Season point problems

    • Georg51 wrote:

      You know it may be going out on a limb here but maybe, maybe, SBI needs actual proof that certain players are RMTing to band them. Something you and your group of complainers continually fail to provide.
      Basically just looking for more excuses for losing.
      SBI is afraid to remove them from the game .. it can cause the game to collapse

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Nesnes: openly accusing other players of rmt is prohibited by forum rules ().

    • Quagga wrote:

      SBI is afraid to remove them from the game .. it can cause the game to collapse, the perfect example is your person, if eg: mojo got banned, you would go crazy.
      Alot of "if" examples out here, would be great if people actually had proof or are they just looking to try and tarnish a player's reputation.

      E.g man didn't login after a banwave and people actually assumed he was banned and 3 days later he logs in and laughs at the dumbasses and their fake bs.
    • @Avry

      You seem to be pretty insistent that the developers should change the game to enable you and your circle of guilds to "win" at something. While that is understandable, it's most certainly got nothing to do with "saving the game" and everything to do with a misguided impression that SBI owes you something, a participation trophy of sorts, for playing their game.

      There's also very misguided belief that your same circle of guilds should be able to attack whomever they please for the sake of "content", and whomever your attack isn't allowed to fight back too hard (or god forbid, win) because everyone in this game needs to tiptoe around your circle of guilds making sure you're having fun.

      This mindset worked fine with VENMO for example, who simply ceased to exist. The problem occurs when when you attack someone who doesnt give a flying fuck about you or your "fun", and you dont succeed. Your guilds start dying one by one, you start declaring the war over. But is any war really over, simply because one side decided it is?

      This particular war, your "resistance furrer" advertised as the Last War. Quite literally saying if you don't win, you're leaving. The ultimate temper tantrum of a child that isn't getting what it wants so it's gonna take its toys and leave, thinking the rest of us actually give a fuck. Don't let the door hit you on your way out, we'll take care of the hideouts you leave behind.

      Good luck in your future adventures, next time when you take a shot at someone, try harder to hit the target.
    • Syndic wrote:

      @Avry

      You seem to be pretty insistent that the developers should change the game to enable you and your circle of guilds to "win" at something. While that is understandable, it's most certainly got nothing to do with "saving the game" and everything to do with a misguided impression that SBI owes you something, a participation trophy of sorts, for playing their game.

      There's also very misguided belief that your same circle of guilds should be able to attack whomever they please for the sake of "content", and whomever your attack isn't allowed to fight back too hard (or god forbid, win) because everyone in this game needs to tiptoe around your circle of guilds making sure you're having fun.

      This mindset worked fine with VENMO for example, who simply ceased to exist. The problem occurs when when you attack someone who doesnt give a flying fuck about you or your "fun", and you dont succeed. Your guilds start dying one by one, you start declaring the war over. But is any war really over, simply because one side decided it is?

      This particular war, your "resistance furrer" advertised as the Last War. Quite literally saying if you don't win, you're leaving. The ultimate temper tantrum of a child that isn't getting what it wants so it's gonna take its toys and leave, thinking the rest of us actually give a fuck. Don't let the door hit you on your way out, we'll take care of the hideouts you leave behind.

      Good luck in your future adventures, next time when you take a shot at someone, try harder to hit the target.
      Was going to meme answer you with something like keep asking about taxing silver bags or something but actually im gonna answer you seriously.

      Devs should change the game to make it more competitive i dont want to win if im not deserveing it. The posibility that in a basket game one team could bring 6 players instead of 5 doesnt seem fair right? then why who win the season should be decided between 100 allied guilds instead of providing some kind of scenario where really the best overallguild wouldnt be forced to make those pacts to win the season and instead of that could win just playing aloneish.

