Queen Feedback

    • Queen Feedback

      Greetings gentlemen, its been a long time since my last confession.

      Queen update.
      Initial thoughts, seems worth returning to although i do miss this one interesting thing that is new and not redistribution from a solo player perspective.
      My main uncertainty is if you are making a new awesome game, that will be so different for the old zvz and gvg guilds, that both might not find out how to adapt. But looking at royal city population and how many players the game has i think it will work out regardless. I do think that the game must be working in the very centre of outlands for the hardore guilds, and being and living there MUST be "worth it" to ensure its clear that this is where you compete for the top places, instead of life until now where guilds like my own in the past, and phrasing recently can make top results in Anglia without actually competing.
      If living in the centre is very attractive, you will have something for everyone - my concern is that there might lack incentives for the "endgame" guilds.

      New outlands.
      I am very unsure on how the players will embrace the change from instant access to real distances. I Believe it makes a better and more future proof game, but i also think there is a initial risk that the players might have a negative reaction when they actually feel it in action.
      You are making a world where distances matter which also means your island choice is more important than ever.
      Guilds and players will be more likely to have a need to move area, which means to a new royal city anchor - and i believe you must have a solution to move islands- with buildings and chests, but without the items. Make it a monthly thing like the old outland portal bind.

      Item power progession:
      Fantastic. T8 must matter
      Mastery power progression:
      Fantastic - a master swordsman should be significantly better with a sword than a table knife.

      With the above thing t7 and t8 gear will get a come back after years of solitude. VERY happy to see this, and a main motivator for me seeing that what you wear actually matters.

      Gathering:
      T7&T8 node redistribution.
      I think this is one of those cases where you do something brilliant, but your players dont recognize it. Having logged out gatherers to log in when a 23 tick node is spottet is bad, having to run for hours without finding a node is bad and as gathering is very uninspiring.
      I encourage you to stick to your design possibly with one small change:

      Rare Aspects of all tiers.
      Keep a very high low node distribution to accomodate the 98% gatherer gameplay, but add a rare spawn (every 6-8 days) of a aspect fitting the zone level. This is the moby dick, and where we can get the spontaneus zvz call, and heavy fighting over a mega node and since its a aspect its not for the solo player. You have everything you need to do this and it would make a world of difference, and a dynamic zvz event.

      Gathering addition:
      I do believe that gathering gear should have combat bonuses, so gatherers can actually fight. There are a ton of encounters where the gatherer meets a ganker, and its one big running game. in a pvp game it should be a option to fight back. Running as only option is like no shows in gvg's. Its bad for everyone.


      Crystal League:
      Format and concept is interesting and i look forward to see it play out.

      From a fundamental level i think there is a to little content for those wanting the 5v5 gameplay, and my suggestion is to simply have the offseason schedule run all the time.

      Right now a good team gets one fight for 3 days, then wait for the biweekly, then wait for the weekly, then wait for a monthly and then wait for season to end.
      For a good team, its not fun. The grand finale is, and its awesome and it will be huge. Id love to see it as a best of 3 even for rank 8 and 9. The ending will be epic. the same goes for the monthly events, another great albion tv evening.

      I dont see why you cannot run the crystal lvl1-3 schedule like you plan to in off season. The only complication i see is a possible thing with the territory buffs, but that is solveable and should not stop the posibility to get action.

      IP Caps.
      Running 3 tiers over is easy and gives you 60ip. I beleive you are doing the players you want to help a disservice.
      When you are new and engage in the lvl1-3 crystals you will encounter new, medium and top teams. the experienced teams overgear as the IP matters. the new ones wont understand it, and when they lose they dont see how much gear actually matters even with a 20% effectiveness. My solution is this:

      Lvl1-3 - 1000 ip HARDCAP.
      lvl4-5 - 1200 ip HARDCAP.
      lvl 6-9 NO CAP.

      The monthly and quarterly events must be the main events. It should also be where the players dish out the gucchi gear. Let it be a spectacle and a showcase for the game. The game needs a place where top gear is used and seen. I want to hear shozen and lewpac go nuts over the 8.3 masterpiece, i want it to be epic, and as a guild leader i know that players not competing actually likes to donate a top item piece to the team. You want everyone to root for someone.
      Making the monthly and quarterly fights become really epic, enables the top players to still be rockstars.

      Increase the prices for the monthly and quarterly event with the no cap gearcost in mind. (and why is there no avalonian energy?).
      Winning a lvl 1 map should give 1 season point, and winning a lvl2 should give 2.
      Having this whole thing going and awarding 0 points for the win is wrong for crowd of players that will typically lose the lvl1 fight.


