Solo Dungeons closing in red & black zones

    • i like how the huge amount of new players / alts trying to change dev's vision of the problem by complaining, they said their reasons twice and you keep saying it's a mistake without letting them try.

      As for yellow zones, i've been running solos to teach a friend of mine, and we've found lot of people inside them before that 1m gap, BZ will never get that amount of players in a map but they'll find the correct timer to balance Risk vs Reward.

      It could be free fame for a while, or not? if it's not then problem solved, if it's free fame, they'll fix it.


      They can change the rules however they want and you can't do shit about it, adapt or keep crying here.
    • After this update we will have:

      1) BlueZ = 100% safe zone. With faction ~90% safe zone. Almost impossible to die.
      2) YZ = 100% safe zone. With faction same ~90 safe zone. Almost impossible to die.
      3) RZ = ~90% safe zone in every way. The only way to die is to be blind, stupid or get ganked by organized gankers.
      4) BlackZ = ~90% safe zone in any possible way. The only way to die is to be blind, stupid or get ganked by organized gankers.
      5) HCE = 100% safe zone in every possible way. Max. fame, max. loot, max. disbalance of the game. Total absurd.

      So the only way to have a sudden unorganized PvP will be hellgates 1v1 (corrupted dungeons), 2v2, 5v5 and group dungeons.

      It's important to know that EVERY POSSIBLE FIGHT WILL BE ORGANIZED. There won't be any sudden attacks, risk/reward chances EXCEPT of GROUP DUNGEONS. The question is just who needs those group dungeons then when at SRD T8 you will have a better loot and fame? And you will be safely farming with no risk.

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

    • Shakotis wrote:

      After this update we will have:

      1) BlueZ = 100% safe zone. With faction ~90% safe zone. Almost impossible to die.
      2) YZ = 100% safe zone. With faction same ~90 safe zone. Almost impossible to die.
      3) RZ = ~90% safe zone in every way. The only way to die is to be blind, stupid or get ganked by organized gankers.
      4) BlackZ = ~90% safe zone in any possible way. The only way to die is to be blind, stupid or get ganked by organized gankers.
      5) HCE = 100% safe zone in every possible way. Max. fame, max. loot, max. disbalance of the game. Total absurd.

      So the only way to have a sudden unorganized PvP will be hellgates 1v1 (corrupted dungeons), 2v2, 5v5 and group dungeons.

      It's important to know that EVERY POSSIBLE FIGHT WILL BE ORGANIZED. There won't be any sudden attacks, risk/reward chances EXCEPT of GROUP DUNGEONS. The question is just who needs those group dungeons then when at SRD T8 you will have a better loot and fame? And you will be safely farming with no risk.
      Actually, group dungeons are safer. With scout in t8 and hideout nearby, you have 0% risk.

      And because of that, people don´t care - they just run in 8.3 masterpieces in t8 black zone. Some people i saw even went with battle mounts like command mammoth to grind in group dungeon. Why ? Because they have scouts and hideouts nearby. They have literally 0% risk.
    • That is so odd.

      Korn argues with scouts and instead of fixing issue of scouting PvP in bz gets krippled.

      Why not fix scouting instead of build another wheelchair???

      Scouting could have been easily fixed by providing multiple entrances and stop linear designs..

      It is now more or less impossible to solo gank in bz.

      The srd guy enters waits 1 min ready to leave..if u follow in, it leaves, uses bubble and rides away. After the min u can switch from 100% escape gear to farm gear and fame farm.

      Consequences is, you need to catch the people in between the SRDs.. but that is literally impossible, though u need big gank groups..

      The game seems to head to zerg play and instanced arena style. Open world small scale seems dead..

      I would love to see a poll / vote if players want this. But I think the result would even be more clear as with break alliance, that's why it is probably not done..

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

    • Judging from the almost 300 replies to this thread, this change is by far the most contentious out of all the proposed changes in the upcoming patch. SBI needs to take this feedback seriously. Getting this change wrong can alienate and eliminate a significant player base. SBI's profits come from players that find the game engaging and want to continue their subscriptions, so alienating a large player base can be detrimental to SBI's bottom line.