      About the second verse, this is a videogame, imagine wining a tournament of League of legends without playing a game... this sistem provides that... one alliance for example Pumas, who are BA renters, not only they have enought numbers to win a war against a solo guild or a medium size or small size alliance, but in adition to that they need 2 more alliances just to make sure that the enemie guild cant even get to the map of the fight, the reason is well known, those alliances like pumas and POE and SQUAD BLUFF etc dont want to play the game, just doesnt care about fun or fights. And you proves that each post you write.

      "This particular war, your "resistance furrer" advertised as the Last War. Quite literally saying if you don't win, you're leaving. The ultimate temper tantrum of a child that isn't getting what it wants so it's gonna take its toys and leave, thinking the rest of us actually give a fuck. Don't let the door hit you on your way out, we'll take care of the hideouts you leave behind."

      This line totally shows who cares about the game and who just see it as a money farm, the anti handhold coallition (overall) just want to play the zvz, just because we enjoy the fights and that, we dont want to win outnumbering because you dont run 12+ maps just to end the fight in 1 engage. Im personally concerned about the health of the game, if the game keeps like that, and for example all the guilds from the antihandhold coallition disband and all of that, then who would fight in the black zone? none? so then why dont we all join the same alliance and then we are just friends... dont you see that this is awfull for the game? It is a sandbox pvp mmorpg, right?
      And yet we talk about the population just increasing, and i know that, but its easy when you recently launch AO on IOS and Android.

      About the last line of your post, im gonna just keep playing the game, 20v20 hellgates 10v10 and even ganking and some kind of small scale pvp, because i like it and is more or less balanced. ZvZ was my favourite content in the time where some decent wars happened, but actually is a mess, and srsly stop trying to show the whole conflict about handhold and all of that a "as you are losing you want to change the game just to win" because it isnt what it is. Im talking about my perspective as a player, i was in POE (Furia guild) and in squad (in a Bombsquad guild called God BIess) back in those days where SQUAD and POE pretended to be enemies, and then in a lot of guilds. I dont care about wining if wining is free. There is just 1 direction for the game if all the players which likes zvz content leaves the game, sooner or later the game dying.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Nesnes: openly accusing others of rmt is prohibited by the forum rules ().

    • Avry wrote:

      Syndic wrote:

      @Avry

      You seem to be pretty insistent that the developers should change the game to enable you and your circle of guilds to "win" at something. While that is understandable, it's most certainly got nothing to do with "saving the game" and everything to do with a misguided impression that SBI owes you something, a participation trophy of sorts, for playing their game.

      There's also very misguided belief that your same circle of guilds should be able to attack whomever they please for the sake of "content", and whomever your attack isn't allowed to fight back too hard (or god forbid, win) because everyone in this game needs to tiptoe around your circle of guilds making sure you're having fun.

      This mindset worked fine with VENMO for example, who simply ceased to exist. The problem occurs when when you attack someone who doesnt give a flying fuck about you or your "fun", and you dont succeed. Your guilds start dying one by one, you start declaring the war over. But is any war really over, simply because one side decided it is?

      This particular war, your "resistance furrer" advertised as the Last War. Quite literally saying if you don't win, you're leaving. The ultimate temper tantrum of a child that isn't getting what it wants so it's gonna take its toys and leave, thinking the rest of us actually give a fuck. Don't let the door hit you on your way out, we'll take care of the hideouts you leave behind.

      Good luck in your future adventures, next time when you take a shot at someone, try harder to hit the target.
      Was going to meme answer you with something like keep asking about taxing silver bags or something but actually im gonna answer you seriously.
      Devs should change the game to make it more competitive i dont want to win if im not deserveing it. The posibility that in a basket game one team could bring 6 players instead of 5 doesnt seem fair right? then why who win the season should be decided between 100 allied guilds instead of providing some kind of scenario where really the best overallguild wouldnt be forced to make those pacts to win the season and instead of that could win just playing aloneish.

