Changes for Guild Season 13

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

    • Durriii wrote:

      Yes I realize that it allows them to contest castles but they aren´t contesting terries. There is 0 reason for them to take one or place a hideout as they can easily live out of the rest at 0 risk. Which doesn´t really suit Albions "gamestyle" especially as the black zone is about risk.
      I am not talking about deleting rests but make them less attractive to live out of the full time. Makes no sense to have a system with hideouts but have a "safezone" 3 maps away from the center of the black zone.
      The last thing we need is more hideouts. If anything, cap / remove hideouts and leave the rests.
    • AurumTitanos wrote:

      Durriii wrote:

      Yes I realize that it allows them to contest castles but they aren´t contesting terries. There is 0 reason for them to take one or place a hideout as they can easily live out of the rest at 0 risk. Which doesn´t really suit Albions "gamestyle" especially as the black zone is about risk.
      I am not talking about deleting rests but make them less attractive to live out of the full time. Makes no sense to have a system with hideouts but have a "safezone" 3 maps away from the center of the black zone.
      The last thing we need is more hideouts. If anything, cap / remove hideouts and leave the rests.
      Agree on less hideouts owned by the same alliance. We need more hideouts owned by people that live out of rests at the moment though.

      More hideouts owned by different entities is more content in the long run.
    • Durriii wrote:

      Disregard wrote:

      Durriii wrote:

      Some very nice changes.

      Are there any changes planned to the rests in the black zone? Currently they provide a safe place to live out of without the need of defence or necessity of taking territories as they are conveniently located close the the inner ring. I think it would benefit if living out of them would be made more of a hassle so guilds currently in them are promoted to place a hideout/attack a territory.
      You realize that the only content happening in the blackzone right now is because guilds are able to live out of the rests. Every guild with a hideout within 5 maps of the inner ring is part of the same extended coalition, rests are the only way other guilds can contest castles, terries, etc.
      Yes I realize that it allows them to contest castles but they aren´t contesting terries. There is 0 reason for them to take one or place a hideout as they can easily live out of the rest at 0 risk. Which doesn´t really suit Albions "gamestyle" especially as the black zone is about risk.
      I am not talking about deleting rests but make them less attractive to live out of the full time. Makes no sense to have a system with hideouts but have a "safezone" 3 maps away from the center of the black zone.
      It's not because rests are too good that people don't contest territories, people don't contest territories because 80% of the map has drawn lines and the rest has to fight 1500 people if they launch which makes it impossible.
      Hideouts should be removed from the game in his actual state, it's only an incentive to handhold or rent a ho from a mega coalition.
    • Durriii wrote:

      Agree on less hideouts owned by the same alliance. We need more hideouts owned by people that live out of rests at the moment though.
      More hideouts owned by different entities is more content in the long run.

      The current implicit cap on hideouts is so large per zone it's not even funny. Just go look at Redtree Enclave.

      Also the 6 hideouts per guild cap is essentially meaningless if people can give anyone access to their hideout. Alt guilds or ally guilds can just be used to avoid the 6 hideout limit.
    • This is my opinion about disarray, as a person who manages 1 guild that had to be splitted in 2 to recieve more players (new players).

      The problem I found with this, is if I mass 100 guys from my guild for example, this weakens us a lot compared to the last season (equivalent to now massing 200 in terms of disarray). And it is a problem, because you're only looking at the numbers of players but not their "quality", while making these changes.

      This is the issue:

      This encourages leaving new players out of ZvZ.

      Because now with these changes, in order to get a piece of action, they'll need much more IP. And to get to that IP, new players have to make a huge effort compared to veteran players, because they don't have spec, or an economy to fill that lack of spec (buying expensive gear compared to veteran players, even tho they have less access to silver).

      So right now, with our mindest of accepting all kind of players, I will have to make a choice to only let guys with high IP and gear into these fights, because the cost of bringing new players with us to learn and have fun will be too high. Sure, you could also read this and think "obviously, that is what good zergs aim for, gucci gear, high IP, great skill", but to me letting new players come even with low IP is worth the disarray I currently face, but I'm not sure about this changes.

      So maybe a proposal would be to, when you calculate this disarray debuff, also get in consideration the difference between IP and gear between the groups, or other indicator that wouldn't only takes numbers but not players realities.

      Gryffyth:Toma tu arma y síguenos en discord.gg/ktrNXWN

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

    • Retroman wrote:

      Disarray
      To reduce the effectiveness of trying to stack as many players into the cluster queue as possible we adjusted the Disarray curve to be much steeper, which especially makes a difference in groups of 100+.
      Currently on live the effective damage penalty between groups of 100v150 is very low. This will be changed so that the relative damage difference will be way more important.

