Upcoming Changes to Hideouts, Elite Dungeons & Other Fixes

    • Vindrax wrote:

      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.
      I completely agree with this. I'm in a small guild myself but if I was in a big alliance/guild I would destroy every single hideout in the zones we control (maybe even zones connecting to it). No matter how hard it'd be, they'd have to go. Why wouldn't you? You simply can't have enemy players having a safe base in the zones you control.
    • blappo wrote:

      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
      Lol why would you not upgrade to level 3? Even with the nerf it will be better to have a level 3 hideout forsure.
    • @Eltharyon

      Please do not nerf the "suicide" builds and hideout resilience the way you intend it only benefits large alliances the way you plan i have other ways

      Instead
      Attack the build itself and its cost effectiveness
      have the fisherman hat and the quarterstaff forceful swing scale with gear level instead of bringing t4 we should be forced to use good gear

      Example t5 equivalent forceful swing - 3 second numb arms effect | t7 equivalent - 5 second numb arms t8.1 equivalent 7 second numb arms
      Then make similar adjustments to fisherman caps

      reasons- not many players have high enough mastery to even wear the gear they would need to achieve successful use of the items nor would guilds be able to provide on short notice over 400 sets to pass out to players with useful enough duration

      Secondly if you are going to nerf hideout resilience then please make the zerg debuff effect them- currently they are not "players" a t1 blob cannot defend against 3 t5s we tried doesnt work!


      I came up with this defense back when queen was first announce and put much thought into feel free to PM me for more insights i have many but i need to know what desired outcome you want

      i warn heavily on multi spawn penalties from people returning to battle out of the hideout 20 people would have massive penalty but 300 people would be negligible as they could stagger their reinforcements with little notice on the battlefield

      I also recommend that territory owners that "launch" on hideouts be forced to launch and pay the fee each day instead of making it free so long as the hideout is not a full defenses it should be cost prohibitive for a guild to destroy hideouts not desirable - this is what was first put out during queens announcement



      the scenarios that make me consider these things have already happened over 100 people sitting outside a hideout where if you move you lose your shield it is impossible to remass your forces to continue fighting if the hideout shield were changed so that it lasted a full 20-30 seconds so people could mount and move perhaps we could have a different discussion but right now you take 3 steps and instantly your hp is 0 and you are stun locked.

      please reach out or have someone from the team reach out about these issue as i dont want to type 10 pages of notes until i know someone at least wants to read them.
    • Neef wrote:

      blappo wrote:

      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
      Lol why would you not upgrade to level 3? Even with the nerf it will be better to have a level 3 hideout forsure.
      you are not listening we have started upgrade to t3 80,000,000 silver + mats but it is based on the assumptions that t3 would be nearly indestructible now we paid hundred of millions to upgrade and probably just lose them in a few days to 500 man zerg with t4 hammers
    • Eltharyon wrote:

      Hideout visibility: Hideout construction sites will only appear on the region map if you're in the same region as the construction site.
      Well done developers, this is a solid solution!!!

      Large guilds/alliances that are staking out areas will continue taking out hideouts that pop up in the zones they are trying to control, which in my opinion is just fine. But they will have to do a bit of leg work to find them, which should shrink the area they are focused on...and hopefully give the smaller guilds more time to finish building/upgrading their hideouts in zones that are less contested.
    • Captainrussia wrote:

      blappo wrote:

      500 man zerg with t4 hammers
      will pay to see this :P
      actually i can show a video, on reddit BA hits us i cant tell what hammers they had but outside our hideout was a sea of red and we could do nearly nothing about it...
      youtu.be/J5IujakJ5Pc

      we are solo guild right now it was ~30 v 2 t3 blobs one from each side so i maybe exaggerated a bit but watch that when u port out you only keep shield if you dont move sooooo it sucked
    • Exeon wrote:

      My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 200 people because a zerg of 400 people come. This change is good but not enough AT ALL. Make it so they need ot be IN the ZONE to see it.

      ITS CALLED A HIDEOUT FOR A REASON NOT A UNDERGROUND TOWNPLOT.

