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.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

Blessed Territory

malmuerta
AN,
The Bandit Alliance has contracted out in the past to assist settlements in territory takeovers. Let them spend the Blessings on the hexes and then contract us. You can wait out the grace period and then with our help capture the one(s) you want.
Talk to Kenton Stone for our contract rates.
-Mooch

Or, use this post as a threat, bid on the hexes you want, post your claim, and then dare anyone to cross you.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Bob,
we have a Freaking Ton of coin that needs to be removed, I think bidding with coin should be offered, in place of those blessings.

True, it would be nice to burn through some coin with this. I did include it as a backup bid, but there'd be a good chance all the hexes would wind up selling for at least 1 Blessing. My main concern with was that, with so much coin floating around and primarily held by the largest groups, it would increase the likelihood that all the hexes would wind up in the hands of just a few already powerful groups. Yes, those same groups probably have the largest number of Blessings, but they probably don't overwhelm everyone on Blessings as much as they do on coin or other items that have been around for a long time. That makes splitting your bids on Blessings much more risky, giving smaller groups a better chance to get at least 1 hex if they have at least 1 Blessing to bid.
Bob
Azure_Zero
And I believe Hexes A,B, and C should not be auctioned, as they are next to Cauchemar's Core 6, and Nightmare wanted to claimed for the settlement, but could not due to a Bug in those hexes.

This is an interesting point, and a similar argument could be made for G (Greystone Keep) and J (Fort Ouroboros). On the other hand, if not for this bug who knows if someone else would have claimed those hexes first, seeing how all the available hexes have been locked up for quite some time. I can't guarantee that those settlements would have owned those hexes, in addition to whatever other hexes they claimed instead, so it doesn't seem fair for me to just hand them out. However, I do admit that those settlements had less nearby options available to them because of the bug, and it does seem fair to balance that out somehow.

Maybe we could run a separate hex trade before any auction, where companies could offer to trade a hex they currently own for one of the A-J hexes. I could theoretically take some kind of settlement proximity into account if two companies requested to trade for the same hex, but I suspect the only ones really interested in making a trade would be those close to them, whereas the auction is about claiming additional territory and might interest anyone. I could even run a series of such trades until nobody else was interested, then auction off whatever ten hexes were traded away. I suspect some later trades might be in more contested areas though, raising the likelihood of needing a tiebreaker mechanism.

If we did offer such trades, without some kind of mitigation the natural cost of a trade would be the lost kits and influence when tearing down the original buildings. I'm open to replacing some or all of those losses, though it does make sense to me for there to be some kind of cost. Perhaps I could replace the kits in full and 90% of the lost influence? Or replace all of those and take a little coin for the trade? Or maybe that's just the cost of switching hexes or just switching holding types, which everyone else has to incur when they do the same.

Edam
The fact you have to demolish or capture a hex to transfer it between two companies you basically own has always seemed a bit stupid and annoying smile Fair enough if you are being feuded but otherwise you should be able to just transfer it or trade it.

A question.

With bidding for a hex, it is limited to settlement owners who can only win one hex - so effectively one per settlement. Though there are people in game who own multiple settlements so they could work around that. The system definitely favors groups or individuals with multiple settlements.

In terms of the proposed trading:
  • can a settlement trade for more than one hex or is there a limit of one per settlement
  • if you trade for a hex/hexes can you also then bid for another one
Bob
You are a Troll
There had to be a better way of making them available to players/settlements that actually need them rather than this.

Deciding which companies or settlements have the greatest need is tricky when we let characters switch companies/settlements any time and even allow companies to switch between settlements. I suppose I could do something like let every settlement send in a prioritized list of hexes they'd like, along with the name of a banner company that has enough influence to claim 1 hex, and then give first choice to the settlement with the least holdings that day, second to the second-least holdings, and so forth. It would be a little gameable in that some powerful alliances may have some secondary settlements that operate with very few holdings, and alliances aren't really official enough in the game to enforce in any way, but at least they couldn't get territory for all their settlements. Some settlements might even move companies around temporarily to lower their numbers, while settlements that use their founding companies for holdings wouldn't be able to do that. I could maybe use DI instead, since that drops off more slowly, or it's possible there are some logs which we could use for historical data instead.

Something like that could feel more equitable, though perhaps not to larger groups that have been brushing up against the limits of available territory who could feel unfairly left out. It also might work better after a round of hex trades, since those are better for dealing with the idea that some settlements might just want a particular hex more than others do, but aren't in a position to bid higher for them, while those who can bid highly may just want more territory period.
Bob
Edam
With bidding for a hex, it is limited to settlement owners who can only win one hex - so effectively one per settlement. Though there are people in game who own multiple settlements so they could work around that. The system definitely favors groups or individuals with multiple settlements.

I thought about restricting bids to one per settlement, but decided instead to just incentivize alliances to bundle all their bids into one large bid. If they send in a second bid through another company/settlement, they have to bank the Blessings for that bid in a separate vault, making them unavailable for the larger bid, which in turn could prevent them from getting their top choice. And if they break their bids up enough, they might not win anything.

All that said, yes, any auction system would favor the most powerful groups for getting their top choice. Since that's inevitable in an auction (at least without bonuses for less powerful bidders, which are hard to set fairly), I just tried to moderate it enough to prevent a small number of groups from winning multiple auctions each.
Bob
Edam
In terms of the proposed trading:
  • can a settlement trade for more than one hex or is there a limit of one per settlement
  • if you trade for a hex/hexes can you also then bid for another one

I think it would be fine for a single settlement to trade for multiple hexes, assuming they have enough hexes to trade away.

Likewise, bidding after trading seems fine. I'd prefer not to lock someone out of increasing their total territory just because they chose to lock in a particular location. However, it does feel a bit like double-dipping, which is part of why I like the idea of at least some small cost for trading.
Bob
Edam
The fact you have to demolish or capture a hex to transfer it between two companies you basically own has always seemed a bit stupid and annoying smile Fair enough if you are being feuded but otherwise you should be able to just transfer it or trade it.

Definitely high on the list of features we'd like to add.
Bob
malmuerta
AN,
The Bandit Alliance has contracted out in the past to assist settlements in territory takeovers. Let them spend the Blessings on the hexes and then contract us. You can wait out the grace period and then with our help capture the one(s) you want.
Talk to Kenton Stone for our contract rates.
-Mooch

Or, use this post as a threat, bid on the hexes you want, post your claim, and then dare anyone to cross you.

Absolutely, we're not planning on enforcing anything about this auction beyond the basic rules and the 1-week building rights. We wouldn't post anything about individual bids, but there's nothing stopping anyone from posting theirs if they wish. And once the holdings are built in those hexes, we won't protect those holdings any more than any other holdings. That's part of why we weren't too concerned about larger groups having advantages in the bidding. After all, those same groups have advantages for taking and holding territory, and it's helpful for the initial distribution to recognize that.
Edam
One more question:

If someone trades in a hex for one of the new ones - is the hex they traded now available for someone else to trade for? or just bid for ? or does it become vacant?
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post