A brief history and direction of Albion

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

    • A brief history and direction of Albion

      Preface



      This is going to be a long post. Most of what I talk about will be conjecture from playing this game since beta, but there will be irrefutable facts as well. I'm not intending to create drama, but rather provide my feedback on everything game related as it pertains to my experience. Some of this criticism will be harsh, but it doesn't come from a malicious intent. I sincerely want this game to succeed, but as a long time player I've grown to distrust SBI's vision for Albion's direction. I've always had the time but necessarily the desire to talk about a lot of this, yet I find myself unable to enjoy playing Albion in it's current state for the first time since I bought the game in early access. So instead of playing, I've decided to take on this lengthy endeavor by compiling as much information as possible while being as thorough and detailed as I reasonably can.

      It's also important to note that I'm not a player that enjoys massive zerg battles. I prefer solo and small scale fights as it is undoubtedly more skill reliant, and I'd argue that the majority of players that look for full loot pvp games would also prefer small scale fights over large zvz battles. Although great strides have been made since Albion's release, the servers have and still are notoriously lousy at handling performance in zvzs, so hopefully you can understand my hesitation for Albion's directional future in regards to upcoming leaked changes.

      Albion was once just an idea from a small company and it has grown to become a pretty big hit with audiences looking for the niche genre that is full loot pvp with a player driven economy. However, it has many faults and egregious mistakes in it's development since it's inception that has severely hindered the game's growth and player retention rate, mostly due to moving away from the once hardcore elements to a more casual approach while at the same time continuing to tailor towards a zerg oriented development design instead of focusing more on small scale viability.



      Beta

      During the betas the game was looking to be great. It had a lot of the core features we see now and the economy and players to support it. Many players today will even say that the best iteration of Albion was in it's beta stage, and there's plenty of reasons why people believe that. A few examples:
      • The game was heavily marketed and designed as a mobile friendly game. For whatever reason, someone at SBI decided a hardcore full loot pvp game with an emphasis on player economy was to be given the mobile treatment. The cynical part of me thinks this was done to exploit the booming mobile market with micro-transactions, but thank the earth-mother that didn't happen. Regardless, the game was and is restrained because everything has to be compatible with mobile as well. What we are left with is a mildly acceptable app that you need to re-download after every patch. It's still in IOS beta today, and won't ever be capable of competently performing actions like pvp. Without a shadow of a doubt, if Albion was actually devoted to PCs instead of one foot in the door for mobile, we could have had a fantastically better game overall.
      • The geography was way better. There was a ton of choke points and really interesting and unique map layouts as opposed to the copy/pasted ones we have had since release. Some maps had at least six territories per zone which provided constant action. There were even more gvg tiles that were in beta that never made it to the game, though I can't exactly say why. Maybe the maps just received better upgrades, but it would have been nice to have different layouts for different play-styles.
      • The removal of harbors and black zone cities in favor of portals. If you wanted to go to a black zone, you would take one of many routes out of the royals and into a respective black zone area with a port harbor as a kind of middle check-point safe spot with a bank and an auction house. It meant that truly living in the black zones was viable, but required a steady inflow of goods from royals. With it's removal in favor of portals, it destroyed key trade routes connecting royals with black zones and made portal camping extremely prominent and lazily rewarding even to this day. This change took place in the Hector update just two months shy of the game's release forcing essentially the entirety of pvp players to use Caerleon. Only now are some of these changes being revisited with the upcoming map design in regards to living in black zones and removing Caerleon as the main black-zone hub.
      • Mobs used to execute you. If you got knocked down by a mob it would kill you and you would die the same as if a player had killed you, but it was changed to no longer execute. I can't say which is truly better, but I can say it took a lot of the "hardcore" feel of the game out when it was changed - also keep in mind there was no roaming mobs or random dungeons in beta so you'd only die to mobs on unsuccessful attempts in structured pve settings and only if the mobs leashed while you were knocked down; similar to how hellgates worked until recently where they were also changed to not kill as well. Here's a link to the thread on the forums where this was announced and many people were not happy to hear this. Even SBI themselves didn't seem excited about this change saying:

      Korn wrote:

      Rest assured that we internally were initially not very happy with the idea, but after careful consideration decided to give it a try anyways. For those of you who have the same initial reaction that we had, please let's see how it plays out in practice first. If it does not work out, it will be reverted.

