Why The GvG System Needs a Real Buff That's Not Rank, Energy, Season Point, Crystal GvG, Garbage Related - My Albion Online Story

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

    • Roccandil wrote:

      Theat wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Theat wrote:

      Without territory-conquest, how do gatherers survive deep in the black zone, without protection offered by territories?
      Hideouts?
      Mega-alliances will destroy small guild/alliance hideouts.

      Abydon wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Theat wrote:

      Without territory-conquest, how do gatherers survive deep in the black zone, without protection offered by territories?
      Hideouts?
      Hideouts require a channel to enter. So you'll get killed trying to enter the hideout.
      That would seem to defeat the purpose of a hideout, in which case, I'm not sure why they would even be implemented.

      I envisioned hideouts acting like dungeons, that you can enter by running into it. Also, if hideouts are much cheaper to construct than they are to destroy, then they might survive long enough against mega alliances to be useful.
      i.imgur.com/kB8opYy.png

      I wouldn't say it defeats the purpose. Hideouts are supposed to block non-allied players from entering them except for ZvZ terri times is my guess.
      Discord: ChaosCircle#9506

      Neighborhood Watch is always recruiting!
    • Abydon wrote:

      GluttonySDS wrote:

      Theat wrote:

      SBI doesn't need money.
      Hilarious.

      Theat wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      The current GvG system has a set of issues, namely:
      • it does not feel very rewarding

      I can't speak for anybody else with regard to GVG ...but *Territories* is a big deal ...changing the world-map ...becoming a recognized guild and power-house ...bragging-rights
      So the less than 1% players of this game that GvG are the ONLY players in the game who should fele the thrill of changing the world map, being recognizes as a guild, and have bragging rights? With ZVZ, every play will have an opportunity to participate in these fights and earn these same feelings.
      Not everyone has 10k players to zerg 2934239420 zones as a mega alliance.
      And ZvZ is basically being a potato who obeys the shotcaller and drops Es / maneuvers on command. It isn't enjoyable to do that daily, once a month is enough.
      just rememember, significantly less than 1% gvg per sbi -- the rest of us 99.5% are potatos.
    • GluttonySDS wrote:

      just rememember, significantly less than 1% gvg per sbi -- the rest of us 99.5% are potatos.
      That just means 1% of players participate in the true end game, which is no different than classic WoW. Only 1% of them cleared og Nax but look how much hype vanilla has for it's re-release.

      Speaking of WoW, these proposed changes come in you bet your bottom dollar a ton of players are going to play that in a couple weeks - leaving arch with fewer people to murder with twenty tier four claws.
    • Except unlike in WoW, the "true endgame" as you put it negatively impacts the rest of the playerbase by keeping one of the main contents of the black zone - territory control, in the hands of the few "endgamers" while everyone else either watches helplessly or joins the alliance with the GvGers to take advantage. You can argue all you want how 'anyone can set up their own GvG team', but in reality the hardcore GvG teams of the top alliances are virtually unbeatable both in skill and resources...it would take a new starting team, especially of a small guild (That this system was supposed to give an advantage to in territory control) months to reach a similar level. Most players don't have time, and even more players can't afford the constant loss of top-tier gear needed to keep up.

      If WoW endgame was like this, then clearing endgame bosses would give the clearing guild control of large regions of Azeroth that they can endlessly exploit for resources, locking out ordinary players that have no recourse to stop them.

      Again, GvG should have a place in Albion, including some form of territory control or advantage, because it does offer an endgame goal that many players aspire to. But it should NOT be the sole means of controlling the main content that everyone in the black zone fights over.

      As for WoW, I did enjoy it when I first played it but after playing Eve Online and Albion where I could kill players and take their stuff, and the endgame content was purely competition between real people instead of fighting artificial NPC content, I can safely say that I don't want to go back.

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

    • The new proposed changes and the way SBI is actually taking constructive feedback into consideration will open this elitist fun activity to the 99% of the server.

      Gvgs will still remain as an activity so I don't understand why the vocal 1% minority is crying.

      There have been numerous exploits with the old gvg system either with the use of Alts or dropping terris or self launching etc that SBI has been trying to correct since release only for more creative ways to cheat the system to appear.

