What albion did wrong- not a bash thread
-
One more thing came up my mind. In Albion the end-game content, GvG, territory wars are build around 5v5 system. This will exclude a huge portion of players out of that content. Okay they can support with logistics and securing transports, but most players never have a chance to actually participate.
In Fractured I hope we can see different sizes of sieges/conquers, GvG, so a lot of people from the guild can be part of the fights. 5v5 can work in situation where guilds are fighting over a small object, but when objects are growing for larger towns/cities/metropolises, then the size of the battle should scale up too. Varations can easily be 5v5, 10v10, 20v20, 30v30, 50v50 or 100v100 just for giving few examples.
-
This coming from a player who has been playing since Albion alpha two, and is still currently playing: Albion's biggest problems start from day one and as you progress though the game. Albion has a player life cycle that I've seen over and over, that lasts three to six months. As my friends come and go from the game, its the same story every time. Albion is not a true sandbox.
First and foremost, it not only limits players to towns with a broken auction system, but newer guilds that were not established early on into the game are not able to gain a foothold in the world because the mechanics favor the guild that has already claimed the space. When new territory was introduced, the same guilds and alliances that already had claim to all of the old territory engulfed the new area, becoming even stronger and more able to take what they wanted, since there was less risk for them. At that point, the mechanics entrenched them there as well with little chance of being uprooted by those that actually needed the territories.
Second would be the over-focus on player killing. The rewards vs the risk of PK-ing is very one-sided, which takes away from the true potential of the game. It is far more rewarding for players to group up and harass gatherers that have spent sometimes hours of gathering, only to loose it in two minutes to a group of five, ten, sometimes more than twenty other players. Reputation has no real influence, since reputation does not hold any real consequences. This puts the game at a constant imbalance.
Third would be that there is no true sense of adventure from begging to end. Albion is one continuous grind no matter what aspect of the game you choose. There is nothing more than unlocking skills to reach for. Even most of the higher content such as the GvG battles over territories is exclusive to a very select handful of players without much room for other players to try to break into unless they have the right connections. Dungeons or raids have no actual reward, and no sense of accomplishment. The loot is very underwhelming since it is just what other players have sold to a separate vendor for more money inside the game. There is nothing unique about loot chest rewards. Most of the time it is not even something that matches the gear of the player that receives it (if they have any use for it at all) so it gets sold. Thus sums up the life cycle of players within the game.
Players like feeling as though they accomplish something, and are working toward something that makes the game and their character uniquely their own. There needs to be something for the players to accomplish that affects and changes the world itself. It is my hope that Fractured will be an environment that gives that to the player base.
-
@Vortech As someone who played a ton of Albion but burned out, this is 100% right. "pay-to-win" isn't the correct description of what Albion did. You can't just jump in, buy a bunch of converted silver and wreck face. You HAVE to work at it and even when you do you die, lose your loot, and the money you spent on it. There may be a few players who pay to recoup their funds but no matter how you slice the cake, EVERYONE is winning in some regard when that happens.
The player who may be down on their luck gets some much needed resources, the player who buys gets effectively free in-game membership, and whomever kills that player gets the loot. (because that player WILL die eventually)
The system works in a open loot pvp game, no question @FibS. There isn't some 1% conspiracy going on, it's just economics and it's very fair.
The games I at least understand gripes about are ones that you dont risk (or guarantee) losing your gold, namely WoW. I still think it's moot because the best gear in that game isn't paid for, but it's at least understandable.
-
What Albion Online did wrong in my eyes (Alpha Player Since 2013) before keys went on sale.
- Banned innocent people for (RMT) / (illegal gold trading) never actually gave any warnings or proved anything.
- Tried to make the game based around multiple platforms rather than focus on (PC Only) and better graphics / Character Models & Costumes.
- There is no solo PVP because its alaways gank / zerg fest everywhere you go.
- Allow certain guilds such as (The Bank OF Albion) to violate their own (EULA / Trading Rules) Basically the guild controls the entire game economy through many alts and stuff such as what happened in Fort Sterling before when one person owned all the land / property, they charge insane tax rates to the players crafting.
- Random DDOS & D-Sync issues.
- Developers who blame the players for their own mistakes and threaten bans, laborer journals.
- Having a Central Market, with no safe way to trade IMO is bad for the economy just drives up prices, and whales while the only safe way to transport is a command mammoth.
Over-All I hope to see this game better than Albion in many aspects, and not follow the same mistakes i've listed above as well as things like
- Solo PVP Battle Royales
- Team Based PVP
- Sieges of different types.
-
Developers shouldn't interfere in the game (specially a sandbox game) once players get the economy and social mechanics rolling.
This is the meaning of sandbox... even if things go in direction where most players didn't expect, this is due to players playing like they played, and if situation will change, it should also be through players, not through developers meddling with mechanics during game life.
-
@Gothix said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
Developers shouldn't interfere in the game (specially a sandbox game) once players get the economy and social mechanics rolling.
