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.

Settlement Warfare is on the March

You are a Troll
Vakiri
It sounds to me like this is going to get implemented, no matter what is said here about the possible down sides.

Ah, crowdforging at its best, hey? Ram it down their throats because we say it's good for them! Wonder what the hidden agenda is here…?
Tyncale
Well, I am against implementing this because of the non existant population, however for the same reason I do not think Crowdforging would work as intended currently. Having 60 entrenched Plutocrats determine the course of the games development is probably not a good idea. smile

The game is in limbo, it's Funding or Bust imo.
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)
Flari-Merchant
Fiery
Honestly bob, I think high-end holdings are strong enough as-is. Yes, we took a +4 watchtower using superior strategy, but I can already imagine how difficult it would have been to take it otherwise. That's a good balancing point - we needed superior strategy in addition to a numbers advantage to take it "easily". I strongly suspect a +5 would all but be insurmountable given current server population, even with superior strategy.
I should never have couched my point with an opinion that could be debated. smile
Nevertheless, I will stand on "at their upkeep cost, they are not worth the trouble".
Flari-Merchant
Bob,
Thank you for the feedback to the feedback. Honestly, I feel bad for you having to do things this way and in this order because it is simply something that you feel CAN be done to progress things. I hope that it doesn't turn out to be much effort for a few corner cases. Even your responses make it look like that is the motivation.

We put a lot of pressure on you guys. It is because we are losing hope. Yes even the diehard fanatics can run out of hope. Though we have lasted far longer than most, there are eventual limits. smile

I can see what you are doing here is going to be done, "come hell or high water", so I will take a break from ranting for awhile and see what you come up with. I am interested in seeing what checks and balances you come up with to help with the various ways that we will make this feature "unfun" for each other.
Midnight
I really like Bob's writing. Even when I'd prefer a different answer, I always feel like I've gotten a well thought out response. That's not just in reference to this thread, but many threads.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Tyncale
Well, I am against implementing this because of the non existant population, however for the same reason I do not think Crowdforging would work as intended currently. Having 60 entrenched Plutocrats determine the course of the games development is probably not a good idea. smile

The game is in limbo, it's Funding or Bust imo.

I don't think crowdforging would work anyway to be blunt. At least with a low pop it's manageable but with thousands of players it just becomes a clusterfuck imo.

At any rate, I agree it is funding or bust but I am sure they know that too. Maybe this siege thing is a requirement for getting funding?
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
Tyncale
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Tyncale
Well, I am against implementing this because of the non existant population, however for the same reason I do not think Crowdforging would work as intended currently. Having 60 entrenched Plutocrats determine the course of the games development is probably not a good idea. smile

The game is in limbo, it's Funding or Bust imo.

I don't think crowdforging would work anyway to be blunt. At least with a low pop it's manageable but with thousands of players it just becomes a clusterfuck imo.

At any rate, I agree it is funding or bust but I am sure they know that too. Maybe this siege thing is a requirement for getting funding?
Yeah, I have been a bit of a sceptic about Crowdforging too, but it was a nice phrase coined by Ryan in the Kickstarter though. smile Ryan and Co off course had a plan layed out for development and they mostly followed that plan but the community participation was fun, and there certainly were moments that things got adjusted because of people voicing concerns.

Unfortunately the game never got enough momentum to really test the changes thoroughly and adapt them, or even undo them. Things like Power consumption, Melee-nerfs, Archers being rooted, Camps, Ammo, Sprinting and a myriad of other things. Another thing that always lacked were logging tools so that the devs (and players) could produce some proof of numbers to see what the changes did. A bigger population was also needed to really test out all these things.

Equipment churn for instance never really could be figured out because there never was large scale PvP going on(hundreds). So even though I think true Crowdforging with voting on every feature is bad, I do think that the player-participation was a real thing and could have become even more valuable if development would have continued and population would have grown. I think Ryan only intended Voting to happen if there were two or three pathways that could be chosen by the dev-team, and that we could vote which path should be chosen first. Crowdforging was never intended to vote for core features anyway imo.

If there are investors that want to invest only if Sieging is in, then I am all for it. smile
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)
Zax
Midnight
I really like Bob's writing. Even when I'd prefer a different answer, I always feel like I've gotten a well thought out response. That's not just in reference to this thread, but many threads.

+1
Bob
Duffy Swiftshadow
Except buildings you don't need are a waste of resources, especially for defense. If you need the extra defense you've already lost the battle which means either the building you built goes boom or if their is a change to the victory conditions they get a chance to keep the nice building you just made. Since the ability to craft a building requires winning the recipe lottery in large amounts by endlessly farming escalations (ideally low T1 to T2) your encouraging a boring grind just to add defense that doesn't really help you.

Settlement structures will provide different defensive advantages at different stages of settlement warfare, though it is a bit of a catch-22 that they'll also act as part of the incentive to attack in the first place (destroying some of the buildings, combined with making sieges relatively expensive, will help balance that out).

Even before a siege starts, having more structures will force the attackers to prepare higher upgrades of Siege Engines and Camps, otherwise they won't be able to damage the settlement at all. This delays the attack and makes it more expensive.

Once the siege engines are in place, the settlement's structures and settlement level will act as defenses, lowering the amount of bulk goods destroyed each day.

Once the bulk goods are gone, the structures will contribute to the total amount of structural damage that needs to be done before the settlement is overrun.

I do share your concern that we don't want the balance to feel like victory is inevitable once an enemy manages to place all six siege engines. The situation is somewhat helped by the fact that the attacker now has 6 spots to defend every day, and may have to defend them for quite some time. In fact, all the defending settlement needs to do with the current rules is overrun a single outpost in any of the neighboring hexes to block 1/6 of the incoming damage for the next day. There may be some other simple rule changes we can make that will slightly increase the difficulty for attackers as the siege continues, giving the defenders more hope of turning things around. I'll definitely give that some thought.
Bob
Zax
Midnight
I really like Bob's writing. Even when I'd prefer a different answer, I always feel like I've gotten a well thought out response. That's not just in reference to this thread, but many threads.

+1

Many thanks. Good to know all the efforts from my long-suffering editors and teachers wasn't in vain. smile
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post