Fun With Content

Azure_Zero 07.06.2020 09:46
	Edam Bob I don't think that's a compelling enough benefit to justify taking away territory involuntarily, but I could imagine offering incentives (or even just opportunities) to consolidate settlements or move them closer in, then closing off the territory left behind. I am not seeing how this could work. Lets take Fort Ouroboros in the SW and Keepers Pass in the SE for example. Keepers is fully +5 buildings. Fort Ouroboros is mainly +4 buildings with a few +3 (and a +2 AH because we are considering knocking it down and putting up a large alchemist) They are complimentary settlements with a lot of different buildings and both need a lot of hexes to supply DI and bulk. Both have almost all there hexes relatively close by. How could we possibly move one of those settlements without losing hexes and hence buildings or ending up with holdings to support on the other side of the map. Or are you talking about making a deal on a new combined settlement where it gets more than the normal number of allowed buildings and gets given hexes that generate twice the normal amount of bulk ? I simply am not seeing how two high level settlements can be "consolidated" or even moved closer together without a substantial loss or some very fancy dev tricks that will be labelled by the normal denzen/trolls on the forum here as some sort of dev special favor. If you can't see it then you must be blind. Since I run two settlements myself, I can say there is a LOT of common buildings and crafting options in both so you don't need to double the amount of buildings, in fact only Two things need to be done; One; the third large pad in the settlement needs to be opened for use Two; All holdings need to be tweaked some to allow for higher training and worth. Now the first point is obvious, if Aragon pre-Combat Alchemist release had everything BUT the cleric class training, it means the third pad would make sure you could have it all But with those that want an AH and or what everything trainable in there settlement, then the holdings will need some tweaking in it's training levels, and if I am correct the holdings training levels are controlled by a spreadsheet. If the following table is followed it should work out right and reward those that put in the effort for +4 and really reward +5 holdings. This does mean some training and or refining will need to be done outside of the settlement. Proposed Holding Training/Crafting Levels +0 -> Level 10 training +1 -> Level 11 training and or +0 settlement crafting building +2 -> Level 12 training and or +1 settlement crafting building +3 -> Level 13 training and or +2 settlement crafting building +4 -> Level 15 training and or +4 settlement crafting building +5 -> Level 18 training and or +5 settlement crafting building Quote

Azure_Zero 07.06.2020 09:46

Edam
Bob
I don't think that's a compelling enough benefit to justify taking away territory involuntarily, but I could imagine offering incentives (or even just opportunities) to consolidate settlements or move them closer in, then closing off the territory left behind.

I am not seeing how this could work.

Lets take Fort Ouroboros in the SW and Keepers Pass in the SE for example. Keepers is fully +5 buildings. Fort Ouroboros is mainly +4 buildings with a few +3 (and a +2 AH because we are considering knocking it down and putting up a large alchemist) They are complimentary settlements with a lot of different buildings and both need a lot of hexes to supply DI and bulk. Both have almost all there hexes relatively close by.

How could we possibly move one of those settlements without losing hexes and hence buildings or ending up with holdings to support on the other side of the map.

Or are you talking about making a deal on a new combined settlement where it gets more than the normal number of allowed buildings and gets given hexes that generate twice the normal amount of bulk ?

I simply am not seeing how two high level settlements can be "consolidated" or even moved closer together without a substantial loss or some very fancy dev tricks that will be labelled by the normal denzen/trolls on the forum here as some sort of dev special favor.

If you can't see it then you must be blind.

Since I run two settlements myself, I can say there is a LOT of common buildings and crafting options in both so you don't need to double the amount of buildings, in fact only Two things need to be done;
One; the third large pad in the settlement needs to be opened for use
Two; All holdings need to be tweaked some to allow for higher training and worth.

Now the first point is obvious, if Aragon pre-Combat Alchemist release had everything BUT the cleric class training, it means the third pad would make sure you could have it all
But with those that want an AH and or what everything trainable in there settlement, then the holdings will need some tweaking in it's training levels, and if I am correct the holdings training levels are controlled by a spreadsheet.
If the following table is followed it should work out right and reward those that put in the effort for +4 and really reward +5 holdings.
This does mean some training and or refining will need to be done outside of the settlement.

Proposed Holding Training/Crafting Levels
+0 -> Level 10 training
+1 -> Level 11 training and or +0 settlement crafting building
+2 -> Level 12 training and or +1 settlement crafting building
+3 -> Level 13 training and or +2 settlement crafting building
+4 -> Level 15 training and or +4 settlement crafting building
+5 -> Level 18 training and or +5 settlement crafting building

Quote

NightmareSr 07.06.2020 10:31
	The main issue driving a desire for a smaller map seems to be that the low population is wide spread, so the issue is really the population density. If we change to smaller map and lose players we will be in the exact same state we are now. For example if we have 50 active actual players and 800 hexes, then we shrink the map to half the size but we lose half the players the density would be the same at 25 players in 400 hexes. I really think the focus needs to be on ideas that will help retain players and make the game more enjoyable to play than just resize due to not enough players. - Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord) – Cauchemar is a Greater Nightmare – cauchemar.pfo@gmail.com Quote

NightmareSr 07.06.2020 10:31

The main issue driving a desire for a smaller map seems to be that the low population is wide spread, so the issue is really the population density.
If we change to smaller map and lose players we will be in the exact same state we are now. For example if we have 50 active actual players and 800 hexes, then we shrink the map to half the size but we lose half the players the density would be the same at 25 players in 400 hexes.
I really think the focus needs to be on ideas that will help retain players and make the game more enjoyable to play than just resize due to not enough players.

- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
– Cauchemar is a Greater Nightmare – cauchemar.pfo@gmail.com

Quote

Azure_Zero 07.06.2020 10:38
	NightmareSr The main issue driving a desire for a smaller map seems to be that the low population is wide spread, so the issue is really the population density. If we change to smaller map and lose players we will be in the exact same state we are now. For example if we have 50 active actual players and 800 hexes, then we shrink the map to half the size but we lose half the players the density would be the same at 25 players in 400 hexes. I really think the focus needs to be on ideas that will help retain players and make the game more enjoyable to play than just resize due to not enough players. Given the Pop density, I'd be cutting the map down to about 1/4th to 1/7th it's current size. But your right in that we need to focus on making the game more playable, but we also need to make the game more lively and active so a new player doesn't see a dead or dying game. Quote

Azure_Zero 07.06.2020 10:38

NightmareSr
The main issue driving a desire for a smaller map seems to be that the low population is wide spread, so the issue is really the population density.
If we change to smaller map and lose players we will be in the exact same state we are now. For example if we have 50 active actual players and 800 hexes, then we shrink the map to half the size but we lose half the players the density would be the same at 25 players in 400 hexes.
I really think the focus needs to be on ideas that will help retain players and make the game more enjoyable to play than just resize due to not enough players.

Given the Pop density, I'd be cutting the map down to about 1/4th to 1/7th it's current size.
But your right in that we need to focus on making the game more playable, but we also need to make the game more lively and active so a new player doesn't see a dead or dying game.

Quote

Flari-Merchant 07.06.2020 10:40
	We'll have to see if Bob decides to float some ideas that would make it completely painless for everyone if the map were "shrunked". That might be interesting to read. For the most part though, I am really agreeing with those that see it as an exercise in futility. Even if I was behind some form of it before. One thing is certain. The focus of this game is to be very "niche" but it is a little too "niche" in this current incarnation to succeed at all. Quote

Flari-Merchant 07.06.2020 10:40

We'll have to see if Bob decides to float some ideas that would make it completely painless for everyone if the map were "shrunked". That might be interesting to read. smile

For the most part though, I am really agreeing with those that see it as an exercise in futility. Even if I was behind some form of it before.

One thing is certain. The focus of this game is to be very "niche" but it is a little too "niche" in this current incarnation to succeed at all.

Quote

Bob 07.06.2020 11:24
	Edam I simply am not seeing how two high level settlements can be "consolidated" or even moved closer together without a substantial loss or some very fancy dev tricks that will be labelled by the normal denzen/trolls on the forum here as some sort of dev special favor. Any set of opportunities/incentives for leaving/moving/consolidating would have to be offered equally to all territory holders, but different groups would find different options better or worse. Yes, not all settlements would find merging desirable, but for them moving might be an interesting option. I think I could even activate some of the unclaimable player settlements to provide more moving options. Some might even be interested in simply closing up shop if the right rewards were offered to recognize all their past efforts. Anyone who chose not to take advantage of the opportunities could just keep their settlements and territory. The one aspect of any such plan that couldn't really be made completely fair would be that those settlements already closer in would have less opportunities to move, if any. Only moving inward, or being part of a larger move that's moving inward overall, would be allowed. That does make any thoughts along these lines tricky to balance. Quote

Bob 07.06.2020 11:24

Edam
I simply am not seeing how two high level settlements can be "consolidated" or even moved closer together without a substantial loss or some very fancy dev tricks that will be labelled by the normal denzen/trolls on the forum here as some sort of dev special favor.

Any set of opportunities/incentives for leaving/moving/consolidating would have to be offered equally to all territory holders, but different groups would find different options better or worse. Yes, not all settlements would find merging desirable, but for them moving might be an interesting option. I think I could even activate some of the unclaimable player settlements to provide more moving options. Some might even be interested in simply closing up shop if the right rewards were offered to recognize all their past efforts. Anyone who chose not to take advantage of the opportunities could just keep their settlements and territory.

The one aspect of any such plan that couldn't really be made completely fair would be that those settlements already closer in would have less opportunities to move, if any. Only moving inward, or being part of a larger move that's moving inward overall, would be allowed. That does make any thoughts along these lines tricky to balance.

