AlbionTV Feedback Loop #2 - Open World in the Outlands

    • AlbionTV Feedback Loop #2 - Open World in the Outlands

      edit: links


      twitch: twitch.tv/videos/1048137507






      Hey guys!

      As part of the AlbionTV program on the AlbionOnline twitch channel, we are piloting a new format, now called the Feedback Loop with Episode #2 airing on Wednesday the 2nd of June at 19:00 UTC.

      Within this format we want to select and present feedback and opinions from the community on certain hot topics of the time.

      The goals will be to:
      1. collect and present different community viewpoints and opinions
      2. filter and present it in a concise way, so the Albion Online Developers can directly respond to or give input on the topics presented
      Because we are airing the show on the official Albion Online twitch channel, we are fortunate to be able to work directly with some of the Albion Online Devs on parts of the show!

      This is the second thread in a series of topics that will be created here in the Feedback & Suggestions forum. Each show (currently planned on a bi-weekly basis) will have its own thread to consolidate the discussion. In case you missed the first episode, here is the link to it.

      A few quick notes before we get to this weeks’ topics:
      • this is not a live Q&A show, but we collect & present the feedback we can find and receive during the time leading up to each show
      • due to how much time it takes to put together feedback and fit that into the very busy dev-schedule, each show must be limited in its scope to keep each episode brief and to the point
      • once the show is over, the discussion doesn’t stop and we want to continue collecting the feedback - so please keep the posts coming, both on the topics presented and especially if you thought we missed or overlooked anything on a certain topic
      • you can either post your feedback into this thread directly or link to it if you have already made a post about it in the past
      • all feedback must be constructive, personal attacks or otherwise poorly worded rants will have to go straight to the trash-filter-bin, I assume you know what I mean - be nice
      Feedback Loop #2 topic:
      • Open World Activities in the Outlands
      • Whether it's a small issue that can be fixed quickly or larger more complex topics - please let us know.
      • What activities need a rework in the outlands and how would you like to see them changed?
      • Here are some example topics that might make sense:
        • Hideouts
        • Static Dungeons
        • World Bosses
      The second episode will air live on Wednesday June 2nd at 19:00 UTC.

      Join us live or watch the VOD later at www.twitch.tv/AlbionOnline :)

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

    • **Open World Black Zone Activities** Suggestions
      • Increase both overall mob fame gain and loot drop rates for higher tier zones (give players a better incentive on being more active for mob clearing in the open world, not just the dungeons)
      • Increase mob camps spawning around each zone to make it much more accessible (so it doesn't have to be a long run around the map just looking for one specifically)
      • Speed up the respawn timers for mid-high tier resources T6-T7 (more resources = much more incentive to gather, resulting in much more traffic in the zones)
      **Static Dungeons** Suggestions
      • Increase overall SILVER drops from the Elite (*mobs that give fame bonus stacks*) mobs and Treasure chests (the fame from the static dungeon mobs are decent however, the dungeons inside the static dungeon still provide better fame, hence it was not really as enticing to group dungeon fame farmers however, the amount of silver gained being increased could allow for a better incentive to clear the mobs outside the dungeons inside the static dungeon)
      • Increase loot drop rates from the static dungeon treasure chests (increased loot rewards will certainly catch the eye of more and more players and encourage them to venture towards the outland static dungeons for greener pastures.)
    • I think hideouts are pretty difficult to balance around if you want to make everyone happy. Their whole point is to make the bz safer, but there's a lot of complaint about how they make the bz 'too safe'. I sorta agree and disagree with this.

      On the one hand, it's pretty hard to deny that being able to run from zone entrance -> HO -> HO or from HO -> objective (static dungeon or whatever) does make it pretty safe to travel around the bz - possibly too safe. Having bubble for 100% of your travel time does limit risk of getting ganked. Having a HO in a castle/outpost zone does make it way easier to hold it at every scoring timer, or secure whatever other in-zone objective you want.

