Patch 6 Brings Loot Updates

    • Patch 6 Brings Loot Updates



      Today's patch - part of an ambitious weekly update schedule that started with the launch of the Queen update - brings improvements to the Elite Dungeon experience, lower fast-travel costs, and more.

      Read all about it here: albiononline.com/en/news/patch-6-brings-loot-updates
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Suicide defense strategies are certainly wonky, but helped smaller guilds retain hideouts longer.
      If you "think" they helped smaller guilds - then they helped 2x the larger guild(s). Imagine a smaller guild defeating a larger one in open world ZvZ (throught better skill, tactics or w/e) and then proceeding to attack the larger guild's hideout. Now the larget guild has a much bigger "pool" of suicide-reinforcements that can sapwn right out of the Hideout.

      You don't seem to realize that whatever benefits the small guild(s) usually benefits the larger guilds by a factor of x2 if not more. This is true for most everything, except the recent Disarray changes (which were great in my opinion).

      Roccandil wrote:

      Long-term, are you planning to do anything to help smaller guilds keep hideouts,
      They've done a lot of changes to help smaller guilds keep Hideouts. Pretty much every weekly patch over the course of last 2 month (since Jan 20 - Queen release) has been curbing large Guild domination (guild soft caps, terry soft caps and energy Upkeep at 10+ terries and most notably - Disarray debuff).

      Roccandil wrote:

      or is the Outlands going to be the sole domain of the strongest guilds?
      Anything (outside of a yellow zone) in a skill driven sandbox game will be dominated by strongest guilds/players/communities. Now strongest =/= most numerous in terms of membership, but that's a whole different topic.
    • Korn wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Suicide defense strategies are certainly wonky, but helped smaller guilds retain hideouts longer. Long-term, are you planning to do anything to help smaller guilds keep hideouts, or is the Outlands going to be the sole domain of the strongest guilds?
      We are always open to suggestions here.
      What's your view on the current HP values of hideouts?
      HP is fine,


      blappo wrote:

      The biggest issue is a T4 set of said weapons and armor is just as effective as a T8.3 MP set is. This is because most of the items in the game do not scale.

      Stalker hoods, martlock capes, knight armors, fisherman caps, locus E, merc hoods, knight helms, soldier boots, mercenary shoes, guardian boots, cleric sandals, mage sandals, scholar sandals, assassin shoes, hunter shoes, fort sterling capes, bridgewatch capes, undead capes, all of these item have no scaling on their active ability.


      If there is to be any penalty it should be 5,10,15,20 seconds and thats it. why ... there is already a much bigger problem with respawning out of a hideout... you have no ability to move from the spot you stand to position yourself for a fight anyway. it is instant death to move.
      addressing the ability for people to instantly regear - USING T4 Gear - is the issue, if someone is willing to throw away 20 sets of T8 gear i will take it from the happily and come back the next day for their hideout.

      I also want to point out this plan was released after my instant regear strategy thwarted Blue Armies blob on our hideout. I have specific insights into the build, why it is the only way to currently defend hideouts if you cannot win the ZvZ, and how to counter it - which is not a hard task its very simple and fairly cheap to beat... just no one has done it because very few hideouts have been defended using my methods.


      The defense you are nerfing has a HARD counter

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

    • Korn wrote:

      We are always open to suggestions here.
      What's your view on the current HP values of hideouts?
      You haven't understood yet that by delaying respawn times, you are simply making an almost impossible defence?
      We are talking about a system created to penalize those who have already been killed by their enemy, have already lost and will be further penalized for that?
      Who had the idea of those times, and the real reason for its application?

      There is a 20-minute window to attack a hideout.
      Any team currently can remove a shield in just over 5 minutes.
      Any player who comes out of hiding to stop the demo hammer comes without skills and has a bubble, come out of the hole in the middle of an authentic ZvZ (that automatically activates auto-attacks on that target).
      As soon as we have skills and lose the bubble, very little time left to make half a dozen skills against the attackers, with luck we recovered a few seconds of HP in the hideout.
      Die and repeat again, literally fight second by second.

