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.
|Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 08:59|
"You are a Troll" and a few others mentioned things about Hex security within this past week so I think it is time to really discuss the Pro and Cons of each player available security settings and WHAT the costs and consequences should be for each setting,
I also should note that all hexes should have their security set by the week like with the rest of the settlement's security and PVP settings to avoid being abused especially by the Monster and Holding Sec relationship system mentioned below in Consequences.
Now Looking First at the Pros and Cons of each security setting
Pro: No PVP outside of Fueds, No work needed for Player protection or watching for attacks.
Can Ring Monster hexes for Protected transport out of hex.
Cons: Can't stop a spy in your high sec turf.
Pro: Can kill enemy spies, Rep Hits for non-fued PVP for PVP targets.
Con: Need to be watchful for hostile players, gatherers could need player protection.
Rep Hits for non-fued PVP for PVP Attackers.
Pro: Can kill enemy spies, No Rep Hits for non-fued PVP attackers.
Con: Need to be extra watchful for hostile players, gatherers would more likely need player protection.
No Rep Hits for non-fued PVP for PVP targets.
If we look at it from a protection scale of 0 (no protect) to 1(no worries level of protection)
Low sec is 0.25f, Med is 0.5f and High is straight up 1.0f
In terms of work needed to protect your stuff using a scale of again 0(No work) to 1(You need to be active)
Low Sec is about 0.7f, Med Sec is 0.45f, High sec is 0.0f
So from the Look of it High Sec is for players who Don't need to do ANY work to defend their Stuff and have everything easy.
While Low sec hexes see No benefit for being more PVP open and require more work in keeping it secure.
So Now let's get down to Costs and Consequences to balance them
A High Sec hex should require that the payment of the Holding be an extra 30% of the required bulk cost of the holding since there is No work needed in protecting players in the hex from the hex's owner.
But this extra cost comes with a perk, a few(2-3) small or medium guard camps (same rating as holding) in the hex to weaken the monsters in the hex itself for the gatherers and won't do anything for a fued.
A Low Sec hex requires a bit more work and a more watchful player in protecting that group's players in that hex, so they should have a bulk cost reduction of 20% for the holding.
This would make even the worst hexes somewhat better for getting resources when all the good hexes are gone, but have the increased risk of PVP for that hexes gathering resources for the area.
Now moving on the possible consequences for ringing a monster (and home) hexes with player holdings of the same or nearly the same security setting as Hinted near the top.
Note This system does a good job of balancing risk and reward for a very good reasonable part, and should use a value of metric of 0 to 1 or -1.0f to +1.0f for decision on what spawns in the hex.
If a monster or home hex is surrounded by Low Sec holdings chance of Teir 1 and lower escalations decrease by 25% with Higher T2 and higher escalations increasing by 25%.
While if a monster or home hex is surrounded by High Sec holdings chance of Teir 1 or lower escalations increase by 25% with Higher T2 and higher escalations decreasing by 25%.
Surrounding the hex with Medium holdings does near nothing on influencing the hex in either direction.
And this is a bit more logical in game, in that Higher sec guard will prioritise stopping stronger monsters from setting up shop in the monster/home hex, and in the process miss some of the weaker mobs setting up shop.
While the lower sec ones with no real guards would have stronger escalations setting up shop since no one is there to really stop them.
The Monster/Home hex will count it's Neighbouring hexes with Holdings and read their Security Value (i.e -1,0,+1), and then do an average to see what direction the holdings have influenced the hex's spawning system.
Now for Home hexes this would mean that Elite, Normal, and weakened versions of Home escalations would be needed.
Note this system could be used in a useful in other ways, in that if you want an easier time with the monster raids, just set all the holdings around it to High sec and you'll likely get weaker, easier to fight off escalations for the holdings during the PVP raid window.
While if you Like or Love fighting off hard escalations attacking your holdings, set the holdings around the monster or home hex to Low security.
Now this system could also be helpful for new player groups starting with their own settlement in that they can influence their nearby monster hexes for either; getting better loot and a challenge, or getting escalations they can handle and have fun with.
|Maxen 09.11.2018 09:22|
I agree that there needs to be a better balance of cost/benefit between high, medium, and low sec hexes, but I do not agree that the cost should be in bulk. Bulk has nothing to do with maintaining security. The cost should be paid in coin, much like settlement upkeep. Coin would need to be seeded or earned through holding taxes. It becomes a coin sink as well. You don’t pay guards in wood and stone. Cash is king.
