the state of 20v20

    • 20v20 Crystal League
    • the state of 20v20

      Hello everyone,
      I'm currently on one of the most active 20v20 crystal league teams(19 UTC) and got encouraged to share my opinion on the state of 20v20 on the forum so here we are.

      Level ones are VERY alive. I attribute this to the fact that you spend very little to nothing for a potential of 1million fame in characterbound tomes. No problem here really.

      Some teams do level two but not really that many and sometimes it's just one team hoping for a noshow which then sits tent when there's an actual fight.

      Now for the level 3's(19 UTC). There's currently one team doing them everyday and about three teams doing them sometimes.
      Our team is doing them everyday
      The elevate team(zerfaxx's team) is usually doing them sunday's to warm up for the high levels.
      The jungle team(mercing for Mudhouse) is doing them sometimes(couldn't find a pattern here) but usually once per week on the high levels.
      Some pug groups which play on and off and also usually on the high levels.

      So most of the time, we log on, queue up and collect our noshow rewards. Profitable, but not very fun.

      I think i've identified the main issues with full loot 20v20 and i'd like to propose some changes.

      (1) High level matches are too infrequent.
      On 5v5s you have a lvl4 match every two days and lvl5s twice per week.
      I've played 5's with good and bad teams before and the big advantage for both teams lie here.
      *Good* teams get more high stake fights.
      *Bad* teams get a chance to fight on level 3s without facing the best teams(which are doing lvl4 and lvl5 on the same timer).
      The *Bad* teams then might face another *bad team* or a mediocre team, which isn't confident enough for higher levels. In both cases they have better odds at winning then when they queued up on a level 3 only day.
      So each week there is 5 to 6 timeslots, where *bad teams* can queue up for lvl3 without facing the best teams.
      For 20v20 each week there's 1 to 2 on saturday.
      I believe that increasing the amount of high levels is the first step that should be taken to make room for more higher level teams to be created.
      This would also increase the amount of times other teams play. I know from a friend on the elevate team, another contender for best 20v20 team, that they only play friday and saturday, because the everyday matches aren't rewarding enough.

      (2) Rewards
      The rewards do in no way reflect the effort and resources that are needed to compete.
      Compared to 5v5 cgvgs, you need :
      More organization
      More gear(20v20 matches are alot more deadly than 5v5 in general)
      More players
      Actual strategies for macro

      I added all the numbers so here's the season points for 1 team 5v5 and 1 team 20v20 over two weeks, each doing 1 timer only and winning for full rewards.
      5v5
      10375 season points
      20v20
      13900 season points.

      Looks OK right? you have about 30% more total rewards for the 20v20 team.
      If we look at the per player rewards however.....
      5v5
      2075
      20v20
      695

      How is this fair?
      I think if anything, the per player rewards in terms of season points should be equal to the 5v5 if not higher.
      Give us more high levels, more interest for competing guilds to fund their own teams.
      20v20 is currently my favourite content in the game and I just don't want to queue up knowing we have a 99% chance of a noshow anymore.

      Kind regards,

      Keeperofnature

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

    • A really good post. I think its important for SBI to rethink the purpose of 20v20 though. Obviously we (not me I'm not good enough) used to have city fights as the reason to do 20v20. Currently, the only reason is for season points. I'm in Sun this season which everyone knows is pushing for rank 1. For us, it makes sense to have a 20v20 team as well as Black Order, Mudhouse, and maybe even Guildzinha although none of the 3 guilds currently do not have a team.. For other guilds, I see no incentive for doing 20v20's in its current state. If we assume 500k per set (its a lot higher with the meta builds) an average match (70 deaths) would cost 35 million silver to regear. An average level 3 match awards the guild 240 season points (Assuming each member is in your guild). 35m to regear 240 points is extremely expensive compared to (ranking from most expensive to least) 1 castle > 3 5v5 matches > 6 outposts > 2 world boss kills > 1 hour of 3 people doing flat 6 mage raiding > 2 hours of a group of 2 doing the static dungeon bosses that no one knows about in t6 gear.

      I think the 20v20 matches are extremely fun to play in and also good content for the Albion Online twitch channel. However the cost to entry is really expensive. I'm not smart so I'm not sure of how to change them in order for players to feel like they are worth doing again unless. Some ideas I've heard bounced around are increase the silver bags at the end (boring), increase the artifacts you get at the end (less boring, more RNG), or add territories to the map that can only be Captured through the 20v20 fights (instanced fights).

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

    • There should be more rewards for 20s across the board to incentivize people and guilds wanting to play. It definitely needs to be buffed in terms of season points and individual reward. Another idea is to throw back in city level rewards, maybe not as egregious as the old city rewards where the dominating guild was generating 300m+ silver a day but maybe around ~25-50m. If SBI doesn't wunna throw that type of silver around then having the winning/participating guilds that win 20 v 20s get a minor 1 day fame boost or whatever could work. Idk I'm sure something could be figured out.

      While I agree with most of the post, the one thing that I heavily disagree on is that there should be more 20 v 20 timers:

      1. Just because I have a chance to q into a "shit" team doesn't meant I want to throw 20-30m worth of gear for a match for nothing.
      2. This will increase the odds of a no show for "good" (lol) teams like Nerg's/Elevate/Jungle/RUSun and "bad" teams alike - there will be less contenders in the overall pool.
      3. What's to stop the "good teams" from q'ing during the "scrub" timers to farm shitters? We all know that most of the money comes from what you loot.
      4. Adding more timers won't magically make it so that another 5-10 static teams pop up and start playing.
      Not only does adding more 20 v 20 timers close the gap for potential future content i.e. 10 v 10 crystals, or potential instanced terri fights. Spreading the already thin amount of players playing 20 v 20 is not a good idea at all. It's hard enough to organize and get people on for ONE timer, you want to do it for multiple timers? No thanks.
    • I would feel like a broken record complaining about how bad 20v20s are right now but I'll post my thoughts again anyway.