      But - is that not the point? Why would I put down a 20m+ HO in the openworld where (in theory) I can lose it whenever I lose the territory? If I'm NOT getting something valuable out of it, then it's not a good investment, and so there's no point to it. If I can afford to place multiple HOs to keep my guild members safe, or secure objectives, or support my alliance - why wouldn't I?

      Also, we should look at ARCH and their territories. In spite of all the 'safety' that HOs bring, I'd bet that more people die in Redtree Enclave and Longfen Arms outside of CTA timers than any other zone in the game. Why? Because people know ARCH will be there, they know that they will mass to defend their zones, and they not that they have the population in zone at all times to support that. This is because the HOs in R3 are where people LIVE in the bz - their importance as a place to play out of is more valuable than their strategic importance in filling the zone (realistically ARCH can mass enough that it would be difficult to place a HO in R3 even if there was space free).

      I think HOs need to be changed to incentivise them as a home first and foremost, and as a strategic tool second. I think you should be able to open the map, see that there's a T3 Elevate (or whoever) HO in a zone and think 'They must live out of that HO, if I go there I'll find that guild's members in zone'.

      I haven't really offered any suggestions or solutions so far. I don't like the idea of artificial limiters to HO per zone, or HO per guild, because Albion is meant to be a sandbox right? If I want to place 12 T1 HOs, and can afford it, and can secure them from the territory owner diplomatically or with rent, why shouldn't I? If I want to sell someone HO access for silver, why should I be limited to only my own guild or alliance?

      If I was gonna offer suggestions: Reset HOs every season. Make it more difficult to secure your same zones every reset, shake up the positions of major alliances, let more guilds have a chance at placing. Especially in the roads - once a HO is upgraded to T2 there you have to be super invested to take it down. With the home set changes, make T3 HOs more expensive to build/maintain - they should be an investment for the whole season. Make T1/T2 cheaper so they're less punishing to be reset every season. Slightly reduce bubble range from a HO (I believe this is already getting implemented). Add a slight channel to get in maybe - doable while mounted, so gankers can stop crying hopefully.

      The first HO you place at the season is your 'home' HO - activities in zone get a +15% fame boost, This synergises well with the roaming mob changes, encourages open world, encourages people to live and gather in their zones. Doesn't work for the roads, but hey, you live in the roads. That's on you. You have other benefits.

      Lot of stuff also hinges on the politics of the bz, especially currently where massive powerblocks means HOs are probably at less risk if you're part of those. I'd say some changes need to be made to make it less simple to ally out of alliance, or more incentive to attack your bordering territories, but that's a whole new topic.
      Arcane shill - 700/700
    • Increase BZ static dungeon fame overall.
      It makes no sense for a group of people to go in and risk 3-10 mill of gear in total everyday to gankers for fame lower than goddamn Solos 8.1 while others max their spec trees over a weekend having the absolute safety of royal cities wearing "expensive" gear they never lose and can resell anytime. There is no incentive for an intermediate player to go into a static dungeon if he can temporarily spend 10-15 mill on a basic HCE set. Cant even recall when was the last time I saw people inside a low tier static dungeon on bz. It's going to depopulate even more with the incoming bubble protection changes as the risks keep getting higher with no reward at all.
    • Hideouts offer far too much safety and also add the whole "Renting" to the game (arguably the best money for a guild).

      -I suggest removing hideouts all together, and going back to the home set on territory's like pre queen (alliances couldn't set home on territories) Therefore if you want to rent your territory to another person you dont have the benefit of setting home OR getting season points.

      Castle loot doesn't cover the costs of a zerg wiping to protect it in regears. There are too many castles on all timers (go back to castles having specific timers please (too many of them going uncontested (free loot))).

      With the purposed Transmutation changes, Guilds will be hardpressed to regear their members.
      -With that being said, lets talk about the lack of resource territories, Pre-queen most zones were resources and some were farms, now most are farms (i think the idea was you could use the farms to feed your hideouts but i am willing to bet guilds would prefer resources over farms).

