Questions regarding Hideouts and General Queen Update.

    • Questions regarding Hideouts and General Queen Update.

      HIDEOUTS
      1.) After the first 24-hours (2 separate attack periods), its said that the Hideouts will have shields, based on a food/supply/resource, up to 5 maximum. If we keep these shields satisfied, will the hideout never be attack-able for any reason?

      2.) Can a Hideout be destroyed/lost?

      3.) If a Hideout is destroyed/lost, will the instance inside, ie; Buildings, farms, items, etc.. be saved and waiting for that Guild/Owner to create another Hideout? If not, what happens to those items? Items in chests/banks/Market place in the hideout.

      4.) Will there be an evacuation notification/time period to remove items from a Hideout?

      5.) How many Hideouts can be placed on a single map? I understand the current restriction of "wherever there is free space to do so", but what happens if 100s of Hideouts are placed on a single map, restricting movement and items/mobs from spawning. -- I also understand the insane difficulty this would take to accomplish, but is it theoretically possible?

      6.) Can a Hideout be placed in a Red/Yellow or Blue Zone?


      GENERAL QUESTIONS
      1.) Will items in Royal Zone War camps also be moved to a safe storage for the Queen Update?

      2.) Will items in the Royal City banks also be moved to a single location as well, since the Royal city locations and their adjacent maps will change?

      3.) Where will the new chest that will house all of the War camp/Territory banked items be located? Will it be available on your island?

      4.) What if all of the items in this chest exceed its weight limit or item capacity, does it create multiple tabs?


      Thank you for your time and effort.
    • 1) The hideouts are attackeable by the guild owning the territory at the primetime of the zone.
      Shields act as current territory shields: watchtowers/farms have 1 shield and townplots 3. When it reaches 0 (when a defense is lost = lose 1 shield) the territory belongs to the attacker.
      The hideout system is similar except that when it reaches 0 the hideout is destroyed & the fights are played in the OW instead of GvG.

      2) yes when it reaches 0 shield

      3) Afaik items stored in the bank of the hideouts (bank like in cities / guild islands) will be kept and transfered back to a city after a delay / costing silver to recover. Buildings & items stored in them will be destroyed & removed from the game. I guess it's similar for the market. PS: there wont be farms in hideouts according to the last Eltharyon's interview.

      4) no.

      5) infinity, hideouts have an upkeep cost & a construction cost, placing 100s of them shouldn't be worth in any case.

      6) blue / yellow / redzone shouldn't have territories so they shouldn't have hideouts since nobody would be able to attack them (or everyone).

      General questions

      1) if the warcamp is removed: yes

      2) no. you can move your items through blue zones anyway or redzone in caerleon but thats old news.


      3) 4) every item will be retrieved in a safe zone, the way it will be retrieve is at devs discretion and knowing how it's going to be done exactly isn't of any use tbh.
    • New

      So hideouts are just going to be one more thing the large guilds & Alliances can do that small guilds and solo player can't...so business as usual?!

      I was really looking forward to the prospect of living hidden away in the black zone off the land. If the devs are listening, please rethink this approach and give solo players and small guilds a chance at enjoying this feature!!!
    • New

      MarauderShields wrote:

      So hideouts are just going to be one more thing the large guilds & Alliances can do that small guilds and solo player can't...so business as usual?!

      I was really looking forward to the prospect of living hidden away in the black zone off the land. If the devs are listening, please rethink this approach and give solo players and small guilds a chance at enjoying this feature!!!
      For solos and really small guilds, there will be 'cities' in the blackzone.

      However, Devs already said that the Royal Continent is their focus regarding solo/smaller guilds.

      If you plan to bring your life to the black zones, live in those 'cities' (more like outposts).





      There will be a system where the owner of a Hideout will be able to pay a daily fee to the territory owner. This should keep things interesting.