      We can clearly see 2 camps of players:

      A) Those that are unhappy that they get dove by groups of players and unhappy about getting attacked at half HP with their skills on cooldown. These are going to be generally newer players, or PVE oriented players, or those that are more into crafting/gathering and are just dipping their toes into PVP. These are also going to be the dumber players that do SRDs in a gate zone or one or two zones out of a gate zone or they enter dungeons next to a road etc. These are the players that probably come from mainstream games like WOW etc and they expect their hand to be held everywhere.
      B) Those that are happy to get dove and happy to dive. These generally don't mind getting dove by groups because they realize that this is supposed to be a risk vs reward formula. They also realize that getting dove by a group is a relatively rare occurrence. They are happy that the potential for this PVP exists and don't mind losing and dying even in unfair situations. The divers are the ones that thrive on hunting humans and get a special thrill out of it which they can't get in any of the other content in this game.

      Some of the commenters have pointed out the multitude of unintentional consequences that this new change will cause, some of these consequences are:

      A) The risk vs reward framework will be broken (zero risk T8s)
      B) The sandbox feel of the game will be broken (rules and restrictions are anti-sandbox)
      C) The economy will become inflated (risk free T8 loot and rewards)
      D) It will become much easier to buy premium with silver
      E) Gathering and crafting profitability will not be able to compete with the loot from risk free T8 drops
      F) 10v1 ganking in the open world will become much more prevalent, frustrating and atrocious, especially for newer players - since an entire class of gameplay is being removed - diving - the only place to catch victims will be as they travel to and from the risk free T8 dungeons, meaning that if you want some PVP content in the open world, the only viable masteries are those used for ganking which are claws and double bladed quarterstaff - this leads to significantly less variety in PVP content

      Some solutions have been proposed to deal with the issue of getting dove by multiple people in solo RDs. Of course any of these solutions require more programming manhours for SBI, so they will be reluctant to implement them. The dungeon portal timer solution being rolled out is simply a hammer to kill a fly, it's easy to implement without any significant effort, which is why it is being used. But some of the other proposed solutions have been:

      A) Balancing buffs in Xv1 situations - the solo player gets significantly buffed while the diving group gets significantly debuffed - seems like a fairly simple solution to implement that would actually provide a lot of pleasure for 1 person to kill 5 or 10 gankers
      B) Duel mode in dungeons (this is my proposal) - when a player gets dove, as soon as any of the other players enter his screen, a duel mode beings where 1 player out of the gankers is selected to fight the player getting dove and the other players can't hurt him - the player getting dove gets full mana, HP and cooldowns and loses agro from mobs and a fair duel beings. If the player is able to defeat one of the gankers, another duel begins with the next ganker etc. THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. This change would likely require significant programming manhours from SBI, so it will not be implemented.
      C) Limiting the number of players in an SRD - this type of change is open to abuse and in order to prevent this abuse, a more comprehensive analysis system would need to be implemented so that the system can identify if the players already inside the dungeon are actually doing the dungeon together or if one of them is simply a scout at the entrance etc. For example to prevent abuse of this system by filling the SRD with scouts up to the limit, the system would need to know that there are actually scouts in the dungeon, that they are sitting at the entrance, AFK, not killing mobs etc.

      I would think that the best solution to the problem would be A - simple buffs and debuffs, but really the preferred solution should be B because it would satisfy absolutely everyone - it would retain the content of open world random PVP encounters, it would make them fair to appease the crying populace of those that don't like unfair fights and it would discourage diving in groups because there would be no significant benefit from more numbers.

      One more comment regarding this entire issue. As I had mentioned before regarding Ultima Online, what started out as a hardcore PVP game which imposed non-consensual PVP became a consensual PVP model for all future games like Everquest, WOW etc. We already have consensual PVP in parts of Albion, which makes it no different from any of the other games. What makes Albion different is the non-consensual PVP which is imposed on players with the risk vs reward framework. In terms of Albion's niche as a product in the marketplace of games, this makes it standout and is a major selling point and attraction for a lot of bloodthirsty degenerates, griefers, hardcore killers, diehard mfers etc. SBI has to realize that they cannot alienate and eliminate this player base, even if this player base is a lot smaller than the carebear ex-WOW players, this hardcore playerbase is necessary for an interesting, raw, uncut, memorable and unique experience.