      Its a sad state when the main fighting objective is the mammoth world boss for guilds (best income). The fact that they don't respawn randomly and have set timers to respawn also is silly (make it completely random after X amount of hours, and let guilds scout it 24/7 instead of specific timers).
    • A potential implementation of siege equipment for castles and outposts to have more interesting battles partaking upon them for a rework to their mechanics of taking castles. In medieval history, siege equipment was used in order to take over fortified castles. The possibilities of implementing fixated equipment at sites, or even carriable items that could be placed and taking a few minutes to fully construct, would then be able to be operated by players. This can go either way for inside or outside the castle itself. Having a ballista sit atop a castle wall to fire down upon the army below, or a battering ram to bash into the gateways of the sieged structure. Catapults to target enemy siege equipment's and break them out of commission to counter the equipment being used, there is much to take from inspiration, perhaps even several options to castle layouts to add new flavor to the castle fight experience. For so long, Albion has had the same template for castles. Consider it a revamp to the open world much like Hellgate's changes to the maps were implemented in part to aesthetics of the Hellgate's.

      An example of this in another MMO would be from Elder Scrolls Online, within Cyrodiil, it's pvp region of the map where there were the castles and outposts within that region that only could be broken into by enemy players from siege equipment. Players vaulting catapult's volleys at walls, smashing doors with the battering rams, and defending those castles with ballistae to attack from afar and burning oil cauldrons to defend the doorways. The siege equipment itself did not much on its own, and a solo player would take quite an effort to break into the castle, hence it may act as a support tool to castle sieging in the open world here in Albion. Demolition hammers themselves do the job quite fast, however if they were scaled back to deal less damage, implementing siege weaponry for destruction of hardy structures would be an interesting implementation to our world of Albion. Laying siege to castles, razing enemy hideouts, or even adding a layer of siege required to take over an enemy territory. Just some simple thoughts coming from a guy on the internet.

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

    • 1. if the idea was to live in black zones, there are rests for that .. hideouts must take a static role, special points on the map with an additional place for a shelter that you have to fight for, as well as for territories with 1-3 shields to defend, no more than 1 by 2 maps. (without the set home option, there are rests for this, scouting must be removed! or kept to a minimum!)
      2. most of the "changes" are targeted at the new player, but what about players who are not interested in PVE and spec upgrading? (more rewards in $$)
      3. restore the old resource system (pre queen)..
      4. the problem with the Avalonian roads definitely too many of them .. looking at the size of the clusters..
      5. the current camps on the map should contain at least one boss that will have a chance to drop an ARTIFACT, which will allow the player to farm special type artifacts..

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Quagga ().

    • The biggest problem with open-world is that nothing is being done in it except zvzing and ganking, and ganking is mostly done in the 5% populated maps. gathering is terrible so no one gathers, FFing is done inside statics or randomized dungeons. This makes it so 95% of outlands maps are completely empty. So to make it so the outlands are really a place for guilds to live in you should do something alone the lines of
      1. buff gathering (hopefully next patch will completely fix this)
      2. massively buff and drops openworld fame mobs (will be done in next patch)
      3. buff fame and drops in the open-world part of static dungeons
      4. increase the number of roaming mobs, and add mob camps in open world to make it kinda like most mmos where most famefarming is done in openworld instead of dungeons/raids
      5. increase areas of territories that you can use for farming/raising animals, change it so that the yield can be "stolen" by reds if not collected right in time, this would create a new type of PVP where guilds just raid other's terries for their crops/animals. yeah there will be the limitation of crops/animals weight but still would generate a new kind of pvping
      6. add open-world buildings , like back in pre-queen times with townplots because then you would get crafters in open-world as well which means more pvp there to defend them/gank them.
      7. current HOs are OP, rework them so they complement the open-world buildings
    • I've made a couple of open world suggestions before but ultimately I think the best feedback would be regarding the general philosophy of content development for albion online. Quote from this thread here:

      fip wrote:

