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

Fiery
I mean, I think the lack of consistency is a problem if it's not deliberate, and I have no concerns about the defensibility of the settlements I'm a part of, mechanically or otherwise. It's fallacious to argue that people's arguments are wrong because they would personally benefit from it. In fact, we are going from a situation where power, as you put it midnight, was the determinant in defense, to a system where some settlements have egregiously less mechanical defense. That's an issue. How soon does it need to be changed? I can't say. The roadmap has a lot of very important stuff on it, and we likely need to accept a certain degree of unbalance and imperfection to stay on track. As long as we recognize it as a problem and resolve to make adjustments at some later date, it's probably not that bad. Not acknowledging the problem would be.

As Duffy put it, fairness and equality are mutually-exclusive…but what is the trade-off that makes it unequal but fair?
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Um…

As far as unchallenged goes, I distinctly remember that +5 tower and Outpost we had to take and all the fighting and political messes that came of it when trying to get Mediash. I'm pretty sure that was NOT uncontested lol.

As far as the average player being welcome anywhere on the map, where does that come from? I was lucky when Aragon took the risk on Fianna, as I dont think many of the other alliances were gonna try out actual banditry at the time (the fact that others are now makes me very happy).

The thing is, if a settlements balance is craptastic, new people ain't gonna go to it most likely. A better idea of what an "average" player will do is go to the settlements that have major advantages and few to no disadvantages. These advantages were not due to anything these settlements actually accomplished, they just got lucky. The heavily disadvantaged ones likewise are that way through no fault of their own. That is why it comes out as arbitrary and feels artificial.

The whole thing just snowballs out of control and rather than new powers being established and old ones falling this will let the old powers with unfair advantages stay in power even more. Blobs grow bigger and some won't be able to recruit cause unless they are masochists or really enjoy being heavy underdogs, they will probably pick a safer, more defensible place.
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
Midnight
Let me be real clear. Fairness is an excellent goal in games and I desire it.

What my post was pointing out is that we're debating in this thread is fairness between Aristocrats, because 98% of the people that played this game wasn't an Aristocrat. People propose to change the planned rules or the map to achieve fairness between an empowered and privileged minority of the players.

TODAY the settlement-leader to dweeb ratio is out of whack, so maybe that's why so many people are crying for fairness in how the various Aristocrats compare in defense.

But for the average player who played this game, and certainly for the 10,000 new players that we expect, they may show settlement pride, but if that settlement got bugged out (like at least one was) those people would (and did) quickly migrate and adapt. So what we're really talking about is the fragile emotions of some settlement leaders who might get sieged out instead of bugged out.

I'll also remind crowdforgers that a lot of blocs have multiple settlements, so there might be bloc fairness even where settlement fairness is lacking.

@Paddy It is ok to think some new guy cares about his king's particular castle that he was handed 2 years before the new guy started playing. But my experience in Eve Online is that 98% of the folks that fight in sov space have already evac'd once, and half of them have probably evac'd over 5 times.

Eve's map isn't fair, but what *IS* fair is anything that someone grabbed, someone else can fight them to grab for their own. You might have to fight against their advantages to one day own their advantages, but that's a recurring tale in Eve.



Next month, if you conquer a settlement because it had poor defensive geography, congratulations, you're the proud owner of a settlement with poor defensive geography! smile
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
@ Midnight

It is true that the aristocrats, as you love to call settlement leaders, are mostly(but not exclusively, BTW) the ones speaking up here.

If it isn't a settlement leader's job to also look after the viability and survivability of the settlement, then whose is it?
Fiery
Your argument is making less and less sense, midnight. What you seem to be implying is that the owners of the settlement being primarily AA makes "fairness" less important. If it wasn't AA, would fairness be an issue? If so, it shouldn't matter who owns the settlements. Well-designed game mechanics won't care which group is in control, or quite frankly, what your opinions are of those groups. If you expect fairness in game design, I don't see why you wouldn't support changes to promote it.

That's not to say there aren't strong arguments in favor or no changes currently. Compelling to me is if Bob feels the design is good enough, as 3 weeks is far better than 2 days, and that he will think of ways to improve things down the road, but for now he needs move on.
You are a Troll
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
It's hard to judge, because the compensating advantages might come from totally different features. Perhaps those settlements already have certain advantages, and the fact that they don't get as much benefit from this feature as some other settlements do actually makes things more balanced. Or perhaps another scheduled feature will benefit them more than others. What we're shooting for is to make sure that everyone gets at least some positive advantage out of this change (everyone can do some layering) and nobody gets too much positive advantage (like a permanently-defensible position). Our focus is on making any fixes needed to avoid those extremes.

Ultimately, we want every settlement location to be valuable to somebody, for no locations to be so inherently valuable that nothing else is worth bothering with, and for different locations to be valued differently by varying groups of players. If there are locations that truly offer no worthwhile advantages to anyone, then we'll need to revisit those, but I'm not aware of any locations that are that problematic at the moment (aside from some well-known raw material distribution issues, which I'll be fiddling with a bit for EE 13).

