Hideout Permissions

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

    • The issue is they have to recode their entire permission system. It's not that simple as I'm pretty sure it's the same system across EVERYTHING with permissions. So not only does it need recoded, they then have to make sure when they transition everything that it doesn't break the permissions of the stuff that currently works.

      That factor of needing to do both, while very possible. means it needs to be done carefully and tested which takes time.
    • Honestly though, being able to allow access to only 50 entities is the problem we are having trying to wait for this to be fixed. Not only is there no MEGA alliances now, most guilds who can support to be solo, are doing so now. Y'all know how many guilds there are out there, being able to only add 50 makes it a nightmare deciding whom to allow and who to deny. I began yesterday taking applications for those who need/want access to our hide-out. I began adding the guilds and ran out of room not even half way through the first preliminary list :!: It is not viable to have a public hide-out with these limitations and very concerning to have such stress now, over trying to decide which entities make the final cut and actually get access to our hide-out. Then how to explain my rejection to all these that won't make the cut and don't find their guild name on the list. ?( ||
    • Korn wrote:

      A "black list" feature for hideouts is part of our road map.
      @Korn Can we assume that there is no real answer to this problem coming soon? Is there a quick fix to allow us to add more than 50 entries into the permission list? Can we get a damn quick fix? I need this fix to have happened yesterday, a road map answer sounds like there isn't even someone working on this yet..... Please be advised that I am not only speaking to y'all as a loyal Guild Master, but as a representative of the hundreds of small people in Albion with stuff in my public hide-out that they are about to lose access to.

      This decision of yours, to overlook this key feature for such a long time is causing a dilemma to unfold. We need help and we need it NOW. But, sooner than later for god's sake please mates........
    • I don't get the ganker uses the hideout thing and if a mega guild member gets ganked hes going smash my hideout, Like really the hideout is public for the mega guild and the ganker so what if you just got ganked, Every guild ganks how can you decide who gets kicked from the list and who doesn't if everyone ganks at some point, Seems silly if everyone has access whats the problem, Also if the mega guild has access why doesn't he just enter the hideout, If you don't attack the gank you can just enter the hideout, I understand you want to limit the ganking that happens in atleast the zone your public hideout is @ but the way I see it intil they do add the blacklist anyone that gets ganked by a public hideout should understand that you can't blacklist players yet and keeping the hideout open to everyone is the best option intil the option comes into live gameplay, It isn't your fault the game doesn't allow blacklisting and ganking is part of the game so to me cry babies need to get over getting ganked and not take it out on the hideout itself lol.... Either way I don't feel its a big deal personaly but hey some people get butt hurt too much, That being said I totally agree there should be a blacklist option but intil then public hideouts shouldn't be the ones taking the hit because like I said even mega guild gank......
    • Neef wrote:

      I don't get the ganker uses the hideout thing and if a mega guild member gets ganked hes going smash my hideout, Like really the hideout is public for the mega guild and the ganker so what if you just got ganked, Every guild ganks how can you decide who gets kicked from the list and who doesn't if everyone ganks at some point, Seems silly if everyone has access whats the problem, Also if the mega guild has access why doesn't he just enter the hideout, If you don't attack the gank you can just enter the hideout, I understand you want to limit the ganking that happens in atleast the zone your public hideout is @ but the way I see it intil they do add the blacklist anyone that gets ganked by a public hideout should understand that you can't blacklist players yet and keeping the hideout open to everyone is the best option intil the option comes into live gameplay, It isn't your fault the game doesn't allow blacklisting and ganking is part of the game so to me cry babies need to get over getting ganked and not take it out on the hideout itself lol.... Either way I don't feel its a big deal personaly but hey some people get butt hurt too much, That being said I totally agree there should be a blacklist option but intil then public hideouts shouldn't be the ones taking the hit because like I said even mega guild gank......
      Its closed

      @Korn took too long, to avoid being smashed we have shut yet another public hideout how many are left on the map now... like 6 maybe less
    • Def a problem. I know of a hideout that is closing its doors and blocking quite a few people from accessing the gear they've been stockpiling there for some time. It's ruining relations and rapport. It also ruins the feasibility of using hideouts are centers of commerce. All because of a UI weakness that appears to be ignored.
      My referral link: https://albiononline.com/?ref=BBEL9TU111
    • I might know a way to fix this.
      If they simply text the name and use that as a priority queue, and then use the rights on the far right-hand side of it attached to the name for example priority name permission rights.

