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.

Restricting Output from Outposts to Upgrade Level of Holding

Bob
For EE 12, we've made a change to the way that Outposts decide how much bulk goods they'll produce each day. The basic output numbers are still the same as before, and are still based on the upgrade level of the Outpost, but if the Outpost is at a higher upgrade level than the hex's Holding, then the Outpost will produce bulk goods as though it is at the same upgrade level as the Holding. Outposts would still get the improved guards that come with a higher upgrade level, just not the increased bulk goods output.
Bob
From another thread:

Smitty
Its probably likely that 3 hexes running at +0 are going outproduce a +4 hex(for the same influence cost)

Having multiple lower-upgrade hexes outproduce individual higher-upgrade hexes provides an incentive to spread out, but at the risk of having to defend lots of hexes with minimal amounts of guards. When looking at things purely in terms of bulk resource output, we want upgrading to be a good choice, but conquering new territory to be a better one.

Smitty
Hoping to get Bob's thoughts on if these numbers are going to be tweaked at all,

Lots of you guys have done holding and outpost stuff more than I have - So Perhaps the +4 outpost production
makes up for the difference- But I am not seeing it, help me do so if I am missing something.
The +4 Holding Option seems like a good thing to have in case of feuds, war time, etc. but to run holdings at that expense full time doesn't look that appealing to me..

I've started taking a look at the numbers and suspect I'll have to make some tweaks. In particular, I want to ensure that every additional upgrade leads to a greater increase in output than in upkeep, assuming reasonably efficient outpost choices. For very inefficient choices, higher upgrades may be counterproductive.
Edam
The other disadvantage of spreading out is longer mule runs.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
From another thread:

Smitty
Its probably likely that 3 hexes running at +0 are going outproduce a +4 hex(for the same influence cost)

Having multiple lower-upgrade hexes outproduce individual higher-upgrade hexes provides an incentive to spread out, but at the risk of having to defend lots of hexes with minimal amounts of guards. When looking at things purely in terms of bulk resource output, we want upgrading to be a good choice, but conquering new territory to be a better one.

Smitty
Hoping to get Bob's thoughts on if these numbers are going to be tweaked at all,

Lots of you guys have done holding and outpost stuff more than I have - So Perhaps the +4 outpost production
makes up for the difference- But I am not seeing it, help me do so if I am missing something.
The +4 Holding Option seems like a good thing to have in case of feuds, war time, etc. but to run holdings at that expense full time doesn't look that appealing to me..

I've started taking a look at the numbers and suspect I'll have to make some tweaks. In particular, I want to ensure that every additional upgrade leads to a greater increase in output than in upkeep, assuming reasonably efficient outpost choices. For very inefficient choices, higher upgrades may be counterproductive.
Will bonuses for Holding types, that were never hooked up, be activated? i.e. bonus ore output for beefed up mining holdings?
Smitty
Hoping the bonus you alluded too is coming or the numbers get tweaked quite a bit..
Because this is still what i see with this proposal….
A perfect wood hex- can easily produce 700-750 wood a week-
Now if we have to put 128 units into maintain that production- instead of 10 ( or even 70 like original cost )..
and also mule over 250 units from 2 other holdings (those 250 units have to come from somewhere-)
Just to maintain 550 wood a week -

while banking 200 more influence for the +4 holding and 400 more influence on the 2 +0's to supply it..
as well as finding time to run a mule back and forth between the 2 +0's to the +4 to keep it stocked ..
It would make way more sense to just do 2 +0 hexes- for 400 influence total, and eliminate the all the hassle.

one perfect wood, and one almost perfect wood hex ..
You could probably get 450 -500 wood units a week
Both hexes would be self sufficient..
No running around to stock em..
defense would be an issue- but blobs and numbers are more of an issue- no matter the + of the hex..
Duffy Swiftshadow
I haven't crunched the current numbers yet, but I feel like Smitty is on the right track as it stands today. Some tweaking is definitely needed.

Conceptually having the outpost and holding + linked such that the holding + is what really matters seems a bit weird to me. Maybe if the influence costs were radically changed to reflect only the holding matters, and the outpost are just a modifier based on what you want to output and can produce structure wise it wouldn't be that bad, but at the moment it feels off.
The Eternal Balance
Institute the *workers* that were supposed to be assigned to *work* the outpost/holdings and lend their expertise to the output? There are lots of moving/interconnected parts and they can't do everything at once - have to start somewhere, ya know?
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Edam
A simple tweak might be to have it so when Outpost is at a higher upgrade level than the hex's Holding, then the Outpost will produce bulk goods as though it is at an upgrade level one above the Holding.

In other words a +3 outpost with a +0 holding would function at +1 .
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Will bonuses for Holding types, that were never hooked up, be activated? i.e. bonus ore output for beefed up mining holdings?

They're not on the roadmap, so for now my tweaks would be based on not getting any bonuses.
Bob
Duffy Swiftshadow
I haven't crunched the current numbers yet, but I feel like Smitty is on the right track as it stands today. Some tweaking is definitely needed.

Conceptually having the outpost and holding + linked such that the holding + is what really matters seems a bit weird to me. Maybe if the influence costs were radically changed to reflect only the holding matters, and the outpost are just a modifier based on what you want to output and can produce structure wise it wouldn't be that bad, but at the moment it feels off.

The best way to think about it is that the holding provides support for the outpost.

At its core, the basic issue is that the increased upkeep costs of upgraded holdings were always intended to be a significant balancing factor for the increased output of upgraded outposts. This is the simplest way for us to make this a factor for now.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post