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.

Fiery
Bringslite of Staalgard
Bob
Edam
It is actually a concern that "no influence cap", whilst designed to allow newer groups to get a foothold, will actually allow very large but relatively inactive groups to spam +0 holdings across the entire map using threat of bringing back currently inactive players as a stick to stop people contesting them.

Influence will be made relevant again, including the mechanics that make influence less and less efficient to work with the larger your company is. We don't intend to have influence be as unlimited as we're making it in EE 12 for very long.
See that really is disturbing. How many times a year are we expected to redesign and rebuild our Holding networks?

Just design a "base" off of what you can currently support with max influence of companies, and make sure that base is able to function independent of any you intend to add under the new influence mechanic, and make the new ones +0s you can afford to turn off.
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Midnight

Now, do you think it is an unequal balance between small time, single settlement "groups" vs alliance blobs just because the smaller groups won't try and ally with other small groups near them? That is their choice right?

Yes it is people's choice whether to blob.

One of my concerns is I don't want the game to become blob versus blob, so I don't want to penalize people FURTHER for not blobbing.

Another concern is that the smaller group might not have a settlement. Can companies "ally" independent of settlements?

You could have company A with 2 holdings and a 23/7 PvP window for being unaffiliated with a settlement and their enemy, company B might have 2 holdings, both immune and thus NEVER having a PvP window.

23/7 PvP window versus forever immune. Defend that concept, please.

He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Midnight

You do grasp that even if some guys you don't like have hexes that are "protected" you can feud them any and every day including any hour of the week that you like with a minimal Influence cost?

If holdings have meaning than holding warfare is where it's at. If holdings don't have meaning, why the hell is the map littered with them?

That's a rhetorical question, the answer is obviously because people are hoping holdings will have meaning one day.
They do in a way now, possibly more than ever because you need Bulk to keep your shiny feats working right. But yeah, the amount of time that you can fight over them has been drastically reduced. I think that I am ok with it because 1. I don't go after holdings much without serious cause and 2. It's pretty boring…

There will be Raiding! and that is fairly close, sans the whole taking away the structure stuff.
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Midnight

Now, do you think it is an unequal balance between small time, single settlement "groups" vs alliance blobs just because the smaller groups won't try and ally with other small groups near them? That is their choice right?

Yes it is people's choice whether to blob.

One of my concerns is I don't want the game to become blob versus blob, so I don't want to penalize people FURTHER for not blobbing.

Another concern is that the smaller group might not have a settlement. Can companies "ally" independent of settlements?

You could have company A with 2 holdings and a 23/7 PvP window for being unaffiliated with a settlement and their enemy, company B might have 2 holdings, both immune and thus NEVER having a PvP window.

23/7 PvP window versus forever immune. Defend that concept, please.
What I have found after ejecting a company with holdings from a settlement: The PVP window goes to two hours and not 23/7. Everything else looks normal. No idea if they can ally with anyone. Doubtful as that seems like a settlement level thing.
Edit: Get ingame and look up Peace Through Vigilance
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Influence will be made relevant again, including the mechanics that make influence less and less efficient to work with the larger your company is. We don't intend to have influence be as unlimited as we're making it in EE 12 for very long.
See that really is disturbing. How many times a year are we expected to redesign and rebuild our Holding networks?

We do try to keep changes that really require a rethink of your Holdings and Outposts to a minimum, and when we do make changes requiring it we try to lump them together as much as possible. I did say when announcing this change (well, technically in my first follow-up post shortly after the announcement post) that this would be temporary, though we won't know exactly how temporary until we figure out where we can fit a more permanent solution into the schedule. Unlimited influence is better than what we have right now, but clearly isn't ideal, so we don't want to stick with it longer than necessary. Our current thoughts on a permanent solution try to avoid forcing significant changes unless a company really overreaches. Here was my original advice on that front:

When we do get something put in, some companies will fairly quickly find themselves with insufficient influence if they've spread too far. There aren't any specific numbers I could warn people about going beyond at this time, but I'd just say that if you really have to push yourselves to earn the influence to get those buildings placed/upgraded now, there's a good chance you won't be able to keep them later.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Influence will be made relevant again, including the mechanics that make influence less and less efficient to work with the larger your company is. We don't intend to have influence be as unlimited as we're making it in EE 12 for very long.
See that really is disturbing. How many times a year are we expected to redesign and rebuild our Holding networks?