      The way content is currently implemented to appear in the world is as a constant, one that will always exist and acts a vending machine to a certain type of content. These are the dungeons, mob camps, resources of the world - they cannot be changed in any way and exist purely as a glowing flag to enter a certain subsection of the game
      Basically, I'd like to see content be developed for more organic, freeform gameplay rather than static, respawning constants and instance gateways. Imagine the gameplay possibilities that could come with something like building your own town in the blackzone: dynamic quests based on the town's needs, different ways of optimizing the town layout to produce different items or silver, dynamically changing the tier of the zone, having to caravan NPC 'colonists' to make the town run (albion has a theme of colonialism, after all), raiding towns, infiltrating towns with disguises and sabotaging, or even starting a cult that if undiscovered, can summon a demon in the middle of town to wreak havoc on it. I think most players would like to see open world get a bit more lively and dynamic, and there are much more simple ideas as well that can generate a ton of value for content.
    • fip wrote:

      I've made a couple of open world suggestions before but ultimately I think the best feedback would be regarding the general philosophy of content development for albion online. Quote from this thread here:

      fip wrote:

      The way content is currently implemented to appear in the world is as a constant, one that will always exist and acts a vending machine to a certain type of content. These are the dungeons, mob camps, resources of the world - they cannot be changed in any way and exist purely as a glowing flag to enter a certain subsection of the game
      Basically, I'd like to see content be developed for more organic, freeform gameplay rather than static, respawning constants and instance gateways. Imagine the gameplay possibilities that could come with something like building your own town in the blackzone: dynamic quests based on the town's needs, different ways of optimizing the town layout to produce different items or silver, dynamically changing the tier of the zone, having to caravan NPC 'colonists' to make the town run (albion has a theme of colonialism, after all), raiding towns, infiltrating towns with disguises and sabotaging, or even starting a cult that if undiscovered, can summon a demon in the middle of town to wreak havoc on it. I think most players would like to see open world get a bit more lively and dynamic, and there are much more simple ideas as well that can generate a ton of value for content.
      I've been fighting against instanced content since Beta 1, but everyone told me to shut up. HCE was the first step down the awful path.

      Instanced content is the downfall of a social open-world mmo. The more you add, the worse it gets.
    • AurumTitanos wrote:

      fip wrote:

      I've made a couple of open world suggestions before but ultimately I think the best feedback would be regarding the general philosophy of content development for albion online. Quote from this thread here:

      fip wrote:

      The way content is currently implemented to appear in the world is as a constant, one that will always exist and acts a vending machine to a certain type of content. These are the dungeons, mob camps, resources of the world - they cannot be changed in any way and exist purely as a glowing flag to enter a certain subsection of the game
      Basically, I'd like to see content be developed for more organic, freeform gameplay rather than static, respawning constants and instance gateways. Imagine the gameplay possibilities that could come with something like building your own town in the blackzone: dynamic quests based on the town's needs, different ways of optimizing the town layout to produce different items or silver, dynamically changing the tier of the zone, having to caravan NPC 'colonists' to make the town run (albion has a theme of colonialism, after all), raiding towns, infiltrating towns with disguises and sabotaging, or even starting a cult that if undiscovered, can summon a demon in the middle of town to wreak havoc on it. I think most players would like to see open world get a bit more lively and dynamic, and there are much more simple ideas as well that can generate a ton of value for content.
      I've been fighting against instanced content since Beta 1, but everyone told me to shut up. HCE was the first step down the awful path.
      Instanced content is the downfall of a social open-world mmo. The more you add, the worse it gets.
      To be honest I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I think the game has a good range of instance content which is honestly great if you don't want to deal with open world bullshit. This is the place where you can tryhard and expect a measure of competitiveness. In my opinion, open world is mostly for messing around and seeing what mischief you can get up to using the toys provided. static options are 1v1, 2v2, 5v5, 10v10 and 20v20 pvp and solo, 5 man and 20 man pve and really what else could you ask for? these options are at a decent volume and while I think that while SBI should still update, maintain and balance these options, it's really time to stop adding them and focus on what has been neglected, which is open world. The two sides should have a balanced range of content rather than hard focusing one or the other..
    • About Hide outs:

      One hide out per cluster is enough to have relative safety if you have access to it but it would be dangerous enough to recover the permanent under risk feeling the outlands had.

