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.

Bringing Back Support

Paddy Fitzpatrick
I dunno, is support gonna be determined by things other than merely settlement level?

I am wondering about newer settlements who haven't had quite as much bulk built up to support super high levels for an extended time without holdings. If in the future new groups get new settlements they will be at an even more unfair disadvantage.

Those who have had many more years to build up bulk will not feel the loss of their holdings nearly as fast as others who have not. I would think there would need to be some serious bulk rebalancing if this is the plan going forward. Otherwise older groups with lots more bulk will be significantly less vulnerable to the consequences of losing holdings and territory than the comparatively younger guys. If there is some rebalancing and normalization at least both sides will feel the loss of their bulk from their holdings equally and are equally at risk of losing support.

As it stands, that ain't gonna happen, a loss to an older group may still not mean anything as the same loss to a not so older group.
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
Paddy Fitzpatrick
I can see a newly conquered settlement also having a problem with just defending it's new territory. If support is just gonna be tied to initial settlement level, does that make any characters coming to assist inherently weaker than the attackers when they were trained at much higher ranks in their home settlements? How is anyone gonna establish themselves under such circumstances unless they get really lucky and no one attacks them for however long it takes to build up?
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
Bob
It's possible that we'll add other ways to get support in the future, or make changes to the way settlement level provides support, but in general the concept that new settlements can't provide the same level of support as an older, established settlement can has always been part of the plan. This new version of support is actually a lot more forgiving for new settlements than the original version we implemented.
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
I can see a newly conquered settlement also having a problem with just defending it's new territory. If support is just gonna be tied to initial settlement level, does that make any characters coming to assist inherently weaker than the attackers when they were trained at much higher ranks in their home settlements? How is anyone gonna establish themselves under such circumstances unless they get really lucky and no one attacks them for however long it takes to build up?

Characters who come to assist would only be weaker if they actually join the settlement. Characters who remain attached to their original settlements but show up to help would continue to have support.

Long-term, we'd been thinking there'd be a sort of gradual decay of support, and we may find a good way to do that in the future, but it gets complicated by various issues with company-hopping. For now, this compromise version at least lets you keep some of the advantages of your training, rather than losing all of it down to your new settlement level.

For new settlements establishing themselves, that's something I've been wrestling with for some time, even beyond support issues. The fact is that if you try to establish a settlement and a big alliance has it in for you, it's going to be hard to defend yourselves until you've built up more layered defenses. On the other hand, those bigger enemies sure do have a lot of juicy targets to go after, so you could always make their lives much more difficult until they decide it's just easier to let you establish a new settlement, maybe just a little farther away from them.
Smitty
Bob
Midnight
It is going to be odd to have a sworn enemy dedicated to wiping my settlement off the map, and to run into them and realize it's Tuesday so we have to ignore each other. But I'll have to wait and see what the PvP opt in is.

Players who don't opt in ought not be allowed to post about PvP or politics. only 1/2 smile

You can still kill each other on Tuesday, you just can't take each other's territory. Of course, if you can't do that, you may not want to bother feuding on Tuesday, but you certainly can. Also, if your PvP days don't overlap with your enemy's PvP days, you may still be able to trade territory every day but Tuesday (or whatever the 7th day is in your case), so that's still a lot of possible fighting if you choose to do so.

May be a different topic- but I was under the impression Sieges were going to use the same PvP windows and Feud mechanics that exist elsewhere.
If that is still true…

Can you address this?

What i think we know about Sieges.

A Siege can be done by multiple settlements and they use the PvP window and feud system.

These windows are suppose to overlap the defending settlement ( or as close to it as they can get)..
So If a siege takes place..

All the settlements involved align their PvP windows ( and now days? ) to the settlement they attack.

The defender can try and remove camps and engines for 3 days?
After 3 days the Defender takes damage from the siege engines for 2 days( as long as the engines are supplied),
without fighting back because there is a 2 day pvp free window?
Bob
Smitty
May be a different topic- but I was under the impression Sieges were going to use the same PvP windows and Feud mechanics that exist elsewhere.
If that is still true…

Can you address this?

What i think we know about Sieges.

A Siege can be done by multiple settlements and they use the PvP window and feud system.

These windows are suppose to overlap the defending settlement ( or as close to it as they can get)..
So If a siege takes place..

All the settlements involved align their PvP windows ( and now days? ) to the settlement they attack.

The defender can try and remove camps and engines for 3 days?
After 3 days the Defender takes damage from the siege engines for 2 days( as long as the engines are supplied),
without fighting back because there is a 2 day pvp free window?

Whoops, got so focused on the features we still had to work on for the roadmap that I forgot to include one that Cole already finished up. With EE 12, siege engines that are in hexes neighboring a settlement (which they have to be in order to attack the settlement) automatically get their PvP Windows set to match the neighboring (defending) settlement. That means there's no need for attackers to alter their PvP windows to match the defenders anymore, though they may prefer to do so in order to avoid having to defend their holdings/outposts on one set of hours/days and their siege equipment on a different set of hours/days.

