Posible solution to season rank value and hideout over population

    • Posible solution to season rank value and hideout over population

      Currently, Season Ranking is not very important. Gaining Crystal over gold or gold over silver is incentivized but there is little reason to fight for 15th place when you in 16th. There are too many Hideouts. They provide too much safety for large alliances while providing little content for smaller guilds. Smaller guilds are often extorted by larger groups who demand payment for the right to exist.


      Hide Out Draft
      • Hideouts are placed during a draft on invasion day
      • Position in the draft is determined by placement in the season rankings
      • #1 guild goes first
      • Outer ring zones from the portal out are limited to 5 hideouts
      • All other zones are limited to 1 hideout each
      • Hideouts are invulnerable during the season
      • Moving hideouts between seasons has a cost associated with the movement of goods and resources
        • e.g. 5% of the value moved per zone
          • moving one zone would cost 5% of the value of all goods inside the hideout while moving 7 zones would cost 35%


      The Draft

      • Drafts are broken into EU and NA timers
        • Guilds must declare for a draft at seasons end
      • The top 20 guilds of each timer get two minutes each to choose a zone during the first hour of the draft
      • Next hour 50 guilds get 1 minute each to choose their zone
      • This is repeated until all inner zones are claimed
      • Once all inner zones are claimed, groups of 50 guilds draft zone slots simultaneously in ten-minute increments until all draft participants have had an opportunity to claim.
      Additional options
      • Allow guilds to move during midseason invasion days for a cost similar to between seasons
        • Can only be done to zone further from the center of the map perhaps only to portal rung zones that allow more than one hideout
        • Allows outmatched guilds to move out of the contested zone without giving up black zone life
      • Allow guilds to move hideout closer to the center if they control the zone their hideout resides in, the zone they wish to move to, as well as all connecting territories the primetime before midseason invasion.
    • A reward of draft pick invulnerable hideouts is a cool idea. But I think that can still coexist with the ability to place / destroy hideouts.

      Telling guilds, "you can only have a hideout if you did well a previous season" seems strange to me.

      The too many hideouts problem can be fixed by stronger limitations on the minimum spacing and maximum hideouts per zone.
    • Interesting. I especially like the idea of allowing only 1 HO per tile. I somehow misunderstood the mechanic about HOs when they got released. I thought that there could only be 3 HOs in total on each tile. I quickly realized that I read that wrong and was disappointed. What you are proposing would make it even better.

      If this idea was to get implemented it would open the door to finally getting rid of the alliances altogether. There was talk about alliance removal a few season ago but the idea was eventually abandoned. Having only one hideout would actually give value to rank and thus make 'red alliances' pointless. So basically I am adding a proposal to revisit alliance removal along with your suggestion. This will help resolve disarray debuff as a direct result.

      Draft is a thing I dislike though as it brings more negatives then positives. I get that you want to give meaning to rankings below 1st place but this is not the way imo. A flat rewards scaling would be much simpler and more sustainable. Don't make all guilds from spot X to spot Y receive same rewards but rather make a reward table from 1 to 100 (for example). Make reward difference significant enough that it makes guilds care for every spot and you solve the problem.

      I can see a lot of potential issues with your Draft proposal. Given that not everyone in the guild will have perms to "pick a zone" what you are asking of players is to be online at a very specific time to choose a zone. What happens if the one who is supposed to be picking d/ces? What if server goes down mid draft (it could happen)? What if there is an inner guild disagreement over the picked zone? If HOs are to be invulnerable during the season what happens to them if guilds were to disband? Many more issues come to mind but this is already longer then original post so I don't want to overdo it.


      I would like to make an additional proposal.

      Remove permanent ownership of the territories. Instead, make them all in control of Avalonians. Guilds would need to have open world raids on territories in order to gain temporary control and access to - let's say - Avalonian dungeons or just direct access to some loot. Once successfully raided that territory would remain in guilds control till next server reset and will provide some perks. Some of the perks could be faster resource respawn in that terri. Group and solo dungeons that spawn inside of the terri. Perhaps something different but these are just some of the possibilities.
    • I wonder how roads of avalon hideouts would then work. Also I feel like I would be okay with something like this if hideouts were just the connection to the instance of a guild hideout so you didnt have to rebuild a hideout every season. Either way hideouts right now are a huge problem.

