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

Kradlum Kabal
Sspitfire1
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.

I was just wondering if I need to keep some XP for Thursday to spend on my banked expendables, or I can spend it as it won't be in for another 2 weeks.
Honest Snotbad's Travelling Traders. Purveyors of fine goods since 2015.
Stoneroot Glade - Home of the brave.
Azure_Zero
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.

The point of this equation is to get the smaller settlements moving, and the bigger ones to slow down.
And get players to start exploring and finding other settlements than the big fish.
The sweet number in the equation is 90-99, but still gives a push into the 100+ settlement area.

You are forgetting the towers are temporary, this equation is stop gap like the towers are for POI.
Tuoweit
Ortallus
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.

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

Way back when I recall there being "training slots", such that your training facilities could only support X number of players. That would push large-pop settlements to increase their DI (and thus their PvP window/territory), making them a bigger target. I don't know if that's still in the cards as I was absent from the Paizo forums for several months prior to EE and may have missed some design changes along the way.
markelphoenix
I have a great idea for smaller settlements! This will help them greatly and really stick it to the big guys!

Ok, get this. This is amazing, and I don't know why smaller settlements haven't thought about this before!!!!

They can get organized and actively recruit people! With buddy keys, they can bring NEW PLAYERS into their settlements! They can take personal responsibility for their growth by training players, just like the big ones do!

I don't know if this should be done, though. May be too imbalanced.

/tongue_cheek
Avari
Azure_Zero
The point of this equation is to get the smaller settlements moving, and the bigger ones to slow down.
And get players to start exploring and finding other settlements than the big fish.
The sweet number in the equation is 90-99, but still gives a push into the 100+ settlement area.

You are forgetting the towers are temporary, this equation is stop gap like the towers are for POI.

There is absolutely no good reason for the larger groups to slow down when they aren't even half way to the #'s of a successful settlement.
Duffy Swiftshadow
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.

I think Azure is pointing out that the intention was for the current space to have 33 settlements with those hundreds of players each. Instead we have enough for a handful of settlements at that level. Moving all of us into that handful of settlements will localize us too much and decrease the amount of interaction and diversity in the game. All in the name of reaching 'viable' settlement sizes…because? I don't actually see what the big gain to consolidating is. Declaring some early winners? Make some WoT activity releventish? Only if they then purge 80% of the towers (making us walk across the map to do anything).

What I'm saying is that 10 active settlements is as much a failure state as 33 settlements of 100 would be a failure state.

This is not a simple problem despite a lot us trying to break it down simply. Interdependence when bulk resources come online is supposed to be a big deal, if we only have 1 or 2 active settlement in each of the regions providing those bulk resources where is the interesting interplay? If we have to trek 15+ hexes to reach the next populated area where is the interesting interplay? Where is the fun in having almost alll of our playtime devoted to fighting over a handful of hexes nowhere near our homes? What are the largest fights we've had so far? 20-30ish+ on each side? Is fielding 60+ on each side that big a deal? Does it make the mechanics any less boring?

I think the best way to state it is that the current state of the game is inadequate for the intended design and moving the pieces around is not going to magically fix it. If there are 3000 unique players in the game right now that is still only 90 per settlement if broken up evenly. If we say 300 people is low enough to count as a successful number, then there are only enough for 10 active settlements. All on a map built for 33+ settlements. Even at 6000 individuals the even distribution is 181 per settlement, 33% short of the minimum count to be 'successful'.

I am of the mind to leave the current settlements more or less alone and let them do their thing for now, focus on building content and systems to engage the player-base and bring more people into the game. Settlements will rise and fall naturally as the game space fills up with people participating in these new activities. Eventually some of these added activities and systems will result in some of the settlements going away. That's fine, let it happen 'naturally'. Do not waste development time, mental effort, goodwill, and playing time on trying to force mechanics that just aren't that good, don't really change the playing space positively, or worst don't really work at all.

Edit-I can't believe I almost wasted the opportunity: If you build it, they will come.
Azure_Zero
Avari
Azure_Zero
The point of this equation is to get the smaller settlements moving, and the bigger ones to slow down.
And get players to start exploring and finding other settlements than the big fish.
The sweet number in the equation is 90-99, but still gives a push into the 100+ settlement area.

You are forgetting the towers are temporary, this equation is stop gap like the towers are for POI.

There is absolutely no good reason for the larger groups to slow down when they aren't even half way to the #'s of a successful settlement.

It does when the big fish poach from the small fish.
And getting the diveristy now, is easier than forcing it later
Tink says Stab
My name is Tinkerton Cogsproket, and I support the overbuffing of Expendables. Get them really powerful, and then nerf them down.
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Avari
Duffy Swiftshadow
…..I am of the mind to leave the current settlements more or less alone and let them do their thing for now, focus on building content and systems to engage the player-base and bring more people into the game. Settlements will rise and fall naturally as the game space fills up with people participating in these new activities. Eventually some of these added activities and systems will result in some of the settlements going away. That's fine, let it happen 'naturally'. Do not waste development time, mental effort, goodwill, and playing time on trying to force mechanics that just aren't that good, don't really change the playing space positively, or worst don't really work at all.

The entire game is artificially created conflict! It is literally GW's job to funnel us into the activities that make their game design work. If we are not forming large groups and engaging in conflict then the game is not working as designed. Right now there are two major issues which GW knows are downright fatal to their game: players not forming large groups and no conflict to spurn the war economy all of their systems are dependent on.
Sspitfire1
With that, TSV is always a welcomig home to anyone who likes to kill stuff. We're also apparently choc full of math geeks, to, if that is your thing, as well.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post