Hideout Home Changes (Power Projection)

    • There should be a limit of HOs per map and a limit of HOs per alliance members per map, that should avoid maps with 5+ HOs on 1 map making the map almost completely safe, those measures should help with increasing the chances of pvp as devs said they want
      I'm so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle
      Look for the ayys
    • Good changes but still not enough, set up home should be only for guild and if 3lv for alliance and entering HO should be only for guild and alliance! Not for a randoms who aplly for friend as a safe spot on the map. Also there should be limit of 4 on the map, and only 1 per whole alliance and max 4 guilds in the alliance not 10-20 as some people have. If they want to play together they should join same guild and not handholding. Ofc that not fix the massive allances and handholdings but atleast more friendly fire in zvz and more red nicks around them. If any map have more than 4 ho for right now u can easy make patch wirth a week of 100% refund of the ho and bring this all back on the grizzly. I really dont get this why they did not made limit of ho on the maps and why they allow strongers to hide inside ho who not belong to their guild or alliance. U should fix this long time ago because right now who own more silver he have more safe spots in the blackzones and can run from bubble to bubble. Where is high risk in the dead black zones right now which are empty and almost no one traveling cross the maps unless this is zvz timer?

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

    • Korn wrote:

      Hi all,

      When it comes to large scale Outland gameplay, one of our core design goals is to encourage as much conflict as possible.

      This is always a balancing act between making it easy to get to and find fights on the one hand, and making sure that a coalition of players does not become overly dominant on the other hand. Part of this is also to set up the game systems in such a way that conflict is always encouraged as much as possible, of course within the constraints that in an open world Sandbox MMORPG, players can freely choose on how to play and who to fight.

      Over the past weeks, we have received a lot of feedback regarding the role of hideouts for power projection in the Outlands. Due to the flexible custom rights system, it’s currently possible for each hideout to in principle act as a respawn point for an entire coalition, no matter what their actual in-game alliance status is. In addition to that, freshly placed hideouts can fulfill that role right away, which encourages placing hideouts just for this purpose, which goes beyond their intended design.

      Hence, with the next balance patch due early February, we are restricting the set home functionality for hideouts in the following way:

      Players can only set home in a hideout that belongs to their guild, and in any level 3 hideout that belongs to a guild that is part of their alliance.

      The goal here is to make power projection for non-allied coalitions more difficult, without hindering the set home feature per se. Through the level 3 requirement for alliance respawn, we want to combat the spam of level 1 hideouts and make specific level 3 hideouts more of a strategic target to fight over, while at the same time increasing the relevance of a guild’s own hideouts.

      This change is being implemented on a trial basis. We are aware that various work-around strategies might exist and want to observe how this plays out in practice. We will monitor this very closely and then decide on how to proceed, which could include taking further steps if required.
      When looking at one's work, it is important to look back at what was the initial goal to measure one's success. What did I endeavor to do when I started out with this idea? In the case of hideouts, the idea was to allow smaller guilds the chance to operate in the deep black zones, to be less bullied by the larger guilds. Has this been the case or are the hideouts serving a whole other purpose?

      In my opinion, as a guy who lives exclusively in the black zones, I'd rate the hideouts this way:

      Positive:
      -Thanks to the Avalonian Roads expanding dramatically the number of black zones**, a number of smaller guilds have been able to get themselves a hideout, generally in largely irrelevant Avalonian End Zones (t4-t5, sometimes t6).
      -Some smaller guilds have been able to play their cards right and get themselves a hideout in the open world black zones, generally either by going to a really dead area and/or by sucking up to whichever larger alliance is in the region, paying them for the privilege of having a hideout, often extending the hideout's perms to said alliance, which further amplifies one of the main negative points of the hideouts.


