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.

Speaking of Options...

Bob
Edam
I am not 100% sure making it even easier for one person to run an entire settlement solo is actually a good thing but … if that is the way the powers that be want to swing it so be it.

Making it a little easier for small groups to run settlements is a nice consequence of some kind of automated deliveries, but the larger goal is to look at tasks in the game that could feel like drudgery and provide alternatives. As an example of that kind of thinking, we've previously mentioned that our goal is for the NPC guards around holdings to act as a sort of buffer, so that players don't have to actually stand around guarding the holdings during every PvP window. If no attack comes, then that's not necessarily a very exciting gaming session. If a player does enjoy guard duty (perhaps their multiboxing, or they just like chatting during that time, or whatever), then we want to offer some benefit for doing so, but not such a large one that live guards feels required.

Same with delivering bulk resources by mule. If no attack comes, that's not the most exciting activity for everyone. If we let small amounts of excess bulk resources move on their own, but at an appropriate cost, then those who do enjoy muling bulk resources around have a valuable service to offer. However, if your company/settlement doesn't have anyone who enjoys that activity, then you can pay for the automated service and spend your time doing other things you enjoy more, though you may have to rush back if the automated delivery gets attacked.
Bob
Bringslite
May I suggest that "contiguous hexes" play some part of any such plans? Right now everyone's holdings are everywhere. Might be a sound idea to make incentives (but not requirements) to build things in more of a territorial mindset.

One possible design I'd been toying with was that each hex can only schedule automated deliveries to neighboring hexes, but that's pretty limited since you couldn't get past roads and such. A compromise might be that deliveries to neighboring hexes are fairly cheap, but the price increases quickly as the distance rises (basic hex distance would be fairly easy to calculate, best friendly/neutral traversable path would take more work). Then if you have contiguous hexes, you could just move things one hex at a time pretty cheaply, but if you don't have contiguous hexes you have to pay increasing amounts the more often you have to include big jumps.
You are a Troll
Bob, while you are busy helping people (even more) to avoid risk and drudgery could you please lower the influence cost for feuds? As some have mentioned, there is literally nothing going on in this game except (at this point) mind numbingly boring PvE in escalations and gushers. Maybe if it wasn't so painfully expensive to just *declare a feud* as you like to say companies should do to get around the absurdity of High Sec hexes there would be an uptick in dynamic play in the game.
Bringslite
You are a Troll
Bob, while you are busy helping people (even more) to avoid risk and drudgery could you please lower the influence cost for feuds? As some have mentioned, there is literally nothing going on in this game except (at this point) mind numbingly boring PvE in escalations and gushers. Maybe if it wasn't so painfully expensive to just *declare a feud* as you like to say companies should do to get around the absurdity of High Sec hexes there would be an uptick in dynamic play in the game.
Speaking of that, and not in any way with negatives toward your request, what is/are the costs for feuding (in all forms) at this time? It would be really informative and facilitative having the info in one spot. MUCH more easy to discuss things when we know what we are talking about…. I'm pretty ignorant on the current state of feud costs.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Azure_Zero
Bringslite


Not a bad point guys and full kudos to you if you find it "fun enough" to pull Bulk that it does not wear on your ability to enjoy the game. Not everyone agrees with you, but the dwindling population that does… well I hope that you guys can stick it out for the long haul.

I am simply trying to point out that it isn't fun for everyone under the sun and I think that a partial or total suspension of "Support" would not be a bad idea while there is hardly anyone playing right now. At the current player level, it isn't critical OR needed that we COULD be able to take over other settlements. Probably more complicated than I know to set all settlement requirements to zero, for the time being, but I think that it might be a good idea. It's more about offering ideas to turn "playing the game" from LESS FUN ways right now, until MORE FUN ways to play the game are available. Balance of playing experiences vs. chore experiences. I know that, given time, the game will get there but it isn't even going to be within the next year that point is reached.
….

Brings
there are OTHER answers then asking the Devs to remove support so you don't have bulk movement troubles.
Here are 7 options;
1) Ask your Settlement/Nation mates HELP you with the Bulk chores
(or you can go full Dictator and kinda force them to do it with the threat of being ejected from settlement and or settlement is lowered until they do the work, though not recommended at all).
2) Pay a Player to do the Chores for You, likely someone who already is doing the bulk movement crap.
3) Compromise and lower your Settlement Support to level 16, it is MORE then Good enough for Combat and Crafting and saves a Ton on Bulk resources.
4) ONLY HAVE ONE Company (per settlement if more then one) that has all the holdings.
5) Not Moving Bulk to Company Vaults when feuded, let the raiders take some.
6) If you have multiple settlements, give them away to those that want one and or Abandon them completely.
7) Abandon and or give away every settlement you control completely, and then join another settlement.

