Remove Dungeon Timeout in Black Zone

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

    • Remove Dungeon Timeout in Black Zone

      Thesis: PVE in Albion operates on a "risk vs. reward" basis. The riskier the scenario, the higher the reward. The devs have broken this arrangement by instituting a timeout for random solo dungeons, and it is damaging the new player experience.

      More details:
      Blue and Yellow Zones: Random solo dungeon (RSD) entrances should despawn after you enter - a 30s timer is fine to prevent other players that you can't kill from stealing your dungeon mobs. Low risk, low rewards.

      Red zones: RSD entrances should have a long timer before despawning - 300s timer (the same as the logout timer) feels appropriate to me. This change would make 'waiting it out' really annoying but still technically possible. Higher risk, higher rewards.

      Black Zones: Remove the RSD despawn timer. The fact that it exists is bad for the game, since 'veterans' now just tell all new players to set a timer for 90s until they start the dungeon. I do not expect this was the intention of the devs, since it is not fun to wait around for 90s for no reason. However, this is a natural response - you get total safety to run the highest reward dungeons. It breaks risk vs. reward for no reason. As a result, the timer should just be removed in BZ. Highest risk, highest rewards.
    • @paxprobellum Highest risk, highest rewards.??

      A ganker team of 6 guys using t4 or t5 clean shit for kill a transport or whatever is LOW RISK vs High risk.

      20 HOs in a map with a static dung near and t8 resources is 0 RISK.

      Infinite guilds in 1 alliance is HIGH risk?

      There is infinite things that you can complain but you prefer complain about the solo players dungs, you want again a war inside the green dung with tons of ppl inside.

      Imagine Black zones be only played by big guilds because they gonna camp all green dungs arround, with your suggestion all random players will never come back black zone because they gonna be killed 100% sure, the only thing randoms can do right now on BZ is do greens or gathers materials....

      So where is the risk on the handholding BZ?
    • Every pvp focused player--which I will remind you, is not the majority of the playerbase: "I think we should corral an unending supply of non-pvp focused players, who we know cannot effectively fight back, into areas of the game where they can be slaughtered for our morbid amusement and so we can reap the efforts of their work without having to make any effort ourselves. Any opportunity they have, no matter how difficult, to escape is bad for the game."

      No. Just no.

      It doesn't matter how many different implementations of consensual or somewhat-fair pvp the developers provide. That isn't what you guys really want, regardless of how innocent an act you put on. You don't want to fight a battle that you think you could possibly lose. You certainly do not have the stomach for any kind of actual challenge. If you did, you wouldn't endlessly seek ridiculously one-sided opportunities to engage PVE-focused players. You want to gain money and fame without any risk to yourselves, and then you accuse your would-be victims of that very thing in a display of textbook psychological transference.

      There is a considerable amount of risk for a PVE player to get into the bz and find a dungeon. When he is fortunate enough to not have dungeon-diving visitors in the first 90 seconds and clears the dungeon, he still has to get back alive with the loot to the mainland. You guys know the most commonly used routes, hunt these people one-by-one in packs, and camp the chokepoints where you know people must pass. There isn't anything easy about it for the PVE player.

      If you really, truly want more pvp opportunities--even the non-consensual ones--you might want to consider that you don't hunt the PVEers to extinction, or to the point where most of them refuse to enter areas where you have any opportunity to fight them and deny you the content you seek--which is what most players currently do. Further, if you promote ideas that help the PVEer feel more secure, you will see more of them in full-loot areas and you will have more targets. I don't think you guys realize just how destructive you are to the kind of gameplay you enjoy.
    • Davharkin wrote:

      The problem is that they used to enter the DG partys complete with healer and tank to kill just one, that's why they put the closing times

      I am not sure this is a problem, although there is a "solution" - after a solo dungeon entrance has been used and 90s has elapsed, only 1 more player can enter. So you couldn't 3v1 someone in RSD. (Of course, this would immediately be exploited by naked alts "closing" the RSD, but so it goes...)