      Now defenders most likely will be completely out of play, for 1 to 3 minutes, during the destruction of a shield.
    • Korn wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Suicide defense strategies are certainly wonky, but helped smaller guilds retain hideouts longer. Long-term, are you planning to do anything to help smaller guilds keep hideouts, or is the Outlands going to be the sole domain of the strongest guilds?
      We are always open to suggestions here.
      What's your view on the current HP values of hideouts?

      When a cluster-capping zerg of a mega-alliance (NAP or otherwise) shows up to delete your hideout, the HP value of the hideout doesn't matter much. It's an N+1 problem.

      Suicide tactics -may- delay the enemy hammers enough, depending on how much you can distract the mega-zerg from camping the hideout, and what kind of counter they brought to your suicide builds.

      More hideout HP could help if you get close (which -has- happened to us a couple times: we got within a minute of keeping a shield from being knocked out). Nerfing suicide builds, though, basically ends that.

      Ideally, I'd want to see a successful hideout attack take an entire primetime (multiple channels/destructions required throughout the primetime), while being something that the defenders could end early with channels.

      That way, the attackers would have to commit their zerg for hours, not just the twenty minutes (or less) to knock out a shield, while with a single good push, the defenders could spoil the entire attack.
    • Korn wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      Suicide defense strategies are certainly wonky, but helped smaller guilds retain hideouts longer. Long-term, are you planning to do anything to help smaller guilds keep hideouts, or is the Outlands going to be the sole domain of the strongest guilds?
      We are always open to suggestions here.
      What's your view on the current HP values of hideouts?
      Listen Korn, my dude..

      At this point I already lost hope for any of you.. but i'll give my personal opinion as a player of a small guild.

      For starters.. The hideOut update was (as already said by 245457760965734553243532 ppl) bad for smaller guilds.
      The general idea was indeed good, but has backlash on smaller guilds YET AGAIN.

      2. Pvp'ers have left blackzones to fight on redzones.. if your dev team would have noticed that, they could/would actually realise the BZ you guys created is unappealing for many of your playerbase.
      But they don't play themselves so how would they know, right?

      3. You really need to fix your market, ever since you did the IP changes the market has turned into disaster..
      figure of speech.. now you buy a 6.1 for 50k.. Before the update you bought it for 120k.. like, see the difference?
      Regearing has become as cheap as can be which should never be the case imo.

      4. Lootdrops in dungeons... ofcourse ppl complain it they get 6.3 in a legendary chest.. cuz it's retardedly cheap ever since the IP changes youd id.
      Back in the day you saw 6.3 and said.. ooh well thats another 500k in bank.. Now ppl loot 6.3 and say.. ooh ye well 75k on a legendary chest.. thats just sad.

      Aside from that, i'll give out my idea AGAIN about the blackzones

      My personal opinion, Split up blackzones.. One for single / or up to 5 party gameplay, hideouts disabled (obviously)
      This way group RD's can be done but also solo RD's for solo or duo players..
      PvP will be more attractive since there is way more outplay and ganking potential/fun.


      And on a second side you have the Zerg zone, where ppl fight for seasonpoints which is basically 5 alliances anyway..
      So give those poor ppl like a zone or 5 where they can buttplug eachother. They don't need anything else at this point.
      Give every territory 500 points and they'll be happy since no one else can contest it anyway.

      Pretty much my perspective of the game RN
    • Roccandil wrote:

      When a cluster-capping zerg of a mega-alliance (NAP or otherwise) shows up to delete your hideout, the HP value of the hideout doesn't matter much. It's an N+1 problem.

      Suicide tactics -may- delay the enemy hammers enough, depending on how much you can distract the mega-zerg from camping the hideout, and what kind of counter they brought to your suicide builds.
      Suicide respawn is one of the worst tactics to use for Hideout defense, and therefore by definition it is not supposed to yield good results. (successful defense)

      Roccandil wrote:

      More hideout HP could help if you get close (which -has- happened to us a couple times: we got within a minute of keeping a shield from being knocked out). Nerfing suicide builds, though, basically ends that.
      Nerfing of buffing suicide builds should really have no (to very little) effect on Hideout defense as that is not even a good tactic to defend the Hideout.