      About the second verse, this is a videogame, imagine wining a tournament of League of legends without playing a game... this sistem provides that... one alliance for example Pumas, who are BA renters, not only they have enought numbers to win a war against a solo guild or a medium size or small size alliance, but in adition to that they need 2 more alliances just to make sure that the enemie guild cant even get to the map of the fight, the reason is well known, those alliances like pumas and POE and SQUAD BLUFF etc dont want to play the game, they want to keep making real money by selling silver, just doesnt care about fun or fights. And you proves that each post you write.

      "This particular war, your "resistance furrer" advertised as the Last War. Quite literally saying if you don't win, you're leaving. The ultimate temper tantrum of a child that isn't getting what it wants so it's gonna take its toys and leave, thinking the rest of us actually give a fuck. Don't let the door hit you on your way out, we'll take care of the hideouts you leave behind."

      This line totally shows who cares about the game and who just see it as a money farm, the anti handhold coallition (overall) just want to play the zvz, just because we enjoy the fights and that, we dont want to win outnumbering because you dont run 12+ maps just to end the fight in 1 engage. Im personally concerned about the health of the game, if the game keeps like that, and for example all the guilds from the antihandhold coallition disband and all of that, then who would fight in the black zone? none? so then why dont we all join the same alliance and then we are just friends... dont you see that this is awfull for the game? It is a sandbox pvp mmorpg, right?
      And yet we talk about the population just increasing, and i know that, but its easy when you recently launch AO on IOS and Android.

      About the last line of your post, im gonna just keep playing the game, 20v20 hellgates 10v10 and even ganking and some kind of small scale pvp, because i like it and is more or less balanced. ZvZ was my favourite content in the time where some decent wars happened, but actually is a mess, and srsly stop trying to show the whole conflict about handhold and all of that a "as you are losing you want to change the game just to win" because it isnt what it is. Im talking about my perspective as a player, i was in POE (Furia guild) and in squad (in a Bombsquad guild called God BIess) back in those days where SQUAD and POE pretended to be enemies, and then in a lot of guilds. I dont care about wining if wining is free. There is just 1 direction for the game if all the players which likes zvz content leaves the game, sooner or later the game dying.

      Your post indicates a complete lack of comprehension. Open World and especially ZVZ was never about "fair fights". Youre operating under a misconception that whatever arbitrary rules you've invented apply to everyone else who is playing the game, and that is evident by constant referencing of "fair fights" and "guilds winning seasons solo", including the whole "we're gonna make a coalition to stop them from playing together". Every guild leader (including myself ofc) has plenty of ego, but yours seem to take it to a new level.

      Your guild will not dictate to my guild how we should be playing the game. You didn't like that fact so you started 4 coalitions against us - great, we still don't care and it's still not happening. You as players are irrelevant in the big picture, you can quit tomorrow and Albion will keep going as it always has. To put it in simple terms - cya bud.
    • In a Sandbox you are allowed to bring 6 players to a game of basket against 5. but the fun part is that the opponent can also do whatever they want.

      POE is the best organized entity in albion, but maybe you should ask yourself why do people follow them, join them? It seems all the Coalitions are kind of like POE, problem is, this is what syndic and the other POE leaders know best, if you truly wanted to beat them, you gonna need to play different.
      Your Goal of straight up destroying POE/CIR is already showing, the Coalition will not be successful.
      This notion that the anti-coalition is morally superior I dont buy at all. If you actually felt that way, why use it as propaganda, why tell anyone? wouldnt your feeling that you are doing the right thing be enough?

      Im curious to see how things develop because albion to me feels a bit like human evolution, for example people working together for bigger numbers was always one of the strongest ways to win. Things do change however.. thats life :D
    • Syndic wrote:

      Your post indicates a complete lack of comprehension. Open World and especially ZVZ was never about "fair fights". Youre operating under a misconception that whatever arbitrary rules you've invented apply to everyone else who is playing the game, and that is evident by constant referencing of "fair fights" and "guilds winning seasons solo", including the whole "we're gonna make a coalition to stop them from playing together". Every guild leader (including myself ofc) has plenty of ego, but yours seem to take it to a new level.