      But as with all things in life, things usually become a victim of their own success. SBI wants to attract the same amount of players as WOW, so they think that by shaping their game into a WOW clone they can achieve it. This is a fallacy because what has allowed SBI to build this player base is the fact that Albion is not WOW, if we wanted consensual PVP, we would play WOW, but we don't want that.
    • Psyopy wrote:



      B) The sandbox feel of the game will be broken (rules and restrictions are anti-sandbox)
      True.

      Psyopy wrote:



      B) Duel mode in dungeons (this is my proposal) - when a player gets dove, as soon as any of the other players enter his screen, a duel mode beings where 1 player out of the gankers is selected to fight the player getting dove and the other players can't hurt him - the player getting dove gets full mana, HP and cooldowns and loses agro from mobs and a fair duel beings. If the player is able to defeat one of the gankers, another duel begins with the next ganker etc. THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. This change would likely require significant programming manhours from SBI, so it will not be implemented.
      Didn't you said that rules and restrictions are anti-sandbox?

      Psyopy wrote:



      F) 10v1 ganking in the open world will become much more prevalent, frustrating and atrocious, especially for newer players - since an entire class of gameplay is being removed - diving - the only place to catch victims will be as they travel to and from the risk free T8 dungeons, meaning that if you want some PVP content in the open world, the only viable masteries are those used for ganking which are claws and double bladed quarterstaff - this leads to significantly less variety in PVP content

      They're not removing diving, they're increasing the reward for the PvE player.

      also, you're forgetting the Roads of Avalon, a huge open world content, if that's not sandboxy for you idk.


      It's amazing how people assume that certain things will happen without testing it, they're blindfolded, almost every sandbox failed trying to balance PvE and PvP players interests, all end up in cannibalism of PvP players because PvE players weren't there to be eaten, it's all about revenue of the sheep, wolves can't just eat all the sheep and wait for them to keep spawning, No, you have to let the sheep count grow, then we eat, as simple as that, can't you see it? Let the sheep feel SAFE and REPRODUCE.

      I remember reddit posts, comments at this forum ,everyone complaining because black zone were a wasteland, almost impossible to find T8 Solos with people to dive, now you're against a change that is intended to take people out of the cities and use those high tier dungeons for you to dive.

      BUT I DON'T LIKE THE PVE PLAYER TO FEEL SAFE SBI PLS THINK ABOUT US.

      Amazing, you have everything to win and you still crying, the people who cry about this change is the same people who want gear swap to still being a thing.
    • Korn wrote:

      The purpose of the dungeon closing timer is for us to be able to balance the frequency of dungeon dives happening - to balance the risk vs reward ratios for both, the divers and their potential victims.
      Closing timer was implemented in patch 13 to "Increased Availability of Blue and Yellow Zone SRDs".
      "Once a given entry portal is removed, a new entry portal will spawn elsewhere in the world." No questions about that.
      I think closing timer is OK in blue and yellow zones despite creating option to safely farm with faction flag.
      But that isn't a good idea for full loot PvP zones imo.
      I think there should be another trigger to portal despawn like final boss kill or clearing XX% of dungeon.
      And timer should be used to delay despawn if someone(diver?) entered dungeon right before that trigger.

      Korn wrote:

      Here is why: If diving is too prevalent, this heavily discourages Outland zone activity (and/or leads to the "mandatory scouting" meta that we currently have for solo RDs)This in turn leads to less active Outland zones, which also means less PvP. If diving is too hard/not worth it, we'd have very active zones, but also less PvP in total as you wouldn't be able to successfully get anyone.
      Outlands should remain Outlands imo. If activity isn't risky anough it shouldn't be presented in outlands.
      If certain activity isn't rewarding enough no one will be involved in it. Like with roaming mobs / mobcamps.
      Scouts is a problem, yes. They reduce risks, but have no effect on rewards.
      But i have no idea how to fix that.
      Maybe scouts should reduce rewards like if they are in your party next to you?