This is the meaning of sandbox... even if things go in direction where most players didn't expect, this is due to players playing like they played, and if situation will change, it should also be through players, not through developers meddling with mechanics during game life.
and what if the game is Dieing because of lack of mechanics/balancing?
Devs should move on and make a new game?
-
@Gothix That why it is also crucial that developers finds working economy system during test phases, because after that it is easy to leave rest for the players. SBI in other hand made some wrong choises, which were the reason for messy and broken economy.
-
@Xzoviac said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
and what if the game is Dieing because of lack of mechanics/balancing?
Devs should move on and make a new game?If game is "dying" this means the lack of players right?
If there is a lack of players than you don't have the problem your mentioned anymore (guilds with thousands of players).This is why game can not die, due to problem you mentioned, because as soon as player number starts to drop, problem starts resolving itself on its own.
And... that would be if the game would die due to this in the first place... and it wouldn't... it's just your own fear of being outnumbered. But the game will certainly not die.
-
@Gothix said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
@Xzoviac said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
and what if the game is Dieing because of lack of mechanics/balancing?
Devs should move on and make a new game?If game is "dying" this means the lack of players right?
If there is a lack of players than you don't have the problem your mentioned anymore (guilds with thousands of players).This is why game can not die, due to problem you mentioned, because as soon as player number starts to drop, problem starts resolving itself on its own.
If players are steadily leaving because of unpleased mechanics and balance issues, it can easily lead to shutdown of the game if nothing is done by developers. It is not enough if some mechanics will be balanced after a huge portion of players have already left. Albion is a really good example, it had a sky rocket start and there was a really good amount of players joining the game. Soon after, the numbers started to decrease (reasons mentioned in this thread), and after about 1 year and 9 months Albion Online was in situation where they needed to go for F2P model to save the game from most likely happen shutdown. This is of course just a bandage and now SBI really needs to see effort to maintain at least a decent amount of playerbase to secure the future. They have made a good amount of corrective actions, but there might still be some issues, which might cause steady playerbase reduction.
-
@Gothix said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
@Xzoviac said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
and what if the game is Dieing because of lack of mechanics/balancing?
Devs should move on and make a new game?If game is "dying" this means the lack of players right?
If there is a lack of players than you don't have the problem your mentioned anymore (guilds with thousands of players).This is why game can not die, due to problem you mentioned, because as soon as player number starts to drop, problem starts resolving itself on its own.
And... that would be if the game would die due to this in the first place... and it wouldn't... it's just your own fear of being outnumbered. But the game will certainly not die.
Never once mentioned a fear of being outnumbered, you seem obsessed in defending a zerg power structure like it's a good way to run a game.
I am actually in a massive guild of 100s of people I'm not worried about getting ganked.
I Want what's best for the game, not my ego.
Most players do not like or want to be in big groups, the main player base will be groups of 2-5 even in the big guilds groups of 2-5 will be together hunting day to day,
fractured needs to appease the majority, not just big boy egos
-
I'm not defending any certain thing in particular. I'm defending game play without "forcing the balance".
I'm defending game play that's driven and directed purely by players, and not by "forced balance" mechanics imposed by game design.
One does not get to say ok lets have "sandbox" but lets "force the balance" with these limitations...
The moment you start "imposing forced balances", your game isn't sandbox anymore... it's now a game that looks after poor sensitive players. I'm sorry but that's the hard truth. Too many games nowdays do that sadly...
-
@Gothix said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
I'm not defending any certain thing in particular. I'm defending game play without "forcing the balance".
I'm defending game play that's driven and directed purely by players, and not by "forced balance" mechanics imposed by game design.
One does not get to say ok lets have "sandbox" but lets "force the balance" with these limitations...
The moment you start "imposing forced balances", your game isn't sandbox anymore... it's now a care bear game that looks after crying players. I'm sorry but that's the hard truth. Too many games nowdays do that sadly...
If a game is balanced it's designed for carebare cryers?
Anyone that dosent agree with you is a cryer?
Or just if they want things to be balanced and fun?
Using buzzword insults to "strengthen" your argument actually has the opposite effect.
gameplay can still be player driven
And balanced in a way that makes the game fun for everyone
-
@Gothix your wrong, there is no real "sandbox" game, the developers always decide how the world act, for example if there is many resources in the world , there will be much less reason to fight, and if the world lack resources, there will allot more fighting.
-
@Xzoviac said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
If a game is balanced it's designed for carebare cryers?
If the balance is forced by game mechanics then yeah.
(There should be no "balance" in a game, there should be only what players make of it, and if players play in the way so it becomes balanced, then fine, if players play differently, then they deserve to get whatever they got by their play style and their choices.)
If some player plays better then he deserves to be ahead of other player. If some group organizes better and puts in more effort, then they deserve to own another group that didn't do that.
If a group makes an effort to promote their political agenda and attracts more players to them, then they deserve to be able to do things with more players then another group that sounded "boring" and attracted lesser amount of players.