      You will still need diplomacy to make this happen, though. If the owner just don't want your hideout there, you will have to ZvZ for it.
    • New

      Clearing out a hideout would be an investment in play time by the territory owner for no real benifit other than trying to get your guild to move elsewhere. It doesn't sound worth it unless your guild is managing to be exceptionally annoying to your landlord. I suspect more effort will be put into evicting hideouts from prime gathering/faming/objective zones to reduce competition. So, being small without strong friends might still relegate you to a ghetto zone.
    • New

      Hideouts are a mechanic for black zones, so obviously is aimed at big groups.

      Small guilds can organize into alliances to protect their hideouts, since they can be made Public to everyone (even other alliances).

      Hideouts are NOT a mechanic for non organized people to have, or for a single player to have.

      If you fit into these categories, there will be three 'cities' in the blackzones for you.
    • New

      SirusX715 wrote:

      Clearing out a hideout would be an investment in play time by the territory owner for no real benifit other than trying to get your guild to move elsewhere. It doesn't sound worth it unless your guild is managing to be exceptionally annoying to your landlord. I suspect more effort will be put into evicting hideouts from prime gathering/faming/objective zones to reduce competition. So, being small without strong friends might still relegate you to a ghetto zone.
      Maybe if (on the next expansion) there aren't many territories in black zones, hideouts could become more important than you are thinking. If there's
      no territory in the hideout area, the guild who has the advantage there is the one who have a hideout.

      Personally, as a solo player I find really annoying to gank someone in a bz and he just run inside these abnormal red squares to save themselves. I would prefer if they reemphasize the castles again, I miss those castle fights... But that's just me.
    • New

      I think hideouts should not be destructible: only their connection to the black zone. So if the shields were removed, everything built inside a hideout would remain, you'd just need to rebuild the hideout connection somewhere.

      If that's not how it's going to work, then yes, small guilds will be discouraged from participating.

      In Wurm Online, for example, player bases were hard to make, and completely destructible. As one might expect, many were destroyed, and guess what? People got tired of repetitively re-building bases and left the game, until the population was almost non-existent.
    • New

      Roccandil wrote:

      I think hideouts should not be destructible: only their connection to the black zone. So if the shields were removed, everything built inside a hideout would remain, you'd just need to rebuild the hideout connection somewhere.

      If that's not how it's going to work, then yes, small guilds will be discouraged from participating.

      In Wurm Online, for example, player bases were hard to make, and completely destructible. As one might expect, many were destroyed, and guess what? People got tired of repetitively re-building bases and left the game, until the population was almost non-existent.
      Roccandil,

      I agree with you 100%. Hideouts should be non-destructible, only their connection to the black zone removed. Makes perfect sense.

      SBI needs to encourage people to want to build "things". That gives players a sense of accomplishment and a reason to come back. Why upgrade the hideout, its stations, etc..only to walk outside and have 100 people destroy it. Doesn't make any sense.

      Can we get anyone from SBI to comment on this?
    • New

      There is no need for SBI to comment on that...
      Being able to recreate connections to a hideout "somewhere" is totally exploitable and not gonna happen.
      As @ImaDoki said, hideouts are for "organized" groups. You need a minimum of organisation & number to have one. After that it depends on where you place it, when, against who. It's all strategy.
    • New

      Gugusteh,

      Just to be clear, since you quoted "somewhere". You understand Roccandil is saying, after you've placed a hideout, after you've upgraded and built your items, and then after its destroyed, when all shields are zero, that your hideout no longer exists on that particular map in that particular location. He suggestion further suggests that the Guild would then have to build another hideout (in the same location if they were brazen) or somewhere else on that map or any other map they chose. If and when that second Hideout (first one destroyed, remember) is created, once you go inside, it'll be of the tier you upgraded, and with all of the buildings/items you collected previously, already inside.

