Can we finally conclude that Queen failed to make the game better for small guilds?

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

    • Can we finally conclude that Queen failed to make the game better for small guilds?

      SBI Made a lot of promises about Queen, and every update it seemed that SBI was attempting to further make the game more balanced for smaller guilds - but I feel like we're at a point where we can admit that almost every single measure has failed miserably to that end.

      1. Hideouts - what was supposed to be a bone tossed to smaller guilds to establish safety in the BZ's, where Territory control is based entirely on ZVZ now, ended up quickly becoming a bane to small guilds as the construction costs and their inability to defend them put them in a compromised position. This position meant that to place and keep a hideout, they would have to pay hefty rental fees to larger guilds, and agree to sometimes ridiculous rules and NAP's that made content in the BZ's for them very limited and unfun.

      2. Zerg Disarray - I'm sure I don't need to elaborate on this one. Why SBI continues to try to put makeup on this turd is beyond my understanding. As soon as it was announced, everyone including GM's such as King Mojo and Gluttony all admitted that the big guilds/alliances would easily avoid/abuse this by splitting into smaller sections. The debuff has failed too and the fact that they continue to promote and change it shows a sheer lack of understanding on SBI's part of the futility of the matter.

      3. Siphoned Drain/Fame Penalty - Another change that was easily avoided by large guilds/alliances by splitting into coalitions. Nothing to see here. Pointless change that did nothing.

      4. Season Point/Siphoned Territory Storage - See number 3 above.

      5. Cluster Que - So I really need to go on at this point?

      I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks in regards to this, because I wonder if I'm truly alone with my guildmates and friends in thinking this way. Because based on SBI's actions, it doesn't seem like they know how much they've missed the mark completely.

      Also - I'll add possible solutions (or at least starting points) for each of the topics above:

      1. Hideouts - Put a cap on tribute based on the zone tier and proximity to the center of the map. If a HO owner pays this tribute - their hideout cannot be attacked unless the territory owner pays the launch fee + all tribute paid for the last 7 days. Also - make Hideout permission access have 2 (AND ONLY 2) access settings - PUBLIC, or GUILD/ALLIANCE only. And limit changing this access level to 1-2 times a day.
      2. Zerg Disarray - Just get rid of this garbage. If you want to lesson the "1-shot meta" then adjust the 1-shot weapons and damage escalation.
      3. Siphoned Drain/Fame Penalty - Instead of this, just penalize guilds/alliances for launching attacks on territories held by guilds/alliances with significantly less current territories controlled as them. If Guild A which holds 6 territories launches an attack on Guild B which holds 1, then Guild A should pay 2x-3x more launch fee, plus Siphoned fee, to declare that attack. Do the same in the opposite manner for the smaller guild, but as a discount. In this scenario, Guild B pays half the normal launch cost to declare attacks on Guild A.
      4. Terry Storage of Points/Siphoned - Not needed if my above suggestion is implemented.
      5. Cluster Que - This one isn't easy. And Cluster Que is better than the zone locking we had before. My best suggestion is to HEAVILY PENALIZE ABUSERS!!!! Seriously SBI, grow a damn backbone and stop letting Syndic and Mojo walk all over your features and basically laugh at you while everyone else is annoyed and pissed off because you didn't see the abuse coming. Suspend these people who abuse your features, drop the damn hammer on them and then maybe things will get better.

      Thanks for your time.

      -UnkleRukus
      Gamer Dad. Old enough to know better, much too young to care.

    • Small guilds/zergs should not be able compete with bigger ones, period. Financially, in fights, in territories, in every way. It would be absurd to think that some new mechanic should be introduced to allow 1 person to kill a party of 20.

      I think it should be solved in otherways like increasing the skill gap by removing the artifical limits currently in place, adding more skills shots, adding higher ip scaling so eg. 100x 1000ip cannot compete with 50x 1500ip or just give incentives for big guilds to not bother with small guilds. Most black zone alliances/guilds do not even set foot in red zone, why is this? Why cant another zone be created for mid-small guilds/alliances.

