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.

Calling All Active Settlements/Companies/Players

Caldeathe Baequiannia
Presuming a stable population is reached at some point, I don't think it's at all unlikely that it will consist of some veterans who have very little turnover at all, and a player base where the majority of the people leaving are people who tried the game for a few months or less and then left when they didn't find what they wanted. It won't mean a complete turnover at all, simply that there will be a fair degree of churn in the players that have been in less than a year. It doesn't have to be that high, since the majority of holdings once placed probably won't need to be replaced very often. Groups that want to be expansionist and war-like will need to have a constant influx of new players to ffed the influence machine. A class of player may even rise that, by choice, spends the bulk of their XP on generating and throwing away new characters a few times a year, to feed influence. Those with DTs will jealously guard XP, but some future players might not see it quite the same way, if their greatest value in their group is their ability to earn influence much faster than the veterans, in order to facilitate their team's growth.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Duffy Swiftshadow
I really personally think that sounds like an awful thing to base a primary mechanic around. You'll always be top heavy at some point, requiring a steady trickle of new players to be competitive just encourages negative community behavior cause we will eventually view those players as a necessary commodity, not an expansion choice. It also makes existing groups want to discourage new companies from forming. Nothing about it really seems 'good' to me if that is the expected way to maintain influence.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
In part, we're talking about a theoretical stable population, which might never occur, or by which time the mechanic will have been well smoothed out. Planning for it is an exercise in crystal-ball-gazing, which is my point. None of us knows what the game will look like, so planning for something that won't happen for several years (unless the game fails) is pointless. For now, the game can't function unless there is a steady flow of new players, so a mechanic that relies on them is hardly in need of a fix soon.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Duffy Swiftshadow
Except it could create a negative feedback loop if it's not solved right now (if there is in fact a problem):

Not enough influence to do anything with a stable or declining population, therefore more people quit due to boredom or burnout, which decreases active population, which in turn discourages new players from sticking with the game as it seems dead (already a fairly common complaint from what I've seen), which then means less influence to do anything; repeat until state changes via new features, massive mechanic tweaking, or (and hopefully very far off chance) total game collapse.

To fight the theoretical problem they can either change the core of the system and let it ride through future development. Depending on specifics the better choice as you have to worry about future feature tie-ins less.

Or they can do something to temporarily offset the problem for now which could have somewhat unpredictable side effects coding wise depending on how they do it, but may be a quick fix. Adjusting influence formulas or modifying influence costs is probably the easiest way to change things versus some patchwork system that could become cruft as further systems are added.
Tagnar
As far as escalations go I can agree they feel out of control at times and more effort than I care to spend. I enjoy the t2 escalations but really if it isn't Duergar or Mordant I don't want to waste too much time as there is little reward for anything else.

Influence doesn't seem to be an issue to me (besides the feud bug) Influence is slow to gain when a group of older players join together to make a new company. If the company has been around a while you will have lots of influence with a steady flow from active players. If you start a new company with 10 brand new characters you can have 80 influence in a couple hours which is more than enough to declare a feud. It is only when starting from zero with veteran characters that the influence comes in like a slow drip.

As far as PFU is concerned. I don't believe they are doing anything wrong by existing. Yes they get new recruits and yes those new recruits aren't generating us influence. So what? PFU and their classes is an environment I would never want to learn through and there are plenty of people that are turned off by a learning settlement. On the other side there are definitely people who want that environment and flourish in it. PFU is just another settlement vying for recruits just like everyone else. There really isn't any special advantage that PFU has besides what we give them. Some new players I meet I encourage them towards Forgeholm, or even one of its allies. Other players, whom I feel would benefit from the PFU environment I have sent them their way. As far as the game is concerned PFU has as much right to be a part of it as anyone else. Now the politics, motivations and actions of PFU can be debated elsewhere but really are they any different from any other settlement?

#tldr - Escalations are too much work, influence is okay and PFU should be treated like any other settlement.
Tagnar, Ironbreaker of Forgeholm
High Priest of Abadar
Kitsune
Nihimon
Duffy Swiftshadow
I did start piecing together an idea for an organized PvP 'league' with seasons and brackets, but with the advent of Feuding and the removal of open PvP hexes that kinda became ridiculously hard to do.

Just a reminder that it's actually pretty easy to set up PvP matches where no one loses Reputation as long as you have an extra Character standing around.

Player A and player B each attack themselves once, then they each attack the bystander. They've now hit two white-named targets and both have the Attacker Flag, meaning they can attack each other without losing Reputation.

If you attack yourself, you gain the Attacker flag. It is my understanding that attacking any white-named player while you already have the Attacker flag will then give you an Aggressor flag (and lose rep)?
Nihimon
Kitsune
If you attack yourself, you gain the Attacker flag. It is my understanding that attacking any white-named player while you already have the Attacker flag will then give you an Aggressor flag (and lose rep)?

Not unless they changed it. When Decius and I looked into this, we discovered that you only lose Reputation if you attack the same Character a second time, or if any of the Characters you attacked die while you still have the Flag you got from attacking them.

If you attack any white-named Character once, you get the Aggressor Flag which lasts for 60 seconds regardless. If you attack any white-named Character while you have the Aggressor Flag, that Flag becomes the Attacker Flag which lasts until you've been out of combat for 60 seconds. While you have the Aggressor Flag, you appear red to the person you attacked. While you have the Attacker Flag, you appear red to everyone (not in your Party/Company).
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Duffy Swiftshadow
Hmm interesting, could work in the meantime tho I would guess that's technically a bug that might get cleaned up at some point.
Kitsune
Oh, got the terms backwards (again, because they're stupidly too similar, imo), but otherwise same thoughts.

So, oh really, it's only if you attack the same character twice? *evil grin* Noted.
Edam
I do sense a bit of "what about me" whining evolving in some quarters.

Apparently it is "unfair" that PFU instructors occasionally impress new players enough that they are encouraged to join the instructors own group, and "unfair" that what has been labelled the "Alpha Aristocracy" had the sense to realize that the time to start recruiting was in early Alpha not 3 months after EE started and actually did something about it and work hard on retaining those members, and also "unfair" that some groups are more active on the forums and promote their settlements by bumping recruitment posts and actively promoting themselves and also "unfair" that people use general chat for recruitment. It seems like anything other than sitting around waiting for new members to fall in your lap is unfair.

I do get that being in a smaller settlement struggling to survive at all is frustrating but I am a little unclear what sort of recruitment effort is NOT unfair, would automatically allocating new players randomly to active settlements rather than starter towns keep people happy ?
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post