Hideouts are at odds with full loot

    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      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.
      Yeah it def cost this much, It cost 11mil plus energy each day (Energy really makes the 11m much higher) Then you must keep attacking it for 5 days to take down each of the 5 shields, If you miss 1 day out of the 5 or lose 1 of the 5 fights the hideout reverts to 5 shields even if its on shield 1. Yeah gonna be super hard. 5shields +11m = 55m (Also a ton of energy)
    • Neef wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      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.
      Yeah it def cost this much, It cost 11mil plus energy each day (Energy really makes the 11m much higher) Then you must keep attacking it for 5 days to take down each of the 5 shields, If you miss 1 day out of the 5 or lose 1 of the 5 fights the hideout reverts to 5 shields even if its on shield 1. Yeah gonna be super hard. 5shields +11m = 55m (Also a ton of energy)
      They way attacking was described, you only have to pay to attack again if you failed to knock off a shield.
    • I don’t think anyone ever got much loot from people evacuating townplots on the current map. It’s mostly just tedious.

      OP’s suggestion will just result in people hesitating more before using a hideout or evacuating sooner when a hideout looks vulnerable. Neither of these are things worth encouraging.

      Albion full loot works because your gear is essentially ‘consumable’. As soon as enemies can literally rob you of everything the game stops being fun.

      Edit: @Neef it’s pretty clear from the dev posts that it’s a one time 11 mil payment if you can win the fight 5 days in a row.
    • owensssss wrote:

      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.

      Consider this scenario:
      • Guild X loses a hideout.
      • Guild X can now create a new hideout in the same zone, and instead of getting a blank interior, choose to reconnect to the hideout they lost: buildings, chests, market, etc.
      • Or, Guild X can simply populate the new hideout and not worry about reconnecting
      • If Guild X builds a hideout X zones away from the destroyed hideout, they can still reconnect if they want, at X cost (scaled to distance in zones), to prevent transport abuse
      That's how I would do it, at least.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      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. :)


      Personal bank are good, the only thing isould like to make tabs you create also shared with other guild members.
      About outposts I will not put my staff in banks not of my alliance/guild wherr someone can kick me out.
      About invisibility buff someone can tell me if you keep invisibility also if you dismount and use skills? I guess you loose invisibility if you attack but also with that improper uses are possible
    • Lanyday wrote:

      I don’t think anyone ever got much loot from people evacuating townplots on the current map. It’s mostly just tedious.

      OP’s suggestion will just result in people hesitating more before using a hideout or evacuating sooner when a hideout looks vulnerable. Neither of these are things worth encouraging.

      Albion full loot works because your gear is essentially ‘consumable’. As soon as enemies can literally rob you of everything the game stops being fun.

      Edit: @Neef it’s pretty clear from the dev posts that it’s a one time 11 mil payment if you can win the fight 5 days in a row.
      Well where does it say you only pay for the attack once? You have to attack it for 5 days, Which I would think you need to launch the attack everytime. If I am wrong well My bad but I don't see where it clearly says you pay the 11mil 1 time to keep attacking for the 5 days. When you attack other things more then 1 time you must pay the attack cost everytime So i figured it followed the same rule set, If i am incorrect then my bad.

      Edit: "If a Hideout is NOT at full defense points at the beginning of the battle time, its defenses are automatically lowered and it becomes damageable immediately with no additional fees having to be paid." I did not see this part, So yes I was wrong OMG I must be the first person to post about something and be wrong @ gank.......I made a mistake big deal.....Atleast I accept I was wrong...

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

    • hypnoticshadow wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      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. :)


      Personal bank are good, the only thing isould like to make tabs you create also shared with other guild members.
      About outposts I will not put my staff in banks not of my alliance/guild wherr someone can kick me out.
      About invisibility buff someone can tell me if you keep invisibility also if you dismount and use skills? I guess you loose invisibility if you attack but also with that improper uses are possible


      Outposts are NPC cities: no risk of losing what you bank there. :) (The risk now is that once in an outpost, you can't teleport back to a royal city, at least last I checked.)

      I did not test breaking the invisibility buff.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      If there's no loot to be had in destroying hideouts, then what's the point?

      the point is to not have everyone destroying hideouts.... so you agree they solved that... the only reason to destroy hideouts its to stop a competitor from using your lands

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      I only play this game solely because I have the ability to take someone else's items
      u are not a healthy person