Pinned The Current Albion Online Round Table

    • gwebber wrote:

      I dont understand why there are guilds inside the RT that are from the RENT alliance.

      GM's that pay for their season points instead of play for it, should not be considered people that understand the game, thus making them uncapable of making decisions that would benefit the game
      Happy to discuss this with you gwebber as I disagree completely with your view and find it very ill informed. The people within RENT I would say have a very good understanding of how the game works from my interactions with them all over the past 4 months.

      If you think that the reason people within RENT pay rent is for season points then you are hugely mistaken. RENT allows guilds to find their way and experience BZ territory holding while building up their resources and gvg teams, dealing with raiders, diplomacy, working with other guilds and learning how the game actually works. Which in its very essence is exactly the opposite of your claim.

      Happy to discuss this further with you and give you correct information on this subject at any point.

      Cheers.
      Pre Patch 16 UO Player - Casual PK/Carebear Crafter - Now Old.
    • gwebber wrote:

      all the hard work done to get there, is done by silver transaction instead of actual work.
      So yes it is a valid way of playing the game.
      But it is not a valid way of getting the right perspective to understand what is good for a game.
      Since u are playing this game in a way, it is not intended.
      I disagree, from a game perspective the hard work to get to owning territory isn't hard work, anyone can snag a territory on reset day, and then keep it for as long as they can. If you are referring to season points, as I already told you, no-one joins RENT for season points. Any guild could just merge into one of the bigger existing alliance guilds and get a shiny prize better than the one they are likely to get as a member of RENT. To say that people are paying for season points is to examine a by-product of the process and state it as the main reason, which it isn't.

      I am playing the game the way I intended to play the game, in a sandbox, doing what I like to do, with my friends in a guild experiencing BZ life and working on what we need to do to one day become able to defend our own territories in GvG and expand. If you think the way we play is not intended, you probably need to look at the game with a wider perspective, because there are a lot of people playing the game in a way that you do not think is intended and they all seem to be having a good time and contributing a lot to the game. If you believe the game should be insular and only open at all levels to a select few then I would suggest it is you who do not know what is good for a game.

      With that in mind and in regard to the RT and not having the right perspective to understand what is good for a game, I honestly believe you couldn't be more wrong and would be very interested in what premise you are basing your conclusion on, which I understand you think is correct, but in fact simply isn't. Small/Medium guilds are adding a lot to Albion and the RENT alliance allows them to flourish and grow, rather than be stifled by elitism.

      Of course if you just have a problem with the RENT alliance you can just say that, rather than dressing it up as something it isn't. We can discuss that as well if you like, if that is the real issue?

      Cheers.
      Pre Patch 16 UO Player - Casual PK/Carebear Crafter - Now Old.
    • Yes, you are doing what you are doing, and in a sandbox that is more then allowed.

      But i am not saying this because i think you guys should deinstall or whatever.

      I am saying this for the sake of the game.

      Clearly you must see that your way of playing the game and funding the "already biggest alliance in the game" so much money every week, is BAD for the game.
      I dont want lot of money, or territories or whatever.



      But if u dont see this, then there is no point of discussing it.
    • gwebber wrote:

      Yes, you are doing what you are doing, and in a sandbox that is more then allowed.

      But i am not saying this because i think you guys should deinstall or whatever.

      I am saying this for the sake of the game.

      Clearly you must see that your way of playing the game and funding the "already biggest alliance in the game" so much money every week, is BAD for the game.
      I dont want lot of money, or territories or whatever.



      But if u dont see this, then there is no point of discussing it.

      Again I am intrigued by your lack of information and your desire to push your way of playing as what is right for the game. You have now gone from saying that RENT GM’s should not be allowed on the round table to actually being honest and explaining that you think RENT is bad for the game. Thank you for that.

      Do you know anything about the guilds in RENT? Have you tried to speak to them rather than just attempt to attack them behind the guise of ‘RENT GM’s cannot make informed decisions’. I don’t think you have, or that you even want to, so I don’t know how you can know so much about us when you know so little?

