Upcoming Changes to Hideouts, Elite Dungeons & Other Fixes

    • Sneaksta wrote:

      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.
      I think the whole point is that there is no "hard mechanic" to guarantee that the collector of Tribute cannot attack you - in order to create drama and dynamic gameplay.

      Also if you lose 1 day of tribute - it should be nothing anyway....

      And if they do attack your Hideout, they can't destroy it in the same day (at least it will have 2 shields) - so you will get a warning, and have some time to evacuate. Also you will learn that they are backstabbers, and hopefully provide proof and warn others. Emergent dynamic game-play at its finest!
    • Sneaksta wrote:

      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.
      I think thats exactly how it works. If the tribute is paid the owner of the cluster cant pay to make that hide out vulnerable. If thats not the case then devs must just fix it to be that way.
    • Guilefulwolf wrote:

      Sneaksta wrote:

      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.
      I think thats exactly how it works. If the tribute is paid the owner of the cluster cant pay to make that hide out vulnerable. If thats not the case then devs must just fix it to be that way.
      They can attack the hideout even if you pay, But they cannot destory it in one day like captain was saying in the above post. You would still have 1 day to get items out because @ level 1 there is atleast 2 shields which means it will take two days to destory.
    • Neef wrote:

      Guilefulwolf wrote:

      Sneaksta wrote:

      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.
      I think thats exactly how it works. If the tribute is paid the owner of the cluster cant pay to make that hide out vulnerable. If thats not the case then devs must just fix it to be that way.
      They can attack the hideout even if you pay, But they cannot destory it in one day like captain was saying in the above post. You would still have 1 day to get items out because @ level 1 there is atleast 2 shields which means it will take two days to destory.
      All of these arguments of being attacked after tribute are well and good. But none of that matters if you can't put a hideout down to begin with. What major alliance right now is allowing small guilds to place hideouts in their area for these minuscule silver tributes to begin with? Name one that believes the tributes are worth something and we can talk about the politics of them destroying you if they suddenly don't want you being there anymore. Which still in my opinion is just part of the risk of setting up a hideout. If you become a nuisance let them remove you don't make the small guy invulnerable. But make incentive to having the small guy there to begin with and let the rest work itself out.
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Guilefulwolf wrote:

      If any guild has in mind to pay a tribute to a cluster owner, they should try to contact that guild´s GM before building it and maybe u make a deal and get a green light to go ahead and build it instead of just building and hope for the best.
      If small guilds can only participate if given permission by the big dogs, that's bad.
      It would be a deal not a permission. Guilds r free to try building and defending their hide outs without any permission but if they r not strong enough they can alliate with other guilds in the same situation or just acept they r not strong enough to do it and stay in the cities. This thread is recalling me the ones claiming to raise the trash rate depending on the assistances to discourage other people of group ganking just because want to get rid of that.
    • Guilefulwolf wrote:

      If any guild has in mind to pay a tribute to a cluster owner, they should try to contact that guild´s GM before building it and maybe u make a deal and get a green light to go ahead and build it instead of just building and hope for the best.
      I don't think you understand what I'm saying friend. They don't want to make a deal. That's the problem. There is no incentive that we can provide to them that makes them want to allow our hideout. That's the point I've been making. Sure we can contact them. We can offer resources, silver, pay the tribute, whatever it doesn't matter. They don't want it. Therein is the problem.

      There isn't a good enough incentive for a larger guild/alliance. Our taxes mean nothing if they already have massive stock piles of resources, gear, and silver. You have to make small guilds more meaningful and relevant. Right now in a ZvZ world it's not happening so small guild hideouts are better off destroyed in the eyes of the big guys. In their eyes if they destroy us enough times we either give up and abandon playing a huge chunk of the game world or we disband and join them so they have fresh bodies. Neither of those is a realistic option.
    • Psycha wrote:

      CAP guilds allowed in 1 alliance, CAP member count in guilds, CAP same guild/alliance blobs in zones.
      This idea of reducing the number of guilds in an alliance is a good one. I'd probably put the number at 3 guilds max in an alliance. There would still be extremely strong alliances out there consisting of 3 gold+ level guilds, but they would have to be careful not to over extend themselves. That would also limit the number of hideouts they could drop in a zone to 3, and 18 over all in the black zones (yes i'm sure there is a work around to this, but it would be more difficult).

      Xyrdin wrote:

      There is no incentive that we can provide to them that makes them want to allow our hideout.

      This is the big problem i see, the large alliances don't need the silver, they have millions just lying around, so there is no reason to allow a hideout near them that they may have to clear later. Maybe this will change when the season starts and territories allow guilds a foothold that they can exploit and get a hideout down, but right now i'm skeptical.
    • Larger guilds will stop bullying the small guys once the season starts and they have more important objectives like their own hideouts ,territories, and castles to tend to at the exact same time window. Lot of overreaction here due to the offseason with no territories. The big guys don't even have to defend their hideouts right now
      IGN: DungeonRealms
    • i think we should be clear about this, what is a small guild?

      my guild has no alliance and roughly 100-200 active members depending on who is 'taking a break' and 100 alts +- some odd i believe we are small

      If anyone smaller than 100 is placing a hideout i think they should reconsider because they arent even big enough to need a guild, like 20 people is a party not a guild im not handholding people who think that 20 people should get to claim a piece of the map.
    • blappo wrote:

      i think we should be clear about this, what is a small guild?

