Dev Talk: The Mists

    • Luke1 wrote:

      I don't understand how you reach the mists... Killing the orbs that wander around the world?
      With "reputation" you find the conexión to the city of the mist. And i think also is a random conexion throw portals of avalon. We need to find the way, and probably a lot of content creators will make this info
      ---- Grayskull ---- For the power of **** ----

      ÚNETE al gremio que este jugando y hagamos CONTENT.

      Discord----: Grayskull#9552

    • Oshien wrote:

      Fabrizziou wrote:

      slizzard wrote:

      Since we're instancing pvp to a degree, any thoughts to instanced ZvZ?
      Disarray exists.
      Disarray is ineffective. Just causes groups to split into multiple alliances to handhold.
      that's why we need alliance/guild cap then otherwise benefits like HO, terri, points, gold, siphon etc.... will be claimed by one guild or a few and the rest will always play the role of "slave" which will cause conflict. Now 80% of zvz guilds are pure garbage playing the role of meat shield for 20%.


      will limit alliances to 300 this gives 100 alliances from arch alone, 10 from POE. etc. etc.. navigate with NAP on the battlefield with 10 zergs GL&HFs
      you only have 9 fight directions with 20+ blobs on the map ? can you imagine what a mess it would be ? how cool it would be ?

      a few changes from HO limits on the map, a bit of restrictions so as not to share points etc.... etc.. but SBI does not want this because people like to participate and be farmed by alliance leaders. sadge

    • Quagga wrote:

      Oshien wrote:

      Fabrizziou wrote:

      slizzard wrote:

      Since we're instancing pvp to a degree, any thoughts to instanced ZvZ?
      Disarray exists.
      Disarray is ineffective. Just causes groups to split into multiple alliances to handhold.
      that's why we need alliance/guild cap then otherwise benefits like HO, terri, points, gold, siphon etc.... will be claimed by one guild or a few and the rest will always play the role of "slave" which will cause conflict. Now 80% of zvz guilds are pure garbage playing the role of meat shield for 20%.

      will limit alliances to 300 this gives 100 alliances from arch alone, 10 from POE. etc. etc.. navigate with NAP on the battlefield with 10 zergs GL&HFs
      you only have 9 fight directions with 20+ blobs on the map ? can you imagine what a mess it would be ? how cool it would be ?

      a few changes from HO limits on the map, a bit of restrictions so as not to share points etc.... etc.. but SBI does not want this because people like to participate and be farmed by alliance leaders. sadge
      Even gaming the majority is lazy, why bother starting from scratch when you can join a big alliance that gives you everything in the mouth, a selection of safe HO stacked over each other to just jump between them after farming some resources or to wait for 20 other lazies to group on and kill the one real player harassing you.

      Why have a real fight when we can all group on those who think for themselves. A chest for a solo player? Don't mind my two full parties risking nothing to get it.

      Oh a road for people that actually play the game, let's rent it to them as to be even richer with our lazyness.

      Let's face it big handholding alliances are the beggars mentality taken to the max level. But they are so many that SBI thinks it's alright, cause well.. money.

    • The game focuses too much on the login and logout simulator....

      everything in the game should be based on activity, if you only play 1h a day/week then sorry mate but the T8 zone with all its goods is not for you.
      but unfortunately sbi will never balance the game around active play, it's a much better business model that you allow players playing 1h a week to be part of the endgame for logging in once to be killed in zvz 20x and play a role as a meat shield.

      imagine that you have to take care of your terri which are attacked (mage raided) otherwise you will lose them, or too low activity in the zone will make your hideout lose its shield.
      Imagine that you have to actively play and maintain activity in the zone to provide the appropriate benefits like HO/terri etc..

      you stop playing you disappear from the game and someone takes your place.... SANDBOX..
      i.e. active players have an impact on the game and not the leaders through "politics aka rmt"

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

    • Diazar wrote:

      Let's face it big handholding alliances are the beggars mentality taken to the max level. But they are so many that SBI thinks it's alright, cause well.. money.
      SBI can't fix human nature and still call it a sandbox. If you think they can, feel free to leave your ideas in the suggestion's forum. I would like to hear them. Best way I can think of on a fight level is to remove names/tags of non- allied players when you are in a zerg or multiple zergs are on a map and reduce guild/alliance sizes. Arch/PoE/Whatever brings 10 alliances to a fight, they will be tripping over each other and hitting "allies". True disarray.
      Don't go away mad, just go away...

    • TommyWiskas wrote:

      I would like to leave feedback on the current situation with the frostfrost staffs

      Before the release of the update "improving" frost staffs were great Q spells for all situations:
      The first Q is for solo play and small group ganking
      the second Q - for Small Scale Pvp and people with a high ping
      third Q - best in pve and big fights

      And what do we have now? "dead" weapon branch for small scale pvp and solo players! Who uses frostbite at all and where is it needed? Frozen Surge - interesting idea, but in fact the previous Q ability was many times better!