    • I agree it is far fetched to expect guilds of 20 to compete against guilds of 300 for territory control but the concept of Queen was explained as small guilds would have a place to live in the black zone. This is the part that people are upset about because it is equally far fetched. Making HO's easily destroyed eliminated any possibility for any non zerg / large alliance guild to have a chance to live in the BZ without paying rent not to be attacked. Even then that is not a guarantee the territory owner still wont destroy your HO or have other dumb stipulation like you cannot kill them in the OW or something of that sort thus defeating the purpose. They should of designed HO's for ALL to use and not just the power guilds to abuse. Having a chance to live and play in the BZ should be a right to all where conquering lands should be only the ones that put in the effort/work.

    • Tabor wrote:

      I agree it is far fetched to expect guilds of 20 to compete against guilds of 300 for territory control but the concept of Queen was explained as small guilds would have a place to live in the black zone. This is the part that people are upset about because it is equally far fetched. Making HO's easily destroyed eliminated any possibility for any non zerg / large alliance guild to have a chance to live in the BZ without paying rent not to be attacked. Even then that is not a guarantee the territory owner still wont destroy your HO or have other dumb stipulation like you cannot kill them in the OW or something of that sort thus defeating the purpose. They should of designed HO's for ALL to use and not just the power guilds to abuse. Having a chance to live and play in the BZ should be a right to all where conquering lands should be only the ones that put in the effort/work.
      There should be a pretty straight-forward way of destroying hideouts otherwise it would lead to even worse trolling, and Albion at the moment handles it well with giving guilds multiple days to defend. I wish there was more of a cost to attempting to destroy one, but that's a problem with the fundamental systems of Albion. The end goal was supposed to be that the less desirable areas of the Outlands could be home to smaller groups to build themselves up, having access to a hideout and dungeons and the ability to farm and hopefully only deal with groups of a similar size and skill level as the more desirable zones (the middle of the Outlands, for example) would be where the big fish would go.

      That failed absolutely spectacularly as there's basically nothing stopping a Mega Alliance from conquering everything they see, and SBI's solution to this by trying to prevent large groups from formally existing and having detrimental effects to owning lots of land as an Alliance lead to Alliances breaking into smaller groups but still operating together, thus making Handholding the problem it is and failing to fix the game. At this moment Queen has basically failed many players, even pretty large guilds with some decent ZvZ groups. While many have triumphed, it is rather difficult for most guilds to deal with 300 players and cluster queue outside of your territory as a mega alliance does their ritualistic, "content" for the evening by wiping you off the face of the server. It's basically just griefing at this point because their territories aren't under attack, and if they are it's only a few zones that is effortless for thousands of players to defend at any given time.

      I think the biggest problem with what's going on right now is the fact that there's almost no unpredictability when it comes to an alliances territories and objectives becoming under attack due to how few zones actually share a vulnerable period and the massive delay from launching an attack even against guilds that own dozens upon dozens of zones. Much like how Mage Raiding can be completely random, I think the larger an alliance is (as in, the more objectives/territories/castles/outposts/hideouts etc. they hold) the less predictable it should be to become under attack or launch attacks. My biggest suggestion is to remove any and all debuffs for alliances for working as a group and give them a reason to get back into one unit. Then make it so that whatever vulnerable time in whatever objectives in whatever zones you controlled and then diversifying the zone timers beyond what they currently are would make each one of the objectives owned by that alliance become vulnerable, to the point where if you have enough zones in enough places you could theoretically become attacked and lose these objectives at any point. Making sure that no neighboring zones share the same vulnerable time and forcing these guilds to spread out more if they want to minimize their risk would mean more travel and potentially lead to an enemy they don't want to deal with between their zones. Launching attacks should still be a thing (I'm somewhat fuzzy on the details, I'm sure somebody can see the problem with it but I'm doing my best with the knowledge I have about the Warcamp system), but the timer between launch > attack should be lowered for each objective held to the point where it's almost instant if your alliance owns a large amount as to give them minimal time to prepare and potentially have many places under attack at once. Taking objectives, however, should probably now take a bit longer in general since now it's almost essential for a guild to mobilize via a discord CTA at any time of day and give them a reasonable amount of time to do so. Some actions, like attacking hideouts and removing shields, should still have invincible timers after being attacked; but this should also scale with the size of the alliance and the objectives held.