      Roccandil wrote:

      That way, the attackers would have to commit their zerg for hours, not just the twenty minutes (or less) to knock out a shield, while with a single good push, the defenders could spoil the entire attack.
      With the current 20 min attack timer - the defenders already can spoil the entire attack with a single good push (hint: it has nothing to do with suicide re-spawns), and its much easier to do in a 20 min timeframe then in your proposed 4 hr time-frame (current cluster primetime = 4 hrs)
    • I agree that a suicide run should never be a tactic

      But

      Paying a rent empire is redicoulosly worse

      You my dear Korn forced small guilds to desperate moves like suicide defence as the alternative is to loose u hideout or pay mega Alliance

      Now u remove the last (crap) option and remove the last option for small guilds to defend..

      One day, one of your guys has to really play your own game more ...is my depressing conclusion..as you are doing changes that are really hard to understand AND accept for a part of your playerbase..

      The alternative is, you really intend to mess up a major part of your customer base what I cannot belive
    • Roccandil wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      We are always open to suggestions here.
      A bubble that persists while moving away from an exited hideout could help. Right now, if a massive enemy zerg camps on your hideout, and you die while attacking them, you have no options -but- suicide builds, because you don't have enough bubble to escape the immediate area, form up, and zvz again.
      This will help.
      But remove that timers or reduce the time by at least 60%.

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

    • Roccandil wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      We are always open to suggestions here.
      A bubble that persists while moving away from an exited hideout could help. Right now, if a massive enemy zerg camps on your hideout, and you die while attacking them, you have no options -but- suicide builds, because you don't have enough bubble to escape the immediate area, form up, and zvz again.
      you can create that "bubble" if you understand some higher level tactics and know how to play the game in creative ways.

      Just use a Beetle (or better: 2 beetles, or even 3 if you really want a 100% chance) for hideout defense. They are amazing for "creating space" by silencing in an AOE and forcing enemy players to run away from that AOE zone (if players dont run out from that zone - they will die a horrible death).

      The interrupt on the W also interrupts all the Demo hammers (and will instill some serious fear into those who have hammers equipped and get caught in the AOE silence area) - I can guarantee you they will run and your HO will start regenerating HP as soon as its not being attacked.

      Further more - 3 beetles can completely cover the area around your Hideout with AOE.

      Further(even further) more - Beetle Hitbox is much bigger then the regular player body, so the attackers cannot click on your members when beetles and players zone out of the HO for the defense. So you can zone out beetles - wait 5 sec (whatever the skill CD timer is), zone out your defense AOE/CC/Clap squad, engage beetles to absorb attacks inital AOE/attacks (while your clap squad is still under the invulnerable bubble) and then your actual DPS/AOE can engage on the enemy that is silenced all around you by the beetles and most likely has all of their E's on Cooldown anyway.

      Using tactics goes a long way.... instead people cry for nerfs
    • Roccandil wrote:

      @Captainrussia, it must be nice to have an infinite supply of beetles and hubris. :P I'm sure all small guilds could benefit if only they were smart enough to understand that if they had unlimited resources to throw at hideout defense, they could succeed!
      2-3 beetles is infinite? (and you could use 1 beetle too against a smaller attacker... not all Hideouts are being smashed by SQUAK and POE with 150+ on a daily basis, are they?)