      Maybe if you had treated the guilds in RENT the way MOP had your ‘game’ would not be in a place where a huge number of people can’t beat 5 people and instead choose to try and take easy options and punish those viewed as weak who by loose association are seen as the ‘great enemy’.

      I appreciate your honesty, and I respect your view on the game, but RENT won’t be bullied, no matter what you throw at us, we will still do what we do. We all earned our place on the RT and we will continue to suggest and put forward ideas, which often harm our chosen gaming style, because of what is good for the game. If you feel you want to bully people for trying to expand and grow then that is on you, not us.

      So who is the great enemy exactly? The person who offers a choice to grow at a price, or the people who try to stifle that and bully smaller guilds because they can’t beat 5 people?

      As always, happy to discuss this with anyone who would like more information, RENT guilds are transparent and always happy to talk.

      Cheers.
      Pre Patch 16 UO Player - Casual PK/Carebear Crafter - Now Old.
    • I'd rather have a simple and objective rule than a bunch of arbitrary standards as to which guilds deserve or not to be there. Plus, as others mentioned, diplomacy and trading are and should be competitive options in a sandbox.

      Not only that, being honest, probably 80% of the RT invited members rarely, if ever, post there, so we certainly have room for more people without it becoming too messy.

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

    • gwebber wrote:

      I dont understand why there are guilds inside the RT that are from the RENT alliance.

      GM's that pay for their season points instead of play for it, should not be considered people that understand the game, thus making them uncapable of making decisions that would benefit the game
      We get our money via gathering and crafting and managing our territories and guilds. We pay a lot of money to a successful gvg team to maintain these lands for us and it is our job to milk them efficiently so they are sustainable. We have an understanding of gathering, crafting, guild management and territory management. We have a very real respect for how difficult it is to build and maintain a competent gvg team. If it were easy, we would all have teams ourselves.

      I think the Round Table has plenty of voices representing both elite gvg and zvz players. We can speak on what we know on other matters besides these things. I might argue the RT could use more bodies who enjoy the game for more than the most competitive activities.

      Even if we were to assume your premise is true that we do not really understand the game (because we pay for some services), I would argue that your conclusion is plucked out of nowhere when you say that we are incapable of speaking intelligently for ideas that could benefit the game going forward.

      gwebber wrote:

      all the hard work done to get there, is done by silver transaction instead of actual work.
      So yes it is a valid way of playing the game.
      But it is not a valid way of getting the right perspective to understand what is good for a game.
      Since u are playing this game in a way, it is not intended.
      Getting silver is hard work.
      Building and maintaining a gvg team is also hard work.

      There would obviously be a lot more gvg teams if it were easy. People love 5v5 as you can see from the hugely successful MOBA industry. But this game isn't as easy as just sitting down and playing some 5v5 that matches me up against players roughly the same skill as me (thanks to an ELO or similar system).

      Just because I do not have a gvg team does not mean I have no respect for the process of creating one.
      Just because I do not have a gvg team does not mean I do not have insights to other parts of the game.
      Just because I do not have a gvg team does not mean I am playing the game a way that is not intended.

      gwebber wrote:

      Clearly you must see that your way of playing the game and funding the "already biggest alliance in the game" so much money every week, is BAD for the game.
      I dont want lot of money, or territories or whatever.



      But if u dont see this, then there is no point of discussing it.
      Funding the largest alliance (POE) is an entirely different topic that has nothing to do with me being on the Round Table. If you wanted to start another topic we could go back and forth on that as it might actually have merit.

      I do what is good for my guild and RENT has been good for my guild.
      I believe most of us do what is good for our guilds.
      I do not understand your obsession with RENT when there are guilds actually in POE that benefit CIR just as much or more than we do. Would you be happier if we were in POE with a similar arrangement? Is hiring mercenaries for gvg good for the game or is it not?

