[Survey] What motivates you to keep playing Albion?

    • Wadefu wrote:

      So doesn't this mean the survey should be taken with a grain of salt? And in the end its just a opinion.
      I don't exactly know what you mean by that (i'm not native english) but if you mean that you cant just watch the stats and say "I KNEW IT" without thinking then i agree.

      The stats are certainly not 100% accurate since you don't have a good base for the survey (if i'm right a survey must be done on over 2k people of any situation of a population).

      This doesn't mean that the survey isn't reflecting anything, and as i said on my 1st post IMO it reflects something realistic on the playerbase.
    • Gugusteh wrote:

      Wadefu wrote:

      So doesn't this mean the survey should be taken with a grain of salt? And in the end its just a opinion.
      I don't exactly know what you mean by that (i'm not native english) but if you mean that you cant just watch the stats and say "I KNEW IT" without thinking then i agree.
      The stats are certainly not 100% accurate since you don't have a good base for the survey (if i'm right a survey must be done on over 2k people of any situation of a population).

      This doesn't mean that the survey isn't reflecting anything, and as i said on my 1st post IMO it reflects something realistic on the playerbase.
      Taken with a grain of salt is an english idiom meaning to view something with skepticism.

      The survey is certainly small and certainly not representative of the actual total player population of Albion given people were only recruited via these forums and reddit.

      The survey design itself had issues as well which I pointed out in the original thread.
      AO Quick Reference Guide
      Discord: Grimhawke#9254


    • Grimhawke-EB wrote:

      Really well thought out post @Lemonz. I hope @Korn @Retroman @PrintsKaspian @Evoque and others at SBI see this.
      The game would really flourish the most if it focused on fair and a balanced instanced content (2v2 5v5 20v20) as well as more focus on smaller scale open world activities as these are more accessible to average players to sustain.

      The current castle system does the opposite of this, as season points are so hard to come by, players have been incentivized to monopolize these points daily by massing up 80+ players in 8.0/8.1 gear that no one can contest, twice a day for 45 minutes. In past patches, SBI has reduced energy/point generation for Mercia territories because holding them was too dominant a strategy. The same applies now to the current Castle mechanics as they relate to season points and should be looked at.

      BA Could leverage that same 80 to contest a City 20v20 but rather sit 80 in 8.1 than send 20 vs 20 with a few sets of T8.1. Why? because they win with 80 vs 80 in T8+ but lose when in 20 vs 20. Same reason PoE zerg is in cost effective gear when going 20+ and the 5v5 or 20v20 gear is T8+. Players control their risk of loss.

      I do not think the answer is more instanced content but possible creative game mechanics to punish over zerging while also over gearing. I think the the rich should be able to bring the best when earned, but bringing the best and most numbers should not ALWAYS be a WIN. We need to find creative ways to force division of forces instead of speed rolling 1 large zerg across all of the blackzone.

      Offensive battle mounts designed to hit over-sized zergs but cannot handle 20-30 players is a interesting concept. I was not here during their overpowered phase but there maybe creative options here.

      Other games have explosion on death to punish mass groups, I also enjoy LAG FREE zvz, this means 120-180 players max generally before lag ruins the experience.
    • Grimhawke-EB wrote:

      Taken with a grain of salt is an english idiom meaning to view something with skepticism.
      The survey is certainly small and certainly not representative of the actual total player population of Albion given people were only recruited via these forums and reddit.

      The survey design itself had issues as well which I pointed out in the original thread.
      Thanks for the definition :)

      I think we should just try to make an opinion out of the actual results of the survey, while keeping in mind that it might be uncomplete. I honestly think that the data is still valuable as long as we just dont use them raw, but analyze the trends. As i said before the reddit and forum communities are pretty much mixed, and even if it doesn't include everyone we still can have an idea of what "unbiased" survey results would look like.

      I'd love to see people actually analysing the data (as lemonz partially did in his first post) and not talking about classic banter
      @Lemonz if you wanna complain about BA i invite you to create another thread, i'll answer you gladly there

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Gugusteh: you played urself ().

    • Gugusteh wrote:

      I'd love to see people actually analysing the data (as lemonz partially did in his first post) and not talking about classic banter
      @Lemonz if you wanna complain about BA i invite you to create another thread, i'll answer you gladly there
      There is no complaint from me in a player minimizing their RISK and maximizing their reward. I am not attacking BA, I am referencing their choice in play and learning to make the most of it. the problem is new players pay the price.

      BA does what is smart for them to be 'profitable' and 'winning' The same for PoE and to an extent RENT, SAVED and all others.

      It is cheaper to pay the best GvGers than to pay for your own gear and lose. RENT

      It is cheaper to wear the best gear and not lose than to wear crappy gear and possibly lose. BA in OW.

      It is not economical to equip 100 PoE in T8 for ZvZ when they have a .2 success rate in the open world... 8 deaths for every 2 kills would be a over estimate on their return rate.

      There is a reason SQUAD/BA/Scelenti/LIFE and who ever else stopped fighting for cities.... it was a silver sink and loss.... Same as why SQUAD gets blueballed.

