Albion Online Dev Talk - Merlyn Roadmap

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

    • Korn schrieb:

      LordSilva schrieb:

      When one faction has an army greater than all the others, what are the plans of the game to try to counterbalance this and keep the war healthy?
      Its something that can happen, we just need one of the big alliances to begin to fight all over one city only and with that overrun the other 4 cities and over time will gain more and more fans.
      This is addressed on multiple levels
      • factions are super easy to change (but: for that, you must be in the faction's city). No penalties or standing losses. Narrative is that everybody is a merc, and it is understood that mercs change allegiance regularly.
      • each faction gets a faction specific resource, *all* of them are needed for the economy. If one faction has too few players, that resource will be worth more due to supply and demand, hence encouraging people to join up that faction (remember: factions are easy to change)
      • To join a faction, you must be in that factions city. Furthermore, entering another faction's city - and entering Caerleon - will remove your faction status. This means that the relevant royal city will naturally be that factions "staging area/starting point". Now, faction warfare objectives (encampments in the open world) can be captured from other factions for points. Naturally, the more you already own, the fewer targets you'll have nearby. Conversely, if your faction is currently pushed far back - literally to your city's gates - you will have a lot of potential targets nearby. The more area a faction already controls, the less attractive it becomes to play for that faction - it's a self-balancing back and forth.

      So what is stoping Big zerg(like everyone interested basicly) joining the same faction and just getting all the outpost for points with faction A. Then just switching to faction B and retaking and from faction A?
      I don't see any point fighting and risking time and gear if you can work togheter.
      Another question
      Lets have 3 faction fighting is it free for all ?
      What about alliances and guilds? In big ZvZ fights between 2 factions you may have guildmates in the enemy zerg? This will be huge issue if you kill your allies/guildies. Also it would be exploited like the Kill fame for which you punish people.
      What about non faction combat looters?
      Will there be restriction who can loot who?
      Or basicly you follow the zerg factionless and try to loot other people kills.
      What about gatherers what is their incentive to merc for faction as gatherers? Would they be able to merc and only then gather the rare resources. Or maybe faction gatherer can get 100% gathering bonus or whatever.
    • AcOrP schrieb:

      Korn schrieb:

      LordSilva schrieb:

      When one faction has an army greater than all the others, what are the plans of the game to try to counterbalance this and keep the war healthy?
      Its something that can happen, we just need one of the big alliances to begin to fight all over one city only and with that overrun the other 4 cities and over time will gain more and more fans.
      This is addressed on multiple levels
      • factions are super easy to change (but: for that, you must be in the faction's city). No penalties or standing losses. Narrative is that everybody is a merc, and it is understood that mercs change allegiance regularly.
      • each faction gets a faction specific resource, *all* of them are needed for the economy. If one faction has too few players, that resource will be worth more due to supply and demand, hence encouraging people to join up that faction (remember: factions are easy to change)
      • To join a faction, you must be in that factions city. Furthermore, entering another faction's city - and entering Caerleon - will remove your faction status. This means that the relevant royal city will naturally be that factions "staging area/starting point". Now, faction warfare objectives (encampments in the open world) can be captured from other factions for points. Naturally, the more you already own, the fewer targets you'll have nearby. Conversely, if your faction is currently pushed far back - literally to your city's gates - you will have a lot of potential targets nearby. The more area a faction already controls, the less attractive it becomes to play for that faction - it's a self-balancing back and forth.

      "So what is stoping Big zerg(like everyone interested basicly) joining the same faction and just getting all the outpost for points with faction A. Then just switching to faction B and retaking and from faction A? I don't see any point fighting and risking time and gear if you can work togheter. "

      What do you think the reason guild and alliances fighting each other and not just join together under 1 big alliance to gather and fame farm everything?
      answer is always greed
      sry for stupid grammar
    • The armor the lady wears from the hammer faction (guessing fort sterling, hopefully) will that be part of the faction rewards as vanity armor???? Please if not, make it so, looks way better than most if not, all plate armor in the game. Just please for God's sake, don't give the armor's helmet a pony tail. It will kill the badass Appearance.
    • BriarMoss schrieb:

      Raithe schrieb:

      Where are solo, small group, raid, dungeons? Where are caves? Where is the solo, small group, and pve that was to be a focus like 8 months ago? Still hoping and playing DOS2 for now.
      pretty sure solo players get naturally selected out of the population...as is with the real world seeing as everyone lives in a society.
      Pretty sure , you would be surprised to know how much solo players are playing this game right now.And im not even talking about solo guilds.And just what random stuff is happenning in OW.
      Youtube/Equart

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

    • There are times one can't make one long story short. Couldn't do better, got to use two posts.

