Why is SBI so adamant to force people into no opt-out PvP for anything T5+

    • yea i mean i agree that small scale pvpers are hypocrites and go against weaker opponens, diving solo dungeons as 5, run away if the enemy group is bigger in lots of instances, and then whine that the game doesnt cater to them and its too zergy while people who played solo just simply went to a bigger guild so they dont have to deal with the, and if theyre just gonna make everyone quit and do other types of content theres no point in catering to them
    • Ikcen wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Britishweeb wrote:

      Hmmm.. why don't we implement a system where players can flag as "non-pvp" and freely walk in black zone without getting attacked?
      Because that will make black or any zones pointless. Most players will be non-pvp. People are in general rational, and they will avoid the risk if they can. Even if that means a bad game.This is a MMO, if you play exclusively solo, there is something wrong with you, but not with the game.
      Players are generally rational, and will avoid the game entirely if they can find something else more fun.
      Indeed, if you want to kill the game make it solo focused, as there are much better solo focused games out there.
      Also, there are not PvP and PvE players. Or you want to say there is some guy in Albion who never compete with another player? Some people are just bad in communication or in playing the game. That forces them to play solo PvE. But they are not PvE players, they are just bad players.

      And if you make a game focused on the bad players, you will have a bad game.

      It is pretty simple.

      Solo gameplay is not isolated gameplay. A good MMO will exploit solo gameplay to effect the entire ecosystem. Why? Because solo gameplay is what players can most often do. Group content is harder to organize and be available for, and the larger the group required, the harder it is.

      Solo gameplay allows a player to log in more often and do more, exploiting the corners of their own RL schedule. Blaming them for being "bad" is just elitism.

      So, an MMO that exploits solo gameplay will have more people playing. And that's a good thing. :)

      As to PvP and PvE, while murder is a form of competition, competition itself is not inherently murder. It's the difference between the gladiator deathmatches in the Roman Colosseum and the modern Olympics.
    • Tabor wrote:

      So in that theory Rocc you would want to eliminate ALL small scale PvP and just make it solely shit zerg warfare over territory?

      Why would it mean zerg warfare only? Maybe if nothing else were changed in Albion's system, but consider the New World faction system:
      • Territory battles are only triggered if the territory is undermined enough via faction missions
      • To combat undermining, the owners can reinforce the territory via faction missions
      • Faction missions can be solo or small-party PvP
      One way or another, the current Albion faction mission system is very anemic: it could definitely be improved.
    • KroDuK wrote:

      Edit: ur idea sound fun at first roccandil but if im a terri owner i ll jump on an alt to gather-doing pve content in my zone to get the maximum loot possible, it's the same kind of fix than the limiting big alliance it gonna change nuthing except big alliances would have to work a little big harder but bigger reward

      At least the big alliances would be using their own zones! :) And anyone else could use them too.

      I'll grant that having a PvE alt and a PvP alt is a downside for the Outlands, but I don't see that being an issue if a similar system were implemented in the Royals.
    • All4TheLoLz wrote:

      The point of the highest resources being in the black zone is because you have to make a risk for those higher rewards.

      Only for players who aren't members of the mega-NAPs. For those guilds, gathering the best resources is easy.

      The game's difficulty is unevenly distributed against the solo player. The problem is that newer players are generally going to be solo, thus the game needlessly pushes newer players away; risk/reward is imbalanced for them.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Britishweeb wrote:

      Hmmm.. why don't we implement a system where players can flag as "non-pvp" and freely walk in black zone without getting attacked?
      Because that will make black or any zones pointless. Most players will be non-pvp. People are in general rational, and they will avoid the risk if they can. Even if that means a bad game.This is a MMO, if you play exclusively solo, there is something wrong with you, but not with the game.
      Players are generally rational, and will avoid the game entirely if they can find something else more fun.
      Indeed, if you want to kill the game make it solo focused, as there are much better solo focused games out there.Also, there are not PvP and PvE players. Or you want to say there is some guy in Albion who never compete with another player? Some people are just bad in communication or in playing the game. That forces them to play solo PvE. But they are not PvE players, they are just bad players.

      And if you make a game focused on the bad players, you will have a bad game.

      It is pretty simple.
      Solo gameplay is not isolated gameplay. A good MMO will exploit solo gameplay to effect the entire ecosystem. Why? Because solo gameplay is what players can most often do. Group content is harder to organize and be available for, and the larger the group required, the harder it is.

