Season point problems

    • SunYeon wrote:

      I think the in deep problem isnt the season points or the castles, every guild that want to exist in blackzone have to choose a big alliance where u are or aly/slave/renter. so we have the problem that here all those "slave" guilds are massing to defend castles being afk on them and defending them cuz if u dont do it u get kicked from the maps where u live in bz and ur hideout get destroyed. so yeah is a problem of politics but if the designers leave the game like this will happen what happened with eve online, there are coalitions so bigs and so strong that the game is dead cuz nobody even want to fight cuz everyone have their own part of the territory and they just potato farm everyday.
      Just one more of the issues that could be lowered if only one HO were allowed per cluster.

      A lot if not most of those renting guild would refuse to rent if they were not able to put their own HO.
    • Random thought, before I forget:

      What if Guild Seasons were actually designed to be different each time with different objectives or flavors. I know a lot of people have suggested that in the past and there is a game that actually makes it its whole selling-point (Crowfall).

      So, accepting that seasons will always be for a specific part of the player-base as a premise, because no matter how you design season point gain, some guilds can and will specialize toward that direction. If you make the season-points system fixed (and the past has shown that there is ways to change it up, by changing what rewards points and how many etc.) then guilds will always optimize toward that.

      But that means you clearly define what "the best" is.

      Anyway, the point is to change the win-condition.
    • Hellements wrote:

      Thanks for the feedback and inputs everyone.

      Crystal GvG Season Points were capped because you were able to create almost infinite season points by adding more crystal teams.

      Territories and Castles on the other hand are limited through game design and therefore have a hard cap there.

      There are currently no plans to limit point gains from other activities than Crystal GvGs.

      - Hellements
      Is everythink ok with you ? its sound like having 50+ castles is different then having 300 ppl active in gvg? its same shit, both are capped by the same. So you can get all castles by one guild, as well as having 300 gvg members in guild.
      SO how could you make "infinite" gvgs ?
    • Hellements wrote:

      Thanks for the feedback and inputs everyone.

      Crystal GvG Season Points were capped because you were able to create almost infinite season points by adding more crystal teams.

      Territories and Castles on the other hand are limited through game design and therefore have a hard cap there.

      There are currently no plans to limit point gains from other activities than Crystal GvGs.

      - Hellements
      So I suppose cGvG already had a ''hard cap'' before the change seeing as only 300 members could be doing crystals at any point? Using this logic, why was the crystal cap added if there was already a 300 player hard cap through game design?

      zerfaxx wrote:

      There is a hard cap on territories, since you added that system into the game.
      That isn't a hard cap, it's a soft cap. For example we saw Last Warn holding 71 territories at the last days of the season 11 for season points, ignoring the soft cap (ff debuff and siphoned debuff) .

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

    • Hellements wrote:

      Thanks for the feedback and inputs everyone.

      Crystal GvG Season Points were capped because you were able to create almost infinite season points by adding more crystal teams.

      Territories and Castles on the other hand are limited through game design and therefore have a hard cap there.

      There are currently no plans to limit point gains from other activities than Crystal GvGs.

      - Hellements
      By this logic there are only a certain number of players in the game that can do crystals, the server can only have so many people on it. This in turn is a hard limit. A guild can only have 300 people play crystals for it at one time as well you have a piss poor argument saying that the restraints of the game engine are enough to limit castle and territory scoring. Maybe instead of dismissing all the feedback you open your damn ears and actually listen to what people are saying and log into the game and look at the state of the game before making an excuse for a lack of development.
    • Bogul wrote:

      Anyway, the point is to change the win-condition.

      I have "problem" with you. Most of the time you act just like handholders/RTM advocate but other times you suddenly see problems which they create...

      DEVs should spend 90% of their time to fix BZ situation. Its MMO and it will be alive ONLY if game is alive. You only need like 3 months to realize you MUST BE slave for POE or BA or ARCH. If you are not one of them you WILL BE WIPED no matter how good you are are how determined. There is simply NO WAY to fight against almost 20k players in handhold. Even when you wipe them out on map 200 vs 200 the second wave of 200 arrive and next, and next, and next.....

      I'v spend last 5 seasons fighting against them in different guilds/coalitions. I'm able to do that only because HCE which let me farm specs and silver. There is no suprise that all of BA/POE rats are very aggresive vs HCE on forum and they always post about deleting this content or removing silver from it etc. Go, guess why they dont like that 1 part of game which cannot be controlled by handholding....

