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.

The Seneschal Issue

Flari-Merchant
Bob
I don't have a great answer on the social issue yet, so for now perhaps I should fall back on something similar to what we've done with Spellcraft. In that case, we temporarily dropped the achievement requirement for advancement, since we don't offer the related achievements yet. As a result, you can advance a lot more easily in Spellcraft than you'll eventually be able to, but that's balanced by the fact that Spellcraft currently isn't as useful as most other skills. The same is kind of true for Seneschal, since refining codex collections is really only meant to be a small part of what Seneschal is for. As a result, it probably wouldn't be unfair to temporarily allow players to advance through those ranks more easily, either by temporarily lowering the Social requirements or by temporarily raising the amount of Social points provided by the Seneschal achievements. Either solution would be pretty obviously temporary. When we can get to more Social achievements, we'd rebalance things again. I'll add some notes to look at doing that with EE 15, unless any of you can point out some flaws I'm missing.

On the Feature Feat front, it looks like the best solution would be to just add it to Passionate in the Workshop with all the other refining skills, since I think it was meant to be added there and just didn't happen. Again, I'll try to get that in for EE 15, unless some of you want to talk me out of it.

The only reason that we could hand-wave this for the future is if we don't have to have higher level buildings BEFORE that future. I am sure that just like myself, no one wants you two to work yourselves until exhausted or dead, so that is a consideration too. Seriously though, it would be nice to have things in the correct order for a line of mechanics that involves actual character power levels.

Bottom line: I think that the population is too small right now to burden it with ANY of this support and building req stuff.

PS: If Engineers can really score +5 buildings with all +5 mats and +3 codex collections, then the problem is not super critical. I am not sure if Azoth can be used to boost crits on them or if Azoth can be used to boost skill for settlement buildings. It should, though, be a "doable" thing to make these buildings without Azoth as pointed out above.
"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
Edam
Bob
As a result, it probably wouldn't be unfair to temporarily allow players to advance through those ranks more easily, either by temporarily lowering the Social requirements or by temporarily raising the amount of Social points provided by the Seneschal achievements. Either solution would be pretty obviously temporary.
The amount of social points provided by current Seneschal achievements has already been bumped well above the norm. The problem is all current Seneschal achievements are currently T1 common meaning there are only 4 you can get.

Is it possible to make the codex collection using T2 recipes and codex collection using T3 recipes T2+0 common and T3+0 common achievements somehow ? That would add two more.

harneloot
Lisa Stevens
You should use Azoth to get the rest of the way to +5 for building the +5 Lab. If you can get halfway to +5, then Azoth will bring you the rest of the way to +5 without using that many +4 codices. Of course, I haven't tried this in practice yet.

-Lisa

If practically the only way to get +5 medium buildings in a settlements involves paying for and using Azoth, well, then that smells suspiciously like pay-to-win and doesn't seem like it is working as intended.
The amount of azoth involved, assuming you payed real cash, is likely to be way less than subbing a single character for a month and gets a permanent +5 building for the entire settlement. Not exactly the same as "gold ammo".

Also you can get azoth by trading for them if you have game gold to spare and a willing seller needing game gold.
Bob
Edam
  • Azoth are offered for codexes but do nothing.

  • This was fixed in EE 14. The button for Azoth still shows up when you've added all your ingredients, but it shows the maximum amount of Azoth that can be applied as zero. You're also properly blocked from adding any Azoth.
    Bob
    Flari-Merchant
    Bob
    I don't have a great answer on the social issue yet, so for now perhaps I should fall back on something similar to what we've done with Spellcraft. In that case, we temporarily dropped the achievement requirement for advancement, since we don't offer the related achievements yet. As a result, you can advance a lot more easily in Spellcraft than you'll eventually be able to, but that's balanced by the fact that Spellcraft currently isn't as useful as most other skills. The same is kind of true for Seneschal, since refining codex collections is really only meant to be a small part of what Seneschal is for. As a result, it probably wouldn't be unfair to temporarily allow players to advance through those ranks more easily, either by temporarily lowering the Social requirements or by temporarily raising the amount of Social points provided by the Seneschal achievements. Either solution would be pretty obviously temporary. When we can get to more Social achievements, we'd rebalance things again. I'll add some notes to look at doing that with EE 15, unless any of you can point out some flaws I'm missing.