      Additional note:
      You are making 3 NPC city hubs. One with the 3 neutral zones in outland centre, one in the former royal cities, and one in Caerlon.
      Its very ambitious, and opens for the feeling of a vast world, and there will be actual need for moving high end items from outland centre to neutral cities, on to royal cities and on to Caerlon. It will be interesting and could be amazing, but it could also create a empty feeling and it might not actually be fun to be so reliant on transporting materials for hours.
      That aside, i feel the update is a very ambitious move and i like the direction as such and i think the players will embrace it.
      I have yet to see and understand the territory fights, and to understand what prevents 2 zergs to take it all as well as having yet to try out the cluster queue system.

      Interesting times ahead, and i look forward to get back into the game and find my queen waiting.
      After having tasted the forbidden fruits out there the last 4 months, i can easily say that Albion simply still is the best mmo on the market, and even more after January 20.

      Happy holidays to the SBI team, and thank you for your continued drive and innovation.

      Frank Sinatra

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

    • Very very well written post! Thanks!

      Especially good points below:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Gathering addition:
      I do believe that gathering gear should have combat bonuses, so gatherers can actually fight. There are a ton of encounters where the gatherer meets a ganker, and its one big running game. in a pvp game it should be a option to fight back. Running as only option is like no shows in gvg's. Its bad for everyone.
      On a second (third?) thought - make gathering gear equivalent to plate in stats (not the passives). Because right now its somewhere in between leather and plate... give it higher CC resist that is innate (not passive dependent, like on plate). That way you will have something super tanky, but not as good as plate, and with a diff purpose. Plate is perfectly viable for PVP (no DMG bonus, except a little on the Solder Chest) and all the tankyness you can wish for.

      Giving a DMG bonus to leather.... I dunno how I feel about that... 5%? 10%? Has to be less then leather (obviously)....

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      After having tasted the forbidden fruits out there the last 4 months, i can easily say that Albion simply still is the best mmo on the market, and even more after January 20.
      ^^^ THIS!

      Anyone who has tried Albion with full loot - will never ever be able to play a non-full loot game. You lose all the interest... because there is no point in non-full loot. No thrill, no rewards.... no risks...
    • A few additional pieces of feedback.

      1. Banks.
      I thought there was no banks in the territories themselves besides a battlevault.
      If that is the case then the devs missed the additional tab feature where you currently can buy bank space as you can today - which i might add is a huge difference compared to not having bank space.

      2. zerg concerns.
      I have this feeling that the core design decision of promoting large scale zvz will backfire a lot and that we will see huge alliances having non fun gameplay to sit on and dominate territories.
      I dont see what will be stopping large alliances taking over even more of the land in the new setup than they did in the old.
      I also doubt the hideout system, and i think it will be used to enable the big zerg presence more than give a place to live for the smaller guilds and alliances.
      I know its your call, and nothing to do about it now - but i really think you underestimate what people are willing to do in order to "win".

      3. Gvg scene (5v5)
      As mentioned I do think the experiment with making zvz being the decider is very risky, and im pretty sad that the patch will kill the competetive gvg scene.
      That said, the highly skillbased endgame was also a challenge for the game itself as many were deterred from playing. I see myself competing in this, but im also certain that the level of play will drop a lot simply because its not interesting fora competetive moba player anymore.

      Its a lot more suitable for the medium active and more casual crowd so from a game perspective its ok. However a "normal" player that doesnt play many hours every night would like to prioritise some evenings a week for gaming, and the work of gathering and gearing a team ready to fight does take effort, and thus it feels very unsatisfactory with just one timeslot for a fight. I think you should be able to get at least 2 fights in a 5v5 gaming session, instead of the risk of meeting top team and out in 10 minutes and that was your evening.
      By having (for example) the off season schedule running every day, then the top teams will fight lvl 2 next, giving the losing teams a new lvl1 fight against another team that just lost - and thus you can root out the top teams from farming the newbies giving a bad experience.

      I also dont understand the reasoning for having lvl1,2,3 and the lvl4 fights in the same timeslot.
      nb, on your crystal schedule document you list the lvl4 fighs to be 1 pr week, but you have 2 weekly timeslots for it ?.

      4. moving islands.
      With the new design you will be moving locations (royal city island placement) depending on politics and zvz results. there must be a way to move a island, as long as the island does not have any items in chests. I dont know if its doable, but the design will make moving a need, and moving a island is super cumbersome.

      5. considerations.
      I am very much looking forward to see how the economy develops, and obviously hope my investments will be the right ones. Especially the movement of resources to the black market is interesting, and i would consider that if resource transportation is a intended gameplay, then it could be considered to remove transmutation option from Caerlon.
      It does create a way to conjure up t7 and t8 in a continent that doesnt have it at all. Maybe resource transmutes should only happen in the "royal city" that specialises in that particular resource ?.