I RUN TWO SETTLEMENTS BY MYSELF, so I know where your coming from, But I don't support the removal of the Support system Full or partial.
When the +X building upgrade costs and DI systems information was released, I weighed a number of a number of factors and went for a settlement limit compromise I could handle knowing what a +5 level 20 supported settlement would REALLY entail as a cost, and made plans with My Holdings so that I'd have as Little Work to do with holdings as possible.
You can do the same, and the work gets a lot easier.
Asking the Devs to make it easier with support removal (Full or Partial) is not a even a good answer for the health of the game.

Bringslite


….

Under current conditions, chores like Settlement Support are a burden to the game rather than an enjoyable experience. It is like being forced to be at mobilization level 100% ALL THE TIME even though there is no war threat.

Does War ever start for everyone involved at scheduled time in RL, it does not, that is why "military forces are always at the ready".
The scheduled PVP windows is the only real break we have on the "military forces are always at the ready" part of RL.
Azure_Zero
Bringslite
You are a Troll
Bob, while you are busy helping people (even more) to avoid risk and drudgery could you please lower the influence cost for feuds? As some have mentioned, there is literally nothing going on in this game except (at this point) mind numbingly boring PvE in escalations and gushers. Maybe if it wasn't so painfully expensive to just *declare a feud* as you like to say companies should do to get around the absurdity of High Sec hexes there would be an uptick in dynamic play in the game.
Speaking of that, and not in any way with negatives toward your request, what is/are the costs for feuding (in all forms) at this time? It would be really informative and facilitative having the info in one spot. MUCH more easy to discuss things when we know what we are talking about…. I'm pretty ignorant on the current state of feud costs.

Cost of feuds is about 200->300 Influence.
So a Complete +0 Holding and +0 Outposts controlled hex to the cost of a complete +1 Holding and +1 Outposts controlled hex
Bringslite
Azure_Zero
Bringslite
You are a Troll
Bob, while you are busy helping people (even more) to avoid risk and drudgery could you please lower the influence cost for feuds? As some have mentioned, there is literally nothing going on in this game except (at this point) mind numbingly boring PvE in escalations and gushers. Maybe if it wasn't so painfully expensive to just *declare a feud* as you like to say companies should do to get around the absurdity of High Sec hexes there would be an uptick in dynamic play in the game.
Speaking of that, and not in any way with negatives toward your request, what is/are the costs for feuding (in all forms) at this time? It would be really informative and facilitative having the info in one spot. MUCH more easy to discuss things when we know what we are talking about…. I'm pretty ignorant on the current state of feud costs.

Cost of feuds is about 200->300 Influence.
So a Complete +0 Holding and +0 Outposts controlled hex to the cost of a complete +1 Holding and +1 Outposts controlled hex

That may be quite a bit off. Start cost of a "regular" feud is or was 100 Influence. End cost if the feud takes a holding is/was 25 influence, originally.

Your post clearly illustrates why we need real info, since things have changed in some ways, but not that much! smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
The bolded stuff is not shouting. Just more easy to separate my comments from Azure's. smile

Azure_Zero
Brings
there are OTHER answers then asking the Devs to remove support so you don't have bulk movement troubles.
Here are 7 options;
1) Ask your Settlement/Nation mates HELP you with the Bulk chore
(or you can go full Dictator and kinda force them to do it with the threat of being ejected from settlement and or settlement is lowered until they do the work, though not recommended at all).
2) Pay a Player to do the Chores for You, likely someone who already is doing the bulk movement crap.
3) Compromise and lower your Settlement Support to level 16, it is MORE then Good enough for Combat and Crafting and saves a Ton on Bulk resources.
4) ONLY HAVE ONE Company (per settlement if more then one) that has all the holdings.
5) Not Moving Bulk to Company Vaults when feuded, let the raiders take some.
6) If you have multiple settlements, give them away to those that want one and or Abandon them completely.
7) Abandon and or give away every settlement you control completely, and then join another settlement.
^^^These things are certainly OK suggestions and some are being worked on, as we debate here, but most are not realistic when the population is low. How many active players other than YOURSELF do you really have in your settlements right now? Get real, Man! smile
I RUN TWO SETTLEMENTS BY MYSELF, so I know where your coming from, But I don't support the removal of the Support system Full or partial.
When the +X building upgrade costs and DI systems information was released, I weighed a number of a number of factors and went for a settlement limit compromise I could handle knowing what a +5 level 20 supported settlement would REALLY entail as a cost, and made plans with My Holdings so that I'd have as Little Work to do with holdings as possible.
You can do the same, and the work gets a lot easier.
Asking the Devs to make it easier with support removal (Full or Partial) is not a even a good answer for the health of the game.

