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
Those two settlements are surrounded by 2 or more different groups, so they are deadlocked an likely not going under ownership of anyone any time soon.

Again, given this game's population, all abandoned settlements should change to NPC shield hexes and be unclaimable until the game's population gets much bigger then what it is, or it's just giving opportunities to settlement collectors.

Right now the way active settlement is defined is too cheap for a settlement collector, if you do what I propose as above
(post #5) it'll make it harder for settlement collectors (one way or another) and not punish those truly trying to build up and run their settlement in proper play.
As a settlement is suppose to require a lot of players to get and keep running, but can lose some players as it's built up.

Now I do run Two settlements, and I work my butt off to make sure they are running as good as they can and I'm also still slowly building them up with better buildings and upgrading holdings where I can.

Settlement collectors run their settlements cheap and with little effort, I'd like to see them need to make a choice; pay more cash (thus helping fund game development) or put in more time, effort, and work in game to keep their settlements.
While NOT punishing TRUELY ACTIVE settlements with higher costs (especially those that have stuck it out since the old days of EE 4.0 or earlier).
Azure_Zero
Edam
I 100% agree with Azure on this one.

We have more than enough barely functional half built settlements around as it is. Presumably they are mainly being put on hold, either someone who is rarely playing and hoping to keep it ticking over until they decide to come back full time, or more likely are part of a "collection" being hoarded by one of the larger groups to hand out to new players/guilds if the game takes off.

Either way it makes more sense to turn them into temporary NPC settlements and open them up to conquest with potential PvP once the game population hits a more viable size.

Yeah, there are a number of dead settlements, and some are still dead but back into active state by tossing some coin into the settlement vault.
There are many half made settlements on the map, some from folks who got a settlement, worked on it some, found it unfun, and then left.
Some settlements died when the group behind them left, i.e. the AL, EoX.

Heck there are a very few settlements being run by players who were in and active from the launch of EE 1.0 and still running their settlement.

Lets make every abandoned settlement from this point on a NPC shield hex, until the game's active player population picks up to a point where new settlements are needed, and not before then so settlement collectors can't get them and they are reserved for when a new group does show up with interest. It would require the newcomers to either conquer the core 6, or make a deal with the group(s) that control the core 6 of their desired settlement's location.
Azure_Zero
Edam
….

more likely are part of a "collection" being hoarded by one of the larger groups to hand out to new players/guilds if the game takes off.


Yeah and that hand off likely comes with strings attached, or perceived strings attached by other groups.

as this is another reason to set them as NPC settlements until the game takes off and HAS a population that needs new settlements.

I myself would like the see a new standard for being able to hold a settlement, like;
Settlements at Level 10 and lower require 6 active characters, settlements with a minimum of one active character must have the settlement operating at minimum support level of 14, with a +2 Keep, and the sum the other building +X total sans infrastructure be +15 (i.e 13 (+1), 1 (+2), 4 (+0) = +15), Settlements in the support range of 11-13 require 4 active characters, a +1 Keep, and total building +X totals (sans infrastructure) being +9
This forces a settlement collector a choice of either paying extra cash to keep the settlements with cheap support or the need for more holdings and and bulk resources to keep one active character.

A settlement is suppose to be a team effort, so this extra character cost for a low support settlement is for the independent groups that may pop in the game in the future.
Now the higher level cost for solo active run settlements makes it so a settlement collector has more work to keep their settlements in their collection, thus freeing some up for new groups if they come in.

Now if your wondering why the setup I gave above makes the middle ground more costly, it's to nudge a settlement collector to an extreme for their settlements in their collection.
Azure_Zero
Any chance the Light and Cloth armour prof requirements can be updated to include the new Alchemist armours?
Azure_Zero
Given this game's population…….
It's just better to just make them NPC shield hexes to stop any settlement collectors out there.

And most of us know of who one of the Settlement Collectors is/are, with what 4-5 settlements and a number of them with only a single company with a single character (likely a free trial mode character as well), and running the settlement as cheaply as possible without it being inactive.
Azure_Zero
Apyx
Should I be able to hit Combat Alchemist 20 by only purchasing the Implement Proficiency? It really doesn't feel right to just buy the Proficiency and get the Level without ever making (or buying) a single Alchemist attack.

Yeah, your Right it does seem two easy.
Maybe make the Level 1 and 9 levels require both the Weapon and Feature Profs as requirements instead of just the Feature Prof, as this is true for cleric, though Wizard does the so in a similar way in that the arcane attack bonus which is unique to that class so far limits super rapid progression in the class.
Azure_Zero
Bob
….

In part, I'm thinking of Combat Alchemist as a slightly more advanced role, so I was more inclined to look for an argument to make the recipes uncommon than to make them common. Perhaps that was a little unfair to the role. If so, at least there's an easy fix.

I agree this does seem like an advance role and maybe should have more uncommon recipes, but every combat class at least gives the basics recipes so even a new player can make the things they need for their combat alchemist to do something without needing to hunt for recipes for even the basics.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
I think the basic introductory recipes of the Combat Alchemist should of been Common, and not Uncommon.
I didn't see a clear pattern of doing that with other roles, though it's possible I just wasn't looking at the most appropriate examples. At this point, it would probably be better to add in some common recipes than to switch any of the existing ones to common, assuming it's still worth doing so after a fair number of those recipes drop in the near future.

I believe Cleric (Icono) and Wizard(Arti) have level 0 recipes for Charges(Ammo) and a Charge Gem (Container)
Even archers had Level 0 Bowyer recipes for making Arrows and a woven Quiver, with the first Bows being a Level 1 common recipe.
Every Class (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) had a Introductory Impliment and weapon at a crafting facility at available at level 1 as a Common recipe.

So every class and weapon before combat alchemist had it basics covered with common recipes at levels 0 and 1 at various facilities and that is a clear pattern that matched up with every weapon and class before combat alchemist.
Azure_Zero
I think the basic introductory recipes of the Combat Alchemist should of been Common, and not Uncommon.
Azure_Zero
Talonguard AH please and thank you