Any developer interference that annuls an effort of an individual or a group by giving (undeserved) power to another individual or group to "force the balance" would just make the game lame.
What do you not understand about that?
-
@grofire said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
there is no real "sandbox" game, the developers always decide how the world act
There wasn't so far, because developers always decided...
This doesn't mean that there can't be one, if developers let player choices drive the game completely, rather then imposing mechanical limitations and "forced balance".
-
@Gothix said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
@Xzoviac said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
If a game is balanced it's designed for carebare cryers?
If the balance is forced by game mechanics then yeah.
(There should be no "balance" in a game, there should be only what players make of it, and if players play in the way so it becomes balanced, then fine, if players play differently, then they deserve to get whatever they got by their play style and their choices.)
If some player plays better then he deserves to be ahead of other player. If some group organizes better and puts in more effort, then they deserve to own another group that didn't do that.
If a group makes an effort to promote their political agenda and attracts more players to them, then they deserve to be able to do things with more players then another group that sounded "boring" and attracted lesser amount of players.
Any developer interference that annuls an effort of an individual or a group by giving (undeserved) power to another individual or group to "force the balance" would just make the game lame.
What do you not understand about that?
your point of view is not a fact mate
I understand perfectly your point, I just see the bigger picture
you need to put yourself in the average players shoes.
financial success largely depends on the size and fidelity of your audience.
if only a small group of players in a large group are having fun playing and everyone else is ganked every one else cant progress because this Strong Dedicated group is better then the average player/ most the server the average player will leave the game
some info im using as the basis of my comment
https://gameanalytics.com/blog/16-reasons-players-leaving-game.html
http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/Flow_in_games_final.pdfanyway the point is, it dosent matter that you have this weird opinion of how a sandbox is, and if its not this way its not a sandbox, what matters is that the game is good, and the gms should strive to make the game fun for the majority of the player base.
call it carebare crying whatever it dont matter ,
I want the game to succeed, and make the company lots of money (keep its players)
And to do that Fractured HAS to look after the player base
whether you like it or not
-
@Xzoviac said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
you need to put yourself in the average players shoes.
financial success largely depends on the size and fidelity of your audience.
But THAT is exactly why all MMOs nowdays suck.... because they all cater to an "average player"... and guess what game becomes then? ... that's right game becomes "average" as well...
Game might gain a bit larger player base BUT... game loses all the "competitive" players, players that drive the social conflict in the game, players that put in the effort to theory craft on the top level, players that write top guides, game loses on the best "out of the game" content that those top 10% players do, because those players will not want to invest an effort in a game that caters to an "average" player.
Yes there will still be guides and stuff, but only such "average" guides written by "average" players that are playing.
Games like that just sink in the mediocracy of other MMOs, and become part of gray mass, unrecognizable, and their life span is short.
This is why you can't just cater to an "average" player, even if such players form the largest part of player base.
THAT is the bigger picture.
(Would like to add that players that are afraid of "imbalance" have a WHOLE PLANET to play on without fear...)
(And as in every other MMO, such player will never be happy with what he already has and will always ask for more and more regardless of how much he gets... it's in his personality description.)
-
@Gothix said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
@Xzoviac said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
you need to put yourself in the average players shoes.
financial success largely depends on the size and fidelity of your audience.
But THAT is exactly why all MMOs nowdays suck.... because they all cater to an "average player"... and guess what game becomes then? ... that's right game becomes "average" as well...
Game might gain a bit larger player base BUT... game loses all the "competitive" players, players that drive the social conflict in the game, players that put in the effort to theory craft on the top level, players that write top guides, game loses on the best "out of the game" content that those top 10% players do, because those players will not want to invest an effort in a game that caters to an "average" player.
Yes there will still be guides and stuff, but only such "average" guides written by "average" players that are playing.
Games like that just sink in the mediocracy of other MMOs, and become part of gray mass, unrecognizable, and their life span is short.
This is why you can't just cater to an "average" player, even if such players form the largest part of player base.
THAT is the bigger picture.
(Would like to add that players that are afraid of "imbalance" have a WHOLE PLANET to play on without fear...)
(And as in every other MMO, such player will never be happy with what he already has and will always ask for more and more regardless of how much he gets... it's in his personality description.)This entire post is just your opinion , but ok iv read it.
Im sure you are right its only 10% of the super pro awesome no lifers, all those players are the ones make all the guides.
If your gonna make up statistics please post your sources
If all mmos nowadays suck which mmos did not suck?
Why are you waiting for this game , and not smashing albion?
-
I hated the maps in Albion. All really small and tricksy pathing. None of it felt like a big world where I could go anywhere. It felt really really really annoying to get around after the first hour or two.
-
@Canterbury said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:
I hated the maps in Albion. All really small and tricksy pathing. None of it felt like a big world where I could go anywhere. It felt really really really annoying to get around after the first hour or two.
I have to agree. Almost all layouts of zones are just randomly generated without doing any corrections. You get the feeling that things are just thrown there. This is of course easy solution, but the result also looks like easy made.
