A brief history and direction of Albion

    • Theat wrote:

      Gank wrote:

      Less than 1% of active characters participate in gvg.
      99% of players participate in gvg indirectly.
      Where do you think all that T8.1 gear comes from? Why do players zerg during warcamps? Why are alliances created around the top gvg teams?

      So, no, pretty much everybody in the game is involved.
      Indirectly = Not involved

      the 99% is involved in making the rich richer so we should feel rich BS thats dumb as fuck logic
    • Gank wrote:

      Less than 1% of active characters participate in gvg.
      This is what morons in Arch continue to parrot, glad to see you have no way to formulate a proper discussion and indirectly admitting fallacy within your own logic and furthering weakening your side of the argument.

      Tons of people use the scrim disc, tons of people use the HG disc, tons of people want to get involved in GvGs, just because they haven't, does not denote a lack of want. This stat is actual garbage, and the more you parrot it, the more I win.
      BoM, In our hearts and minds.
      Twitch
      Youtube
    • JonahVeil wrote:

      Gank wrote:

      Less than 1% of active characters participate in gvg.
      This is what morons in Arch continue to parrot, glad to see you have no way to formulate a proper discussion and indirectly admitting fallacy within your own logic and furthering weakening your side of the argument.
      Tons of people use the scrim disc, tons of people use the HG disc, tons of people want to get involved in GvGs, just because they haven't, does not denote a lack of want. This stat is actual garbage, and the more you parrot it, the more I win.
      Not super popular but there is also the arena for pvp...
    • A system that punishes you in the hardest way if you cant show up every day of the week for x amount of time is straight up outdated for any game. It always was the biggest flaw albion ever had, that if you didnt have a backup GvG team for your timeslot, there was no reason to even try, since every day of unavailability sets you back multiple hard fought wins.

      Its as stupid as having a single day that resets everything at the same time, stuff like that should never exist as long as its a game and not a chore.


      Nice entry post, a lot of good summaries with sources, but also a good amount of assumptions or half trues. Also gotta like the the generic "AoEs as big as Houses" coming from someone who played classic and said he enjoyed it.
      Proud owner of the T8 Offhand book Rosalia's Diary. Feel free to pm me once you have your own item named in Albion.
    • JonahVeil wrote:

      Gank wrote:

      Less than 1% of active characters participate in gvg.
      This is what morons in Arch continue to parrot, glad to see you have no way to formulate a proper discussion and indirectly admitting fallacy within your own logic and furthering weakening your side of the argument.
      Tons of people use the scrim disc, tons of people use the HG disc, tons of people want to get involved in GvGs, just because they haven't, does not denote a lack of want. This stat is actual garbage, and the more you parrot it, the more I win.
      Tons of people aka less than 1%
    • JonahVeil wrote:

      Tons of people use the scrim disc, tons of people use the HG disc, tons of people want to get involved in GvGs, just because they haven't, does not denote a lack of want. This stat is actual garbage, and the more you parrot it, the more I win.
      wanting to =/= participating.
      I've been wanting to participate in GvG for over 2 years... haven't participated yet tho... does that make me part of the 1% who "participates" or the 99% who does not participate (regardless of their "wants")?
    • I'm also a beta 1 player and have seen lots of iterations of this game. Some bad, some good!

      In my opinion the biggest mistake SBI made was removimg habours and rushing in this god awful portal system for launch. It was ill thought out, provided no benefit over the harbours and made alliances super strong as it centralised fast travel.

      I like the future direction of the world map but I still want to see habours back in the game for the new map. If you want to move from city to black zones get on your horse and run to a portal through red zones. It will provide content as it did in beta!

      The only reason I recall it being removed in beta was horse simulator and low players made the world feel dead. In current game and with current numbers the horse sim run is now a risk v reward run and much needed. Whilst your at it, chuck in a few black zone cities, I miss them as they had there own community feel and regs who pvp and traded out of them. I used to ox run horses to them and made a fortune but risked a ton... fun times!

      I would also like to see overcharge scrapped it was another ill advised change that's wrecked gear requirements for majority of conent and made ganking a low risk high reward activity

      The post was edited 5 times, last by Spikey ().

    • Theat wrote:

      Everybody who has fought over a warcamp, has participated in a GVG. So yes, that is 99%.
      Ur still wrong thats like 5% Max

      There are over 2500 guilds and only what 30 hold terry, across the years thats what 100 ... so ya very very few even when you REEEEAAAACCCHHH to try to not sound as you do

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Evas_Flarelight: Edited out insult. ().

    • The whole "only 1% of players participate in gvgs" is an extremely flawed argument to make in favor of removing them.