      MrDaS wrote:

      @paxprobellum Highest risk, highest rewards.??

      A ganker team of 6 guys using t4 or t5 clean shit for kill a transport or whatever is LOW RISK vs High risk.

      20 HOs in a map with a static dung near and t8 resources is 0 RISK.

      Infinite guilds in 1 alliance is HIGH risk?

      There is infinite things that you can complain but you prefer complain about the solo players dungs, you want again a war inside the green dung with tons of ppl inside.

      Imagine Black zones be only played by big guilds because they gonna camp all green dungs arround, with your suggestion all random players will never come back black zone because they gonna be killed 100% sure, the only thing randoms can do right now on BZ is do greens or gathers materials....

      So where is the risk on the handholding BZ?

      Handholding (see: zerging) is a low risk, low reward activity. 10 players killing 1 player in the BZ is low risk, but you get 10% of the loot you would get if you were solo. Also, you may spend a lot of time doing something (horse simulator) with little or no reward, so even grinding YZ would be a better economic choice. OTOH, small scale PvP is a medium risk, high reward activity - 2 or 3 players killing solos is pretty easy, until the group of 5-10 rolls up. Of course, solo PVP is the highest risk, highest reward activity - one player gets all the loot and runs the risk of being outnumbered by any group.

      hopchis wrote:

      Every pvp focused player--which I will remind you, is not the majority of the playerbase: "I think we should corral an unending supply of non-pvp focused players, who we know cannot effectively fight back, into areas of the game where they can be slaughtered for our morbid amusement and so we can reap the efforts of their work without having to make any effort ourselves. Any opportunity they have, no matter how difficult, to escape is bad for the game."

      ...

      If you really, truly want more pvp opportunities--even the non-consensual ones--you might want to consider that you don't hunt the PVEers to extinction, or to the point where most of them refuse to enter areas where you have any opportunity to fight them and deny you the content you seek--which is what most players currently do. Further, if you promote ideas that help the PVEer feel more secure, you will see more of them in full-loot areas and you will have more targets. I don't think you guys realize just how destructive you are to the kind of gameplay you enjoy.

      You are very angry, but I am not sure you understand the core issue (which is not that non-PVP focused players ought to be slaughtered for amusement :P). Rather, it is that the game play options that offer the highest rewards *must* offer the highest risks. Why? Because if you can receive the highest rewards in total safety (see: closed T8 RSDs), then there is no reason to do anything else. As a result, other game play options that have fewer rewards (and potentially greater risks) are underutilized. This distortion of 'risk vs. reward' negatively affects the game, for both pvp and non-pvp focused players.
    • After discussion with a colleague, I would also accept a "compromise" as follows:

      Beleg and Uzik wrote:

      X% chance that a portal despawns any time someone enters (including first person). Chance is dependent on the zone type - Blue: 100%, Yellow: 75%, Red: 66%, Black: 50%.
      This solution is nice because the person running the dungeon doesn't know if their entrance was destroyed (unless they bring a scout). Also has a negative effect on gankers, since they cannot plan to zerg out the solo guy inside. Additional side benefit is that diving a bunch of dungeons without anyone in them will make them disappear, so targets are likely to move to other areas. Thoughts?
    • paxprobellum wrote:

      Thesis: PVE in Albion operates on a "risk vs. reward" basis. The riskier the scenario, the higher the reward. The devs have broken this arrangement by instituting a timeout for random solo dungeons, and it is damaging the new player experience.

      More details:
      Blue and Yellow Zones: Random solo dungeon (RSD) entrances should despawn after you enter - a 30s timer is fine to prevent other players that you can't kill from stealing your dungeon mobs. Low risk, low rewards.

      Red zones: RSD entrances should have a long timer before despawning - 300s timer (the same as the logout timer) feels appropriate to me. This change would make 'waiting it out' really annoying but still technically possible. Higher risk, higher rewards.

