Hideouts are at odds with full loot

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Hideouts are at odds with full loot

      One of my favorite things about Darkfall Online was that I could place down a chest in the open world and farm away at mobs for their loot and fill that chest up periodically. Even if a player killed me and I lost my gear bag, the enemy had to find where I put my chest in order to take everything I had farmed the last couple hours - there was still a chance I could get it back. I thought Albion had the same design with the Morgana crate - a box you could place in the open world and fill with stuff. A few months after launch it's apparent that if Morgana crates are destroyed, everything is just gone. There's no lock picking it or ransacking for what's inside, it's just poof - deleted. Disappointing, but there's still town plots.

      Albion could really benefit from having more interactions with the way loot works in the open world, more ways to acquire treasure from other people aside from just killing them and taking what they have on them - and I don't mean shady things like robbing guilds or siphoning funds; I'm talking about facilitated player to player interactions. Then along comes a new feature called hideouts, and I keep hearing that destroyed hideouts will transfer all the stuff inside of it after X amount of time. If this is true it's fundamentally going against the full loot aspect of Albion. Conquering a town plot meant that the losers had to actually evacuate all their loot or hand it over to the enemy. If there's no loot to be had in destroying hideouts, then what's the point? We're all just supposed to ZvZ each other for nothing meaningful besides pride and ego about who has a hideout where?

      I only play this game solely because I have the ability to take someone else's items. It's one of the very few games that has a player driven economy based around full loot pvp, and hideouts seem like a step backwards if all of the loot in them is untouchable and reclaimable. Albion could be so much cooler if there's ways to actually raid enemies' bases for loot. This is something I originally thought would be implemented with the town plot features, but I soon realized a red line around someone else's town meant, "You can't enter under any circumstances". And here we are with an update in six days bringing a new feature for base of operations building and it just feels like we're in for a new spin on the same old take.
    • The challenge this has is the fact that people have real lives. They cannot always be online to prevent other people from taking their stuff if that type of environment existed. That has always been the challenge with truly harcore loot games and why they often die quick deaths. Albion has a decent balance of full loot PvP while also having safe storage options. I do however agree with the OW crate. It is silly to have the option to destroy that and not get the loot inside.

      The new Queen update is already going to be painful for the solo/small scale player as we no longer have ANY safe place to bank loot in the OW. Another advantage for the big guilds/alliances over the little guys.
    • Tabor wrote:

      The new Queen update is already going to be painful for the solo/small scale player as we no longer have ANY safe place to bank loot in the OW.

      Outposts have personal banks (and indestructible markets). They also have invisibility buffs at the gates, to make portal ganking harder.

      Some guilds will likely provide public hideouts with crafting stations near outposts, so I think solo players will be well provided for. :)
    • But what really could be cool, the concept adapted of the mounts..

      Would really be cool if u have to put your mount somewhere and everyone can hop on it.. but it also means u cannot have your mount in inventory..if u want steal a mount you have to come by foot or / and have to hide your own mount somewhere..

      Imagine big ZvZ and the horses parked somewhere..
    • Roccandil wrote:

      If you can destroy player's bases and loot all their stuff, many players will quit
      I'm not saying that it should be possible to destroy and loot everything inside a hideout. I just don't agree with everything inside of it being returned for free.

      Tabor wrote:

      Albion has a decent balance of full loot PvP while also having safe storage options.
      This is exactly what I mean. There should be a balance factor in destroying hideouts. There's gotta be an incentive to defending and attacking hideouts in order for players to participate, but there's no reason in the long run to enjoy this content if there's nothing to gain from it other than bragging rights.

      @JonahVeil just made a video talking about this exact subject and he made a really good point that if they release as they are right now with 100% safe storage and free return transfer they will be heavily abused.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      I just don't agree with everything inside of it being returned for free.

      Not only do I agree with it, I would have gone further than the devs and simply made the connection from the hideout to the world destructible. Nothing inside a hideout would ever be destroyed; you'd just need to invest the resources to magically reconnect your pocket universe to the Outlands somewhere else. :)

      Destroying hideouts is more about territory control, and not about loot.
    • You say 1 time but you have a month window to move your islands. I have alot of islands which I can move once but at any point over the next month and will use this island as free transport to play the markets. I agree it's a short term impact but not as simple as just moving once. There will be alot of money made from this process for those smart enough to have throw away alt islands which you can make on a free account in a few minutes.
    • example. As I've done this enough now and already made 100s millions on it.

      Treasures.
      Create an alt on a free account in a city. Buy treasures for another city, as of writing you can still easily make 30 - 50% profit per treasure for your investment. Then move the island to the buy destination when your have had enough of free money.