      Hope that makes sense and I'm sure you probably already understood that, but your "somewhere" and exploitable comment has me not sure you do. -- If you do understand then can you expound on "totally exploitable"? I don't see how it could be exploited, I'm missing something. Unless you're saying a guild would purposely let it be destroyed to then re-build in another zone/location... which doesn't seem exploitable, it's still the same hideout they already built, they'd still have to redo the building period, defending twice, etc... and re-feed it to build up the shields, in the new location.
    • New

      Undert0w wrote:

      Gugusteh,

      Just to be clear, since you quoted "somewhere". You understand Roccandil is saying, after you've placed a hideout, after you've upgraded and built your items, and then after its destroyed, when all shields are zero, that your hideout no longer exists on that particular map in that particular location. He suggestion further suggests that the Guild would then have to build another hideout (in the same location if they were brazen) or somewhere else on that map or any other map they chose. If and when that second Hideout (first one destroyed, remember) is created, once you go inside, it'll be of the tier you upgraded, and with all of the buildings/items you collected previously, already inside.

      Hope that makes sense and I'm sure you probably already understood that, but your "somewhere" and exploitable comment has me not sure you do. -- If you do understand then can you expound on "totally exploitable"? I don't see how it could be exploited, I'm missing something. Unless you're saying a guild would purposely let it be destroyed to then re-build in another zone/location... which doesn't seem exploitable, it's still the same hideout they already built, they'd still have to redo the building period, defending twice, etc... and re-feed it to build up the shields, in the new location.
      1. Build a hideout in a map far from portal
      2. Gather there / do stuff and store everything in the hideout
      3. Destroy the hideout
      4. Replace it near a portal
      5. Enjoy
      There is a concept of distance and risk to go from one location to another, creating the difference between markets in each city & increasing the concept of risk vs reward: if you gather in higher tier zones, it's usually more risky but more rewarding...

      The currently planned system should allow all the time needed to evacuate (5 days at lvl1 hideout iirc) and the hideout defense system should be good enough to allow small guilds to complete against even-ish opponents. Creating your suggested system would:
      1. take time
      2. remove the risk off the system
      This 2nd point is actually super important since anyone can place a hideout anywhere, so if you have almost 0 risk in that, there is no way to counter hideout flood.
    • New

      Nemesis wrote:

      SirusX715 wrote:

      Clearing out a hideout would be an investment in play time by the territory owner for no real benifit other than trying to get your guild to move elsewhere. It doesn't sound worth it unless your guild is managing to be exceptionally annoying to your landlord. I suspect more effort will be put into evicting hideouts from prime gathering/faming/objective zones to reduce competition. So, being small without strong friends might still relegate you to a ghetto zone.
      Maybe if (on the next expansion) there aren't many territories in black zones, hideouts could become more important than you are thinking. If there'sno territory in the hideout area, the guild who has the advantage there is the one who have a hideout.

      Personally, as a solo player I find really annoying to gank someone in a bz and he just run inside these abnormal red squares to save themselves. I would prefer if they reemphasize the castles again, I miss those castle fights... But that's just me.
      All Outlands maps will have one, and just one, territory.




      Undert0w wrote:



      5.) How many Hideouts can be placed on a single map? I understand the current restriction of "wherever there is free space to do so", but what happens if 100s of Hideouts are placed on a single map, restricting movement and items/mobs from spawning. -- I also understand the insane difficulty this would take to accomplish, but is it theoretically possible?

      There is 'number cap'.

      But, in another thread, a Dev said there must be a distance between two hideouts. So, there is a 'space cap' based on the position of the hideouts.
    • New

      Gugusteh wrote:

      Undert0w wrote:

      Gugusteh,

      Just to be clear, since you quoted "somewhere". You understand Roccandil is saying, after you've placed a hideout, after you've upgraded and built your items, and then after its destroyed, when all shields are zero, that your hideout no longer exists on that particular map in that particular location. He suggestion further suggests that the Guild would then have to build another hideout (in the same location if they were brazen) or somewhere else on that map or any other map they chose. If and when that second Hideout (first one destroyed, remember) is created, once you go inside, it'll be of the tier you upgraded, and with all of the buildings/items you collected previously, already inside.

