Upcoming Changes to Hideouts, Elite Dungeons & Other Fixes

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

    • Upcoming Changes to Hideouts, Elite Dungeons & Other Fixes

      Hey everyone,

      just a quick update before the weekend on a few issues that many of you are concerned about after the first couple of days that the Queen update has been live.

      First: Dungeon rewards, in particular Elite Dungeon rewards. We will be addressing two urgent issues in an upcoming patch next week:

      1. Elite Dungeon Fame and Loot rewards feel underpowered - we will be significantly boosting fame and loot from these dungeons to match our balancing expectations. Our goal for this was that fame and loot inside are on par with group dungeons, with Avalonian fragments and the Grail buff coming on top to make the Avalonian dungeons highly attractive. According to the first numbers we're collecting, we'll have to significantly boost the rewards in this dungeon to meet our goals, even if we account for players still getting used to the content.

      2. With Queen we cleaned up some settings in the loot setup which had the result that party loot for chests was being split differently than before. The average total amount of loot did not change, but it became much more likely that one player would receive a lot of loot while another received no loot from a chest. Our goal is to fix this so that chest loot distribution works the same way as mob loot distribution in parties (should feel like it did before the Queen update).

      Second: Hideout durability and visibility

      We're observing quite a high amount of Hideout destruction in the second placement phase. This is fine if a Hideout is actually being placed offensively. However, this is causing quite a lot of grief amongst the smaller guilds who are just trying to get a Hideout placed somewhere in the open world. For this reason, we're planning to make an adjustment to Hideout visibility: Hideout construction sites will only appear on the region map if you're in the same region as the construction site. This will make it far less convenient to scout remote Hideouts and go there without a strategic need. Our goal is that different size guilds can co-exist in the Outlands and that destroying another guild's Hideout has no benefit and no incentive for the attacking guild, unless they're in direct conflict with the guild owning the Hideout.
      In addition, we're reviewing the durability of Hideouts of all levels to check if they need to be adjusted based on our data. If we make an adjustment, its likely to increase the durability of construction sites (which are possibly too weak) and slightly lower the durability of fully upgraded Hideouts (which are very strong right now).

      We hope to be rolling out these changes in a first patch next week already.

      In addition, there are a few topics we've begun working on that we also hope to bring to you soon (though probably not next week).

      These include (but are not limited to):

      - A better way to control where you respawn when dying in the Outlands after visiting one of the "Rests" (we'll probably add a "Make Home" option to these locations, and otherwise they will not be considered respawn cities)
      - A growing delay to your ability to leave a Hideout after respawning repeatedly within a short period of time (to limit suicide-defense strategies somewhat)
      - A long list of other bugfixes :)

      Finally, we're still working on a solution for our players affected by compatibility issues (in particular for Windows 7), which is unfortunately taking some time to fix, but we'll roll it out as soon as we have a solution.

      Thats it for now, I hope you've been enjoying the first week of this update as much as we have!


      Sincerely,

      Robin 'Eltharyon' Henkys
      Game Director
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      - A better way to control where you respawn when dieing in the Outlands after visiting one of the "Rests" (we'll probably add a "Make Home" option to these locations and otherwise don't consider them a city in respawning)
      - A growing delay to your ability to leave a Hideout after respawning repeatedly within a short period of time (to limit suicide-defense strategies somewhat)
      These situations are essential for the day-to-day activities of Albion Online.
      I hope that when implemented it is to allow players to move between hiding places and the islands of players without complications, even with this timer to prevent suicide exploitation as you point out.

      but.... why it is necessary to resort to /suicide, if its enough to create a simple NPC in the hideout connected to the player's island NPC
      You prefer to be tampering with the suicide system than to create a copy/past of the TP NPC system with a destination limiter(to be just two points)
    • I'm getting blackscreen and about 5-10 seconds it leads to disconnect when i'm trying to zone out from a map to another.