      • It doesn't take into account the fact that gvgs are only available for half of every day with nothing from 0400-1600 UTC.
      • It doesn't accurately reflect the amount of people who are interested in gvgs, whether it's people who are training up skills or practicing in gvg scrims.
      • It doesn't implicate alliances as an issue that perpetually hinders the growth of the gvg scene seeing as there's no limits to alliance size - people just conglomerate to whoever's "winning" instead of fighting on their own.
      • It's a skewed statistic indicating that only showing up to the gvg counts as participating, whereas defending/attacking warcamps and open world ganking prior to gvgs are heavily open world focused ways to participate.


      I've seen this common argument time and time again, but it really holds no value when you break it down. Like I've said, I'm almost thirty and work a full time job and was able to get into gvgs just fine. Without them there isn't really an end-game way for guilds to fight each other in a fair manner, and that's what concerns me more than anything else. Albion just seems like it's going more towards a numbers game, and that doesn't hold my interest at all.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      The whole "only 1% of players participate in gvgs" is an extremely flawed argument to make in favor of removing them.

      • It doesn't take into account the fact that gvgs are only available for half of every day with nothing from 0400-1600 UTC.
      • It doesn't accurately reflect the amount of people who are interested in gvgs, whether it's people who are training up skills or practicing in gvg scrims.
      • It doesn't implicate alliances as an issue that perpetually hinders the growth of the gvg scene seeing as there's no limits to alliance size - people just conglomerate to whoever's "winning" instead of fighting on their own.
      • It's a skewed statistic indicating that only showing up to the gvg counts as participating, whereas defending/attacking warcamps and open world ganking prior to gvgs are heavily open world focused ways to participate.


      I've seen this common argument time and time again, but it really holds no value when you break it down. Like I've said, I'm almost thirty and work a full time job and was able to get into gvgs just fine. Without them there isn't really an end-game way for guilds to fight each other in a fair manner, and that's what concerns me more than anything else. Albion just seems like it's going more towards a numbers game, and that doesn't hold my interest at all.
      You were part of the 1%, I'm happy for you.
    • Gank wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      The whole "only 1% of players participate in gvgs" is an extremely flawed argument to make in favor of removing them.

      • It doesn't take into account the fact that gvgs are only available for half of every day with nothing from 0400-1600 UTC.
      • It doesn't accurately reflect the amount of people who are interested in gvgs, whether it's people who are training up skills or practicing in gvg scrims.
      • It doesn't implicate alliances as an issue that perpetually hinders the growth of the gvg scene seeing as there's no limits to alliance size - people just conglomerate to whoever's "winning" instead of fighting on their own.
      • It's a skewed statistic indicating that only showing up to the gvg counts as participating, whereas defending/attacking warcamps and open world ganking prior to gvgs are heavily open world focused ways to participate.


      I've seen this common argument time and time again, but it really holds no value when you break it down. Like I've said, I'm almost thirty and work a full time job and was able to get into gvgs just fine. Without them there isn't really an end-game way for guilds to fight each other in a fair manner, and that's what concerns me more than anything else. Albion just seems like it's going more towards a numbers game, and that doesn't hold my interest at all.
      You were part of the 1%, I'm happy for you.
      You really fell off this argument hard as fuck bro lol.
      BoM, In our hearts and minds.
      Twitch
      Youtube
    • JonahVeil wrote:

      Gank wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      The whole "only 1% of players participate in gvgs" is an extremely flawed argument to make in favor of removing them.

      • It doesn't take into account the fact that gvgs are only available for half of every day with nothing from 0400-1600 UTC.
      • It doesn't accurately reflect the amount of people who are interested in gvgs, whether it's people who are training up skills or practicing in gvg scrims.
      • It doesn't implicate alliances as an issue that perpetually hinders the growth of the gvg scene seeing as there's no limits to alliance size - people just conglomerate to whoever's "winning" instead of fighting on their own.
      • It's a skewed statistic indicating that only showing up to the gvg counts as participating, whereas defending/attacking warcamps and open world ganking prior to gvgs are heavily open world focused ways to participate.


      I've seen this common argument time and time again, but it really holds no value when you break it down. Like I've said, I'm almost thirty and work a full time job and was able to get into gvgs just fine. Without them there isn't really an end-game way for guilds to fight each other in a fair manner, and that's what concerns me more than anything else. Albion just seems like it's going more towards a numbers game, and that doesn't hold my interest at all.
      You were part of the 1%, I'm happy for you.
      You really fell off this argument hard as fuck bro lol.
      Its just not worth it anymore, you lost.
    • Theat wrote:

      GVGs wouldn't be possible without ZVZ.
      and they are shifting weight towards ZvZ - so even more people can participate in terry conquest.

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      It doesn't accurately reflect the amount of people who are interested in gvgs, whether it's people who are training up skills or practicing in gvg scrims.
      Being interesred =/= actively participating. I've been "interested" in doing GvG for over 2 years... yet I've only done 1, and other more "interesting" things have been taking over priority.... like... finally farming up at least 1 line of gear to 400/400 (Im close, in lower 300s, but still "not good enough" to do GvG on a competitive level).