      I've been playing frost staffs all the time, and it saddens me to realize that my favorite branch of weaponry (in which I invested 740+ mastery) is in such a terrible condition!

      Why not put it back the way it was, maybe adding Frozen Surge as a 4th q ability?
      Good idea, frost didn't need to be "reworked" except great frost... I'm not sure why SBI is hell bent on giving every staff the same projectile ability, you are right it should be put back to how it was.

    • Oshien wrote:

      Diazar wrote:

      Let's face it big handholding alliances are the beggars mentality taken to the max level. But they are so many that SBI thinks it's alright, cause well.. money.
      SBI can't fix human nature and still call it a sandbox. If you think they can, feel free to leave your ideas in the suggestion's forum. I would like to hear them. Best way I can think of on a fight level is to remove names/tags of non- allied players when you are in a zerg or multiple zergs are on a map and reduce guild/alliance sizes. Arch/PoE/Whatever brings 10 alliances to a fight, they will be tripping over each other and hitting "allies". True disarray.
      Oh don't misunderstand me, i know problem os the people and not SBI cause even when they try and implement something new, it's those trashy players that find a way to cheese it.

      Love the true disarray idea. Also party limiter for chests (parties above certain numbers can enter a chest contest area and different parties even if same guild become hostile ) mechanics to ensure small content is for small groups may also help on these but not disappear te handholding empires. Nor do I would want it. Not roleplay fan but hey having a big bad empire with stormtrooper level of players is always fun to have

    • Diazar wrote:

      Oshien wrote:

      Diazar wrote:

      Let's face it big handholding alliances are the beggars mentality taken to the max level. But they are so many that SBI thinks it's alright, cause well.. money.
      SBI can't fix human nature and still call it a sandbox. If you think they can, feel free to leave your ideas in the suggestion's forum. I would like to hear them. Best way I can think of on a fight level is to remove names/tags of non- allied players when you are in a zerg or multiple zergs are on a map and reduce guild/alliance sizes. Arch/PoE/Whatever brings 10 alliances to a fight, they will be tripping over each other and hitting "allies". True disarray.
      Oh don't misunderstand me, i know problem os the people and not SBI cause even when they try and implement something new, it's those trashy players that find a way to cheese it.
      Love the true disarray idea. Also party limiter for chests (parties above certain numbers can enter a chest contest area and different parties even if same guild become hostile ) mechanics to ensure small content is for small groups may also help on these but not disappear te handholding empires. Nor do I would want it. Not roleplay fan but hey having a big bad empire with stormtrooper level of players is always fun to have
      Definitely a fan of true disarray.
      And I like the idea of chests limiting party size. I think the easier solution is, if your party is too big, it doesn't block you entering, but it ghost-kicks you from your party while in the area and makes, as you say, everyone hostile, even guild members.
      If your party is below the maximum, you stay in that party and can't damage each other.
      It wont stop some people, but yeah, it makes it a lot harder.

    • Cathlin wrote:

      I don't like the idea of this extension at all either.
      I love in albion the faction content, gvg, people getting self organized in large or small group, dynamic objectives, etc.
      This mist content with solo/duo only and solo selected meta builds is just good for streamers or hardcore players with almost no objectives. Also i feel the albion world is already big enough, isn't it ?
      It also seems finally just like an duplicate enhancement of pvp small scale corrupted dongeons and roads.
      Will it be fun ? Imo, not at all and i think it is pity to use 3 months dev ressources for that
      So, is this mist extension any good ?

    • Я считаю что разработчики не много ошиблись с мглой. Во первых там почти нечего делать если только ганг контент, во вторых там далеко не для соло игроков если соло игрок вошел в соло мглу то он встречает там 2 в пати и для них ты мишень, я считаю если ты вошел в соло то игрок против тебя соло должен быть. ДИЗЛАЙК большой.

    • Crysis10 wrote:

      Я считаю что разработчики не много ошиблись с мглой. Во первых там почти нечего делать если только ганг контент, во вторых там далеко не для соло игроков если соло игрок вошел в соло мглу то он встречает там 2 в пати и для них ты мишень, я считаю если ты вошел в соло то игрок против тебя соло должен быть. ДИЗЛАЙК большой.
      Много считаешь, мало думаешь, если ты хочешь 1х1 тебе дорога в коррапты, мисты это же тот же открытый мир где 1v1v1v1v1 и тд, где люди будут крысить, тимиться против более сильного противника и тд.

    • My last 10 solo mists or so had some premade duo or trio which did not played against each other at all. So instead of 1vs1vs1vs1vs1 i found 2vs1vs1 or 3vs1vs1. Sad story, but it destroys idea of solo mists completely. Also a lot of players ask in private for duo or trio with them. Guess most of that duos and trios was made inside mist with other poor guys, who cant play solo content at all.

      Can we hide nicknames in mists?