      Black Zones: Remove the RSD despawn timer. The fact that it exists is bad for the game, since 'veterans' now just tell all new players to set a timer for 90s until they start the dungeon. I do not expect this was the intention of the devs, since it is not fun to wait around for 90s for no reason. However, this is a natural response - you get total safety to run the highest reward dungeons. It breaks risk vs. reward for no reason. As a result, the timer should just be removed in BZ. Highest risk, highest rewards.
      no point for this if the system giving a high value rewards in safe zone. look at my tread in rants.

      and in addition i disagree about removing the closing time in solo dg in outlands its a one way abuse for divers (btw i'm a diver i love diving people) instead limit the HO in BZ like 1 or 2 only possible per zone..
    • LordNrixx wrote:

      paxprobellum wrote:

      Thesis: PVE in Albion operates on a "risk vs. reward" basis. The riskier the scenario, the higher the reward. The devs have broken this arrangement by instituting a timeout for random solo dungeons, and it is damaging the new player experience.

      More details:
      Blue and Yellow Zones: Random solo dungeon (RSD) entrances should despawn after you enter - a 30s timer is fine to prevent other players that you can't kill from stealing your dungeon mobs. Low risk, low rewards.

      Red zones: RSD entrances should have a long timer before despawning - 300s timer (the same as the logout timer) feels appropriate to me. This change would make 'waiting it out' really annoying but still technically possible. Higher risk, higher rewards.

      Black Zones: Remove the RSD despawn timer. The fact that it exists is bad for the game, since 'veterans' now just tell all new players to set a timer for 90s until they start the dungeon. I do not expect this was the intention of the devs, since it is not fun to wait around for 90s for no reason. However, this is a natural response - you get total safety to run the highest reward dungeons. It breaks risk vs. reward for no reason. As a result, the timer should just be removed in BZ. Highest risk, highest rewards.
      no point for this if the system giving a high value rewards in safe zone. look at my tread in rants.
      and in addition i disagree about removing the closing time in solo dg in outlands its a one way abuse for divers (btw i'm a diver i love diving people) instead limit the HO in BZ like 1 or 2 only possible per zone..

      Fewer HOs in BZ would be good, but seems like an unrelated issue.
    • highly agree there.
      for everybody who is against this: you have yellow zones. its very simple...
      i completely enjoyed all this 3v3 fights in rds.
      i got zerged some times, but who cares?
      its nothing that happened often because its simply not worth for the zerging group.
      if you really wanna go pure solo, there are cd now. but this guys dont play them cause they dont want pvp. they wanna hide behind the "i get zerged" argument and play save content. thats simply the point

      EDIT: other solution: let somevody who henters not go out for 120s.
      this prevents "chiller" from waiting it down and divers from hopping and checking for solo ppl.
      simple solution.
    • Timer is already nonexistant in the highest reward dungeons, which are roads static dungeons. It would make sense to go into those if you want to dungeon dive or get a true feeling of risk/reward...

      Using a map also provides risk. It broadcasts the map to everyone in the zone, and that leaves it open as a target either to be hijacked from you or camped.
    • Ignisium wrote:

      Timer is already nonexistant in the highest reward dungeons, which are roads static dungeons. It would make sense to go into those if you want to dungeon dive or get a true feeling of risk/reward...

      Using a map also provides risk. It broadcasts the map to everyone in the zone, and that leaves it open as a target either to be hijacked from you or camped.
      for sure, if u want to search hours for dungeons....
      and no, maps are not "broadcasted"....
    • Ignisium wrote:

      Timer is already nonexistant in the highest reward dungeons, which are roads static dungeons. It would make sense to go into those if you want to dungeon dive or get a true feeling of risk/reward...

      Using a map also provides risk. It broadcasts the map to everyone in the zone, and that leaves it open as a target either to be hijacked from you or camped.

      Agree - roads static dungeons are good for a dive and my (roads) guild also regularly runs them for fame (& occasionally getting dived on). They are good content! Why shouldn't we have more good content?

      (Map broadcast is not correct.)