      Finally this drastic change will cater to the needs of the many while still allowing the toxic few to gvg

      P A S O K
    • Valkyrior wrote:

      Finally this drastic change will cater to the needs of the many while still allowing the toxic few to gvg
      Yeah because everyone needs and deserves everything handed to them on a silver platter in today's day and age. Why work hard and put in the effort?

      GvG'ers aren't any more toxic than your typical 20v1 gank squad that say, "gg ez 1v1".

      Valkyrior wrote:

      Gvgs will still remain as an activity so I don't understand why the vocal 1% minority is crying.
      The vocal majority of players understand that this game dies faster than the black guy in a horror movie if those leaked changes come through as is. That's why they're concerned. Meanwhile every tier four claws is popping out of their gopher hole saying how awesome these changes are going to be.
    • GluttonySDS wrote:

      Abydon wrote:

      GluttonySDS wrote:

      Theat wrote:

      SBI doesn't need money.
      Hilarious.

      Theat wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      The current GvG system has a set of issues, namely:
      • it does not feel very rewarding

      I can't speak for anybody else with regard to GVG ...but *Territories* is a big deal ...changing the world-map ...becoming a recognized guild and power-house ...bragging-rights
      So the less than 1% players of this game that GvG are the ONLY players in the game who should fele the thrill of changing the world map, being recognizes as a guild, and have bragging rights? With ZVZ, every play will have an opportunity to participate in these fights and earn these same feelings.
      Not everyone has 10k players to zerg 2934239420 zones as a mega alliance.And ZvZ is basically being a potato who obeys the shotcaller and drops Es / maneuvers on command. It isn't enjoyable to do that daily, once a month is enough.
      just rememember, significantly less than 1% gvg per sbi -- the rest of us 99.5% are potatos.
      ARCH has 10k people. 0 of whom are willing to dedicate the mandatory CTA time to GvG training.

      That should tell you:

      A) People don't want mandatory CTAs which is all GvG training/GvGs are. Mandatory CTAs for a team of 5-10 people (10 if you include a good # of subs).

      B) The only way this change works is with mandatory CTAs or mega alliance numbers (so you can field 5% of your alliance and still have a huge zerg).

      C) You want this change because you are in the "mega alliance" category. This change w/o nerfing mega alliances into the ground will kill the game.

      D) This change without limiting zergs to 40-60 ppl will kill the game.
      Discord: ChaosCircle#9506

      Neighborhood Watch is always recruiting!
    • limit gvgs to 3 people instead of 5 people and you ll see that the numbers will increase.

      this s not dota 2 random match making or arena which makes the fights happen.

      %99 dont get in cause it s too hard to make the harmony between 5 people. if it was 3 people, more people would try/apply.

      but yeah, in the end, 3 or 5 ppl to conquer a territory is absurd. the land should be conquered by 10+ ppl to make it more realistic.
    • The current 1% perception of population GvGing might be true but that is the symptom of poor mechanics rolled out over time. First off team wise you get no actual reward for winning or defending the territory other than potential opponent loot. You should get some type of silver/tome reward on standard GvGs just like Crystals (people may actually bother attacking if there was a worthwhile reason). Just taking territory via GvG doesn't mean much since mages just get zerged all day reducing season points.

      Warcamps have always been a horrific mechanic. Nothing encourages zerging more than gating the majority of resource territories behind isolated WCs. It is the equivalent of asking a small alliance to run thru a choke point against an opposing alliance 3x their numbers. ALL resource territories should have been launchable at game launch and somehow the upcoming change to fix this has taken 2 years.

      The retaliation feature is also bad for competition. Once again as any strategic attack attempt into a cluster owned area even if I beat team B to take the territory the losing guild can simply retaliate with team A immediately taking it back.