      6. hideout zoning.
      I feel that instant zoning is wrong. i beleive there must be a load time to enter a hideout, otherwise its gonna create a lot of cheese strats and pretty sucky gameplay imo.

      7. zonecap cheesing, and who gets kicked?
      I imagine this scenario:
      alliances will build hideouts in key zones for non allied alt guilds, so when a terri zvz happens, then those in the qeue will log out and log in on the hideout alt, and then zone in giving the side a effective advantage in territory fights.
      Im also very unsure of who gets removed from the zone when these zone in. The hideout will be placed so this group would be placed behind that attacking force creating a sandwich situation, they will be unrelated so they will get zone priority,and i think it destroys the system when you can cheese it totally.
      This also goes for the scenario of me having a solo guild, and the "price" for being left alone in my terri, is that i have a strategically placed hideout in the alliance leader zones, so we can attack in the back of whoever attacks the territory, with zone priority and without being allied. i hope im wrong on these things, but from my chair today it looks like it will all be about circumventing the rules instead of actually playing the game, and thats disengaging.

      I look forward to how this all plays out, and hope it wont be a giant zergfest with zone qeues and friendly alliances to artificually circumvent the zone lock system.

      /F

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

    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      6. hideout zoning.

      I feel that instant zoning is wrong. i beleive there must be a load time to enter a hideout, otherwise its gonna create a lot of cheese strats and pretty sucky gameplay imo.
      I'll leave most of your comments and suggestions for those it was intended for, I just wanted to chime in on the Hideout zoning portion of the feedback, as I haven't seen anyone talk about it here or on Reddit.

      Instant zoning is only possible if you are not Outlaw'd. If you have attacked or killed anyone and are considered an Outlaw, even your own Home/Personal Hideout will not allow you to enter until your Outlaw timer has expired.

      I personally don't like this, as the Outlaw system in general isn't well maintained, ie; trying to escape to your hideout, if you cause damage to any enemy during an escape, you're an Outlaw and cannot enter your Hideout.

      Perhaps it should be changed to channeling your Hideout for entry, for a duration of somewhere between 2-4 seconds?

      Again, just wanted to put this here to start a discussion, as it (Outlaw and Hideout interaction) hasn't been mentioned by the devs or anyone that I've seen for that matter.
    • Oh, and if you can't enter a hideout due to Outlaw, that's just crazy! :P

      " Joe, quick, open the door, let me in: I'm being chased!"
      "Sorry, Frank, you still got Outlaw."
      " Bro, aren't we -all- outlaws?"
      "Yeah..."
      "Isn't this a frickin bandit HIDEOUT?"
      "Yeah..."
      "Isn't this where we stash our ill-gotten gains?"
      "Yeah..."
      "Don't you want more ill-gotten gains?"
      "Yeah..."
      "Well for the love of all that's holy open the frickin door already!"
      "Sorry, you still got Outlaw...."
      "Whose frickin rule is that anyway?"
      "The Royals, man."
      "Who cares about stinky Royal rules out here in the Outlands?"
      "Well...."
      "Too late, they got me! Arrrrrgh...."

      :P
    • I agree with you i just donr like new gathering method. Lack of warcamp, huge distance and res spawn 1/3 almost killed my will to gather. And it was so fun to go gather when you want play some solo. Now if i want to gather i have travel 2-3 zones to stash. Its really becoming travel simulator. I do my 8,1 bag for 10 mins the i have to run 15. Also when i saw res spawn empty fell soo bad
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      I have this feeling that the core design decision of promoting large scale zvz will backfire a lot and that we will see huge alliances having non fun gameplay to sit on and dominate territories.
      I dont see what will be stopping large alliances taking over even more of the land in the new setup than they did in the old.
      I also doubt the hideout system, and i think it will be used to enable the big zerg presence more than give a place to live for the smaller guilds and alliances.
      I know its your call, and nothing to do about it now - but i really think you underestimate what people are willing to do in order to "win".
      this only would work for mega alliances, and only if not contested by other alliances.


      If they own territories the have to defend all of them which mean having players standing around for 4 hours ready to defend them on a moments notice so attackers concentrate on 1 zone while defenders must spread to all owned zones then the attackers have advantage of consolidated force.
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      1. Banks.
      I thought there was no banks in the territories themselves besides a battlevault.
      If that is the case then the devs missed the additional tab feature where you currently can buy bank space as you can today - which i might add is a huge difference compared to not having bank space.
      This is actually a bug. There really should only be Battle Vaults and NO other storage possibilities (no personal OR guild bank). We'll fix this.

      Thanks a lot for the overall feedback!