      We have pasted screenshoots of DMs from BA here which are proof that they are keeping all that castles/terries only because slaves defend it for them.

      Simple logic will tell you that no way any 300-600 ppl (counting freeman) can be in so many places at same time and all the time. But as proofs with screenshots and videos pasted before shows slaves are doing all the work and BA is just farming points. Then DEVs will create statue for cheaters and we will applause them for it? Rotfl....

      You can check how many battle reports you want but you will have problems to find ANY fight won by BA without massive slaves power

      kill-board.com/battles/poe/263130805?page=3&search=Blue+Army
      kill-board.com/battles/poe/263075201?page=3&search=Blue+Army
      kill-board.com/battles/poe/263069459?page=3&search=Blue+Army

      but you will find many reprots of fight when outnumbered guilds fight with that RMT cartel

      kill-board.com/battles/poe/262904070?page=5&search=Blue+Army (real numbers are CALL 104 vs RMTs 260)
      kill-board.com/battles/poe/262918263?page=5&search=Blue+Army epic wipe of slaves

      The situation that weak guilds control whole map and decide about everything just because they are handholding with 80% of server is pushing this game to dead end!

      ps. No i'm not in any of those guilds - just to be clear, i was in many even in POE/BA for some time so i know how this works
    • zerfaxx wrote:

      Hellements wrote:

      Thanks for the feedback and inputs everyone.

      Crystal GvG Season Points were capped because you were able to create almost infinite season points by adding more crystal teams.

      Territories and Castles on the other hand are limited through game design and therefore have a hard cap there.

      There are currently no plans to limit point gains from other activities than Crystal GvGs.

      - Hellements
      Thank you for responding Hellements. I have to disagree with you though.
      Everyone will agree. Crystal gvgs were too powerful. You nerfed them appropriately by adding a daily cap. But you were absolutely never able to create "infinite season points" via crystals. You were clearly capped by many factors. One being a guild paying more mercenary money than another guild, another being the very very very small pool of good 5v5 and 20v20 players available in the game, there being only 3 total gvg timers a day, and finally the total guild cap of 300 blocking you from an infinite number.

      So this was the correct move on SBI's part. But the problem is you stopped there. You favored one activity over the other. There is absolutely no reason why everything else in the game should have a cap but one singular activity, which generates by far the most points out of anything else in the game, is completely uncapped. The difference between castles and crystal gvgs was you could actually create "infinite" season points with castles. By leaving one character (in the designated season winner's guild) logged out near the castle to capture it, you just need your slave guild clear it for you.

      The problem then lies in the fact that the map is so massive now, that allying with way over half the black zone (diplomacy), means your enemies need to match your numbers (an impossible feat) and scatter and match across the entire black zone to deny these castles (running 30+ minutes away, daily, from your usual active zones).

      Finally. There is no "hard cap" on castles. There is a hard cap on territories, since you added that system into the game. Castles currently have absolutely no cap for no reason at all.

      I hope you will ignore the trash talk in this thread and read the thoughtful comments people are leaving on new system ideas and reconsider your stance. Thank you
      Well they probably don't consider the territory drain a hard cap - because it isn't. If it was a hard cap, guilds would be incapable of owning more than X amount of territories at a time. The current system is more of a soft cap - you CAN HAVE theoretically the entire map, but it would require so many resources that it would be impossible to upkeep. The current territory softcap we have should also work for castles.
    • Hellements wrote:

      Thanks for the feedback and inputs everyone.

      Crystal GvG Season Points were capped because you were able to create almost infinite season points by adding more crystal teams.

      Territories and Castles on the other hand are limited through game design and therefore have a hard cap there.

      There are currently no plans to limit point gains from other activities than Crystal GvGs.

      - Hellements


      The purpose of this thread was to discuss how diplomacy and castles are actually very unfair before some tried to turn it into a miserable shit show.

      It's somewhat upseting to read the community manager terrible statement about it. There isn't much to understand about it other than SBI is not ready to discuss this serious issue at this moment.

      The design argument completly miss the point. Regardless what the design or mechanic is player will try to take advatage of it and considering we are 14 days into the season and first position is pretty much settle should be an obvious wake up call. The castle design doesn't lead to a healty competitive gameplay for at least 80% of them.