      EDIT: To be constructive my point is creating a POSITIVE environment for players to grow, not a big fish eating all the new little fish every week system. Eventually you have no more fish.

      Instancing everything and current open world w/ speed mounts do not promote that type of positive experience.

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

    • The survey was nice but I do not like how you speak for me on the conclusions. To be clear, I'm in a group of players who favor open world anywhere from solo up to a maximum of about 30 players. I think we'll need to break this down piece by piece.
      The most important information that we got was that 75% of people who usually follow reddit/forum so most probably play albion everyday prioritize open world activity over 5v5 gameplay. The way how the survey was created forced players to choose one, the more important game mode for them.
      This is fine. I would expect that 75% or even more players would participate in open world and enjoy that content more than the competitive 5v5 gameplay. But it's your assumption that I feel its open world versus gvg players that you're wrong. I love that there are hellgates and gvg. I hellgate occasionally -- poorly. I enjoy supporting gvg players.
      Unfortunately as I see 5v5 it just sinks people into, you can't count on them with daily activities as playing 5v5 is quite absorbing and requires hours of training/running a team. They usually create their own guild within guild. It's not something you can do effectively by joining random teams once a week. In other way, I see it is a very high entry floor activity and the 25% responses came from these players. As we can imagine, the people on forum/reddit are also some kind of 'elite players', the most dedicated community. The official data, shows that there are less than 5% of characters (not players), involved in GvG. I'd say, we can clearly see over-representation of that group. On the opposite side, I'd say we had under-representation of solo/non-pvp players.
      And right off the bat we are throwing shade at viewpoints that differ from yours. You often argue that the round table has an agenda against you and 'the common folk' of the game. I would counter that you came into this with an agenda and we see it play out every time you interpret the results to fit your own vision for the game. It's not that you're necessarily wrong, its just every time you see any data, the commentary behind it bends the facts to suit you.

      Anyway to get back on track, your commentary on the barrier of entry to gvg is spot on. GvG is a huge hassle to get into. You need to grind specs; you need access to expensive gear; you need a lot of available, stable time; you need a group that plays with you daily. Very few players meet those requirements and have the skill to make it in the gvg world. But statements about them usually being a guild within a guild and over representation etc starts to feel like gross generalizations and oversimplification to fit an agenda that you are pushing on me.

      As we can see, most players are interested in Party vs Party battles, so battles where there are no lags, each person can make a play that will make their party win, but requires preparation to get the right weapons in the group, so have X healers, Y tanks, this and that DPS, maybe some special roles, advanced strategies and great shotcaller. This answer was the mostly correlated with territory raiding, which is also related to guild-activity, playing with your closest friends in the game. It's quite interesting fact that Territory raiding is 2nd to last favored activity. In my opinion this means, territory raiding needs changes, it is huge opportunity to make the product better. Currently territory raiding seems irrelevant, maybe unfair for defenders and not that fun for attackers.
      I mostly liked this. Territory raiding without a doubt is the primary small group content generator in the game right now (parties of 3-30 can get content form this at times). It is a highly polarizing topic and I think I have opinions that differ from you here -- but we can agree that it would be nice if there were other systems in place to facilitate this range of open world fighting. And it would be nice if we could somehow make mages in a way that more people were happy. I'll keep my opinions out of here so I don't get too hypocritical ranting about you mixing opinions with the survey. We can save that for another day:)

      I will say I think faction warfare was designed for this and in many ways it feels like it had a lot of potential. I have hopes for these open world camps in the black zones with small bonuses for the owning guilds will help.

      I will also say that the older castles did provide more small scale pvp than they do now. They were intentionally reworked for the large zvz fights. I bring a lot of bias with my preferred group size -- but when castles scored throughout the day, there was more incentive for smaller fights over these castles.
      It is also interesting that small scale pvp and zvz are negatively correlated, but still there were people who are interested in both, but yeah we can safely assume, whatever changes we do for players interested in large scale, won't satisfy small scale players, as those are not the same people. And the numbers show, it's not that solo players are small in numbers, there are 54 people who voted for small scale pvp and are not really interested in joining big parties, they want small objectives to meet other people competing for them. So boosting chests, solo mob fame or whatever that won't lure bigger parties will make them happier.
      This was maybe my favorite finding from your survey. The negative correlation between players who favor small scale open world and very large scale zvz matches my preferences and most people I have talked to -- I just never thought much of it. As much as there is a lot of talk on the round table and public forums about appealing to the 5v5 player versus the open world player -- I could see this almost being a more real divide in the community that is not talked about much at all -- the small scale open world vs large scale open world.