      Korn wrote:

      We are fully aware that switching of execution for mobs does have its cons, mostly that it does not really seem to fit Albion, it is not immersive and it might reduce the feelings of reward when you finally beat a hard encounter.
      • The royal continent had tier seven resources and no reputation system. Royals were designed to be for small scale groups and solo players and it accomplished that pretty well, but the release of a reputation system severely discouraged solo and small group fights in these zones and essentially forced pvpers to go to black zones which has always been riddled with zergs. Red zones were not that different to black zones in beta, everyone was flagged and anyone could participate in pvp without repercussions. The only major difference back then was blobs in black zones didn't show on the mini-map. Here's a link from a beta player asking for the return of auto-flag in red zones with over 50 up-votes (which was huge for back then and even now) and just to prove I was playing during this time, I'll quote myself from this post #306 and #309. If you have the time, peruse through this thread and you'll find many people were unhappy with the flagging and reputation system's implementation, yet it was pushed forward with the idea that it would help casual players.


      Eternalhaze wrote:

      The whole system is stupid. Why punish players in an open world pvp game?

      It's obviously designed around the idea of sheep vs wolf, but in reality every player is one or the other at some point. We don't need a reputation system for that...

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      ...the fact that you can get locked out of pvp towns for playing the full loot pvp game and pvping in the designated pvp area is ridiculous. There are people who enjoy the small scale pvp in red zones as opposed to the black zone zergs and this reputation system punishes them for that?

      Reputation was designed strictly with the care-bears in mind, and it is counter intuitive to the philosophy of the game - full loot pvp. The devs want to get more play styles into the game and I can respect that, but you have to teach them the dangers of the area and how to prepare for it. Maybe the upcoming gathering items will help, but this whole reputation system is basically just the devs holding the sheep's hands and saying, "They will pay for killing you". It's not fair to either the wolf or the sheep - the wolf takes the punishment and the sheep don't learn how to adapt.
      • Gathering gear was introduced in the last iteration of beta. Many of you are probably thinking, "So what? That's a good thing" - but I'll explain what I mean. Gathering gear hampered a lot of solo and small scale fights that would occur naturally from contesting resource nodes. Before in beta, I enjoyed many skirmishes with people because we had a reason to fight each other seeing as the victor would get to gather the valuable resource. When people wear gathering gear, they are encouraged NOT to fight because the gear is generally more expensive than fighting gear and it doesn't provide combat stats - you're essentially risking more monetary loss with a greater chance to lose the fight. This is why 95% of gatherers won't ever fight and just run away, there's legitimately no reason to defend resource nodes while wearing gathering gear. Seeing as how gathering is mostly a solo activity, it destroyed a lot of consenting pvp action for solo and small groups. Gathering gear was another example of catering to casual players by encouraging people to not fight each other.
      • The single biggest mistake Albion made in beta was the addition of learning points and it's affects with alts. No-one wanted this, no-one asked for it, and people were extremely upset upon hearing of it's addition to the game. So much so, that SBI had to make a thread on the forums just to compile all the different topics about how horrible LP is for a game designed like Albion. LP was in opposition to one of Albion's biggest appeals, which was hardcore progression based grind - but SBI claimed that they needed a way for casual players to stay competitive with hardcore players saying this:


      Korn wrote:

      The goal of the learning point system is to narrow the progression gap between normal players and hardcore players.

      However, they failed abysmally at recognizing that the LP system did not help anyone "catch up" but rather it expanded this gap with how LP interacts with alternate characters. For example, a casual player will gain 20 LP per day with one character, while a more hardcore player will gain 60 LP per day with three characters. When LP was initially added to the game, there wasn't even a threshold amount of fame required to progress to before being able to use LP. You could log in, throw premium on an alt, and just wait until you had a bunch saved up and be maxed in whatever you wanted to with zero effort. The fact that this was possible, even in beta, goes to show how little thought was put into keeping the integrity of the progression system. SBI knew how much LP would push players into creating alts when they said this:


      Korn wrote:

      A side effect of the learning point system is that that encourages creating multiple characters, each with their own specializations, in order to be able to progress in different activities simultaneously.