      It's a recurring fact that for many seasons large coalition gang up on anyone to take over castles and settle agreement to share the benefit of owning them. Unfortunately the renting mechanics seems to encourage this situation and lead to bigger coalition...There is a large part of the players that believe playing the season is meaningless and prefer to fight without any goal. This doesn't seems something healthy for the game itself...

      The merit argument is also dubious.. With half the server under the same banner and castle being held by renters it feels like the major part of the point earned were unchallenged and achieved trough diplomacy... which is the topic here.

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

    • people do what the game allows, the game allows "diplomacy" to be abused people do it, it's not BA or POE's fault .. it's a fault in game design.
      as Hellements said so far they are not working and are not planning to change the castles system. You have to wait or change the game.

      #alliances and hideouts should be removed from the game.
    • zerfaxx wrote:




      This is a problem that should be addressed as soon as possible. This has gone on for nearly every single season of the game where the overall win is based on diplomatic castle take overs and has absolutely nothing to do with competitive pvp. Maybe 6 of these castles are being contested out of 32 at the moment. This is not a player made issue. This is a developer issue. Anyone that is claiming otherwise is only pushing their own coalition's agenda.

      Since as long as I've played this game, except for season 9, the squad alliance has chosen the winner of every season. The main way they achieve this victory is diplomatic castles. Nobody even tries to contest the #1 placement because the population of their forces are just so large, you cannot compete unless you bring equal numbers. Which in itself is a ridiculous proposition because of the games engine being barely able to handle such a large centralized force.

      This castle problem drives away the main focus of the game. Open world ZvZ battles. It is anti-competition and promotes no showing and dragging your opponents away from vital objectives. This is not the way the game should be played. It's a waste of time and not fun. The guild going for the #1 slot, should be the best guild in the game. Not the best diplomatic guild, not the best 5v5 crystal guild, not the best ZvZ guild, not the best ganking guild, not the best 20v20 crystal guild, not the best PVE guild, but THE BEST OVERALL GUILD.

      This leads into the main issue. SBI has done so many things to combat other guilds attempting to go for rank #1. Disarray was added into the game to stop one shot builds from wiping entire zergs. Territories were given a cap and drain to combat this very similar issue to castles. Siphoned storage was added to territories to make it more meaningful to hold them for an entire territory reset. Territory gvgs were removed to limit the strength of the impact 5v5 teams had on taking territories. City gvgs were removed to take out the massive amount of silver it generated. This last one is very important because it shows a theme in SBI's bias towards this one particular guild, blue army.

      Blue army was allowed to hold cities for multiple seasons without being contested and farming way over 100 billion silver while holding them. Elevate held them for a season, my cities being heavily contested, and they were swiftly removed. I'm willing to give SBI the benefit of the doubt on this issue because they wanted to add something for their faction warfare updated, but absolutely nothing has been added in the game to replace this and the silver generated from city crafting plot auctions is going nowhere.

      I will end this post by suggesting the easiest and quickest fix. Use a similar system on castles that you use for territories. Make them launchable territories and use a siphon storage. Penalize guilds holding a massive amount of castles by limiting their overall season point gain. These are only a couple ideas but something has to be done to limit the amount of castles one guild can hold without them being contested at all. More has to be done on SBI's part to make this game more competitive overall.

      Thank you for reading this and I hope this generates some serious discussion on this topic. I wish to see seasons be more competitive.
      But it's not a developer issue, and it is a player-made issue. Myself disagreeing with you is not pushing my guild's agenda either, because we do not care about season ranks or crystal points. I'm unbiased, and if anything you're projecting. Insinuating if anyone else thinks differently then they're only self-serving, but your entire post is one huge QQ with the intention to push your own agenda and interests. Its hypocritical at the least.

      The developers stated why crystal points are capped, why castles/outposts aren't, and it makes sense. There can be an infinite amount of crystal teams for a single guild, but there are only a finite amount of castles/outposts a guild can take. It's a player-made issue because the players are dictating this style of play. The developers intended Albion to be a sandbox MMO, and player interaction is their endgame. In sandboxes, the game is what you make it to be, and the strongest force in the game wants handholding. Defining any guild as "the best overall guild" is a very subjective definition which varies with opinion. Although at this moment, technically Blue Army are the best because they're leading the season board and are best at playing diplomatic games which got them there. Other sandbox/open world games are generally the same; there is no end-game content, so players make the content. Their guild is better at interacting with and manipulating other guilds than yours. Turning castles into territories would only mean more territories, and there's plenty wrong with territories already. That suggested change would do nothing.

