Dev Talk: The New Outlands

    • I hope that they fix the standard solo dungeons that we have on some maps (the ones that the map isnt hiding inside in case anyone is wondering - we have 6 types of this dungeons 2 skeletons - 2 giants - 2 morgana). They became totally worthless after the random solo dungeon patch

      IMO they should either remove this solo dungeons or buff the loot there so people have a good reason to go there instead of looking for the random solo dungeons gate on the map (that in most cases are very easy to find since theres a lot of them).

      I play this game solo (I know nobody cares about solo) and this places were great to find some action. Nowadays I just go to all the random solo dungeons and since there are too many of them I hardly find people in it.

      Nevertheless, I wish the new changes keep albion a great game!
      LolzaoDlol

      Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5sD8HJ0_mmC63-lh3-6R7w
    • From what im understanding the devs are removing "reg" chests from the towers and farms in the outlands please reconsider this change. One of the biggest selling points of having terris is being able to store resources in the towers. Also in the royals please add a few chests areas with the "flag areas" around them to bring small fights in that area. I was also thinking since terris are being removed from the royals it would be cool to have a few "flag areas" spread through the zones for small scale fights to happen where you don't lose rep there could be mobs or something to keep people busy or maybe some outpost areas where guilds can fight over them kinda like the small BK castles but they would not give season points only a loot chest to keep big guilds from just taking them all over for the season points. Theses small outposts could also be where the chests are so gathers could store some mats without having to return to a city every 15min.
    • Neef wrote:

      From what im understanding the devs are removing "reg" chests from the towers and farms in the outlands please reconsider this change. One of the biggest selling points of having terris is being able to store resources in the towers. Also in the royals please add a few chests areas with the "flag areas" around them to bring small fights in that area. I was also thinking since terris are being removed from the royals it would be cool to have a few "flag areas" spread through the zones for small scale fights to happen where you don't lose rep there could be mobs or something to keep people busy or maybe some outpost areas where guilds can fight over them kinda like the small BK castles but they would not give season points only a loot chest to keep big guilds from just taking them all over for the season points. Theses small outposts could also be where the chests are so gathers could store some mats without having to return to a city every 15min.
      LMFAO jesus dude
    • Gank wrote:

      Neef wrote:

      From what im understanding the devs are removing "reg" chests from the towers and farms in the outlands please reconsider this change. One of the biggest selling points of having terris is being able to store resources in the towers. Also in the royals please add a few chests areas with the "flag areas" around them to bring small fights in that area. I was also thinking since terris are being removed from the royals it would be cool to have a few "flag areas" spread through the zones for small scale fights to happen where you don't lose rep there could be mobs or something to keep people busy or maybe some outpost areas where guilds can fight over them kinda like the small BK castles but they would not give season points only a loot chest to keep big guilds from just taking them all over for the season points. Theses small outposts could also be where the chests are so gathers could store some mats without having to return to a city every 15min.
      LMFAO jesus dude
      What you no likey gank =P
    • Are the territories going to have the same layout as now? (the 2 avaliable. snow and desert and the other that's in the marshes, hills and forests) or is that layout going to change?
      i'm pretty sure that's some vital info in terms of fighting since the actual layouts are done more for GvG than ZvZ.
      It's all about the rocks!
    • Novan wrote:

      Are the territories going to have the same layout as now? (the 2 avaliable. snow and desert and the other that's in the marshes, hills and forests) or is that layout going to change?
      i'm pretty sure that's some vital info in terms of fighting since the actual layouts are done more for GvG than ZvZ.
      Territories are going to be restructured and much more dynamic, the Devs have already hinted that at the beginning some maps can still be copy-paste from each other but in the future so that this is very little used, there is a greater diversity of layout for each of the 5 biomes.
      Thus the map is no longer so monotone and becomes dynamic, with each zone having a unique composition, of course this will affect how we interact with map layout and how it affects PvP.
    • LordSilva wrote:

      Novan wrote:

      Are the territories going to have the same layout as now? (the 2 avaliable. snow and desert and the other that's in the marshes, hills and forests) or is that layout going to change?
      i'm pretty sure that's some vital info in terms of fighting since the actual layouts are done more for GvG than ZvZ.
      Territories are going to be restructured and much more dynamic, the Devs have already hinted that at the beginning some maps can still be copy-paste from each other but in the future so that this is very little used, there is a greater diversity of layout for each of the 5 biomes.Thus the map is no longer so monotone and becomes dynamic, with each zone having a unique composition, of course this will affect how we interact with map layout and how it affects PvP.
      Thx for the answer but it doesn't exactly answer my question. i understood from the video that the map will be more dynamic and less repetitive but the conquerable territories will they have any diferent layout?
      i mean this territories


      Depending on how they change or not. Stragy will have to be adapted and i would like to know if there has been any info about this


      With love Novan
      It's all about the rocks!
    • Novan wrote:

      LordSilva wrote:

      Novan wrote:

      Are the territories going to have the same layout as now? (the 2 avaliable. snow and desert and the other that's in the marshes, hills and forests) or is that layout going to change?
      i'm pretty sure that's some vital info in terms of fighting since the actual layouts are done more for GvG than ZvZ.
      Territories are going to be restructured and much more dynamic, the Devs have already hinted that at the beginning some maps can still be copy-paste from each other but in the future so that this is very little used, there is a greater diversity of layout for each of the 5 biomes.Thus the map is no longer so monotone and becomes dynamic, with each zone having a unique composition, of course this will affect how we interact with map layout and how it affects PvP.
      Thx for the answer but it doesn't exactly answer my question. i understood from the video that the map will be more dynamic and less repetitive but the conquerable territories will they have any diferent layout?i mean this territories


      Depending on how they change or not. Stragy will have to be adapted and i would like to know if there has been any info about this


      With love Novan
      These Territories and their layout will be completely irrelevant in the game, as the existing tower will not give the protection radius, nor will it have a bank., the only thing to keep the same is the disposition of the guards and wizards.

      I believe the original idea would really be that there would be no territory in the map, a complete new layout, because the hideouts would have the farms inside, but that has been changed recently and the agricultural territories are back in the game, so I also don't know how it will look in the future this part of the maps.
      but as they, even after Queen leaves, will continue to restructure the maps to make them increasingly unique and single Copy-past, it may well be that over time these GvG layout that we are used to, eventually disappear altogether.

      We will see.
    • LordSilva wrote:

      I believe the original idea would really be that there would be no territory in the map, a complete new layout, because the hideouts would have the farms inside, but that has been changed recently and the agricultural territories are back in the game, so I also don't know how it will look in the future this part of the maps.

      If true, and farms aren't instanced inside hideouts, then living in the black zones will be impractical for most players. :(
    • Roccandil wrote:

      LordSilva wrote:

      I believe the original idea would really be that there would be no territory in the map, a complete new layout, because the hideouts would have the farms inside, but that has been changed recently and the agricultural territories are back in the game, so I also don't know how it will look in the future this part of the maps.
      If true, and farms aren't instanced inside hideouts, then living in the black zones will be impractical for most players. :(
      I thought that in the ideal world, you would aspire to have as little instanced content as possible, given the niche that this game is trying to fill, as a sandbox mmorpg. If the possibility is given to have new content added to the open world, why would we be against it?
    • Adrivan wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      LordSilva wrote:

      I believe the original idea would really be that there would be no territory in the map, a complete new layout, because the hideouts would have the farms inside, but that has been changed recently and the agricultural territories are back in the game, so I also don't know how it will look in the future this part of the maps.
      If true, and farms aren't instanced inside hideouts, then living in the black zones will be impractical for most players. :(
      I thought that in the ideal world, you would aspire to have as little instanced content as possible, given the niche that this game is trying to fill, as a sandbox mmorpg. If the possibility is given to have new content added to the open world, why would we be against it?

      Scalability equals more open-world content. That is, if more smaller guilds can exist in the black zone, there will be more warfare.