We do try to keep changes that really require a rethink of your Holdings and Outposts to a minimum, and when we do make changes requiring it we try to lump them together as much as possible. I did say when announcing this change (well, technically in my first follow-up post shortly after the announcement post) that this would be temporary, though we won't know exactly how temporary until we figure out where we can fit a more permanent solution into the schedule. Unlimited influence is better than what we have right now, but clearly isn't ideal, so we don't want to stick with it longer than necessary. Our current thoughts on a permanent solution try to avoid forcing significant changes unless a company really overreaches. Here was my original advice on that front:

When we do get something put in, some companies will fairly quickly find themselves with insufficient influence if they've spread too far. There aren't any specific numbers I could warn people about going beyond at this time, but I'd just say that if you really have to push yourselves to earn the influence to get those buildings placed/upgraded now, there's a good chance you won't be able to keep them later.

The reason for taking the cap off is so that we can have influence to better keep our support level high for the new reqs? We will be where we are now when you put the cap back on. Unless the game is going to spontaneously explode with new players earlier than expected?
Flari-Merchant
@ Bob

To be fair, I did know that this would be temporary. I think that I had the impression that it would last through this roadmap. After which, hopefully, we would have lots more recruits to flesh out companies so that we COULD maintain reasonable support levels.
Nihimon
I've been expecting that the Influence Cap wouldn't get turned back on until after there was a significant influx of new players. If they're planning to restore it sooner than that, it seems like there's no point in removing it in the first place.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Midnight
Nihimon
I've been expecting that the Influence Cap wouldn't get turned back on until after there was a significant influx of new players. If they're planning to restore it sooner than that, it seems like there's no point in removing it in the first place.

How can I keep you as a cartoon villain if you're going to go around making sense? smile
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
Edam
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
Why not limit the number of hexes a settlement can control(maybe by level) in order to curb "Blob"… imbalances. That might also help keep settlements from raising and lowering their support levels all the time to min/max every piece of Bulk.

I actually think this is possibly an important step they will eventually need to take to make things interesting, however I had a hard time resolving how to do it and still maintain the possibility of independent companies holding territory. I tried to resolve it with a plan I posted before but it was a bit too complex in my own opinion. I think I have a better idea now based on some of the mechanics the road-map had laid out for us, but I need to mull it over a bit more.

It is actually a concern that "no influence cap", whilst designed to allow newer groups to get a foothold, will actually allow very large but relatively inactive groups to spam +0 holdings across the entire map using threat of bringing back currently inactive players as a stick to stop people contesting them.

It is the old gamin adage that anything you do to assist newer players and smaller groups invariably somehow will advantage the larger groups more smile

Interesting times ahead smile

Then fight them all over the map, they can't defend everywhere. Their greed will limit their size. What's worse: a no cap system where someone does spread thin and can be pushed back literally by anyone or a cap system where they can only be pushed back by groups that can generate enough support and influence by rivaling them in size? I think the little guy are better off in the former than the latter, at least in the former they have a chance to fight instead of just being absorbed by someone and pushing the game more towards Red vs Blue vs Yellow.

Influence is technically an infinite resource, there is nothing capping it besides the game's actual player population. The company diminishing returns are only a casual restriction, you can work around them. Ultimately the only way to cap influence growth is to hard cap it. If everything goes as planned and people start flowing in eventually the population will get big enough that influence will not matter in the least.

If my quick math is right the game only needs like 1,624 players using all 3 character slots in minimum companies of 6 to cover the map in +0 to +1 holdings, assuming EVERY hex was claimable. Since not every hex is claimable it's actually a bit lower. Let's assume we actually hit that target 10,000 players(accounts), that's 30,000 characters or about 36 characters per hex which is several thousand influence per hex, enough to put +5 holdings in every single hex. Influence will scale poorly from a global view and be unwieldy to control via faucets and soft caps.

Influence will need a huge revamp eventually, probably around the 5k active accounts point if not sooner.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post