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.

EE 12 Release Notes

Flari-Merchant
Decius
If you are measuring efficiency in terms of net production per hex, higher level holdings and outposts improve that.
Higher level holdings will be harder to raid, but also more lucrative to raid each one.
And once population gets high enough that hexes, or even just good hexes, are rare things might become interesting.
I was measuring ratio of Bulk Input vs Bulk Output. Obviously upgrading yields more output if looked at alone. There are extra benefits for upgrading holdings but efficiency is not one of them and those extra benefits do also cost more frozen influence and ramp up to fairly high material(to build) costs in comparison to +0.

There is no holding set up that I can see which is more simply profitable in net Bulk than +0.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Decius
Bringslite of Staalgard
Decius
If you are measuring efficiency in terms of net production per hex, higher level holdings and outposts improve that.
Higher level holdings will be harder to raid, but also more lucrative to raid each one.
And once population gets high enough that hexes, or even just good hexes, are rare things might become interesting.
I was measuring ratio of Bulk Input vs Bulk Output. Obviously upgrading yields more output if looked at alone. There are extra benefits for upgrading holdings but efficiency is not one of them and those extra benefits do also cost more frozen influence and ramp up to fairly high material(to build) costs in comparison to +0.

There is no holding set up that I can see which is more simply profitable in net Bulk than +0.
Yes, there is something to be said for filling the world with +0 holdings, at least until you run out of good hexes.
Flari-Merchant
Decius
Bringslite of Staalgard
Decius
If you are measuring efficiency in terms of net production per hex, higher level holdings and outposts improve that.
Higher level holdings will be harder to raid, but also more lucrative to raid each one.
And once population gets high enough that hexes, or even just good hexes, are rare things might become interesting.
I was measuring ratio of Bulk Input vs Bulk Output. Obviously upgrading yields more output if looked at alone. There are extra benefits for upgrading holdings but efficiency is not one of them and those extra benefits do also cost more frozen influence and ramp up to fairly high material(to build) costs in comparison to +0.

There is no holding set up that I can see which is more simply profitable in net Bulk than +0.
Yes, there is something to be said for filling the world with +0 holdings, at least until you run out of good hexes.
I suppose so. Essentially I was after confirmation that the system was set up the way it was intended to be and kinda seeking an explanation of that set up, as is. Bob has confirmed the former and given a fair reason or two for the latter.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Maxen
If I may offer a different perspective than just game mechanics. Most of this game is based on support and a player driven economy. I don't believe it was ever intended for any single player to be self-sufficient (running multiple accounts), but that's what many of us evolved to because that was the only way to play the game and be effective.

Looking at holdings and outposts, like in real life these were not meant to be self-sufficient. A furniture manufacturer might own its own forests to harvest wood, but it doesn't generate its own electricity. There is a cost to doing business and I think that reflected in how the holding/outpost combos are set up. Want to produce more? Sure, but there's the cost of supplying the bulk that your outposts can't produce. Yes, it's a pain now, but the that will eventually be someone's job in Golarion. (Because I know I hate doing it.) smile
Bob
We just learned about a bug affecting what we hope is a small number of holdings and their bonus resources. You're supposed to get the bonus output as long as at least one of your outposts is producing any matching resources, but it turns out that we're actually checking to see if at least one outpost is producing at least as much of that resource as the bonus would provide. If neither outpost produces that much on its own, then no bonus resources will be produced.

We're working on a server-side fix for this and hope to roll it out next week.
Bob
We rolled out a server-side fix this morning that makes 3 changes:

  • Holdings will produce their bonus resources as long as a single item of the matching resource is produced by either outpost. Previously, holdings wouldn't produce their bonus resources unless at least one of the outposts was producing as much of that matching resource as the bonus wanted to produce.
  • The /stuck command will be blocked if a character is overencumbered to the point of being unable to move. An explanation will appear in the chat window and you just need to ditch enough inventory to have a small amount of blank space on the top bar of your encumbrance gauge.
  • The /stuck command will only take characters to standard shrines, not those at player settlements or those that are restricted by reputation. In general, the standard shrines are in monster hexes and elevation-change hexes, though there are a few scattered around to fill in areas with too few shrines available. The shrine in Rotter's Hole is also a standard shrine.

On a related note, I'd like to remind everyone that we log a lot of information about what's going on in the game. Reading through those logs is a pain and takes us away from working on actual game improvements, but we can and will do so any time we feel it's necessary. That includes going back through the logs for past Terms of Service violations, particularly if we learn that players gained significant advantages over other players by taking advantage of bugs or incomplete features. To avoid future enforcement measures, and to allow us to focus on making the game better, just do as the Terms of Service state when finding something that's clearly not working as intended and would give you an advantage over others: Report the problem to us and avoid taking advantage of it unless we've posted/responded that it's okay.
Bob
Another quick thing I keep forgetting to mention about EE 12: We took away the ability for settlement leaders to tear down settlement structures. Until we can put in more meaningful limits on that ability, like requiring unanimity or making teardowns take a long time to do, we decided tearing down structures is such a rare occurrence that it's best to instead have settlement owners contact customer.support@goblinworks.com anytime they want a structure torn down. We can then verify that there's no controversy over taking the structure down and have a GM remove the structure.
Stilachio Thrax
Bob, any chance of developing a method of holding transfer between companies of a settlement that doesn't involve feuds or teardowns?
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Bob
Stilachio Thrax
Bob, any chance of developing a method of holding transfer between companies of a settlement that doesn't involve feuds or teardowns?

There's a feature request in our database to look into that. I'm sure it's possible, but we'd have to put in a system similar to trading so that one company offers the buildings to another, then the other company accepts it. Not a trivial amount of work, but mostly things we've done variants of before. It's not on the roadmap, but we get the request regularly so it's certainly something we'd like to revisit when we can.
Tyncale
Bob
Stilachio Thrax
Bob, any chance of developing a method of holding transfer between companies of a settlement that doesn't involve feuds or teardowns?

There's a feature request in our database to look into that. I'm sure it's possible, but we'd have to put in a system similar to trading so that one company offers the buildings to another, then the other company accepts it. Not a trivial amount of work, but mostly things we've done variants of before. It's not on the roadmap, but we get the request regularly so it's certainly something we'd like to revisit when we can.
I foresee interesting ploys on the meta level of the game. A couple of well planted Moles that have earned the trust can easily breach the defenses of a Settlement when they un-ally their Holdings/Companies from the Settlement.

The danger of Turncout Companies that own Holdings that are part of the core defense of a Settlement is always there, but this seems like a comparatively easy way to weasle yourself into a heavily fortified Settlement.

Not saying it should not be possible, I think it should be possible to hand them over somehow. It makes sense. It is all part of the Political game. smile
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post