      This also shows how I bring my bias into perceiving some changes in the game. When I see castles are now scored only 1x per day, I view it as a bad change. And all the players I surround myself with who prefer small scale open world instead of large scale zvz feel the same. I get an echo chamber that might not properly match reality. So this was a very good insight and thank you.
      The least attractive activity is dungeon diving. It is because we have to travel by horse that is boring, if we find a party they will prefer to escape over fighting (pve gear vs zvz gear), it's like ganking but with bigger scale. This content would be probably ditched even more as soon as there would be more goals to participate in activity D or F.
      I just lump dungeon diving in with ganking. Its non consensual pvp and I don't feel it should be grouped with that other open world pvp that we're mostly discussing. This isn't a topic I feel strongly about and I don't feel it is really the main intention of the survey or your conclusions, so I won't spend much time on it here.
    • Conclusion:

      The majority of players play Albion online because it is PvP game. 75% of respondents play the game because of Open World PvP. As a person who represents exclusive ZvZ guild we are unhappy with the progress on adjusting existing content, adding more depth into it like political meaning, increasing rewards and putting more pressure on the open world gameplay. In the end - playing the game everyday does not come with possibility to have fun in this type of content. We struggle to find a contact, we get most of red-zone bosses (which are closest to the city, there are no continent locks, so they always generated most pvp) in EU timezone without any fight. Many people after month of tryharding are very demotivated putting all their faith in the next content update.

      It is good to be as public with our bias as possible and I appreciate you making it clear that you and your guild are for large scale zvz exclusively. I have a lot of issues with the implications of some of these throwaway comments -- what is political meaning? Does zvz really need to be rewarded even more than it already is? But I feel my questions stem largely from my own counter bias in favor of small scale pvp.

      Similarly, when you say you struggle to 'find a contact' as in, you struggle to get a good fight I assume, couldn't a solution be to split your zerg in half and contest an extra open world objective? And if you still get no contact, do it again and again and again until you are contesting every EU objective simultaneously or you get fights. I realize this reduces the size of your zvz -- but it could just be that only your guild and a very few other players are interested in large scale zvz. Perhaps the other powers that enjoy large scale zvz know they cannot compete with you and go elsewhere. Perhaps most players enjoy smaller scale pvp and do not enjoy even trying to match your numbers -- much less practice it to the point of being competent at it. At some point, I worry that you are as susceptible of trying to bludgeon the devs and the community to cater to your play style just as much as I am with my small group bias/agenda and gvg players with their bias. If you're not getting content in your ideal scenario, you might need to bend your favored content until it is close enough to others' favored content and you get a fun fight.
      As a person who is included in the Round table I am at the point, that my group interests are ignored by most of other Round Table members (over-representation of gvg-focused players, or gvg-guilds alliances), so it's very hard to find allies that would support what many many people actually want and I can hear their bragging every day. Unfortunately not many of them speak publicly, many of those interested in open world already left leaving us with such a narrow population.

      Good grief here we go again. It's obnoxious how you lump 'everyone' or 'most everyone' on the round table as having the same opinions and biases and agendas. It's lazy, condescending and rude at the very least. It's got more sinister implications at the worst.

      It could very well be that whenever only a few people agree with you on the round table, it's because it is your opinion that is not shared with the community at large. You might be in a small, vociferous echo chamber just as much as me. Time and again you paint it as a battle between open world and gvg and time and again many of us say it is not like that for most of us. Perhaps most of us on the round table (and maybe even the community at large) enjoy a balance and find the game more enriching when there is a variety of activities to sample.
      When I look how the problems are solved bothers me a lot. Devs got played out by ally leaders who pushed people to do the slave work and complain and turn this into complete nerf (warcamps/mage changes). So everyone who is interested in dominating the game (all of them are active round table members) used that opportunity to make GvG exclusively enough to control their empires. Now with every change that requires them to ask their people to do the slave job (so actually play the game), they shows their outrage, spam with posts that it is not fair, punishing for winning (gvg) and force devs to revert the changes. So in the end we had 3 months of mages being totally dead content and it took only 7 days to nerf the change.

      At this point, you've given up completely at even the facade of impartiality. The devs are getting played by nefarious leaders and their idiot sheep-slaves who are all making the game worse for you and the majority of players you apparently represent. I would argue that mage raiding was not entirely dead last season. Perhaps your guild was not participating but I was seeing it just fine last season from a variety of alliances who showed up regularly. The changes just made owning a tower basically a full time job for one guild to efficiently milk their one or two towers or risk even a 3 man group traipsing in and wipe out the days' profits by more than half with almost no time to defend. Again, I bring some bias into this and I do not want to get into this yet again despite these conversations going on constantly on the forums and reddit and round table. But I have experience on both side of raiding. I'm not against raiding. Raiding is good content and it is fun. But I think it is unfair to say it is because of my agenda that I say the scale was tilted too far against defenders -- for reasons that go beyond just the financial. You keep taking away my ability to disagree with you without castigating me for being self serving. You do this regularly and dramatically. I looked up some fallacies because I'm not a very educated person. Here's the nearest I could find that describes how talk with and about those who disagree with you:

      strawman - misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack
      ad hominem - you attack your opponent's character to undermine their arguments
      composition/division - you assume if I agree with another player on one thing, I must therefore agree on everything and share an agenda against you
      black or white - you present only two possibilities when perhaps there is gray
      anecdotal - using isolated examples instead of compelling evidence
      bandwagon - appeal to popularity as form of validation; in this case we strive for perceived popularity at least
      no true scotsman - if I were really for the good of the game I would agree with you
      the texas sharpshooter - cherry picking data to suit your argument or presumption
      appeal to authority - I'm on the round table and therefore my opinion holds merit (but not everyone else there who has agenda)

      source: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

      I slip and use fallacious arguments as well. But you have a lot of good ideas and I genuinely believe you want what you think is best for the game. But when a person disagrees with you and lists the reasons they disagree, you cannot just keep letting the conversation slide from the topic at hand to personal attacks on the person disagreeing with you. That just ends in sloppy, bad discussion every time.
      While I dislike your tone and words, you are actually right that the round table is underrepresented by 'average' players. I think the rest is again you speaking like the politician you accuse just about everyone else of being but I'll grant you that point.
      And speaking of pushing agendas and speaking politically..

      Dear SBI, please re-think the product you want to create. Please make sure your priorities match your player base priorities, your product is a niche on the market and you should understand what makes it special, why you sold over 150k veteran packs on release day and why we are left with 8k out of this number. Your development is going in a wrong way, your way of understanding your customers (players) is very bad, you are being manipulated and your knowledge/vision about situation in the game is somehow wrong. You still don't have any opponent on the market, but the day that some other company releases similar game but with full-zvz focus you might lose 75% of current population. Also if you expect to grow population based on 5v5 content, you must understand it will be three times less effective than growing the zvz mode of the game.

      There is not much more to say on this rant that I haven't said already. I will just note that you are now speaking of zvz versus gvg. Recall the survey (whose findings you already call into question that they don't support your view enough) claim 75% of players enjoy open world. And of those open world players, only a fraction prefer zvz. You are now potentially making the mistake of assuming that your zvz group is representative of the greatest slice of the content pie in this game. I am not sure that is true. And I'm not sure all of this matters. I have said it before and I will say it again, but the game is at its best when it has a variety of content that players can enjoy at whatever time they're able to play.

      Hope the survey data, zalrenic's data, our comments make your job easier to understand what is right and what is wrong. I am opened to help to advocate what's good and what's wrong for the game development from mine perspective, I encourage every other player that is unsatisfied or already left the game to do the same!!
      I'm glad you at least added "from my perspective" to this.
    • glokz wrote:

      Not far from that, we can see that the second most popular activities would be small group pvp and zvz.
      Yes, I've been saying this for a while now. The absolute most fun in this game is somewhere around 7-12 vs 7-12.

      glokz wrote:

      The majority of players play Albion online because it is PvP game. 75% of respondents play the game because of Open World PvP. As a person who represents exclusive ZvZ guild we are unhappy with the progress on adjusting existing content, adding more depth into it like political meaning, increasing rewards and putting more pressure on the open world gameplay. In the end - playing the game everyday does not come with possibility to have fun in this type of content
      Well there's your problem. You're expecting people to group up and fight you all the time, but you are in a large alliance specifically known for it's open world zvz. Not many people can or will choose to fight you when you bring 60+ people in 8.1 with or without battle mounts. If your alliance cared more about playing the game instead of "winning" then more people would fight you open world.

      glokz wrote:

      I personally think, that if devs won't act very quick and do revolution in open world - gvg balance, punishing alliances for being passive in open world, prioritize open world content over crystal gvg the trends of pvp-population declination will continue. This is unfortunately dangerous, because the less players fight, the less attractive pvp is > making game less fun > making more people to leave until there's point of no return.
      While true, I think the best way to tackle this is by enforcing more burdens on alliances in general. Essentially three alliances own the black zones and that's the root of the issue. I think SBI is stepping in the right direction and I hope they will continue to do so.
    • I tried to click the survey but it ended in like a day? The results dont surprise me though. I woulda kept it up for like a week.I am in BA since the start of it but I dont prefer large scale zvz. Usually eu zvz were a lot bigger. They can be really fun and challenging but unfortunately my computer is bad and the really big ones I often crash and die because of it. So I prefer NA scale zvz's which are like 150v150 on average for a big big one these days. I prefer 10v10, 20v20, and 40v40 scale of fights which are the norm. Each member matters more in these smaller engagements. Each E. Each engage.This is usually the scale of when you roam mercia. You will find other groups of 15-30 and can have a nice zvz. So you can dungeon dive between roaming. But the larger the party. The easier it is to blob. Especially if you have 2 parties and dont micro manage it. Groups like AC,yaga, russian empire, one punch man. You can find for party size zvz. You can try and bait out fights by hitting dungeons or terris. Or having small skirmishes against gank groups. But yes the main reason why people dont show for zvz is because when there isnt a "A team" that can contest another A team in gvg because of many reasons. Then it doesnt really matter if a warcamp is defended or not. Unless you can be annoying enough with several teams (daily) sent all the time. If you let up it wont make that much of a difference. You can only lock so many A team alts. So you see hardly any warcamp action because it is tied to a gvg. If there was more actual open world objectives and reasons to fight over something. Then armies would show. The vast majority of players are open world players. Be it zvz/ganking/small scale. There is little reason for players to show for anything besides castles. If warcamps were shown for by defenders, then attackers would show. Just to fight. When the timers of warcamps were put all together it really really messed things up imo. I remember heart of the forest warcamp use to be a large battle pretty often, flint slice, GoE. All had some amazing fights. The launch of an attack on a warcamp doesnt matter anymore. If there was a way to launch a crystal gvg from a warcamp, or take a territory without a gvg. Maybe warcamps would be used again instead of rarely. One of those reasons they arent used as much is because of NAPS and mega alliances of thousands of members. I do wish there was a cap or even no alliances at all. This way there would be more fighting in this war game. But some people like to "hand hold" so they can make money for the 1%. the one percent getting richer and richer so they can field 8.2 overcharged everyday in gvg. The wealth gap is to much for most people to deal with. There is hardly any small wars you have to pretty much have another super alliance of thousands of players or a coalition that has to stick it out for months and months. Id like to see wars between only guilds, an objective for them to fight over.