      Needless to say, many veteran players saw this as a blatant cash grab by introducing this predatory monetization system that heavily encouraged alternate characters. The only way to accrue LP was by having a premium active on a character, which effectively doubled or even tripled SBI's income per player. We all know game services needs to make money to keep the servers going, but this route with LP was at the cost of their own game's success. Not only did it severely hinder trade as many hardcore players were able to be completely self-sufficient through the use of multiple alts, but it also led to one of Albion's longest running issues in regards to how gvgs play out. Every character is limited to one gvg per day by design, but alts were a way around this lock for teams and it's been an ever-present issue for gvgs because of this. Alts were also a way around portal locks too, but it's not as severe comparatively. In retrospect, the most substantial effect LP had was sowing a monumental amount of distrust from the player-base, a vast majority of which don't play the game anymore.

      In response to the heavy criticism of how LP negatively impacts the economy, SBI had this to say:


      Korn wrote:

      an alt character, from an economic point of view, is pretty much the same as an extra player, taking part in the economy.

      I can't even put into words how asinine that comment is. Saying this is like the internet equivalent of an open-handed slap in the face to your players. Not only does it attempt to down-play the role of alts, but it's not even factually correct. Instead of having a real profession system based on skills we specialized in, we just have alts - none of which needs to interact with anyone else but the one player playing them. Any resources gathered on alt#1 gets sent to alt#2 to refine and then to alt#3 to craft, and the end product is the only thing that enters the economy. Quoting a long time veteran and streamer of the game:


      JonahVeil wrote:

      It's about the fact that LP inherently HURTS the game.

      It promotes;
      Playing Less
      Not going into the world
      Hardcore Players multi accounting/multi character LP spamming
      Having zero character diversity since we all can craft/gather/refine/use everything, by ourselves.



      Without LP, and with a character limit, CRAFTERS and REFINERS would be a thing. Something they specialized in, spent a lot of time on, and could sell their services as a commodity, you know, like a player driven economy this game boasts yet doesn't actually posses?


      If you're thinking, "Oh well I like LP because it helps make the grind faster", let me explain that the amount of fame required for leveling any particular thing is designed with LP in mind. If they had removed LP, they would have just balanced the fame values accordingly and it would still be the same exact progress rate. I highly encourage you to read through the threads on LP that I linked above so you can get a better understanding for yourself, as there's hundreds of pages and posts that I can't possibly summarize all of it in a few paragraphs. There's so many different viewpoints from numerous players - most of which are no longer around, but you will find that the majority of people saw LP for what it is - a cancer on this game - and they were not wrong.
    • Release and forward


      Albion had a reasonably successful launch in July of 2017. Despite massive server infrastructure instability, the game was generally well received. However, it experienced like it was still in beta moving forward and didn't truly feel like a well polished and released title until the Lancelot update in March of 2018. Things like artifacts and siphoning mages were still being added to the game as well as simple combat features like mob health bars, crowd control diminishing returns, and smart-casting alongside the usual combat balancing.

      Lancelot added in the roaming mobs, luxury goods, 2v2 hellgates, UI customizations, and then later brought the widely appreciated fame re-spec feature as well as things like gvg scrims, re-balancing of artifact costs making them cheaper/more available, fishing, and finally fixing the incredibly long overdue bug that was, "Fixed an issue where the contents of a siege camp bank would be blank the first time the chest was opened" - an extremely irritating bug that was present even before the game's release. There wasn't even a functioning tutorial until a year after Lancelot with the Percival patch in March of 2019, marking close to two years after the game's initial launch. Not that we truly needed one, but it wasn't until the game was going to the free-to-play model that they decided to focus on it.


      Albion has delivered impressive updates since launch to keep us players interested, but it is undoubtedly slow progress - often feeling like it's taking one step forward and two steps backward.

