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 are another blob friendly feature.

Midnight
This isn't regarding the other debate about the unequal defensibility of settlements.

Forget settlements altogether and just think about territory and holdings.

The protected hex game mechanic is going to both reward larger groups of people with hexes immune from attack and also ENCOURAGE players to blob to gain such immunity when they might not otherwise have enough reason to ally.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
It's only a problem because of the way influence caps work and currently we have nothing limiting force projection, most of the blob problems stem from those systems. While influence caps will be temporarily removed to simulate things better it's not a great solution to the problem overall. To make this sort of mechanic fair and limit blob encouragement they would need to limit hex control at a higher level (settlement imo) that isn't dependent on arbitrary player growth, just player activity. This caps the potential territory a single settlement can ever hold which potentially means settlement capture is the only way to gain more territory and it potentially allows actual unclaimed frontier. That reduces the blob advantage to the ability to field more players in a conflict which is something you can never get rid of without hard capping battles anyways, but force projection changes (mainly to re spawning) can curb that.

The downside is that it somewhat removes the idea of a random company holding a few hexes of territory, but in all honesty that seems to be of little real value in the long run, at least for the way holdings work today. A new class of buildings might just be a smarter idea to fill that role that can only be placed in the unclaimed frontier space. With the new protection system allowing frontier based groups to nibble away at the edge of a settlement's claim is far more palatable as it reduces the potential for continual and exhausting harassment.
Flari-Merchant
Interesting factoid. An old company that has been booted from its settlement seems to maintain its holdings and proceed naturally with its last PVP window setting. At least for one full server down and up cycle so far.

I will watch it for a few days. This could mean that once established, a group could possibly have an independent hex or small group of them. Let's see what develops from more server downs. I will watch it for a few days.
Fiery
Interestingly, the impact of "blobbing" on protected hexes is limited by geographic weaknesses, meaning no matter how far out a settlement expands, each settlement will have a ceiling on their protected time, ranging from 3 weeks at the low end to 3 months or so at the high end, though this figure sometimes requires coming from more directions than is feasible for the given timespan, and holding spread does become more of a limiting factor for the settlements with fewer natural weaknesses.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Interesting factoid. An old company that has been booted from its settlement seems to maintain its holdings and proceed naturally with its last PVP window setting. At least for one full server down and up cycle so far.

I will watch it for a few days. This could mean that once established, a group could possibly have an independent hex or small group of them. Let's see what develops from more server downs. I will watch it for a few days.

Companies should be able to establish holdings without being aligned with a settlement, and they should keep their holdings when they leave. That said, there does indeed seem to be something weird going on with PvP window settings for unaffiliated companies. I've filed a bug to look into it further, but any details you find would be appreciated.
Decius
The way I understand the defensive advantage, allied companies, regardless of size, provide the defensive advantage. I don't understand why a large number of small groups that are next to each other and wish to cooperate wouldn't do so, and capture the Holdings of any local companies that didn't join the local power group.

Once a group gets enough holdings to have size defense advantages, they either have enough friends and/or enemies with neighbors that their political situation dominates which fights they have or there is enough frontier for more.

Small companies willing to embrace a position as rentiers who have absolute protection from capture and communal protection from raiding will be able to get a hex near a settlement in exchange for most of the bulk produced from that hex.

When the bulk good pressure starts to hit, I expect tbat companies will be able to buy high level Support either for no bulk resource (if they control and credibly defend the vulnerable corners and edges of territory), or for a smaller fraction of holding production (if they control holdings in 'geographically diverse' areas and don't require equipment or manpower in excess of what they can get themselves (including by selling the fraction of holding output that remains).

It's also possible that if coin becomes useful, bulk resources as well as all other items will be tradable for coin. In such a case "good businesspeople" could divide territory among themselves, gain support from whomever offered the best deal (in whatever commodity or service they did), and defend their claim against other claimants (which could plausibly be people who control closer settlements and want to install companies who will pay higher taxes to them).

Bob
We're looking at giving alliances some kind of ongoing cost based on alliance size to help balance this out.
MidniteArrow
Is the complaint that large groups of people are more secure than small groups of people?
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Midnight
MidniteArrow
Is the complaint that large groups of people are more secure than small groups of people?

Yes, when they won't even have to show up at some hexes, because they'll be granted immunity from attack in the new protected hexes scheme. Furthermore, those immune hexes, or the neighboring hexes that make them immune might be owned by players who aren't even subscribed.

Any one thing that benefits large groups isn't necessarily bad (and effective recruitment and satisfying those recruits should be rewarded) but throughout the lifetime of the game there has been a parade of blob friendly ideas floated for this game.

Limits to force projection can negate blobs to make their advantages more local and less global, but when we offer defensive IMMUNITY for being a blob that frees up the blob to exert more power globally.

Can we risk going clear across the map to steal someone's escalation boss or attack their holdings? What if we get attacked? Relax, we have a 6 week buffer between any attack and a possible siege.

Basically, large numbers already grant you security IF YOU SHOW UP at home to defend. Now, you can go cause trouble clear across the map, instead of staying near home. Add that in with the new 3 day PvP window where you will always have 4 full days to wreak havoc globally before coming home, and I have a very bad feeling about what behavior we're going to see from blobs.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
MidniteArrow
Is the complaint that large groups of people are more secure than small groups of people?

It's more that large groups of people can utilize 'passive' mechanical benefits at larger scales regardless of actual activity or capabilities, which can make them daunting to challenge even if you have similar activity numbers just by virtue of them getting more people to stick a character under their banner. Now, a well organized and high activity blob is gonna have advantages, and that's fine, but that advantage should really be in fielding people for activities and the efficiency large groups can bring to bear. Because let's face it, that's the best way to be fair when the majority of any large group is gonna be almost entirely passive or super casual because that's just how players are. Just the fact that we have handfuls of people wielding hundreds of dead or alt characters influence today kinda shows how ridiculous that advantage can be, it's only gonna get worse with this protected hex system.

That said I do like the system conceptually and the temporary removing of the influence cap will make all things equalish in the short term. I hope to see some proof during that period that the way the caps work today is holding back the game.

I would like to see some mechanical limitations somewhere that encourage settlements to not grow at a certain point, but so far nothing seems to say 'stop getting bigger' besides personal choice, which is a weak thing to depend on.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post