      Regardless, this is another topic so make up your mind what you want to discuss. You're shifting every time someone tries to pin you down to explain your position further.
    • I've seen lots of indie games that are missing out on players creating these groups of "elite" players to try to save the game with more reliable feedback (0% sucess)...
      Since this group came out in Albion, I only saw the powercreep increase. In my opinion, they can launch as many campaigns as they want to invite a friend that the game will never win enough players. The rules of this game are not favorable to new players and increasingly I see that they are being changed only to favor snowball and dominance of those who are already at the top of the food chain and to decrease the actual competition of new guilds and players. I do not know exactly who is making the decision, but hellgates are empty, treasure events are empty and game solo is dead.Sincerely, I would like Albion to create a truly balanced PVP environment, since his original idea was the constant conflict of all against all for the control of the world. It was to be chaotic and full of fights and not this joke that it is today, where ancient guilds think they can determine who can command and continue in command forever.

      There are players who pay rent for others to win a season. They are simply just waiting for the result produced by others who struggle on the battlefields. That's the crux for a game that should be PVP in first role. The top players in the game do not even go to GVG. This was to be a battle game and not a farm game.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by hamonteixeira ().

    • Having GMs from all top guilds in there is a good source of feedback. Round table has a lot of players in it, some have a really high knowledge of their own activity (such as economics / crafting parts, solo player content etc.) and the feedback must be pertinent most of the time.
      The GM from the 50th guild of the rankings has a totally different vision of the game than the GM of the 1st guild. Both have still a good knowledge of the game and what their players want to find, so SBI listening to this guys is great.
      Not owning terris / having no GvG team doesnt mean anything in here.

      The only contestable point is when people mix feedback about the game and their own interest, but this can come from anyone. Devs must be aware of that, but i'm pretty sure that you can have a voice from each side and any idea bad for the game will be stopped.

      If there is a large amount of the GMs invited to the RT that do not even participate they should delegate to one of their Right Hands to have their opinion suppported.

      A potential lack of feedback can come from new players but having someone representing them is really hard since the feedback is most of the time uncomplete or lacks of knowledge of the game (example: someone complaining that a feature doesnt exists, but the feature exists already in a different shape).
      Also Albion playerbase doesn't need to be much higher to make the game work, and even if some places such as HG / chests are empty or not worth contesting, that doesn't mean that the game is dead.

      Tbh since 2 years i'm playing Albion, i've never seen it going that well, and having so many positive changes. I'm pretty sure that if the game continues in that way, we will see a lot of old players coming back
    • I think what may concern him and other people about rent having seats on the table is the same as poe having so many seats. They are like senators representing their guilds. Who obviously would have an underlying agenda. If there is someone for the people thats great. I would hope someone would be trying to represent the common soldiers. But right now there is a gvg monopoly thats in place. Cargera and his team have many leveled alts allowing them to gvg many times a day. So one alt is running an alliance of renters of terris that that team gvg'd to protect. poe/rent has 141 terris. A super alliance with no limit on the amount of guilds in it. Do people not see a problem with that? So If it was like crystal gvg and only allowed 2 per day. Then the RENT alliance probably wouldnt have any terris. Some could still achieve silver in season points and stay on the round table sure. But RENT and POE leaders would be pushing for things that continue to make them rich but also for their own survival. Like keeping gvg's how they are so the status quo is kept as is. So they would be siding with whatever POE wants when trying to get changes using the round table. So if an agenda is created and something is pushed for. ie, mage buff through guards or trying to nerf castles. Then every guild leader from poe and rent that has seats would be pushing for the same things for the most part.So its not that balanced in terms of bias imo. So I hope the Devs can see that.

      The first post on this thread is a list from season 2. Are people removed from the round table every season with the addition of the new? The ones that happened to get invited because they got silver in a season I mean.

