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 Return of Max Influence

NightmareSr
harneloot
… There hasn't really been a new player that has stuck and stayed active since Nightmare (as far as I am aware - don't shoot me if I'm wrong on that point).
I have met a quite a few that started after me, but the longest lasted about 3 months, haven't heard from any of them for quite awhile now.
This game seems to take a bit of a stubborn personality to stick with it. It is still the first MMO I have played and only one I actively play. I was away a bit recently due to life and a lack of motivation.
Honestly once I got into the Settlement mechanics and influence and required crafting along with DI and Bulk, it just feels like there are more chores and more sticks than there are carrots.
Is there maybe a way to increase the influence gain for certain activity levels or something?
I think there are more gamers that will do a lot of extra work for even a small reward than there are gamers who will put in extra effort to avoid a penalty or avoid losing something. Just my thoughts though.
In general the way influence is gained NEEDS to change.
I have a handful of T3 crafters that have just been crafting for about 3 months and breaking gates and leveling up in my company 'Disgruntled Nightmares', but have only generated 150 influence.
Compare that to my Cauchemar T2 Combat Alchemist that was hunting Bondancers and broke her Alchemist Expert 9 achievement just last night. She generated a handful of influence all by herself in a handful of hours.
The activities that generate influence are just not balanced enough at all.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
– Cauchemar is a Greater Nightmare –
Azure_Zero
Paddy Fitzpatrick
If we are going to go as far as a wipe once unity upgrade is done (preferably also after Alchemist is done too), then also maybe we can go a bit further and have a smaller map. One thing that also isn't fun is the constant run sim from one far flung area to the other. With a small pop just with us and a steadily growing one you will never interact with one another or meet anyone. Just a large world that takes forever to get from point A to point B.

At this point let's be real the existing groups only need maybe 1-3 settlements tops to get everything they need for what they wanna do. There is no need to have so many more derelict settlements all over the place to even have a settlement collector problem in the first place.

However that is an entire topic on its own.

Funny things is I recall mentioning an idea very much like this idea about a year or two ago.

I do recall the following points I did make;
* The Map is TOO big for the current Population, it need to be shrunk down (like the size of the test server).
* All alliances would be collapsed into ONE settlement each and would choose from open settlements (in order of most settlement or holdings?).
*There would be ONLY one or two claimable settlements available, BUT they'd be locked up UNTIL certain conditions were met (i.e. player population rose to say 500).
* The number of available claimable hexes would be such that NOT ALL settlements could run at a support of level 20 with all +5 buildings, with the overall average for the settlements being a support of level 18 with all +4 buildings.
–> this point was made so settlements need to watch their PVP windows and defend to keep their levels, they go AFK for a while and could loose their stuff, but the setup is such that if a settlement got too greedy they'd piss off the other settlements and risk being attacked by a larger force who'd put them back into a more reasonable level of holdings.
Flari-Merchant
Azure_Zero
* The Map is TOO big for the current Population, it need to be shrunk down (like the size of the test server).

Everything is too big. Every concept and every mechanical function was envisioned(originally) for a game that would have several 1000 players to start and many 1000s on waiting lists to get in. Suppose they can't be faulted for dreaming big, but yeah, it wouldn't hurt to scale things down a bit until some players sign up.
Tuoweit
Flari-Merchant
Still seems like right now it might punish The Little Guy a bit compared to an active group of even just 6 players.

I'm not sure how "little" you are thinking The Little Guy is, but I resubbed a month ago and I'm currently playing in a T2-level settlement of 4 players of varying degrees of activity. Over that month we have collectively accumulated
a few hundred influence. Although we'd probably need to shift some of our activity between companies, I don't see the numbers Bob is putting in this thread as particularly burdensome - but then we only have a small number of holdings to sustain us. With, I might add, no room to expand nearby without taking a hex from some company that lives halfway across the map, and that's not just one company or one settlement doing that. I like Edam's idea of making the influence cost of maintaining holdings somehow proportional to distance, and/or alternatively how much material upkeep it needs - a self-sufficient hex may need more "political effort", i.e. influence, to keep it under control than one that is dependent on its controlling company for bulk goods to keep it running, so that one way or the other holding on to a hex isn't simply "fire and forget".