      The main concern with this is that SBI seems to take issue with what they consider to be "stale" gameplay, whereby players end up boxed in fighting the same enemies. Allowing only one static hideout and having top guilds choosing the areas they want every season, with no doubt handholding with other guilds, or alliance guilds, to place hideouts around the borders to secure an area. Whilst I prefer this much more as it is basically what is happening now anyway (except without hideouts spammed on every tile), I feel it doesnt realistically limit the projection of alliances. One major thing it does achieve however is ensuring that guilds are more tied to the higher value areas if they want higher value season points.

      Most likely you would likely set up your alliance to operate in logistically supportive pattern, ensuring you have safe routes of travel toward the main hideout of your top guild in the inner ring, with other hideouts connecting map tiles to that point.

      I do wonder what this would do to crafting hideouts, im guessing they would mostly be removed as crafting hideouts often have no relation to season gameplay. It would have the advantage of destroying the rent empires and masses of players around buying their place in the outlands. The question is, is that a good thing? Are hideouts only to be used for the season competing guilds?

      I like the current ability to place hideouts in the open world, but for me I think the problem is that they are there to make money. You look at many MMO's with open world building and there is usually some sort of tax system to keep the property. This gets more difficult the larger area of land or number of properties you own. I feel like with a draft system like this, other hideouts could be allowed, but the accumulative cost for having multiple in a single zone should become incredibly costly.

      Say for example, the main hideout placed on the draft would incur no cost to the owning guild, adding another hideout to the zone would incur a cost to both of them, adding another would increase the amount and all three would need to pay, and so on and so forth, exponentially increasing in price. (This would help with roads hideouts too where people spam alt guild hideouts to cap a zone). This way the owner of the draft hideout would need to tax the others to cover the cost incurred on their hideout, and it make renting a very calculated decision as to what the owners of that hideout bring to the tile. This would also mean that other alliances and guilds could aggressively build a hideout there to incur a regular financial hit on the draft owners. To prevent offensive hideout spam, there would likely have to be an exponentially increasing cost for building a hideout too.

      It is a tough one to balance, and I had made a suggestion on the round table previously on territory warfare a long time back regarding a war-fronts system also limiting hideout placement, but even that didnt take into account the mindless hideout spam that exists today.

      One thing that is for sure, if they want to improve and regain open world play in Albion Online, it needs to start with restricting and fixing the hideout issue first. The open world simply isnt open anymore as long as it is infested with instances that players can magically vanish into at any given moment.
      Hop on in to my Discord and Twitch ^^
    • While I do agree that Hideouts and in general the whole Blackzone together with season points / placement mattering, I dont think this is the proper take.
      In general the whole Outlands needs a restructuring.
      Make only hideouts from your own guild enterable or only be able to have your own guilds hideouts as home, no matter if its level 3 and from an alliance members guild
      Make bubble range shorter from hideouts or add a cooldown from being able to enter / re-enter a hideout
      Theres need to be a cap of hideouts per guild, alliance and per zones whatever the proper number should be I have no idea about? 2 or 3 maybe?
      Make it so a secondary hideout can or cant be placed within X amount of zones from another hideout?

      Another take could be that if you got a certain rank in season placements as a guild or got an additional upgrade to a Hideout? whether this would be one more HP or 2 regen points instead of 1?
      Maybe more house plots inside the HO? maybe a few farm plots?

      I agree with Kokosmilch that once every season or other season ALL Hideouts should be completely wiped from the BZ and just teleport everyones items back to royal cities.
      Once this happens maybe change up the zones? Change the tiers of different zones like Redtree Enclave goes from a t8 zone to a t6, gets a castle instead of a static dungeon, change gathering hotspots etc, to keep the outlands fresh and a new feeling to it every now and then

      Personally I think the way you put down a Hideout now is kinda trash to be fair, its too easy, - I don't think a "draft" or hinting it towards season points is the proper take though.
      There has to be a openworld objective behind it something that works both for big guilds/alliances and small guilds/alliances (obviously super hard to find a middle ground)

      Maybe you make castles / outposts / territories drop a special nonsellable material (drops more per level / tier of zone castles etc) that is used to craft or upgrade a hideout?
      Lets say you put down a hideout in this place, and to construct it you'll need to gather 500 of whatever material that drops from the above things? maybe even gathering world bosses or other openworld objectives like mob camps?
      When you put down a HO you need to defend it for the 30 minutes of putting it down (I believe its 20 currently?)
      You can only contribute like 200 of above material each day? and you need to do 3 of these rotations, so each day at the time you put your hideout down, its vulnerable again, so as a guild or whatever youll need to defend it and go out and gather these materials again.
      If a enemy guild "destroys or whacks" your hideout, it doesn't get destroyed on first "hit" rather you lose the resources that youve contributed for that 1 day?
      ^ kinda just an idea I thought of on the spot (probably sucks tbh) - although with such mechanic you kinda make all the above mentioned content more relevant than it is now

