Queen Update is likely to backfire at SBI, what will defeat the design

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

    • How's everyone feeling about Queen now that it's been out for a few weeks?

      I'm personally disinterested with the majority of the changes regarding hideouts, territory conquest through large scale battles, and gathering in it's current state. I'm mostly a solo player that never cared or relied on territories, but I did rely on warcamps and without them I don't feel like I have a place in the game without joining a mega alliance.

      Anyone else care to share their thoughts with this massive update?
    • I think the new "donut" map is problematic for the solo and small guild/alliance players. The old ribbon style map tended to keep the hardcore players at one end and the more casual players at the other, which i think was a really good system in hindsight. If a guild/alliance wanted to win season points, they weren't going to bother with Martlock territories, they were in Carleon, Ft Sterling, and Lymhurst. Sure Martlock & Bridgewatch had a competitive guilds/alliances, but they were smaller and there were a lot more down times when the BZ were practically empty...and solo gathers had a shot to gether some juicy T8 resources!

      Now, the highly competitive/aggressive guilds are in all cities equally, and they are locking down the zone with the high tier resources for their use, massing 250+ zergs to capture territories, and ganking groups are on 24/7 discouraging people from gathering in the BZ. Also, with only 3 portals to choose from, solo and small groups have a higher risk of running into a gankers as they are coming and going. So far it has not been much fun for me personally in the BZ as it was before.

      I'm curious to see what happens as we get further into the season...maybe the large alliance will truly focus on the center and not have time to deal with the outer T5/T6 territories...
    • Its super great having 350+ reds hitting your hideout best content ever, Something needs to be done about large numbers being king, One alliance can basicly rule everything because of the numbers they can pull. There should be a large debuff for numbers over 100 because without it theres no reason not to have 350+ reds beating down everything in sight if they can pull that many, Need more reason to break that 350+ zerg up so people can really truely play vs them. If there was a debuff making large allainces split there large 350+ man zerg up so more guilds/allainces can fight them, If they had to split down to say 3 100 man zergs it would be more content for everyone because 1 guild/alliance can fight 1 100 man zerg while another guild/allaince can fight the other 100 man zerg in another zone and the same for the last 100 men. Plan and simple there need to be a reason to make large zergs split and fight in different zones. It would only help the game and create more fights and content.

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

    • MarauderShields wrote:

      I think the new "donut" map is problematic for the solo and small guild/alliance players. The old ribbon style map tended to keep the hardcore players at one end and the more casual players at the other, which i think was a really good system in hindsight. If a guild/alliance wanted to win season points, they weren't going to bother with Martlock territories, they were in Carleon, Ft Sterling, and Lymhurst. Sure Martlock & Bridgewatch had a competitive guilds/alliances, but they were smaller and there were a lot more down times when the BZ were practically empty...and solo gathers had a shot to gether some juicy T8 resources!

      Now, the highly competitive/aggressive guilds are in all cities equally, and they are locking down the zone with the high tier resources for their use, massing 250+ zergs to capture territories, and ganking groups are on 24/7 discouraging people from gathering in the BZ. Also, with only 3 portals to choose from, solo and small groups have a higher risk of running into a gankers as they are coming and going. So far it has not been much fun for me personally in the BZ as it was before.

      I'm curious to see what happens as we get further into the season...maybe the large alliance will truly focus on the center and not have time to deal with the outer T5/T6 territories...
      for the last avalonian season, 1st place from anglia (martlock)
      [S I A M] The Bigest Thailand guild
      We try to push Albion community in Thailand
      S I A M Discord : https://discord.gg/vkq2f6V


      [S I A M] Zilo Guild Master
    • Top players not gathering. And no much players is crafting. That why they're get center zones, but they really dont need it at all.
      So that why they just dont wanna go to they claimed terries, and prefer to stay near portals to camp small group for chees easy pvp profit.
      Looks like they need to prove themselves they got big dicks. By killing a new players at t5-6 zones.
      So DEV need to get them a reason to stay at center of bz, but gathering and crafting cant be the reason for big alliances.
    • Zilo wrote:

      for the last avalonian season, 1st place from anglia (martlock)
      Zilo, I don't believe Error 404 was based out of Martlock, but yes I believe they were controlling Anglia territories and I did occasionally see them in and around the Martlock portals. Besides, I was not suggesting that there weren't any good guilds in Martlock, only that many of the top guilds and large alliances were further down the ribbon towards Mercia. The territories in Marlock tended to be fought over by the mid sized guilds, and they tended to have down times that allowed solo players to have a little breathing room to gather T7 & T8 resources. I was in guilds based out of Ft Sterling and Marlock, and I can honestly say Martlock was MUCH easier to do small group content in...but that was just my experience... Maybe I will find new opportunities in the new map and find a whole new way to play this game in the outlands!
    • Well, look at the map ..there is like 50 - 100 maps that are a paradise for gatherers but nobody lives there..

      Why is that?

      I the old map, you have a lot of Warcamps all over the map.
      And ..the distance was max 2-3 maps to get somewhere safe..assuming you gather in the middle..