      Free money. No risk. Go forth.
    • Spikey wrote:

      example. As I've done this enough now and already made 100s millions on it.

      Treasures.
      Create an alt on a free account in a city. Buy treasures for another city, as of writing you can still easily make 30 - 50% profit per treasure for your investment. Then move the island to the buy destination when your have had enough of free money.

      Free money. No risk. Go forth.
      Not really "free" you still need to make a guild which cost silver and also make an island which cost silver. Also personal islands cost money =P.
    • I would like to see more reason for attacking a hideout. I don't like that the hideout gets deleted along with all the items, I think the attacker should gain control over the hideout kinda like the way townplots worked. Otherwise whats the point everyone will just leave hideouts alone inless they want that area or the zone is hideout capped. Also it cost a ton of silver to attack a hideout for what gain? maybe a few gear sets from the defenders thats if anyone even shows up to defend. The hideout attacking system FAILS FAILS FAILS
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      @Roccandil Are you just forgetting what the consequences could be to the economy for massive free loot transports with zero risk involved?

      That's easy to fix: charge a fee based on how far away the new hideout is from the old one, similar to the current mechanic for recovering personal items from a destroyed hideout:

      "You’ll find these items in a new tab (which does not count against your existing bank tabs), which can only be used to withdraw recovered items. These items will remain locked for 28 days until they can be claimed. Claiming them costs a fee of silver based on the weight of the item and their fast travel cost modifier, should they have one."

      If you rebuild the hideout in the same zone, however, no fee is charged.
    • seems like a whole lot of speculation, i can agree alot with the general principle Haze has brought up.

      i disagree with Tabor saying this makes it harder for small guilds, imo it makes it easier., now they only need to worry about a 20 min period of time at their chosen time zone with which to defend their own respawn point. if theyre unable to do that they can easily become vassals. thats assuming anyone cares to use that time frame to raid the hideout of a small guild (for zero reward)

      tho the cost of the hideout and the cost of retrieving plus the items for 4 weeks is pretty detrimental to any guild trying to bounce back from a Hideout loss. especially guilds trying to be competitive. i think hideout loss hurts large guilds far more than small ones as they will lock away exponentially more resources as well. with the update large alliances and guilds will be spread even thinner across the openworld to defend and take objectives. and with the new zone priority system it will bring a new meta.

      to Eternalhazes point, imo it should roll all items left in the hideout at a % chance. something along those lines. there should be some reward for taking the hideout but i dont think it should be the main reason for destroying it. Queen is much more about access than any other version of the game so taking someones spot is pretty damn strong on its own.

      Roccandils idea just forces pple to be stuck in an area they clearly couldnt compete in, terrible idea. with his idea you better be completely right on ur first choice or youre fucked

      The post was edited 2 times, last by owensssss ().

    • owensssss wrote:

      Roccandils idea just forces pple to be stuck in an area they clearly couldnt compete in, terrible idea. with his idea you better be completely right on ur first choice or youre fucked

      If reconnecting to an existing hideout interior at a silver cost is simply an option (as opposed to losing everything and rebuilding the entire hideout interior from scratch), how does having the additional option hurt a guild?
    • if you have to go back to the zone you couldnt previously hold then youre just being fucked by being forced to return there.



      i mean how do you propose getting your shit back? how does this "reconnecting:" even work? if you just magically can get you items back then how is it any different than the SBI system.

      Roccandil wrote:

      how does having the additional option hurt a guild?
      in the end its not an additional option, there will only be one. that which facilitates the best outcome of reward for the enemies risk and the risk for the owners.

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

    • I mean it costs 55mil to attack a hideout plus energy @ level 3 because you need to attack it for 5 days straight with it having 5 shields, Level 3 hideouts will almost never be destoryed, I can't see guilds spending that kind of silver for a zvz fight plus gear costs only to either get that spot or to maybe loot bodies. Idk could be a good thing lets find out....
    • Neef wrote:

      I mean it costs 55mil to attack a hideout plus energy @ level 3 because you need to attack it for 5 days straight with it having 5 shields, Level 3 hideouts will almost never be destoryed, I can't see guilds spending that kind of silver for a zvz fight plus gear costs only to either get that spot or to maybe loot bodies. Idk could be a good thing lets find out....
      If it actually costs that much, these hideouts will never be destroyed. That's ridiculous.

      I just don't understand what the point is in attacking them if the cost is so absurdly high and there's no rewards to be gained. And on the flip side, if they're too safe and no one attacks them then what's the point in playing this game for territory conquest?

      Like it was pointed out this is pretty much all speculation, but that's all we have to work with when the game is so fundamentally changed years after release and little to no testing done.