Protected Hexes

Suave 05.02.2017 13:57
	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. F-ing Black Status quo sucks! Quote

Suave 05.02.2017 13:57

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.

F-ing Black Status quo sucks!

Quote

Fiery 05.02.2017 13:59
	You may be surprised, but I agree. That being said, I don't support total freedom, because if we can exert enough martial force over a location so close to us, we should have a great degree of control over it. But there should be a way for another group, with sufficient coordination and force, to come in and take some black. Currently that is not true. It should be noted this isn't a problem with only black, either. If I were so inclined, I could exert the current form of total control over strong adhesive, or swamp skins, or dom could over plat. As long as the effort:impact ratio of stripping is so lop-sided, any group that has the lion's share of a particular resource can, at will, drastically reduce or all but eliminate, supply of it to the server, thus effecting their control. Quote

Fiery 05.02.2017 13:59

You may be surprised, but I agree. That being said, I don't support total freedom, because if we can exert enough martial force over a location so close to us, we *should* have a great degree of control over it. But there should be a way for another group, with sufficient coordination and force, to come in and take some black. Currently that is not true. It should be noted this isn't a problem with only black, either. If I were so inclined, I could exert the current form of *total* control over strong adhesive, or swamp skins, or dom could over plat. As long as the effort:impact ratio of stripping is so lop-sided, any group that has the lion's share of a particular resource can, at will, drastically reduce or all but eliminate, supply of it to the server, thus effecting their control.

Quote

The Eternal Balance 05.02.2017 14:26
	If more of the T3 resources were as scarce (and by that I mean super low amounts in the few hexes they do appear in) as Black, then trading might be much more likely to happen. For instance: after a couple of days of poaching Platinum or Sapphires or Childstealer Ivy I have plenty for quite a while and no need to trade for it. It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. Quote

The Eternal Balance 05.02.2017 14:26

If more of the T3 resources were as scarce (and by that I mean super low amounts in the few hexes they do appear in) as Black, then trading might be much more likely to happen. For instance: after a couple of days of poaching Platinum or Sapphires or Childstealer Ivy I have plenty for quite a while and no need to trade for it.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Quote

Fiery 05.02.2017 14:33
	That's primarily because those hexes aren't kept stripped. The amount you would get per day would be far, far less if they were. And they can be. I definitely agree that more scarcity will increase trading. You'll have less incentive to be as greedy with a rare resource if you need rare resources from multiple other groups as well. Stripping is such a grossly distorting problem that you have to do more than just increase scarcity, though. Quote

Fiery 05.02.2017 14:33

That's primarily because those hexes aren't kept stripped. The amount you would get per day would be far, far less if they were. And they can be. I definitely agree that more scarcity will increase trading. You'll have less incentive to be as greedy with a rare resource if you need rare resources from multiple other groups as well. Stripping is such a grossly distorting problem that you have to do more than just increase scarcity, though.

Quote

Bob 05.02.2017 14:42
	Clearly a topic worthy of discussion. For me, it would be best to have the bulk of that discussion in 2-3 weeks when EE 13 is starting up, since I need to devote my time for the next little while to testing EE 12 and getting feedback on the changes in it, but I'll be happy to dig into details once this build is ready to go. Quote

Fiery 05.02.2017 14:48
	Yea I agree this thread isn't an appropriate place to discuss this, I only mentioned it because it came up. I'll work on my proposal pronto and get a thread up after ee12 goes up. We don't need one sooner, because we don't need Bob distracted with an issue that's not being dealt with this patch. Quote

Midnight 05.02.2017 18:24
	Duffy Swiftshadow Midnight 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. . No. My argument hinges on those players being perfectly able and capable of inhabiting other places on the map. In Eve-Online my corporation built an outpost. Yes we were proud of our achievement, but even then, our corporation had already shared the experience of evacuating an alliance fail-cascade, so when we eventually had to leave that outpost behind it was just part of the game. Maybe I'm just prematurely enlightened; in PFO my mates quit referring to ourselves as Golgotha very early in the game. If I burn down Phaeros this month what would it accomplish? The Seventh Veil will still have the same leaders I found unreasonable last year. The Seventh Veil has multiple settlements, and The Seventh Veil has allies who even if they fail to successfully defend them are likely to shelter them. Phaeros is just a spot on the map. Everything I ever found annoying about Pheaeros will still exist after someone burns it down. I built dozens of holdings and outposts. My company even bothered to claim a hex. Did I ever particularly care about my precious holding and outposts? Hell no. Considering that settlements can exist with buildings handed to you by the Devs, it is entirely possible that the first settlement to fall will have less materials and effort invested in it than my silly holding. He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper. -Edmund Burke Quote

Midnight 05.02.2017 18:24

Duffy Swiftshadow
Midnight
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. .

No. My argument hinges on those players being perfectly able and capable of inhabiting other places on the map. In Eve-Online my corporation built an outpost. Yes we were proud of our achievement, but even then, our corporation had already shared the experience of evacuating an alliance fail-cascade, so when we eventually had to leave that outpost behind it was just part of the game.

Maybe I'm just prematurely enlightened; in PFO my mates quit referring to ourselves as Golgotha very early in the game.