      • Patches are usually two to four months apart which is a relatively good pace, but combat balancing is typically only done in one of these major patches which can leave certain weapons and armor unchecked kings or sticks to play in the mud with if you're bored. Balancing is also done in such a way that nerfing items is a much more common tactic than buffing them. Staff of balance for example, was essentially the only viable tank weapon in gvgs for almost an entire year with no buffs to hammers and only minor buffs to maces, and after multiple nerfs the SOB is hardly ever seen anywhere. Another good example for this is the one hand arcane staff. It saw a decent rise to power with a few minor buffs over time - reached a peak and subsequently over-nerfed in February and hasn't been seen since for eight months.
      • Tier eight resources were not originally in the open world. They were in beta, but when Albion launched they restricted them to inside territories. I don't know the reasoning behind this change, but it wasn't until November of 2018 that they reverted on this. I applaud SBI for making the correct decision and returning them back to the open world, but when you see/hear things like this it really makes you wonder about how they view the direction of their own game. This is end-game content level design we're talking about here; stuff that should have been ironed out in betas - of which Albion had plenty of.
      • Siphoning mages was an amazing addition to the game for small scale battles. People would raid and defend constantly in many different sizes of groups and it really felt like you could hurt the pockets of larger guilds and alliances by killing their mages and taking away some of their income. However, the gvg season 4 changes placed a heavy emphasis on season points to earn special battle-mounts, and raiding mages was effectively the only way to gain these points outside of scheduled attacks. This shift in dynamics viscerally gutted mage raiding for fun and profit, and it became a necessary chore for zergs trying to compete even to this day. Mercia zerg guilds ride to Anglia after decimating the rest of the mages in the outlands just for a few extra points. Competition is an important thing in video-game warfare, but this only led to competition at the zerg level because this patch made small mage raid groups have an exceptionally harder time. They substantially added more guards on patrol, and the leash range almost doubled from 25 meters to 45 meters. Frank, a long time veteran and guild master of Sun said it best here:


      Frankasti wrote:

      The winner of this season will be a ZvZ guild. They don't have to pay for GvG gear, don't need a strong economy, don't need good gatherers, don't need alliance coordination, don't need good GvG teams. They just need a zerg to power throught the boringness of raiding mages many hours per day.

      Frankasti wrote:

      I really hate that GvGs are slowly becoming less relevant at the profit of "around the clock" activities. The high-cost, high maintenance, end-game content we used to love is overshadowed by low-cost all day raiding. The dynamic it brings regarding seasons points is not fun. Devs are giving more and more importance to zergs and guild activity, which is fine for many aspects of the game, but the fact that it's now becoming end-game content is just stupid. No matter in which guild you play.
      • In the last year or so, Albion has been focusing more towards a zvz direction for the game most notably in the form of buffing castles while moving away from gvgs. It's one thing to make another play-style viable, but it shouldn't be at the cost of the other through alienation. Castles were buffed to the point where they dictated season winners. I don't personally give a damn about season rankings in Albion, but it should be noted that for the last three seasons, Blue Army earned first place in points almost exclusively from castles and mage raiding - without holding any significant amount of resource territories. It wasn't even a competition. While BA is extremely good at zvzs, there's not much to be said about actual balance when it comes to season points if you can win multiple seasons in a row with a minuscule amount of territories.
      • Gvgs have been one of Albion's biggest staple points and draw-ins for a lot of it's small community. It's the fundamental core to the current territory conquest system where you pit your guild's champions vs the enemy teams' and fight for land in as fair an environment as possible. Now there are a ton of issues with the current system - no one can possibly deny that, but to hear in leaked round-table news that SBI is abandoning gvgs as any form of territory control is extremely disconcerting. There's a lot of different ways to go about changing the system before deciding to scrap it entirely. For example, SBI could add in different layouts and sizes of territories to accommodate 10v10s or 20v20s, but it doesn't look like that's what SBI wants to do. Any more credence given to zergs is absolutely the wrong direction for Albion, and the proposed changes do exactly that.
      • Alliances are one of the longest running and ultimately damning issues facing the game. Throughout most of Albion's history since release, there's usually one to four different alliances that own approximately 90% of claimable land. Some of the reasons are tied to the gvg system, but much more is tied to how alliances work. With the click of a button, you can add thousands of would be enemies to your "can't attack" list, and there's a heap of positive reasons and very minimal downsides to doing so. What we started seeing was 3,000 person alliances with those numbers growing to 4,000 / 7,000 / 10,000 person alliances, and there's virtually no cap on what they can become from here. I find it unappealing to play in mega alliances myself as it makes the game too easy, but what's extremely unnerving to hear is that SBI still has no plans to put any sort of limits on this system - especially considering they want to re-vamp territory control to open world objectives.
      • The N+1 problem. Albion's combat mechanics are such that numbers will always play a far more superior role in the outcomes of fights than skill will. You can definitely win some fights through skill when slightly outnumbered, but no amount of skill will allow you to win a fight vs 4x your numbers. For example, you might be able to win a fight solo vs 2 people, but you cannot win solo vs 4. Again, same logic applies to zvzs - no one can win a 50v200 fight vs enemies with any sort of brain functionality. By design, combat in Albion is pretty linear and there's only positive benefits to be had in adding more players to one side of a fight. It's not necessarily an issue by itself, but when combined with how alliances work and proposed changes to territory control - this N+1 problem will be highlighted glaringly, pushing more solo and small scale players to zvz guilds/alliances or just away from the game entirely.
    • Conclusion