      From when they announced the removal of cities and the opening of 20v20 crystals, I said over and over again that the rewards have to be high to compensate teams for their effort. Crystals aren't anywhere close for what it took to manage city gvgs, but the struggles of making a strong roster, a working strategy, and having constant attendance still remain. As of now, the rewards for a level 3 are a spit in the face. My rewards shouldn't be made random. Rewards needs to be constant in order to maintain sustainability for players. Your ability to afford more sets shouldn't depend on the chance that you get a random expensive relic. That part is important because without sustainability, you aren't going to get any new teams showing up. They will just do whatever content that gets them the most money with the smallest effort. Which is definitely not 20s. Albion is a time based game and people don't have time to waste.

      Has anyone noticed how many teams are playing level 1s? There were six level 1 matches at the EU timer yesterday (240 players). I once had to get 60 players together in Elevate to defend three cities against 60 others people. That's only half of the average daily player count participating in 20s crystals now. So SBI took out this ultra high risk content to get... 120 more players involved out of a 90k player base. That is a massive failure from my point of view and if anything tells me there isn't nearly enough interest in this content as some people may think. Now I think getting a larger population of players into gvgs is a big issue that has a lot to do with accessibility. That's on SBI to figure out, not my job. But you aren't gonna make me want to waste 1 hour of playing, 30 minutes of attendance checking, hours of review, hours of planning, and the drama of dealing with people for a fucking t4 whispering bow artifact, a t5 carving sword artifact, 700k in silver bags, and tomes that I don't even need anymore.

      The answer isn't in adding higher levels. Just start by buffing rewards.
    • Some QoL changes:

      If you give people artifacts, let them store it in the battle vault so they don't have to go through more loading screens just to deposit a t4 whispering bow artifact.

      Let people access the battle vault at the end of a match

      Force people to sign up with proper roles set.

      Fix party organization scrambling issues

      Let people enter the crystal gvg after the match has started, like old gvgs (do this for 5s also)

      buff rewards
    • I agree on most points.

      Short-term:
      • Rewards need to be buffed and properly scale with the levels.
      Managing and organizing 20´s teams require A LOT of effort, especially if you´re playing on a daily basis. Some of the sets (healers wink wink) exceed 1.5m/death even on level 3´s, whereas you´ll on average get a total of artifacts worth 30-150k.
      A "sweet-spot" for the rewards need to be found where the min-max is not as fluctuating as it is right now - and they need to significantly scale with the levels (they barely do atm).

      Long-term (hard to change mid-season):

      • Rotate in more higher level crystals, similar to 5´s where higher levels can be played mid-week aswell.
      • Overlook the season points generated by 20´s. As Keeper stated - currently you get more value having 4x 5v5 teams playing consistently rather than 1x 20v20 team.
    • i dont think adding the amount of high lvls would solve the problem, if that was true we would have a lot more teams doing lvl 2s right now


      I say it should be:
      lvl 1 - non-lethal everyday, twice per timezone
      lvl 2 - lethal everyday (maybe increasing the rewards and season points)
      lvl 3 - 3 or 4 times a week or during the weekend (has to win lvl 2 to do lvl 3, cant buy lvl 3 token)
      lvl 4 - once a month

      lvl 2 and 3 everyday we split the changes of having a fight, but if you have only one lethal option you will probably have more chances of having a fight

      5 teams doing lvl 2 and 3 teams doing lvl 3 = 3 fights happening and 2 teams with no show
      8 teams doing lvl 2 (cause there's no daily lvl 3) = 4 fights and 0 no show

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

    • xGunner wrote:

      i dont think adding the amount of high lvls would solve the problem, if that was true we would have a lot more teams doing lvl 2s right now


      I say it should be:
      lvl 1 - non-lethal everyday, twice per timezone
      lvl 2 - lethal everyday (maybe increasing the rewards and season points)
      lvl 3 - 3 or 4 times a week or during the weekend (has to win lvl 2 to do lvl 3, cant buy lvl 3 token)
      lvl 4 - once a month

      lvl 2 and 3 everyday we split the changes of having a fight, but if you have only one lethal option you will probably have more chances of having a fight

      5 teams doing lvl 2 and 3 teams doing lvl 3 = 3 fights happening and 2 teams with no show
      8 teams doing lvl 2 (cause there's no daily lvl 3) = 4 fights and 0 no show
      This system was used last season, where we only had one daily lethal level (lvl 2). They changed this system to allow a lower barrier to "full loot" 20v20 by trying to push the "top" teams to playing lvl 3´s while upcoming/less hardcore teams can queue up for level 2. IMO this has been fairly successful to do what it was intended to do.

      You wont get new teams playing the higher levels by changing this back - you need to overlook rewards and create the incitament for teams teams to queue lvl 3+ on a daily basis.
    • I agree with most of the suggestions.

      Having more higher levels doesn't help this situation really without having some other changes done as well.
      1. Funding is too important at the current moment. Only rank 1 guild really wants to fund a team.
      2. There isn't enough teams doing the higher levels in the first place. (At the moment there's 1-4 teams doing higher levels?)
      Both of these could be fixed by increasing the rewards, so there was an incentive for a player or guild to start funding teams.

      I really liked IXxHODGES's idea of having territories or cities that you can fight for in a 20v20 and get rewarded season points daily for owning a territory or a city,
      but still the rewards in 20v20 need to be fixed, people would want to play higher levels than 1 and try to progress to become better to be able to contest the territories or cities.

      EDIT: Just like Zerfax said simple QOL-changes would be really helpful.

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