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.

Thank You Lisa, for Hope and the Road Map.

Edam
Note that a fully kitted out character can carry about 200 bulk in inventory sans mule and still move at full speed.

One possibility is only allow bulk to be added during the PvP window. That way the attackers will know exactly when to watch for smugglers.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Bob
Sorry but I have exhausted my questions/concerns (as far as the info I have anyway) about the first update. Are you ready for talking about Phase Two? Can you tell us anything about Azoth? Will it be tradable ingame?

I can give some quick answers for things from the later phases, but we'll usually want to hold off on too detailed of conversations until we're closer to implementing things so that we can focus more on the things we're either implementing now or getting ready to implement.

We're still working out the details on Azoth, but the basic idea is that it's a material available for purchase in relatively large quantities in the store. The most straight-forward use of it is to convert it into game time at a preset exchange rate, but it's also intended to have various in-game uses. The first one we plan to implement is to allow you to use it in crafting projects to boost the plus value of your crafting project. It will never boost the end result by more than a single plus (or to above +5), and you'll have to get at least part-way up to that next plus without it, but it will let you close the gap if you're just a little short on upgraded refined materials.

It will be trade-able in-game, and you could also buy or sell it at an auction house. It will not be lootable.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Bob
Sorry but I have exhausted my questions/concerns (as far as the info I have anyway) about the first update. Are you ready for talking about Phase Two? Can you tell us anything about Azoth? Will it be tradable ingame?

I can give some quick answers for things from the later phases, but we'll usually want to hold off on too detailed of conversations until we're closer to implementing things so that we can focus more on the things we're either implementing now or getting ready to implement.

We're still working out the details on Azoth, but the basic idea is that it's a material available for purchase in relatively large quantities in the store. The most straight-forward use of it is to convert it into game time at a preset exchange rate, but it's also intended to have various in-game uses. The first one we plan to implement is to allow you to use it in crafting projects to boost the plus value of your crafting project. It will never boost the end result by more than a single plus (or to above +5), and you'll have to get at least part-way up to that next plus without it, but it will let you close the gap if you're just a little short on upgraded refined materials.

It will be trade-able in-game, and you could also buy or sell it at an auction house. It will not be lootable.

Ah see I had thought that it might be used to shorten crafting times. bumping up "plusses" sounds good too. I have a hard time imagining a month's sub being worth bumping up a "plus" on an item. Can't wait to here more details.
I really, really like that it will be tradable! That is forward and modern thinking. smile

Edit: I have a hard time imagining a month's sub being worth bumping up a "plus" on an item. Except maybe for Settlement Buildings! Derp!
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
I have a hard time imagining a month's sub being worth bumping up a "plus" on an item. Except maybe for Settlement Buildings!

Azoth will be very granular. You'd use a lot of it for a month of game time, and usually smaller amounts to boost your crafting upgrades (varying by the value of your crafting project and how much boosting it needed). Boosting a settlement building would tend to require quite a bit of Azoth.
Midnight
Bob
We definitely intend for it to be possible to take down even the most established settlement, and it shouldn't generally require anything on the order of 27 weeks to do so. It might take that long to do so very methodically, or if there's a lot of back-and-forth taking of territory along the way, or if the settlement is buried deep inside an established alliance, but it should be possible to do so more quickly with a powerful enough force of attackers. We don't expect it to happen often, but we expect it to be possible, and we do expect lone settlements and settlements on the outer borders of alliances to change hands more often.

In terms of being able to build for 4 days and be attacked for 3, that does give the defenders some opportunity to rebuild, but inside of smaller territory. If they lose territory each week, they'll still eventually fall, though they may eventually be able to concentrate their forces enough to prevent further losses, while the attackers are now more spread out and vulnerable during their own PvP windows. If the attackers do get to the point of actually surrounding the settlement with siege equipment, we'll also restrict the settlement's ability to repair damage during their 4 non-PvP days. With the rules I'm currently writing up, I simply won't count any new structures or bulk resources as part of the defenses if they're added after the siege begins. When we eventually automate the sieges, we'll have mechanics that restrict new buildings, or upkeep deposits, or whatever is appropriate to restrict during that time.