      If there is more than one HO in the same cluster make them all self destroy at 1 shield per day until there is only one remaining in the zone.

      Make them more expensive to be created and sustained.

      You could change the mechanic of shield regeneration making the HOs need additional stone blocks depending on the damage taken during the last attack to mantain the stone/blocks demand.

      No channelings to get in since there would be only one hide out per cluster this way.
    • Hideouts:

      Either like what Guilefulwolf said above, and only allow 1 hideout per cluster, or keep the current bubble changes and add a channel.
      If a channel is added, I still think the number of hideouts in a zone needs reduced (12+ is absurd).

      I support the idea of a season point draft pick for hideouts, under the assumption only 1 hideout would be allowed per zone. This would cause hilarious drama among big alliances as only the lead guild would be allowed to collect season points. All the smaller guilds would be starved of any season points or ranking to ensure the main guild gets its pick first. This may indirectly fix the massive alliance issues we have in game, and create more conflict in the black zone and less hand-holding.

      Home changes:

      The proposed change to allow individuals to teleport to their home in the black zone hideout after portal use is not a good one. For small scale roaming guilds like my guild, that attack territories / gank zones / take somewhat outnumbered fights, it would allow the guilds entire "police" force to immediately teleport to their home and mass on us with 300 within seconds. They would be able to do this regardless of their choice to reset their home lock by using the portal, and would eliminate that bit of time we have to try to take a moderately outnumbered fight before the full zerg manages to get to the zone.


      This also defeats the distance element of the game, and makes everything feel like more of a fast travel system where you don't have to plan ahead your activities and think about travel time. It also will remove lots of content from the roads as some people use the roads to get back to their main zones quickly, and specifically roads guilds would be able to then teleport in and out of their roads hideout without ever needing to worry about finding the path again (which defeats the purpose).


      All in all, I think that the home change would be a devastatingly bad change, more so than any change proposed before to the black zone. If you insist on pushing through a home change, I would limit the no home loss functionality to rests only, and not to hideouts. This would at least give 2/3 zones before they could reach you, and would make those players consciously choose between setting their homes at the rest and not losing their home, or their own hideout.

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

    • AurumTitanos wrote:

      Home changes:


      The proposed change to allow individuals to teleport to their home in the black zone hideout is not a good one. For small scale roaming guilds like my guild, that attack territories / gank zones / take somewhat outnumbered fights, it would allow the guilds "police" force to immediately teleport to their home and mass on us with 300 within seconds. They would be able to do this regardless of their choice to go to the royals and engage in some other content, and would eliminate that bit of time we have to try to take a moderately outnumbered fight before the full zerg manages to get to the zone.


      This also defeats the distance element of the game, and makes everything feel like more of a fast travel system where you don't have to plan ahead your activities and think about travel time. It also will remove lots of content from the roads as some people use the roads to get back to their main zones quickly, and specifically roads guilds would be able to then teleport in and out of their roads hideout without ever needing to worry about finding the path again (which defeats the purpose).


      All in all, I think that the home change would be a devastatingly bad change, more so than any change proposed before to the black zone. If you insist on pushing through a home change, I would limit the no home loss functionality to rests only, and not to hideouts. This would at least give 2/3 zones before they could reach you, and would make those players consciously choose between setting their homes at the rest and not losing their home, or their own hideout.
      Also, Shozen's argument in the video was non-sensical. He talked about teleporting back to your hideout after royal content. That is still very much possible with the current home system as that is what it was designed to do. Your home doesn't get reset when you do royal content.
    • One of the problems on the roads is that the HO places that become totally dominated territories are easily controlled, invading it is too complex to massify people and even more so when the HO are already fully occupied.