      Some Example values of the Relative Damage Penalty:
      Will we get any disarray in the roads to prevent zerging the diffrent zones ergo "solo" "group" and "raid" zones
    • Disarray changes makes no sense. It's gonna force people to split into smaller alliances like before. It does nothing but buffs bigger forces that has smaller groups.

      It is going to be almost impossible for newer guilds to sustain after the transmutation changes. No one is able to compete over any territories since one big coalition holds all of it, it's just gonna buff their economies since they have gathering taxes for their members.

      At the end of the day, game is becoming a bigger and bigger handholding fiesta. Not helpful in any way.
    • Abdulyaprak wrote:

      Disarray changes makes no sense. It's gonna force people to split into smaller alliances like before. It does nothing but buffs bigger forces that has smaller groups.

      It is going to be almost impossible for newer guilds to sustain after the transmutation changes. No one is able to compete over any territories since one big coalition holds all of it, it's just gonna buff their economies since they have gathering taxes for their members.

      At the end of the day, game is becoming a bigger and bigger handholding fiesta. Not helpful in any way.
      "Newer guilds to sustain"

      Buy. Your. Own. Gear.

      If you can't afford your own gear, you shouldn't be ZvZ'ing.
    • AurumTitanos wrote:

      Abdulyaprak wrote:

      Disarray changes makes no sense. It's gonna force people to split into smaller alliances like before. It does nothing but buffs bigger forces that has smaller groups.

      It is going to be almost impossible for newer guilds to sustain after the transmutation changes. No one is able to compete over any territories since one big coalition holds all of it, it's just gonna buff their economies since they have gathering taxes for their members.

      At the end of the day, game is becoming a bigger and bigger handholding fiesta. Not helpful in any way.
      "Newer guilds to sustain"
      Buy. Your. Own. Gear.

      If you can't afford your own gear, you shouldn't be ZvZ'ing.
      Thats your opinion, thousands of others disagree, posting it over and over again every 20 minutes just makes you a vocal minority
      IGN: DungeonRealms
      Founded Elevate
      Won Season 9
      #1 Locus Kill Fame
      Held 6 cities till SBI deleted them :/
    • Disregard wrote:

      AurumTitanos wrote:

      Abdulyaprak wrote:

      Disarray changes makes no sense. It's gonna force people to split into smaller alliances like before. It does nothing but buffs bigger forces that has smaller groups.

      It is going to be almost impossible for newer guilds to sustain after the transmutation changes. No one is able to compete over any territories since one big coalition holds all of it, it's just gonna buff their economies since they have gathering taxes for their members.

      At the end of the day, game is becoming a bigger and bigger handholding fiesta. Not helpful in any way.
      "Newer guilds to sustain"Buy. Your. Own. Gear.

      If you can't afford your own gear, you shouldn't be ZvZ'ing.
      Thats your opinion, thousands of others disagree, posting it over and over again every 20 minutes just makes you a vocal minority
      And you are defending it like it's your livelihood, oh wait....
    • Retroman wrote:



      20v20 Crystal League
      Currently the attendance for Level 2 and Level 3 matches is very low. That is why we will consolidate these two levels. Level 1 and 2 matches will happen daily, and Level 3 matches will be twice a week. The daily Level 2 match will keep the same rewards as the current Level 3 matches. Level 3 Tokens can’t be purchased anymore and the Level 3 match rewards will be somewhat between current Level 3 and Level 4 rewards.

      Full 20v20 Schedule

      Token LevelMatch FrequencyTime Slots (UTC)Silver Cost to buySilver Prize Poolavrg. # of Artefacts(per player)TradableSeason Points (per player)Item Power Soft CapLethalityDaily Point Limit
      Level 1daily1:00, 1:30

      12:00, 12:30
      19:00, 19:30
      100,000200,0000yes5900 (hard-capped)Non-Lethal600 → 750
      Level 2daily1:00, 1:30

      12:00, 12:30
      19:00, 19:30
      200,000400,0005 → 10yes10 → 15900Full Loot600 → 750
      Level 3every Tuesday and Friday (daily)1:00

      12:00
      19:00
      400,000

      (not purchasable
      anymore)
      800,00010 → 11yes15 → 351,100Full Loot600 → 1,800
      Level 4every Saturday1:00

      12:00
      19:00
      1,000,00011 → 12yes601,300Full Loot2,400 → 3,000
      Level 5Saturday, every 2 weeks1:30

      12:30
      19:30
      1,300,00012 → 14yes2001,500Full Loot8,000
      Level 6Saturday, once a month17:002,000,00013,5 → 16yes7501,600Full Loot20,000
      Level 7Last Saturday of the Season18:004,500,00015 → 20no2,5001,700Full Loot70,000


      All these changes are intended to go live in the next Off Season, before the start of Season 13. And they are currently still in production, so some details may differ when they go live.