      The simplest TLDR: Salty long time veteran whines about Albion's mistakes and doesn't like zerg direction for the game.

      Joking aside, I understand a lot of this comes off as very heatedly, and that's because it is. I have an enormous amount of passion for this game and I dread the day that SBI has to pull the plug on the servers. This direction that Albion has taken to cater more towards casual players and zergs is too frustrating for me to just sit by idly and say nothing, especially when I truly believe it's a hindrance to the game's growth and will mark Albion's time of death sooner than necessary.

      My hope is that by reading this, you've learned a little history of Albion's developmental direction moving towards a more casual and zerg friendly atmosphere. Albion has lost a metric tonne of it's entire player-base that has ever tried the game, and for a good chunk of them this was never going to be their game. However, Albion's continued lack of clear design as a hardcore game has also been a large factor in many veterans give up on the game too.

      For those of you who may doubt my credentials on any of the subject matter, here's some screenshots of my character's stats and my short guild history to prove I don't have any bias towards any particular mega guilds or alliances.


      Bercilak wrote:

      A quote from a meeting we just had "we have one last shot to do it right".

      Bercilak was the founder and previous face of the company before his departure. I'm using his quote from 2016 as a reminder to SBI going forward that their planned changes in regards to territory control and map redesign is pretty much the last chance this game has, so please don't mess it up.
    • Agreed. After nearly two years playing this game heavily, I rarely have an interest in logging in anymore. The direction Albion is headed (away from small-scale fights), essentially requires you to play with a mega alliance if you want to participate in territory control.

      Small-scale fights are the most fun part of Albion, where a small group of friends can have a legitimate impact, and if you put the effort in, even carve out a swath of territory for yourselves without having to bend the knee to the toxic no-lifers that run the mega alliances.

      GvGs could have been improved considerably with very minor changes. Instead, we're heading toward a system the Albion client literally cannot handle, the game turns into a veritable slide slow.

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

    • I think the game-design was best in Beta, and has only gone downhill since, with no significant improvement to "end-game" content. Riddled with game-breaking bugs, exploits, and other fundamental issues (N+1 zerging, how many times has the auction market been broken?), Albion has depopulated of its player-base, and the Free-To-Play launch is now squandered, with very few new players retaining, and fewer of the veterans having any 'new' content to enjoy, or look forward to. Albion Developers have made their decisions, listening to a small portion of the game (mostly Blue Army), and ignored the rest. Long I hoped that the game would turn-around, or at least provide new content, but it hasn't. I don't have much faith in this game anymore.

      They should have stuck with their vision in Beta. At least one Developer had the right idea, shame that person was passed-over.
    • Interesting to hear this from long time players. I am only in my second month but I whole heartedly agree that small scale is where it's at. I honestly didn't know that small groups could get territories. My bf keeps saying he wants to get territory but I always shut him down saying we would have to join a big guild/alliance to do anything like that. Since neither of us want to join a big guild, I definitely feel that we are missing out on a lot the game has to offer. Wish I had played in beta when it would have been possible for just a few of us to make a difference like that.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      I sincerely want this game to succeed, but as a long time player I've grown to distrust SBI's vision for Albion's direction.