That said, I also agree with Flari that the game desperately needs some polish, QoL, and changing things that may be more chore than fun in order to keep new players interested. We (long-time backers) could (and still can) overlook those things for a long time because we had larger settlement-based goals to shoot for, but new players coming into the game now don't have those goals, which are largely unattainable for them for reasons discussed in this thread already. But GW seems already committed to a big project that may preclude them from doing much else that requires significant coding, and not being able to do those things doesn't mean they shouldn't do other things that they can do. It's probably worth discussing (in a different thread) what some of those needed bits of polish etc. are, and figuring out whether some of them can be done in the shorter term.
NightmareSr
One huge problem to making holdings and outpost cost more when they are further away, is the 'Little guy' and the 'new guy'… The only hexes I could grab to get Cauchemar built are very far from home.
With so much of the map already claimed there isn't are very limited opportunities for someone to build new with lower than maxed out characters.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
– Cauchemar is a Greater Nightmare –
Azure_Zero
Flari-Merchant
Azure_Zero
* The Map is TOO big for the current Population, it need to be shrunk down (like the size of the test server).

Everything is too big. Every concept and every mechanical function was envisioned(originally) for a game that would have several 1000 players to start and many 1000s on waiting lists to get in. Suppose they can't be faulted for dreaming big, but yeah, it wouldn't hurt to scale things down a bit until some players sign up.

I agree, they can't be faulted for thinking big.
but if the map of now were to shrink down in size, all it'll do is cheese off the settlements at the edges that are active.
It'd require a WIPE of the game map with prizes (choices of a settlement spot, buildings, holdings and outpost etc ) based on the status of each alliance so you don't cheese them off and have them completely restart from scratch.

Now something that should be thought about, is the idea of perfect persistence for this game is suppose to have.
I don't think it'll work, as it seems we need a form of map reset under certain conditions and or based on time frames (say every 5 years).
This means when a reset happens a new group of players aiming for their own settlement comes in they have a really decent starting chance of getting and starting their own settlement.
Now if the alliances on each reset collapse into ONE settlement, it'll mean every reset has tons of opportunity for new groups, but have to get to work on getting their settlement.
Azure_Zero
NightmareSr
One huge problem to making holdings and outpost cost more when they are further away, is the 'Little guy' and the 'new guy'… The only hexes I could grab to get Cauchemar built are very far from home.
With so much of the map already claimed there isn't are very limited opportunities for someone to build new with lower than maxed out characters.

Yes that is the case, but it also causes another problem, think of the bulk resources.
Most terrain types only have 3-4 types of bulk that can be collected and we need 5 types in large amounts, this means if your in the middle of one terrain type that settlement can be royally screwed over in bulk and taxes, while those at the edges of multiple types would have a very easy time on the taxes and bulk resources.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
To be honest the issue is you need something to have an immediate impact on how many hexes are available. That's why I proposed going full on increasing the influence cost as a percentage of the base cost. With that percentage increasing with distance it will immediately see a major spike for all existing holdings. If you make it so the furthest hexes from the settlement go inactive for 7 days and then go away, land opens up. Even for holdings that are retained they would have to give up holdings elsewhere. Less holdings means less DI which means less active settlements which means less holdings. Keeping that percentage also deters future settlement collectors and makes more settlement collector holdings open for attack. This adds increased risk of counter attack to prevent takeover and forces someone to really commit instead of just taking a settlement by default since no one was aware of it until it was too late.

It would have a domino effect that would hopefully over the course of a month or two open up hexes and shutdown unused settlements once more along with making it more difficult for people who just want to keep taking them up like a stamp collection.
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
Azure_Zero
@ Paddy
I don't think this tax will work on settlement collectors, since all they need is ONE freaking holding.
If you want to knock out settlement collectors, change it so they NEED to control ALL 6 of the core 6 hexes.

If you what holdings to go pop and WITH OUT the activity tax, we just make a timer that counts how long it has been since the HOLDING's HOLDING vault was accessed (it'll be checking bulk numbers and looking for a difference in values),
if that hexes holding vault has not been accessed in over say 3 months it sets all holdings and outposts to +0/+0 and degrades them like in a capture in a feud and only tehy have a week to access the vault and crank back up the holding and outposts, if they fail to do so, the next holding that goes in that spot takes ALL the stuff that was in the holding's vaults before it.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Azure_Zero
@ Paddy
I don't think this tax will work on settlement collectors, since all they need is ONE freaking holding.
If you want to knock out settlement collectors, change it so they NEED to control ALL 6 of the core 6 hexes

What do you mean? It was my understanding that you needed more than one holding for DI purposes and to take a settlement that was empty you needed holdings around the core six? Did that change?
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