      2-3 beetles is about 15-22 mil Silver at current market prices. If that's something a guild (no matter what size) cannot afford - they should probably not be prioritizing putting a Hideout in the BZ, and focus on building up some wealth first.
      Btw placing a HO costs about 20 mil (not including any buildings that you'd want to build inside), so 15-20 mil to help defend it sounds like a fair amount (and you shouldn't be losing those beetles often if you do it right, maybe you'll lose one, it all depends on the situation).
    • Captainrussia wrote:

      Roccandil wrote:

      @Captainrussia, it must be nice to have an infinite supply of beetles and hubris. :P I'm sure all small guilds could benefit if only they were smart enough to understand that if they had unlimited resources to throw at hideout defense, they could succeed!
      2-3 beetles is infinite? (and you could use 1 beetle too against a smaller attacker... not all Hideouts are being smashed by SQUAK and POE with 150+ on a daily basis, are they?)
      2-3 beetles is about 15-22 mil Silver at current market prices. If that's something a guild (no matter what size) cannot afford - they should probably not be prioritizing putting a Hideout in the BZ, and focus on building up some wealth first.
      Btw placing a HO costs about 20 mil (not including any buildings that you'd want to build inside), so 15-20 mil to help defend it sounds like a fair amount (and you shouldn't be losing those beetles often if you do it right, maybe you'll lose one, it all depends on the situation).
      In other words, in your perspective, a guild must have the capacity to have a Beetle and the ability to lose these Beetle in order to defend their hideout.

      Of course we are talking about a defence situation that creates after an open world defeat. That is, in addition to a guild having already been defeated in the open world and now having the other force hitting its walls, your perspective must have the financial capacity to have a battle mount.
      Which is only accessible to old players who won it or sold it on the market until it became a collector's equipment and is therefore rarely used.

      This is your great strategy to defend any hideout?
      And any guild that doesn't have that ability doesn't deserve to be in the black zone. Which goes against the entire Queen update as it would be so that any guilds could have the possibility of being in the black zone and not just the oldest and richest.

      Right now everything is in favour of the richest and oldest and no guild that is created now with new players will be able to make their hideout, because all the guilds that are already there don't want any more neighbours and because it's super easy to destroy any hideout.

      Even the crappy towers are wrong because there is no way to deal with attacks that can be launched at any time and even by guilds that are on the other side of the map, because there is no longer an attack situation just from the adjacent tower. so a Martlock alliance can attack towers in fort sterling, even if there is nothing in those areas.

      In the past we always had a schedule where we could be shot and we knew that it would be a neighbour to make the attack, now it is anytime and by anyone, and without towers there are no hideout defences, because when it comes to ZvZ, 90% of the time it always counts who has more than the enemy.
    • LordSilva wrote:

      In other words, in your perspective, a guild must have the capacity to have a Beetle and the ability to lose these Beetle in order to defend their hideout.
      Yes. Its one of the options (strategies) Im proposing. The contrary one being this "suicide spamming" from the hideout - which to be honest I have not seen a successful one as of yet. (doesn't mean its not successful, but maybe a very low, like 5-10% probability of succes? Afterall if suicide respawning was successful - we would not see people complaining here).

      LordSilva wrote:

      Of course we are talking about a defence situation that creates after an open world defeat. That is, in addition to a guild having already been defeated in the open world and now having the other force hitting its walls, your perspective must have the financial capacity to have a battle mount.
      Correct. Just like you would keep extra sets for regearing, or extra sets for Hideout defense - you should be keeping BMs for Hideout defense as well. I mean - "should" is too strong of a word. You dont have to do anything, run around naked for all I care - but if you get slaughtered naked in the BZ - don't come to forums to complain. A good, strategic and well prepared guild (independent of its size) should ideally have the following 3 in their Hideout:
      1) Sets for regearing during ZvZ (for reinforcements)
      2) Sets for Hideout defence (might be sams as sets in #1, but might be different, as in slightly diff builds)
      3) Battle Mounts for Hideout defense. You only need 2-3. I can guarantee that 3 silver Beetles (only 7.5 mil a pop) should be enough to hold off enemy for 20 min. An unprepared enemy that is.

      LordSilva wrote:

      Which is only accessible to old players who won it or sold it on the market until it became a collector's equipment and is therefore rarely used.
      Not true - as anyone can freely purchase a beetle from the Market. They are in limited supply - but they are being sold on the market (and are dropped through the Crystal league GvGs - as rewards)

      LordSilva wrote:

      This is your great strategy to defend any hideout?
      Its not "great", but its a "better" strategy then trying suicide respawning and then complaining when that fails.

