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
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Paddy

I am hoping that GW will deal with any obvious and extreme griefing like you are describing. If they won't, then they will not have as many subscribers as they might like to have.

As for stuff that involves powerful groups throwing their weight around… well what is this? A territorial PVP conquering game or Hello Kitty Island Friends Coalition?

The best solution to dealing with this kind of scenario is not getting into that situation in the first place. The solution is simple, don't implement support in the first place, or at least not in its current form.

We already have blacklists, sieges, alliances, greater territorial controls and having to work our way through layered territorial defenses coming in. Those will give the territorial conquest game.

This support proposal could easily led to any of the scenarios I just described in addition to any of the ones other people have laid out. The best way to tackle such glaring problems would be not to introduce them in the first place. When you got scenarios where a malevolent blob rules all and no one has a chance to advance or use their already advanced character beyond a certain point, what do you think most players on the receiving end will do?

They will most likely quit and leave for other games, plain and simple. If one guy who has gotten to T3 can no longer be T3 and be depowered due to a game mechanic they have no control over, they won't stick around. Even in EVE part of the thing is even if you are orphaned by your group you can still just pick up some weapons and a new ship and still get back into action with your training intact. You will have your full skills and can offer them to someone else.

Could you imagine what a support system like this would do to a game like EVE?
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
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Paddy

I am hoping that GW will deal with any obvious and extreme griefing like you are describing. If they won't, then they will not have as many subscribers as they might like to have.

As for stuff that involves powerful groups throwing their weight around… well what is this? A territorial PVP conquering game or Hello Kitty Island Friends Coalition?

Paddy was using the term griefer a lot, but it's not just a griefing problem. It's an optimal strategy problem. To remain in control of w/e it's in your best interest to keep possible enemies reduced in power. If a majority of the map decided to do such a thing no new group would have the ability to get a foothold or reach the same levels of support without being smacked down. Or it can happen on a smaller scale if the majority is simply indifferent. It's a problem for new people and it's a problem for existing people, it forces mechanical imbalances on otherwise equal characters in head to head actions because someone didn't 'grow' enough.

If the goal is to make settlement levels important, then give rewards or tools as settlements are upgraded. There has got to be a better way than fragmenting the player bases power levels for the same aged characters.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Can a settlement with an average number of hexes support enough Holdings to bring in enough Bulk to pay for lvl 20 upkeep and stash away some extra?

@ Bob

May I ask what your model is? With this map, how many settlements does GW expect to be able to support lvl 20, all things being somewhat peaceful and without a huge few power blocs?

We're still debating the exact number of hexes we'd expect a level 20 settlement to have, but the short answer is that we don't want it to be possible to produce enough bulk resources to support every settlement at that level.

However, for the moment we're not targeting that, just a high enough number that level 20 represents a significant effort and requires holding onto an amount of territory that's reasonable to expect of a truly active current settlement.

At the listed holding upkeep costs, hexes at peak efficiency provide 29 bulk resources at +0 rising to 74 at +5. To run at seetlement level 20, here's how many hexes you'd need at each average upgrade level:

+0: 19
+1: 14
+2: 11
+3: 10
+4: 9
+5: 8

There are plenty of hexes to go around at peak efficiency (unless everyone runs at +0), but you really can't run all your hexes at peak efficiency, particularly if you want self-sufficiency in each hex. Assuming decently stocked hexes set up to produce two resources so that they can remain self-sufficient at all upgrade levels if just the third bulk resource is manually stocked as necessary, you'd need roughly the following number of hexes at each upgrade level:

+0: 29
+1: 21
+2: 17
+3: 16
+4: 14
+5: 13

The real answer for most settlements is probably somewhere between those two sets of numbers if they're careful about hex selections and building choices.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Ok so those numbers are for level 20, so how about for like, level 16 and 18 settlements?
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
Dunno about the math.

Needing 13 Hexes with +5 Holdings and +5 Outposts in order to maintain a level 20 settlement seems ok to me: understandably hard for a level 20 settlement.

However, only needing 4 more hexes if you stock them with +2 Holdings and +2 Outposts instead to maintain a same level 20 settlement does seem too accesable to me. I realize that holding on to 17 hexes is a monumental task but so is holding onto 13 hexes.

The difference in being able to crank out enough +4 and +5 refines, and cranking out simple +2 and +3 refines is humongous: only the really big settlements will be able to do the former. Now even though the +5 Holdings and Outposts will be much harder to conquer, I am not sure if that difference is worth putting down +5 Holdins/Outposts instead of just crank out the *much* cheaper +2 Holdings/Outposts and occupy an extra 4 Hexes.