      Hope that makes sense and I'm sure you probably already understood that, but your "somewhere" and exploitable comment has me not sure you do. -- If you do understand then can you expound on "totally exploitable"? I don't see how it could be exploited, I'm missing something. Unless you're saying a guild would purposely let it be destroyed to then re-build in another zone/location... which doesn't seem exploitable, it's still the same hideout they already built, they'd still have to redo the building period, defending twice, etc... and re-feed it to build up the shields, in the new location.
      1. Build a hideout in a map far from portal
      2. Gather there / do stuff and store everything in the hideout
      3. Destroy the hideout
      4. Replace it near a portal
      5. Enjoy
      There is a concept of distance and risk to go from one location to another, creating the difference between markets in each city & increasing the concept of risk vs reward: if you gather in higher tier zones, it's usually more risky but more rewarding...
      The currently planned system should allow all the time needed to evacuate (5 days at lvl1 hideout iirc) and the hideout defense system should be good enough to allow small guilds to complete against even-ish opponents. Creating your suggested system would:
      1. take time
      2. remove the risk off the system
      This 2nd point is actually super important since anyone can place a hideout anywhere, so if you have almost 0 risk in that, there is no way to counter hideout flood.

      The risk of people leaving the game due to base destruction is higher to me than the risk of people deliberately allowing hideouts to be destroyed for exploit.

      All the same, I see the royal continent as the tutorial area, and the markets as tutorial markets. I think we're too dependent on them, and I want people to think of the black zone as an increasingly separate economic zone.

      If that's successful, then rebuilding hideout connections to lower the risk of moving goods out of the black zone would no longer be a problem.

      Even without that, however, if hideout connection construction is difficult and expensive enough, and if I've got a good location already built deep in the black zone, I'll think twice before letting my connection be destroyed for a quick buck, since replacing the hideout later in that area might prove to be a very high risk.

      And if a guild decides to trade a great location for a quick buck, then I say, let them. It's a sandbox, and there -is- a significant risk involved.
    • New

      Roccandil wrote:

      If that's successful, then rebuilding hideout connections to lower the risk of moving goods out of the black zone would no longer be a problem.
      No. We are talking about TPing items from point A to point B through PvP zones. It is basically ruining a core aspect of the game.
      So no, it's not "no longer a problem", especially since you base it fully on your own vision of the game.

      Just be faithfull in devs. The game is a hardcore game, the hideout mechanic is already really safe and there is honestly no need for it to be safer considering all the other changes coming with queen.
    • New

      I think the concerns raised here by Undert0w are valid, but the solution isn't to allow the hideout to be rebuilt anywhere. The exploits Gugusteh brings up are real as well. The royal markets definitely aren't going away so being able to teleport your stuff close to a portal would reduce the need for trading in the blackzone.

      For a casual player you could imagine needing to go afk for a few days due to irl commitments and coming back to find all of your stuff gone because your guild couldn't defend the hideout and you didn't have time to transport your stuff out. This means a casual player essentially can't use a hideout. They'll have to store their valuables in the blackzone outposts instead. Maybe this player isn't even casual, they just couldn't play due to a real life emergency.

      I would offer two possible solutions:

      (1) Connect the personal bank (and all personal tabs) to the zone, not a particular hideout. This means a player could always regain access to their valuables if they are able to enter any hideout in that zone. This protects against power hungry leadership kicking players to rob them of their wealth and also means guilds could store hideout resources in personal tabs to be retrieved later when they have time to re-establish their hideout... as long as it's in the same zone. Now we don't have a transportation exploit, but guilds do not risk losing everything if they become less active.

      (2) A step further would be to allow guild hideouts to be rebuilt in their previous state (with all of their buildings and items) but only within the same zone. So as previous comments in this post mention, only the connection between the blackzone and the hideout would be destroyed, the hideout remains but is inaccessible until another entry way is established within the same zone.

      These ideas follow how guild banks work in the current blackzone territories. As long as a guild is able to reclaim that territory it also regains access to the bank and items stored there. I think a feature like this wouldn't cause any game breaking exploits but would allow players to retrieve their items after a break from the game.

      I think we have to be really careful not to make hideouts only for 'hardcore' players or they will only be for large guilds/alliances and no-life players. We need to give everyone a chance to live in the blackzone, not just big guild leadership. Keep in mind how town plots are hardly used now. Don't let hideouts turn out like town plots.