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.

Structure/Settlement Upkeep

HowardWdW
Bob, this system means that a settlement with lower level buildings will pay less in bulk resources to have
support at level 20 than a fully developed city. Is that your intention? Can the city effectively have no buildings and still be set at level 20 and pay 750 of each bulk (using your numbers) while a developed city has to pay more for level 20 support? Is a plus X keep required to be able to set support at a certain level? Is anything required in order to set support at a certain level?

I don't think it seems fair for an undeveloped city to be able to set support at the same level as a developed city if that is indeed the correct interpretation of your explanations.
Kenton Stone
HowardWdW
Bob, this system means that a settlement with lower level buildings will pay less in bulk resources to have
support at level 20 than a fully developed city. Is that your intention? Can the city effectively have no buildings and still be set at level 20 and pay 750 of each bulk (using your numbers) while a developed city has to pay more for level 20 support? Is a plus X keep required to be able to set support at a certain level? Is anything required in order to set support at a certain level?

I don't think it seems fair for an undeveloped city to be able to set support at the same level as a developed city if that is indeed the correct interpretation of your explanations.
They would pay about the same for support but nothing for buildings. What is unfair?
750 bulk of each type weekly to "support" a city with no buildings is expensive. Why would anyone do that?
Bob
HowardWdW
Bob, this system means that a settlement with lower level buildings will pay less in bulk resources to have
support at level 20 than a fully developed city. Is that your intention? Can the city effectively have no buildings and still be set at level 20 and pay 750 of each bulk (using your numbers) while a developed city has to pay more for level 20 support? Is a plus X keep required to be able to set support at a certain level? Is anything required in order to set support at a certain level?

I don't think it seems fair for an undeveloped city to be able to set support at the same level as a developed city if that is indeed the correct interpretation of your explanations.

Basically, given how important support clearly was to people, we didn't want to create a situation where high-level players would always stay in the bigger settlements because smaller ones couldn't offer them adequate support. This system offers those settlements the option of paying a significant amount extra just to get that support. However, they're not getting extra training levels out of that, or higher facility ratings, so they shouldn't have to pay as much.

That said, we're looking at a system to ease this change in, since there's still a lot of structure kit creation to do, and since it takes a while to build up the DI for upgrading structures. Currently, all your buildings have their trainer levels and facility ratings set based on Settlement Level. Eventually, trainer level and facility rating will be set entirely by a building's upgrades. What we're thinking of doing is initially saying that higher settlement levels offer a bonus to each building's trainer level and facility rating, with that bonus dropping steadily over the course of a few months until it's completely gone.

My current thought is that the bonus would start at +6 for trainer levels and +150 for facility ratings, dropping by 1 and 25 respectively every month. The bonuses could never take you above the training level and facility rating that are currently associated with each settlement level, though a structure that's already above those points without the bonuses wouldn't get reduced down.

So, to get your training levels to 20 when the system first ships, you'd just need to get your structures to +2, as long as you're willing to pay the extra for support to settlement level 20. In a couple months you'd need +3's, then +4's, and finally +5's.

This would admittedly minimize the incentive to get your buildings to +5 ahead of that schedule, so I'd still like for there to be some advantages to having more highly-upgraded structures. One thing I can do fairly easily is to use structure upgrades instead of settlement level when calculating settlement defenses (I'll have to adjust that part of the system anyway when upgrades become available). There may be some other relatively simple things we can implement to help with this issue.
Flari-Merchant
Those that have achieved crafting upgraded buildings… should they wait to place them and enjoy the bonuses rather than paying the increased upkeep?

I suppose they should! smile
Flari-Merchant
Note: So long as it is such a Taboo to restrict settlement access to structures for non member/non allies with the current population(for reasons that escape me: Hello Kitty Island I suppose) it really matters little for the short term(half a year or more) anyway.
Suave
Flari-Merchant
Note: So long as it is such a Taboo to restrict settlement access to structures for non member/non allies with the current population(for reasons that escape me: Hello Kitty Island I suppose) it really matters little for the short term(half a year or more) anyway.

Flari,
Your assertion is demonstrably false, as evidenced by a screenshot from my character: [url=[Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/J41G5o4.png)]screenshot
Flari-Merchant
You have demonstrated that you ARE blacklisted in some places. You have not demonstrated that it is a practice that the server accepts without grumbling about, making it a sort of "taboo".

but, the point is: It doesn't mean much that a settlement can have zero buildings because the server(in general) is willing to allow anyone to train and craft at their facilities…
Bob
Flari-Merchant
It doesn't mean much that a settlement can have zero buildings because the server(in general) is willing to allow anyone to train and craft at their facilities…

Ultimately, we always expected most settlements to be pretty open in terms of letting outsiders use their facilities, since doing so will let them bring in more tax money (starting in EE 15). Going without buildings means both turning down those possible earnings, and having to pay others to use their facilities.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Flari-Merchant
It doesn't mean much that a settlement can have zero buildings because the server(in general) is willing to allow anyone to train and craft at their facilities…

Ultimately, we always expected most settlements to be pretty open in terms of letting outsiders use their facilities, since doing so will let them bring in more tax money (starting in EE 15). Going without buildings means both turning down those possible earnings, and having to pay others to use their facilities.

Yes, well I can see how that would leave the option open to structure the support mechanic the way that you have. Honestly though, I do have some concerns about future ramifications but I am aware that how people end up using mechanics rarely ends up as bad as imagined. Just look at all the years of debate about griefers. Never materialized. smile

P.S We plan to have all of our structures available to at least all that are not aggressive to us or our friends.
Trippic
Bob, it appears from your answer that a keep + X is not necessary in order to set settlement level at Y. Therefore since Keep only trains seneschal, and it is at this point (unless you change the requirement from Social Points to something we can actually obtain) impossible to effectively get above level 13 in seneschal (a major impediment to building higher level buildings) there is no purpose to building a keep up past level 2. Is that correct or do you intend to alter any of the parts of my analysis that would change the analysis?

Thanks Howard
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post