      We hope you are excited about the upcoming changes for Season 13. And, like always, we are very interested in your feedback. :)

      Cheers,
      Retro
      PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME.... Why not have a 20 v 20 matches at 4 utc? Give the later timers the chance to play these.

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

    • Neesh wrote:

      This is my opinion about disarray, as a person who manages 1 guild that had to be splitted in 2 to recieve more players (new players).

      The problem I found with this, is if I mass 100 guys from my guild for example, this weakens us a lot compared to the last season (equivalent to now massing 200 in terms of disarray). And it is a problem, because you're only looking at the numbers of players but not their "quality", while making these changes.

      This is the issue:

      This encourages leaving new players out of ZvZ.

      Because now with these changes, in order to get a piece of action, they'll need much more IP. And to get to that IP, new players have to make a huge effort compared to veteran players, because they don't have spec, or a economy to fill that lack of spec (buying expensive gear compared to veteran players, even tho they have less access to silver).

      So right now, with our mindest of accepting all kind of players, I will have to make a choice to only let guys with high IP and gear into these fights, because the cost of bringing new players with us to learn and have fun will be too high. Sure, you could also read this and think "obviously, that is what good zergs aim for, gucci gear, high IP, great skill", but to me letting new players come even with low IP is worth the disarray I currently face, but I'm not sure about this changes.

      So maybe a proposal would be to, when you calculate this disarray debuff, also get in consideration the difference between IP and gear between the groups, or other indicator that wouldn't only takes numbers but not players realities.
      Number shouldn't be an advantage just because these players are noobs, how do you recognize them anyway, if you check the ip people will take lower gears while they are outnumbering their enemies to lower their debuff.
      Your guild is in ARCH, if you didn't spend the season afk in queue with max debuff to benefit from the actual disaray maybe they wouldn't change it.
    • Nice, i like the changes, but unfortunately the zvz changes will not have the expected effect, changing territory fights/hideout fights from zvz to instanced fights (50x50) would be perfect

      And about safety, doesnt matter the duration of bubble if u can have one hideout every 10m, hideouts should be limited to 1 or 2 per zone
    • AurumTitanos wrote:

      Abdulyaprak wrote:

      Disarray changes makes no sense. It's gonna force people to split into smaller alliances like before. It does nothing but buffs bigger forces that has smaller groups.

      It is going to be almost impossible for newer guilds to sustain after the transmutation changes. No one is able to compete over any territories since one big coalition holds all of it, it's just gonna buff their economies since they have gathering taxes for their members.

      At the end of the day, game is becoming a bigger and bigger handholding fiesta. Not helpful in any way.
      "Newer guilds to sustain"
      Buy. Your. Own. Gear.

      If you can't afford your own gear, you shouldn't be ZvZ'ing.
      Your opinion claims not even %1 of the community. Thousands of people play the game with regears. Dont spread it like youre not the only one.
    • xGunner wrote:

      Nice, i like the changes, but unfortunately the zvz changes will not have the expected effect, changing territory fights/hideout fights from zvz to instanced fights (50x50) would be perfect

      And about safety, doesnt matter the duration of bubble if u can have one hideout every 10m, hideouts should be limited to 1 or 2 per zone
      The last thing Albion need's is more instanced content, please god no. Not everyone want's a MOBA like "fair fight".

      Fair fights are bland, boring, and repetitive and eventually get wittled down to just being the same exact thing over, and over.
    • Perfect changes, i would go further too.

      People are complaining about guilds increasing taxes over player.
      If u are in a guild that requires u to pay to be in such guild, the problem is the guild not the game. I really like the ideia of albion that large scale are 50people MAX.

      Nice changes, this may bring me back to the game.
    • AurumTitanos wrote:

      xGunner wrote:

      Nice, i like the changes, but unfortunately the zvz changes will not have the expected effect, changing territory fights/hideout fights from zvz to instanced fights (50x50) would be perfect

      And about safety, doesnt matter the duration of bubble if u can have one hideout every 10m, hideouts should be limited to 1 or 2 per zone
      The last thing Albion need's is more instanced content, please god no. Not everyone want's a MOBA like "fair fight".
      Fair fights are bland, boring, and repetitive and eventually get wittled down to just being the same exact thing over, and over.
      is not about being "fair", is about being an actual fight, i dont care if your guild needs 2 or 3 times more players than the enemy, the problem is that 200x300, 300x300, cluster qeue, cant even be called a fight

      Actually, zvz is basically an unorganized instanced fight , you have to wait in the qeue to join the fight, you have a chance of being removed from the zone in the middle of the fight and some other things that makes zvz pretty boring nowdays