PS And yes, I know coin has no value right now, but long term, it will.
|Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 09:27|
Everything has a cash value, so paying in bulk is still valid and more meaningful then straight coin.
|Bob 09.11.2018 11:00|
The question of whether or not to add another bulk resources sink is basically whether or not we want there to be a tradeoff between whatever the sink is paying for (in this case hex security) and overall settlement levels. There's a strict limit to how much bulk can be produced each day. Holding upkeep is sort of a bulk resource sink, but it's mostly a cost of production, limiting the total amount of bulk resources that can be produced. Companies can choose to have less optimal bulk resource production for a variety of reasons (e.g. preferring an inn for power refills, preferring a watchtower for better defenses, preferring particular holdings for DI reasons), and those choices lower the overall ability of those companies, and the server as a whole, to pay for structure upkeep and settlement levels. We could certainly add hex security as another sink feeding into those tradeoffs, but we'd want to be careful about how everything balances out.
Coin doesn't have nearly as strict a production limit, since generally speaking there's no limit to how many mobs can be killed each day. As a result, coin sinks do result in tradeoffs for groups/individuals choosing to spend their coin on one thing instead of another, but they also lower the money supply and thus lower prices, so there's less of a system-wide tradeoff involved.
|Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 11:55|
Thanks for looking at this Bob, it is good to know that Goblinworks is looking at balancing hex security and what each level of security should cost.
The way I set it up the numbers was so that smaller settlement(s) with a small number of holdings could use High sec to protect themselves as they grow and when they got big enough and have enough players they could lower the security some and get more resources they need. While also making it a REAL Pain for any High End Settlements to go with a High Sec blanket for all their territory and force them into making some hard choices, Like; Needing more holdings with a lot more muling required, or lowering the security in various areas of their territory to the point where they don't need to increase the hexes they have and or the need to mule stuff around as much.
I also hope my idea of a Holding Security effecting Monster/Home hexes is one that Goblinworks would look at.
|Bringslite 09.11.2018 12:04|
MaxenThis is much more lucid an idea to me. Pulling MORE Bulk around because there is yet another cost for it just seems absurd to me. As does the idea of needing to have yet MORE holdings because High Sec hexes suddenly cost more Bulk to run.
Basically what Bob said:
The Bulk generation to holding and settlement/holding costs has already been balanced and is already an economy in itself based on a limited resource system.
Using coin appeals to me because it is generated like magic and will never have value until it is given a value, like more "coin sinks".
You guys seem to want to punish High Sec areas because you basically want PVP without costs and without restrictions as a long term goal. You need to realize that is not a balanced system between random gang PVP players and PVP haters. I am all for High Sec costing something and it will likely reduce the numbers of High Sec hexes as intended but Bulk resources costs would be a bad move.
We don't need to have MORE holdings to manage because of Bulk costs. That won't help much of anything.
Virtute et Armis
|Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 12:15|
but from what I see, Bulk resources are still on the table for Payment of that High Security certain groups want with no real cost or payment to be made,
It might not be the same percentage as I posted, for All we know it could be end up being 10%, not 30%.
Bulk resource cost as payment is a meaningful choice even if it is a little extra for that added security.
As Bob stated; coin can be very plentiful, but the Bulk is not so, which makes it in part or all for the payment of added security, fair game.
|Bringslite 09.11.2018 12:32|
Azure_ZeroCoin could also be a meaningful choice unless it is never allowed to be one. This games economic ebb and flow is a joke because there is nothing to do with coin and it can easily be generated. That needs fixing.Bob
Just reread your OP, Azure you failed to mention that High Sec can be overcome with a feud declaration. Which is a 4 day feud now. The compensation you offer for increasing costs seems meaningless as I did just fine as a T1 gathering toon without any of what you have suggested and way before any Sec lvl hexes. We would be better off doing away with the entire thing than to start so complicating such a balanced system. Too much work when there are tons of hexes that are medium and low sec hexes out there. All the good hexes are already low sec as far as chances to actually get anything such as loot.
We'll see what happens but my bet is that Paizo has more sense than that. Unless they change course and want rampant random PVP as a player "hook" I am not really too worried.
Virtute et Armis
|Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 13:00|
A feud can't be stopped with High Sec hex even now and if it did I'd of set the percentage to an extra 100%.
Feuds are a part of the game's design, so feud immunity should cost a settlement so much that it would be impossible to keep it up for no more then a week or two before being forced to lowering it to normal or even low, or face complete shutdown of everything and becoming extremely vulnerable to attacks.
If the High Sec was to just use Coin as a tax I'd be setting the formula as such,
Coin Cost for High Sec of any one Hex/Day = (max holding level in hex ^ 1.5f) * 1 gold piece;
So each +0 holding in High sec cost 1 gold piece for each day, while each +5 holding would cost 11 gold and 18 silver for each day.
|You are a Troll 09.11.2018 13:10|
Coin is meaningless (as you say); bulk isn't. No one will blink an eye to pay coin for keeping their hexes high sec, but they might think twice if it eats into the bulk that hex produces