      Your guild will not dictate to my guild how we should be playing the game. You didn't like that fact so you started 4 coalitions against us - great, we still don't care and it's still not happening. You as players are irrelevant in the big picture, you can quit tomorrow and Albion will keep going as it always has. To put it in simple terms - cya bud.
      You keep talking to me like if i liked the antihandhold coallition, i dont like one or the other, and im talking about the game in general not from just one side, you are defending your side of the war, im just talking about how the game could be better in terms of success, competitiveness, viwership. I dont care about the biased game that you are bringing, im tired of it.


      jack12 wrote:

      Why in the World would players that like ZVZ leave the game right now?? this war has made more ZVZ fights than ever
      ZvZ fight = you go to an island for 30 minutes to prepare the partys, then walk in the blackzone to reach the map, another 20 minutes, then reach the map, then you are waiting the enemie, then suddenly 3 blobs of enemies 1 from each entrie of the map start queueing, then your X number of players get kicked out of the map because the enemie has differents guilds without alliances and then the game count them as no allies resulting in a lost of players to the guild inside the map, or the guilds, it has been like this i dont care if you are in one side or another, this is why the ZvZ players will stop playing sooner or later. None wants to wait 2 hours to play a shitshow like this, this is hurting the game and if you dont see it is because you are getting profit of it, thats all, if i were in the winner side i would be saying the same.

      jack12 wrote:

      In a Sandbox you are allowed to bring 6 players to a game of basket against 5. but the fun part is that the opponent can also do whatever they want.
      Ok so then i bring 6, then you bring 15, the next game i bring 25, you 35, then we reach the point were the people playing cant even enter the stadium, till the point where they have to make queue to join the game but the stadium capacity is full.... dont you see the problem? is this really funny? is this a good mechanic? or is better to just make instanced ZvZs where you could at least fight without caping the map, with lets say a maximum of 100 slots to each guild. For me it would be a lot better.

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

    • Avry wrote:

      the game could be better in terms of success, competitiveness, viwership.
      This war is, in sheer size (players involved in daily CTAs) the biggest war the game has ever seen. Almost every timer has had huge fights.

      By what metric is that not competitiveness and participation? This war is exactly what SBI wants - huge coalitions trying to change the shape of the entire face of the BZ's.

      That's why they got rid of the 5v5 GvG territory ownership model and went with open world ZvZ.

      The only reason, as Syndic and others have pointed out, that you or anyone complains is because you're not winning, so you have to make excuses for it about handholding, renting, RMTing etc.

      Like a child throwing a fit when they don't get their way.
      Gamer Dad. Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
    • These massive scaled ZvZs and WAR on a daily basis makes the game look better, the outside perspective of all this from potential future players would only show

      "There's a lot of people killing each other in the end-game part of Albion, and that seems fun"

      If anything, only the anti-handholding coalition cries about the ZvZ macro-meta, and how season points are generated on Open-world that's contestable by absolutely anyone.

      SBI doesn't care about why you are fighting this war, SBI cares that this WAR is giving the game good publicity, these BIG FIGHTS are what they "intended"

      The game won't die even if your entire coalition gets deleted for the nth-time, since most of the players in Albion Online are in the Royals not in the blackzone. You are delusional if you believe that whatever happens in the blackzone will shape the future of this game.
    • From my perspective, I am naturally against the big guy, so Syndic having all these alliances work together sucks.
      But the Anti-Coalition is in no way better as they are trying to beat POE straight on, at the same game.

      You could be different. Dont make alliances over 300 Members, and just launch by yourself on couple terris that you want to claim.
      What will happen over time is that POE should have small guilds launches on all their Borders pretty much every single day, FOREVER.
      They cannot defend this all. Of course if they ahve a big zerg you got to run and wont have content for that timer. but if you just launch again for the next day, you will break them, thats inevitable.