      This is mostly towards lemonz and others who mention BA. City fights are gvg's not zvz's. we had pretty good showings with several blunders and comp and player changes for the most recent ones. 2 A teams combined were to much and oof and poe beat out ba in the end. Those city fights I doubt will be the last though. For the other ba stuff. No guys its not all about winning its about playing the game and getting a fight. "content" people say. They call it content because this game the pvp is few and far between because of server pop and lack of open world objectives. Whole zones can be dead. We have taken many fights outnumbered for fun and the chance at winning, Even if the odds were heavily against us. Knowing we would probably mostly all die, eventually. Its not all about winning, and winning consistently comes from experience. BA isnt good because it takes "more numbers" or "8.1+". We will take smaller amounts of players, just so we have a better chance of a fight. Or we will take no alliance. We use to do cley hill bandits more often, where we would do 4.1 to raid terris, last season. This would make oops come out to fight. We won several fights using just 4.1. Training the fundamentals is still there. It punishes mistakes more. The players and shot callers are very experienced and the gear doesnt even really matter. The comp matters and how you play. The core of BA is very disciplined and seasoned and coordinated. It does have new players in it but they need experience to be trained up, always been that way. There is tons of videos of us having less numbers and often winning. We are just now in another prime after working our way up for a long time after a lot of work. BA has higher standards then other guilds in even squad. BA you need 6.1 and a t6 horse min. Often players wear 8.0. 6.1 was more of a season 1 war type of gear but now its soooo much cheaper and its all you really need. Nowadays you can overcharge 6.1 and that is all you need. When they add t8 outside of terris i guess it will be more readily available. But you can steal stacks of it atm in a terri raid group. Sure relics make a diff but you do no "need" them. People who wear 8.1 or above are bored and rich and "flexing" for fun. When you get rich enough from looting hundreds of battles and whatever else you spend money on better gear. flat 8 is mainly regeared to core members. 8.1 to a few players. So if a group like POE would have a better fast regear program and need 3+ sets at all times ready. They would fight more often. A death in BA is regeared. If there is less fear in losing gear people would pvp more. So the player can save money and not worry about sets as much. They can pvp more often. So maybe the regear programs in these "top guilds" need to be upgraded. No im sure they need to be better. I kinda of wish the game would give at least a 6.1 set a week that you cannot sell. People seem very afraid to loose gear, when their guild leaders are rich and could be feeding money into a zerg's gear. This investment to me is important to any major guild, but it seems most of them dont do this? A lot of guilds sadly use their members for little more then a body that can be used as fodder or to be taxed. But you can have a better life in this game then that.

      But also I keep hearing stuff like. One of them said we had a t5 blob. Everyone bursts out laughing in coms. Please guys if you dont know blob sizes dont say a tier. Or ya you are paranoid of being flanked by a unblobbed group that doesnt even exist. Yes you might have died that way before but it doesnt mean its going to happen every time. There is a lot of fear that doesnt need to happen. Its like you see a tag and just start running. I always hear about these exaggerated numbers. Like they have 80, when its often 10-20 or 40 unless its a castle or warcamp we want. No everyones not in 8.1+ all the time.

      Ive noticed in this game whenever a new player joins it. They want to be a gvger. This is before they even do anything in the game. Its a very unrealistic goal for most players but many players think they can become one. Sure its possible and with a lot of work you can do it. If you find a group of players that you can stand. Be able to pretty much daily and not quit after a few losses. Its like they see a guild that has territories and they think, oh I want to gvg. This guild gvg's so ill try to join it. Then they just ff their gvg build. That sadly they will likely not use in a gvg. To me if you want any pvp in this game id fame a zvz build first or one that can be transferred to gvg in the same tree's. That way you can actually defend yourselves in dungeons or terris if you have them. I hear of so many naive players that think they want to become a gvger. Not everyone can do that. If you are in a guild with an established team. They would likely just send the team that has a track record of winning. Not risking the gear and teritory to someone with less experience. Sure Crystal gvg's are a step in the right direction for these type of players. But to me it isnt realistic for the average player base to aspire to be a gvger. The majority of the players in this game if they want any sort of content that isnt hellgates or ganking should try out zvz. Not even big fights. Just actually roaming and doing things in the open world with a decent comp. When I say zvz its a broad term. But it could be 7v7. So I lump (small scale) into it sometimes.

