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.

All posts created by Azure_Zero

Azure_Zero
Talonguard AH please and thank you
Azure_Zero
Shame we don't have the Combat Alchemist trainers in TK.
Azure_Zero
Not seeing those new features when using the Atlas…
Azure_Zero
Seems the Bulk resource function of the atlas doesn't work 100% anymore, the bulk game page is blank.
Azure_Zero
Welcome back, Paddy.
We need some chaos in this game.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
Bob their is a BIG benefit that does happen near immediately and is short enough to be super effective and that is Hex protection (within 24 hours of change) like with feuds for raids.
This sudden switch could be used to stop a raid or attack on a target holding deep within a territory, hence the reason I said the switch should ONLY be put in effect at Settlement Upkeep for the week.
Ah, yes, that does kick in very quickly right now. We could probably do something similar to what we did with DI, like say that companies don't get to participate in protection within their settlement until they've been members for at least 2-3 days. We'd probably also want to say that settlements can't protect each other until they've been allies for at least 2-3 days as well. I'll add a feature request to think about that.

If you do the counter in Days I think the value should be like 7 days a full week, as Capture requires a min of 4 days at the fastest and can span to a 5th day if they could only capture one outpost the first night, adding a extra day or two just to make sure that the switch takes longer then any attempt at capture so the switch does not interupt a capture attempt during the 3 PVP days.
Azure_Zero
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.

Bob their is a BIG benefit that does happen near immediately and is short enough to be super effective and that is Hex protection (within 24 hours of change) like with feuds for raids.
This sudden switch could be used to stop a raid or attack on a target holding deep within a territory, hence the reason I said the switch should ONLY be put in effect at Settlement Upkeep for the week.
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.
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.
Azure_Zero
Garric Orcsbane
Since the best Alchemists are bartenders the trainer should be in the Tavern.

Didn't see Breaking Bad, I could easily see them working for the guild.