      Ultimately SBI appears to keep trying to implement these odd feeling quirky mechanics that they felt would limit zerg but none of then have worked and in fact you could argue zerging has gotten worse. The culture of being forced to join in zerg alliances or have no content is a major game problem. The fix has been in front of their face for ages. Alliances need to go.
    • I'm all for alliances being removed -- why? Because in addition to running a large alliance I run a large/active guild -- so while alliances can be formed for smaller guilds allowing them to compete with the big boys, when guilds like BA/TC/KFC/AC/etc. start filling their guild with 300 actives and bring 150 to a ZVZ just with their guild alone your smaller guild will be forced to merge or die. Im not sure thats necessarily the best scenario for game health...

      ...keep in mind new ZVZ mechanics are coming which punish guilds/alliances who bring more than 50 people to a ZVZ.
    • GluttonySDS wrote:

      I'm all for alliances being removed -- why? Because in addition to running a large alliance I run a large/active guild -- so while alliances can be formed for smaller guilds allowing them to compete with the big boys, when guilds like BA/TC/KFC/AC/etc. start filling their guild with 300 actives and bring 150 to a ZVZ just with their guild alone your smaller guild will be forced to merge or die. Im not sure thats necessarily the best scenario for game health...

      ...keep in mind new ZVZ mechanics are coming which punish guilds/alliances who bring more than 50 people to a ZVZ.
      But are they punishing enough to effectively cap ZvZs at 50-60 people?

      The existing leak doesn't look like it.
      Discord: ChaosCircle#9506

      Neighborhood Watch is always recruiting!
    • Even if the best 300 players all join the same guild they will not have the manpower to power project. In your example all the best guilds would have to compete for best lands instead of just joining together. Sure they could possibly create a NAP but that would break when people keep attacking others etc and drama ensues. There is no utopian solution but it is undeniable removing 5k-10k player alliances in place for 300 player guilds would create MUCH more competition and diverse black zone.
    • solventh wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      This is a massively multiplayer game,
      this is a mmorpg played by thousands in total, but limited by 200 in a cluster.

      Sure, there are performance limitations, but I don't get the impression that's what this discussion is really about. :)

      Tabor wrote:

      Even if the best 300 players all join the same guild they will not have the manpower to power project. In your example all the best guilds would have to compete for best lands instead of just joining together. Sure they could possibly create a NAP but that would break when people keep attacking others etc and drama ensues. There is no utopian solution but it is undeniable removing 5k-10k player alliances in place for 300 player guilds would create MUCH more competition and diverse black zone.
      When I played clan wars in World of Tanks, there were no alliances and a 100 member cap per clan. Every season the elite clans squeezed everyone else out and then largely opted for stasis.

      Do you appreciate what the 300 best players actually means? Not only will they meet top-of-the line spec/fame/wealth requirements, but also insane mandatory playtime. A few such guilds would conquer and hold everything good, and newer players/guilds would stand no chance at all.

      That's not healthy. I saw it in WoT, and I don't want to see it here. The ease with which an active new player (or guild) can get into a good alliance in Albion amazes me! I don't think you all appreciate what a good thing that actually is for the long-term health of the game.
    • I have no idea how the tank game mechanics work you mentioned but once/if they open ALL resource territories for attack you are talking over 300 territories available daily. 300 players have zero chance to hold mass territory in those conditions they would have to settle into a high value cluster to focus holding instead. More variety of guilds would compete for the remaining less values ones.

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

    • Abydon wrote:

      GluttonySDS wrote:

      I'm all for alliances being removed -- why? Because in addition to running a large alliance I run a large/active guild -- so while alliances can be formed for smaller guilds allowing them to compete with the big boys, when guilds like BA/TC/KFC/AC/etc. start filling their guild with 300 actives and bring 150 to a ZVZ just with their guild alone your smaller guild will be forced to merge or die. Im not sure thats necessarily the best scenario for game health...

      ...keep in mind new ZVZ mechanics are coming which punish guilds/alliances who bring more than 50 people to a ZVZ.
      But are they punishing enough to effectively cap ZvZs at 50-60 people?
      The existing leak doesn't look like it.
      It looks like its being pushed so that ifyou h ave more than 50 people you become weaker and weaker... I know I wouldnt want to bring 200 people just to be operating at 75% strength vs. 100 or even 50 (ARCH is bad enough). Id probably split my army into multiple 50 man groups and send them out hopefully to fight other 50 man groups, i.e. the system woudl be working as intended, right?