      Solo gameplay allows a player to log in more often and do more, exploiting the corners of their own RL schedule. Blaming them for being "bad" is just elitism.

      So, an MMO that exploits solo gameplay will have more people playing. And that's a good thing. :)

      As to PvP and PvE, while murder is a form of competition, competition itself is not inherently murder. It's the difference between the gladiator deathmatches in the Roman Colosseum and the modern Olympics.
      A solo player in a group focused game is a bad player. And if you call PvP or gank murder - you have obvious problem with the rational thinking. Your avatar cannot be killed. So let make difference between game and reality, as normal people.

      Second - there is nothing wrong to play solo in a solo game. But in the MMOs every solo activity is controversial to the multiplayer part of the game. And there are rational reasons for that. Indeed players prefer to play solo, because solo means safe. You do not compete and do not need to cooperate with the other players. So if you are a bad player - you do not lose, and if you are a bad communicator you do not fall into stressful situations with other people. Even if you are a good player, solo means lower risk/reward ratio. And also means the multiplayer part of the game becomes less meaningful or completely pointless.
    • Ikcen wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Britishweeb wrote:

      Hmmm.. why don't we implement a system where players can flag as "non-pvp" and freely walk in black zone without getting attacked?
      Because that will make black or any zones pointless. Most players will be non-pvp. People are in general rational, and they will avoid the risk if they can. Even if that means a bad game.This is a MMO, if you play exclusively solo, there is something wrong with you, but not with the game.
      Players are generally rational, and will avoid the game entirely if they can find something else more fun.
      Indeed, if you want to kill the game make it solo focused, as there are much better solo focused games out there.Also, there are not PvP and PvE players. Or you want to say there is some guy in Albion who never compete with another player? Some people are just bad in communication or in playing the game. That forces them to play solo PvE. But they are not PvE players, they are just bad players.
      And if you make a game focused on the bad players, you will have a bad game.

      It is pretty simple.
      Solo gameplay is not isolated gameplay. A good MMO will exploit solo gameplay to effect the entire ecosystem. Why? Because solo gameplay is what players can most often do. Group content is harder to organize and be available for, and the larger the group required, the harder it is.
      Solo gameplay allows a player to log in more often and do more, exploiting the corners of their own RL schedule. Blaming them for being "bad" is just elitism.

      So, an MMO that exploits solo gameplay will have more people playing. And that's a good thing. :)

      As to PvP and PvE, while murder is a form of competition, competition itself is not inherently murder. It's the difference between the gladiator deathmatches in the Roman Colosseum and the modern Olympics.
      A solo player in a group focused game is a bad player. And if you call PvP or gank murder - you have obvious problem with the rational thinking. Your avatar cannot be killed. So let make difference between game and reality, as normal people.
      Second - there is nothing wrong to play solo in a solo game. But in the MMOs every solo activity is controversial to the multiplayer part of the game. And there are rational reasons for that. Indeed players prefer to play solo, because solo means safe. You do not compete and do not need to cooperate with the other players. So if you are a bad player - you do not lose, and if you are a bad communicator you do not fall into stressful situations with other people. Even if you are a good player, solo means lower risk/reward ratio. And also means the multiplayer part of the game becomes less meaningful or completely pointless.
      First of all, I am totally against a safe zone on black, or any non-pvp flag. U wanna rewards from BZ u need risk and sometimes die. Anyone who claims differently does not understand the basics on which Albion, its economy and mechanics are based, or would like to completely rewrite the entire game, which is absurd.

      It's a sandbox - you can play as you like, there is no one focus in which the game aims. Since beta solo and small scale, it has been a huge part of the game, much bigger than ZvZ. Recent months have more and more developed the group side of the game, but this does not mean that this is the only correct way, but in that order SBI develops the game.
      This year, as shown by the roadmap released by the dev team, you can see that the coming months will be expanding solo and small scale. After this, they will probably develop another aspect of Albion. Maybe gathering or crafting? Who knows.
      However, I see nonsense here on the other side. Group focused game? Bullshit.
      It's a sandbox - you can play as you like, there is no single focus in which the game aims. Since beta solo and small scale, it has been a huge part of the game, much bigger than ZvZ. Recent months have more and more developed the group side of the game, but this does not mean that this is the only correct way, but in that order SBI develops the game. This year, as shown by the roadmap released by the dev team, you can see that the coming months will be expanding solo and small scale. After this, they will probably develop another aspect of Albion. Maybe gathering or crafting? Who knows.
      Solo content is not a single player. Usually only one comes out alive in 1v1 fights. Solo fights against 2 opponents all the more show that the risk is greater than safe ganking in a 15 ppl dungeon. I play both so I have a comparison.The fact of solo play does not require communication, but requires much better positioning, reflexes and mechanical skills than following calls in group. Just look at well-known solo content creators like Equart, albion pewpew or Nausk. I don't know what group activities you play, but mine are usually much safer than what you see in most of their videos.