      But because most alliances are build on the same premise you almost cannot do that. There is promise of safety and stability, being strong, taking over the world, having many safe zones in the blackzone for Fame and Silver blabla.. and the feeling that the enmy overpowers you doesnt work well with that
      POE is just the best at this. you wont beat them.
    • This kinder garden madness has to end.
      Just for the record, I'm not on any side.
      I used to enjoy ZvZ in BZ, but all the hand holding, wasted time waiting in cluster queue + the normal 30-60min massing up bullshit + the usually horse simulator.
      This was just too much in the long run, and i dont think im the only one feeling this way.

      No one really knows what SBI want's, but there are certain facts we can't ignore.
      Cluster queue, disarrey these two strongly indicates that SBI want's some kind of balance in ZvZ.
      This can be translated into "Fair fight in ZvZ", and not as cindy claims.

      We also know that the big power houses in AO, found a work around by simply making more alliances.
      SBI recognized this issue, and gave us roads of Avalon, where these issues don't exists.

      Another fact we can't ignore is that SBI expanded the royal continent, the only logical explanation is that, its because the majority of players don't go to BZ, it might be because people don't like mandatory ZvZs where they basically waste tons of time doing nothing productive.

      ATM I'm having more fun doing bandit faction ZvZ, than i ever had doing BZ ZvZ.
      There is however a few issues with cluster queue in factions, which are pretty lame, but it is, what it is.

      So please fix BZ.
    • krazzer wrote:

      Cluster queue, disarrey these two strongly indicates that SBI want's some kind of balance in ZvZ.
      it has more of an impact on playing in a group than alone, the value of a single player doesn't matter, it looks like trying to "balance" but the truth is that you are dependent on guild leaders and not guild leaders on players, so it's unhealthy.
      GVG and the old 1 shot meta were more important and it was the players who had more control over the BZ than they do now. you don't like it and what will you do with it? nothing because the game limits you.
      even if you want, you need a minimum of 20 people for this, you are not 100% sure that you will see a fight at all. the system is flawed and works to the benefit of the alliance leaders, not the players.
    • Quagga wrote:

      krazzer wrote:

      Cluster queue, disarrey these two strongly indicates that SBI want's some kind of balance in ZvZ.
      it has more of an impact on playing in a group than alone, the value of a single player doesn't matter, it looks like trying to "balance" but the truth is that you are dependent on guild leaders and not guild leaders on players, so it's unhealthy.GVG and the old 1 shot meta were more important and it was the players who had more control over the BZ than they do now. you don't like it and what will you do with it? nothing because the game limits you.
      even if you want, you need a minimum of 20 people for this, you are not 100% sure that you will see a fight at all. the system is flawed and works to the benefit of the alliance leaders, not the players.

      Factually incorrect.

      Cluster queue was exclusively introduced to prevent zone-locking which was a prevalent tactic before CQ, and it was becoming an "arms race" to see who could mass earlier and AFK in the locked zone longest.

      Players were never more important as individuals as they are now. In the GVG mechanic, every player was basically irrelevant unless they were a competitive GVGer, and every guild was irrelevant unless it had a competitive GVG team. The only reason a GVG team needed other players in the guild was to pacify warcamps and gather T8 from territories, outside of that everyone was a cheerleader at best.

      GVG's were also a zero-sum game. Either you could beat the best teams, or you owned nothing. To comprehend just how bad that was, all you have to do is look at the CGVG tournament - most if not all of the kids winning the top-tier matches and tournaments are old GVGers - there's simply too large of a discrepancy between the average player and a GVGer with 100's of matches under his belt.

      By the nature of GVG's, guild leaders didn't have time to really lead their guilds - most of the time was spent managing feelings of 4-5 primadonna's cause in most cases they were irreplaceable. And that became progressively harder to manage, once the players started to feel irreplaceable and "above" other guild members who didn't GVG.