      So, you could bank all 30 mins and "safe" your result and compensate a potential loss of everything
      And
      You had a chance to bring your shit home, or even reach a portal with gankers on you

      Now look at the map..there is lots of T7 / T8 zones, totally dead. Mega alliance has a hideout in, terrie is occupied..

      8.2 .. 8.3..7.2 all up resources...

      but nobody bothers taking it..it is too far, and the 10 man gank squads come..

      Risk vs Reward has shifted dramatically...

      Thats why i permanently try to tell you ...you need another circle of Arthur / Morgana / Merlyn..or bring back the old warcamps
    • Captainrussia wrote:

      blappo wrote:

      i just want alliance cap more than ever
      those NAPs tho...
      Though its a big problem now so it may help by doing a limit, Even if people NAP they will have friendly fire and could end up being better then what we currently have. Because something needs to change, Anything just something. I would much rather see something being tried then keeping it the way it is, If it doesn't work then it can always be changed.
    • Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
    • Tabor wrote:

      Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.

      It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
    • Korn wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Like many people have stated now not making alliance size changes due to fear of NAPs make no sense. At worst we would still be stuck in the same state as today yet with the added benefits of it at least being more difficult to maintain control. Best case strong guilds finally fight each other instead of just joining up. Either way it would appear to be an improvement to game to just remove the alliance feature.
      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.
      It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
      don't you think if you limit an Alliance to 300 people it would remove the giantic safe zone they created through the black??

      We have the alliance problem now for 8 season, and it is getting worse and worse, obviously no solution worked

      But a big part of the player base ask for an alliance cap, but u are sure, without even testing anything that it would not work.. that's confidence..

      But being constructive.. why don't you simply let the food demand for terries + Hideouts exponentiallygrow depending how many an Alliance owns? That would not hurt your casual Alliance, I still don't know which casual Alliance owns bz terries, but nevermind..while would destroy that giantic safe zone called queen map for some mega alliances..

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

    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      don't you think if you limit an Alliance to 300 people it would remove the giantic safe zone they created through the black??

      It almost certainly won't - based on all we have learned about sandbox games in the past 8 years. Also, if you look at Eve Online, alliances there do not stop you from killing and looting everyone you like. Still, you see close to 0 kills between alliance members. It would almost certainly be the same for the top de facto alliances in Albion - they would set up NAP system and back it up with proper enforcement.

      We don't think it would be smart game design to implement a feature that we are convinced won't work just for the sake of it, as it comes with very real downsides. Beyond that, there is a very real backfire risk as well - we are pretty certain that if we announced the removal of the alliance feature, it would generate initial hype. This however would almost certainly be followed by a significant backlash and turn into the opposite once it becomes evident that the top end power blocks are just working around it.
    • Korn wrote:

      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.

      It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
      There is definitely a risk to casual guilds if alliances are capped on character numbers or entirely removed. Why can't we cap on territories? That would actually force the powerful (non-casual) mega alliances to split up and NAP instead. However, it wouldn't hurt alliances between casual guilds that rarely hold lots of territories (like ARCH). I think NAPs are far healthier for the end game hard-core players. The game should get harder at end game, not easier. Currently, being in a mega-alliance is ez mode in albion.

      I think 6-8 territories would be a good territory cap. I believe that's what individual guilds are holding in the top alliances.
    • Lanyday wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      I think one also needs the benefits that alliances provide to casual guilds. These can group together in order to be more competitive. Now, the problem is that more casual guilds will be the ones that won't be able to replace the alliance feature with a NAP system as it takes a lot of organisation to maintain and enforce it. The hardcore alliances however will not have much of a problem using NAPs.

      It's 100% certain that heavy workarounds would happen if an alliance removal/cap would be put into the place. It's also almost certain that it won't have the effect that some hope for, while instead giving rise to a lot of negative side effects (making workarounds mandatory, hence making the meta far more gamey, hurting casual alliances, etc), leaving the game as a whole simply worse of.
      There is definitely a risk to casual guilds if alliances are capped on character numbers or entirely removed. Why can't we cap on territories? That would actually force the powerful (non-casual) mega alliances to split up and NAP instead. However, it wouldn't hurt alliances between casual guilds that rarely hold lots of territories (like ARCH). I think NAPs are far healthier for the end game hard-core players. The game should get harder at end game, not easier. Currently, being in a mega-alliance is ez mode in albion.
      I think 6-8 territories would be a good territory cap. I believe that's what individual guilds are holding in the top alliances.

      This. Alliances don't need to be capped: their ability to control territory needs to be capped.

      I'd consider diminishing returns (over hard caps) for controlling more and more territories, such as increased unrest leading to territory revolt, higher costs to attacking/feeding territories, lower season point return from territories, etc.

      But if those measures proved ineffective, then maybe hard caps would be needed.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      I'd consider diminishing returns (over hard caps) for controlling more and more territories, such as increased unrest leading to territory revolt, higher costs to attacking/feeding territories, lower season point return from territories, etc.
      I understand the desire for soft caps (not hard caps) but I'm worried the most powerful guilds are so rich that there is no soft cap that would realistically limit them. Costs to feeding territories would just put more logistics on the players forced to deal with that stuff which isn't really fun. Guilds will still feed territories even if they're more expensive to feed, it'll just be annoying.