      Content im looking forward to is things that will likely add reasons for people to get out into the black zone. Like those random dungeons where you have to find the end but it has 4 entrances. I love this because it cant be camped by a naked alt. Which is a horrible thing right now. It makes it so there is hardly any dungeon dives or fights in and outside dungeons anymore. Since people just log out after the alt sees people outside. Those faction warfare camp things that will be in the blackzone and give season points seem like they would be cool and id like to try them. I also want to do 20v20 hellgates. I use to 5v5 a little bit until you pretty much needed a rampant to compete.Its better now tho. Never tried 2v2's. Im also interested in what they do with castles and other things where you can place defenses and things. The open world chest buff that will likely be contested so that people can find some pvp.
    • Anyway, random rant. Get out into the open world and have some fun. Everyone should be able to fund their own sets of 6.1 or even 6.0 overcharged. Without relying on a guild. But I think a higher tier guild should help its average members more. The gear paid for the experience and chance to loot. Just like ff you might die but the gears paid for in fame. You have to play and practice to get better it doesnt happen overnight.

      Also It would be better imo if there was more discussion on the direction of the game in the main forums and not hidden away where only the round table can see it. I hear about the stuff people try and pull on the round table which influences the direction of the game. The round table is mainly guild leaders and people appointed by them no? A lot of their views are bias towards their own interests and profit. They have an agenda. Where many many players would disagree with most of the ideas they are trying to push for. Just be careful with listening to only round table players. Its like people in my alliance dont use it as much and a super alliance tries to get as many guild leaders and players as they can on it so they can help push the agenda of that alliance. Im more for the happiness and abundance of content for the average soldier/farmer and not for pushing the 1%'s ideas.
    • EnErgEstER wrote:

      Also It would be better imo if there was more discussion on the direction of the game in the main forums and not hidden away where only the round table can see it. I hear about the stuff people try and pull on the round table which influences the direction of the game. The round table is mainly guild leaders and people appointed by them no? A lot of their views are bias towards their own interests and profit. They have an agenda. Where many many players would disagree with most of the ideas they are trying to push for. Just be careful with listening to only round table players. Its like people in my alliance dont use it as much and a super alliance tries to get as many guild leaders and players as they can on it so they can help push the agenda of that alliance. Im more for the happiness and abundance of content for the average soldier/farmer and not for pushing the 1%'s ideas.
      Please do not say things like this that are simply not true about people on the round table, the information you have alluded to is simply incorrect. The majority of players on the RT want a balanced approach for the game with content for all and often argue against points that would be advantageous for them because it would mean an imbalance in the game.

      Discussion about the game as you rightly say should be able to occur as much as possible. This can only make things better for Albion long-term for 'everyone' not just a few.
      Pre Patch 16 UO Player - Casual PK/Carebear Crafter - Now Old.
    • Those that are focusing on the data that came out of this survey are focusing on the wrong thing. This is someone in the community taking an initiative to understand more about Albion's community rather than making forum posts saying vague things like "all/most of albion players support x" without any statistics to back it up. Yes, unfortunately Albion's forum activity is low, and reddit's activity, while more active than the forums, is still only a small percentage of actual players. However, hopefully things like this help push for more deep surveys of Albion's community when planning the future of the game.

      The MMORPG that I grew up playing, Runescape, went down a similar road. As far as I can guess, Jagex relied on the small pool of players that hung out on the forums to give them feedback when planning out the future of the game, while ignoring the in game. At the time, I was one of those players that never logged onto the forums and only played the game. Jagex continued to put out worse and worse updates and the games population declined. After many years of bad updates, they were left with a low player population. Only then did it hit them to rerelease a version of the game from what players refered to as its last good year, 2007. This relaunched older version of the game quickly overtook their most current version of the game and now RS2 has a significantly higher population than RS3. They have since continued to update RS2, but this time they now make use of polls that are IN THE GAME to decide what should make roadmaps and be added to the game. This provides a convenient way to poll as much of the active population as possible because you can tell the games from poll booths in every bank how you feel about updates they are considering.

      I hope that the Devs notice initiatives like this survey and maybe think about following in Jagex's footsteps of focusing on finding out what the players want when deciding the future of the game. Jagex's circumstance is just an anecdote of how one game development company was out of touch with its base, but earlier updates we received from SBI lead to some rage and similar episodes within the Albion community that Runescape's community experienced. If they take a greater interest in focusing on the Albion community that has stuck with them, hopefully they can avoid the road Jagex had to take and put us in a position to build the community up into a fuller game.