      PrintsKaspian schrieb:

      The Key Idea: Strengthening the Royal Cities

      First, what do they mean by "strength"? How is current Martlock "weaker" than Caerleon? Player population? Market prices? Before trying solving a problem you should try defining that very problem. Maybe there is no problem. Maybe someone just wants things changed. Saying other cities "play a secondary role to Caerleon" is like saying "Gleinmoor plays a secondary role to Mercia": a hollow statement. Players based in Mercia may not want what players based in Gleinmoor wish for, and the other way around.So, for starters, this "strength" seems to have nothing to do whith what players do want.

      PrintsKaspian schrieb:

      Bonuses
      The first step toward strengthening these cities will be to introduce two types of economic bonuses: refining bonuses and crafting bonuses.


      Refining Bonuses
      Each Royal city will be particularly good at refining a particular resource - and to encourage cross-continent transport, it will always be a resource that is not common to the region. If you refine this particular resource in this particular city, you will get a lot more refined resources out of your raw materials.

      From a narrative perspective this is due to the city having mastered the effective use of a scarce resource. After all, even in the real world, we only ever become efficient at using resources when they become scarce and expensive.


      Crafting Bonuses
      In addition, each city will be particularly good at crafting particular sets of items. We're aiming for a good balance between items that make sense in the local biomes (such as bows in Lymhurst) and items that are less typical for the area to make each city valuable.

      Note that while Caerleon itself will not receive any of these bonuses, home territories in the Outlands will remain strong. Crafting in these territories will always be at least as effective as crafting your items in the city with the highest bonus, so players who are already doing their crafting in black zones can continue to do so.

      Now this is driving me nuts. First, you say you refine better those materials you don't have access to. Nonsense. It's like saying you get an iron mine and instead of becoming more adept at refining and crafting with iron, you become lazy and waste a lot of it because of that abundance. From Mesopotamia to modern times: the more of a resource a given culture has, the better they use it, refine it, craft stuff with it. Lots of african cultures craft their buildings with mud, they've mastered the needed skills over the centuries, and they know nothing about sculpting stones because, you know, that's quite an uncommon resource in their region. "Narrative perspective" sounds as a bad excuse here. You could have said "Martlock had this Michelangelo guy who invented ways to refine stone and Lymhurst got this Leonardo guy who invented an improved smelter". But again, if you're dealing with resources that aren't abundant in their respective regions, it makes zero sense.

      Then you go against what you just said: "Lymhurst get bonuses for carfting bows". So Lymhurst gets lots of wood but you go elsewhere to refine it for the bonus (you said "resources not common to the region" are refined better), bring that refined planks to Lymhurst and craft bows there. Makes no sense. But, hey, you're "aiming for a good balance"... and you dare saying "bows", like apart from Warbow and Badon there would be viable bows in game. Like bows don't need better balancing. Congratulations for adding insult to injury, you nailed it.

      Next, Caerleon gets no bonuses, Outlands get buffed like "the city with the highest bonus". So Outlands get global buffs while each city gets 2 buffs? Like that's "strengthening the Royal Cities"! This either needs some explaining or some reworking.

      Summing up: the reasoning behind this block is flawed at best.

      PrintsKaspian schrieb:

      Resource Distribution Changes
      To make the various Royal cities more attractive for gatherers as well, the Merlyn update will see a rebalancing of resource distribution. Enchanted lower-tier resources will be far more common near each biome city, while the amount of lower-tier resources in the Outlands and around Caerleon will decrease.

      With these economic changes, we're confident we will see the economic standing of the outlying Royal cities increase significantly.