      I do also believe that territories themselves needs a rework, they need more "meaning" currently it doesn't really matter to guilds if you lose a territory´, only thing that it really means is that you can launch on an enemy hideout.
      Maybe for each day you hold an enemy territory you do more damage to hideouts in that zone? but if a guild reclaims the territory and your own guilds hideout is still under attack it takes 'current' damage again?
      Another take could be that you can only attack the most "outer" territory of enemies and you have to 'work your way in' same way goes when you are attacking - I can see the bad point of such mechanic though

      Again this whole Hideout / BZ's way of working is correlated to these big alliances like POE, Arch, Squad, STEVE, Call etc - I'm aware if you max an alliance by 600 players, you'd just end up with 2x alliances with 600 players instead of an alliance with 1200 players - There somehow needs to be a benefit for small alliances compared to big alliances.
      Maybe a weird take could be that you cannot put enemy hideouts in a zone that already has a hideout?
      So if you take Redtree there can only be like ARCH hideouts in there and ARCH2 or whatever cannot place a hideout in there since the zone is considered "hostile"
      Hard to think of stuff that could prevent NAPs or big alliances on the spot tbh


      To end it all, I AM ALL IN for wiping the whole BZ's hideouts when this new *Open world expansion patch* comes out cause I do really think its needed
      and do what I mentioned above, change tiers, hotspots, castles etc position aswell

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Fluffyfloofy ().

    • Khladraven wrote:

      I wonder how roads of avalon hideouts would then work. Also I feel like I would be okay with something like this if hideouts were just the connection to the instance of a guild hideout so you didnt have to rebuild a hideout every season. Either way hideouts right now are a huge problem.

      The main concern with this is that SBI seems to take issue with what they consider to be "stale" gameplay, whereby players end up boxed in fighting the same enemies. Allowing only one static hideout and having top guilds choosing the areas they want every season, with no doubt handholding with other guilds, or alliance guilds, to place hideouts around the borders to secure an area. Whilst I prefer this much more as it is basically what is happening now anyway (except without hideouts spammed on every tile), I feel it doesnt realistically limit the projection of alliances. One major thing it does achieve however is ensuring that guilds are more tied to the higher value areas if they want higher value season points.

      Most likely you would likely set up your alliance to operate in logistically supportive pattern, ensuring you have safe routes of travel toward the main hideout of your top guild in the inner ring, with other hideouts connecting map tiles to that point.

      I do wonder what this would do to crafting hideouts, im guessing they would mostly be removed as crafting hideouts often have no relation to season gameplay. It would have the advantage of destroying the rent empires and masses of players around buying their place in the outlands. The question is, is that a good thing? Are hideouts only to be used for the season competing guilds?

      I like the current ability to place hideouts in the open world, but for me I think the problem is that they are there to make money. You look at many MMO's with open world building and there is usually some sort of tax system to keep the property. This gets more difficult the larger area of land or number of properties you own. I feel like with a draft system like this, other hideouts could be allowed, but the accumulative cost for having multiple in a single zone should become incredibly costly.

      Say for example, the main hideout placed on the draft would incur no cost to the owning guild, adding another hideout to the zone would incur a cost to both of them, adding another would increase the amount and all three would need to pay, and so on and so forth, exponentially increasing in price. (This would help with roads hideouts too where people spam alt guild hideouts to cap a zone). This way the owner of the draft hideout would need to tax the others to cover the cost incurred on their hideout, and it make renting a very calculated decision as to what the owners of that hideout bring to the tile. This would also mean that other alliances and guilds could aggressively build a hideout there to incur a regular financial hit on the draft owners. To prevent offensive hideout spam, there would likely have to be an exponentially increasing cost for building a hideout too.

      It is a tough one to balance, and I had made a suggestion on the round table previously on territory warfare a long time back regarding a war-fronts system also limiting hideout placement, but even that didnt take into account the mindless hideout spam that exists today.