      Id prefer the round table to be view able by the public so if there is a discussion that is game changing the peasants and plebs can read it create a thread on the forum and give input and feedback to potential changes. Its not like just because someone is a guild leader or whatever else that their opinions and ideas about the game are worth more then other vets in the game. Having a cool kids club also takes away from activity from the forums, missing input from people since they cant even read whats being talked about.
    • EnErgEstER wrote:

      I think what may concern him and other people about rent having seats on the table is the same as poe having so many seats. They are like senators representing their guilds. Who obviously would have an underlying agenda. If there is someone for the people thats great. I would hope someone would be trying to represent the common soldiers. But right now there is a gvg monopoly thats in place. Cargera and his team have many leveled alts allowing them to gvg many times a day. So one alt is running an alliance of renters of terris that that team gvg'd to protect. poe/rent has 141 terris. A super alliance with no limit on the amount of guilds in it. Do people not see a problem with that? So If it was like crystal gvg and only allowed 2 per day. Then the RENT alliance probably wouldnt have any terris. Some could still achieve silver in season points and stay on the round table sure. But RENT and POE leaders would be pushing for things that continue to make them rich but also for their own survival. Like keeping gvg's how they are so the status quo is kept as is. So they would be siding with whatever POE wants when trying to get changes using the round table. So if an agenda is created and something is pushed for. ie, mage buff through guards or trying to nerf castles. Then every guild leader from poe and rent that has seats would be pushing for the same things for the most part.So its not that balanced in terms of bias imo. So I hope the Devs can see that.

      The first post on this thread is a list from season 2. Are people removed from the round table every season with the addition of the new? The ones that happened to get invited because they got silver in a season I mean.

      Id prefer the round table to be view able by the public so if there is a discussion that is game changing the peasants and plebs can read it create a thread on the forum and give input and feedback to potential changes. Its not like just because someone is a guild leader or whatever else that their opinions and ideas about the game are worth more then other vets in the game. Having a cool kids club also takes away from activity from the forums, missing input from people since they cant even read whats being talked about.
      RENT and POE do tend to hivemind a lot on the RT, but there are plenty of good threads and posts by them regardless. Privately, I think the RT allows people to post about topics they may not want to in a public setting, so I prefer the current system.
    • Guys when you compare all big alliances with the RENT Alliance you will find out that the differences are very little.

      Big alliances mostly have a few Guilds with very competative GvG Teams while the other guilds in that alliance help with numbers and following the rules which are made by the "owner /leading alliance". Which means they MUST do many things for the alliance, like defending warcamps help to defend Terri's help gathering and so on.
      When these guilds are good soldiers and the leading Guilds are greatefull they get some Terri's dropped for their own benefit.
      So in most alliances, the guilds without GvG Team are depending on the good will of the leading guild's and have to hustle for them at the times when the leader's want them to hustle.
      When you do all this while it is a must and you dont get a Terri than you might get ripped of. But who cares since you are a slave.

      In RENT the System is pretty much the same just with more freedom and more clear rules who get's a Terri and what you have to do for it.
      You SHOULD defend warcamps as well. You SHOULD help your alliance to defend Terri's, you SHOULD take care of the gathering in your Terri's.
      So in RENT it is in your own interest to play for the prosperity of the alliance. (When you make not enough income with the Terri's you own, you loose them because you cant pay the rent).
      You dont have to help each other but most guilds do so because it is good for themselfs which also motivates ppl. instead of pushing them because it is a MUST to defend whenever the call says so.
      It also gives you more than enough zvz and pvp content, espacially since everybody hates you for wrong informations spreaded by other Big alliances.
      So when you do good and make enough money to pay your RENT you are free to do whatever the fuck you want and you are treated as a customer and not like a slave.

      Compare the two different Systems and judge which system is better for guilds. We made our choice and we love RENT!
      Regarding to the RT i have been at the RT in the beta and the one thing which bothered me most was that there where only ppl. from the Top guilds who where trying to change game mechanics for their own good. I guess it was past due to have more causuals at the RT who present the overhelming MAJORITY of the game. Without this MAJORITY the game would be dead.
    • marg93 wrote:

      Sorry, but dont we need carebear players in roundtable... pls ,is not good for healthy game
      RENT=CANCER
      And this remark in itself shows exactly why you do need casual players in the RT, because without them you will have no balance and people just pushing their own agenda. Without casual players this game will die, so get used to them being around and having a voice.
      Pre Patch 16 UO Player - Casual PK/Carebear Crafter - Now Old.
    • EnErgEstER wrote:

