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

Paddy Fitzpatrick
Yeah let's be real here, most if not everyone here is an alpha or has benefited significantly from one. Considering we have all stuck it out for longer than any typical player base would I would hardly call any of us the average player. Correct me if I am wrong here, but don't that mean everyone is kind of in the same boat of being AA, not just the settlement leaders?

Anyway, it will be great once settlements can rise and fall but they ALL have to be able to rise and fall, not have some settlements ridiculously easy to kill off while others are extraordinarily difficult. It would be one thing if a settlement is a fortress due to hard work and excellent strategy but that ain't the case here. Again, it is sheer dumb luck based on new mechanics that no one could have possibly seen coming. I get that real life can be like that but people don't come to MMOs to simulate real life come on now lol.
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
Flari-Merchant
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!
That too is an odd discrepancy. However, so far and for another year + another roadmap, getting inside a settlement has nothing really to do with capturing a settlement.

How many hexes have to be taken to pick apart the puzzle of how to get all core six hexes so you can siege a settlement has everything to do with capturing a settlement.
You are a Troll
Good point!
Bob
A certain amount of the inequality between settlement locations is deliberate. We intended for some locations to be more desirable than others, with those locations likely to be the ones fought over more often. That said, we don't want that inequality to be so extreme that some locations are effectively useless, or some locations are so useful that once won they'll never be lost. If we find any locations falling outside the acceptable range, we'll correct that over time, but it's important to remember that locations have to be judged for quality using every possible metric. Just knowing that a settlement is harder to defend isn't enough to mean that it needs adjustment. It would also have to offer less resources for gathering, less bulk resource availability, and generally less of almost anything that could be desirable.
Bob
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 will be partially to fix a few places that don't really have anything desirable, partially to fix some obvious discrepancies between hex types and available resources, partially to spread around a few things that are currently a little too isolated, and partially to provide more of some things that are simply too rare at the moment. We still want to promote trade over self-sufficiency, but we don't want to overly promote hoarding by making it too easy to establish a cartel.
Fiery
Quite frankly, you'll never achieve a balance where resources are rare and isolated enough to promote competition for them and regional trade, while not allowing cartels. People compete for control. If they can't get control, they won't bother competing.
Bob
Fiery
Quite frankly, you'll never achieve a balance where resources are rare and isolated enough to promote competition for them and regional trade, while not allowing cartels. People compete for control. If they can't get control, they won't bother competing.

I'm okay with the possibility of cartels, as long as their control over a resource requires a reasonable amount of effort to obtain, and isn't so absolute that they can effectively block other players from playing their chosen roles. Make things expensive for them, sure, or even make them choose to play those roles in slightly different ways to better match their available resources if they're not willing to pay cartel (or black market) prices, but not enough to basically lock down access to one or more roles/playstyles.
Fiery
I absolutely agree that there needs to be a way to break the current locks, though I'm not sure adding more to hexes, adding resources to other hexes, or reducing the amount needed in recipes will solve the fundamental problem we have (though those can help). I'm heartened to hear you recognize an issue. I've been planning on doing a write-up for a solution I think would address the fundamental and eventually crippling problems we have currently with resources, so I'll move it up to get it to you hopefully within a couple weeks. Maybe it'll give you some ideas, if nothing else.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
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 will be partially to fix a few places that don't really have anything desirable, partially to fix some obvious discrepancies between hex types and available resources, partially to spread around a few things that are currently a little too isolated, and partially to provide more of some things that are simply too rare at the moment. We still want to promote trade over self-sufficiency, but we don't want to overly promote hoarding by making it too easy to establish a cartel.

I know that this is further along in the roadmap. But yeah. I agree with Fiery's above post. Having to move stuff to places where it is scarce. Having to work out trade deals or take by stealthy harvesting. NOT HAVING enough of everything you need scattered around in the various hexes that you control is where you will see action stimulated. At least so long as you have something else that THEY don't have enough of.

We've been in this box a long time. We know where to go to get little bits of what we need to accumulate enough to get by without having to trade for it. At least the T3 is better regionalized and I hope that isn't too messed with. Maybe amounts available increased a bit so that there is enough to trade, lol. smile

But seriously, if you want to see more interaction both conflict wise and trade wise, it has to be more complicated to get what we want at the T1 and T2 levels as well… Wouldn't be a bad thing if coin took on some value as well.
Fiery
So, since the topic has come up, I'll point out what I think the key problems are:

1. Lack of (consistent) scarcity

So, of course we have scarcity among certain resources, especially at t3 (I won't deny Black is the elephant in the room that everyone is concerned about). What we don't have is *consistent* scarcity at the top-end, across the map. It isn't that everyone needs access to everything, but that everyone needs access to something they can control and that others need. This isn't seen in certain spots of the map. Scarcity at t1/2 is laughable in most cases, and previous resource distributions have only worsened the problem.

2. Lack of control

Oddly enough, because no mechanical control over resources exists, we have only an illusion of freedom. Sure, you are free to poach in a hex that I attest I control, and you'll likely get a few black (once again, a prime example of this problem), but as easy as it is to maintain a strip on the hex, the amount any one group can get through poaching a stripped hex is minimal. Spread that out across all groups and the problem is obvious. The real issue is that it isn't just shutting off the controller's access like everyone else, because the controller can and should have a considerable amount of the resource. If supply gets shut down, who has the advantage, the guy with 90% of the black in the game, or everyone else? What we have in place of a control mechanic is a truer control than anything else.

As I said before, people won't compete if they can't have control. It is currently far, far, far too easy to strip hexes. Why fight over control of an area, when the resources there can be stripped 24/7 and denied to you? I have a specific solution in mind, so I'll work on that write-up, but I wanted to highlight what I think the main issues are, so others can start thought and discussion.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post