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.

EE v4.0 TEST SERVER Release Notes

Ortallus
Please delete this thread/comment.
My ban has now gone from 7 days to permanent with a chance to appeal after 6 months. Paizo has violated the ToS and EULA, which mention nothing about repercussions for actions on the forums resulting in loss of access to the game client. I have not done anything in violation of the rules which would warrant a ban from the game client.
Azure_Zero
Sspitfire1
…………

Boosting small settlements incentives keeping a settlement small. Boosting large settlements encourages small settlements to grow so they can get the benefits of the larger settlements.

"Two large settlements in the game" is also a bit naive. TSV, KP, TEO and Hammerfall will never converge into one settlement. We all have very different play styles and settlement-level personalities that work great in an alliance- but not with us all under one roof. Moreover, if everyone joins into two large settlements, then training in the roles that are not covered by those 2 settlements will be stuck at Rank 8. Incentivizing larger settlements might force folks in small settlements to "join" larger settlements for the time being. But as the game grows, the larger settlements will need to shed players and the smaller settlements will be the first to depart for their homecoming.

Their needs to be a mechanic to help attract new players to the smaller settlements.

As for the larger the settlements it is the easier to recruit new players. This is due to many new players looking for the largest settlement that meets their profile. As the larger settlements will be guaranteed to full-fill most their psychological needs (shelter, safety, belonging, and esteem), while the smaller ones can only provide at best one to two psychological needs (shelter, and (Safety or Belonging)). Now that is one factor that effects the recruitment.

Many smaller settlements have to work many times harder just for one new member, where a single recruitment message from a large settlement one can net like 3 recruits.

Hence you need to tilt things in favor of smaller settlements.

You should also note the equation for settlement level I gave is non-linear.
Settlement_Level = 6 + ( N_Towers / ( round_up ( Total_Settlement_Pop / 50 )));

If a small settlement takes to many towers they will not have the numbers to hold them,
they will get have easier time holding levels, but the loss of a single tower would be very bad.

Say settlement A of 40 holds 4 towers ( level 10 ) they can hold their towers well, but a single lost tower will damage their settlement. They also might get greedy and take a tower from another (say b) who then later steals all of A's towers and holds them hard, dealing a big blow to the settlement ( level 6 ).

Now settlement B with 80 players holds 4 towers ( level 8 ), and they want to level up their settlement, Now A stole two towers from them and they then stole them back with interest now holding 8 towers ( level 10 ), B now overpowers A in level and numbers because A had an opportunity to recruit with their higher level, but did not do so.

You see the sword is double sided for both smaller and larger companies.
Smaller companies can use the level mechanic to recruit people in, but also know that a single tower taken or gained has big impacts, as you get bigger the effect of a single tower loss weakens, but you need more to sustain your level.

now the biggest settlement has 200+ characters, so they would need 5 times the towers to be the same level as a settlement of under 50.
But have the numbers to back holding those towers, though it would be a bit harder.

You see a sweet spot appears in the equation, a Settlement between 50 to 149 players has ease of levels and the numbers to back it.
Ortallus
Please delete this thread/comment.
My ban has now gone from 7 days to permanent with a chance to appeal after 6 months. Paizo has violated the ToS and EULA, which mention nothing about repercussions for actions on the forums resulting in loss of access to the game client. I have not done anything in violation of the rules which would warrant a ban from the game client.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Ortallus
I do think that larger settlements should require more 'upkeep'. Not just by Towers, but by raw resources. Homes need to be built to support the population, that sort of thing. But that might be getting more into the simulation aspect than GW intends, it's just what I would personally enjoy. =)

Bulk resources for settlement growth and maintenance are already planned. Expect them to show up sometime around PoI implementation and the end of WoT.
Ortallus
Please delete this thread/comment.
My ban has now gone from 7 days to permanent with a chance to appeal after 6 months. Paizo has violated the ToS and EULA, which mention nothing about repercussions for actions on the forums resulting in loss of access to the game client. I have not done anything in violation of the rules which would warrant a ban from the game client.
Azure_Zero
Ortallus


That'll be awesome. Will said mechanics put a hardcap on settlement populations?

Nope, no pop caps
Ortallus
Please delete this thread/comment.
My ban has now gone from 7 days to permanent with a chance to appeal after 6 months. Paizo has violated the ToS and EULA, which mention nothing about repercussions for actions on the forums resulting in loss of access to the game client. I have not done anything in violation of the rules which would warrant a ban from the game client.
Sspitfire1
Tynacle, how much PvP have you done using the current system? I have done plenty and find the current system adequate for all the nuance you have spelled out above. Further, your post still does not address the issues that a) buffs are now mandatory to counter debuffs (as Markel pointed out for us); b) being late on the draw and getting hit with a debuff now means you are pretty much behind for the rest of the fight- down and out, as they say (which gives a massive boon to the ambushers, btw); and c) interrupt spamming is now mandatory.

My attack sequence will now have to be Half-draw until I see your attack interrupted then more half-draw just to be safe then smack you with slow before jumping back into half-draw. The Expendables are so powerful, now, that me knowing you are going to use them means I have do everything I can to stop you from using them- to the exclusion of me using my own expendables. As a consequence, you will quickly have to abandon trying to use your expendables because my attacks won't allow you to get them off- while still chipping away at your health. At that point, we wind up right back where we started: no body uses their expendables because as soon as they try to they will be interrupt spammed.

The other option is we both spam our expendables until we have buffed and debuffed each other to god-like proportions of oblivion, and then fall back into where we were before: no one uses expendables because it is a boring fluff-period before we get down to the real business of killing each other- a la Dragon Ball Z.

Kradlum, I think we need to put quotes around "leaked" - not all leaks are accidental. I'll wager this one was not, if it is. The combat system is Stephen's baby and the changes he is proposing are tantamount to him throwing his baby in a grinder with very, very dull grinding bits. /dramaqueen I weep for it.
Avari
Azure_Zero
You see a sweet spot appears in the equation, a Settlement between 50 to 149 players has ease of levels and the numbers to back it.

Again you are completely missing the endgame for GW on this. They don't want settlements at 50-150 players, they want settlements to be 3x the current size of Brighthaven's roster. 200 players is supposed to be the MINIMUM for a bare bones settlement. The answer is most certainly not to curb the only groups headed towards those #'s, the answer is to funnel the current population into groups who can achieve those #'s ASAP.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Ortallus
Well, I find that to be moderately disappointing. So what happens if you don't do your maintenance? Degradation of facilities?

Bulk resource expenditure as of the last blog about it (and what my memory can recall) was centered on maintaining and improving your settlement's training options and crafting facilities. Should you fail to maintain a flow of bulk goods for upkeep your training and crafting output will degrade.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post