Maybe the higher level training of +5 Holdings will be somewhat of a boon but that is still something to be seen. +5 Outposts have no extra benefit at all exept higher output and better defenses.

As an example, Callambea just went through 1650 Hemp to produce a *single* +5 Hemp rope…. That was my entire Hemp stock built over 6 months of hunting Molochs. smile

Now consider having to make enough +5 items to actually fill up 13 Hexes with +5 buildings, as opposed to simply going for +2 buildings, and 4 more Hexes.
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)
Fiery
Tyncale
Dunno about the math.

Needing 13 Hexes with +5 Holdings and +5 Outposts in order to maintain a level 20 settlement seems ok to me. However, only needing 4 more hexes if you stock them with +2 Holdings and +2 Outposts instead to maintain a same level 20 settlement does seem too accesable to me. I realize that holding on to 17 hexes is a monumental task but so is holding onto 13 hexes.

The difference in being able to crank out enough +4 and +5 refines, and cranking out simple +2 and +3 refines is humongous: only the really big settlements will be able to do the former. Now even though the +5 Holdings and Outposts will be much harder to conquer, I am not sure if that difference is worth putting down +5 Holdins/Outposts instead of just crank out the *much* cheaper +2 Holdings/Outposts and occupy an extra 4 Hexes.

Maybe the higher level training of +5 Holdings will be somewhat of a boon but that is still something to be seen. +5 Outposts have o extra benefit at all exept higher output and better defenses.

As an example, Callambea just went through 1650 Hemp to produce a *single +5 Hemp rope…. That was my entire Hemp stock built over 6 months of hunting Molochs.

Now consider having to make enough +5 items to actually fill up 13 Hexes with +5 buildings, as opposed to simply going for +2 buildings, and 4 more Hexes.

The primary benefit would be far better defensibility of territory, both because you have fewer hexes to defend, as well as because +5 holdings offer tremendously higher defense over low + holdings.
Tyncale
Fiery, the better defensability of a +5 Holding vs a +2 Holding will certainly be a factor, however the number of Hexes to defend do not differ enough. It seems to me that when a settlement can field enough players to defend 13 Hexes adequately, it is also big enough to defend 17 Hexes, and thus will go for the much cheaper buildings.

I do not know how hard it is to conquer a +5 Holding though: if each +5 Holding would need a small raidforce, then I could see the advantage. Basically a +5 Holding could fend for itself through NPC's and the defenders only have to show up at the Holdings that have the raidforce attacking.

But are +5 Holdings so tough? Usually, NPC forces seem to succumb pretty fast to a dedicated group of players(like 5 or 6 people).
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)
Paddy Fitzpatrick
So what are the influence costs of having 8 +5 holdings and assuming with 16 +5 outposts?
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
Fiery
I think it's inherently not true that a settlement that can defend 13 can defend 17 just as well. That's obviously a slippery slope: you need more people to cover a larger territory. I can't put a number to what % increase in defensive forces you would need to defend 17 as well as 13, but it is for sure non-zero, likely 20-30% at least.

As for the strength of the +5 holdings themselves, there's a HUGE difference in defensibility between a +2 and +5 holding. This is most dramatically seen in the barracks and watch-tower holdings, but it's true across the board. The npcs are close to legend strength and are all ranged. For reference, BHA and Dominion teamed up to take a +4 watchtower in the process of claiming now-Concordia. We used a full party of 6 just to keep the guard spawns under control after we'd seized control of the combat area. We could've done with 5, though it would have been sloppier, and not all of those 6 were T3, so again could have been less, but I'd say not less than 4 T3 fighters would have been required to keep the spawns under control. That's for +4. You would need more to keep the +5 spawns under control, likely 6-8 T3 at least. These are people not taking part in the actual pvp, they're tied up fighting guards. Failure to control the guard spawns means you have legend-strength ranged npcs spawning and randomly targeting people during pvp - not good, in other words.

Holdings other than barracks and watchtowers are easier to handle, but you can't underestimate how much easier it is to defend +5s.
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Ok so those numbers are for level 20, so how about for like, level 16 and 18 settlements?

By comparison, upkeep for level 16 is about 30% of the upkeep for level 20, so you'd only need about 30% of the hex numbers listed. Level 18 is more like 60% and even level 19 is a bit under 80%. Running at 19 would be pretty tempting from a purely support perspective, since it's significantly cheaper and all but a limited number of feats would round up to the same rank as they would with level 20 support. Level 18 has similar advantages, but would still be a noticeable hit for any of your level 20 crafters, who would also be getting hit by the lower facility ratings.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post