      That would mean the following:
      1) Small groups with only minimal objectives such as a hideout, territory, castle, outpost, etc. would still be able to protect what they have unless under the focus of a massive guild. This also helps these guilds grow at a more natural rate, as the bigger and stronger they get the more objectives they can fight to hold but thus make themselves more vulnerable as a result.
      2) These massive guilds would be open to attacks much more unpredictably, which would lead to them needing to openly spread out some of their forces to defend or they would lose objectives to surprise attacks: not just from smaller guilds looking to steal from them like rats but also from rival alliances looking to harm them more. This ties into the first point, where guilds would grow at a much more natural rate and this would benefit smaller, skilled teams more than ever.
      3) This allows bigger guilds to war essentially constantly, meaning these guilds can always have content and whatever drama they have can be acted upon much more often. This is probably the biggest goal for these mega alliances, as most of the time the outright curb-stomping of smaller guilds is done due to boredom.
      4) Drastically cut down on general griefing from bigger guilds against smaller ones, because if Guild A sees Guild C attacking Guild B with a massive overwhelming force, Guild A can then mobilize on Guild C's territory and steal it from them. Guild D can use this time to attack Guild A, while Guild E could offer mercenary services to protect Guild A's zone. Guild B, potentially, could then turn the fight from the crushing loss they were experiencing to taking down Guild C as they're trying to retreat to protect their objectives and potentially come out with loot. I'm not SBI, obviously? But I imagined this is what they expected to happen with Queen.

      The major flaw at the moment is that it doesn't exactly solve the hand-holding situation that mega alliances are becoming accustomed to, but I'm sure somebody can come up with a solution or incentive for mega alliances to be in one coherent unit again and dissuade multiple smaller alliances working behind the scenes as one.

      This could fix a lot of the issues currently in the design of the black zones and turn the Outlands into the constant war zone they're designed to be, while being more forgiving for smaller guilds and allowing new guilds to constantly rotate in and claim their own spots from similar powered guilds. I believe this is the kind of system that many of us dreamed of with the Queen update, but instead found 14 command mammoths and 250 dudes sitting outside your hideout every day from 18 to 22 UTC waiting for the inevitable collapse of the hideout your small clan pooled together all it's resources for in an attempt to have a place to fame farm up and gain experience in PVP.

    • SBI bluntly does not care about small guilds. They had all of them removed from the Round Table

      Furthermore they sent a poll to most players and when the majority replied they want more content for small guilds and less handholding they simply ignored it and went on with the changes we saw...

    • Maybe bring in the alliance cap of 500 people per alliance to make it small, like okay we cant compete the big guilds with numbers but we can obviously make guilds join us to be around equal to 500, unlike arch
      Then there will be tons of guilds in alliances and plus we can see Martlock freed FINALLY
      About Hideout, limit it to one hideout per guild and one alliance cant have hide out in same zone.
      SMART cluster queue idea...

      Make a count of people online every 1 week in a guild maybe call it PO (player online ).... so what will happen is a zone can have maximum of about 60% of their guild in a zone,
      the zone removal feature where people are removed due to some ip caps is to be changed by, if the guild and its members are there for a longer time they get a smalll bonus for stay there like, a revese cap of 900, what reverse cap...? reverse cap means that, suppose the reverse cap is 900, and your ip is 800, there will be a 50% bonus to your ip if you are below 900, so now that i was 800 ip i will be 850 IF MY GUIDS AND WE ARE THERE FOR LONGER THAN OTHERS,
      The people in the zone will depend on the number of PO in your guild, if PO in your Guild are more than other guild you get higher priorities...
      thanks for reading
      - Nytro
      give me your thoughts @Georg51 @Valkyrior @Tabor

    • I am a big proponent of an alliance cap of 500 max and max 1 HO per guild with no more than 1 HO per zone per overall alliance.

      The other stuff about IP changing due to time spent in zone is a little confusing but I think I get what you were going for.

    • Tabor wrote:

      I am a big proponent of an alliance cap of 500 max and max 1 HO per guild with no more than 1 HO per zone per overall alliance.