All that said, I'll agree that we do want a certain amount of stability, particularly deep within established alliances. We expect more PvP-averse players to feel relatively safe in those areas. We want the borders and less populated areas to be more dynamic, with holdings changing hands reasonably often, and settlements changing hands occasionally. More PvP-interested players would spend their time in those areas. Pushing back the borders of a successful, established alliance and taking it completely down will be a big deal, and very difficult to pull off, but at the very least technically possible.

I question whether there even exists today "established alliances" deserving of such protection. What I see are hollow shells of previous organizations that would crumble the minute you kick unsubscribed characters out of companies.

Under today's rules I can feud folks and see if they actually have the numbers to keep their holdings when their PvP window occurs.

Under the EE12 rules there are going to be holdings completely immune from attack. The company owning that holding might not even have any subscribed players. And all the holdings around it may also be owned by companies without subscribed players.

If you want to reward "established alliances" with stability, at least make sure the established alliances you are coddling are subscribed to the game. I would strongly urge you to expunge all unsubscribed players from companies before instituting any rules granting holdings immunity from attack. Under the current rules, the hollow shells can, at least, be fairly challenged.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Azure_Zero
Midnight
Bob
We definitely intend for it to be possible to take down even the most established settlement, and it shouldn't generally require anything on the order of 27 weeks to do so. It might take that long to do so very methodically, or if there's a lot of back-and-forth taking of territory along the way, or if the settlement is buried deep inside an established alliance, but it should be possible to do so more quickly with a powerful enough force of attackers. We don't expect it to happen often, but we expect it to be possible, and we do expect lone settlements and settlements on the outer borders of alliances to change hands more often.

In terms of being able to build for 4 days and be attacked for 3, that does give the defenders some opportunity to rebuild, but inside of smaller territory. If they lose territory each week, they'll still eventually fall, though they may eventually be able to concentrate their forces enough to prevent further losses, while the attackers are now more spread out and vulnerable during their own PvP windows. If the attackers do get to the point of actually surrounding the settlement with siege equipment, we'll also restrict the settlement's ability to repair damage during their 4 non-PvP days. With the rules I'm currently writing up, I simply won't count any new structures or bulk resources as part of the defenses if they're added after the siege begins. When we eventually automate the sieges, we'll have mechanics that restrict new buildings, or upkeep deposits, or whatever is appropriate to restrict during that time.

All that said, I'll agree that we do want a certain amount of stability, particularly deep within established alliances. We expect more PvP-averse players to feel relatively safe in those areas. We want the borders and less populated areas to be more dynamic, with holdings changing hands reasonably often, and settlements changing hands occasionally. More PvP-interested players would spend their time in those areas. Pushing back the borders of a successful, established alliance and taking it completely down will be a big deal, and very difficult to pull off, but at the very least technically possible.

I question whether there even exists today "established alliances" deserving of such protection. What I see are hollow shells of previous organizations that would crumble the minute you kick unsubscribed characters out of companies.

Under today's rules I can feud folks and see if they actually have the numbers to keep their holdings when their PvP window occurs.

Under the EE12 rules there are going to be holdings completely immune from attack. The company owning that holding might not even have any subscribed players. And all the holdings around it may also be owned by companies without subscribed players.

If you want to reward "established alliances" with stability, at least make sure the established alliances you are coddling are subscribed to the game. I would strongly urge you to expunge all unsubscribed players from companies before instituting any rules granting holdings immunity from attack. Under the current rules, the hollow shells can, at least, be fairly challenged.

True, if you attack the border it'll take a while to get to the core.

But you can take them out, as the; Shield, Ruin, NPC Town, Monster, and Home hexes are all UNclaimable. This in turn makes a number of cracks in EVERY alliances territory. Areas that bend in the Shield Road, or a small group of Unclaimable hexes is a Weak point in every area. Attack the Weak point and the crack grows.
Smitty
Midnight
Bob
We definitely intend for it to be possible to take down even the most established settlement, and it shouldn't generally require anything on the order of 27 weeks to do so. It might take that long to do so very methodically, or if there's a lot of back-and-forth taking of territory along the way, or if the settlement is buried deep inside an established alliance, but it should be possible to do so more quickly with a powerful enough force of attackers. We don't expect it to happen often, but we expect it to be possible, and we do expect lone settlements and settlements on the outer borders of alliances to change hands more often.