      Funny you say that....

      I made a thread about loosing trust in SBI on the RT. I got interesting response. The people there had no idea what I was talking about.

      It is interesting because I do not agree about your points. I am casual. But I have drawn very similar conclusions.
      IGN/Discord : Ravenar#2076
      Join Albion
    • I have to say you make some good points,

      Overall i disagree with the premise that we are going the wrong way.
      - We are seeing some changes that are positive.

      The biggest thing I think we can agree on is Alliances NEED a Cap period
      There is no territory control for 90% of the players and wont be when they are all playing on the same 4 teams while the rest of us are split amongst 1000 other teams

      Gathering gear, while it is in the game it is nearly mandatory to gather in T7 gathering gear T8 if you have the money to replace it from time to time.
      - it should have some form of combat options instead of always flee, my thoughts include Kiting builds,
      -Movement is important but simply bringing its stats on par with combat gear, then focus its skills on shoot and move tactics
      - Because currently you need the faster run options, and cleanse just to expand the gap everyone has run or wanderlust with cleanse because without cleanse you are already dead Perhaps this armor stays "weak" stat wise but has a high CC resistance, also gathering backpacks, upgraded versions with the autocleanse FS cape would handle this same issue perhaps just skip the backpacks to wear those would help, but again currently you cant fight anyway



      - N+1 is being addressed in the upcoming patch i thought some of their ideas made sense,
      - 1st being the cap on guild members in a zone before it creates the other battle- idk 100% where they are going with it but performance and Size cap helps in some ways not for small scale sorry.
      - 2nd is the debuff i cannot recall exactly where that begins hitting but i would think at 2 people the debuff could hit i dont think thats what they are doing
      -But if they debuff 1% per person over 1 by 20 people there is a significant change this would effect small groups and on large scale a 20-30 there is a 10% advantage combating the N+1
      - 3 After this I hope devs keep going, If all abilities were to scale, Example Bridgewatch Cape 50% is the number T4 to T8.3 change it, make it scale all skills need to change with inputs so people arent running T4 helm with T8 Boots and T6 chests because the T4 is a flat skill the T6 is an artifact and expensive and T8 are scaled and a non artifact piece if it all scaled more of those pieces would be pushing into high tiers less T4s with the 'right' skill would be used because they would be less effective if they are 40% less effective than their counterparts that are expensive
      - 4 N+1 cannot be fully overturned ever it would crush the game if a solo > than a group we saw that with some niche builds in the past but a exploit plus the right gear cannot make a person too powerful 1v5 the 5 should win 4v5 thats where we can debate gear and skill even 3v5 but 1-2 V 5 or 3-4 v 10 or 10 v 20 If numbers dont win people will be PISSED so a balance must be struck

      The post was edited 1 time, last by blappo: Adding more detail ().

    • Gank wrote:

      Game direction has been amazing , rarely going towards things I feel are bad for the game.

      Implementation and some head in the sand refusal to acknowledge certain core issues are dragging us down right now.
      While the game isn't taking a nose-dive level plummet to death, in my eyes it is veering off course with the "everyone matters" standpoint by moving further into a zerg directional development.

      If you're in a zerg guild or alliance these changes look great, which is why ARCH are praising this update. My concern though is for small scale and smaller guilds actually being able to thrive in an environment focusing more and more towards numbers.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      Gank wrote:

      Game direction has been amazing , rarely going towards things I feel are bad for the game.

      Implementation and some head in the sand refusal to acknowledge certain core issues are dragging us down right now.
      While the game isn't taking a nose-dive level plummet to death, in my eyes it is veering off course with the "everyone matters" standpoint by moving further into a zerg directional development.
      If you're in a zerg guild or alliance these changes look great, which is why ARCH are praising this update. My concern though is for small scale and smaller guilds actually being able to thrive in an environment focusing more and more towards numbers.
      I am also looking forward to the update (and the biggest group I ever roll in is 10 ppl) and I mostly solo.