      Negative:
      -The hideouts have been used and abused as respawn points by everyone from smaller to larger alliances. It is a problem in ZvZ, as it amplifies the cluster queue issues (everybody respawns really close to the fight), among other things. It also exacerbates zerging in general by allowing larger alliances the chance to just continuously throw bodies at an otherwise smaller enemy, even after being decisively defeated.
      -The hideouts have completely transformed the nature of t7-t8 black zones; any alliance who controls them ends up having a literal spam of hideouts, as their maintenance is pretty cheap. It removes the "risk" element of the "risk vs. reward" of being in a deep black zone: in many zones, gatherers, fame farmers, corrupted dungeoners and other people who gain from being in a deep t7-t8 black zone can go from hideout to dungeon and back without even losing their protective bubble. Even if caught, there is a very high likelihood that they will have a hideout within a sprint distance.
      -The aforementioned issue has been compounded by the fact that entire alliances can and do give perms to other entire alliances. In Lymhurst, for a while, a conglomerate of six or seven alliances, each more than a thousand members strong, were giving hideout perms to each other's hideouts. In Martlock, alliances like SLOTH, FLOW and, most notably, ARCH, have zones with over a dozen hideouts. That's a dozen safepoints, beyond the thirty second bubbles you get from every zone entrance/exit AND every instance exit.

      Solutions:
      In my opinion, the negatives here far, far outweight the positives but one could save the hideouts by taking a few bold measures.
      1)Alliances shouldn't be able to give other alliances and guilds outside of their alliance permissions to their hideouts; an alliance is already supposed to exist as a supra-guild entity. While informal arrangements can and will always exist between alliances, the game shouldn't facilitate them in any way, shape or form. If an outside guild wants permissions to enter an alliance's hideouts, it should seek out membership in said alliance: that's what they're supposed to exist for.
      2)Alliances should be limited to one or two (MAXIMUM) hideout(s) per zone.
      3)Hideouts should be more expensive to maintain, especially at the higher tiers.

      Taking these three measures together would considerably reduce the issue with deep black zones being turned into themeparks for larger alliances, while allowing smaller guilds the same chance they currently have to gain or retain a hideout.

      **: Which is a negative in itself as the game population is absolutely not meant for that but it's besides the point.

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

    • This is worst scenario for small / medium guilds that just wanna use hideouts. You litteraly kill all small medium guilds just to stop few ally.

      What this guilds will do now ?

      Find other mechanism like everyone listed on hideout recive dissarray buff, or something there so many options, but why take worst scenario for RENTers, and guilds that just wanna chill
    • DEAR SBI

      You sold hideouts as pocket territories for guilds unable to compete in the first place
      The moment they got on live they started getting abused for power projection
      And now you balance around it ?


      JUST REVERT AS INTENDED / ADVERTISED !


      HERE ARE THREE FREE SUGGESTION STARTER PACKS


      I - HIDEOUT SYSTEM A
      • One hideout per guild maximum
      • Cant home anywhere else than self guild hideout
      • Lower player sethome capacity (30/40/50) --> more can still be added by building houses the old way


      II - HIDEOUT SYSTEM B
      • One hideout maximum per alliance (Faction Homeland)
      • Can only lock to alliance hideout
      • Guilds with an existing hideout cant join an alliance
      • No limit on player number that can set home


      III - TERRITORIES OVERHAUL
      • Beef up territories to make up, bigger guilds will still be able to expand this way
      • Add building plots and system buildings to regular (non-farm) territories
      • Storage, amount of system buildings, and player sethome capacity upgrades with territory level
      • Hammer-able doors (durability increases with territory level)
      • All guild / alliance activity in the cluster now contributes a little to territory leveling in the form of XP
      • Crystal League matches won on the territory are granting a direct level up / high amounts of XP
      • Leveling bar returns to zero on times matching decay rates
      • If bar has nOt reached a set point at decay timer, level downgrades
      • Decay rates are adjusted accordingly
      • GUILDS CAN ONLY LAUNCH TERRITORIES ON ADJACENT CLUSTERS AGAIN
      • If a guild does not hold any territory, it can launch the territory of the cluster its hideout is located in from it
      Bring back the old vibes, make terries usefull again, make hideouts less appealing to high end guilds.
      Make them harder to break in return so they serve small guilds better (you know, so they arent condemned to rent 5 minutes in) and fill their initial purpose.



      TAKE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION



      MAKE YOUR GAME FUN AGAIN

      The post was edited 8 times, last by Amiral ().

    • Amiral wrote:

      DEAR SBI

      You sold hideouts as pocket territories for guilds unable to compete in the first place
      The moment they got on live they started getting abused for power projection
      And now you balance around it ?