Quote

Bob 07.06.2020 11:31
	Demiurge How do AH fees work for things selling for 1 copper ? Fees are applied to each transaction total, and are rounded down. So if you just sell 1 item for 1 copper in a single transaction, you'll pay no fees. If you sell 100 items for 1 copper each in a single transaction, you'll pay the same fees you would have for selling a single item for 100 copper. In theory, you can game the system by listing each item separately, but the fees are generally low enough that it's not remotely worth the hassle. Quote

Bob 07.06.2020 11:31

Demiurge
How do AH fees work for things selling for 1 copper ?

Fees are applied to each transaction total, and are rounded down. So if you just sell 1 item for 1 copper in a single transaction, you'll pay no fees. If you sell 100 items for 1 copper each in a single transaction, you'll pay the same fees you would have for selling a single item for 100 copper.

In theory, you can game the system by listing each item separately, but the fees are generally low enough that it's not remotely worth the hassle.

Quote

Bob 07.06.2020 11:41
	NightmareSr What about player sponsored quests or events? How about more limited time events, like variations on the Home sweet Home event or holiday events? How about seasonal events? Would anyone be interested in a standing party up time to do PVE or gathering activities, or even some PvP contests? We're hoping to run more events like the current one, though ideally ones that require a bit less time to set up and run. Player sponsored/organized ideas are interesting, and I'm willing to offer some support where I can to help set them up, but the closest we've really got to in-game support for that kind of thing is the ability to place bids. We hadn't really contemplated players running events, so much as player groups having needs and offering rewards to other players for meeting those needs (like eventually offering bounties for help clearing out a pesky escalation). Quote

Bob 07.06.2020 11:41

NightmareSr
What about player sponsored quests or events? How about more limited time events, like variations on the Home sweet Home event or holiday events? How about seasonal events?
Would anyone be interested in a standing party up time to do PVE or gathering activities, or even some PvP contests?

We're hoping to run more events like the current one, though ideally ones that require a bit less time to set up and run.

Player sponsored/organized ideas are interesting, and I'm willing to offer some support where I can to help set them up, but the closest we've really got to in-game support for that kind of thing is the ability to place bids. We hadn't really contemplated players running events, so much as player groups having needs and offering rewards to other players for meeting those needs (like eventually offering bounties for help clearing out a pesky escalation).

Quote

Edam 07.06.2020 22:58
	NightmareSr The main issue driving a desire for a smaller map seems to be that the low population is wide spread, so the issue is really the population density. I see it more as driven by laziness pure and simple. A smaller map would suck and take away one of the few things this game has that is a bit different from your generic fantasy MMO clones - a sense of scale. If we were to change the map at all I would suggest this: Expand the map on the corners in the SE SW NE and NW . Shrink the map somewhat in the middle of the current top bottom and sides. Put all the best stuff in low security hexes at the end of the arms. That way we get a cross shaped map where anyone travelling needs to pass through the middle giving an obvious place for trade to take place (and for PvPers to hang around and be annoying). Quote

Edam 07.06.2020 22:58

NightmareSr
The main issue driving a desire for a smaller map seems to be that the low population is wide spread, so the issue is really the population density.

I see it more as driven by laziness pure and simple.

A smaller map would suck and take away one of the few things this game has that is a bit different from your generic fantasy MMO clones - a sense of scale.

If we were to change the map at all I would suggest this:

Expand the map on the corners in the SE SW NE and NW .

Shrink the map somewhat in the middle of the current top bottom and sides.

Put all the best stuff in low security hexes at the end of the arms.

That way we get a cross shaped map where anyone travelling needs to pass through the middle giving an obvious place for trade to take place (and for PvPers to hang around and be annoying).

Quote

Tuoweit 07.07.2020 08:32
	It seems to me that if players really wanted to encounter each other more often, they'd already be doing that. They'd have found a way. Which leads to the conclusion that the current player base, by and large, is already encountering each other roughly about as much as they want to, and shrinking the map won't increase their collective fun. Quote

Flari-Merchant 07.07.2020 09:18
	Tuoweit It seems to me that if players really wanted to encounter each other more often, they'd already be doing that. They'd have found a way. Which leads to the conclusion that the current player base, by and large, is already encountering each other roughly about as much as they want to, and shrinking the map won't increase their collective fun. I have the impression that it is more a matter of new "try it out" players commenting in game that the world seems and feels empty. That being assumed as a "negative" feeling and harming new player retention in many(not all) cases. Not so much about how the few or a dozen or twenty(whatever it is) feel about player density. Many still here seem to enjoy mostly doing their own thing and grouping up once in a while with others still hanging in there. Quote

Flari-Merchant 07.07.2020 09:18

Tuoweit
It seems to me that if players really wanted to encounter each other more often, they'd already be doing that. They'd have found a way. Which leads to the conclusion that the current player base, by and large, is already encountering each other roughly about as much as they want to, and shrinking the map won't increase their collective fun.

I have the impression that it is more a matter of new "try it out" players commenting in game that the world seems and feels empty. That being assumed as a "negative" feeling and harming new player retention in many(not all) cases.

Not so much about how the few or a dozen or twenty(whatever it is) feel about player density. Many still here seem to enjoy mostly doing their own thing and grouping up once in a while with others still hanging in there. smile

Quote

Cookies Disclaimer