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.

Protected Hexes

Flari-Merchant
Bob
We hope to make this system more complicated in the future to give it a little more interesting balance, but this blunt initial version of it at least makes it possible for everyone to create some level of layered defenses.

For the supply lines, I'd actually been hoping I could drop that requirement with the inclusion of these protected hexes, but the roads do seem to make it still a necessary thing. Back in it goes.

You could soften it by allowing supply hex qualifiers to include allies, if you were not already considering such.

It is shaping up to look like it will take an empire to take an actively defended settlement. Abandoned or lax settlements a bit less arduous. Which is fine by me.
Edam
Hobson Fiffledown
Looks like eight Core6 hexes (from six settlements) will be impossible to protect this way. All of them due to shield hex roads within two hexes of their settlement. If the road shield hexes are basically Thornkeep controlled, should they count against a settlement's defense?

I may be confused here, but it seems to me Pass hexes within two of a settlement (such as KP 5.5, Golgotha 2.3, Carpe Noctem 6.6, Brighthaven 3.4) would also be un-allied. If so there are considerably more than 6 settlements which cannot protect there full core 6.
Hobson Fiffledown
I did forget about counting the transition hexes that weren't on a shield road. I don't see where KP or Brighthaven have any core6 they are unable to protect though. Golgotha does have one weak hex (when you add in other npc hexes to that transition hex). High Road has one for that matter from npc hexes. Carpe Noctem win-loses with 3 hexes, all things considered. Transitions, t3 hexes, and minor npc hexes all had certain defensive tradeoffs already. I was mainly trying to figure why shield roads were now bad for settlement defense while providing no real benefit.

Quick answer - Thornguards don't give a #%*^!
This space for rent.
Edam
Hobson Fiffledown
I don't see where KP or Brighthaven have any core6 they are unable to protect though. Golgotha does have one weak hex (when you add in other npc hexes to that transition hex).

Well KP 5 would be vulnerable unless we had an alliance with either BHA or Pharaos.

In reality though, as a trading and AH settlement, we are likely to form alliances with virtually everyone amiable to it and are almost certainly going to pursue alliances with both our near neighbours.
Fiery
I think Hobson is exploring the issue from a purely mechanical standpoint, rather than one of player choice (which alliances fall under), Edam. It's definitely true that certain settlements have considerable vulnerabilities compared to others. There is probably a solution here, though I can't think of an elegant one currently.
You are a Troll
The world is a dynamic place; what once seemed like a secure location turns out to be vulnerable in ways you never expected. The Settlements were gifts to a very tiny minority of the AA. Deal with it - not everything in life, or in PFO, is equal or fair and there need not be *tweaking* of things here and there across the whole map to make it so.
Hobson Fiffledown
Done deal. GW has a roadmap to get movin' on.

New game mechanics are being added. One of which, Protected Hexes, was for the purpose of allowing settlements the possibility of pushing conflict out to their borders. Except that, when you apply the Protected Hexes (with other new mechanics and an old map) it creates broken hexes which have the exact opposite effect of the Protected Hex intent (creating permanently vulnerable core6 hexes for a small minority of settlements). In the rush to protect players along shield roads from PvP and to add (the possibility of) interior PvP protection to settlements, new mechanics were thrown together which ended up breaking 15%ish of settlements across the board (someone else can do that math).

I'm fine with things not being equal or fair, but I prefer it to be intended, not accidental or by improper design. Adding these new mechanics creates some real sticky spots which would require more work to fix than there are probably resources for. Bygones. And have you seen the new timeline? There's not much room for that. We have five more major updates to get through to finish this thing. If you build it, they will come.

TL;DR - They changed a lot of things and some stuff broke in exactly the opposite way of what they were trying to do. *beckoning tour-guide hand gesture* And we're moving, and we're moving.
This space for rent.
Duffy Swiftshadow
You are a Troll
The world is a dynamic place; what once seemed like a secure location turns out to be vulnerable in ways you never expected. The Settlements were gifts to a very tiny minority of the AA. Deal with it - not everything in life, or in PFO, is equal or fair and there need not be *tweaking* of things here and there across the whole map to make it so.

Most people just won't stick with a game they don't perceive as 'fair' and content will be ignored (and thus the effort to provide it wasted) if it's considered worthless due to difficulty of use or low comparable reward. Neither of those scenarios are ideal for someone trying to pitch a video game to potential players. Fair doesn't have to be equal, you can have balance without mirroring every side of the equation (that's the lazy way to do it), but it has to be comparable. Right now the protected hexes idea doesn't leave a lot of room for other methods of balance and thus some settlements are basically guaranteed to be minimally viable border towns; assuming a thriving and conflicting population. Therefore we point out the problem, we're not worried about right now we're worried about the future.

Furthermore the odds of many of us controlling the same settlements in the future if the masses show up are pretty slim, so stop painting potential issues we find like some sort of conspiracy to keep things in veterans hands.
You are a Troll
Hobson Fiffledown
Done deal. GW has a roadmap to get movin' on….

Bygones. And have you seen the new timeline? There's not much room for that. We have five more major updates to get through to finish this thing. If you build it, they will come.

Exactly.
Flari-Merchant
You are a Troll
The world is a dynamic place; what once seemed like a secure location turns out to be vulnerable in ways you never expected. The Settlements were gifts to a very tiny minority of the AA. Deal with it - not everything in life, or in PFO, is equal or fair and there need not be *tweaking* of things here and there across the whole map to make it so.

I don't think that perfect and equal is the issue. Fair is a valid issue. As for gifts, most of the settlements are now in hands other than those who won them in a land rush. Hands that have stuck around and played the game(the reason it is still here, BTW). Some of the most glaring cases are in the hands of settlements which have completely changed hands.

Your continuous campaign against the supposed alpha aristocracy is really sad.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post