      How are current Royal Cities not attractive for gatherers? Again: What's the problem you intend to address? And how will resource redistribution make cities more attractive?
      Let's say you bring more (low tier, you said) enchanted resources to maps closer to the cities. You put T4.3 just next to a city, then T5.3 one map away. That would just bunch gatherers up and would play against solos and small groups. It keeps looking like you intend to force players from Outlands into blue zones and I see no reason to do that.

      (Continues)
    • (Continued))

      PrintsKaspian schrieb:

      Improved Marketplace UI
      For once, I'm willing to see what you do there. Will you be adding "Trading Fame"? I mean, like the Reaver branch but in trading, so you unlock buy/sell order slots the higher you level up. You know, like Trade/Retail/Wholesale/Tycoon in EvE. Just curious. That would impact trading alts, which can be good and bad, depending on who you ask.


      PrintsKaspian schrieb:

      Faction Warfare
      But what about players who want to participate in PvP, and currently have Caerleon as their only home option? For these players, we'll be introducing a new feature with the Merlyn update: faction warfare!
      (...)
      Let me get this straight: You can PvP in yellow, red and black zones. There are duels, there's an arena. Where's the need to take PvP to blue zones? What's wrong in making Caerleon *THE* PvP hub? You want to avoid Jita-like lag? Then address that! Messing the entire Royal Continent because you bottlenecked access to BZs in Caerleon is simply dumb. You know you can PvP in red zones and be based in any city these days, so this forcing PvP in blue zones makes no sense, your statement makes no sense. People playing in BZs will still need Caerleon. It's like you're trying to spread PvPers across the entire map with this move and that is simply *wrong*. There's plenty of options for PvPing without Faction Warfare, so this sounds like a hideous excuse for something else. How about you make another continent and put this Faction stuff there? That imaginary people you're doing this for will flock there and you won't screw Royal, period. Than bring PvE content to Royal, you've promised you would so many times and instead you try to force PvPeverywhere on all of us. I haven't ever met a guy high on PvP who complained about Caerleon being their "only home option". And again, a new for of PvP wouldn't help those based in Caerleon! Caerleon being out fo Faction Warfare screams of "guys, move away from Caerleon, nothing to see here, move along...". How about making a twin city for Caerleon and setting this Faction stuff up between those two only? Before you say that reworking the map wouldn't work just remember you got rid of Queensmarket and the world didn't end, did it? Then you begin lorebreaking, independependence from the king and such. So those who are not into Faction stuff are... what? Loyalists? Yeah, there's an independence war going on, click "cancel" to resume your life just like nothing happened, click "ok" to kill and be killed anywhere in Albion. You are sure doing this for the poor guys based in overcrowded Caerleon, right.


      PrintsKaspian schrieb:

      All in all, these faction warfare features should really breathe life into PvP on the Royal Continent, and we're very excited to bring them to life.


      Let me fix that for you:
      "All in all, these faction warfare features will force PvP everywhere in the Royal Continent, allowing us not to fix AI or care for solo players and small groups, and we're ending life in Royal as you knew it. Please, don't be mad: it's for someone else's good (meaning imaginary players, bear with us)."


      About outpost capturing and trade caravans, I see no need to make them PvP. Honest. They could be PvE. Well, if you improve the pathfinding system just a tiny bit. Outpost capturing wouldn't even need that. So, basically, what I see here is you're trying to use players as mobs instead of actually making functional mobs. Ha, dirty trick, won't do it. If one wants to kill players, finding only mobs is disappointing. The other way around also applies. You're already forcing players into PvP to hunt for bosses. Most "dungeons" are open, so you (or your small group) can't play them at your own pace and the final boss may be dead (not respawned) when you get there; even worse, you may be fighting it when some other guys arrive and steal the kill. Or kill you, it it's a yellow or red zone. So, again, no improvements for solo players or small groups, more PvP content nobody asked for, mobs still stuck into walls, zergs in blue zones, capes and special mounts only for those willing to accept this crap... I could go on and on and on. Summing up:


      Faction Warfare with PvP in blue zones is the worst invention since anal bleaching.


      Sorry if any typos went through. I'm not in the mood to hunt them down.
      Kind regards.
    • What is it that you think is being taken away from you, that you don't want other people to have new features? You don't have to do any of the stuff. No one is forced to do it. You can just stay neutral and live your blue zone life like you always have. They want more mobility from players. Traffic increases between all the cities. More action for people looking for action.

