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

Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
This new tax effectively sets settlement level to the activity of a settlement, this means that if a settlement was running at level 20 and had nothing, but casual players, it would nuke the players to say low teens, and the players would Hate this and leave.

This proposed change would indeed limit settlements based on the activity level of their characters, but that doesn't necessarily mean that many (or any) existing settlements would find their settlement levels reduced. It all depends on the exact numbers. As an extreme example, if we set the Max Influence reduction to .001 per Holding per day, a settlement could have 30 holdings and only need to generate 11 influence per year to keep that running.

Admittedly, a number that low probably wouldn't have a significant impact on the overall balance, since the additional influence needed per holding would basically be .365 per year. Then again, groups considering having 30 underutilized holdings might at least think twice before increasing their influence needs by 11 per year to do so, unless holding them serves other important strategic purposes.

Our goal is to find a number low enough not to put an undue burden on more casual groups will still being noticeable for more active groups. The originally proposed reduction of .5 per day was probably too high, and very well might have pushed the more casual settlements down to something like level 14 or 16, depends a lot on what one means by casual. We still think there's a number in there somewhere that hits the right balance, or perhaps a slight tweak to the calculations/rules that does the trick, but if not, then we'll look for a different solution.

You don't need as dynamic a system and as UNFUN taxing as you think you need.
I propose something that WON'T cheese off settlement leaders and players while keeping "Bad Actors" in a weaker state.
Simple put, have all settlements have a base support of 14, each hex of there core 6 gives one support level,
Any additional hexes mean jack all.
Bad actors tend to be kicked from a settlement so they would auto drop to the support of level 8.

It would also remove the UNFUN of bulk resources.
Flari-Merchant
Well I think that we all added(back in the day) to the pressure to encourage characters to polarize to established settlements.

I also think that it has proven to be a penny wise, pound foolish angst since there are not any masses of homeless characters.

Something that again, feels like it would make sense if the world was crowded but(with the world empty) turned out to be very burdensome, bothersome and unnecessary.

Until such a time as the world does become crowded, I feel like this system will heavily contribute to the factors that slowly kill the game off.

When I played the game, I went from an important co leader of a single settlement, to sole leader of a settlement, to sole leader/player of multiple settlements… That just got too annoying to bother with.
Azure_Zero
Flari-Merchant
Well I think that we all added(back in the day) to the pressure to encourage characters to polarize to established settlements.

I also think that it has proven to be a penny wise, pound foolish angst since there are not any masses of homeless characters.

Something that again, feels like it would make sense if the world was crowded but(with the world empty) turned out to be very burdensome, bothersome and unnecessary.

Until such a time as the world does become crowded, I feel like this system will heavily contribute to the factors that slowly kill the game off.

You right, Bob is not reading or accepting the warning I gave.
and seems even to of missed some of the hints of How bad the idea is even in this thread.
My prediction will come to pass Bob, if you proceed no matter how you do the influence tax, the only way to avoid it is to drop the idea.

Cause I already know of a number of settlement leaders that are ready to leave this game over the freaking fun influence tax, and that in itself is the biggest warning about the idea.
Cause I know players don't want to doing the chores that settlement leader do and they will leave.
Flari-Merchant
Azure_Zero
You don't need as dynamic a system and as UNFUN taxing as you think you need.
I propose something that WON'T cheese off settlement leaders and players while keeping "Bad Actors" in a weaker state.
Simple put, have all settlements have a base support of 14, each hex of there core 6 gives one support level,
Any additional hexes mean jack all.
Bad actors tend to be kicked from a settlement so they would auto drop to the support of level 8.

It would also remove the UNFUN of bulk resources.

I like this elegant solution, to a situation that is just too mechanically heavy now to be justified by the current pop levels. Especially seeing as larger pop levels look like they will be real world years away in reality.
Azure_Zero
Flari-Merchant
Azure_Zero
You don't need as dynamic a system and as UNFUN taxing as you think you need.
I propose something that WON'T cheese off settlement leaders and players while keeping "Bad Actors" in a weaker state.
Simple put, have all settlements have a base support of 14, each hex of there core 6 gives one support level,
Any additional hexes mean jack all.
Bad actors tend to be kicked from a settlement so they would auto drop to the support of level 8.

It would also remove the UNFUN of bulk resources.

I like this elegant solution, to a situation that is just too mechanically heavy now to be justified by the current pop levels. Especially seeing as larger pop levels look like they will be real world years away in reality.

Glad you like it, I'll try putting up a more detailed version in another thread.
Bob
Azure_Zero
You right, Bob is not reading or accepting the warning I gave.
and seems even to of missed some of the hints of How bad the idea is even in this thread.
I'm reading all these posts carefully, and also balancing all this feedback against similar warnings I've received in the opposite direction from other players who aren't necessarily posting on the forums. Different groups face different issues at any given time, and some groups are facing problems now that other groups will face soon enough. Right now, we have some significant issues stemming from unlimited influence, and we're trying to find the most feasible solution to fix that. Maybe this is the right one, maybe it isn't. Some good points have been raised against the idea, but we still think it's worth exploring for the moment to see if we can adjust it enough to take those points into account. If it turns out we can't, we'll move on to other ideas.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Simple put, have all settlements have a base support of 14, each hex of there core 6 gives one support level,
Any additional hexes mean jack all.
Are you looking to completely replace the upkeep system with this, or just to separate out Settlement (Support) Level as its own thing determined purely by hex quantity (up to 6)?
harneloot
"similar warnings I've received in the opposite direction from other players who aren't necessarily posting on the forums"

Well, if they don't voice their opinions in the Crowdfunding Forum, then, how can we all benefit from their wisdom? Why would *players* NOT choose to post their ideas, concerns, suggestions, musings here? Its like the people who still refuse to use the official Discord server - makes no sense to me.

Meh, whatever. Wake me up when there are actually more than 35 people playing this game.
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
Azure_Zero
Sorry Bob, but I don't by it.

Many against the tax have posted so publicly and with very valid points with no counter arguments on them so far.
If they don't voice it publicly, they shouldn't count in weighing.

As Crowdforging is like voting, you don't vote (in this case in public), you can't b**** about the result.
Flari-Merchant
Bob,
Not trying to be contentious here but just trying to understand the current issue better. Even that there may be one where until now I did not think there really was one.

When you write:
"We're not so much looking to free up many hexes or settlements, or really even slow the growth of any active settlements. The goal is just to balance out the advantages and disadvantages of expanding to make it a more meaningful choice, where right now we almost entirely incentivize expansion. It does seem likely that just about any system we came up with to achieve that would result in at least some groups pulling back a little bit, but we can scale the effect to minimize that."
I get the impression that there isn't actually a problem yet. Without asking you to divulge info for "Fog of War" and security reasons, are there certain multiple groups that are having a hard time being able to lay down enough Holdings to get where they need to?

In short, can you better explain what the current significant issues of unlimited Influence are without "outing" those who have contacted you?
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post