      Korn wrote:

      Having a dungeon closing timer that we can freely control allows us to fine tune the risk vs reward ratios in the Outlands in such a way that overall PvP activity is maximized.
      SRDs is self balancing system.
      for a fixed SRD rewards:
      More SRD farmers -> more reward for divers -> more divers -> higher risk for SRD farmers -> less SRD farmers -> less rewards for divers -> less divers -> lower risk for SRD farmers -> more SRD farmers
      loop is comlete.
      You can fine tune rewards SRD rewards and loop will balance around it.

      Korn wrote:

      While the risk of getting dove on for each player would be lower, this should be off-set by a higher number of players in total, which also means more potential targets for those looking for non-consensual PvP.
      Is that risk realy that high? Is there a diving group in every one of all 36(or how many of them right now) T8 zones and players getting dove on every 30 mins or so?
      A lot of players in this topic claims that it's not.
      And if they are not correct why don't those players don't farm in lower tier zone?
      T7? T6? T5? Some of them should have better risk/reward ratio.
      And for me it feels that there is like no one diving T6 SRDs - 0 risk, decent rewards.

      Korn wrote:

      Note that we will test out and iterate on how long the dungeon timer actually needs to be for optimum results. The 60 seconds currently on the test server are just a starting point for us to be able to collect meaningful data.
      Is 60s timer duration only on test server and timer values on live will be different? Or it will land live as it is?
      Also i doubt that timer will help.
      If it's too short like currently on test server - players wil just wait until portal despawns near the entrance with 0 risk for slightly less rewards (+1 min of "clear" time per dungeon).
      It it's considerably long we are back to the "mandatory scouting" meta.

      Maybe some kind of magical device inside SRD that can despawn entrance portal (or lock/hide it for a certain amount of time) but using it will reduce the rewards.
      But thats still don't solve scouting problem
    • recluse4 wrote:

      Why not just have the entrance to SRDs work like a Road portal and have a recharge cool down after 2 or 3 people go in?
      1. Because they will fit it with a scout, or just reenter dungeon. And while time when you can enter dungeons is recharging - you clear dungeon.
      2. Plus it is much easier to scout if there is someone inside , just passing through such entrance in open world.
    • Equart wrote:

      recluse4 wrote:

      Why not just have the entrance to SRDs work like a Road portal and have a recharge cool down after 2 or 3 people go in?
      1. Because they will fit it with a scout, or just reenter dungeon. And while time when you can enter dungeons is recharging - you clear dungeon.
      2. Plus it is much easier to scout if there is someone inside , just passing through such entrance in open world.

      SRD: 2 people enter the dungeon, the portal disappears. 2 minutes later, portal reappears and 2 more people can enter.
      GRD: 5 people enter the dungeon, the portal disappears. 7 minutes later, portal reappears and 5 more people can enter.
    • Gratinus wrote:

      Equart wrote:

      recluse4 wrote:

      Why not just have the entrance to SRDs work like a Road portal and have a recharge cool down after 2 or 3 people go in?
      1. Because they will fit it with a scout, or just reenter dungeon. And while time when you can enter dungeons is recharging - you clear dungeon.
      2. Plus it is much easier to scout if there is someone inside , just passing through such entrance in open world.

      SRD: 2 people enter the dungeon, the portal disappears. 2 minutes later, portal reappears and 2 more people can enter.GRD: 5 people enter the dungeon, the portal disappears. 7 minutes later, portal reappears and 5 more people can enter.
      that would be PvP game....style
    • CassX wrote:

      Fred_the_Barbarian wrote:

      @CassX Why not fight back instead of giving the ganker your stuff? When you die all the stuff you "destroy" drops as loot or is trashed according to the whims of the loot gods.
      Why?Firstly, I usually meet not one but 3 or more players(and for me with pve equipment and I'm not 20 years old- I don't have those reactions anymore(lots of beer and Jameson have a part in it too :D ), it's practically unrealistic to beat those players, but truthfully I don't mind, the game needs it and enough people like that kind of activity, and of course I want AO to play as many people as possible, let everyone come into their own..so I'm fine and I don't deal with it), and secondly my laptop is bad and I have problems with so many events.
      You see I didn't even know, I thought that if I manually destroyed something (mouse object moved and destroyed it) so that it didn't exist any more and if I wrote /suicide after the destruction (I'm naked) then the ganker couldn't get anything out of me. :)
      No Proper 12 or Blackbush?
    • Reef wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      The purpose of the dungeon closing timer is for us to be able to balance the frequency of dungeon dives happening - to balance the risk vs reward ratios for both, the divers and their potential victims.
      Dont understand why you need this control in sandbox game that is self-controlled.Risk vs reward must depend on how hard your ally/coalition controls nearby zones. More powerful ally = less risk of gankers. You are trying to inflict directly and its not correct.
      The only way to force carebears move to outlands is to cut their profit in safezones. But SBI made HCE and now want to lower risk in BZ.
      With this patch the only result will be defltaion of economy because of free loot in BZ and loot in avalonian roads
      I would suggest someone that is relying on ally/coalition controlled zones is actually the 'carebear"
    • I would like to say that I have literally never in my time playing seen a scout to a solo rd and I play a lot. I don't think a roads of Avalon timer would suddenly get people to start using them.

