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.

The Very Most "UnFun Thing"

Paddy Fitzpatrick
Edam
Tyncale
I would already be happy if they would allow us to pop a mule at the Holding itself, rather then having to transport an empty mule there first.

+1 but that only helps with the very first mule run of the day. The last two days I have spent about 20 hours catching up on the last month or twos back logs and moved roughly 30,000 bulk (18,000 currently in a small holding waiting to move further and another 12,000 in a holding closer to home) and being able to grab a mule remotely would not make a huge difference.

Mule trains with multiple mules would help a lot. What has not helped recently is a new bug that prevents you running multiple instances of the game in some win10 installs as you are now limited to one mule per PC.

What is NOT a good plan is to wipe all the work of people that put the hours in over the past two years moving the current stocks. One of our KP members literally put 15 or more hours a week in for over a year moving bulk single handed. SHe would not be happy to have people come in and say "hey we never bothered with this stuff cos it was too much hard work but now everyone else who did put in the hard work has an unfair advantage over us, so please wipe all their stuff … k thanx" .

I see your point regarding not doing a complete wipe and I agree.

I would counter though that once the system is fixed and all there will need to be some sort of repurposing and normalization in some form to restore balance. We did all the wonderful unfun work of bulk movement too but it has made Dun Baile functionally immortal as well due to the current problems of the system. Within a not too long period of time the unfun work made us essentially unconquerable just like everyone else is, which is even more unfun cause neither side of any conflict can do anything to actually harm an enemy settlement either through direct or indirect warfare.

So while we can keep some bulk, once the complete and superior system is in place something has to give. We can't keep this god-like status quo going forever.
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
Nihimon
Re: Limitless Reserves of Bulk Resources

Consider making Bulk Food and Bulk Resources decay over time.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Edam
I would add that as far as new groups go in a starter settlement, Keepers ( and most other groups with bulk in store) would quite happily trade bulk for iron/coal etc if the right offer was made. AS to how many iron equal one bulk? That would be up to the market.
Azure_Zero
Going back to part of the OP mentioning Universal Support

I do Think that Universal Support needs some tweaking, as the HRC-BHA fight showed a flaw in the current system that is a major combat exploit. In that a settlement can shrink their PVP window to an hour with no ill effects to that settlement's citizens and it's combat effectiveness. Deciding to lower your settlement level to shrink your PVP window in a major fight should be a hard choice; shorter defence window with weakened skills and gear or longer window with better skills and gear support.

Now I can agree that making training and support the same is a bit too much, and think the support level should be 2 levels higher then training, this would give some leeway on settlement members should the need to lower the settlement level come.

But this lowering of support should also effect the refiners and crafters in that they loose access to recipes they can not support, so that the refiners/crafters just don't move to refine/craft in another settlement with better crafting time. This recipe loss should also pause or cancel any item currently in a refiner/crafter's queue where the recipe is no longer supported.
So if a settlement was in a giant T3 item making frenzy, the choice to lower the settlement level would be much harder since all the T3 items in the queue would be paused or canceled, and means two weeks of fighting using settlement level 10 is two weeks without T3 support or crafting of T3 by all settlement members, unless they hopped to another settlement.

I also think that if any company of a settlement is in a feud that ALL the settlement's companies are LOCKED to the settlement, so company's can't hop around to avoid support lose if the settlement decides to lower it's level.
Nihimon
Azure_Zero
I do Think that Universal Support needs some tweaking, as the HRC-BHA fight showed a flaw in the current system…

I wonder if there might be some other instances in the past which might have revealed this "flaw", and others.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Edam
Azure_Zero
Now I can agree that making training and support the same is a bit too much, and think the support level should be 2 levels higher then training, this would give some leeway on settlement members should the need to lower the settlement level come.

It is all a bit of a mess with companies doing the feuding but settlement level determining PvP window and at one stage it was even proposed that support would depend on alliance/kingdom factors.

Under the current system you could feasibly reintroduce support but make it so level 20 is available quite low (say a level 14 or 16 settlement) meaning higher levels are for crafting bonuses as now.

What is mainly missing under the current model is a way for unaffiliated companies (your classic bandit escalation stealing desperados) to be able to get higher levels of support from holdings or through other means without being attached to a settlement.
Bringslite
Edam
Azure_Zero
Now I can agree that making training and support the same is a bit too much, and think the support level should be 2 levels higher then training, this would give some leeway on settlement members should the need to lower the settlement level come.

It is all a bit of a mess with companies doing the feuding but settlement level determining PvP window and at one stage it was even proposed that support would depend on alliance/kingdom factors.

Under the current system you could feasibly reintroduce support but make it so level 20 is available quite low (say a level 14 or 16 settlement) meaning higher levels are for crafting bonuses as now.

What is mainly missing under the current model is a way for unaffiliated companies (your classic bandit escalation stealing desperados) to be able to get higher levels of support from holdings or through other means without being attached to a settlement.

Is that missing or is that a unique mitigation feature that was part of the control for the darker side of "content"? Just playing Angel's Advocate here. I am not opposed to something that allows reasonable non grief style banditry (Paddy/Udo/Malerous INC.) being viable and able to function.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Edam
Bringslite
Is that missing or is that a unique mitigation feature that was part of the control for the darker side of "content"? Just playing Angel's Advocate here. I am not opposed to something that allows reasonable non grief style banditry (Paddy/Udo/Malerous INC.) being viable and able to function.

I am unsure. Hideouts may (or may not) have been intended to replace some of that settlement functionality but it was never fleshed out or made clear exactly what was intended with them. i am not even sure if they were intended to be a temporary structure like a camp or something more akin to a holding.
Azure_Zero
Edam
Azure_Zero
Now I can agree that making training and support the same is a bit too much, and think the support level should be 2 levels higher then training, this would give some leeway on settlement members should the need to lower the settlement level come.



Under the current system you could feasibly reintroduce support but make it so level 20 is available quite low (say a level 14 or 16 settlement) meaning higher levels are for crafting bonuses as now.
….

I'll point out that a level 18 settlement has a PVP window of 2 hours 15 Minutes compared to the level 20 settlement window of 3 hours, two levels nearly knock out a nearly a third of the PVP window, so yeah it must be tighter then giving level 20 support at settlement level 16 heck, even 18 is pushing it.

It could be either; a simple and tight delta equation of Support = level + 2 or a complex one that really bites into settlement lowering at higher levels with a look up table like below
Level-Support
- (No Delta)
20-20
19-19
18-18
17-17
- (Delta of 1)
16-17
15-16
14-16
13-14
- (Delta of 2)
12-14
11-13
10-12
9-11
-
Now this Table is what is should be, since the support delta scales more with the PVP window delta
Duffy Swiftshadow
Unless I am completely mistaken, the whole movable window thing is a side effect of incomplete settlement systems. Eventually it will be hard locked based on your holdings which will be built to support the varying settlement building levels with their DI and bulk output. Ultimately this means that in the future changing your window will require you to tear down buildings and holdings. It will not be adjustable via a simple menu choice once a week.

As for bandits and what not, while I agree they should have an alternative they still need some vulnerability or restrictions to make their system in-line socially with those playing within the settlement system.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post