      But, it sounds like you just don't want things to be different then they are now, or are mad that you didn't get to design the features yourself. Not really a position you should be using to tell other people that they shouldn't get features. I don't know what bill of goods you were sold, but at no point have I read or seen hinted at that the game was going to be a deep and intricate PvE experience. It's a PvP game, and to be one you give players more reasons to engage in PvP. This seems like a great addition to that goal.
    • Piddle schrieb:

      What is it that you think is being taken away from you, that you don't want other people to have new features?
      (...)
      Hi Piddle. I love having good new features for me to enjoy and also for others to enjoy. If they add something that I won't enjoy, some other will and it won't affect me in a negative manner, I'll be happy. I can't be happy with what we've been told about Merlyn and I have explained why. Have you read my posts? Could you please tell me how is current Martlock "weaker" than Caerleon? Why are these changes needed or even wanted? How about fixing stuff that needs fixing without breaking other stuff in the process?

      They've ditched solo player and small groups improvements in favor of these "features". That makes me angry. Very. Say "broken promises".

      There's plenty of PvP in Albion. Plenty of zergs too. You can add PvP in ways it won't hurt anyone (Faction Warfare, as explained, hurts). Adding zerg-based stuff without hurting the game doesn't sound easy. You could also add free fast travel, that's a feature. And that wouldn't make the game any better, quite the opposite. So I remain unmoved: What we've been told about Merlyn is very, very bad.

      Thanks for asking.
    • @Kurim

      Kurim schrieb:

      Could you please tell me how is current Martlock "weaker" than Caerleon?
      There is less travel to Martlock and fewer people who base their home there. This causes a more stagnant market. Prices are generally higher and items don't sell as fast. These are the types of things they're referring to when they say 'weaker'.

      Traders complain that they can no longer make money by moving goods around because no one uses the outer cities anymore. Trading was sold as a core feature of Albion, but was largely killed when they made Caerleon the main hub. This is an attempt to rectify that.

      There is one clear choice for where to put your island and spend most of your time: Caerleon. The Devs want to give people a choice again.

      Kurim schrieb:

      How about fixing stuff that needs fixing without breaking other stuff in the process?
      Can you explain what you believe is being 'broken' by these changes?


      As an aside: for those of you complaining that the devs claim these changes are for solo/small group players, but believe the faction warfare will favor zergs, I think you're misunderstanding something:

      The point of faction warfare is not necessarily to increase solo/small scale pvp, but to give solo/small groups a chance to get involved in zerg (or other) fighting. Maybe small scale fights will also increase, but joining a faction allows an un-guilded player to play in a zerg by simply joining a faction.
    • The only reason that the rim cities have people in them is the steam release. In 6 months, without changes, we will be back to highs of 30-50 as people naturally progress toward Caerleon. I used to wake up and zone into Bridgewatch to find 15-30 people during peak times, certainly not what I'd consider healthy for the game or it's economy.

      All of the rim cities are naturally weaker. Access to high level materials means you don't get high level crafting. Normally, you would expect people to be moving the materials from Caerleon out to those cities, but that pretty much doesn't happen because the volume of sales on those markets is just completely dwarfed by Caerleons volume. So players get the choice to do all the riding back and fourth themselves, or else just, you know, move to Caerleon and save all the hassle. Even now with Steam, I don't think the volume of activity in all 5 other royal cities comes close to half the volume of activity in Careleon, and I am super excited to see if Merlyn helps force the action a bit in the economy.

      More people traveling through the red zones is great for the game. A longer early game for blue gatherer/crafters, with the enchantment increases is great. A better early game PvP experience for new players in blue PvP combat seems great to. People are free to stay neutral if they want to avoid the hassle, but I suspect the rewards, in terms of faction loot, will lead to even people who are irrationally afraid of PvP, to try and dip a toe into the water.

