Cluster Queue

    • Agradezco por el escondite eso a impulsado un gremio pequeño como el mío a vivir mejor y estar en zona negra los tributos de los dueño de territorio a mí no me afecta ya que siempre se llega a un trato con los dueño de terris y aquellos que no se llega a un trato es por el abuso o amenaza en destruir el hideout yo creo que para atacar un hideout aumenten más el precio así los dueños de terri tienen que pensarlo varias veces para gastar por un simple escondite en tumbarlo y otro detalle es que sería bueno que dentro de un hideout ofrezcan un portal de avalolianas sea solitaria o grupales así los gremios pequeños crecerían bastante y todos los nuevos estarían interesados en jugar

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

    • Korn, thank you for your hard work. As a player who is extremely passionate about this game, your post made me worry about the state of the game and its future. I was very excited for Queen and I played on test center extensively before it launched but I continue to see some of the best players in the game quit due to more and more changes that do not reflect the needs of the player base. What you said looks good on paper to you and your team and some other players, but it is a toxic play style that has pulled myself and others far away from ZvZ. These changes look like duct tape on a pipe to me as an engineer. You have made a complex system with a barrier to entry even more complex.

      I read the collective thoughts of this post and I believe that an instanced large scale ZvZ for territories would be the solution for Albion Online. Here are some major problems I see with the current system:

      - Players don't have a good experience with the cluster queue system and not many hardcore gaming computers can handle it. Thus you are alienating a great deal of the population while advertising it as mobile friendly. From my own speculation at least 50% of the game is alienated from these fights to begin with due to connection, processing power, video card, etc and won't even show. IP caps alienated even more. Now organization and understanding of a very complex system will add another stack to the alienation.

      - Mega alliances exploit the queue system, even with the changes you proposed my mind started exploding with ideas to juke/sabotage the opponent. This is the philosophy that revolves around ZvZ and creates fun for some leaders but removes fun from the vast majority of players. Make the teams drop gear in a War Camp like they did in the past and keep the current situation set up for the "pre fight". Make the War Camp just like pre-Queen fights. We used to CTA for that and have small scale fights that are greatly missed. You have around 24 hours to bank in a War Camp for the ZvZ, the enemy can be massed early for something like this as there is a 24 hour window. Create more instances for small scale.

      - Barrier to entry. There are only a few people having fun at ZvZs and there is a steep barrier to entry. You have to understand the patch notes and game mechanics like you posted enough to read them and understand how you can exploit them in order to win. From the fights I have witnessed, less than 5% of the fights are fun/fair for most involved. This means you've created too big of a barrier to entry for end game content for hardcore players. Not many of the hardcore players I know have fun at MOST ZvZs anymore. It's like 1 out of 20 it seems like that are actually fun. I 3rd party Elevate/Final Order/Rang/etc and I have even joined these alliances to help them, it is not fun at all as a small guild bombing or a big guild queueing or preparing to queue.

      -If changes are not made to satisfy the current players that are trying to learn the game, you will not retain the COVID population. The goal right now of SBI should be to retain the windfall population generated by COVID. In order to do that, you need to make ZvZ and other end-game pursuits enjoyable so people like me don't throw in the towel and decide to just gank/hellgate/TRY and find small scale until you guys finally fix this broken system. ZvZ is end game content, while there should be job-like aspects for those managing it, it should not be job-like for those just trying to participate. Think of this problem like your arena queue problem, but it is far worse.

      Key words: BARRIER TO ENTRY. BARRIER TO ENTRY. BARRIER TO ENTRY. Stop making barriers to entry, I said the same thing to Richard Garriott when I was on the round table for SOTA and no one listened, and as you can see you will have to look up Richard Garriott's name and SOTA to even figure out what I am talking about because they lost everything from not listening to the players. If you continue to create barriers to entry you will not retain the windfall players. I am happy to propose more solutions as obviously this isn't the best idea there ever could be but it is a better idea than the current system.

