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.

abandoned settlement takeovers

Midnight
Caldeathe Baequiannia
It's 10 months since they first said you'd need holdings and outposts to capture a settlement, in part to prevent potential shenanigans around adding outposts in the middle of a feud. It's 8 months since it was brought up and Bob said "yeah, we'll have to change that." People are still taking settlements by putting up six +0 holdings and stuffing a handful of bulk goods into them to cover three days, then tearing them down again. It's not code, for crying out loud, All they had to do is say you have to have holdings and outposts in every one of the six hexes.

So there's a good minimum. You shouldn't get a hex until you have 12 buildings in place, and if you ever let someone else get twelve buildings in place, you should lose it. Even if it's the following week.

TL;DR, In a game that is entirely about settlement conquest, no settlement should ever be exempt from takeover.

Heck, Aragon had/(has?) K.B. almost surrounded just from people buying Stache's accounts.

12 friendly buildings can become a takeover attempt in as little time as it takes to paypal someone.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Midnight
12 friendly buildings can become a takeover attempt in as little time as it takes to paypal someone.
I again point to Stoneroot Glade / High Road, which didn't even require a payment.

But to revert to my constant pedantry about incomplete mechanisms, I look forward to the day when any given hex may be held by more than one company, with outposts "sub-let" to smaller groups.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Midnight
12 friendly buildings can become a takeover attempt in as little time as it takes to paypal someone.
And as part of making takeovers more interesting, since the entire capture at the moment is dependent on a pair of inspections by Bob, there's no reason that all six hexes need to be held by one company. All the devs need to do is announce that if a leader for each company with holdings around a settlement sends a message that they support a capture by a specified company, a settlement could be taken by its own companies as long as there is a traitor or two in position of leadership.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Tigari
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Midnight
12 friendly buildings can become a takeover attempt in as little time as it takes to paypal someone.
And as part of making takeovers more interesting, since the entire capture at the moment is dependent on a pair of inspections by Bob, there's no reason that all six hexes need to be held by one company. All the devs need to do is announce that if a leader for each company with holdings around a settlement sends a message that they support a capture by a specified company, a settlement could be taken by its own companies as long as there is a traitor or two in position of leadership.
LOL that would be funny, to see how many settlements would "swap hands" of leadership,
Duffy Swiftshadow
Caldeathe Baequiannia
It's 10 months since they first said you'd need holdings and outposts to capture a settlement, in part to prevent potential shenanigans around adding outposts in the middle of a feud. It's 8 months since it was brought up and Bob said "yeah, we'll have to change that." People are still taking settlements by putting up six +0 holdings and stuffing a handful of bulk goods into them to cover three days, then tearing them down again. It's not code, for crying out loud, All they had to do is say you have to have holdings and outposts in every one of the six hexes.

So there's a good minimum. You shouldn't get a hex until you have 12 buildings in place, and if you ever let someone else get twelve buildings in place, you should lose it. Even if it's the following week.

TL;DR, In a game that is entirely about settlement conquest, no settlement should ever be exempt from takeover.

The holdings + outposts thing is really being overblown, it's really not that big a deal to accomplish, we just didn't because it was inefficient and not required according to Bob. Hell, the holding only route while cheaper on the influence and resource is twice as risky from PvP! You don't get the free pass if you win the first of your two days like you do with outposts.

Besides, the more you make complex rules involving holdings and training levels the harder it would be for any actual new group to accomplish anything, if the goal is really to help new players get a foothold this sort of stuff isn't going to help. It's only going to slow down the established groups a bit. Better off just letting them finish the game and hopefully this will all get sorted out.

I also have a strange feeling settlement sieges in the final implementation will require mid to late T2 with a well established group to accomplish. Too many issues come to mind otherwise.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Duffy Swiftshadow
The holdings + outposts thing is really being overblown, it's really not that big a deal to accomplish, we just didn't because it was inefficient and not required according to Bob.
Whether it's overblown or not, the existing mechanic can be accomplished with 3 accounts, even with two of them inactive.

Bringslite asked for suggested minimums, I suggest that doing what they said they were going to do more than half a year ago would be a good start.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Tyncale
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Tyncale
PFO, in its current utterly unfinished, unbalanced and abandoned state, is being taken advantage off by those that decided to stick around.
Who else should be taking advantage of it, Tyncale? Many of us are playing a game we enjoy. The current owners of High Road took it over when it wasn't even abandoned, excising our former lords and masters to make our own home because they were absent. Do you feel like that was "taking advantage" of the fact we are still playing? At what point do those of us who pay to play (and actually play) stop owing something to those who aren't playing?
Cal, the "taking advantage of" is not really meant as in the exploiting kind of way. Though I can understand how it would come off like that. Taking over a settlement because its leaders have unsusbscribed is the right thing to do: that you could do it without a War made it a lot easier, which was an advantage for people who wanted to lead a settlement to begin with.

Just saying that things are skewed right now, things are quiet, people are stockpiling and gathering in relative (or even absolute) peace, taking over stuff without having to fight: this is not the normal way of things, or at least I hope it is not if the game gets a revival. smile

Mind you, I am stockpiling myself! I am currently enjoying a small revival myself, and have worked on my Weaver which now has a skill of 202. Yay!
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Duffy Swiftshadow
The focus on how many accounts or characters is one of those mechanics I think is in desperate need of change. The number of characters or accounts should be irrelevant, it's the effort that matters. Why is one account played by a person 20 hours a week any better than 10 accounts played by one person 20 hours a week? Yet not only does the multi account guy have a lot of variety and crafting queues he also gets the benefits of influence generation and a higher cap, why?

What should matter is the effort spent accomplishing things in game, not the body count. Let numbers decide the head to head conflict or economical power of different groups, that's where it really matters. Get it out of the passive capping aspects of the game. If one player can somehow control chunks of the map through diplomacy and lots of in-game effort, let them. It's up to all the other players for letting them do it. (Again assuming lots of finished mechanics.)

As for the stockpiling, there will always be times of peace for one group or another, if it was constant open warfare all the time it would be just as boring as constant peace all the time. Stockpiling will always be a thing, but I think more and adjusted costs will start playing a role to offset some of the current accumulation. Not to mention losing a bank full of stuff might be a very real possibility, removing large amounts of resources from the game.
Bringslite
Just speculating on whether the work to get a settlement to level 20, and a subsequent loss and charred earth result will be all that great as an aspect of fun game play. Then again, great civilizations rise when they are healthy and populated. They are easy pickings when they become weak, complacent and infrequently played.

For new groups, why does it have to be so hard to get started? Why does it have to be an abandoned settlement or nothing? Couldn't it be a type of Holding that is essentially a Keep with a few amenities and(unrealistic but not unknown) a grace period to build and/or make political deals?

For existing or these new captured settlements: Minimum population is probably a bad move ATM. Several companies "assisting" is a great idea, or at least being able to. There is already a benefit to having more buildings because there are more Thornguards about. Maybe a minimum of 1 large, or 2 medium or 8 small buildings? How about a minimum training level that burns x amount of Bulk?

There should probably be a difference between starting a settlement and starting a "Keep on the Borderlands". Both are exciting and both will draw the right kinds of players.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
If it's easy then any established group will just grab the spots anyways. Letting any spot be a settlement also creates the problem of overcrowding settlements and buildings everywhere. The limited approach is a better solution to avoid that, but has the flip-side of limited real estate. But if say the settlement itself had the limitations on territory growth and what not they could tightly control how much territory can get claimed per settlement.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post