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.

Has PFO lost its direction?

Bringslite
Paddy Fitzpatrick
I can think of a few things that can easily prevent us from getting what I actually aspire to…

- The fact that my true aspirations are a military fortress/bandit stronghold for criminals to make a stand in the first place. I want fortifications, military buildings, maybe hire guards that will fight alongside us in company feuds. None of that stuff is in the game.

It dont make any sense for a bandit group to have a crafting settlement or class training theme. If we even should have a settlement at all, it should be a forward base where we can strike out from and withstand a siege once sieges come in. So there is that fact that what i really want does not exist, at least not yet.

- Even if i was gonna go the route of everyone else, manpower and time are the next killers. Yeah sure given enough time one can do anything but how much time are we really talking about here? I cant even fsthom how to get a +1, let alone any higher. How much do people think newer groups are gonna have? If we are having this much trouble im sure newer companies with even less will fsre any better.

Sure technically the time thing is true but if that time is astronomical (like many years at least), then how does that help?

- Maybe the biggest one is manpower. I keep being told this game is meant for like 50-100 people per settlement or something and i keep asking myself "how?!" I cant imagine whatever the original thoughrs were on what was a reasonably difficult workload under that plan. Cause right now settlement workload is crazy tough, and basically coming home to a second job.

Maybe manpower will be solved with a higher pop. Hope it does.

Again, like i said, groups with aspirstions that are newer than us aint gonna be doing much better.

Groups like Fianna or any single company were not envisioned to do these things alone. All of the companies in a settlement were envisioned to be "mostly" separate groups of players that would go about their specialties and all contribute, somehow, to making a settlement happen. These things were meant to come together under the management of a Founding Company. What has developed, completely due to player scarcity, is that pretty much all settlements are like one giant company, desperately trying to make things work and progress.

Things would be very different around these parts with a few times more active players. Especially if they all came in large doses and possible already organized(outside of this game) guilds. Much different. Enjoy Candyland while we have it. It is going to get much more difficult to maintain things like they are now.smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Midnight
Bringslite
Enjoy Candyland while we have it. It is going to get much more difficult to maintain things like they are now.smile

The good news (for some folks) is that GoonSquad is waiting for CoE.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
Quijenoth Starkiller
Your missing one thing Thod, the difference between a 6 man company running a settlement with a couple of holdings vs a 500 man company with half the map covered is accounts. Nothing more nothing less, 1 person can have 2 accounts and have his +5 library or he can have 200 accounts and max out the settlement on his own.

I have spent many many hours building spreadsheets for this game, I know better than most how to play the system. Callambea can maintain level 16 training and +3 to +5 buildings indefinitely in its current state it just takes me a couple hours per week to gather some bulk. Just a couple 100 influence and I can do far more - no new players, just more accounts, they never have to log in.

If your looking for crafters then Tyncale has that covered - there isn't a single craft he doesn't practice.

I'm all for a challenge. settlements aren't.

Assuming they do all the steps in between and manage to hold onto all of it is just as important. Worrying about upkeep is literally the last step in the process, the easiest and most mundane thing to do. The best solution is probably to just take raw population #s out of the whole equation as much as they can. Who cares if 10 people can build enough holdings to support a settlement, they won't keep them against 100 people who want to change that. But if the 100 are too lazy to guard their sprawling empire why can't the 10 cut a chunk off and compete? Where are the resources going to come from to keep these people equipped? The crafting queue time to replace the gear in the process? Those should be the important details, the big limitations. They can scale things like upkeep and materials needed to craft buildings and what not with the game's growth, that's not that big a deal, they can maintain whatever desired player to resource ratio they want if they foresee a problem.

The important part is that the effort stays relatively balanced.
Quijenoth Starkiller
Duffy Swiftshadow
They can scale things like upkeep and materials needed to craft buildings and what not with the game's growth, that's not that big a deal, they can maintain whatever desired player to resource ratio they want if they foresee a problem.

how is that any different to nerfing archery or boosting melee? modifications out of the players control are no better than games rebalancing the game with class changes.