      priority : name : permission rights


      1. Guild: Guild A : visitor
      2. Alliance:Alliance B : no access
      3. My Guild: co-owner
      4. Other Player: visitor
      So as you can see this example the other players will be fixed and all the other priorities set correctly, this would even allow you to kick out certain players or guilds. Guild A and Alliance B are part of the same group,
    • GuardianDragonLord wrote:

      I might know a way to fix this.
      If they simply text the name and use that as a priority queue, and then use the rights on the far right-hand side of it attached to the name for example priority name permission rights.

      priority : name : permission rights


      1. Guild: Guild A : visitor
      2. Alliance:Alliance B : no access
      3. My Guild: co-owner
      4. Other Player: visitor
      So as you can see this example the other players will be fixed and all the other priorities set correctly, this would even allow you to kick out certain players or guilds. Guild A and Alliance B are part of the same group,
      The only real issue with current set up is that the current tiers prioritize access over in-access.


      I think an extra tier needs added, no access stays, then add Blocked below it, blocked would take the highest priority.

      Example Co-owner: Player A no access: other players | only owner and Player A have access
      Co-owner: Player A Blocked: other players | only owner has access. because blocked has the highest priority.

      Co-owner Player A Builder: Players B,C,D,E Visitor: Guild A,B,C No Access: Blocked: other players | only owner access
      Co-owner Player A Builder: Players B,C,D,E Visitor: Guild A,B,C, other players No Access: Blocked: Guild D,E | only Guild D,E are not able to access

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

    • blappo wrote:

      GuardianDragonLord wrote:

      I might know a way to fix this.
      If they simply text the name and use that as a priority queue, and then use the rights on the far right-hand side of it attached to the name for example priority name permission rights.

      priority : name : permission rights


      1. Guild: Guild A : visitor
      2. Alliance:Alliance B : no access
      3. My Guild: co-owner
      4. Other Player: visitor
      So as you can see this example the other players will be fixed and all the other priorities set correctly, this would even allow you to kick out certain players or guilds. Guild A and Alliance B are part of the same group,
      The only real issue with current set up is that the current tiers prioritize access over in-access.

      I think an extra tier needs added, no access stays, then add Blocked below it, blocked would take the highest priority.

      Example Co-owner: Player A no access: other players | only owner and Player A have access
      Co-owner: Player A Blocked: other players | only owner has access. because blocked has the highest priority.

      Co-owner Player A Builder: Players B,C,D,E Visitor: Guild A,B,C No Access: Blocked: other players | only owner access
      Co-owner Player A Builder: Players B,C,D,E Visitor: Guild A,B,C, other players No Access: Blocked: Guild D,E | only Guild D,E are not able to access
      I can see how that can work it that way. I'm trying to do this the best way possible without interfering with the old days.that's why I suggested the highest priority based system, it allows it to be blacklisting and whitelisting to work together.
    • honestly I kind of stated the easy way will be setting that "Other Players" flag to be the last one accounted for regardless of what category it is in, So if you get flagged for access or no access that would take priority over the "other players" flag. Just not sure how easy that would be to code.

      Probably need to split the access loop into 2 separate loops, pulling other players would of the first flag, and having it end with the question of Is access determined? if no, check "other players" flag to set access.
    • As another Guildleader for a guild wanting to run a productive and useful public Hideout - the fact that this topic has gone ignored for this long is downright insulting.

      Now I have to shut down my public hideout because I can't lock specific people/guilds/alliances out due to the permissions limit and the horrible priority system its coded with.

      And that hurts the game, because my guild is currently running the best Avalonian Raid community in the game. How are we supposed to allow people from multiple guilds to form up for Avalonian Raids and trade safely in the BZ's if I can't lock out troublesome players/guilds/alliances?

      Like, the LEAST you could do, is respond directly to PrimoVato - a partner of ours who has perhaps the best public hideout setup in the game. Seriously SBI wake the hell up. WTF is going on with this?