      LordSilva wrote:

      And any guild that doesn't have that ability doesn't deserve to be in the black zone. Which goes against the entire Queen update as it would be so that any guilds could have the possibility of being in the black zone and not just the oldest and richest.
      Any guild that cannot think outside the box, outsmart, outmaneuver or outlast their enemies (however numerous they might be) - does not deserve to be in the BZ.
      And I disagree that that goes against the Queen update - because you are twisting words and definitions. Its not about oldest and richest - its about most innovative ones (as it always have been). Being "old and rich" helps lowering some barriers (again - how it works everywhere, in IRL too), but is not the only requirement.

      LordSilva wrote:

      Right now everything is in favour of the richest and oldest and no guild that is created now with new players will be able to make their hideout, because all the guilds that are already there don't want any more neighbours and because it's super easy to destroy any hideout.
      Sure. But such is a nature of competitive PVP game. If you take a "new player" and put him into a solo random dungeon that Im already running - you can bet that I will attack and kill him. Unless - he does something creative before I can actually kill him. (he better do it fast haha). In Rust - a a PVP FPS game with building elements and territory control mechanics - a lot of people kill their neighbors all the time. But some manage to become friends/allies and actually make pacts. Its all part of a PVP game.
      There are ways for smaller/waker guilds to build Hideouts - renting, which btw - you did not mention - was also part of the Queen update.

      LordSilva wrote:

      Even the crappy towers are wrong because there is no way to deal with attacks that can be launched at any time and even by guilds that are on the other side of the map, because there is no longer an attack situation just from the adjacent tower. so a Martlock alliance can attack towers in fort sterling, even if there is nothing in those areas.
      The idea here is that many small(er) guilds can attack a huge alliance that owns a lot of terries (well, no longer the case after they capped towers to 10 each) and that huge alliance should not be able to defend all of them. The problem is that smaller guilds are not doing that (they are complaining on the forums instead?) and so the large alliances are keeping their territories virtually risk free and unchallenged.

      Imagine if I roamed the BZ solo in 8.3 MP gear, and not a single solo player would attack me, but instead they would all come and complain on the forums that "im too old, too experienced and too rich to afford 8.3"? But instead this would never happen because a bunch of gankers (say 10 people in trash t5 gear) would get together and kill me. Why the same is not happening with smaller guilds/alliances attacking larger ones from all angles?

      LordSilva wrote:

      In the past we always had a schedule where we could be shot and we knew that it would be a neighbour to make the attack, now it is anytime and by anyone, and without towers there are no hideout defences, because when it comes to ZvZ, 90% of the time it always counts who has more than the enemy.
      The part I underlined is just not true. I already explained in the quote above why the attack can be made at any time (its to make it harder for bigger alliances to "feel safe" all the time). Of course that affects the smaller guilds too, but thats not the point as it affects larger alliances the most.

      Also defending a territorry is made easier for a smaller force (because a terri in Queen has been remade into a mini-castle-like structure, you have chokes and secondary lines of defense).

      On top of it - destroying a Hideout takes multiple days in a row. A t2 hideout (4 shields) - you are required to commitng your ZvZ force to 4 days straight! Miss one day (or get pushed back for 1 day) and the shields reset - and the whole attack has to be reset. That really can demoralize the attackers. I've seen it myself. Imagine sieging a lvl 2 Hideout for 3 days, losing attack on the last (4th) day - the shields reset to 4, you now have to be there agein for 4 days (meanwhile your enemies see that and attack your other territorries). So you now have to split forces, and god forbid you lose 1 attack and the shields reset again - you ZvZ force will be very demoralized and nover go for those Hideout attacks.

      Tidal's failure to destroy SUN's Hideouts was attributed to exactly that. Tidal focused on winning ZvZ battles and taking over Towers, without being able to commit for 4 days to destroy any hideouts. Eventually they just gave up.

      So yes - sacrificing 21 milling worth of t6 Silver Beetles is god damn well worth it, if it causes your entire enemy ZvZ force to become demoralized and start getting attacked on other fronts by other enemies.