Seems pretty clear to me: not every settlement is, or should be, equal in all respects even as it pertains to game mechanics. How about those *dry moats* some settlements have that you can't get out of allowing access to the settlement only along the roads?

Glad it was pointed out, but as Hobson said, time to move along and just deal with it. No King, nor their kingdom, does (or should) last forever. Some silly people even build castles in swamps, and when they sink, rebuild them there!
Midnight
Fiery
Your argument is making less and less sense, midnight. What you seem to be implying is that the owners of the settlement being primarily AA makes "fairness" less important. If it wasn't AA, would fairness be an issue? If so, it shouldn't matter who owns the settlements. Well-designed game mechanics won't care which group is in control, or quite frankly, what your opinions are of those groups. If you expect fairness in game design, I don't see why you wouldn't support changes to promote it.

That's not to say there aren't strong arguments in favor or no changes currently. Compelling to me is if Bob feels the design is good enough, as 3 weeks is far better than 2 days, and that he will think of ways to improve things down the road, but for now he needs move on.

I'm just saying that in other games average players don't care, and I'm pointing out that in games like Eve where there are territories that differ in desirability/advantages that it works out fine because over time everyone has a chance to try and conquer, and if you choose to conquer the place with disadvantages, then all you get for it is a place with disadvantages.


But anyone who doesn't like their current defensive geography is welcome to turn their settlement over to me and I'll endure the vast crippling unfairness instead.


If Warren Buffet and Bill Gates argued that one billionaire's mansion was nicer than the other billionaire's mansion, it would remind me of this thread.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
The Eternal Balance
Bob
(aside from some well-known raw material distribution issues, which I'll be fiddling with a bit for EE 13).

Curious - will this be done with the aim to try and promote more trade, or to try to make each settlement self sufficient with regards to all raw materials?
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Midnight
Fiery
Your argument is making less and less sense, midnight. What you seem to be implying is that the owners of the settlement being primarily AA makes "fairness" less important. If it wasn't AA, would fairness be an issue? If so, it shouldn't matter who owns the settlements. Well-designed game mechanics won't care which group is in control, or quite frankly, what your opinions are of those groups. If you expect fairness in game design, I don't see why you wouldn't support changes to promote it.

That's not to say there aren't strong arguments in favor or no changes currently. Compelling to me is if Bob feels the design is good enough, as 3 weeks is far better than 2 days, and that he will think of ways to improve things down the road, but for now he needs move on.

I'm just saying that in other games average players don't care, and I'm pointing out that in games like Eve where there are territories that differ in desirability/advantages that it works out fine because over time everyone has a chance to try and conquer, and if you choose to conquer the place with disadvantages, then all you get for it is a place with disadvantages.


But anyone who doesn't like their current defensive geography is welcome to turn their settlement over to me and I'll endure the vast crippling unfairness instead.


If Warren Buffet and Bill Gates argued that one billionaire's mansion was nicer than the other billionaire's mansion, it would remind me of this thread.

Your argument hinges on players never identifying or wanting to be part of a group, never defending a place or working together. I can tell you that is definitely wrong, it's not just leaders that care. Sure the 'hardcore' group of players that care about such things will always be a smaller chunk of the population but it will not just be the few handfuls of leaders. But if no one cares enough about it that means no one is gonna fight over them, which kinda seems besides the point and has already been demonstrated as not true in our tiny micro community. You are trying way too hard to invalidate the idea that people will work as groups just to justify whining about the people that end up leading the groups.

If no one will follow you then you don't wield any power. It doesn't matter how defensible a location is or isn't if no one will stand with you to defend it against those that want it. As I have repeatedly said, that may mean in the future we don't hold what we do today. That doesn't invalidate the evaluation of the mechanical situation.

Additionally, a significant chunk of the things I talk about on these forums are not originating from my own thoughts, a lot of them are things the silent players I associate with bring up when we're playing or chatting.
Hobson Fiffledown
Woohoo! I'm finally an Aristocat (Still, Sin proclaiming me a Legomaniac was better). Oh wait, no, that's not right. I actually couldn't care less about the settlement building game, and have never had an ownership stake in any settlement.

All I pointed out was that new rules being thrown up against the wall aren't playing together correctly, and that it is creating pockets that produce the opposite intent of the new mechanic. I don't really know what fairness has to do with it. I'm just talking about the quality of work being produced. "We unintentionally broke some shit that we didn't know would have to play together…but we're moving on!", doesn't have to be GW's battle cry anymore. I think EB takes a more positive spin on my "eff it, we're moving on" than I do.

I mentioned the issue, the issue was acknowledged. There's no room in the roadmap to work on that issue. Maybe roads will do something beneficial someday to make up for it (beyond this coming year's plan). I just hope we don't have issues like this every upcoming update. Bygones.

Now, if anyone wanted a settlement, I think they could have had one by now. Sure, it would have cost a group of 10-15 dedicated players a bit of work, but I can't see any current group being able to stop a dedicated, day-to-day player group like that. Heck, imagine if just 30 Gols showed back up for a solid month sometime in the last six. They could have razed the south. If I were angry about the AA, I would be much more pissed about the Protected Hex mechanic itself than I would be about it being broken.
This space for rent.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post