      That's why instanced farms in hideouts are so important: they mean smaller guilds can break free from the royal city markets and realmgate-centric PvP, and actually live deep in the black zone.

      If farms. however, remain as they are on the map itself, only a handful of guilds can own them (and even then, I'm not sure those farms can truly power an active guild to keep them from being dependent on the royals).

      Since the point of instanced hideouts seems to be to bring more guilds into the black zone (and rightly so), not including instanced farms would seem an odd omission, and ultimately a fatal blunder.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Scalability equals more open-world content. That is, if more smaller guilds can exist in the black zone, there will be more warfare.

      That's why instanced farms in hideouts are so important: they mean smaller guilds can break free from the royal city markets and realmgate-centric PvP, and actually live deep in the black zone.

      If farms. however, remain as they are on the map itself, only a handful of guilds can own them (and even then, I'm not sure those farms can truly power an active guild to keep them from being dependent on the royals).

      Since the point of instanced hideouts seems to be to bring more guilds into the black zone (and rightly so), not including instanced farms would seem an odd omission, and ultimately a fatal blunder.
      Fair enough, but let's not forget that a hideout is not a safe heaven, they can still be wiped out. Ultimately the black zone will keep everyone on their toes, alert at all times, you can't sleep safe there
    • Adrivan wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Scalability equals more open-world content. That is, if more smaller guilds can exist in the black zone, there will be more warfare.

      That's why instanced farms in hideouts are so important: they mean smaller guilds can break free from the royal city markets and realmgate-centric PvP, and actually live deep in the black zone.

      If farms. however, remain as they are on the map itself, only a handful of guilds can own them (and even then, I'm not sure those farms can truly power an active guild to keep them from being dependent on the royals).

      Since the point of instanced hideouts seems to be to bring more guilds into the black zone (and rightly so), not including instanced farms would seem an odd omission, and ultimately a fatal blunder.
      Fair enough, but let's not forget that a hideout is not a safe heaven, they can still be wiped out. Ultimately the black zone will keep everyone on their toes, alert at all times, you can't sleep safe there

      Hideouts should be a safe haven, to anyone inside. It's a hideout's connection to a black zone map that shouldn't be safe. (I personally view a hideout as a magical pocket universe, invulnerable in itself, but with a destructible link to our universe. :) )

      If it were my game, I'd consider making two instanced maps per hideout: a non-PvP map for the hideout itself, and a PvP map for the magical portal to the hideout. That would allow guilds to construct fortifications around their connection node(s), including NPC guards. (It would also allow the defense to be open-world PvP, not GvG.)

      So, if an enemy broken through your defenses and severed your hideout's connection, you could re-establish it with some effort elsewhere, and get access again to everything in the hideout.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Hideouts should be a safe haven, to anyone inside. It's a hideout's connection to a black zone map that shouldn't be safe. (I personally view a hideout as a magical pocket universe, invulnerable in itself, but with a destructible link to our universe. :) )

      If it were my game, I'd consider making two instanced maps per hideout: a non-PvP map for the hideout itself, and a PvP map for the magical portal to the hideout. That would allow guilds to construct fortifications around their connection node(s), including NPC guards. (It would also allow the defense to be open-world PvP, not GvG.)

      So, if an enemy broken through your defenses and severed your hideout's connection, you could re-establish it with some effort elsewhere, and get access again to everything in the hideout.
      I kinda forgot already what were the details of this new feature, but what i mean is, if the hideout can be destroyed, then your progress (assuming there is some progression to upgrading the hideout), time and money investment is gone, so do you really want to commit to a serious investment as a small guild, knowing that you can lose it? Maybe you want to keep it cheap, just so you have a bank in the outlands and a few other things, but not put too much money into it. So your main base and "safe heaven" is still your guild island located off the coast of the royal continent.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Adrivan wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Scalability equals more open-world content. That is, if more smaller guilds can exist in the black zone, there will be more warfare.