      my guild has no alliance and roughly 100-200 active members depending on who is 'taking a break' and 100 alts +- some odd i believe we are small

      If anyone smaller than 100 is placing a hideout i think they should reconsider because they arent even big enough to need a guild, like 20 people is a party not a guild im not handholding people who think that 20 people should get to claim a piece of the map.
      You're basically saying only large guilds should have territories. This is the exact opposite of what SBI said they wanted with this update. At least prior to Queen, small guilds could actually compete in a fair setting for conquering land - now it's literally just a numbers game. It's gross.
    • Eternalhaze wrote:

      blappo wrote:

      i think we should be clear about this, what is a small guild?

      my guild has no alliance and roughly 100-200 active members depending on who is 'taking a break' and 100 alts +- some odd i believe we are small

      If anyone smaller than 100 is placing a hideout i think they should reconsider because they arent even big enough to need a guild, like 20 people is a party not a guild im not handholding people who think that 20 people should get to claim a piece of the map.
      You're basically saying only large guilds should have territories. This is the exact opposite of what SBI said they wanted with this update. At least prior to Queen, small guilds could actually compete in a fair setting for conquering land - now it's literally just a numbers game. It's gross.
      Hes not saying only large guilds should have territories, he says only large guilds can successfully fight and defend them. Guilds not big/strong enough must alliate with other guilds in the same situation to have a chance against those bigger guilds/alliances u cant beat otherwise.
    • Guilefulwolf wrote:

      Eternalhaze wrote:

      blappo wrote:

      i think we should be clear about this, what is a small guild?

      my guild has no alliance and roughly 100-200 active members depending on who is 'taking a break' and 100 alts +- some odd i believe we are small

      If anyone smaller than 100 is placing a hideout i think they should reconsider because they arent even big enough to need a guild, like 20 people is a party not a guild im not handholding people who think that 20 people should get to claim a piece of the map.
      You're basically saying only large guilds should have territories. This is the exact opposite of what SBI said they wanted with this update. At least prior to Queen, small guilds could actually compete in a fair setting for conquering land - now it's literally just a numbers game. It's gross.
      Hes not saying only large guilds should have territories, he says only large guilds can successfully fight and defend them. Guilds not big/strong enough must alliate with other guilds in the same situation to have a chance against those bigger guilds/alliances u cant beat otherwise.
      He is saying only large guilds are able to have territories, which is true, but shouldn't be the case - especially since SBI's whole pitch about this change was to encourage smaller guilds to live in black zones.

      What you're saying is that it boils down to numbers, which is just gross for a game that cannot handle performances at that level. Prior to Queen gvgs had their problems, but at least it was balanced in numbers participating. Now if you aren't a part of a massive alliance or coalition - you don't get to play the game. It's the exact opposite of what we had with small guilds able to control territory through gvgs.

      The best guilds I've ever been in had around 200 players and played without an alliance. Small scale pvp is what Albion thrives at, yet zergs are being given everything time and time again it's actually disgusting.
    • Guys, The problem is there is no content for large ZVZ forces right now, So in return you are seeing theses large zvz forces attack hideouts because well there isn't anything else for them to do yet, If its still a major problem after the season starts and after they make the changes they already said they are making then we can talk about more option to fix the problem for small guilds. But til then small guilds should just wait a few more days before trying to drop a hideout. It will get much easier once the season starts to drop a hideout because big zvz forces will have better things to worry about then farming on small guilds hideouts which really give nothing to the large ZVZ therefor they will not focus there forces on theses things anymore or not near as much. Just don't try to drop a hideout in there zones.
    • I don't know what the other "big" alliances are doing, but we're only killing the hideouts of small guilds that are in our way. Every time we've destroyed one of these hideouts, not even a single person has walked outside to even see what's going on, much less attempt a defense.

      You guys are acting like you should be able to place hideouts anywhere in the world, but the hard truth is that running a black zone guild requires you to think about objectives and politics. A guild that has no active players during a zones prime time / defense time expects to be able sneak a hideout into a tier 6 or 7 right next to one of the big alliances? Of course it's going to get destroyed.

      We're not travelling to the other side of the continent or even 10 zones to kill some no name guilds hideouts in a tier 3 zone. But if you place a hideout ONE zone away from our alliances stronghold area in a high tier zone... what exactly did you expect would happen? We will just let you mine resources that we are staking claim to and gank our players with impunity?

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

    • Faintrespite out of curiosity why are you destroying those hideouts? If your zerg isn't placing hideouts there why do you care if someone else does? That is just called griefing and pointless really. In fact you are actively destroying your own future content by not allowing enemy bases at least somewhere near you. Do you not want fights and conflict?
    • Tabor wrote:

      Faintrespite out of curiosity why are you destroying those hideouts? If your zerg isn't placing hideouts there why do you care if someone else does? That is just called griefing and pointless really. In fact you are actively destroying your own future content by not allowing enemy bases at least somewhere near you. Do you not want fights and conflict?
      He already said they don't go out of there way to attack hideouts, Only if they are trying to place a hideout 1 zone or in the same zone as they are... So yeah dunno what your saying here. Also its not really griefing if they are just defending there "zones" that they call home... Simple fix would be to not place a hideout near theres, There are a ton of zones that are far from the center of the map and even more not close to the center. Pick better zones. Also wait for the season to start that way most big alliances will be busy with other content.