If I burn down Phaeros this month what would it accomplish? The Seventh Veil will still have the same leaders I found unreasonable last year. The Seventh Veil has multiple settlements, and The Seventh Veil has allies who even if they fail to successfully defend them are likely to shelter them. Phaeros is just a spot on the map. Everything I ever found annoying about Pheaeros will still exist after someone burns it down.

I built dozens of holdings and outposts. My company even bothered to claim a hex. Did I ever particularly care about my precious holding and outposts? Hell no.

Considering that settlements *can* exist with buildings handed to you by the Devs, it is entirely possible that the first settlement to fall will have less materials and effort invested in it than my silly holding.

He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke

Quote

Flari-Merchant 05.02.2017 18:39
	Losing an inhabited AND defended settlement hasn't really happened yet. It probably will happen eventually if there are some more bodies around to handle the massive logistics involved. Pretty sure that everyone is aware of that. Not too many are aware of how much work and material goes into building one up from scratch… except for EVERY SINGLE ALLIANCE of more than one settlement currently on the map now. Every group has taken over abandoned settlements and most have done some work on getting them up to more than a bank, a tavern and a large parking lot. If you haven't yet seen to that, even with the FREE buildings given by GW, then maybe yeah…. you have a hard time understanding how those people would not want to have their settlements any more minimally defendable than any others. Yes settlements will likely get sieged and lost eventually. Yeah, alliances allow for allies to have options to move to other settlements. No, not everyone will be ok with having to do so if the reason is an unequal mechanic. Quote

Flari-Merchant 05.02.2017 18:39

Losing an inhabited AND defended settlement hasn't really happened yet. It probably will happen eventually if there are some more bodies around to handle the massive logistics involved. Pretty sure that everyone is aware of that.

Not too many are aware of how much work and material goes into building one up from scratch… except for EVERY SINGLE ALLIANCE of more than one settlement currently on the map now. Every group has taken over abandoned settlements and most have done some work on getting them up to more than a bank, a tavern and a large parking lot. If you haven't yet seen to that, even with the FREE buildings given by GW, then maybe yeah…. you have a hard time understanding how those people would not want to have their settlements any more minimally defendable than any others.

Yes settlements will likely get sieged and lost eventually. Yeah, alliances allow for allies to have options to move to other settlements. No, not everyone will be ok with having to do so if the reason is an unequal mechanic.

Quote

Midnight 05.02.2017 19:29
	Bringslite of Staalgard No, not everyone will be ok with having to do so if the reason is an unequal mechanic. And yet you still play in spite of unequal mechanics like resource distribution, escalation distribution, home hex distribution, etc. I doubt my post will get a single settlement leader to think it doesn't matter. But I'm happy to go on record predicting that it won't matter to the next 10,000 players. I already dislike the protected hex concept because it will make warfare as dreary as WW1 Trench Warfare. That alone will insure this remains a builder game rather than a game of conquest. But any effort it takes to make attacking equally dreary vs. all settlements is effort that the next 10,000 players won't even appreciate. He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper. -Edmund Burke Quote

Midnight 05.02.2017 19:29

Bringslite of Staalgard
No, not everyone will be ok with having to do so if the reason is an unequal mechanic.

And yet you still play in spite of unequal mechanics like resource distribution, escalation distribution, home hex distribution, etc.

I doubt my post will get a single settlement leader to think it doesn't matter. But I'm happy to go on record predicting that it won't matter to the next 10,000 players.

I already dislike the protected hex concept because it will make warfare as dreary as WW1 Trench Warfare. That alone will insure this remains a builder game rather than a game of conquest. But any effort it takes to make attacking equally dreary vs. all settlements is effort that the next 10,000 players won't even appreciate.

He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke

Quote

Flari-Merchant 05.02.2017 19:45
	Midnight Bringslite of Staalgard No, not everyone will be ok with having to do so if the reason is an unequal mechanic. And yet you still play in spite of unequal mechanics like resource distribution, escalation distribution, home hex distribution, etc. I doubt my post will get a single settlement leader to think it doesn't matter. But I'm happy to go on record predicting that it won't matter to the next 10,000 players. I already dislike the protected hex concept because it will make warfare as dreary as WW1 Trench Warfare. That alone will insure this remains a builder game rather than a game of conquest. But any effort it takes to make attacking equally dreary vs. all settlements is effort that the next 10,000 players won't even appreciate. Somehow, to me at least, those bolded things do not seem even to be on the same type of radar. Quote

Flari-Merchant 05.02.2017 19:45

Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
No, not everyone will be ok with having to do so if the reason is an unequal mechanic.

And yet you still play in spite of unequal mechanics like resource distribution, escalation distribution, home hex distribution, etc.

I doubt my post will get a single settlement leader to think it doesn't matter. But I'm happy to go on record predicting that it won't matter to the next 10,000 players.

I already dislike the protected hex concept because it will make warfare as dreary as WW1 Trench Warfare. That alone will insure this remains a builder game rather than a game of conquest. But any effort it takes to make attacking equally dreary vs. all settlements is effort that the next 10,000 players won't even appreciate.

Somehow, to me at least, those bolded things do not seem even to be on the same type of radar.

Quote

Cookies Disclaimer