      The other stuff about IP changing due to time spent in zone is a little confusing but I think I get what you were going for.
      Maybe lemmi be a bit clearer..
      the smart cluster queue has 2 new features
      1. PO ( players online )- every guild have a PO count where the number of players online at least once ever 5 days are considered.
      2. Reverse cap- eg reverse cap is 900 for the zone, anyone below that will have 50% increase of ip.....eg 800ip -> 850ip 950ip->950ip

      Now that i have explained the new things, lets get started about the actual queue system..
      A guild's stay in a zone will depend of a few things
      1. The guild longest in the zone with maximum numbers will have the benefit of reverse cap applied on them.
      2. the zone will not allow any guild with 70% or more than 150 members
      3. If suppose two guilds are in a zone for a good long time, the reverse cap opportunity will be given to people with more PO
      4. now if the guild given the merit of REVERSE CAP has most of their members above 900ip the reverse cap will be given to the next most contending guild
      now as usual players will try to abuse PO, so this PO counter can only be set by a person if he is in the guild for minimum 7 days...
      thanks for reading , there you go mate @Tabor
      may i have your thoughts on this @Acoustic

    • Valkyrior wrote:

      I've already posted that hos should be 1 per guild and access limited to that guild only or alliance if size is limited so I fully agree with you

      Terri control could also be
      30v30 gvg instanced in outer zones 1100 ip
      50v50 further in 1300 ip
      100v100 no ip
      dont you think 50v50 with 1300ip is difficult, maybe it should like more the player lower the cap,
      sorry i did not read your hide out post

    • The fundamental flaw of terrie control, unless you instance it, which seems to be SBI no is

      Link presence in the zone and activity with the right to attack

      Right now, you gather your Zerg one hour a day and rush over everything

      The presence and power in a zone is completely irrelevant, that's why small players have no chance.

      I posted it already, why is the right to attack not linked to the most fame done in the zone, be it pve, pvp, hg from the zone, gathering etc..

      The guild that did the most fame last 24 hours in that zone can launch..

      And the defender can decide the instanced or Zerg fight..

    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      The fundamental flaw of terrie control, unless you instance it, which seems to be SBI no is

      Link presence in the zone and activity with the right to attack

      Right now, you gather your Zerg one hour a day and rush over everything

      The presence and power in a zone is completely irrelevant, that's why small players have no chance.

      I posted it already, why is the right to attack not linked to the most fame done in the zone, be it pve, pvp, hg from the zone, gathering etc..

      The guild that did the most fame last 24 hours in that zone can launch..

      And the defender can decide the instanced or Zerg fight..
      what if the terry owner guild liggit does pve all all day and stuff. same way the big guild which could siege the territory in the first place has over 200 people to do the ff all day plus ganking, now that they do ff or ganking how do you expect other small guilds or even alliance to keep up??

    • Nytro wrote:

      Hollywoodi wrote:

      The fundamental flaw of terrie control, unless you instance it, which seems to be SBI no is

      Link presence in the zone and activity with the right to attack

      Right now, you gather your Zerg one hour a day and rush over everything

      The presence and power in a zone is completely irrelevant, that's why small players have no chance.

      I posted it already, why is the right to attack not linked to the most fame done in the zone, be it pve, pvp, hg from the zone, gathering etc..

      The guild that did the most fame last 24 hours in that zone can launch..

      And the defender can decide the instanced or Zerg fight..
      what if the terry owner guild liggit does pve all all day and stuff. same way the big guild which could siege the territory in the first place has over 200 people to do the ff all day plus ganking, now that they do ff or ganking how do you expect other small guilds or even alliance to keep up??
      the current issue is that the Megas just log for ZvZ and crush all..

      If the right to attack is looking linked to zone activity Megas can attack one zone..and their zones which are t7/t8 would be constantly contest by all the people gather and srd / grd there..

      It is much harder to live as 300 people in 10+ zones than to simply be there one hour with a huge blob and some handholders

      On top gatherer pve players etc.. would suddenly be of value for guilds..and content would be there 7x24

    • Hey there,

      the next update will have a very strong focus on small scale gameplay and small guilds.

      A key part of this are the Roads of Avalon:

      These mystical paths through the mists form an ever-shifting network of roads which connect locations all across Albion, but they only let a limited number of players pass through an entrance at a time and each connection only lasts for a limited time. In this way, the Roads open up a vast number of different small scale gameplay options. As a solo player, you’ll be able to explore where they lead, discover valuable solo activities along the way, use them for transportation or share your scouted paths with your guild. You can also use the shortcuts through the mists to go directly from the Royal continent deep into the Outlands, avoiding the ganking at city portals altogether. Small groups will also find access points into the Roads, leading them to valuable group content inside or using the roads for travel. Finally, small guilds will even be able to settle in places available deep inside the mists, away from the competition in the Outlands and participating in this unique type of small scale gameplay.