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

    • Niefart wrote:

      First of all, I am totally against a safe zone on black, or any non-pvp flag. U wanna rewards from BZ u need risk and sometimes die. Anyone who claims differently does not understand the basics on which Albion, its economy and mechanics are based, or would like to completely rewrite the entire game, which is absurd.
      This. 100% this.
      Midgard
      T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
      T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
      T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
    • Niefart wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Britishweeb wrote:

      Hmmm.. why don't we implement a system where players can flag as "non-pvp" and freely walk in black zone without getting attacked?
      Because that will make black or any zones pointless. Most players will be non-pvp. People are in general rational, and they will avoid the risk if they can. Even if that means a bad game.This is a MMO, if you play exclusively solo, there is something wrong with you, but not with the game.
      Players are generally rational, and will avoid the game entirely if they can find something else more fun.
      Indeed, if you want to kill the game make it solo focused, as there are much better solo focused games out there.Also, there are not PvP and PvE players. Or you want to say there is some guy in Albion who never compete with another player? Some people are just bad in communication or in playing the game. That forces them to play solo PvE. But they are not PvE players, they are just bad players.And if you make a game focused on the bad players, you will have a bad game.

      It is pretty simple.
      Solo gameplay is not isolated gameplay. A good MMO will exploit solo gameplay to effect the entire ecosystem. Why? Because solo gameplay is what players can most often do. Group content is harder to organize and be available for, and the larger the group required, the harder it is.Solo gameplay allows a player to log in more often and do more, exploiting the corners of their own RL schedule. Blaming them for being "bad" is just elitism.

      So, an MMO that exploits solo gameplay will have more people playing. And that's a good thing. :)

      As to PvP and PvE, while murder is a form of competition, competition itself is not inherently murder. It's the difference between the gladiator deathmatches in the Roman Colosseum and the modern Olympics.
      A solo player in a group focused game is a bad player. And if you call PvP or gank murder - you have obvious problem with the rational thinking. Your avatar cannot be killed. So let make difference between game and reality, as normal people.Second - there is nothing wrong to play solo in a solo game. But in the MMOs every solo activity is controversial to the multiplayer part of the game. And there are rational reasons for that. Indeed players prefer to play solo, because solo means safe. You do not compete and do not need to cooperate with the other players. So if you are a bad player - you do not lose, and if you are a bad communicator you do not fall into stressful situations with other people. Even if you are a good player, solo means lower risk/reward ratio. And also means the multiplayer part of the game becomes less meaningful or completely pointless.
      First of all, I am totally against a safe zone on black, or any non-pvp flag. U wanna rewards from BZ u need risk and sometimes die. Anyone who claims differently does not understand the basics on which Albion, its economy and mechanics are based, or would like to completely rewrite the entire game, which is absurd.
      It's a sandbox - you can play as you like, there is no one focus in which the game aims. Since beta solo and small scale, it has been a huge part of the game, much bigger than ZvZ. Recent months have more and more developed the group side of the game, but this does not mean that this is the only correct way, but in that order SBI develops the game.
      This year, as shown by the roadmap released by the dev team, you can see that the coming months will be expanding solo and small scale. After this, they will probably develop another aspect of Albion. Maybe gathering or crafting? Who knows.
      However, I see nonsense here on the other side. Group focused game? Bullshit.
      It's a sandbox - you can play as you like, there is no single focus in which the game aims. Since beta solo and small scale, it has been a huge part of the game, much bigger than ZvZ. Recent months have more and more developed the group side of the game, but this does not mean that this is the only correct way, but in that order SBI develops the game. This year, as shown by the roadmap released by the dev team, you can see that the coming months will be expanding solo and small scale. After this, they will probably develop another aspect of Albion. Maybe gathering or crafting? Who knows.
      Solo content is not a single player. Usually only one comes out alive in 1v1 fights. Solo fights against 2 opponents all the more show that the risk is greater than safe ganking in a 15 ppl dungeon. I play both so I have a comparison.The fact of solo play does not require communication, but requires much better positioning, reflexes and mechanical skills than following calls in group. Just look at well-known solo content creators like Equart, albion pewpew or Nausk. I don't know what group activities you play, but mine are usually much safer than what you see in most of their videos.
      First - sandbox means you can change the game with your actions as a player. This is not the same as play as you like.

