HideOuts A complete failure / queens a complete failure

    • HideOuts A complete failure / queens a complete failure

      The only ones allowed to have a hideout seem to be mega alliances with 8000+ people. Literally a waste of time and resources for solo guilds, solo and small scale players. Good job on doubling down on the one aspect of the game that is so boring and braindead that no one wants to actually watch (zvz).You also somehow managed to kill gathering , with portals being so close together there is gank party on every gate with claws or scouts everywhere. You literally cant go 2min without seeing a group 15 people now, and if you venture out further from the portal zones , well good luck hauling that shit back , with the endless zergs you will come across. OH and fishing is completely fcked.

      The map may have changed , and looks more dynamic, but at the cost of soo much, fame , gathering , solo dungeons rewards. Beyond frustrating.

      TO ANY GUILDS READING THIS THAT ARE NOT IN A MEGA ALLLIANCE, JOIN ONE NOW IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRULY PROGRESS GOING FORWARD.OR YOU WILL BE STUCK FOREVER IN T5 ZONES GETTING WIPED BY MAMMOTHS AND T3 BLOBS.
    • Hi there,

      did you actually try anything?.

      i am in a solo unallied guild and we have build 6 hideouts, without any deals or payments to anyone.

      as for gathering then i also doubt you have tried that since it has improved gathering gameplay a ton.


      But instead of making this wild angry pist, then maybe elaborate on what you have tried that failed since something is obviously bothering you?.

      but you 8000 alliance thing is just wrong. In fact there has never been a time where it would be viable to have a single strong guild than now.
    • We had a 4% zerg debuff.

      my point is simply that solo guilds and smaller alliances have opportunity more than ever when they realise how the system works and how they can now see the main powers on the map and place hideouts accordingly

      we were never above 45 ppl. We aim for a 60-70 man primetime zerg as that will be very good for a solo guild with the cluster qeue and dissarsy systems.
    • I mean c'mon why are we surprised.

      Territory control changed from small scale GvG to Zerg

      Hideout control is Zerg

      Are we surprised now small guilds that cannot call big zergs are in trouble and cannot defend hideouts??

      Seriously?

      That was so 100% predictable..

      Let me copy paste something from Reddit that basically says it all:

      "I apologize for my poor english in advance .
      Dunno man , today we were going to deploy our hideout in a t7 zone , on the way there was a t5 zone with a small guild hideout's , and we destroyed it . They attempted to defend , but we stomped them hard . We were 60 , they were barely 20 (so i don't know what the debuff can really do) .
      It was good to see a small guild attempt to do an hideout in a t5 zone , ideally no one cares about that zone , but guild/ally leaders decided they had to go .
      I didn't feel good about it .They didn't have a chance to do anything ."
    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      We had a 4% zerg debuff.

      my point is simply that solo guilds and smaller alliances have opportunity more than ever when they realise how the system works and how they can now see the main powers on the map and place hideouts accordingly

      we were never above 45 ppl. We aim for a 60-70 man primetime zerg as that will be very good for a solo guild with the cluster qeue and dissarsy systems.
      a 60-70 man Zerg is wonderful but an unreachable goal for small guilds.. for casual players to compete and have available u need 1k players minimum and that is close to a mega Alliance in order to have 60-70 on prime
    • Haha on the solo player using public hideout. This would mean solo player would need to either transport lots of mats to said hideout and further potential transport back out a bunch of crafted goods. All huge risk as a solo with little upside. These hideouts are essentially just another silver sink in game except it is only hitting the little guys pocket books instead of the zergbions as usual.
    • Tabor wrote:

      Haha on the solo player using public hideout. This would mean solo player would need to either transport lots of mats to said hideout and further potential transport back out a bunch of crafted goods. All huge risk as a solo with little upside. These hideouts are essentially just another silver sink in game except it is only hitting the little guys pocket books instead of the zergbions as usual.
      or the person maintaining this hideout that is open to public (or to a smaller group of solo players) would just maintain all that?

      I actually thought of making something like this. Eve Online has a chat channel called "BSB - Bringing solo Back". All the solo players hang out there, share their builds, share good zones to solo gank, etc etc... of course it does not have to be the same way in Albion, but Im sure something similar can be made.

      Regarding transports - lets wait til Contracts come out, so that we can contract goods hauling to someone who actually likes/wants to do that for money. I think it would work out very well. Hideouts and Queen Update is not the end of the road you know :)

      Also major solo-related buffs on the horizon for the Red Zones.

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

    • Tabor wrote:

      Having a solo player based hideout for that community would be fun. However due to current mechanics nothing stops the zergs from just destroying it for fun. They are already doing this today for 0 strategic gain. Just griefing guilds because it makes them feel strong I guess.
      bigger guilds would not be able to destroy a public hideout open to solo players if a bigger alliance owns and protects the zone. You can only attack a hideout if you own the zone (outside of the placement timer of course, which we would take care of)
    • You keep say diplomacy Russia which is just suggesting you need to bend the knee and pay to live in the black zone? Why bother even setting up out there in that case? What benefit does this really provide the small guild paying the rent? Also if the zerg guild in that area just says na you are still fucked. In general I do not think people would care it just was not messaged well so many people are annoyed.

      It should have stated as a small guild you can potentially live in a T5 shit zone out here and only IF you decide to pay silver for this opportunity to the local zerg. Sounds much less appealing right?
    • Captainrussia wrote:

      Tabor wrote:

      Having a solo player based hideout for that community would be fun. However due to current mechanics nothing stops the zergs from just destroying it for fun. They are already doing this today for 0 strategic gain. Just griefing guilds because it makes them feel strong I guess.
      bigger guilds would not be able to destroy a public hideout open to solo players if a bigger alliance owns and protects the zone. You can only attack a hideout if you own the zone (outside of the placement timer of course, which we would take care of)
      This was your biggest lie, people will destroy hideouts with no reason, no matter if they owned by traders or not. Owning a zone is the easiest thing for your zerg..

      Captainrussia wrote:

      Ruim wrote:

      You can have 5 or 6 hideouts as solo guild until big aliances decide to destroy it. 150 players from one alliance and 150 players from a diferent handholding alliance and you cant do nothing to defend it.
      Diplomacy?
      Be honest and call it PAY OR JOIN