      I've redownloaded albion,updated all drivers, tried nvidia and amd both graphic cards(rx580 - gtx 1060)

      The problem still occurs.

      This has started right after the queen patch, DEVS please fix it.

      Pc Specs:
      MSI RX 580 GamingX 8GB x 2 OR I also tried gtx 1060 just in case its related to one card.
      Intel Core i9-9900K Coffee Lake 16-Core
      Intel Z390 AORUS MASTER Motherboard with 12 Phases IR Digital VRMS
      GSKILL 16GB (2x8GB) TRIDENT Z DDR4 3200MHz CL16 1.35V Dual Kit RGB LED
      Kraken X72 CAM-powered 360mm AIO Cooler with RGB:
      970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 SSD 500 GB
      CORSAIR RM750x 750W 80 Plus Gold Full Modular
      Phanteks EVOLV X GLASS

      Windows 10 original and fully updated to day.
      All hardware drivers are updated.
      Pc formatted.
      IDK what else i can do for now...

      Its randomly happening when zoning somewhere right before queen patch i never had this problem.
    • Honestly what you guys ought to do is to let people keep their homes even after spawning at a city. This got removed with some older patch where you also nerfed the ability to spawn at the nearest guild territory and I'm of the opinion this went too far. I just want to be able to naked travel between one hideout that I have to run to before I can do so and a city. A man running around naked on a t3 horse to/from a hideout isn't good content and isn't making good content. He's just bored.
    • @Eltharyon From the developers standpoint, were hideouts and low level materials added to the outlands to reduce people from using royal cities more? I find having to suicide every night to work on my islands. I'd suggest a travel planner in the hide out similar to caerleon where you have to teleport naked to your island or other cities. Clearly people are going to suicide back if they have nothing to return back to the city at that time. It will just make more sense then bypassing with suiciding. Just don't allow teleporting to other hideouts and once you teleport to the city you can't teleport back to the hideout.

      Any ideas on this?

    • Eltharyon wrote:

      We're observing quite a high amount of Hideout destruction in the second placement phase. This is fine if a Hideout is actually being placed offensively. However, this is causing quite a lot of grief amongst the smaller guilds who are just trying to get a Hideout placed somewhere in the open world.
      I fully agree with the understanding of smaller guilds wanting to just get hideouts down, but I think you're missing the mark on why (at least some) people are destroying hideouts. It's not about griefing other guilds, it's to your strategic benefit to cleanse any hideouts that are trying to placed in zones your guild/alliance controls. If you have sole control of a zone, you are less likely to get people fighting you for territory control and even if someone does, you now have a spawn point in the zone whereas they no longer do. Why would I want to allow a smaller guild to strip mine and have a drop off point for resources in a zone my alliance controls? Basically every hideout placed in a zone you control is considered "an offensive hideout". Once you stake your claim in an area, it's much less likely that you will keep getting contested there if you destroy their hideouts consistently.

      So I want to reiterate, I would like to see smaller guilds/alliances getting hideouts down, but the system is setup currently where you are greatly incentivised to destroy hideouts that are going up in your portion of the world. I do feel bad for these guilds to a certain extent and we've been responsible for removing a number of them. I think this change will help to some degree, but this statement: "Our goal is that different size guilds can co-exist in the Outlands and that destroying another guild's Hideout has no benefit and no incentive for the attacking guild, unless they're in direct conflict with the guild owning the Hideout." is false even post change. I will still have the incentive if I'm the dominating force in the area to keep that area solely in our alliance's hands. This change does nothing to address that point.

      The only counter argument (which we've actively considered) is allowing some guilds to get hideouts down in nearby zones just to ensure we're not killing all of the content in our area of the map. But I don't think change is going to stop people from bullying smaller guilds or taking out their hideouts. You need a bigger change or better thoughtout reason that bigger alliances/guilds wouldn't want to bully a smaller guild in their area, because right now it's in everyone's best interest to do so.
    • blappo wrote:

      NO no way do not drop full built hideout durability

      These are meant to be like city plots!

