Angepinnt The Current Albion Online Round Table

    Diese Seite verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Seite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen. Weitere Informationen

    • a definite no to player voting...

      I think the current system works fine... it should be up to the developers to identify and select those players most likely to contribute to and constructively critique their vision for the game's future...

      all player voting would do is ensure large guilds dominated the round table, leaving small guilds, independent organizations and solo players out in the cold...

      it was a nice try though Syndic xD
      Bank of Albion
      Investments & Third-Party Services
      Contact me via the Forums or Discord: Saya#4434
    • BriarMoss schrieb:

      The RT desperately needs roleplayers, Albion needs more immersion.
      I agree. I am on the RT as a solo/casual/collector/rp'ish, long-term player. I am happy to free my seat for someone who has more roleplaying approach.

      That said, there are very few active topics about RP issues (literally none, as far as I know...?). There was some casual / collector related issues in the past but to me it seemed like it is not a priority for the developers at the moment. If developers raise topics about these matters, I would be happy to give my insight and if anyone has ideas. Let me know. I will do my best to push these things if they get hidden on the main forums.

      btw: I have requested a RP subforum. Can we have that @Elsa @Evas_Flarelight ? Back then the unofficial answer was that it should be player supported. So I tried creating a RP related Discord and got 2 players to join it :D The discord channel still exists, if someone wants to take over. Or, feel free to create your own!

      It reminds me what @Rosalia often said. RT is not what people think it is. (where is he by the way?) ?( Devs ask feedback, mostly on GvG, OpenWorld etc. topics that I have very little to say about...

      edit (7?) Discord server: Roleplayers Cooperative (Discord Server)
      IGN : Ravenar
      Discord : Ravenar#2076
      Trial Keys on Request!

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 7 mal editiert, zuletzt von Ravenar ()

    • jack12 schrieb:

      if syndic/POE gets that many reps then those people want him to represent them/ they agree with his arguments.

      are you for the rule of the minority over the majority? i like for the will of the players to matter.
      instead of the Money Guild "are you donating or leaving?" ideal, we'd have a "are you voting or leaving?" to replace it...

      EVE Online's Council of Stellar Management is a perfect example of this, and for years it has been dominated by null-sec alliances pushing their agendas to the detriment of all other game-play options...

      please don't make that mistake here SBI!
      Bank of Albion
      Investments & Third-Party Services
      Contact me via the Forums or Discord: Saya#4434
    • Sinatra.SUN schrieb:

      Not a good excuse as the vast majority of threads are started by the players, so you should just start one on the topics you find important, thats why you are there.
      was this reply to me? yea, I am just lazy :D

      LIke I said, I am happy to free my seat for someone. Maybe it is time for fresh views!

      edit: Fixed it! Please give your insight in the RT thread about RP :thumbup:
      IGN : Ravenar
      Discord : Ravenar#2076
      Trial Keys on Request!

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Ravenar ()

    • Saya schrieb:

      a definite no to player voting...

      I think the current system works fine... it should be up to the developers to identify and select those players most likely to contribute to and constructively critique their vision for the game's future...

      all player voting would do is ensure large guilds dominated the round table, leaving small guilds, independent organizations and solo players out in the cold...

      it was a nice try though Syndic xD

      The current system definitely does not work fine, because there are dudes on the round-table that haven't played the game since launch giving "feedback". Why should the game's future be indirectly designed by dudes and dudettes who don't even play the game anymore? Why should Guild A have 6 people on the RT (1GM + 5 constructive feedback) and Guild B have 1 guy on the RT?

      For all its faults, CSM at least helped avoid some truly horrible stuff from ever seeing the light of day. At this pace, we'll have german monocles on sale for 59,99 pretty soon. And we can't shoot any monuments in Caerleon.
    • Hi @Ravenar. The Chronicles of Albion section of the forum can also be used for RP purposes. I've read some very nice stories posted there (way before my time here). I was planning on posting some stories there before when I was just starting out (I have drafted something(ish) before, just didn't post it). We can definitely start something there to encourage others to contribute,
    • Syndic schrieb:

      The current system definitely does not work fine, because there are dudes on the round-table that haven't played the game since launch giving "feedback". Why should the game's future be indirectly designed by dudes and dudettes who don't even play the game anymore? Why should Guild A have 6 people on the RT (1GM + 5 constructive feedback) and Guild B have 1 guy on the RT?
      Fuck yeah, this is funny issue.
      Solar ex-GM was invided to round table while being innactive for months, and when i asked to be invited as new Solar GM, and active forum participant since bate 2 till nowadays, I GOT NO ANSWER. Ye. Even no answer. No single word.
    • Evas_Flarelight schrieb:

      Hi @Ravenar. The Chronicles of Albion section of the forum can also be used for RP purposes. I've read some very nice stories posted there (way before my time here). I was planning on posting some stories there before when I was just starting out (I have drafted something(ish) before, just didn't post it). We can definitely start something there to encourage others to contribute,
      Thanks for the reply. I started a thread for people who want to be heard about their RP ideas. Can I add you there?