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

    • Jumbo.Shrimp wrote:

      zerfaxx wrote:




      This is a problem that should be addressed as soon as possible. This has gone on for nearly every single season of the game where the overall win is based on diplomatic castle take overs and has absolutely nothing to do with competitive pvp. Maybe 6 of these castles are being contested out of 32 at the moment. This is not a player made issue. This is a developer issue. Anyone that is claiming otherwise is only pushing their own coalition's agenda.

      Since as long as I've played this game, except for season 9, the squad alliance has chosen the winner of every season. The main way they achieve this victory is diplomatic castles. Nobody even tries to contest the #1 placement because the population of their forces are just so large, you cannot compete unless you bring equal numbers. Which in itself is a ridiculous proposition because of the games engine being barely able to handle such a large centralized force.

      This castle problem drives away the main focus of the game. Open world ZvZ battles. It is anti-competition and promotes no showing and dragging your opponents away from vital objectives. This is not the way the game should be played. It's a waste of time and not fun. The guild going for the #1 slot, should be the best guild in the game. Not the best diplomatic guild, not the best 5v5 crystal guild, not the best ZvZ guild, not the best ganking guild, not the best 20v20 crystal guild, not the best PVE guild, but THE BEST OVERALL GUILD.

      This leads into the main issue. SBI has done so many things to combat other guilds attempting to go for rank #1. Disarray was added into the game to stop one shot builds from wiping entire zergs. Territories were given a cap and drain to combat this very similar issue to castles. Siphoned storage was added to territories to make it more meaningful to hold them for an entire territory reset. Territory gvgs were removed to limit the strength of the impact 5v5 teams had on taking territories. City gvgs were removed to take out the massive amount of silver it generated. This last one is very important because it shows a theme in SBI's bias towards this one particular guild, blue army.

      Blue army was allowed to hold cities for multiple seasons without being contested and farming way over 100 billion silver while holding them. Elevate held them for a season, my cities being heavily contested, and they were swiftly removed. I'm willing to give SBI the benefit of the doubt on this issue because they wanted to add something for their faction warfare updated, but absolutely nothing has been added in the game to replace this and the silver generated from city crafting plot auctions is going nowhere.

      I will end this post by suggesting the easiest and quickest fix. Use a similar system on castles that you use for territories. Make them launchable territories and use a siphon storage. Penalize guilds holding a massive amount of castles by limiting their overall season point gain. These are only a couple ideas but something has to be done to limit the amount of castles one guild can hold without them being contested at all. More has to be done on SBI's part to make this game more competitive overall.

      Thank you for reading this and I hope this generates some serious discussion on this topic. I wish to see seasons be more competitive.
      But it's not a developer issue, and it is a player-made issue. Myself disagreeing with you is not pushing my guild's agenda either, because we do not care about season ranks or crystal points. I'm unbiased, and if anything you're projecting. Insinuating if anyone else thinks differently then they're only self-serving, but your entire post is one huge QQ with the intention to push your own agenda and interests. Its hypocritical at the least.
      The developers stated why crystal points are capped, why castles/outposts aren't, and it makes sense. There can be an infinite amount of crystal teams for a single guild, but there are only a finite amount of castles/outposts a guild can take. It's a player-made issue because the players are dictating this style of play. The developers intended Albion to be a sandbox MMO, and player interaction is their endgame. In sandboxes, the game is what you make it to be, and the strongest force in the game wants handholding. Defining any guild as "the best overall guild" is a very subjective definition which varies with opinion. Although at this moment, technically Blue Army are the best because they're leading the season board and are best at playing diplomatic games which got them there. Other sandbox/open world games are generally the same; there is no end-game content, so players make the content. Their guild is better at interacting with and manipulating other guilds than yours. Turning castles into territories would only mean more territories, and there's plenty wrong with territories already. That suggested change would do nothing.
      Typical washed up comment.

      When there is a player made issue that is considered as significantly damaging, they fix it. It is true for game exploit as it is for anything else that can bring an unhealthy or unfair game experience. If you do acknowledge there is 80% of the castles that remain unchallenged, you should be able to understand it is not something working well. Diplomacy is fine but when it cause entire region of the server to remain uncontested for many seasons it is not fun for anyone. In the long runit hurt the game and make albion less attractive.