      And after that, as the foundation of your arguments is that misunderstanding you go in very wrong direction.

      Solo content is not singleplayer as there may be other players who also play solo around you. Such a game is kind of multiplayer.

      Second - you obviously do not make difference between content and experience. Content is what developers put in the game. Experience is your subjective interpretation of that content.

      So another misunderstanding. 1vs1 is not solo content. It is solo experience for both players. And in fact any experience may be solo. You can play solo in a party with 20 players. But that does not make it solo content.

      The core of the MMO is the competition and the need of cooperation among the players. Most of them play solo. So the developers have to force the players to cooperate with challenging PvE or with competition - PvP.

      And then comes the solo content, which in general means the player can avoid the competition and the need of cooperation. That is why it is controversial to the MMO.

      I played Ultima, Everquest, Neverwinter, GW, GW2, ESO, AA, BDO, WoW, L1, L2, Drakensang, FFXIV, EVE, SWTOR, TERA, B&S, Runescape, DAOC, RIFT. Which means nothing, as the number of the games played, is not equal to understanding. But as I worked with similar mathematical models, I have some idea how the games actually work.
    • A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.
      A sandbox game is also known as an open-world or free-roaming game.

      The definition comes from techopedia.

      For the rest, it's a matter of naming.There is, or at least my google dont found the exact definition of solo content. On the other hand, this term is commonly used for all activities that do not require the gathering of additional people to start. Then 1v1 is counted as solo content as much as possible. In some games, even Dev's use this terminology. The rest of the announced dungeon in which there will be fights between individual players is called Corrupted Solo Dungeons. Following your logic, what's the point to put in the name solo when there are fights between two players?

      Listing so many MMO does not change anything, I played most of them and a few others, I also have some understanding. I bet most people on the forum have similar experience.Anyway, as I wrote, we were different in terms of names. Now that I know we've talked about other "solo content", I have nothing to Your logic. I also think that pure PvE combat, without the risk of other players, is much safer and cannot be rewarded in the same way as the one where the interaction occurs.
    • Dude Niefart a small tips, stop arguing with that guy.. he's clearly the kind of guys that looking an orange painted wall and not able to see the red and yellow in it...

      no need to google a sandbox is a sandbox.. dont u have sandbox at the parc on the corner of ur street? this is a sandbox... the game have a tons of theme park feature i understand why poeple are lost on the sandbox definition..

      Meanwhile small scall/solo player do not belong in the BZ even if the dev saying otherwise the game mecanics make it HC for us and very softcore for big alliances... The problem is not the forced PvP this is the balance.. the designs.. the fact 5% of the population gather in a softcore mode 90% of the t7-t8 mats while they safely ganking 15vs3 (the fact the trash rate is still not fix for that shit.....)

      But do not blame the players.. the game is supposed to be sandboxy... blame the game design..break the big alliance domination cuz to be honest the sandbox option on royal continent are PRETTY WEAK, outisde island and market.. and personally in current state i would rename the black zone; the big alliances zone and the hideout for easy big alliance softcore button.. albion losing his sandbox status only with the royal expedition

      So yeah stop reading the non sens and u should both agree albion is not a sandbox.. the black zone is a sandbox zone for big alliances tho but since it's not for small/scale solo i cannot even give SBI that.. so yeah even the BZ is not sandboxy if u wanna be real u both arguing on something u dont have to argu on...

      ikcen; name drop the game he played.. after saying non sens.. remind me something... like we used to say some poeple not able to see the forest because of the tree no matter how many forest they visited...

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

    • Niefart wrote:

      A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.
      A sandbox game is also known as an open-world or free-roaming game.

      The definition comes from techopedia.

      For the rest, it's a matter of naming.There is, or at least my google dont found the exact definition of solo content. On the other hand, this term is commonly used for all activities that do not require the gathering of additional people to start. Then 1v1 is counted as solo content as much as possible. In some games, even Dev's use this terminology. The rest of the announced dungeon in which there will be fights between individual players is called Corrupted Solo Dungeons. Following your logic, what's the point to put in the name solo when there are fights between two players?