      Per the latest Roadmap announcement - Red Zones will be tweaked to be dedicated more towards small/solo play. I am definitely looking FWD to that.

      Also there is nothing wrong with "zerg" - they are usually less skilled (look at SAUCE and ARCH, not offence to anyone particilar, just addressing a big mass as a whole) because they feel too comfortable and confident in a bigger group. Fighting 1 vs N+1 is the most skilled way and its one of the most popular and demanded content on social media (Youtube, etc...)
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      Gank wrote:

      Game direction has been amazing , rarely going towards things I feel are bad for the game.

      Implementation and some head in the sand refusal to acknowledge certain core issues are dragging us down right now.
      While the game isn't taking a nose-dive level plummet to death, in my eyes it is veering off course with the "everyone matters" standpoint by moving further into a zerg directional development.
      If you're in a zerg guild or alliance these changes look great, which is why ARCH are praising this update. My concern though is for small scale and smaller guilds actually being able to thrive in an environment focusing more and more towards numbers.
      Considering the mechanics this system presents and the way fights/launches are supposedly supposed to happen(some information unreleased, some public) I think there is far more hope for smaller scale fights day to day than you think.

      Its a core change though in direction, and many players that haven't played all the versions we have def see only what they want to see in the scope of the current game play. This update changes how you play, which is always a bumpy transition. Its a great system on paper, and tweaks are being made based on suggestions every week, which gives me hope.
    • Adrivan wrote:

      Can you imagine a large group of people working together being stronger than a small group of people ? Seems perfectly normal to me. If you wanna be the lonely wolf, you need to wait for the big packs to finish their hunt and come pickup the scraps. Who said life is fair?
      Agreed. Or you need to "git gud" enough to be able to exploit the comfort zone of the blob to be able to fight 1 v N+1
    • Gank wrote:

      Game direction has been amazing , rarely going towards things I feel are bad for the game.

      Implementation and some head in the sand refusal to acknowledge certain core issues are dragging us down right now.
      All you do is sit around and wager duel in safezones and do ZvZ shit, so isn't the direction just catered to your playstyle? Your playstyle does not dictate what is good/bad for the game, it's a biased opinion. We're all biased, but if you can't see some of the pitfalls of their ideas, I really don't know what to say. The GvG system was not perfect, no1 said it was. But HOW THE FUCK are we going from 5v5 for territory control, for the ENTIRE GAMES INCEPTION, ALPHA, EVERY BETA, UNTIL NOW, to ZERO 5v5 for territory control and ONLY zerging Warcamp fights as it's replacement. It's a disgusting alienation.

      During my streams I suggested "Some terri's should be 5v5, some 10v10, some 20v20, some ZvZ" And not a SINGLE FUCKING PERSON Disagreed with me, ever. Why is this fucking obvious solution being overlooked? Some people are cool with the Crystal bullshit league of rewards nobody cares about, I liked putting territories on the line and gaining them for the guild, it makes you want to practice, take pride in it. Winning silver? Fuck off.

      Captainrussia wrote:

      Adrivan wrote:

      Can you imagine a large group of people working together being stronger than a small group of people ? Seems perfectly normal to me. If you wanna be the lonely wolf, you need to wait for the big packs to finish their hunt and come pickup the scraps. Who said life is fair?
      Agreed. Or you need to "git gud" enough to be able to exploit the comfort zone of the blob to be able to fight 1 v N+1
      Except as the OP points out, the skillshots in Albion can be hit by Stevie Fucking Wonder, and 75% of Abilities, including HARD CC, are not aimed, whatsoever, so there will always be a hardcap on how much you can outplay your opponents, provided they have braincells.

      I find it extremely comical retroman did a Dev talk saying he wanted to bring more skill to Albion yet every single one of his balance patches introduces dumbass abilities with AoE's the size of houses.


      Good post OP, I think most of the hardcore/longtime followers would agree with you. The pussifying of this game is the beginning of its end, the same way Trammel was for UO. It attracts a type of player that has a short lifespan with this type of game, and while I agree a game needs wolves and sheep, a game will not survive solely on having one type.
      BoM, In our hearts and minds.
      Twitch
      Youtube