      Small guilds CANNOT live out in the outlands like this. AT ALL.
      1th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 20 people because a zerg of 40 people come.
      2th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 40 people because a zerg of 80 people come.
      3th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 80 people because a zerg of 160 people come
      4th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 160 people because a zerg of 320 people come.
      5th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 320 people because a zerg of 640 people come.

      the curse never ends... we will need stand at capitals and hold your hands...
    • Skarvah wrote:

      Exeon wrote:

      My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 200 people because a zerg of 400 people come. This change is good but not enough AT ALL. Make it so they need ot be IN the ZONE to see it.

      ITS CALLED A HIDEOUT FOR A REASON NOT A UNDERGROUND TOWNPLOT.

      Small guilds CANNOT live out in the outlands like this. AT ALL.
      1th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 20 people because a zerg of 40 people come.2th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 40 people because a zerg of 80 people come.
      3th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 80 people because a zerg of 160 people come
      4th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 160 people because a zerg of 320 people come.
      5th guy... My guild and Alliance cannot defend our hideouts with 320 people because a zerg of 640 people come.

      the curse never ends... we will need stand at capitals and hold your hands...

      This is the historical reason for fortifications: to allow a small group of defenders to hold off a host. This is extremely effective, but does not exist in Albion (for whatever reason), thus zergs are inordinately powerful on offense.

      Otherwise, attacking 20 players in strong fortifications would be pointless for 40 players without a siege train.
    • really the attack should be some sort of seige... seiges lasted months... perhaps hideouts could be attacked instead of with hammers attack by starving them

      The territory owner could start a seige by paying for example-10,000,000 silver per day to "starve" the hideout this would cause its nutrition to deplete 3 times as fast meaning the defenders would have to get food into the hideout and the attackers would have to bar them from getting resupplied this would be a nearly indefinite battle so long as each is willing to pay the price of money or food much like in reality

      Open world housing has long been an issue but this way mimic real life seiges of cities and is possibly more fair to any size of guild so long as they dont "starve" meaning they have resources, or they must give up their position or negotiate their surrender over the course of months(full season warfare)
    • 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).
      First I appreciate they are watching these issues and taking note. I disagree with the hideout placement change. I believe if you can't zvz for two days to get your hideout established you either aren't ready to be in the outlands OR you are picking to high level of a target. Just because you want to be in a t7/t8 zone, or close to the portal or close to a rest or in a nice high traffic zone if you can't bring out a force for two days then maybe you need to look for a quiet t5 zone in an out of the way area. Just use a little strategy....don't place the hideout at the beginning of prime time wait until the end of prime time when the scouts have given up scouting and just survive for 20 mins and day 1 is done. Day two you need to have a force with you. Make a temporary alliance with another few small guilds and help each other defend (wow there's a concept).

      It shouldn't be a cake walk to place a hideout you should be rewarded for two days of good hard work and have a hideout that is very hard to defeat, but to get that cool prize you should have to work/compete for it.

      We had to defend our hideout on day 2. A large blob came at us, we made sure we had a strong defense position and we joined an alliance to make sure we had enough people to defend and we wiped the blob once our 20 mins timer had finished. We then helped the other guilds in that alliance to defend and we are all helping to keep our area clear.

      The cool thing is, BECAUSE of the rules it forced us to work with other guilds and now we have new opportunities. Good job SBI.

      In our zone we have destroyed two hideouts. It was a single guy placing the hideout and then begging us not to destroy it. Then he tried again and we destroyed it again. A guild of 4 or 5....needs to recruit. A guild of 20 needs to join with a few other guilds and satisfy the 2 day challenge SBI has put in place. It's a game people not everyone wins, some people need to change tactics to win, not change the rules so everyone can win without working for it.
      OneOfUsIsInvis: a NA PST Guild is recruiting: discord.gg/UCpTbfX
      OneOfUsIsInvis.com
    • So. It's super great you are getting around to fixing all the bugs. But what about the people who lost millions on the hideouts because large guilds just ran around attacking them and then trying to extort silver from people? So all these bugs making people lose stuff and getting people ganked is being fixed but what about some compensation? This is real world time put into the game taken away in mere minutes. I would like to see something done for those who suffered a bunch because of this update. Because it was hyped as the greatest newest things ever in Albion history and just like the Avalonian event it blows. A majority of people are not able to enjoy it because the game is currently broken. Those that do enjoy the game in numbers are probably busy making other people unhappy. The point of a hideout is to hide out. Not to be known to the entire world.