      *** Notation, the creation of an instance that pulls all of those in queue into a separate fight would help game developers understand hand holding and how to combat hand holding and allow new players with low IP the ability to have instant content. You could work this into the lore for the coming Mists of Albion changes. Sitting in a queue or knowing people are sitting in a queue as a massive bomber/flanker in this game is not as fun as the opportunity for more small scale fights. The people of this game demand smaller scale fights. Make all of those sitting in queue get portalled into a dungeon instance for example or something Mists related. Make there be incentive or objective in these special instanced zones not to handhold. ****

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Parallel ().

    • In my opinion zvz fights shouldn't be decided by number, but by skill/economic power. Now we have big fights with informal alliances massing 3x the enemy and the mechanics cant work properly. We should create a new mechanism "fight interest". Guild A set an attack for guild B territory, so any other guild/alliance interested in this fight should pay and set a co-attack or co-defense. Those defending and attacking involved will have total priority to the fight(the map will be unplayable by non related players during this time if attackers/defender are enough to create a queue). That way big fights wont have any player that is non related to the fight or exploiting with no de-buffs or gankers(all attackers or defender will have the same debuff no matter guild/alliance or no debuff at all cause they will be matchend in nunbers. This way the queue will guarantee an even fight in number and therefore skill and investment will decide the results. Other tip is to queue in parties, like an entire party of 20 zones together with fight power, zoning separated is terrible and makes no sense.
    • Askelad1691 wrote:

      In my opinion zvz fights shouldn't be decided by number, but by skill/economic power. Now we have big fights with informal alliances massing 3x the enemy and the mechanics cant work properly. We should create a new mechanism "fight interest". Guild A set an attack for guild B territory, so any other guild/alliance interested in this fight should pay and set a co-attack or co-defense. Those defending and attacking involved will have total priority to the fight(the map will be unplayable by non related players during this time if attackers/defender are enough to create a queue). That way big fights wont have any player that is non related to the fight or exploiting with no de-buffs or gankers(all attackers or defender will have the same debuff no matter guild/alliance or no debuff at all cause they will be matchend in nunbers. This way the queue will guarantee an even fight in number and therefore skill and investment will decide the results. Other tip is to queue in parties, like an entire party of 20 zones together with fight power, zoning separated is terrible and makes no sense.
      How do you stop friends of guild B from setting up a co-attack, but then not taking part in the fight, only taking up priority spots on the map and thus giving numerical advantage to guild B over the actual attacking Guild A??
      AO Quick Reference Guide
      Discord: Grimhawke#9254


    • yiconomics wrote:

      What reason do I , as a solo have to play in the black zone and fame farm if I have the chance of being stuck out there in the middle of 300 players during ZvZ? Please make ZVZ instances so casual players don't get trapped in the zones.
      cause cities are already instanced and nobody is playing those even those that like you yell *high risk high reward bring more* , yet the biggest risk reward is never ever declared on , i wonder why?

      Askelad1691 wrote:

      In my opinion zvz fights shouldn't be decided by number, but by skill/economic power. Now we have big fights with informal alliances massing 3x the enemy and the mechanics cant work properly. We should create a new mechanism "fight interest". Guild A set an attack for guild B territory, so any other guild/alliance interested in this fight should pay and set a co-attack or co-defense. Those defending and attacking involved will have total priority to the fight(the map will be unplayable by non related players during this time if attackers/defender are enough to create a queue). That way big fights wont have any player that is non related to the fight or exploiting with no de-buffs or gankers(all attackers or defender will have the same debuff no matter guild/alliance or no debuff at all cause they will be matchend in nunbers. This way the queue will guarantee an even fight in number and therefore skill and investment will decide the results. Other tip is to queue in parties, like an entire party of 20 zones together with fight power, zoning separated is terrible and makes no sense.
      well zvz are won with diplomatic skill and economic power and if you look the guilds that have dominated in the past are constantly around the top 10 and even elevate is just recycled players from those guilds. again people can just declare on themselves on locked fights.

      Parallel wrote:

      I read the collective thoughts of this post and I believe that an instanced large scale ZvZ for territories would be the solution for Albion Online. Here are some major problems I see with the current system:

      - Players don't have a good experience with the cluster queue system and not many hardcore gaming computers can handle it. Thus you are alienating a great deal of the population while advertising it as mobile friendly. From my own speculation at least 50% of the game is alienated from these fights to begin with due to connection, processing power, video card, etc and won't even show. IP caps alienated even more. Now organization and understanding of a very complex system will add another stack to the alienation.