I'm sure Thod would be very unhappy if on the day he acquired his +5 library GW decided to nerf his settlement forcing him back to a +3 or lower, all in the name of balancing a growing player base…
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave - www.beyond-pfo.com
Crafting Planner
Gross
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I think I have a carrot. For a few hours after an escalation hex is defeated, the hex adds a bonus to gathering skills. It doesn't add any resources to the hex, and doesn't speed up regeneration, it only increases the speed with which you can gather, emulating a low-scale version of gusher. Perhaps the defeat triggers a one-time regeneration to full, giving an extra incentive to clear it quickly and get your gatherers into it.

+1 gives an incentive for multi team harvest and hunt to extract max value for settlement or to be able to give / trade rights to during an escalation.
Mercenary monster hunter from Forgeholm
War priest of Angradd… patiently waiting on Goblinworks to deliver him (and greataxes, Dwarves need 2 handed axes).
Duffy Swiftshadow
Quijenoth Starkiller
Duffy Swiftshadow
They can scale things like upkeep and materials needed to craft buildings and what not with the game's growth, that's not that big a deal, they can maintain whatever desired player to resource ratio they want if they foresee a problem.

how is that any different to nerfing archery or boosting melee? modifications out of the players control are no better than games rebalancing the game with class changes.

I'm sure Thod would be very unhappy if on the day he acquired his +5 library GW decided to nerf his settlement forcing him back to a +3 or lower, all in the name of balancing a growing player base…

I don't like it that much myself but it's still a better solution than just picking a random number. At least it reflects the possibly ever changing scope. They can either scale it with reality once in awhile, they can pick a random number, or totally avoid basing things on stuff like that at all. If they choose the random number it needs to hold true forever. Let's say 100 people are required, 200 make it trivial. Why is that better than today? How are you going to pick that balancing point? Where is the magic population number that is balanced forever?

Whatever random number is your base, anyone that can't hit it will never achieve anything, those that can hit it will 'be challenged', and those that can surpass it will trivialize it. How do you set that number in a meaningful way when the primary component of your formula is not in your control in any way shape or form?

About the only solution is to try and hard cap the requirement at something that is fairly 'reasonable' to accomplish at which point it's just a shell game of rearranging your X number of players into sub groups to maximize the math in your favor. Thus circumventing the whole thing. Cause that hasn't already been a thing in PFO…

As I said a few thousand times, it's almost like trying to base limitations in a sandbox on player population is a fool's errand. There are better ways that will scale regardless of active population and entirely removes these sort of concerns.
Bringslite
As Duffy has pointed out, yeah there are settlements that got kits and have only a cpl of active members and it is trivial to keep them going, but the real design is in no way based on that. The real design is not plugged in yet. When it is, when there are lots more players, these groups will grow proportionally with the pop or the hungry new players will gobble them up. Or both will happen despite their best efforts. It's a competitive sandbox. Things will come around to a balance when all the parts are in place.

There is a pretty good chance, if the pop were to bloom suddenly and given some few months, that these large territory holding groups will wind up much reduced in land held. Just watch.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Edam
To my mind the idea that single companies or individual players will be able to maintain and run settlements long term would be suicidal. You would end up with a core map tied up by a few hundred early players and several thousand new players forced to suck it up to the originals that established the EE settlements.

It is essential that as the population expands, the bulk demands etc for running a settlement expand to match. Quijenoth Starkiller says they can maintain there settlement at level 16 with a few hours bulk good transport a week. Keeper's Pass can last several years as a level 16 +0 settlement, just with what is currently stored in our vaults without gathering any more bulk - providing rates remain fixed at current levels and we stay at level 16 +0.

Lets be logical about this. The current map could feasibly support 10,000 plus active players. Assuming 50 eventual settlements that averages out at at least 200 players (not characters) per settlement. It is companies that are meant to be the in game social structure run by you and a batch of your friends not settlements.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Bringslite
There is a pretty good chance, if the pop were to bloom suddenly and given some few months, that these large territory holding groups will wind up much reduced in land held. Just watch.

One can only hope. This game really does need more factions and power blocs to keep everyone honest.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Bringslite
I have to wonder how there will be enough time to test mechanics for running settlements and companies, war and sieges, banditry and balance, and all of the other things that GW has tried to encourage while we willfully make peace and treaties at every turn.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post