      Albion Online RP (Master Thread?)

      Better yet, please take over :D
      IGN : Ravenar
      Discord : Ravenar#2076
      Trial Keys on Request!
    • Syndic schrieb:

      The current system definitely does not work fine, because there are dudes on the round-table that haven't played the game since launch giving "feedback". Why should the game's future be indirectly designed by dudes and dudettes who don't even play the game anymore? Why should Guild A have 6 people on the RT (1GM + 5 constructive feedback) and Guild B have 1 guy on the RT?

      For all its faults, CSM at least helped avoid some truly horrible stuff from ever seeing the light of day. At this pace, we'll have german monocles on sale for 59,99 pretty soon. And we can't shoot any monuments in Caerleon.
      If 5 people from the same guild are in the RT because they give constructive feedback, it shouldnt be a problem (since they are supposed to give some constructive feedback).
      The problem comes from people pushing for their own interest instead of the games interest.
      If those guys are chosen because they give constructive feedback, they are more likely to give ideas for the games interest than a guy chosen because he leads his guild to silver rank.

      It doesn't mean that any GM is pushing towards his interest but actually having people chosen according to what they can provide to the debates is IMO the best thing for the RT
    • Syndic schrieb:

      Saya schrieb:

      a definite no to player voting...

      I think the current system works fine... it should be up to the developers to identify and select those players most likely to contribute to and constructively critique their vision for the game's future...

      all player voting would do is ensure large guilds dominated the round table, leaving small guilds, independent organizations and solo players out in the cold...

      it was a nice try though Syndic xD
      The current system definitely does not work fine, because there are dudes on the round-table that haven't played the game since launch giving "feedback". Why should the game's future be indirectly designed by dudes and dudettes who don't even play the game anymore?


      (...)
      Devs don't play the game, so whats your point?
      *

      -

      The Albion Wiki needs your help!

      -

      *
    • Gugusteh schrieb:

      If 5 people from the same guild are in the RT because they give constructive feedback, it shouldnt be a problem (since they are supposed to give some constructive feedback).The problem comes from people pushing for their own interest instead of the games interest.
      If those guys are chosen because they give constructive feedback, they are more likely to give ideas for the games interest than a guy chosen because he leads his guild to silver rank.

      It doesn't mean that any GM is pushing towards his interest but actually having people chosen according to what they can provide to the debates is IMO the best thing for the RT

      Then players should be able to vote for who they prefer giving constructive feedback. The RT should have a degree of transparency so that the "normal" players can see what their representatives are saying. There's no secret that posts from the round table are discussed in a lot of discords and a lot of memes are made. What is the harm in everyone seeing what we're writing?

      The dudes posting or not posting on the round table should be accountable to someone.

      Bogul schrieb:

      Devs don't play the game, so whats your point?

      That people who don't play the game are obviously clueless because they don't have the practical experience. That includes the developers, which is one of the reasons why the RT is a thing. Players break systems to determine the most efficient effort vs profit relation. If you don't know the system and you base your feedback on once-upon-a-time-in-beta-i-was-cool mentality, then the feedback is worthless because its not grounded in current reality.

      Substitute "you" for "generic poster" naturally.
    • Syndic schrieb:

      Gugusteh schrieb:

      If 5 people from the same guild are in the RT because they give constructive feedback, it shouldnt be a problem (since they are supposed to give some constructive feedback).The problem comes from people pushing for their own interest instead of the games interest.
      If those guys are chosen because they give constructive feedback, they are more likely to give ideas for the games interest than a guy chosen because he leads his guild to silver rank.

      It doesn't mean that any GM is pushing towards his interest but actually having people chosen according to what they can provide to the debates is IMO the best thing for the RT
      Then players should be able to vote for who they prefer giving constructive feedback. The RT should have a degree of transparency so that the "normal" players can see what their representatives are saying. There's no secret that posts from the round table are discussed in a lot of discords and a lot of memes are made. What is the harm in everyone seeing what we're writing?

      The dudes posting or not posting on the round table should be accountable to someone.

      Bogul schrieb:

      Devs don't play the game, so whats your point?
      That people who don't play the game are obviously clueless because they don't have the practical experience. That includes the developers, which is one of the reasons why the RT is a thing. Players break systems to determine the most efficient effort vs profit relation. If you don't know the system and you base your feedback on once-upon-a-time-in-beta-i-was-cool mentality, then the feedback is worthless because its not grounded in current reality.

      Substitute "you" for "generic poster" naturally.
      yikes haha
    • Syndic schrieb:

      Then players should be able to vote for who they prefer giving constructive feedback. The RT should have a degree of transparency so that the "normal" players can see what their representatives are saying. There's no secret that posts from the round table are discussed in a lot of discords and a lot of memes are made. What is the harm in everyone seeing what we're writing?