I'm editing the siege rules to take into account changes going into EE 12 and should have those up soon. In particular, for the 3-day windows, my current thinking is that you would essentially do damage each day of the 3-day window that you remain completely active for the whole day. Likely I'd check the morning of the first day to verify that everything is ready to go, then check each successive morning to verify that the sieqe equipment all remained active (nothing was overrun). I'll also adjust the damage calculations to take into account that damage would only be done 3 days a week instead of 7.

Another alternative would be to say that any Siege Engines that survive the 3-day window will do damage, regardless of whether they get overrun, but that favors the attackers a bit more. I'd really like for even a small victory, like overruning a single siege camp, to reduce the damage a bit, and for that I have to track the damage daily.
Smitty
Thanks for clarification- was getting bit confused- with how all that was going to play out-
and really didn't like the idea of taking damage for 7 days when you can only try to break a siege for 3 days.

That being said-
Still one question with 3 day windows..
Day 1 you take 2 outpost.
Day 2 you fight over the holding.. you win..
Day 3?? you don't fight because on day 4 you cant actually take a holding making anything you do on day 3 a waste of time-
(unless you manage to take 2 outpost on day 2- day 3 is a meaningless conflict day.)
So Will the vulnerable state of a holding carry over to the next 3 day window?-

Meaning that if you take 2 holdings on day 3 then on day 1 of a following week- the holding is vulnerable?
Bob
Smitty
Thanks for clarification- was getting bit confused- with how all that was going to play out-
and really didn't like the idea of taking damage for 7 days when you can only try to break a siege for 3 days.

That being said-
Still one question with 3 day windows..
Day 1 you take 2 outpost.
Day 2 you fight over the holding.. you win..
Day 3?? you don't fight because on day 4 you cant actually take a holding making anything you do on day 3 a waste of time-
(unless you manage to take 2 outpost on day 2- day 3 is a meaningless conflict day.)
So Will the vulnerable state of a holding carry over to the next 3 day window?-

Meaning that if you take 2 holdings on day 3 then on day 1 of a following week- the holding is vulnerable?

We weren't planning on making any changes to how long holdings remain vulnerable after the outposts are overrun. Attackers just need to take into account the 3-day window and finish off the outposts on either day 1 or 2, and the holding the day after.

Once we add in raids and PvE invaders, there will be the possibility of needing to fend off attacks every day, just not necessarily complete takeover attempts.
Smitty
Appreciate the responses.

Wasn't meaning to nit pick the process apart (i was just wondering how the entire picture looked)-

As long as reasons exist(or are eventually part of the road map ) to show up and participate every day during a time of conflict -
So that one side cant just walk away and not be affected by that decision, then i think you are on the right track.
Also good that it sounds as though raiding will not be tied to the same feud mechanics!
We need levels showing our displeasure with each other without actually trying to blow up/take territory.
Raids sound like they may fit that niche.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
I can see a newly conquered settlement also having a problem with just defending it's new territory. If support is just gonna be tied to initial settlement level, does that make any characters coming to assist inherently weaker than the attackers when they were trained at much higher ranks in their home settlements? How is anyone gonna establish themselves under such circumstances unless they get really lucky and no one attacks them for however long it takes to build up?

Characters who come to assist would only be weaker if they actually join the settlement. Characters who remain attached to their original settlements but show up to help would continue to have support.

Long-term, we'd been thinking there'd be a sort of gradual decay of support, and we may find a good way to do that in the future, but it gets complicated by various issues with company-hopping. For now, this compromise version at least lets you keep some of the advantages of your training, rather than losing all of it down to your new settlement level.

For new settlements establishing themselves, that's something I've been wrestling with for some time, even beyond support issues. The fact is that if you try to establish a settlement and a big alliance has it in for you, it's going to be hard to defend yourselves until you've built up more layered defenses. On the other hand, those bigger enemies sure do have a lot of juicy targets to go after, so you could always make their lives much more difficult until they decide it's just easier to let you establish a new settlement, maybe just a little farther away from them.

I am a bit confused. First right now there aren't that many juicy targets and without some ability to establish those sorts of defenses in some way other than settlement level any new target could get squashed before it even gets a chance. In their if there was already mix of big, medium, and small size groups I think this would hold up but that just ain't the case right now.

Would settlement buildings or this DI thing I keep hearing about be an alternative? Someone can get some help for that a lot faster to build up of they have the backing of some other existing group.

Speaking of which, how will support and stuff work with alliance mechanics? Will there be ways for allies to help some new guy out and still have their combat characters retain their full strength? Given that gear tiers and numbers are really the only things that make a real difference in group PvP (there is not nearly as much advanced tactics or other force multipliers as there could be in a game like this), if the attacking alliance can fight at full T3 support while the defending alliance has to fight with the substantially lower T2 support of the new settlement then what is the point of trying at all?

Sorry to be this blunt about it, but if all else is equal and one side with otherwise equal numbers gets to fight at full strength while the other is forced into fighting at half strength it just seems like an arbitrary limitation. How will this do anything besides make the big groups bigger, benefit big blobs who just want to throw weight around without regard to what may be best for the game or the community, and basically make nothing worth fighting for if not enough big groups give the new settlement or faction their blessing.

How could these kinds of problems be mitigated? Everyone will have to join an existing bloc and I just see no way that this could be beneficial for the game in the long run.
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
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post