      We are developing a very sophisticated system of entrances, zones and "smart connections" between them that will essentially act as a filter for different group sizes within the roads, such that it becomes very likely - depending on which paths through the roads you take - that you meet groups of similar size to yours. Details on this will follow soon.

      It will also be possible to set-up hideouts within the Roads of Avalon, and those will not be easy to raid / destroy for the current power blocks in the game as they are not really a part of the daily Outlands are and are not easy to get to in large numbers.

      Finally, the Roads of Avalon will deal with any remaining portal camping issues. If you are a solo player or a small group, you'll be able to enter the Outlands through the Roads of Avalon instead.

    • The state of the games is really bad for me , that don't only touch small guild, . Why ?

      - Hideout was a good idea but the realization is really bad for me, imagine 1 guild can make 6 hideout if you have only 3 guild in your alliances that make 18 hideouts ... atm for me hideout kill the BZ because if you gank you have portal bubble, shrine, hideout that kill a lot of opportunities and if you only want to fame farm, farm on a map with 6 hideout good luck. + that's give a lot of power projection for major alliances

      - the state of zerg, for me it's the core of the game , it's for that i fame , gather ect, but atm i don't want to zerg, why ? because a lot of fight you waiting at the gate because cluster queue, fair fight are uncommon and now zerg are only large scale. I have nothing against large scale but albion is not make for that because lag, small cluster capacity ( 350 player ) , cluster queue atm kick a lot of new players from the game, i know a lot of people who quit the game because waiting 1h at a gate it's not fun.

      - disaray problem, for me this solution is useless and dev consume too much ressources on this, easy to abuse ...

      - Content udapte, they are too long for me, from the queen patch we don't have any content udapte and the next one is in august so 7 month from queen udapte. The next udapte look promising but is far, why don't split the pathc in 2 or three to have more regular contentn, avalonian weapon can be a solo patch ect

      Some solution in my opinion

      - limited hideout 1 per guild, that's make you're hideout really you're home and make BZ more fun and risky

      - make instancied gvg but not like before make this like 100v100 or another number but atm a lot of person don't have fun in zerg and i know that because i'm in a zerg guild and a lot of person quit the game because of zerg problem

      - stop with disaray it's useless and if you don't want a one shot meta just nerf one shot weapon

      - split patch to make my subscibe worth , atm i m just boring of the game , no content in 7 month , zerg not fun at all and BZ boring because it's more safe than red zone

    • Wanted to point out that it's not impossible to live inside a BZ as a solo player without a guild. I am currency guildless I have left uninterested in quarrels between Alliances that are looking to be slaves to bigger guilds/alliances stuffing the cluster queue and calling it "content" the ZVZ is a complete mess with Cluster Queue in place.

      Benefiting out of the Black Zone is not impossible for solo players the REST Towns are quite viable option to settle in and you do not need any Hideouts. Big chunk of the community is just mortally afraid of stepping in the Black Zone they do not understand and they do not get to know it. Royals are overcrowded because of misimpression the Black Zone must be impossible to live in and scary...

      I am looking forward to Cluster Queue removal and tweaks to debuff then better server capacity past 500+ players in a single cluster.
      Do not insist on keeping Cluster Queue, take it for a development cost (loss) and move on Ty!
      Im więcej ludzi na ZvZ tym Surfy i Poe będą mniej hajsu chcieli za nie wyjebanie waszej ziemianki. Wojna Polsko Polska AO. Wesołe Ziemniaczki.

    • Korn wrote:

      Hey there,

      the next update will have a very strong focus on small scale gameplay and small guilds.