In terms of being able to build for 4 days and be attacked for 3, that does give the defenders some opportunity to rebuild, but inside of smaller territory. If they lose territory each week, they'll still eventually fall, though they may eventually be able to concentrate their forces enough to prevent further losses, while the attackers are now more spread out and vulnerable during their own PvP windows. If the attackers do get to the point of actually surrounding the settlement with siege equipment, we'll also restrict the settlement's ability to repair damage during their 4 non-PvP days. With the rules I'm currently writing up, I simply won't count any new structures or bulk resources as part of the defenses if they're added after the siege begins. When we eventually automate the sieges, we'll have mechanics that restrict new buildings, or upkeep deposits, or whatever is appropriate to restrict during that time.

All that said, I'll agree that we do want a certain amount of stability, particularly deep within established alliances. We expect more PvP-averse players to feel relatively safe in those areas. We want the borders and less populated areas to be more dynamic, with holdings changing hands reasonably often, and settlements changing hands occasionally. More PvP-interested players would spend their time in those areas. Pushing back the borders of a successful, established alliance and taking it completely down will be a big deal, and very difficult to pull off, but at the very least technically possible.

I question whether there even exists today "established alliances" deserving of such protection. What I see are hollow shells of previous organizations that would crumble the minute you kick unsubscribed characters out of companies.

Under today's rules I can feud folks and see if they actually have the numbers to keep their holdings when their PvP window occurs.

Under the EE12 rules there are going to be holdings completely immune from attack. The company owning that holding might not even have any subscribed players. And all the holdings around it may also be owned by companies without subscribed players.

If you want to reward "established alliances" with stability, at least make sure the established alliances you are coddling are subscribed to the game. I would strongly urge you to expunge all unsubscribed players from companies before instituting any rules granting holdings immunity from attack. Under the current rules, the hollow shells can, at least, be fairly challenged.
Midnight, We had a similar thread not long ago discussing company influence..
I have to disagree with you on the just dump everyone out of their company if they are inactive.
We do have entire companies that have disappeared from the game with no active players, we have large companies with only a tiny active population- Yes that is a problem..

But the solution cant be kick them out- You want these people to come back- you don’t want their welcome back to be “Glad your back now start over”.
They wouldn’t be new players, so achievements wouldn’t help build influence for them faster. Entire company vaults could be lost if they had no active player, and come back to a settlement that is no longer active.

My view is they need to add another layer to influence, that decays over time when players go inactive. They need to track the inactive influence total of the company as well as the active influence. The active influence would represent active players, and the inactive influence would be available when and if players returned.

I just don’t see any good coming from wiping away previous accomplishments and making returning players start from scratch as a good idea in welcoming them back.
Midnight
I understand that people want to limp along hoping these hollow shells of companies fill up again. I had no (strong) objection to it up to now.

But EE12 hex immunity seems like it will be adding another layer of UNDESERVED advantage to such companies.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
evilyuriclone
Wouldn't a change that made only subbed accounts affect the influence cap have the same effect? Inactive players would remain in company, but the company would only have the effective size of its subbed players.
Flari-Merchant
I've been advocating for this also. For a long time. I figure it is going to have to happen eventually and would prefer that it happen to get it over with before the player base grows much. It would free up a good deal of space for new people rolling into the game.

One of the major attractions to the game is that you can build YOUR OWN PLACE and do things the way that you want, or at least you could if you started on Jan. 1st, 2015. Right now pretty much all of the spots are taken except for those planned for the future.

On the other hand, it is going to seriously Rock the Game State when it happens. Lots of conveniences like places to store gathered materials, force projection, apparent territory SIZE, etc. Also inconvenience of those that have been taking a break losing LOTS of work that they have put into the game and would probably like to come back without having to start building all of that over again.

A pretty tough call to make.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post