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
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
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.