      I think what may concern him and other people about rent having seats on the table is the same as poe having so many seats. They are like senators representing their guilds. Who obviously would have an underlying agenda. If there is someone for the people thats great. I would hope someone would be trying to represent the common soldiers. But right now there is a gvg monopoly thats in place. Cargera and his team have many leveled alts allowing them to gvg many times a day. So one alt is running an alliance of renters of terris that that team gvg'd to protect. poe/rent has 141 terris. A super alliance with no limit on the amount of guilds in it. Do people not see a problem with that? So If it was like crystal gvg and only allowed 2 per day. Then the RENT alliance probably wouldnt have any terris. Some could still achieve silver in season points and stay on the round table sure. But RENT and POE leaders would be pushing for things that continue to make them rich but also for their own survival. Like keeping gvg's how they are so the status quo is kept as is. So they would be siding with whatever POE wants when trying to get changes using the round table. So if an agenda is created and something is pushed for. ie, mage buff through guards or trying to nerf castles. Then every guild leader from poe and rent that has seats would be pushing for the same things for the most part.So its not that balanced in terms of bias imo. So I hope the Devs can see that.

      The first post on this thread is a list from season 2. Are people removed from the round table every season with the addition of the new? The ones that happened to get invited because they got silver in a season I mean.

      Id prefer the round table to be view able by the public so if there is a discussion that is game changing the peasants and plebs can read it create a thread on the forum and give input and feedback to potential changes. Its not like just because someone is a guild leader or whatever else that their opinions and ideas about the game are worth more then other vets in the game. Having a cool kids club also takes away from activity from the forums, missing input from people since they cant even read whats being talked about.
      If you check the RT you can see that RENT members and POE have different and similar points of view across a broad range of subjects. Much the same as the members of Squad/SAVE/EGO have. Let’s not get the numbers out of proportion here either, RENT currently comprises of 7 guilds, of which 4 leaders are active on the round table. It isn’t the huge horde of people that it is being made out to be.

      Personally I always try to offer unbiased thoughts on how the game can be balanced. From what I have seen the other RENT members do the same.
      Pre Patch 16 UO Player - Casual PK/Carebear Crafter - Now Old.
    • Barathorn wrote:

      marg93 wrote:

      Sorry, but dont we need carebear players in roundtable... pls ,is not good for healthy game
      RENT=CANCER
      And this remark in itself shows exactly why you do need casual players in the RT, because without them you will have no balance and people just pushing their own agenda. Without casual players this game will die, so get used to them being around and having a voice.
      -All mmo have mechanics and dynamics, the strength of this, is a function of how long players take to find the weak points of these and how and how they EXPLODE, poe and rent exploit an unhealthy dynamics for the game

      1st Games of this kind need content created by players, Poe does not promote these principles, they generally deny content, they are care-bears. They concentrate on amassing huge amounts of resources and launching gvgs.
      Using an absurd alliance of practically 4000 players which help and promote the insane economic growth and practically infinite power in the gvg, when a mechanic is exploited to the point that the same game can not stop it, the developers must get their hands and modify These parameters in the medium and long term will exhaust the patience of the creators of content, (Squad, other OW guilds, etc etc) which will start a negative domino effect in the game. And when I speak of content, I speak of pvp, the other activities are ACCCESSORIES.


      2nd. It is not about whether rent is casual or not, there is no problem in that, even, as you say, it is a virtue since they can raise their points from that perspective, however, guilds that promote and abuse unhealthy mechanics for the game should not be in the round table, should be eliminated and instead enter players who really think of a real BALANCE and not the exploitation of mechanics
    • POE creates content for itself every day. If you can't exist without POE creating content for your organization, then you will (and should) cascade and disband.

      Players playing together and cooperating in a mutually beneficial way is not an exploit. Diplomacy works.

      Albion is a lot more then just a PVP game. Welcome to the sandbox, enjoy your stay.