    On the Feature Feat front, it looks like the best solution would be to just add it to Passionate in the Workshop with all the other refining skills, since I think it was meant to be added there and just didn't happen. Again, I'll try to get that in for EE 15, unless some of you want to talk me out of it.

    The only reason that we could hand-wave this for the future is if we don't have to have higher level buildings BEFORE that future. I am sure that just like myself, no one wants you two to work yourselves until exhausted or dead, so that is a consideration too. Seriously though, it would be nice to have things in the correct order for a line of mechanics that involves actual character power levels.

    I don't like using temporary numbers, but at least in this case they're very obviously temporary. Even more importantly, they're incredibly easy to change and won't break anything when they're put back to the proper values. It does mean people will be able to temporarily advance in Seneschal very easily, but given the high XP expense for just getting a boost on crits, that doesn't feel imbalanced to me.

    Flari-Merchant
    Bottom line: I think that the population is too small right now to burden it with ANY of this support and building req stuff.

    We're looking into ways to ease into these requirements, but at the same time we want to provide incentives for going beyond the buildings most of you are getting distributed for free.


    Flari-Merchant
    PS: If Engineers can really score +5 buildings with all +5 mats and +3 codex collections, then the problem is not super critical. I am not sure if Azoth can be used to boost crits on them or if Azoth can be used to boost skill for settlement buildings. It should, though, be a "doable" thing to make these buildings without Azoth as pointed out above.

    A maxed-out Engineer can craft some +5 structure kits using just +3 codex collections with +5's of everything else. Other recipes that require a higher balance of codex collections will require mostly +4's. I didn't check every possibility, but I suspect such an Engineer would rarely be required to use a +5 codex collection, or likely no more than 1. And yes, you can use Azoth to either automatically get the structure kit to +5 (the specific amount will depend on how close you get, so in some cases it could be a pretty trivial amount) or to up your chances for crits on the codex collections. However, Seneschals should always have at least some chance for crits on those, so the Azoth isn't required, it just makes things a little easier.
    Bob
    Edam
    The amount of social points provided by current Seneschal achievements has already been bumped well above the norm. The problem is all current Seneschal achievements are currently T1 common meaning there are only 4 you can get.

    True, they're already artificially boosted, but boosting them more shouldn't be a problem. Plus, if we're going to have temporary numbers, we should probably isolate them as much as possible, so they're a good candidate for further boosting (as opposed to lowering the requirements) until we can add more achievements.

    Edam
    Is it possible to make the codex collection using T2 recipes and codex collection using T3 recipes T2+0 common and T3+0 common achievements somehow ? That would add two more.

    The T2/3 codex recipe variants do in fact give T2/3 achievements at that stage, but then the resulting codexes are identical regardless of which tier of recipes were used. As a result, when the Seneschal starts bundling them into collections, we no longer know which tier of recipes were used at the previous stage, so we can't adjust the resulting achievements.

    Flari-Merchant
    Bob
    Flari-Merchant
    Bottom line: I think that the population is too small right now to burden it with ANY of this support and building req stuff.

    We're looking into ways to ease into these requirements, but at the same time we want to provide incentives for going beyond the buildings most of you are getting distributed for free.
    Then why req us to build a copy of every building from +1 to +5(sans the free) to get to that "Golden 20"?
    It is really very difficult to amass that many recipes/expendables, let alone the raw-then-refined-crits on mats.
    In the cases of siege loss, the higher building "hp's strength) certainly don't reflect the cost to build them.

    It is kinda turning into, what feels like IMO, a serious chore that virtually looks endless. I mean I know there is an end, I just don't think it is an end we will see… for a year or more. It's not fun to spend so much effort for just this aspect of play.

    PS: I simply feel real sad for any Settlement that only has a few active members at this time. Can't imagine what the amounts look like when they review just for the Keep, which doesn't even require codex collections.
    "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
    Bob
    Flari-Merchant
    Bob
    Flari-Merchant
    Bottom line: I think that the population is too small right now to burden it with ANY of this support and building req stuff.

    We're looking into ways to ease into these requirements, but at the same time we want to provide incentives for going beyond the buildings most of you are getting distributed for free.
    Then why req us to build a copy of every building from +1 to +5(sans the free) to get to that "Golden 20"?
    It is really very difficult to amass that many recipes/expendables, let alone the raw-then-refined-crits on mats.
    In the cases of siege loss, the higher building "hp's strength) certainly don't reflect the cost to build them.