      How many years did guilds hold cityplots and nearly not be able to lose them!

      We just invested hundreds of millions and now you tell us they will be nerfed NO
      they're saying that they would increase the durability during construction and lowering it for max level hideouts
    • Don't believe any changes should be made to hideouts at this time. First, small guilds should not be trying to place hideouts in highly contested areas. If they do expect those hideouts to be destroyed (even large guilds have lost a number of hideouts because they placed them in the wrong place). If a guild really wants to place a hideout in a contested area they should FIRST make a deal with alliance/guild and pay tribute which is how the game mechanic was designed. I believe the Devs knew that small guilds would have difficulty placing hideouts designing the "Tribute" system as a path to to build hideouts with less risk of destruction. By changing the hideout mechanics now destroys that design. So I would suggest that Queen run for a while before SBI make changes to the hideout system because folks are complaining.
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      Second: Hideout durability and visibility


      We're observing quite a high amount of Hideout destruction in the second placement phase. This is fine if a Hideout is actually being placed offensively. However, this is causing quite a lot of grief amongst the smaller guilds who are just trying to get a Hideout placed somewhere in the open world. For this reason, we're planning to make an adjustment to Hideout visibility: Hideout construction sites will only appear on the region map if you're in the same region as the construction site. This will make it far less convenient to scout remote Hideouts and go there without a strategic need. Our goal is that different size guilds can co-exist in the Outlands and that destroying another guild's Hideout has no benefit and no incentive for the attacking guild, unless they're in direct conflict with the guild owning the Hideout.
      In addition, we're reviewing the durability of Hideouts of all levels to check if they need to be adjusted based on our data. If we make an adjustment, its likely to increase the durability of construction sites (which are possibly too weak) and slightly lower the durability of fully upgraded Hideouts (which are very strong right now).

      You've underestimated players' desire for PvP (particularly a guaranteed ZvZ fight) already - don't do it again. Remove hideouts that are under construction from the map entirely. They should go onto the map when they are fully constructed.

      Additionally, add a tribute system such that I can pay the guild that owns the zone for the right to construct a hideout. It should only be paid to the owner if the hideout is successfully constructed. If the hideout is destroyed during construction, the tribute should be returned to me (minus some fee).
    • hey dev guys i play in phone i reallly appreciate the new layout so cool and everything but i got since the new update that i cant play cause my game broke every 10 minutes wtf and other things that hideouts wtf men you dev guys are crazy if you guys think the guilds go to leave in bz that hideouts is only a nest of gankers wtf you guys create the game a got a lot of ideas but you guys reallly dont understand the even even if you create it.....you broke the way of everybody make silver know all the maps is full of gankers cause now no need to back to the city for sell his sht now can go to keep things is the hideout nest of gankers that you dev guys create with out of think what the players go to do....maybe you guys need to play the game again and literraly start from 0 just try to create a guild find people and start to lvl of your sht maybe like that can start to create content for the players not for your dreams in your head
    • Lolpetijn wrote:

      blappo wrote:

      NO no way do not drop full built hideout durability

      These are meant to be like city plots!

      How many years did guilds hold cityplots and nearly not be able to lose them!

      We just invested hundreds of millions and now you tell us they will be nerfed NO
      they're saying that they would increase the durability during construction and lowering it for max level hideouts
      right we have hideouts upgrading to max right now, we wouldnt have done so knowing about a nerf
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      Our goal is that different size guilds can co-exist in the Outlands and that destroying another guild's Hideout has no benefit and no incentive for the attacking guild, unless they're in direct conflict with the guild owning the Hideout.
      As a small guild player, I love the idea of Hideouts, but I think you're vastly under-estimating players desire to just be dicks. They don't need a reward or incentive other than screwing over other players.