      Blood for the Blood God.
    • Kurim schrieb:

      Now this is driving me nuts. First, you say you refine better those materials you don't have access to. Nonsense. It's like saying you get an iron mine and instead of becoming more adept at refining and crafting with iron, you become lazy and waste a lot of it because of that abundance. From Mesopotamia to modern times: the more of a resource a given culture has, the better they use it, refine it, craft stuff with it. Lots of african cultures craft their buildings with mud, they've mastered the needed skills over the centuries, and they know nothing about sculpting stones because, you know, that's quite an uncommon resource in their region. "Narrative perspective" sounds as a bad excuse here. You could have said "Martlock had this Michelangelo guy who invented ways to refine stone and Lymhurst got this Leonardo guy who invented an improved smelter". But again, if you're dealing with resources that aren't abundant in their respective regions, it makes zero sense.
      I definitely agree that this is inconsistent and makes no sense. If you are going to give refining bonus it should be for the primary resource of that city. I argued that point when they first put it out as a possibility but some at SBI are stubborn and refuse to listen to reason.

      Kurim schrieb:

      How are current Royal Cities not attractive for gatherers? Again: What's the problem you intend to address? And how will resource redistribution make cities more attractive?
      Let's say you bring more (low tier, you said) enchanted resources to maps closer to the cities. You put T4.3 just next to a city, then T5.3 one map away. That would just bunch gatherers up and would play against solos and small groups. It keeps looking like you intend to force players from Outlands into blue zones and I see no reason to do that.

      I agree here also. Why make royal the "best place in the world" to gather mid tier enchanted resources? Let the black zone gatherers stay in the black zone, Yellow/Red are already too crowded.


      xooEumaeos schrieb:

      Be careful with this. Especially if the capes are going to be significant impactors to PvP.

      I would assume the capes are going to be crafted by players and require the new resources being added. I'm probably wrong because they rarely do what I think makes sense.

      Ideally (in my opinion) each cities cape would have the same stats to avoid one being the Meta and the other being worthless causing more rounds of attempted balancing. But I'm sure they will all have different stats and 1 will be considered the only one worth having.
    • They are trying to make caravan runs happen again between cities. So theirs goal is you gather in zone A go refine to zone B and back to zone A to make stuff out of it. Or zone C, depending on what you are making. The thing is, you can go safely all the way, so its mostly about trading. Its just they are trying to fix the lack of sandbox they messed up before release. Thats what happens when you keep "refining" the tools you already have and that mostly work over and over instead of adding new ones. Sooner or later you are going to f it up. Hence the fixes.
    • Omnio schrieb:

      They are trying to make caravan runs happen again between cities. So theirs goal is you gather in zone A go refine to zone B and back to zone A to make stuff out of it. Or zone C, depending on what you are making. The thing is, you can go safely all the way, so its mostly about trading. Its just they are trying to fix the lack of sandbox they messed up before release. Thats what happens when you keep "refining" the tools you already have and that mostly work over and over instead of adding new ones. Sooner or later you are going to f it up. Hence the fixes.
      I know what they are trying to do, they are just as usual going way overboard with massive changes instead of small changes.

      They don't know the meaning of fine tuning things... they will make this massive change and then overcorrect when it goes wrong.

      1. Introducing faction warfare to get more people interested in Royal Continent (RC).
      2. Creating 5 new resources to gather only available in RC.
      3. Making RC the "Best Place in the World" to gather mid tier enchanted resources.
      4. Refining and Crafting bonus returns in RC cities.

      Result = OVERCROWDING - They need to double the size of zones and triple the number of zones in the RC. Yes, multiply the space available by 6.

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 3 mal editiert, zuletzt von Fooky ()

    • Omnio schrieb:

      They are trying to make caravan runs happen again between cities. So theirs goal is you gather in zone A go refine to zone B and back to zone A to make stuff out of it. Or zone C, depending on what you are making. The thing is, you can go safely all the way, so its mostly about trading. Its just they are trying to fix the lack of sandbox they messed up before release. Thats what happens when you keep "refining" the tools you already have and that mostly work over and over instead of adding new ones. Sooner or later you are going to f it up. Hence the fixes.
      Exactly - and what is that supposed to achieve besides draining time of gatherers and crafters ? It does not post an effect on OW except more even cheaper T4 beeing hault to Caerleon through the red zones if not most of it is burned in factional warefare...

      still interesting to see what is actually going to happen till they say 'we did not expect that - we have to fix it' (Sandbox anyone?)