      I think the black zone and zvz are well implemented, but the game is pretty much focused on group content. I think since Albion is also rolling out mobile mode, there should be more informal content "casual".

      It would be good to re-implement the invasion of the lonely masmorras in the red and black areas, increasing the loot and the fame of these since at this moment they are not very attractive,

      The workers of the islands, at the moment, very few people use them, since they are not attractive either.

      I think there should be a bit more incentive when growing in non-guild-dominated areas.

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

    • I don't think that increasing rewards (Fame, loots, silver) provide any benefits to improve activities and competitivities. May be on a short term, new people will try it to see but quickly they would realize that there is two options, no opposition shows up and they get huge rewards, opposition shows up and they lose everything. In both case, there is no fun (just great rewards sometimes, also a reason you find so many rats in many contents). The only ones who get the long term benefits of these changes are so one already doing it by getting always richer and stronger.
      Only solution is to give space for every range of skill players / organized guilds to face competition of similar level to them. Everybody enjoys a close fight and ask for more but you can only accept so many stomp until you get tired. You either keep winning and get bored or keep dying and stop participating. I read in the past that a older brother would need to learn that he needs to let his little brother wins around 30% of the time for the little brother to keep playing with him.

      It is not the topic here but I think it is very clear with 20v20, new guilds start and get stomp and get no rewards. One time, second time, third time and they stop. Only thing which changes is teams that already used to participate get better rewards so they are farming it even more now. My suggestion would be to instantiate a MMR system for lvl1 and forbid queue to lvl1 above a threshold (Congratulations, you are good, only lvl 2 and more for you now, in opposition, you would need a min mmr requirement to play lvl 2).

      My current issue with black zone currently is that a group of players (group, guild or alliances) can have impact over half the black zones quite easily. I would not recommend to make it bigger but to at least implement some mechanics to make it the distance relevant. Also, the strong allies with other strong currently to fight against the weak and there is no fun.

      Here a couple of idea that could be explored, some of the them are also clearly in direction of the reduction of the super alliances which are for my opinion a big reason on the lack of activities in the black zone.
      - Decreased rewards (season points) when you are far from your home (HO, territories) would make the same objectives more contested by the local groups.
      - Only possible to attack territories which are bordering the ones you already own to make for very contested areas and deprive alliances which ally with everyone of expansion possibilities and contents.
      - Only 3 Hideouts max by zone and only accessible by members of the same alliance, no more public, it is supposed to be your secret underground base, not a mall. That would give plenty of reasons to contest and fight for them.
      - Regarding the queue, provide a huge IP priority to the defending alliance and to the main attacking alliance during territory fight. Rather that protecting and acquiring territories by diplomacy or by paying for it, you will need to be able to fight for it (impact limited by the bordering only idea). Obviously, no more multiple alliances attack anymore for the same timer

      My Conclusion is: More people in the black zone means bigger density, which means more people fighting for the same local resources and objectives. In opposition of to a single group of people able to dominate a big area and forcing everyone under them to play nice with each others.

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

    • 1. channeling access into hideouts, if you get hit channeling will be interrupted.
      2. 1 hideout per zone. without option to access to other alliances
      3. also scouting need a closer look, like sbi was banning people for self scouting, now I dont hear about self scout banns from while. I would proposal to add total fame to be able set home in hideouts, like 20-30m its not that much but can preventing many people from naked self scouting and make open world content less safety
      4. less fame bonus from mobs in open world, more silver.. as player with almost everything with full spec I dont care about fame bonus, I want $$
      5. delete portal locks, let people travel arround whole map. hideout home will be reseted anyway. if my lock is dominated for example fort sterling, and have traveling for 6-9 zones to be able gank and seen enemys.. just let people jump into other portal and leggo CONTENT, overall more ZVZ conflict, less renting.