      I think the roads of Avalon timer is still the best solution but we shall see how things turn out.

      Playing today for 4 hours in the t8 zone south of Morgana's rest with a buddy we

      1) killed someone upon entering a solo who was running the solo in knights boots and couldnt get out despite being maybe a screen away from the exit because he had no mobility. (going to blame his death on him running knights boots open world)
      2)Killed an actually afk person because ??? We think he and some friends were running srds as we saw a small group come from the direction of the dungeon we found him in. He was afk at the end with the final boss killed so I guess they just left him
      3)Fought a 2v2 which my friend died and I escaped with 20hp
      4)Got ganked by seven people but luckily they were streaming into us one at a time so we got two kills and got out. (friend lived with 50hp)

      That is the total pvp for 4 hour of nonstop fame farming in solo rds in a t8 zone. And to be honest that was a pretty action packed day. Regardless of this change people need to stop farming so close to portal zones and actually spread out into the world.

      I will say that t8 srd's tend to have groups of 2+ hence I farm there with a friend and when I play solo I farm in the t7 zone northwest of Morgana's rest which tends to be 1-2 people. But I think that's 100% fine as its a t8 zone and has fantastic rewards.

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

    • Psyopy wrote:

      Judging from the almost 300 replies to this thread, this change is by far the most contentious out of all the proposed changes in the upcoming patch. SBI needs to take this feedback seriously. Getting this change wrong can alienate and eliminate a significant player base. SBI's profits come from players that find the game engaging and want to continue their subscriptions, so alienating a large player base can be detrimental to SBI's bottom line.

      We can clearly see 2 camps of players:

      A) Those that are unhappy that they get dove by groups of players and unhappy about getting attacked at half HP with their skills on cooldown. These are going to be generally newer players, or PVE oriented players, or those that are more into crafting/gathering and are just dipping their toes into PVP. These are also going to be the dumber players that do SRDs in a gate zone or one or two zones out of a gate zone or they enter dungeons next to a road etc. These are the players that probably come from mainstream games like WOW etc and they expect their hand to be held everywhere.
      B) Those that are happy to get dove and happy to dive. These generally don't mind getting dove by groups because they realize that this is supposed to be a risk vs reward formula. They also realize that getting dove by a group is a relatively rare occurrence. They are happy that the potential for this PVP exists and don't mind losing and dying even in unfair situations. The divers are the ones that thrive on hunting humans and get a special thrill out of it which they can't get in any of the other content in this game.

      Some of the commenters have pointed out the multitude of unintentional consequences that this new change will cause, some of these consequences are:

      A) The risk vs reward framework will be broken (zero risk T8s)
      B) The sandbox feel of the game will be broken (rules and restrictions are anti-sandbox)
      C) The economy will become inflated (risk free T8 loot and rewards)
      D) It will become much easier to buy premium with silver
      E) Gathering and crafting profitability will not be able to compete with the loot from risk free T8 drops
      F) 10v1 ganking in the open world will become much more prevalent, frustrating and atrocious, especially for newer players - since an entire class of gameplay is being removed - diving - the only place to catch victims will be as they travel to and from the risk free T8 dungeons, meaning that if you want some PVP content in the open world, the only viable masteries are those used for ganking which are claws and double bladed quarterstaff - this leads to significantly less variety in PVP content