      Edit: here is how OSRS (community driven, old style runescape) is doing compared against EOC (RS3/Dev driven Runescape design):

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

    • EnErgEstER wrote:

      If there was more actual open world objectives and reasons to fight over something. Then armies would show. The vast majority of players are open world players.
      I've been advocating for this too as the open world seems pretty stale, but my argument has been for things that small groups can compete over - and not just repetitive stuff like faction warfare.

      EnErgEstER wrote:

      There is little reason for players to show for anything besides castles.
      I gotta disagree there, but I guess it comes down to perspective. Maybe it's all there is for large scale zvz, but in my opinion that's plenty with six castles. You make your own content in this game for the most part and there's plenty to do outside of zvz.

      EnErgEstER wrote:

      I do wish there was a cap or even no alliances at all. This way there would be more fighting in this war game.
      Agreed. Alliances have always been a topic of discussion and it's never been more pertinent to the game than it is now.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      I gotta disagree there, but I guess it comes down to perspective. Maybe it's all there is for large scale zvz, but in my opinion that's plenty with six castles. You make your own content in this game for the most part and there's plenty to do outside of zvz.
      I agree with this completely. I get my open world fix easily every day on the scale of solo --> 30 man party. These days my content is usually with a party of 6-10 as I just do not have time to solo as much as I used to. But it is so easy to get content with these size parties.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      EnErgEstER wrote:

      If there was more actual open world objectives and reasons to fight over something. Then armies would show. The vast majority of players are open world players.
      I've been advocating for this too as the open world seems pretty stale, but my argument has been for things that small groups can compete over - and not just repetitive stuff like faction warfare.

      EnErgEstER wrote:

      There is little reason for players to show for anything besides castles.
      I gotta disagree there, but I guess it comes down to perspective. Maybe it's all there is for large scale zvz, but in my opinion that's plenty with six castles. You make your own content in this game for the most part and there's plenty to do outside of zvz.

      EnErgEstER wrote:

      I do wish there was a cap or even no alliances at all. This way there would be more fighting in this war game.
      Agreed. Alliances have always been a topic of discussion and it's never been more pertinent to the game than it is now.
      Yes it is very stale, its dying. Yes thats fine to have small group stuff but there has to be meaningful rewarding objectives in the open world for all scales. Yes faction warfare is repetitive and died in about 1 week. I had 200 kills in the first few days playing it. There was huge battles outside of the royal cities. Now faction warfare is reduced to a troll trying to disturb a cape/moa farming party after a few hours of ffing the faction bosses. I hope the black zone warfare things that give buffs will be much more popular.

      Castles have the weekly chests and i guess season points and energy daily if you do one. but hardly anyone tries to contest them. Even though apparently they did today. I would probably buff world boss rewards to go along with the world chest buff. Possibly add a sorta inis mon for blackzone. Yes people in my guild makes its own content and that is the nature of zvz. An entire play style and meta created around it. When there is no need for people to defend or attack war camps thats two huge objective losses and were a staple in this game until a few months ago when it died out. Battles use to happen almost everyday at these. Now nothing. Most of the game is in one alliance or that alliance's vassal. Combining the warcamps also reduced that content. You can only show up, trying to make your own content for so many hours per day before you go back to town to log out. Sure you find some once in awhile but If there was more objectives to contest then you can go for a good chance at a fight. If the other side doesnt want to come out to play then no one gets to play. There isnt plenty to do imo. If you are not trying to find a fight you can what? gank, gather, ff. I guess you could hellgate. Nothing else appeals to me for long. These are things id do once in awhile when its stale or dead. What else is there in a open world full loot pvp game? crafting? HCE? faction warfare? I guess arena and scrim? Doesnt seem like much.

      Yes alliances are way to large and make the game stagnant.

      Elenol my fix isnt easily quenched unless there is at least one good fight per day. I dont mind if its a whole bunch of kills/assists or skirmishes added up. Thats fine. But I want to fight for many hours per day. Not playing horse simulator for most of it.

      Well tomorrow should be fun at least but it will mostly be reduced to terri killing groups, especially NA.Hopefully a few good battles are to be had.
    • EnErgEstER wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      EnErgEstER wrote:

      If there was more actual open world objectives and reasons to fight over something. Then armies would show. The vast majority of players are open world players.
      I've been advocating for this too as the open world seems pretty stale, but my argument has been for things that small groups can compete over - and not just repetitive stuff like faction warfare.

      EnErgEstER wrote:

      There is little reason for players to show for anything besides castles.
      I gotta disagree there, but I guess it comes down to perspective. Maybe it's all there is for large scale zvz, but in my opinion that's plenty with six castles. You make your own content in this game for the most part and there's plenty to do outside of zvz.