      Listing so many MMO does not change anything, I played most of them and a few others, I also have some understanding. I bet most people on the forum have similar experience.Anyway, as I wrote, we were different in terms of names. Now that I know we've talked about other "solo content", I have nothing to Your logic. I also think that pure PvE combat, without the risk of other players, is much safer and cannot be rewarded in the same way as the one where the interaction occurs.
      This is a definition written from a person who does not understand the games in general. There is not roaming in any game. There is the illusion of such in some. Indeed sandbox means you can change the game - not only the world. Also every game has rules which define it. These rules are the limitations. Themepark game may give more freedom than a sandbox - it depends on the rules.

      Open world means a world open for changes. It is not a world open for roaming :) You could go everywhere in a themepark game too, but you cannot change it.

      The rest is not only semantic. What you call content is not a content, it is your unique personal experience. It could become content if you make a video about it. But then that will be a video content, created by you.

      The content of the game is created by the developers. So your solo experience is not the same as solo content. And 1vs1 is not a solo content.

      I assume the name of the dungeons is a marketing policy, which has nothing with the content. Obviously they want to gather the solo players, which is a very dangerous move in any MMO game.

      The breaking point will be reached when the solo risk/reward becomes lower than the group risk/reward. And that is kind of easy, as in the group you always should count the risk of the human relations, and the possible conflicts and misunderstanding. At the same time the group could be much more rewarding because the success is shared and appreciated by other people. These things should be counted from the developers.
    • Ikcen wrote:

      A solo player in a group focused game is a bad player. And if you call PvP or gank murder - you have obvious problem with the rational thinking. Your avatar cannot be killed. So let make difference between game and reality, as normal people.

      Albion supports both solo and group gameplay, as it reasonably ought to. Blaming solo players for being solo is stupid. :(

      In the context of Albion, ganking is murder (which is why you become Outlaw). More precisely, a successful gank takes loot directly from another player, whereas a successful gather simply denies a competitor the addition of loot.

      Niefart wrote:

      First of all, I am totally against a safe zone on black, or any non-pvp flag. U wanna rewards from BZ u need risk and sometimes die. Anyone who claims differently does not understand the basics on which Albion, its economy and mechanics are based, or would like to completely rewrite the entire game, which is absurd.

      The Outlands is already a safe zone for the mega-NAPs. If an active, small guild could place a single invulnerable hideout anywhere, however, then no zone could ever be considered safe to anyone, not even the strongest NAPs.

      You see, there are two kinds of safety, and decreasing the first increases the other:
      • Safety of access
      • Safety of usage
      In general terms, the riskier it is for players to access the Outlands, the safer it is for those already there (the current situation!). Conversely, the safer it is to access the Outlands, the riskier it will be for anyone to play there.

      Furthermore, the loss condition for hideouts is expulsion from the Outlands. This keeps small guilds from competing with the mega NAPs, thus making it safer for the mega NAPs.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      The Outlands is already a safe zone for the mega-NAPs. If an active, small guild could place a single invulnerable hideout anywhere, however, then no zone could ever be considered safe to anyone, not even the strongest NAPs.

      You see, there are two kinds of safety, and decreasing the first increases the other:


      Safety of access

      Safety of usage
      In general terms, the riskier it is for players to access the Outlands, the safer it is for those already there (the current situation!). Conversely, the safer it is to access the Outlands, the riskier it will be for anyone to play there.

      Furthermore, the loss condition for hideouts is expulsion from the Outlands. This keeps small guilds from competing with the mega NAPs, thus making it safer for the mega NAPs.
      Midgard
      T8 Fibre, Ore, Hide, Wood & Stone Gatherer
      T8 Gathering Gear Crafter
      T8 Bags & Capes Crafter
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      A solo player in a group focused game is a bad player. And if you call PvP or gank murder - you have obvious problem with the rational thinking. Your avatar cannot be killed. So let make difference between game and reality, as normal people.
      Albion supports both solo and group gameplay, as it reasonably ought to. Blaming solo players for being solo is stupid. :(

      In the context of Albion, ganking is murder (which is why you become Outlaw). More precisely, a successful gank takes loot directly from another player, whereas a successful gather simply denies a competitor the addition of loot.
      This is a game. A murder means the victim is dead. Probably that word could be used for a game with permanent end of the avatar. Also ganking is not a crime - the reputation is a mechanism to increase the risk and to limit the competition. It is not punishment. It seems to me, you do not make a difference among games and reality.

