedback" is indeed true, can there at least be a response from the Devs addressing this topic? Thus far there has only been silence.

      Even if the changes will not be implemented, can there at least be a response on the rationale behind "why not", or some hints on whether there will be any provisions made to allow greater participation in timegated endgame content for our SEA/OCE community?
      In the past they have defended their actions by saying there's not enough players to warrant gvg timers for us, but that was before f2p and it's been radio silence since.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      VariancePlay wrote:

      It'a dissapointing that the consolidated timers have been pushed through with today's patch, despite pleas from SEA/OCE for the devs to reconsider.

      If the proclaimed emphasis on "listening to community feedback" is indeed true, can there at least be a response from the Devs addressing this topic? Thus far there has only been silence.

      Even if the changes will not be implemented, can there at least be a response on the rationale behind "why not", or some hints on whether there will be any provisions made to allow greater participation in timegated endgame content for our SEA/OCE community?
      In the past they have defended their actions by saying there's not enough players to warrant gvg timers for us, but that was before f2p and it's been radio silence since.
      Exactly and ever since F2P I've seen a lot more OCE and Asian players and guilds presence in Albion. And its time to revive this timezone.

      Truth be told that the many players have enjoyed the game concept of the game. But lets be honest here, most of these guys either become huge guilds and alliances slaves or they just simply stop playing the game as they sense a bias content in other timezones.

      Lets not forget how much player based has increased since F2P, it made me come back to the game for people and content i thought I'll be able to enjoy. I'm starting to realise why I had a hiatus in the first place.
    • VariancePlay wrote:

      It'a dissapointing that the consolidated timers have been pushed through with today's patch, despite pleas from SEA/OCE for the devs to reconsider.

      If the proclaimed emphasis on "listening to community feedback" is indeed true, can there at least be a response from the Devs addressing this topic? Thus far there has only been silence.

      Even if the changes will not be implemented, can there at least be a response on the rationale behind "why not", or some hints on whether there will be any provisions made to allow greater participation in timegated endgame content for our SEA/OCE community?
      They have OCE/SEA trying to get through at least even a token effort to improve the TZ since alpha

      while I have cut SBI out of the equation due to the fact they honestly cant see us through all the EU/NA trash filling their social feeds I keep supporting the OCE/SEA community. we get screwed by a N.A team that stays up later.

      Would be good if we had a place we can meet up and target our communications more effectively

      Storm's Discord - discord.gg/7U5Gm4P

      My referral - albiononline.com/?ref=CSBTZSDQTP
    • 130 pages "break alliance in smaller pieces"

      And they try complex solutions like consolidation of timers and reduce open world events, aka content

      Just not to touch alliances..

      Quite unsatisfying...

      There is

      30 days portal locks
      Consolidation of warcamps
      Consolidation of Gvg timers
      Outposts

      Just not to touch alliance size

      I feel like you go to dentist cause u have problem with teeth and dentist checks your feet...

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

    • My feedback:

      1. As long as killing 5 players in a Crystal GvG and looting 1 each has higher value rewards than the rewards for winning the Crystal GvG it is actually more profitable to do a level 1 tower everyday than a level 3 - assuming you win a lvl 1 way more often than a lvl 3. Crystal GvG towers shouldn't lose a level everyday they aren't played to make the matchmaking system more fair and the rewards should outweigh the rewards of killing some players. You can only do a Crystal once a day after all.
      2. Everyone wants to GvG, but no one wants to lead them or set them up. This is a bigger problem than the timeslot problem. No one actually wants to - or has the time to - go through the trouble to set up a team everyday and make sure all the players will be there in time with the right gear. It's especially not worth it if you aren't sure you will be able to show up the next day, because then you will probably lose that territory again. While the new timeslots make everything a bit easier, because there are fewer timeslots - it does not actually solve this core problem. In my opinion all the timeslots that were posted - not only GvG timeslots - should be endgame events that everyone very much should want to do if they are available and online. In order to achieve something like that everyone would have to want to play with everyone. I understand that will be difficult in a full loot PvP game and I'm glad I'm not a game developper.
      3. The bug changes that were mentioned (cape logo changing, party frames) weren't actually fixed.
    • The lack of 5 man teams is a problem that has been embedded over years due to game mechanics making it easy for the same elite 5 to just use alts. The new changes is the first step in making it a little harder to use alts. More still needs to happen such as removing counter attacks and retaliations. These changes would require more 5 team development. Instead of just "elite" you would start saying average and new developing teams out there due to sheer need. It will most likely take some time though for alliances behavior to change.
    • I wonder how many guilds will have crystal rank this season, this guild challenge is actually busted.

      I thought you needed 200k for lvl2, but in reality you only need 100k per lvl which is easily 3k points per day by just killing mobs which is like 10x more efficent than previously raiding mages for same amount of points

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

    • All modern games has a system of alliances but not as here, guilds can choose alliances but the alliances are chosen by the devs, and the funny part is that they are already there: put the royal cities as alliances, guild must choose an alliance players without a guild can be without alliances. With this kind of system you want to fight against a powerful guild you go in another city alliance, want to do not mess up with them just join the same alliance without the need to ask the permission to snotty kids.

      But of course this will not be done because now the snotty kids and the fanboys will answer bringing a lot of crappy excuses to a system that will damage them but give more fun and opportunities to a lot of players

      Anyway I appreciate the effort of the Dev to try to do something for solo players and small guild as the solo dungeons and the hideouts

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

    • hypnoticshadow wrote:

      vivv wrote:

      hypnoticshadow wrote:

      All modern games has a system of alliances but not as here, guilds can choose alliances but the alliances are chosen by the devs, ...
      That's simply not true. Albion has guild/alliance mechanics which is similar to Eve Online.
      That is 10+ years old
      which makes EVE more mature, more polished and the system has so many balance iterations that it actually works...

      biggest advantage in EVE - is you can actually have a 3000 vs 3000 battle (albeit it will be slowed down with game iposed mechanic called TIDI - Time Dilation), Albion cant even handle 200vs200 (I'd argue it cant even handle 100vs100 at enjoyable levels)