      Some solutions have been proposed to deal with the issue of getting dove by multiple people in solo RDs. Of course any of these solutions require more programming manhours for SBI, so they will be reluctant to implement them. The dungeon portal timer solution being rolled out is simply a hammer to kill a fly, it's easy to implement without any significant effort, which is why it is being used. But some of the other proposed solutions have been:

      A) Balancing buffs in Xv1 situations - the solo player gets significantly buffed while the diving group gets significantly debuffed - seems like a fairly simple solution to implement that would actually provide a lot of pleasure for 1 person to kill 5 or 10 gankers
      B) Duel mode in dungeons (this is my proposal) - when a player gets dove, as soon as any of the other players enter his screen, a duel mode beings where 1 player out of the gankers is selected to fight the player getting dove and the other players can't hurt him - the player getting dove gets full mana, HP and cooldowns and loses agro from mobs and a fair duel beings. If the player is able to defeat one of the gankers, another duel begins with the next ganker etc. THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. This change would likely require significant programming manhours from SBI, so it will not be implemented.
      C) Limiting the number of players in an SRD - this type of change is open to abuse and in order to prevent this abuse, a more comprehensive analysis system would need to be implemented so that the system can identify if the players already inside the dungeon are actually doing the dungeon together or if one of them is simply a scout at the entrance etc. For example to prevent abuse of this system by filling the SRD with scouts up to the limit, the system would need to know that there are actually scouts in the dungeon, that they are sitting at the entrance, AFK, not killing mobs etc.

      I would think that the best solution to the problem would be A - simple buffs and debuffs, but really the preferred solution should be B because it would satisfy absolutely everyone - it would retain the content of open world random PVP encounters, it would make them fair to appease the crying populace of those that don't like unfair fights and it would discourage diving in groups because there would be no significant benefit from more numbers.

      One more comment regarding this entire issue. As I had mentioned before regarding Ultima Online, what started out as a hardcore PVP game which imposed non-consensual PVP became a consensual PVP model for all future games like Everquest, WOW etc. We already have consensual PVP in parts of Albion, which makes it no different from any of the other games. What makes Albion different is the non-consensual PVP which is imposed on players with the risk vs reward framework. In terms of Albion's niche as a product in the marketplace of games, this makes it standout and is a major selling point and attraction for a lot of bloodthirsty degenerates, griefers, hardcore killers, diehard mfers etc. SBI has to realize that they cannot alienate and eliminate this player base, even if this player base is a lot smaller than the carebear ex-WOW players, this hardcore playerbase is necessary for an interesting, raw, uncut, memorable and unique experience.

      But as with all things in life, things usually become a victim of their own success. SBI wants to attract the same amount of players as WOW, so they think that by shaping their game into a WOW clone they can achieve it. This is a fallacy because what has allowed SBI to build this player base is the fact that Albion is not WOW, if we wanted consensual PVP, we would play WOW, but we don't want that.
      • So according to you PvE players and gatherers/crafters "expect their hand to be held everywhere"? Please tell me the mental gymnastics you had to make to get to that nonsense
      • It's almost as if the game relies on PvE players to be the target dummy for divers because why else isn't PvE and PvP strictly separated? As a PvE player I don't care one bit about PvP, but if you were to separate PvP from PvE you will notice almost immediately that without PvE players doing dungeons there will be a severe drop in potential PvP targets as I reckon they are the biggest group by far
      • Why are all your suggested fixes based on the scope of "PvE player has to just live with the forced PvP, but might get some buff/advantages if he gets ganked/dove" instead of "Just introduce a PvP-toggle already, so that PvE players who don't care about PvP can play in peace"?
      • Unlike other forced-PvP full-loot games Albion Online really tries to hide said facts in everything regarding PR + their own website, almost as if SBI knows people will leave or not even touch the game if the labels "full-loot" and "forced-PvP" are openly visible
      • Where is the fallacy? You have to first answer the questions "How many people stay here because of the PvP/forced-PvP" and "How many people stay here despite the forced PvP". And who the hell is this "we" you use? That "we" doesn't have my voice or conveys my opinion, but I do recognize that M.O. : if someone feels his PoV or argument is weak he hides behind an unnamed group of people using words like "we" to fake some kind of plurality where there is none, as he can only speak for himself

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Lofthild ().