      Also gankers are very important for the game. One of the developers of UO explained the failure of the game. He said they did not expect that players will not role play, and instead will gather every virtual resource, as fast as it spawns. A told him that PvP is the only way to limit that behavior. So they failed when they separated the PvP and the PvE. Gankers here do exactly that - they limit the amount of silver and resources in the game and make the economic model of AO to work. Without gankers the grind must be much, much longer. I do not blame the solo players. I say there should be more stimulus for the players to play in group.
    • Ikcen wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      A solo player in a group focused game is a bad player. And if you call PvP or gank murder - you have obvious problem with the rational thinking. Your avatar cannot be killed. So let make difference between game and reality, as normal people.
      Albion supports both solo and group gameplay, as it reasonably ought to. Blaming solo players for being solo is stupid. :(
      In the context of Albion, ganking is murder (which is why you become Outlaw). More precisely, a successful gank takes loot directly from another player, whereas a successful gather simply denies a competitor the addition of loot.
      This is a game. A murder means the victim is dead. Probably that word could be used for a game with permanent end of the avatar. Also ganking is not a crime - the reputation is a mechanism to increase the risk and to limit the competition. It is not punishment. It seems to me, you do not make a difference among games and reality.
      Also gankers are very important for the game. One of the developers of UO explained the failure of the game. He said they did not expect that players will not role play, and instead will gather every virtual resource, as fast as it spawns. A told him that PvP is the only way to limit that behavior. So they failed when they separated the PvP and the PvE. Gankers here do exactly that - they limit the amount of silver and resources in the game and make the economic model of AO to work. Without gankers the grind must be much, much longer. I do not blame the solo players. I say there should be more stimulus for the players to play in group.

      In the context of Albion, ganking is both murder and a crime. I'm not sure why that bothers you. :)

      Ganking is not necessary to limit gathering; that can easily be done via tweaking spawn rates. I also note that gathering in many zones (especially high tier) is largely safe for the owners. If ganking were removed entirely, I doubt we'd see that many more high tier resources in the economy (although the gathering itself would probably become more egalitarian).

      Ganking also discourages players from risking their gear, thus while ganking is indeed an economic sink, it's nature simultaneously limits the size of that sink. The more effective ganking becomes, the fewer the players who will run the gauntlet, and the less potential for trashing.

      That's not an efficient design. Albion needs to make it easy for players to risk gear in the Outlands, which is why I've proposed invulnerable hideouts (one per guild, requiring activity to keep from decaying). That would greatly increase the population of the Outlands, thus increasing the small party action everywhere, and diminishing the zone usage safety the mega-NAPs currently enjoy.

      The idea of PvE being risk-free, while directly feeding realm-style PvP, would probably be a better fit for the Royals than the Outlands, which is one reason I'm curious to see how the New Worlds design works out (since that's basically what it is).
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      A solo player in a group focused game is a bad player. And if you call PvP or gank murder - you have obvious problem with the rational thinking. Your avatar cannot be killed. So let make difference between game and reality, as normal people.
      Albion supports both solo and group gameplay, as it reasonably ought to. Blaming solo players for being solo is stupid. :( In the context of Albion, ganking is murder (which is why you become Outlaw). More precisely, a successful gank takes loot directly from another player, whereas a successful gather simply denies a competitor the addition of loot.
      This is a game. A murder means the victim is dead. Probably that word could be used for a game with permanent end of the avatar. Also ganking is not a crime - the reputation is a mechanism to increase the risk and to limit the competition. It is not punishment. It seems to me, you do not make a difference among games and reality.Also gankers are very important for the game. One of the developers of UO explained the failure of the game. He said they did not expect that players will not role play, and instead will gather every virtual resource, as fast as it spawns. A told him that PvP is the only way to limit that behavior. So they failed when they separated the PvP and the PvE. Gankers here do exactly that - they limit the amount of silver and resources in the game and make the economic model of AO to work. Without gankers the grind must be much, much longer. I do not blame the solo players. I say there should be more stimulus for the players to play in group.
      In the context of Albion, ganking is both murder and a crime. I'm not sure why that bothers you. :)

      Ganking is not necessary to limit gathering; that can easily be done via tweaking spawn rates. I also note that gathering in many zones (especially high tier) is largely safe for the owners. If ganking were removed entirely, I doubt we'd see that many more high tier resources in the economy (although the gathering itself would probably become more egalitarian).

