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.

Holding Taxes

Flari-Merchant
If you want to PVP penalty free, spend some Inf to do it. Man up.

Coin will always seem meaningless as long as there is too much floating around. Coin NEEDS to have some mechanics that drain it from play. Perfect opportunity right there.
Azure_Zero
Maxen
I would rather see security cost coin. It would be paid by the taxes collected in that location. After all, isn’t that how it works in real life? I don’t know many security guards who work for a loaf of bread and a cord of wood…well unless we’re talking about some third world country.

Point being, security should be paid a wage. Wages come from taxes. If you have a tax deficit, you have to make up the short fall with a coin deposit to that holding bank. No different than making up a bulk resource shortfall to make sure your holdings don’t go belly up.

I agree coin is Not a great cost for Security, that and it is an easy scape goat.
Security should cost something that has meaning.

I'd rather it be something else, Like having say;
High Security reduces Outpost Bulk Production by 10%
Medium Security Has not impact on Outpost Bulk Production
Low Security increases Outpost Bulk Production by 10%

This way you can choose to secure your high value hexes, and make the poorest hexes somewhat usable even if it is a poorly secure area.
Maxen
You are a Troll
Coin is worthless and meaningless; bulk resource cost would actually force people to make a meaningful choice about hex security level. Saying a *tax* on the security level should be paid in coin is akin to saying you shouldn't have to pay anything at all. Man up.

The problem with most of these comments is that you’re not thinking long term. These suggestions are short term fixes for a real, but short term problem. Long term, coin will mean something. Yes, the population is small. Yes, it makes the game difficult to play. But plan for the long term and everything will eventually fall into place. Or perhaps, the game will fail. But only address the short term and the game WILL fail.
Fiery wind
First of all, as Bob said, before discussion of a cost attached to security level should be a discussion on whether high security is clearly better than low security, and significantly so to an extent that requires a "meaningful" cost attached to it. I for one see good reasons for an organization to want both low security and high security hexes, depending on various circumstances.
Flari-Merchant
Ideally there are benefits and downsides to all security settings. Bob and crew set it up that way. I believe that it is part of a more evolved vision for the game. It adds depth. It allows some areas to be free of all but feud based PVP. It allows some areas where anything goes.

As is, it is inviting to a broader audience than an OWPVP game and getting some more broad appeal of features into this game is one of the best things they can do to keep it running and get it going. I am not saying that PVP is not needed. It most definitely is needed as part of a balanced game.

Whether it should cost anything, and what that should be, to set security levels is probably not a great direction to go in. Not if it sets High security at a cost and low security at an extra earning advantage. Seems foolish to punish player groups that want you to have to feud them if you want to attack them while at the same time being rewarded for getting the game state that YOU want to play in.
Father Bronin
Maxen
You are a Troll
Coin is worthless and meaningless; bulk resource cost would actually force people to make a meaningful choice about hex security level. Saying a *tax* on the security level should be paid in coin is akin to saying you shouldn't have to pay anything at all. Man up.

The problem with most of these comments is that you’re not thinking long term. These suggestions are short term fixes for a real, but short term problem. Long term, coin will mean something. Yes, the population is small. Yes, it makes the game difficult to play. But plan for the long term and everything will eventually fall into place. Or perhaps, the game will fail. But only address the short term and the game WILL fail.

Why not blend it for a middle ground? Low security needs resources. Med needs resources and some coin. High needs more of both. Adjust balance until it seems right.

FB
Edam
Seems to me if you are trying to claim territory and enforce it you would want low security hexes so you can challenge any intruders. Just because a lot of people currently default to "hisec everywhere" does not mean that will be the default choice with a larger more PvP focused population.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Edam
Seems to me if you are trying to claim territory and enforce it you would want low security hexes so you can challenge any intruders. Just because a lot of people currently default to "hisec everywhere" does not mean that will be the default choice with a larger more PvP focused population.

Problem is, as I said in the other thread, until the influx of new player grows powerful enough to actually challenge anything or put their own holdings down we hold all the keys. This leads to the question of how to make it so that enough players will stay long enough to gain the kind of influence and strength needed.

The fact that they have no choice but to join an existing settlement doesnt help much.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Stilachio Thrax
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Edam
Seems to me if you are trying to claim territory and enforce it you would want low security hexes so you can challenge any intruders. Just because a lot of people currently default to "hisec everywhere" does not mean that will be the default choice with a larger more PvP focused population.

Problem is, as I said in the other thread, until the influx of new player grows powerful enough to actually challenge anything or put their own holdings down we hold all the keys. This leads to the question of how to make it so that enough players will stay long enough to gain the kind of influence and strength needed.

The fact that they have no choice but to join an existing settlement doesnt help much.

You were never supposed to be able to jump in game and immediately be able to compete for a settlement. The idea was any new player would have to start out joining a company/settlement for support and training beyond what the NPC cities offered. Once they had established themselves, they might form their own company, and once that grew and had enough members, it could then break off to take a settlement or found one in the wilderness. Anyone thinking that at the one month point they should have their own settlement (or be able to beseige one) is delusional. Any 1 month player thinking they should be able to attack and destroy established holdings or bandit raid with impunity is delusional. This game was designed around long-term planning and goals- hell, even the XP/training is an exercise in long-term planning.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Stilachio Thrax
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Edam
Seems to me if you are trying to claim territory and enforce it you would want low security hexes so you can challenge any intruders. Just because a lot of people currently default to "hisec everywhere" does not mean that will be the default choice with a larger more PvP focused population.

Problem is, as I said in the other thread, until the influx of new player grows powerful enough to actually challenge anything or put their own holdings down we hold all the keys. This leads to the question of how to make it so that enough players will stay long enough to gain the kind of influence and strength needed.

The fact that they have no choice but to join an existing settlement doesnt help much.

You were never supposed to be able to jump in game and immediately be able to compete for a settlement. The idea was any new player would have to start out joining a company/settlement for support and training beyond what the NPC cities offered. Once they had established themselves, they might form their own company, and once that grew and had enough members, it could then break off to take a settlement or found one in the wilderness. Anyone thinking that at the one month point they should have their own settlement (or be able to beseige one) is delusional. Any 1 month player thinking they should be able to attack and destroy established holdings or bandit raid with impunity is delusional. This game was designed around long-term planning and goals- hell, even the XP/training is an exercise in long-term planning.

I get that people shouldnt be able to compete with the established groups after one month but they wont be able to do that anyway as things stand. Even if you give them trainer level 9 to get basic tier 2, it already takes a Herculean multiple month effort to get the siege materials, to say nothing of the insane influence required to do it AND set up a supply route. That's the strain it puts on a fully functional high level settlement. It would be orders of magnitude more difficult for an unaffiliated company.

I hate to break this to you but the siege rules are clear that only founding and unaffiliated companies may siege settlements. Non settlement based companies were designed to take new settlements but they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing it. Since they would only be trainer level 8 they would be fighting in tier 1 levels. No one is gonna take them as a serious threat.

So once again, we hold all the keys to whether or not companies get to exist at all or if they have any right to self determination. We hold keys that we should not even be able to hold and which makes part of the game design impossible.

I also hate to break it to you but a large enough group of tier 1 guys can still grind the influence to raid and take holdings "with impunity". Whether it is basic tier 2 or high tier 1, if you have a problem with independent companies doing bandit raids, check your feud windows and defend them.

If an independent company takes your holdings, spend some influence, feud them, and go take it back. You can't just talk about declaring feuds all day long and then back out of it when the feuds arent on your own preferred terms.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post