That is great, and I am happy for you if you are happy with how things are. I am still of the opinion that these mechanics are burdensome and unnecessary while the game has less than a Beta Population. May work great when there are players around but not so great ATM. Even other options would be better for now AND in the future.

It's really a matter of whether it is a fun system for as many as possible or not. Plz think and answer these questions so that I can better understand your point-of-view on the subject.
-Is it really a necessary mechanic when there are so few playing the game at this time?
-What does it even accomplish as far as "enjoyment" of time spent in game, at this time?
-Is the original intent for a "support mechanic" a valid enough reason for it to be a part of the game, at this time?
-Would it really hurt anything to put off the "support mechanic", at this time, until the population is healthy enough to make it more enjoyable and serve it's original purpose?
Does War ever start for everyone involved at scheduled time in RL, it does not, that is why "military forces are always at the ready".
The scheduled PVP windows is the only real break we have on the "military forces are always at the ready" part of RL.
Hmmm… "mobilization readiness" has a different meaning to me than you or perhaps my choice of wording was not the best… Pointing specifically to "Best readiness to be Sieged" , in this game and how that is reflected through keeping Secure Vaults stuffed as full as possible, do you really think that Sieges are real things that will happen now or for more than a year (in real life days) with the game in this current state?

If not, why are these mechanics needed right now? Couldn't they be put on hold, reduced or other options to fulfill them be beneficial for a year or so, at least until there are enough players that they make sense?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Azure_Zero
Questions:
1 - Is it really a necessary mechanic when there are so few playing the game at this time?
2 - What does it even accomplish as far as "enjoyment" of time spent in game, at this time?
3 - Is the original intent for a "support mechanic" a valid enough reason for it to be a part of the game, at this time?
4 - Would it really hurt anything to put off the "support mechanic", at this time, until the population is healthy enough to make it more enjoyable and serve it's original purpose?

Answers:
1) Still is, reason is in answer 4
2) pride that you HAVE that support or thankful for the current support you have.
3) Still does AS IT IS PART OF THE GAME, would you like it if every class was removed from the game because one person wanted the game to be just a crafting sim with No combat, no escalation, nothing but crafting.
4) Best to keep it in, otherwise people WILL B**** REALLY HARD once it comes back. So best to Keep it in and nip potential backlash when the pop gets big enough to put it back in, that the new players leave the game and we get back to square one.

——–

Note on mobilization readiness,
It can happen at Any time, look at the attacks on some the of the Nations and settlements that existed or still exist in PFO.
If you don't want to be prepared, you take the risks.

——-

Talonguard, I know for a fact has 3 different active players, others I've not seen so I can't say if it is more.
Bringslite
Thx for answering those questions, Azure. It really does make it more rewarding to discuss things by being able to read where others opinions are coming from.

No, I wouldn't like having one guy decide to make the game a crafting only Sim. Seems like an example comparing apples and oranges, but I'll answer it. You answered my questions. smile

I don't feel that your answers are compelling enough to outweigh the current "fun drain". The "cringy-non fun" feeling that I get when I log in and know that I have to spend some hours pulling mules. It's just how I feel about it. No one seems to really like having to do it. For me it is so bad that, on top of having less free time IRL to play, I barely DO play anymore. You may have noticed the TK AH is fairly empty of raw mats lately… smile I suppose I am concerned that my feelings might affect others, if not yet, then eventually.

We are still quite some time from a population viable game as far as realistically gaining and maintaining "subscription level interest". Seems like there are several years (minimum) left ahead until that point. Features/mechanics that are not really fun or adding anything really needed, don't seem like good bets to improving that time frame (over losing more pop than is gained), though I will admit that having them will eventually be better for the game. Not needed now though.

My real issue is I would like to have seen more valuable time spent on stuff for ALL players. Yeah, Support is already finished. It doesn't HAVE to be ON right now though for the game to be (IMO) better (than without it) at this low pop point. I don't criticize the Enchanting Feature work underway now because of that. Enchanting is a step in the right direction! It's for everyone. Let's see if the next big project is about settlement management or something that adds to the "regular player's game".

————–

Well, yeah. War is possible any time now. You can't really think that the cost of sieging another settlement is worth the investment needed to do so right now, do you? What is there to gain at this point? The "fun" possible certainly doesn't balance the grind to even start a small and easy "sure win" siege… Right now there are not really tangible advantages for doing so, especially considering the over-all costs.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post