      A key part of this are the Roads of Avalon:

      These mystical paths through the mists form an ever-shifting network of roads which connect locations all across Albion, but they only let a limited number of players pass through an entrance at a time and each connection only lasts for a limited time. In this way, the Roads open up a vast number of different small scale gameplay options. As a solo player, you’ll be able to explore where they lead, discover valuable solo activities along the way, use them for transportation or share your scouted paths with your guild. You can also use the shortcuts through the mists to go directly from the Royal continent deep into the Outlands, avoiding the ganking at city portals altogether. Small groups will also find access points into the Roads, leading them to valuable group content inside or using the roads for travel. Finally, small guilds will even be able to settle in places available deep inside the mists, away from the competition in the Outlands and participating in this unique type of small scale gameplay.
      We are developing a very sophisticated system of entrances, zones and "smart connections" between them that will essentially act as a filter for different group sizes within the roads, such that it becomes very likely - depending on which paths through the roads you take - that you meet groups of similar size to yours. Details on this will follow soon.

      It will also be possible to set-up hideouts within the Roads of Avalon, and those will not be easy to raid / destroy for the current power blocks in the game as they are not really a part of the daily Outlands are and are not easy to get to in large numbers.

      Finally, the Roads of Avalon will deal with any remaining portal camping issues. If you are a solo player or a small group, you'll be able to enter the Outlands through the Roads of Avalon instead.
      I thought that was the goal of queen??

    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      Nytro wrote:

      Hollywoodi wrote:

      The fundamental flaw of terrie control, unless you instance it, which seems to be SBI no is

      Link presence in the zone and activity with the right to attack

      Right now, you gather your Zerg one hour a day and rush over everything

      The presence and power in a zone is completely irrelevant, that's why small players have no chance.

      I posted it already, why is the right to attack not linked to the most fame done in the zone, be it pve, pvp, hg from the zone, gathering etc..

      The guild that did the most fame last 24 hours in that zone can launch..

      And the defender can decide the instanced or Zerg fight..
      what if the terry owner guild liggit does pve all all day and stuff. same way the big guild which could siege the territory in the first place has over 200 people to do the ff all day plus ganking, now that they do ff or ganking how do you expect other small guilds or even alliance to keep up??
      the current issue is that the Megas just log for ZvZ and crush all..
      If the right to attack is looking linked to zone activity Megas can attack one zone..and their zones which are t7/t8 would be constantly contest by all the people gather and srd / grd there..

      It is much harder to live as 300 people in 10+ zones than to simply be there one hour with a huge blob and some handholders

      On top gatherer pve players etc.. would suddenly be of value for guilds..and content would be there 7x24
      totally agreed on that part,
      but a 300 man guild can easily manage 2-3 zones enough of pve, and the rest is done with the help of alliance

      Korn wrote:

      Hey there,

      the next update will have a very strong focus on small scale gameplay and small guilds.

      A key part of this are the Roads of Avalon:

      These mystical paths through the mists form an ever-shifting network of roads which connect locations all across Albion, but they only let a limited number of players pass through an entrance at a time and each connection only lasts for a limited time. In this way, the Roads open up a vast number of different small scale gameplay options. As a solo player, you’ll be able to explore where they lead, discover valuable solo activities along the way, use them for transportation or share your scouted paths with your guild. You can also use the shortcuts through the mists to go directly from the Royal continent deep into the Outlands, avoiding the ganking at city portals altogether. Small groups will also find access points into the Roads, leading them to valuable group content inside or using the roads for travel. Finally, small guilds will even be able to settle in places available deep inside the mists, away from the competition in the Outlands and participating in this unique type of small scale gameplay.
      We are developing a very sophisticated system of entrances, zones and "smart connections" between them that will essentially act as a filter for different group sizes within the roads, such that it becomes very likely - depending on which paths through the roads you take - that you meet groups of similar size to yours. Details on this will follow soon.

      It will also be possible to set-up hideouts within the Roads of Avalon, and those will not be easy to raid / destroy for the current power blocks in the game as they are not really a part of the daily Outlands are and are not easy to get to in large numbers.

      Finally, the Roads of Avalon will deal with any remaining portal camping issues. If you are a solo player or a small group, you'll be able to enter the Outlands through the Roads of Avalon instead.
      If the roads give smaller guilds to build hideouts in them, so the roads are gonna be a full loot pvp zone as well, which makes the portal gankers to switch to road gankers, basically you have the gankers a new place to gank?,
      correct me if i am wrong here

      scions wrote:

      The state of the games is really bad for me , that don't only touch small guild, . Why ?