      The dudes posting or not posting on the round table should be accountable to someone.

      That people who don't play the game are obviously clueless because they don't have the practical experience. That includes the developers, which is one of the reasons why the RT is a thing. Players break systems to determine the most efficient effort vs profit relation. If you don't know the system and you base your feedback on once-upon-a-time-in-beta-i-was-cool mentality, then the feedback is worthless because its not grounded in current reality.

      Substitute "you" for "generic poster" naturally.
      Players already "vote" for who they find constructive. You can actually see that most people invited to the RT because they gave constructive feedback were supported by players (by likes and approvals on the forum for example)
      However you can easily see that basing the RT members only on players "votes" is retarded since there is a lot of "fanboys" (i'd have used another word in another place) upvoting any post from one person (a perfect example is your post(s) here). Players are biased.

      Also i'm keeping your answer to Bogul here, since dev have some clues about the game even without playing it (since they know the features details and can expect some particular behaviors + they can see a lot of feedback from multiple sources). Second point is that basing the feedback only on a past iteration of the game is bad but ignoring the past iterations completely is bad too. So having an external point of view can help to find a solution (comparison is important).
    • "Also i'm keeping your answer to Bogul here, since dev have some clues about the game even without playing it (since they know the features details and can expect some particular behaviors + they can see a lot of feedback from multiple sources)."

      If this were true, the laborer and syntax errors I brought up ages ago would have been fixed. I fully support SBI by buying gold since they are doing a stellar job in creating EvE 2D but the size of their organization precludes robust QA so your statement about seeing "multiple sources" can best be related to pilot "sensory overload" i.e. too much information to process quickly or efficiently.

      Personally I agree with Syndic et al about RT transparency. If you're afraid of looking like a fool then you shouldn't be there in the first place.

      - Bar
      The goal of software programmers is to create idiot-proof software. The goal of the universe is to create bigger idiots. So far, the universe is winning.
    • Gugusteh schrieb:

      However you can easily see that basing the RT members only on players "votes" is retarded since there is a lot of "fanboys" (i'd have used another word in another place) upvoting any post from one person (a perfect example is your post(s) here). Players are biased.
      You say this dismissively. I believe most people upvote what they agree with not because they're being fanboys. Syndic tends to get a certain crowd to upvote a lot of his comments because that crowd agrees with a lot of his comments. You similarly get upvoted by the same crowd typically. It is true for almost everyone. It is mostly nothing to do with fanboys and more that there is a community of players that prioritize certain aspects of the game that will share my opinions typically. There are other communities of players that will emphasize other aspects of the game.
    • Neu

      Ravenar schrieb:

      It reminds me what @Rosalia often said. RT is not what people think it is. (where is he by the way?) ?( Devs ask feedback, mostly on GvG, OpenWorld etc. topics that I have very little to say about...
      Im still alive, still watching everything. But at the moment there is people that have way better feedback than i could bring. Also i am happy with the current progress and situation.
      What a lot of people dont know about me, is that i only get loud and active and direct when shit is going wrong, like it was pre round table rework, or when the moung/ganking changes happend, but most of my results or impacts are just invisible.
      On the round table, i currently dont see any issues of people "forcing" something that would only help them. because in the end its still the devs that make the decisions.

      I also stepped back from combat changes, because all of the "big" things i went through with the devs and especially retroman are now in the game. He has improved A LOT over the years, and his first illiterations of skills have improved even more, since he normaly learns from mistakes he made. Back in the days i spend days after days to test every single skills when the artifacts were coming to the game, it was a shit ton of workload to go through, but it was worth my time. But as long as he doesnt want to push 3 skills per weapon line in a single patch again + armor skills he will be perfectly fine and doesnt need much external help.

      Also i currently and most likely in the future i wont have much time to play the game i loved called albion, because im finishing off some real life problems, while having enough money safed up after them to pretty much retire from a daytime job, and start some projects with the money i have made over the years, one of them being a multiplayer based game in a special genre, people that are around me, most likely will know what its gonna be and its gonna be for a real special audience.

      Other than that, as long as shit doesnt hit the fan, and everything keeps on going on an argumentally good pace, i ll just relax and enjoy the future that albion has to offer. Still a better mobile game than Diablo Immortal after all!
      Proud owner of the T8 Offhand book Rosalia's Diary. Feel free to pm me once you have your own item named in Albion.
    • Neu

      Saya schrieb:

      instead of the Money Guild "are you donating or leaving?" ideal, we'd have a "are you voting or leaving?" to replace it...
      EVE Online's Council of Stellar Management is a perfect example of this, and for years it has been dominated by null-sec alliances pushing their agendas to the detriment of all other game-play options...

      please don't make that mistake here SBI!
      That's not true at all if they use anonymous voting through in game poll booths like Runescape has. No way for your guild to verify that you voted for their interest = free to vote for what you actually want.