Upcoming Changes to Hideouts, Elite Dungeons & Other Fixes

    • Lokkoo wrote:

      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.
      Lokkoo, the tribute system is not an entirely bad idea. However, there is no mechanism in place to prevent the terry owning guild/alliance from accepting the tribute, then turning around and wiping you out anyway (IE untrustworthy rats). If they placed a system where if the terry owner accepts the trib/rent, that hideout guild is exempt /protected from attacks for the agreed period is ironclad, then maybe.
    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      I would even go further - Hideouts u cannot enter you don't see on map, just if u see them with your "virtual" eyes
      Good stuff here. You would never see a hideout unless you physically rode across the zone and have seen the entrance with your own eyes.. then had to remember where it was to place an attack.
      Or , alternatively, the terry owner of a zone has an opportunity to pay a game spy, once a week , say 3 million silver to "spy" or "scout" out their zone and report any current Hideouts, after 3 days.
      . or maybe even 1 mil. Combined with the ride-by scouting. that way, they either pay to know, or have to have someone actually "see" it. to know it exists..

      In historical lit, actual history, and all historical or fantasy fiction included, a hideout, or even a Bandit base, obviosly if the location was common knowledge to all, they never would have gotten there in the first place. Get real. Think about it. Quit Kow-Towing to mega-guils/alliances
    • All of these arguments are beautiful and nice but at the end of the day they don't really address real issues.

      Right now the system was allow another guild in your zone and you can tax them to remain. But big alliances tend to have more than enough money they don't need some small guilds measly 2 million silver tax.

      So what are they actually gaining by allowing a small guild to operate?

      SURPRISE!!! There isn't one.

      There really isn't an advantage there. Instead they see it like allowing flies to continue buzzing around their head. It's a nuisance they can easily squash and they have proven they will without hesitation. So the conversation we should be having really isn't about hideout visibility. It's about incentives.

      We should be talking new ideas. Like territory owners gaining season points from allowing non-alliance hideouts thru taxation. Additional defense points to the hideout of the territory controlling guild based on non-alliance hideouts. Bonus siphoned energy to the territory owning guild for non-alliance hideouts in their zones. Make allowing and strategically defending the smaller guilds that might not be allied worth something to the mega alliances. If you're trying to build the game around the idea of small guilds being vassals of bigger alliances you have to make it worth the big groups time or they are going to keep destroying the little guys just because they can. Then they'll call it "teambuilding"
    • Xyrdin wrote:

      Disregard wrote:

      @Xyrdin you realize that would just result in alt guilds placing hideouts in their zone right?
      Yeah but they can already do that to make their own extra hideouts and by-pass the cap on hideouts per guild. The point isn't that they're going to cheat the system. It's that the current system as intended is broken and we should be thinking about alternatives.
      Alternatives to what exactly? the game provides the option to charge a daily contribution for not attacking the non alliated hide outs. The owner of the cluster is free to choose if they want to or not.
    • since the update arrived and no one of the friends I played with comes in because the rewards in group dungeons no longer give almost anything to everyone just for a few, also cleaning a complete individual dungeon to open a chest is a fatal blow and the bug of the chests returned that some remain blank without any reward. Now nobody wants to go to dungeons in the black zone because the hostiles are more likely to kill us, we decide whether to be murderers, gatherers, stealth and others. THANKS.

      the worst part is that now we have to get twice as many runes, souls or relics to improve the weapons that are happening to them, we want to improve the game or get stuck with the loss of players that is not a myth.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by XxShadowSamurai80xX ().

    • Roccandil wrote:

      Xyrdin wrote:

      Like territory owners gaining season points from allowing non-alliance hideouts thru taxation
      I like the direction you're thinking. :) Almost a feudal system, maybe in which a vassal hideout provides a percentage of its season points to the suzerain. (So an alt guild would be a lot less useful than a real, active guild.)
      Yeah exactly. Some sort of incentive to the ruling guilds to have more active guilds in their area other than just, Hey if you let them setup in your area you can collect taxes!! Because that is just a slap in the face to the mega alliances that operate in Albion right now. We could pay millions in silver but they'd rather us disband and give them more fresh bodies to throw at the zergs across the world. So give them a REAL reason to let us be there.
    • The good feature to have Hideouts public or semi public fires back.

      If u incentiv non guild / Alliance Hideouts, they just create an alt create a guild and let it place a hideout and allow it to alliance..

      Doesn't help to incentive foreign hideouts..

      You need an incentive system that rewards Hideouts that gets heavily visited and used by non Alliance members..

      Basically, you need to reward fame / presence / activities for the guild / Alliance that owns the terrie done by none Alliance member inside the hideout that don't own the territory..

      That's really hell a complex and I have no clue how this should work
    • Hollywoodi wrote:

      The good feature to have Hideouts public or semi public fires back.

      If u incentiv non guild / Alliance Hideouts, they just create an alt create a guild and let it place a hideout and allow it to alliance..

      Doesn't help to incentive foreign hideouts..

      You need an incentive system that rewards Hideouts that gets heavily visited and used by non Alliance members..

      Basically, you need to reward fame / presence / activities for the guild / Alliance that owns the terrie done by none Alliance member inside the hideout that don't own the territory..

      That's really hell a complex and I have no clue how this should work
      Arthurs rest offering private/group/guild safety box in deep outlands.
    • Guilefulwolf wrote:

      Xyrdin wrote:

      Disregard wrote:

      @Xyrdin you realize that would just result in alt guilds placing hideouts in their zone right?
      Yeah but they can already do that to make their own extra hideouts and by-pass the cap on hideouts per guild. The point isn't that they're going to cheat the system. It's that the current system as intended is broken and we should be thinking about alternatives.
      Alternatives to what exactly? the game provides the option to charge a daily contribution for not attacking the non alliated hide outs. The owner of the cluster is free to choose if they want to or not.
      yes, Guilefulwolf. The rent/tribute option is there, However, there is no mechanic that enforces it. They can gladly accept your rent or trib, and turn around and attack you same day... That is the whole point of this thread. No system protection. There needs to be a machanic that , if the Terry owner cashes in the rent/trib option, they or their alliance cannot attack hideout for the term set in the payment.