      My GVG team was one of the best the game ever saw, and after experiencing both the GVG and the ZVZ management side of things I value the current system a lot more. Player value to the guild is determined by ability to a degree but mostly by consistency in activity - as it should be. Dealing with the emotional balance of GVG manchildren was arguably the worst experience I had to suffer in Albion.
    • @Syndic there is no difference between the old GVG and the current state of BZ, well maybe there is one such that now you are not dependent on anyone and have full power.

      all we need as players is to remove the debuff. this will introduce more dynamics into the fights and give more importance to the units.leaders will again become dependent on clappers etc .. this is a bad system when the leader has complete power and nothing can compete with him.
      CQ is and will be abused, previously cluster was blocked, now you kick your opponent out of the cluster and are abusing que. in both cases the system is not working.

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

    • Quagga wrote:

      @Syndic there is no difference between the old GVG and the current state of BZ, well maybe there is one such that now you are not dependent on anyone and have full power.

      all we need as players is to remove the debuff. this will introduce more dynamics into the fights and give more importance to the units.leaders will again become dependent on clappers etc .. this is a bad system when the leader has complete power and nothing can compete with him.
      CQ is and will be abused, previously clustry was blocked, now you kick your opponent out of the cluster and are abusing que. in both cases the system is not working.
      So...5 players with their multiple alts being able to dominate half of Mercia/Cumbria/Anglia is the same as Mega Zergs controlling the same amount of land???

      If we are basing this game on the premise of war, then it is never about a fair fight. In fact you bring overwhelming force to violently and swiftly subdue your enemy. That is exactly what the mega zergs are doing. Is it healthy for the game...well that subjective opinion is for the Devs to hold. But if it is generating content, fuelling the economy and encouraging players to logging in daily to participate; that seems like a game design win.

      Are the mechanics themselves broken? At times it feels like it, but until people start forming cogent arguments and stopping crying like spoiled children, then these mechanics issues will never be addressed. One might be surprised that presenting a problem coupled with a solution(s) often results in change.
    • Quagga wrote:

      @Syndic there is no difference between the old GVG and the current state of BZ, well maybe there is one such that now you are not dependent on anyone and have full power.

      all we need as players is to remove the debuff. this will introduce more dynamics into the fights and give more importance to the units.leaders will again become dependent on clappers etc .. this is a bad system when the leader has complete power and nothing can compete with him.
      CQ is and will be abused, previously cluster was blocked, now you kick your opponent out of the cluster and are abusing que. in both cases the system is not working.

      There is a big difference and I already outlined it - in the old GVG system, either you were one of the 5 or you were a spectator/gatherer and pacifying a warcamp. In the current system, each member is a valuable asset and their value is determined by their participation rates.

      The game is mechanically healthy enough where the Dev's time should be better spent expanding on horizontal content available. 10,000 people will always beat 300, it's fundamentally irrelevant if 9,999 need to die to achieve victory. War in Albion is never about killboards or hideouts. There is only one way to stop people from massing if they want to mass, and that's completely draining their economy to the point where they cannot afford the next regear.
    • Syndic wrote:

      There is a big difference and I already outlined it - in the old GVG system, either you were one of the 5 or you were a spectator/gatherer and pacifying a warcamp. In the current system, each member is a valuable asset and their value is determined by their participation rates.

      The game is mechanically healthy enough where the Dev's time should be better spent expanding on horizontal content available. 10,000 people will always beat 300, it's fundamentally irrelevant if 9,999 need to die to achieve victory. War in Albion is never about killboards or hideouts. There is only one way to stop people from massing if they want to mass, and that's completely draining their economy to the point where they cannot afford the next regear.
      the game is not healthy, if a person who doesn't know what is going on and is an empty number has the same "importance" as a person who knows what he is doing but is not able to use his knowledge and skills for the end result then the system is not healthy.
      you are wrong that 10000 people will always win, there were already cases in albion where people could do 600 kills or more with 100 people. morale would drop and win was on the side of people who knew how to play, now we have a time where knowledge and skills don't matter... all that matters is the empty number.

      Unfortunately, you are theoretically right because just being makes you matter, but the question is whether we want such a system..