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      It doesn't implicate alliances as an issue that perpetually hinders the growth of the gvg scene seeing as there's no limits to alliance size - people just conglomerate to whoever's "winning" instead of fighting on their own.
      Human nature and hunger for power is believed to be the balancing factor here. Otherwise everyone in BZ would already just consolidate into 1 big allaince and everyone would just NAP and farm in peace... but that hasn't happened has it? Alliances will fall and split up, as long as there are people playing in the "sandbox". There is no point to cap or completely remove alliances... its the same moot argument as people asking to make 1 character per account... people who want 3 - will just make 3 accounts...

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      It's a skewed statistic indicating that only showing up to the gvg counts as participating, whereas defending/attacking warcamps and open world ganking prior to gvgs are heavily open world focused ways to participate.
      Well, currently you cannot gain territory by "defending/attacking warcamps and open world ganking prior to gvgs are heavily open world focused ways to participate", you can "trick" yourself thinking that you are participating, but all the victory (and the subsequent terri transfer) only happens once 5 guys do the 5v5 fight and the victor team (of those 5 ppl) gets to keep the victory. They are making it where terri control goes to 90% of the members, not just the 5.

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      Like I've said, I'm almost thirty and work a full time job and was able to get into gvgs just fine
      Im over 30 and work a full time job and was not able to get into GvGs (I did 1, but that hardly counts). Shall we agree that both of our experiences are anecdotal and don't add anything to the real statistic?
    • Captainrussia wrote:

      Being interesred =/= actively participating. I've been "interested" in doing GvG for over 2 years... yet I've only done 1, and other more "interesting" things have been taking over priority.... like... finally farming up at least 1 line of gear to 400/400 (Im close, in lower 300s, but still "not good enough" to do GvG on a competitive level).
      If you have only participated in one gvg in two years, you're not interested in it. It's incredibly easy to get into considering royals IP cap is 4.1 with spec, 4.2 without.

      You also don't need 400/400 specs to compete, you can do just fine with 100/400 provided you have any skill.

      Captainrussia wrote:

      Human nature and hunger for power is believed to be the balancing factor here. Otherwise everyone in BZ would already just consolidate into 1 big allaince and everyone would just NAP and farm in peace... but that hasn't happened has it? Alliances will fall and split up, as long as there are people playing in the "sandbox". There is no point to cap or completely remove alliances... its the same moot argument as people asking to make 1 character per account... people who want 3 - will just make 3 accounts...
      This is literally what has happened to the game since launch, there's 1-4 mega alliances that own 90% of the blackzone at any point in time.

      How you can say there's no reason to cap alliances is beyond silly, the game is moving into a direction where mega alliances will flourish even more than they do now, and as to the 1 character per account, that's how the game should have been. There's no legitimate reason to have more than one per account, if people want to buy more accounts you can't stop that, but there's a price to pay for doing it.

      Captainrussia wrote:

      Well, currently you cannot gain territory by "defending/attacking warcamps and open world ganking prior to gvgs are heavily open world focused ways to participate", you can "trick" yourself thinking that you are participating, but all the victory (and the subsequent terri transfer) only happens once 5 guys do the 5v5 fight and the victor team (of those 5 ppl) gets to keep the victory. They are making it where terri control goes to 90% of the members, not just the 5.
      What do you mean you can't gain territory by using warcamps? That's HOW you take them... You still need a team to fight the gvg but the attack is still required to take place from a warcamp.

      How is it a trick to participate in ganking gvgers? While it may not always be successful, if you gank a gvger in transport to a gvg, he can no longer do that gvg as he just died with all the gear for it. No tricks involved.

      I get that people want more ways to participate in territory control, and I'm happy to see that happen if it's done right, but nothing that SBI has shown proves they are on track to do it properly. Like you said if territory control goes to 90% of the members, and if 90% of Albion players are in 1-4 mega alliances - literally nothing changes except they remove the only way for smaller skilled guilds to compete with mega alliances.


      Captainrussia wrote:

      Im over 30 and work a full time job and was not able to get into GvGs (I did 1, but that hardly counts). Shall we agree that both of our experiences are anecdotal and don't add anything to the real statistic?
      Why would I agree to that? Again, if in two years you only did one gvg, I don't think you truly put in any effort.
    • I am of the opinion in red zones you should always be faction flagged, something like giving reputation to the city you represent. Your faction change everytime you enter a royal city, and deactivates on blue / yellow zones.

      The PK counter would always register how many players of each faction are in a zone, instead of how many flagged people are there.

      One could always flag to attack everyone in the zone, however.




      Man, when i think how fun this would be...