      Give us a heads-up when the "patience is exhausted".
    • marg93 wrote:

      Barathorn wrote:

      marg93 wrote:

      Sorry, but dont we need carebear players in roundtable... pls ,is not good for healthy game
      RENT=CANCER
      And this remark in itself shows exactly why you do need casual players in the RT, because without them you will have no balance and people just pushing their own agenda. Without casual players this game will die, so get used to them being around and having a voice.
      -All mmo have mechanics and dynamics, the strength of this, is a function of how long players take to find the weak points of these and how and how they EXPLODE, poe and rent exploit an unhealthy dynamics for the game
      1st Games of this kind need content created by players, Poe does not promote these principles, they generally deny content, they are care-bears. They concentrate on amassing huge amounts of resources and launching gvgs.
      Using an absurd alliance of practically 4000 players which help and promote the insane economic growth and practically infinite power in the gvg, when a mechanic is exploited to the point that the same game can not stop it, the developers must get their hands and modify These parameters in the medium and long term will exhaust the patience of the creators of content, (Squad, other OW guilds, etc etc) which will start a negative domino effect in the game. And when I speak of content, I speak of pvp, the other activities are ACCCESSORIES.


      2nd. It is not about whether rent is casual or not, there is no problem in that, even, as you say, it is a virtue since they can raise their points from that perspective, however, guilds that promote and abuse unhealthy mechanics for the game should not be in the round table, should be eliminated and instead enter players who really think of a real BALANCE and not the exploitation of mechanics
      Not sure if English is your first language or not but if it isn't you are running quite a logical Fallacy for a argument. I don't think your intent was to sound like a hypocrite and invalidate your own argument on purpose.

      You may want to reword the points your making. RENT players have discussed the content they have access to here which is where the guild you reference get their kills and content.
    • Syndic wrote:

      POE creates content for itself every day. If you can't exist without POE creating content for your organization, then you will (and should) cascade and disband.

      Players playing together and cooperating in a mutually beneficial way is not an exploit. Diplomacy works.

      Albion is a lot more then just a PVP game. Welcome to the sandbox, enjoy your stay.

      Give us a heads-up when the "patience is exhausted".
      Farming its content? yes , pve is content? yes,but pvp is the most quality content and the pillar in the game, break the pillar and you will get a break game

      Carebear Guild/alliance =Not Quality content producers

      Guilds not carebear = Quality Content producers

      Poe represents 30% of the active population = 30% Carebear
      If content guilds and alliances get bored ->less activity or leave ->less content producers-> less fun -> fewer players-> Involves game in recess = game dying.
      I agree that diplomacy works, that your style works very well and precisely for that reason and what I said above, is that this mechanics must be stopped, the number of players per alliance must be reduced, the h.c.e. , incite the open world, diminish the effects of the gvgs. Why? I agree that the game is not absolutely pvp, but if you affect too much the experience of this game sooner or later the game breaks down and ends up decaying. It is the main axis and must be taken care of.

      Reasons: Money guilds and poe are extremely rich (snowball not stopped in time and exploitation of mechanics respectively) to make matters worse, cooperate in the same alliance and worse, are sects of players, still can not see zergs or groups semi decent in an alliance (rent-poe) of almost 4000 players, they are sects of gvg, this is insane for the game, well, I do not want to be condescending and explain 1 and again how this affects in the long term, at this height and The point must have been understood ..
      .
      I remember when you exploded the mechanics of the battle mounts, taking them from one side to another, from one side to another ... until finally you lost them ... 1,2,4 etc etc and then they nerfed them. great success, great! Then, we could say that you exploited an abusive mechanics until it was effectively stopped. that same must happen now, limit alliances, further limit the snowball in gvg, incite OW etc etc, improvements in the game that are likely to go against your exploiter wishes, therefore you should NOT be in a round table, since you do not sail for the balance, but for the exploitation of mechanics, mechanics that sooner or later detonate in a dead game.

      Lemonz wrote:

      Not sure if English is your first language or not but if it isn't you are running quite a logical Fallacy for a argument. I don't think your intent was to sound like a hypocrite and invalidate your own argument on purpose.
      You may want to reword the points your making. RENT players have discussed the content they have access to here which is where the guild you reference get their kills and content.

      The post was edited 10 times, last by marg93 ().