      EnErgEstER wrote:

      I do wish there was a cap or even no alliances at all. This way there would be more fighting in this war game.
      Agreed. Alliances have always been a topic of discussion and it's never been more pertinent to the game than it is now.
      Yes it is very stale, its dying. Yes thats fine to have small group stuff but there has to be meaningful rewarding objectives in the open world for all scales. Yes faction warfare is repetitive and died in about 1 week. I had 200 kills in the first few days playing it. There was huge battles outside of the royal cities. Now faction warfare is reduced to a troll trying to disturb a cape/moa farming party after a few hours of ffing the faction bosses. I hope the black zone warfare things that give buffs will be much more popular.
      Castles have the weekly chests and i guess season points and energy daily if you do one. but hardly anyone tries to contest them. Even though apparently they did today. I would probably buff world boss rewards to go along with the world chest buff. Possibly add a sorta inis mon for blackzone. Yes people in my guild makes its own content and that is the nature of zvz. An entire play style and meta created around it. When there is no need for people to defend or attack war camps thats two huge objective losses and were a staple in this game until a few months ago when it died out. Battles use to happen almost everyday at these. Now nothing. Most of the game is in one alliance or that alliance's vassal. Combining the warcamps also reduced that content. You can only show up, trying to make your own content for so many hours per day before you go back to town to log out. Sure you find some once in awhile but If there was more objectives to contest then you can go for a good chance at a fight. If the other side doesnt want to come out to play then no one gets to play. There isnt plenty to do imo. If you are not trying to find a fight you can what? gank, gather, ff. I guess you could hellgate. Nothing else appeals to me for long. These are things id do once in awhile when its stale or dead. What else is there in a open world full loot pvp game? crafting? HCE? faction warfare? I guess arena and scrim? Doesnt seem like much.

      Yes alliances are way to large and make the game stagnant.

      Elenol my fix isnt easily quenched unless there is at least one good fight per day. I dont mind if its a whole bunch of kills/assists or skirmishes added up. Thats fine. But I want to fight for many hours per day. Not playing horse simulator for most of it.

      Well tomorrow should be fun at least but it will mostly be reduced to terri killing groups, especially NA.Hopefully a few good battles are to be had.


      I think you are covering some very interesting items here. Below are some ideas on how to quench your PvP thirst if you live in the BZ instead of Carebareleon.

      Warcamp content occurs when a entity decide to attack and contest the blackzone. A group actively defending sends a zerg to protect it, some send 1-5 people. Once a warcamp has been launched from you have the gear run being factored. Ganking and ZvZ occurs around both stopping the GvG from hauling gear and ganking the winning team for profit.

      Assuming you take the territory you can then defend the territory on top of the above content for more fights daily.

      Your choice in play-style to do 'big' ZvZ and not own territory is part of the reason you see so few fights. My playstyle has me engaging in PvP ALL night during the NA timezone 22-03:00 Tz in the open world. I choose a night or two do to Skirmish and practice skirmish and take a break from riding around. I never see horse simulator because of the number of enemy always running around trying to engage in content in the BZ.

      There are enough ganks, I cant FameFarm some nights.

      Alliance system or not, NAPS and agreements will always be a thing. If you want to fight every-night I would suggest getting a tower for the Crystal GvGs, these will be great for all of the above reasons and you will need multiple teams every-night to keep progress going. Each tower is 1 team, that means your needed teams and players grow very fast.
    • glokz wrote:

      As a person who is included in the Round table I am at the point, that my group interests are ignored by most of other Round Table members (over-representation of gvg-focused players, or gvg-guilds alliances), so it's very hard to find allies that would support what many many people actually want and I can hear their bragging every day. Unfortunately not many of them speak publicly, many of those interested in open world already left leaving us with such a narrow population.

      When I look how the problems are solved bothers me a lot. Devs got played out by ally leaders who pushed people to do the slave work and complain and turn this into complete nerf (warcamps/mage changes). So everyone who is interested in dominating the game (all of them are active round table members) used that opportunity to make GvG exclusively enough to control their empires. Now with every change that requires them to ask their people to do the slave job (so actually play the game), they shows their outrage, spam with posts that it is not fair, punishing for winning (gvg) and force devs to revert the changes. So in the end we had 3 months of mages being totally dead content and it took only 7 days to nerf the change.

      That's how round table works. It is like with real-life politicians, everyone contribute to their own interest, and Round Table is under-represented by average albion player that just wants to have fun with the game, play with their friends not to ride a horse and demotivate deeper and deeper. And this part of population is least happy and most declining happening to be 75% of all 'everyday' players.
      Listen buddy. I didn't vote for you, but you were picked by the devs to represent me and my interests. I don't want to hear about how the other hand pick people are all picking on you and won't let you have any attention from the devs. I am going to need you to do what you need to do buddy. Seduce them. Bribe em. Whatever.

      I think a lot of people are ignoring this part of what he said. I don't really like his poll or how it worked. I do think it shows that PvP is important to a lot of people, and that some kinds of PvP may be preferred to others. His real point, at least to me, was that even if 75% of the players love open world PvP and want more of it, it doesn't matter. The people that the developers are listening to love 5v5 instanced PvP and thats what you are going to get.
      Discord: Piddle#7413
      "The purpose of existence is simple: everything is fuel for the magmaw." —Jaji, magmaw worshipper