      One thing that is for sure, if they want to improve and regain open world play in Albion Online, it needs to start with restricting and fixing the hideout issue first. The open world simply isnt open anymore as long as it is infested with instances that players can magically vanish into at any given moment.
      the roads would probably be unchanged considering that their appeal was 'being completely separate from the Outlands.'
    • Cessari wrote:

      the roads would probably be unchanged considering that their appeal was 'being completely separate from the Outlands.'
      They are still classified as Black Zones same as the Outlands, also hideouts are the same structure. For them to be unchanged there may have to be additional work to separate them. Just worth noting that there would extra development time involved in something like this to separate an existing mechanic into two separate scenarios. For example roads hideouts could be restructured and also cheaper to make, perhaps not requiring siphoned energy, but instead avalonian energy given that the roads themselves are separate from seasons and the only way to attain energy for hideout crafting and upgrades would be to purchase it. Having avalonian energy allows small guilds living in the roads to build their hideouts from their efforts in the roads.

      Just interesting to think about is all.
      Hop on in to my Discord and Twitch ^^
    • I kinda like the idea of this but there are a few things that i'm not very fond of...

      I think it would be better if it was free to move the hideout around both mid season and between seasons. If one region is stale, or someone is being completely stomped, you could just move. It would help keep the black zone varied and full of content, I think. The only thing the cost to move the HO based on what is in it does is to disincentivize people from living in the black zones. People wont commit. The won't brind out the gear, bring out lots of artifacts, resources for crafting etc. You are basically punished for commiting to fully living in the black zone.

      I also see some big problems with the draft system.

      There are many guilds... Zones you want will be picked. Just letting one guild after another pick and give them 1 minute each wont work. It will also split up alliances. What if one guild in the alliance is ranked 20 and the other 100? It would actually be better if the guild ranked 20 would have stopped gaining season points and dropped in rank to 99. That would give them much higher chance of being able to live next to each other. This system might very well force guilds to aim at specific ranks. Not as high rank as possible, but specific. What are you going to do if you have too high of a rank? You can only do so much to help your allies with the current point sharing system. Helping them "punishes yourself" by giving you season points...

      I think it would have to be handled on an alliance level. Pool all season points of all guilds in an alliance together and use that for the draft. Let the whole alliance pick spots for all their guilds HOs at once.

      The 1-minute system seems very hectic and stressful, very error prone. Let's hope our guild leader doesn't disconnect during this minute or the whole season is ruined for 300 players....

      I think the draft should be divided into multiple stages, somehow. Maybe you could be lock into a region first and then pin down a zone later? Maybe you start with just picking lymhurst, martlock, thetford, fort sterling or bridgewatch or rank which one you prefer. Maybe this could even go over multiple rounds. You can choose, see what everyone else has choose and change your choice or lock it in. This could go over a day with one round per hour and maybe 5 rounds. After the 5th round you are automatically locked in if you havn't already.

      Maybe the second stage of locking could be outer, middle, inner ring and work in the same way. You can prefer inner, middle and then outer. After the draft, you are allowed to lock into the inner circle but your ally is not and got the middle circle pick. You will then move to the middle circle for the second round and you can both lock in there.

      Last stage could be down to the zones. You would rank the zones you want in order and after the round you get placed in your top choice based on last seasons ranking. You can then lock in or change your choice to a "worse" zone to get closer to an ally.

      The point would be that you would be guaranteed a zone at all stages of the draft with this system and you would know who else would live there. Each stage of the picks could go on for the duration of a day and each round of the stage for and hour. That would give you plenty of time to see what everyone else picked, adjust to move closer to friends, closer to enemies, further from enemies (not these annoying pricks this season too....). You can talk to your allies, lock in or adjust.

      The most "valuable" zone that at first glimps looks best is probably not always the place you want to end up spending your season.

      And a final note. It might be nice to possibly have some bonus for "staying in place", keeping the location you had last. Not sure about this one. I just can't shake that feeling that if you have lived in a zone for 10 seasons and it really feels like your home, you can just get kicked out of it just because you ranked second a season. :)

      And final final note. I don't think a previous rank should be a requirement. Maybe there is a cost associated with taking part of the draft. There needs to be a way for guilds to make a home in the black zone even if they didn't even exist last season. New guild (or guilds that was inactive last season) should absolutely have to start in the outer ring though. You continue doing well and be active, you work towards the center of the map, or get to pick the best outer ring zones.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by PieNapple ().