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.

Holding Changes

Azure_Zero
I've run the map and seen a number of holdings and a 99% of them are at +0 operation, with generally an inn holding next to a monster hex for power recovery.

The Inn holding is freaking great next to a monster/home hex since you don't need to travel far to recharge.
But All the inns I've seen are +0, most likely due to the fact the power recharge rate is unchanged, and should have a +4 added on for each + on active on the holding. (gives a reason to put up a higher operation cost)

While the Class type holdings (Shrine, Watchtower, Barracks etc) are near useless since most groups have their training in settlement, and not using a holding to swap out for another class building. But when the new settlement upkeep costs come in, folks might be going with higher + Class type holdings since their upkeep is cheaper and can help give feats that are needed, but since it caps at level 15, it might be a pain (if the equation was +0 starts at 9, and went non-linear it would push the holdings a bit more)
i.e 9(+0), 10,(+1), 11(+2), 13(+3), 15(+4), 20(+5).

Now Crafting type holdings (Farm, Mine, Quarry, etc) are the most useless of them all. For one major reason, They are not connected to a bank in the settlement and materials must be carried there. Add in that +0 Crafting holdings have NO crafting queue, and the quality rating is poor from +1 to +5. To make it worth people's while to put up and use crafting type holdings, the Queue MUST be available at even +0, and the crafting quality should be 100 at +0 (effectively settlement level 12). And the Crafting quality equation for holdings should be (100+(X*(+Val))^2) where X = 2.8,
or (100(+0), 107.84(+1), 131.36(+2), 170.56(+3), 225.44 (+4), 296(+5)).
This would make them useful and with a way of making the higher + values worth it.
But this still might not be enough to counter the settlement bank access, in that case I'd change X to 3.0
or (100.0(+0), 109.0(+1), 136.0(+2), 181.0(+3), 244.0(+4), 325(+5)).
With a Crafting Holding operating at +5 (with an X = 3.0) it would beat a settlement running at level 20 for refining and thus become more valuable and looked at to be used by settlements looking to get crits.

These changes would also in turn cause outposts attached to the holding to be better then +0, +1, + 2 or +3 forcing a need for +4 and +5 outposts, since a +5 Holding eats a lot of bulk goods (3 resources of 30 each day).
This set of minor changes would push the need to use both higher level holding and outposts.

So What do people think of these changes to holdings that I'm proposing.
Decius
I don't understand the intended role of holdings well enough to comment on how to make higher plusses more attractive. I'd suggest no change from the current situation without a good understanding of how the holding and settlement designs were and interacted with each other.

Higher power regen on inns seems like an interesting feature, but I don't think that a max level holding should ever be better than a max level settlement structure. Cheaper, sure.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I think the current state of holdings and outposts is exactly as crippled as everything else by the lack of players. When there are many players per hex, and it is possible (presuming the paln stays as indicated) for smaller companies of 20-50 to "sublet" by running a single outpost to support a holding run by a larger company, the management of holdings will take on an entirely new dimension, and constant competition for space, combined with needing to potentially feud three separate companies to take a hex will change everything. Such competition may also lead to companies switching settlements strategically, with potential conflict between the company that has the holding switching to a new settlement while the companies that hold the outposts don't want to go along. When players can't find enough hexes to use up their influence, feuding will become almost a no-brainer, as will strengthening your holding to reduce the risk thereof

It may well be that the system will need adjustment, but adjusting this mechanic based on what's happening in an incomplete and under-utilized system seems premature.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Decius
When a company with holdings could choose to change settlements and that creates a meaningful impact on other members of those settlements, then it will be time to figure out what those effects should be.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
I dunno, I see a good use for upgrading outpoats since they give more of those very important bulk resources. From a defense standpoint they offer stronger guards.

For the holdings though, other than the watchtower which gives much harder guards and more of them, I don't see the cost outweighing the benefits. If ya have a real good home hex somewhere an inn might be good but not for just any escalation hex. Way too much mats and influence to tie up in that.

Just seems like it needs some reworking and some of the holdings need to be repurposed for something else.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Paddy Fitzpatrick
For the holdings though, other than the watchtower which gives much harder guards and more of them, I don't see the cost outweighing the benefits.
Again, incomplete mechanics are obscuring some things.

Currently anyone can train anywhere on the map, and any settlement can set training to a given level for all of its buildings for a flat rate. Eventually (theoretically) each settlement will decide who can train there, and each building in the settlement will have to make a payment for training by itself. There may come a day when your settlement doesn't want to pay for a level 18 smelter, and the only ones that do will not allow you to train. Or perhaps your bandit company will be on the outs with the current alliances, and unable to get training in any settlements without outrageous costs or demands. Maybe no-one you can get along with is supporting your deity, so you can't train your cleric attacks. In each case, having a holding of your own so you can upgrade it for a day or two, to offer training and/or refining capacity to your company's members, instead of doing the more expensive settlement equivalent building for a whole week, may be an important option.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Bringslite
@ Azure

Definitely feel like incentives to build higher than +1 holdings is lacking. You are on track with what I have been thinking about them, though I'm not sure if all of your suggestions are the right direction, they might be. As to costs, I haven't crunched the numbers myself and am unlikely to. We have a skilled Mentat, so I don't have to.

Anyway, thanks for keeping this topic fresh. Bottom line that I hope GW takes from this is that it doesn't seem worth the cost to up holding +'s much at all. Not just the increased daily expense, but the increased requirement to move Bulk to meet those higher costs is a negative force multiplier in the "enthusiasm socket".
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Azure_Zero
Decius
…..
… but I don't think that a max level holding should ever be better than a max level settlement structure. Cheaper, sure.

that is to compensate for the needed transport of the raw mats to and the refined mats from the holding since they are not attached to the settlement bank and thus could be intercepted by bandits or those whom your in a feud with.
Edam
I had always thought training with holdings was a minor boon for independent companies who may swap settlements regularly and the odd fully independent non-allied "free port" settlement but the MAIN bonus would be improved bulk resource rates.
Thod-Theodum
The problem is you can train everything anywhere else - so building up + is no incentive. The extra production also doesn't work. You don't even need to have a holding at least as high as the outpost.
Add limited influence and the better payout to increase outposts and you will find +0 is the best option.

Cal phrased it well - another issue of low population / non-fully implementation. I would worry about this if it doesn't change once more population enters the game and space becomes scarce / training or crafting can't be had everywhere anymore.

Nothing wrong to craft/refine at a neighbour - but it should be up to them to allow it / disallow it.
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post