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.

Feud details?

Kenton Stone
Two cents from an "unemployed" bandit.
No settlement that is [Dead/Inactive]{not paying upkeep} should participate in active alliances protecting hexes. All their hexes should be vulnerable to raiding and not protecting neighboring hexes.
NightmareSr
Bob
An important thing to remember is that you get 75% of that influence back at the end of the feud, so the real cost is more like 25-32 influence for each raid-driven feud. …. I'm open to raising it to at least 10% if that sounds like it would make at least an occasional raid more worthwhile.
Well yes I forgot that also. I always mess up some small but critical detail when calculating things quick in my head. Plus 5% from a few or many holdings would add up quick.
Guess I need to double check my facts before starting an opinion. smile
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Cauchemar
@NightmareSr, would you kindly stop discussing feuds. I'm trying to build up some holdings and don't need to stirring up my neighboring bandits who so far have been quiet neighbors.
If you continue there might be a bounty on Dolken's head.
Cauchemar is a new settlement finding it's place on the edge of the Echo Wood in the Shadow of the impenetrable Fort Inevitable.
If you want to play however you like then join Cauchemar today, all are welcome.
any questions, contact me at: cauchemar.pfo@gmail.com
Azure_Zero
Kenton Stone
Two cents from an "unemployed" bandit.
No settlement that is [Dead/Inactive]{not paying upkeep} should participate in active alliances protecting hexes. All their hexes should be vulnerable to raiding and not protecting neighboring hexes.

I have to agree with Kenton's point and idea about dead settlements within an alliance.
Bob
Kenton Stone
No settlement that is [Dead/Inactive]{not paying upkeep} should participate in active alliances protecting hexes. All their hexes should be vulnerable to raiding and not protecting neighboring hexes.

That's an interesting thought. Feels like there are different degrees this could be taken to:

  • Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected and don't provide protection, period.
  • Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected by other companies and don't provide protection to them, but can do so within their own company.
  • Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected by allied companies from other settlements and don't provide protection to them, but can do so within their own settlement.

I think the first option might be a little too harsh, but on the other hand it might be so hard to protect any hexes under the second or third option that we're better off just using the simpler first option.

Of course, said companies could just switch to an active settlement to get back into the protected group, but they'd have to make themselves vulnerable at some point if the inactive settlement needed DI, though currently they could probably time that to fall on their non-PvP days.

Worth thinking about and probably not too hard to implement something along these lines. I'll file a feature request to consider it when we're on the PvP update.
NightmareSr
What is the deal with the hexes that have Holdings at +0 and outposts at +3 or something?
If these are grandfathered in are they just going to longer forever, until someone takes them?
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Bob
NightmareSr
What is the deal with the hexes that have Holdings at +0 and outposts at +3 or something?
If these are grandfathered in are they just going to longer forever, until someone takes them?

They are sort of grandfathered in. It's no longer possible to upgrade an outpost higher than the holding, or to downgrade a holding lower than its outposts, but we didn't forcibly downgrade outposts that were higher than their holdings before that restriction was implemented.

However, their production is maxed at the same upgrade level as the holding, so they're not actually any more productive as a result. The only advantage to them is that they'll immediately start producing more resources if the holding eventually gets upgraded.
NightmareSr
Bob
NightmareSr
What is the deal with the hexes that have Holdings at +0 and outposts at +3 or something?
If these are grandfathered in are they just going to longer forever, until someone takes them?

They are sort of grandfathered in. It's no longer possible to upgrade an outpost higher than the holding, or to downgrade a holding lower than its outposts, but we didn't forcibly downgrade outposts that were higher than their holdings before that restriction was implemented.

However, their production is maxed at the same upgrade level as the holding, so they're not actually any more productive as a result. The only advantage to them is that they'll immediately start producing more resources if the holding eventually gets upgraded.
Oh I didn't realize they only produce at the +0 or matched to the holding. Nevermind then it is a complete non-issue then.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Azure_Zero
Bob
Kenton Stone
No settlement that is [Dead/Inactive]{not paying upkeep} should participate in active alliances protecting hexes. All their hexes should be vulnerable to raiding and not protecting neighboring hexes.

That's an interesting thought. Feels like there are different degrees this could be taken to:

  • Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected and don't provide protection, period.
  • Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected by other companies and don't provide protection to them, but can do so within their own company.
  • Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected by allied companies from other settlements and don't provide protection to them, but can do so within their own settlement.

I think the first option might be a little too harsh, but on the other hand it might be so hard to protect any hexes under the second or third option that we're better off just using the simpler first option.

Of course, said companies could just switch to an active settlement to get back into the protected group, but they'd have to make themselves vulnerable at some point if the inactive settlement needed DI, though currently they could probably time that to fall on their non-PvP days.

Worth thinking about and probably not too hard to implement something along these lines. I'll file a feature request to consider it when we're on the PvP update.

Well Bob, seems this post made most of the dead settlements into active settlements and paying their upkeep.

Now if Companies can hop around, that would be a issue, as I think the companies should be locked to the settlement until next settlement upkeep, so if they need to pay DI or switch hexes to a protective and protecting state but forget to do the switch over, they have to wait and hope no one notices.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Now if Companies can hop around, that would be a issue, as I think the companies should be locked to the settlement until next settlement upkeep, so if they need to pay DI or switch hexes to a protective and protecting state but forget to do the switch over, they have to wait and hope no one notices.

Ideally, we like to give companies the flexibility to join and leave companies whenever they wish, but have there be natural consequences for doing so that keep companies from doing so very often. For example, when a company joins a settlement, we currently don't include their holdings in the DI calculations for that settlement the next day. We could do other things along the same lines to disincentivize settlement hopping by companies, or company hopping by characters, without locking them in if the pros of switching outweigh the cons.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post