      Ganking also discourages players from risking their gear, thus while ganking is indeed an economic sink, it's nature simultaneously limits the size of that sink. The more effective ganking becomes, the fewer the players who will run the gauntlet, and the less potential for trashing.

      That's not an efficient design. Albion needs to make it easy for players to risk gear in the Outlands, which is why I've proposed invulnerable hideouts (one per guild, requiring activity to keep from decaying). That would greatly increase the population of the Outlands, thus increasing the small party action everywhere, and diminishing the zone usage safety the mega-NAPs currently enjoy.

      The idea of PvE being risk-free, while directly feeding realm-style PvP, would probably be a better fit for the Royals than the Outlands, which is one reason I'm curious to see how the New Worlds design works out (since that's basically what it is).
      Yea, the protected gatherers in T8 aren't participating in the risk/reward game. When they give advice to the "care bears "get gud" and learn how to pvp it's like Warren Buffet telling people working two low paying jobs just survive to get gud and stop complaining.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Ikcen wrote:

      A solo player in a group focused game is a bad player. And if you call PvP or gank murder - you have obvious problem with the rational thinking. Your avatar cannot be killed. So let make difference between game and reality, as normal people.
      Albion supports both solo and group gameplay, as it reasonably ought to. Blaming solo players for being solo is stupid. :( In the context of Albion, ganking is murder (which is why you become Outlaw). More precisely, a successful gank takes loot directly from another player, whereas a successful gather simply denies a competitor the addition of loot.
      This is a game. A murder means the victim is dead. Probably that word could be used for a game with permanent end of the avatar. Also ganking is not a crime - the reputation is a mechanism to increase the risk and to limit the competition. It is not punishment. It seems to me, you do not make a difference among games and reality.Also gankers are very important for the game. One of the developers of UO explained the failure of the game. He said they did not expect that players will not role play, and instead will gather every virtual resource, as fast as it spawns. A told him that PvP is the only way to limit that behavior. So they failed when they separated the PvP and the PvE. Gankers here do exactly that - they limit the amount of silver and resources in the game and make the economic model of AO to work. Without gankers the grind must be much, much longer. I do not blame the solo players. I say there should be more stimulus for the players to play in group.
      In the context of Albion, ganking is both murder and a crime. I'm not sure why that bothers you. :)

      Ganking is not necessary to limit gathering; that can easily be done via tweaking spawn rates. I also note that gathering in many zones (especially high tier) is largely safe for the owners. If ganking were removed entirely, I doubt we'd see that many more high tier resources in the economy (although the gathering itself would probably become more egalitarian).

      Ganking also discourages players from risking their gear, thus while ganking is indeed an economic sink, it's nature simultaneously limits the size of that sink. The more effective ganking becomes, the fewer the players who will run the gauntlet, and the less potential for trashing.

      That's not an efficient design. Albion needs to make it easy for players to risk gear in the Outlands, which is why I've proposed invulnerable hideouts (one per guild, requiring activity to keep from decaying). That would greatly increase the population of the Outlands, thus increasing the small party action everywhere, and diminishing the zone usage safety the mega-NAPs currently enjoy.

      The idea of PvE being risk-free, while directly feeding realm-style PvP, would probably be a better fit for the Royals than the Outlands, which is one reason I'm curious to see how the New Worlds design works out (since that's basically what it is).
      In your head ganking is murder and a crime. In Albion it is a rule. Every game has rules. And obviously you play a wrong one.

      Indeed without gankers the gatherers should grind 24/7. Maybe you do not have real life and that is why you cannot make the difference between reality and games. But most players have limited free time. So ganking makes the game playable for the casual players.

      About the risk you are wrong. Now the t4 gankers are very few. The common gear for ganking is 6.1 and above or 5.1 for artifacts. The gear for the gatherers in the black zones is above 7-8. In fact that is a very efficient design. Albion literally has no competition in its market niche. The game is full with players. So full that servers lag.

      There is not PvE and PvP players. You do not play PvP - competition, probably because you are a bad player. Again - if the focus of the game are the bad players, it will be a bad game.

      In fact the developers should support the playing style of the most competitive players. You want a game without competition and need of cooperation. But then what is the point of such a game, without winners and losers. Only endless grind.