Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

For the good of the game

Caldeathe Baequiannia
I, and any others who choose to support it, formally request that the members of Allegiant Gem Mining Company be given the ability to manage one of the empty settlements on the board until it's current management evidences some interest in the game or such time as the settlement is recycled in some other way. Such management might be assigned to the character Atheory or others as designated by their members. Allegiant Gem Mining offers the availability of content that expands the game in a fashion that is likely to have a positive effect on its growth.

The empty settlements are a drain on our economy and a negative feature.

Caldeathe
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Azure_Zero
Cal, it sounds good and all but most will ask GW to not put them(the Allegiant Gem Mining) near them(the settlement) as neighbours, as they are NAP violators who'll wreck the game for them.

I myself would not want them within 10 hexes of Talonguard.
That covers Terra Firma, Hammerforge, New Daggermark, Iron Guantlet, Deadman's Glen, Sunholm and Canis Castrum.
(not sure if the last two are active)
Jakaal
+1

Unclaimed settlements should find new owners before to long.
Yrme
I think it would be more fair if they be allowed to compete for control of one of the empty settlements. But they should have no special priviledges or advantages in gaining control. There are undoubtedly other players who would love the opportunity to control one of those settlements. GW should just set up the rules for the competition, and players have to compete to take control.

(I do think that any future settlement competitions should have an active character threshold, to prevent the very low-count settlements).
At some point, crowdforging suggestions seem to be like fan fiction. Some good, some bad, some repetitious and predictable. But maybe there are some gems out there.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Azure, I don't think you'll have trouble finding Highlanders to stand beside you. I think it will be a good thing.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Urman, this is only a stop-gap control until the settlements are occupied or reassigned. maybe a month or two, during which they can test their mettle.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Yrme
Sorry, Caldeathe. I would find it abhorent if GW priviledged any particular group of players this way. They (GW) are supposed to be impartial umpires and rule creators. Giving a settlement to one particular set of players would be a horrible precedent.
At some point, crowdforging suggestions seem to be like fan fiction. Some good, some bad, some repetitious and predictable. But maybe there are some gems out there.
gustavef
To be fair, I see the current strife regarding the NAP and the current state of Settlement control to be a good thing. It is showing the importance of the need for dynamic and fluid control of settlements. I know it is in the works, and for the most part it will be addressed, but they Devs can observe the discussion and determine how they want to move this game.

In a way it is showing how absurd the current WoT is. But it is only temporary. The question becomes will members of AGC be locked out of Tier 2 training since no active settlement will have them. If so, is this a good or bad thing for the game as a whole, both in the short term and long term.
Atheory
While I thank Caldeathe for the consideration, as I truly believe like most, he has PFO's best interests in mind. AGC would happily accept management of a settlement if only temporary, but that really isn't necessary. Much of what I was hoping for was in having just one non-good aligned settlement breakaway from the NAP, even if only during the WoT. AGC would immediately back such a settlement and bring its growing member base there. To no be a part of the NAP doesn't mean anarchy.

To us, there is a vast and meaningful difference between supporting a game wide NAP, which we do not, and supporting agreements of a more limiting/localized effect, which we do.
KoboldCleaver
Goblinworks already "privileged" several groups by giving them settlements in exchange for money. Goblinworks is capricious and subjective, by their own words (I may be wrong on subjective). I say yes, this is a great idea for the game. Hell, put 'em near Tavernhold! I'm not scared of some grumpy gemcutters, lemme at 'em! I'll give 'em the old one-two, what-for, and all that! Bring it o—
*Gets hooked offstage by other Tavernhold regulars*
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post