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.

Concerns over Settlement Costs

Quijenoth Starkiller
As mentioned in the blog here

Settlement upkeep costs for bulk resources are increasing to more closely mimic the quantities of bulk resources that will be needed by the full settlement system.

However, after doing some math for Callambea I have serious concerns over the higher level numbers and the benefits of having FULL settlement level management as it is now…

Taking Ozems Vigil as an example they are running level 18 training, in order to do this they are paying 438 of each bulk resource.

If they where using the full system they would be paying the following…
Bulk Food - 4775
Bulk Ore - 4263
Bulk Stone - 3415
Bulk Wood - 5070
Trade Goods - 3853
Coin - 2380

OV also lacks the number of holdings to generate the DI even with 10 Infrastructure buildings at +5.

I do not believe there is a single settlement in this game that can maintain that level so I call for a cap on the temporary level right now. The game is not ready for it and I feel its unfair if players benefit from it now knowing they cannot maintain it when the proper systems are implemented.
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave - www.beyond-pfo.com
Crafting Planner
Lisa Stevens
That blog is way old. Nothing like changing the numbers will happen until the new company takes over and that will be up to them.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Those costs also assumed hundreds of active people as direct members in every settlement, and probably many more "associate" members (receiving the support of the settlement, but not full citizens) There was room for sub-leasing outposts to companies that are not necessarily citizens because of alignment issues, but making use of the facilities under contract. The information presented to us was assuming a minimum of multiple tens of thousands of active players, and assessing whether implementing an intended cost is too high needs to wait for a profitable and stable server population.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Quijenoth
The blog is old but the update to costs only went live in EE 10.1 July 2015. I appreciate there are likely changes on the horizon with new developers but I wonder how many people will rage if they have their 17 gate and training done only to have it taken away in March.

When settlement structures get turned on we will all be down to +0 buildings (10 training) with some +1s and a handful of +2s) some settlements may be stockpiling higher plus buildings right now but they wont be able to place them all without a much higher population. These same groups are trying to manage multiple settlements also.

Cal is correct on the assumptions on population so I wonder, with the slow in development, are people punching above their weight right now with the easy button that is temporary settlement level, and if so should we not introduce a simple hard cap (say max settlement level 14) until development picks up and things return to normal?

This doesn't have to be something in the code, we could as a community decide on what is fair and better for the game and fix max levels of settlements.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Why? What value does it add to the game to do so? What impact or interesting interactions would it cause?
Decius
At some point the final costs of settlement upkeep should be announced, and then over an appropriate period they should be phased in. Only the least ambitious settlements should feel no squeeze when that happens.
Takasi
Quijenoth we can place higher plus buildings if we wanted to but that doesn't mean we have to keep every building at +3, +4 or even +5 support. The plan is to be able to upgrade and downgrade weekly with the buildings placed being the hard cap.

Settlements can feed their buildings at 0/+3, 1/+3, 2/+3, etc. (or 0/+4 or 0/+5). It might even be more efficient in the future because there are times today a settlement will raise itself to 16 or higher when in reality there may only be one or two people training one or two skills in that settlement. It would be cheaper to just raise that one building up that week and lower the ones not in demand.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Decius
At some point the final costs of settlement upkeep should be announced, and then over an appropriate period they should be phased in. Only the least ambitious settlements should feel no squeeze when that happens.

I'll agree there, it's gonna be entirely population dependent, which is always gonna be awkward at some end of the spectrum. Settlement level is one of the reasons I really hate how the crafting recipe progression is built, it just doesn't fit nicely compared to all the combat role stuff.

In my own entirely unhinged opinion, at this point (based on what we've seen and some ideas for the future) I think if they (future or current devs, whichever) seriously wanted to make it interesting they would need to decouple the hard connection between characters and influence as the determining factor on bulk production and territory control. It's the cleanest way to make the system scalable based on population without tying itself to specific target numbers and would hopefully naturally result in more PvP and crafting. But that in turn would require significant changes to how influence works, possibly how feuds and PvP windows work, and eventually however wars work and so on etc…but I think it would get rid of a lot of weirdness to the system such as having to hard scale things based on player population, filler characters, un-subbed characters, gear/equipment/resource churn etc…
Decius
Takasi
Quijenoth we can place higher plus buildings if we wanted to but that doesn't mean we have to keep every building at +3, +4 or even +5 support. The plan is to be able to upgrade and downgrade weekly with the buildings placed being the hard cap.

Settlements can feed their buildings at 0/+3, 1/+3, 2/+3, etc. (or 0/+4 or 0/+5). It might even be more efficient in the future because there are times today a settlement will raise itself to 16 or higher when in reality there may only be one or two people training one or two skills in that settlement. It would be cheaper to just raise that one building up that week and lower the ones not in demand.

I truly hope that there's some disincentive to training up only one week every two months. Support being required, or not being freely able to downgrade and upgrade settlement structures for free, or upkeep costs being based on maximum level…
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Quijenoth
if so should we not introduce a simple hard cap (say max settlement level 14) until development picks up and things return to normal?
EE was always intended to be a bootstrap process for the open world. Had they goten the kind of uptake they hoped for, there would be thousands of people playing, and things would have happened at a different place, but there would probably be even more high level crafters to provide a functional economy. I think that while a lot of people are looking at the the fact that the devs have made it easier and easier as an attempt to hang on to players, it's more likely that they are trying to put those economic factors in place with a small population. If the game fails completely, the number of high level crafters won't matter. If it attracts enough players to be successful, then having high level crafters is going to give the world a little colour and flexibility. The world, at some point, needs to spring-forth fully formed; I don't see the upside to an artificial cap.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post