      JUST REVERT AS INTENDED / ADVERTISED

      HERE'S 3 FREE SUGGESTION PACKS

      I - HIDEOUT SYSTEM A
      • One hideout per guild maximum
      • Cant home anywhere else than self guild hideout
      • Lower player sethome capacity (30/40/50) --> more can still be added by building houses the old way


      II - HIDEOUT SYSTEM B
      • One hideout maximum per alliance (Faction Homeland)
      • Can only lock to alliance hideout
      • Guilds with an existing hideout cant join an alliance
      • No limit on player number that can set home


      III TERRITORIES OVERHAUL
      • Beef up territories to make up, bigger guilds will still be able to expand this way
      • Add building plots and system buildings to regular territories
      • Storage and player sethome capacity upgrades with territory level
      • Hammer-able doors (durability increases with territory level)
      • GUILDS CAN ONLY LAUNCH TERRITORIES FROM ADJACENT CLUSTERS TO AGAIN (or from hideout to same map if no terry owned)



      Bring back the old vibes, make terries usefull again, make hideouts less appealing to high end guilds.
      Make them harder to break in return so they serve small guilds better (you know, so they arent condemned to renting 5 minutes in) and fill their initial purpose.



      TAKE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION



      MAKE YOUR GAME FUN AGAIN
      these are actually interesting.
    • ImaDoki wrote:

      Amiral wrote:

      DEAR SBI

      You sold hideouts as pocket territories for guilds unable to compete in the first place
      The moment they got on live they started getting abused for power projection
      And now you balance around it ?

      JUST REVERT AS INTENDED / ADVERTISED

      HERE'S 3 FREE SUGGESTION PACKS

      I - HIDEOUT SYSTEM A
      • One hideout per guild maximum
      • Cant home anywhere else than self guild hideout
      • Lower player sethome capacity (30/40/50) --> more can still be added by building houses the old way


      II - HIDEOUT SYSTEM B
      • One hideout maximum per alliance (Faction Homeland)
      • Can only lock to alliance hideout
      • Guilds with an existing hideout cant join an alliance
      • No limit on player number that can set home


      III TERRITORIES OVERHAUL
      • Beef up territories to make up, bigger guilds will still be able to expand this way
      • Add building plots and system buildings to regular territories
      • Storage and player sethome capacity upgrades with territory level
      • Hammer-able doors (durability increases with territory level)
      • GUILDS CAN ONLY LAUNCH TERRITORIES FROM ADJACENT CLUSTERS TO AGAIN (or from hideout to same map if no terry owned)



      Bring back the old vibes, make terries usefull again, make hideouts less appealing to high end guilds.
      Make them harder to break in return so they serve small guilds better (you know, so they arent condemned to renting 5 minutes in) and fill their initial purpose.



      TAKE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION



      MAKE YOUR GAME FUN AGAIN
      these are actually interesting.
      good suggestion but will be killed on RT level by the hand holders..as always..
    • deenne wrote:

      krazzer wrote:

      This also means more silver to the cartel n friends, since public hideout for crafting will end with this change.
      change is about home, they said they will observe and updating
      "Players can only set home in a hideout that belongs to their guild, and in any level 3 hideout that belongs to a guild that is part of their alliance."
      Then how am i gonna set home in a public crafting hideout, unless my guild or alliance owns it !?!??!
    • krajj wrote:

      MadSkillzDLR, why do you want solo dungeons to be dove again? You just want to pray on people, you don't want a fair fight. The diving mechanic is by far the worst mechanic in this game, it promotes completely unfair and one-sided fights. If you want to fight people, grow some and go do Corrupted Dungeons or Hellgates.
      Yeah make gatherer and transports unvulnerable too while you're at it... They got in a BZ, so they should act like it and prepare a build that can both pve and pvp. (wait you can solo dungeon with something else than a great axe ?!)
      Corrupted dungeons ? Full of rats and clearly not a true form of 1vs1

      If people can defend themselves in group or avalonian dungeons they should be able to learn how in solo too (I've seen players with good strats using either shrines or monsters dive for that)