      - Mega alliances exploit the queue system, even with the changes you proposed my mind started exploding with ideas to juke/sabotage the opponent. This is the philosophy that revolves around ZvZ and creates fun for some leaders but removes fun from the vast majority of players. Make the teams drop gear in a War Camp like they did in the past and keep the current situation set up for the "pre fight". Make the War Camp just like pre-Queen fights. We used to CTA for that and have small scale fights that are greatly missed. You have around 24 hours to bank in a War Camp for the ZvZ, the enemy can be massed early for something like this as there is a 24 hour window. Create more instances for small scale.

      - Barrier to entry. There are only a few people having fun at ZvZs and there is a steep barrier to entry. You have to understand the patch notes and game mechanics like you posted enough to read them and understand how you can exploit them in order to win. From the fights I have witnessed, less than 5% of the fights are fun/fair for most involved. This means you've created too big of a barrier to entry for end game content for hardcore players. Not many of the hardcore players I know have fun at MOST ZvZs anymore. It's like 1 out of 20 it seems like that are actually fun. I 3rd party Elevate/Final Order/Rang/etc and I have even joined these alliances to help them, it is not fun at all as a small guild bombing or a big guild queueing or preparing to queue.

      -If changes are not made to satisfy the current players that are trying to learn the game, you will not retain the COVID population. The goal right now of SBI should be to retain the windfall population generated by COVID. In order to do that, you need to make ZvZ and other end-game pursuits enjoyable so people like me don't throw in the towel and decide to just gank/hellgate/TRY and find small scale until you guys finally fix this broken system. ZvZ is end game content, while there should be job-like aspects for those managing it, it should not be job-like for those just trying to participate. Think of this problem like your arena queue problem, but it is far worse.

      Key words: BARRIER TO ENTRY. BARRIER TO ENTRY. BARRIER TO ENTRY. Stop making barriers to entry, I said the same thing to Richard Garriott when I was on the round table for SOTA and no one listened, and as you can see you will have to look up Richard Garriott's name and SOTA to even figure out what I am talking about because they lost everything from not listening to the players. If you continue to create barriers to entry you will not retain the windfall players. I am happy to propose more solutions as obviously this isn't the best idea there ever could be but it is a better idea than the current system.

      *** Notation, the creation of an instance that pulls all of those in queue into a separate fight would help game developers understand hand holding and how to combat hand holding and allow new players with low IP the ability to have instant content. You could work this into the lore for the coming Mists of Albion changes. Sitting in a queue or knowing people are sitting in a queue as a massive bomber/flanker in this game is not as fun as the opportunity for more small scale fights. The people of this game demand smaller scale fights. Make all of those sitting in queue get portalled into a dungeon instance for example or something Mists related. Make there be incentive or objective in these special instanced zones not to handhold. ****
      was suggested already, people can just declare on themselves and take up spots in order not to get attacked.
      true pcs or networks cant handle big fights, pvp in general is trash for anyone outside US but hey its free, and people like to loot more than anything because of it ...
      mega alliances arent even in the queue system, people that arent in megas are just dodging the penalty for silver, fame, the debuff , and the queue by simply not being in an alliance. have you even watched zvzs, you cant even queue into a zone to queue into a zone in order to fight there. also you need almost 400/400 spec in order to get into the map because ppl are getting queued out even with 1400 ips which is roughly 100m pve fame if you settle on a weapon right away after starting to play. and even keeping lower geared players isnt worth it to you in your alliance cause you get a debuff that makes all the good geared players get lower dmg etc. so the barrier to entry could be dropped by splitting the bloody weapons and the weapons not adding extra power to other weapons, so if you wanna play a halberd in ZvZ you dont have to spend your fame creds on a useless wep like the battle axe that has no use in almost anything besides it W being used in HCEs to run faster to skip mobs. and if SBI refuses to balance out the junk weapons, so be it, still dont have to spend stuff on it. Also vets dont know what kind of content do the new players want even if you look at everything the new players are mostly ffing cause a curse in 4.1 oc managed to murder them in full t8 gear that they spent all their money on so they never bother to pvp.