      That's why instanced farms in hideouts are so important: they mean smaller guilds can break free from the royal city markets and realmgate-centric PvP, and actually live deep in the black zone.

      If farms. however, remain as they are on the map itself, only a handful of guilds can own them (and even then, I'm not sure those farms can truly power an active guild to keep them from being dependent on the royals).

      Since the point of instanced hideouts seems to be to bring more guilds into the black zone (and rightly so), not including instanced farms would seem an odd omission, and ultimately a fatal blunder.
      Fair enough, but let's not forget that a hideout is not a safe heaven, they can still be wiped out. Ultimately the black zone will keep everyone on their toes, alert at all times, you can't sleep safe there
      Hideouts should be a safe haven, to anyone inside. It's a hideout's connection to a black zone map that shouldn't be safe. (I personally view a hideout as a magical pocket universe, invulnerable in itself, but with a destructible link to our universe. :) )

      If it were my game, I'd consider making two instanced maps per hideout: a non-PvP map for the hideout itself, and a PvP map for the magical portal to the hideout. That would allow guilds to construct fortifications around their connection node(s), including NPC guards. (It would also allow the defense to be open-world PvP, not GvG.)

      So, if an enemy broken through your defenses and severed your hideout's connection, you could re-establish it with some effort elsewhere, and get access again to everything in the hideout.
      You're too far from the thing m8.
      Hideouts are contractions that are created on the map and can be attacked (at any given time) with open world interaction rather than GvG.
      Just as players will build hideouts, other players will destroy them. Inside the hideout you will be able to do anything you want as only the elements of your guild enter, but at the door ... you will have PvP
      Just like in the Home Plots, destroying a hideout will be something that takes your time, because from what you read, you will have to attack in order to power the next day to attack again to remove a defence, and only after the hideout lose all the defences is what is destroyed.

      Go and read.
    • LordSilva wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Adrivan wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Scalability equals more open-world content. That is, if more smaller guilds can exist in the black zone, there will be more warfare.

      That's why instanced farms in hideouts are so important: they mean smaller guilds can break free from the royal city markets and realmgate-centric PvP, and actually live deep in the black zone.

      If farms. however, remain as they are on the map itself, only a handful of guilds can own them (and even then, I'm not sure those farms can truly power an active guild to keep them from being dependent on the royals).

      Since the point of instanced hideouts seems to be to bring more guilds into the black zone (and rightly so), not including instanced farms would seem an odd omission, and ultimately a fatal blunder.
      Fair enough, but let's not forget that a hideout is not a safe heaven, they can still be wiped out. Ultimately the black zone will keep everyone on their toes, alert at all times, you can't sleep safe there
      Hideouts should be a safe haven, to anyone inside. It's a hideout's connection to a black zone map that shouldn't be safe. (I personally view a hideout as a magical pocket universe, invulnerable in itself, but with a destructible link to our universe. :) )
      If it were my game, I'd consider making two instanced maps per hideout: a non-PvP map for the hideout itself, and a PvP map for the magical portal to the hideout. That would allow guilds to construct fortifications around their connection node(s), including NPC guards. (It would also allow the defense to be open-world PvP, not GvG.)

      So, if an enemy broken through your defenses and severed your hideout's connection, you could re-establish it with some effort elsewhere, and get access again to everything in the hideout.
      You're too far from the thing m8.Hideouts are contractions that are created on the map and can be attacked (at any given time) with open world interaction rather than GvG.
      Just as players will build hideouts, other players will destroy them. Inside the hideout you will be able to do anything you want as only the elements of your guild enter, but at the door ... you will have PvP
      Just like in the Home Plots, destroying a hideout will be something that takes your time, because from what you read, you will have to attack in order to power the next day to attack again to remove a defence, and only after the hideout lose all the defences is what is destroyed.

      Go and read.

      I'm not seeing a lot of contradiction, at least in basic principles. The only real potential difference is that I never want to see a hideout's contents destroyed, just because its door to the black zone was destroyed.

      From my perspective, the point to attacking a hideout should simply be removing enemy influence from the zone.