    It is kinda turning into, what feels like IMO, a serious chore that virtually looks endless. I mean I know there is an end, I just don't think it is an end we will see… for a year or more. It's not fun to spend so much effort for just this aspect of play.

    PS: I simply feel real sad for any Settlement that only has a few active members at this time. Can't imagine what the amounts look like when they review just for the Keep, which doesn't even require codex collections.

    We're still working out exact details, but one idea is to initially allow a settlement with +2 buildings to be just as good as a settlement can be now, as long as it pays for the extra settlement levels. Then we'd ramp things up over time so that eventually you'd need +3 buildings to do so, then +4, and finally +5.
    Flari-Merchant
    Bob
    Flari-Merchant
    Bob
    Flari-Merchant
    Bottom line: I think that the population is too small right now to burden it with ANY of this support and building req stuff.

    We're looking into ways to ease into these requirements, but at the same time we want to provide incentives for going beyond the buildings most of you are getting distributed for free.
    Then why req us to build a copy of every building from +1 to +5(sans the free) to get to that "Golden 20"?
    It is really very difficult to amass that many recipes/expendables, let alone the raw-then-refined-crits on mats.
    In the cases of siege loss, the higher building "hp's strength) certainly don't reflect the cost to build them.

    It is kinda turning into, what feels like IMO, a serious chore that virtually looks endless. I mean I know there is an end, I just don't think it is an end we will see… for a year or more. It's not fun to spend so much effort for just this aspect of play.

    PS: I simply feel real sad for any Settlement that only has a few active members at this time. Can't imagine what the amounts look like when they review just for the Keep, which doesn't even require codex collections.

    We're still working out exact details, but one idea is to initially allow a settlement with +2 buildings to be just as good as a settlement can be now, as long as it pays for the extra settlement levels. Then we'd ramp things up over time so that eventually you'd need +3 buildings to do so, then +4, and finally +5.
    Well I suppose that would take some of the pressure off of feeling like things have to be ready within 2 months or so. smile When can we find out what you decide about that?

    Also, do you feel that Building Strength(referring to siege mechanics here) reflects the player cost of the buildings?
    "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
    Lisa Stevens
    Flari-Merchant
    PS: I simply feel real sad for any Settlement that only has a few active members at this time. Can't imagine what the amounts look like when they review just for the Keep, which doesn't even require codex collections.

    I have a +5 Keep cooking right now and here are the mats it took, plus 1,140 Azoth.

    Pine Log 1714
    Ordered Essence 1661
    Iron Ore 370
    Coal 380
    Hemp 629
    Beast Pelt 822
    Weak Acidic 322
    Weak Deadly 230
    Weak Flammable 900
    Antithesis Essence 1500
    Weak Aromatic 1092
    Esoteric Essence 420
    Wool 4826
    Animal Pelt 720
    Lesser Vital 978
    Copper Ore 150
    Weak Luminous 720

    And on top of it all, I have a ton of +3 mats for other buildings as well as the +4 Keep. Those quantities aren't all that hard to gather, especially with gushers.

    -Lisa
    Bob
    Flari-Merchant
    Bob
    We're still working out exact details, but one idea is to initially allow a settlement with +2 buildings to be just as good as a settlement can be now, as long as it pays for the extra settlement levels. Then we'd ramp things up over time so that eventually you'd need +3 buildings to do so, then +4, and finally +5.
    Well I suppose that would take some of the pressure off of feeling like things have to be ready within 2 months or so. smile When can we find out what you decide about that?

    I'll try to post something within the next few days.

    Flari-Merchant
    Also, do you feel that Building Strength(referring to siege mechanics here) reflects the player cost of the buildings?

    I'll have to rewrite the building strength part to be more about structure upgrades than settlement level when this all goes Live, and it would in turn probably have to take into account whatever I do about easing into the need for +5's, but generally speaking you'll at least get greater defense for higher upgrades. That said, like many of our systems, the upgrade costs go up geometrically while the advantages just go up linearly, so later upgrades may only be worthwhile if you're really in a position to take advantage of them.
     
    You must be logged into an enrolled account to post