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

    • Grimhawke-EB wrote:

      How do you stop friends of guild B from setting up a co-attack, but then not taking part in the fight, only taking up priority spots on the map and thus giving numerical advantage to guild B over the actual attacking Guild A??
      A fake co-attack would just steal players from that team, if the map can have 400 players (idk this for sure), and you have 200 attackers slots and 200 defender slots a fake would steal slots but it couldn't do damage to allies and the priority should always be with the main attacker and main defender in the queue. So if you guarantee 200 players you will fight fairly, but yes its almost impossible to create a system without breach for exploit. Another option is the main attacker or main defender to validate the co-attacker or co-defender before battles, this would work well.
    • Askelad1691 wrote:

      Grimhawke-EB wrote:

      How do you stop friends of guild B from setting up a co-attack, but then not taking part in the fight, only taking up priority spots on the map and thus giving numerical advantage to guild B over the actual attacking Guild A??
      A fake co-attack would just steal players from that team, if the map can have 400 players (idk this for sure), and you have 200 attackers slots and 200 defender slots a fake would steal slots but it couldn't do damage to allies and the priority should always be with the main attacker and main defender in the queue. So if you guarantee 200 players you will fight fairly, but yes its almost impossible to create a system without breach for exploit. Another option is the main attacker or main defender to validate the co-attacker or co-defender before battles, this would work well.
      so you can technically declare 10 attacks and every attacker gets 20 slots 9 of them are allied to defend and now you get to fight 20 v 200 , gl, you declare with just one extra guild, 100v200, 2 extra guilds 66v200 4 guilds 50 v 200 etc
    • It is funny to see that the changes that would serve to correct an abuse of power and force only benefited everything they tried to fight, impossible that the SBI cannot see that mega alliances are now mega coalitions and that they are stronger and more alive than ever.And the worst of all is to see that people are ignorant to the point of not being able to understand that there cannot be only strength A against strength B, competition is a necessary factor.
    • Why not ban the offenders that abuse the system to gain an unfair advantage, aka doing an exploit? Or like some would say, just apply the god damn TOS on the people that abuse that shit for the rankings. Rankings=Battle mounts and siphoned energy=Huge amounts of silver=Huge amount of gold/power ig.

      We had issues with people attacking their own terri's with alts with the old gvg system (aka exploiting a feature in a way that isn't intended (which can be either viewed as a bug, cheating or abuse) which is bannable by the TOS and that shit happens again with cluster Q abuse and y'all know on purpose. Either take people accountable for those shit or make it that there's no incentive/gains to do that.

      Allowing 50% of the zone slots to the attacking alliance (so you are either with or not with them) and the other 50% to the defending alliance only, You effectively kill handholding and force fair fights to happen more often for the control of the terri. Only castles would have issues potentially.

      Like instance fights of XXX VS XXX where both sides are of equal force and NEED to be at minimum in the same alliance, will drastically improve the quality of life of ZvZers.


      Regarding people not doing city fight, that's shit is due to having BM allowed and the ip cap is soo high, that it's normal to have everyone in 8.2-8.3 gearsets. It is the top end-game atm imo (apart of crystals lvl 9). So the entry cost silver wise is so high that most players can afford to do those often nor can they afford to die 3-7 times in those type of gear in a single fight to maybe win it. Only a limited pool of players can afford to and currently, they either already own the cities or grind open world zergs and crystal league since it is less expensive and doesn't require as much investment cost to enter to get good gains.

      I might be wrong on the city fights, but that's what it looks like to me from watching those happen in the last year.
    • Deathskills wrote:

      LoganSilkCheeks wrote:

      difference between adding things to the client via third party software and *exploiting* things that are in the game; exploit is a broad term. and using exploits is different
      Not as per the TOS in the format they are written. Exploit is receiving the same treatment as cheating and RMT.
      • modify the gaming experience by using software or mechanisms that may affect the function and the game play unless permitted by the Game Rules,
      this?