      - Hideout was a good idea but the realization is really bad for me, imagine 1 guild can make 6 hideout if you have only 3 guild in your alliances that make 18 hideouts ... atm for me hideout kill the BZ because if you gank you have portal bubble, shrine, hideout that kill a lot of opportunities and if you only want to fame farm, farm on a map with 6 hideout good luck. + that's give a lot of power projection for major alliances

      - the state of zerg, for me it's the core of the game , it's for that i fame , gather ect, but atm i don't want to zerg, why ? because a lot of fight you waiting at the gate because cluster queue, fair fight are uncommon and now zerg are only large scale. I have nothing against large scale but albion is not make for that because lag, small cluster capacity ( 350 player ) , cluster queue atm kick a lot of new players from the game, i know a lot of people who quit the game because waiting 1h at a gate it's not fun.

      - disaray problem, for me this solution is useless and dev consume too much ressources on this, easy to abuse ...

      - Content udapte, they are too long for me, from the queen patch we don't have any content udapte and the next one is in august so 7 month from queen udapte. The next udapte look promising but is far, why don't split the pathc in 2 or three to have more regular contentn, avalonian weapon can be a solo patch ect

      Some solution in my opinion

      - limited hideout 1 per guild, that's make you're hideout really you're home and make BZ more fun and risky

      - make instancied gvg but not like before make this like 100v100 or another number but atm a lot of person don't have fun in zerg and i know that because i'm in a zerg guild and a lot of person quit the game because of zerg problem

      - stop with disaray it's useless and if you don't want a one shot meta just nerf one shot weapon

      - split patch to make my subscibe worth , atm i m just boring of the game , no content in 7 month , zerg not fun at all and BZ boring because it's more safe than red zone
      i suppose quiting the guild can be step one and join a smaller guild to get atleast the content u can as a quality player, and 100 v 100? you maybe a part of a zerg but we small guilder cannot form the 100 people group that easy,

    • Korn wrote:

      Hey there,

      the next update will have a very strong focus on small scale gameplay and small guilds.

      A key part of this are the Roads of Avalon:

      These mystical paths through the mists form an ever-shifting network of roads which connect locations all across Albion, but they only let a limited number of players pass through an entrance at a time and each connection only lasts for a limited time. In this way, the Roads open up a vast number of different small scale gameplay options. As a solo player, you’ll be able to explore where they lead, discover valuable solo activities along the way, use them for transportation or share your scouted paths with your guild. You can also use the shortcuts through the mists to go directly from the Royal continent deep into the Outlands, avoiding the ganking at city portals altogether. Small groups will also find access points into the Roads, leading them to valuable group content inside or using the roads for travel. Finally, small guilds will even be able to settle in places available deep inside the mists, away from the competition in the Outlands and participating in this unique type of small scale gameplay.
      We are developing a very sophisticated system of entrances, zones and "smart connections" between them that will essentially act as a filter for different group sizes within the roads, such that it becomes very likely - depending on which paths through the roads you take - that you meet groups of similar size to yours. Details on this will follow soon.

      It will also be possible to set-up hideouts within the Roads of Avalon, and those will not be easy to raid / destroy for the current power blocks in the game as they are not really a part of the daily Outlands are and are not easy to get to in large numbers.

      Finally, the Roads of Avalon will deal with any remaining portal camping issues. If you are a solo player or a small group, you'll be able to enter the Outlands through the Roads of Avalon instead.
      You say this but what will prevent big alliances from taking over this content as well? What is accessible for small guilds and solo players will certainly also be accessible to big alliances. The same thing how 10 people can enter a "solo" dungeon will happen to this. Mark my words.

      I honestly think that you guys do not play your own game. The moment you get this introduced you will see portal gankers move to these roads. You are telling people how they can safely pass here and gather while on the road :) You are basically telling portal gankers to just move to this great location where they can potentially camp gatherers (from small guilds even) who are coming here under the false safety illusion. I can already hear the screams :)

    • The funny thing is, if they create this content really as described the today ZvZ will be dead

      Players just play zerg and mega cause they forced in 80% of the cases to serve for the mega bosses else bz content denial..

      So either it doesn't work that way or it destroys the current ZvZ content to a big extend

      Who would want to live and serve in a 10k alliance if u can get all with 20friends u actually know and like??