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

    • Ofc there is a baseplayer issue anyone that can have easy fights and control more and more territories just by put more ppl in the maps will do it, thats how irl war works, u have ppl in this game ready to sacrifice the fun of thousands of ppl just to make a couple of thousands dollars per month.

      Is so simple to understand just imagine, if ur a new guild with what 200 ppl, and u think ur a strong, u mass around 60-80ppl, and u want to try to enter in bz and put a HO in anyplace of bz, the second day of ur HO u will be expulse from arch/poe/squad/grmor/nope/surf, there isnt place in all bz that u cant escape, or u join as renter/slave or be good enough to be ally.

      so the game is constantly getting new and new players everyday but they or get stuck in red/yellow zones, or join big coallitions guilds and slave urself.

      Thats why managment and design CANT listen to the player representants all of them dont matter wich side will always try to make things on their favor, dont make the same mistake that eve online did where the game follow what the playerbase want and ended in a handhold so big that the game is dead.
    • I don't get it.

      So Elevate is crying that BA is holding/obtaining open world objectives? What's to stop Elevate from amassing a huge coalition (which last I checked I think they have a real big coalition too) and contesting? Wasn't season 10 or whatever - the season where Elevate literally got rank 1 because they had like 20 crystal GvG teams playing every timer and generating season points?

      There's "handholding" in every PvP-centric game - diplomacy and politics have always been a thing whether in gaming or even RL situations.

      Kind've a self centered OP imo.
    • Elenor wrote:

      I don't get it.

      So Elevate is crying that BA is holding/obtaining open world objectives? What's to stop Elevate from amassing a huge coalition (which last I checked I think they have a real big coalition too) and contesting? Wasn't season 10 or whatever - the season where Elevate literally got rank 1 because they had like 20 crystal GvG teams playing every timer and generating season points?

      There's "handholding" in every PvP-centric game - diplomacy and politics have always been a thing whether in gaming or even RL situations.

      Kind've a self centered OP imo.
      But afterwards, SBI added caps for points, and removed cities. Saying "it's in every game, deal with it" isn't exactly a solution to the problem either.
    • Expax wrote:

      Jumbo.Shrimp wrote:

      There can be an infinite amount of crystal teams for a single guild, but there are only a finite amount of castles/outposts a guild can take.
      Just want to remind you that 300 / 5 does not equal infinity.
      Not literal infinity because that's impossible, duh, but alliances and point sharing exist too. A large alliance with each guild carrying its own weight should net more points for a single guild than if they were solo. "Crystal Team Points" probably would've been better language to use. Even if you consider a numerical maximum of sixty 5's teams and/or fifteen 20's teams, then that's still an absurd amount of points generated from high level crystals (assuming they make it). Show for castles and outposts? They're getting those points because time and work is invested, just like any other MMO. Regardless if they're handholding and getting spoon-fed, its a collective earning those points even if I highly disagree with it.
    • Could the answer to why do people not contest these Outposts be: it is full loot.

      If you die it actually means something significant. If a group of newer players dies in competitive gear, they might feel it. So taking a lot of unfavoured Fights is not possible.
      If an established Guild with HO wants to contest Outposts but BA says: if you do.. we hammer your HO, they have something significant to loose -> a lot of convenience to do the FF,gathering.
      For others there might be diplomatic Ties, or too much distance for a No-Show or getting massively outnumbered.

      Now if this is truly a big influence, I dont know what the solution is
      Every time you win a fight there also has to be a looser, and in albion you cant just loose indefinetly (at least for most, maybe if you main gathering or crafting).

      Full-loot is great, it makes the game meaningful. But Im guessing it makes a lot of players crave security in any way, which does mimic human evolution.
      Now I know there are many players that dont care much about dying and their Gear, but a lot of medium Guilds could attack these objectives but they dont, and a lot of very experienced and rich players try to fight those medium Guilds for the Fun of killing some unexperienced Groups rather than contesting the Top Dogs.

      maybe a lot guilds and players desire too much. To good of a zone, too efficient FF (.. high seasonRank, HOs), I think a lot guilds complaining would actually want to get not just 1 or 2 Castle outposts (this is very possible from my experience) but also hold 10, 20 themselves. and this desire makes them dependant. On Alliances, on developers, on Diplomacy, on their own players. Even if truth to this, I got no idea what the solution could be.

      Well anyway Im posting this unprodictive addition to the discussion onto the lovely internet, good luck :P

      The post was edited 2 times, last by jack12 ().