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.
|Azure_Zero 06.21.2020 15:30|
Bob, I came up with a simple way to do this with NO influence tax that can hinder expansion.
Right now your just looking at the influence, but what about the holdings?
As currently settlements can have infinite holdings, what if instead you capped the number of holdings a settlement can have?
Then that means if a settlement aims to expand, they'd need a proxy settlement to allow expansion, BUT to get the support level to have strength for taking more holdings, they'd need to spend resources increasing the proxy settlement's level.
|Azure_Zero 06.21.2020 14:20|
Bob, we have 5 settlement Leaders who have voiced their there vote publicly and ALL against the tax.
|Azure_Zero 06.21.2020 13:32|
Sorry Bob, but I don't by it.
Many against the tax have posted so publicly and with very valid points with no counter arguments on them so far.
If they don't voice it publicly, they shouldn't count in weighing.
As Crowdforging is like voting, you don't vote (in this case in public), you can't b**** about the result.
|Azure_Zero 06.21.2020 12:58|
Glad you like it, I'll try putting up a more detailed version in another thread.
|Azure_Zero 06.21.2020 11:15|
You right, Bob is not reading or accepting the warning I gave.
and seems even to of missed some of the hints of How bad the idea is even in this thread.
My prediction will come to pass Bob, if you proceed no matter how you do the influence tax, the only way to avoid it is to drop the idea.
Cause I already know of a number of settlement leaders that are ready to leave this game over the freaking fun influence tax, and that in itself is the biggest warning about the idea.
Cause I know players don't want to doing the chores that settlement leader do and they will leave.
|Azure_Zero 06.21.2020 10:52|
You don't need as dynamic a system and as UNFUN taxing as you think you need.
I propose something that WON'T cheese off settlement leaders and players while keeping "Bad Actors" in a weaker state.
Simple put, have all settlements have a base support of 14, each hex of there core 6 gives one support level,
Any additional hexes mean jack all.
Bad actors tend to be kicked from a settlement so they would auto drop to the support of level 8.
It would also remove the UNFUN of bulk resources.
|Azure_Zero 06.21.2020 07:34|
Right on the Money.
|Azure_Zero 06.21.2020 06:37|
I've done some math based on numbers and responses.
This tax gets put in, I expect somewhere between a loss of 5-15 players (directly and or indirectly with in the first few months)
and if we have say 30-40 players, that would be a player loss of between 8% to 50%.
I'd also be predicting that only these settlements would remain:
Hammerfall(likely the first on this list to fall next)
The two I figure that will be the last two standing will be Oakknoll and Carpe.
Now on to WHY there will be this player loss
This new tax effectively sets settlement level to the activity of a settlement, this means that if a settlement was running at level 20 and had nothing, but casual players, it would nuke the players to say low teens, and the players would Hate this and leave.
Here is a chain of events
Influence/activity tax put in,
Settlements start losing stuff and support for levels they have
Players Leave since they are no longer support at levels they want but can't give more time to raise it
This leads to points; A, B, and C
settlement leaders leave
a players take leader role
new leader find out how UNFUN it is to run a settlement
New leader leaves
Leads to point C
Settlements empty and become claimable
New players see the number of empty settlements and ask some question
sees the work needed for settlement and how UNFUN it is
new players leave
re-enforcing the 0 new player retention.
Players leave, less Money
Less Money, less income for Goblinworks
and since GW has some fixed expenses you can start seeing where something will need to give.
|Azure_Zero 06.20.2020 10:04|
I get that you could make a new company as a work around, but even a new company adds work.
If a settlement has only one company with holdings and that company is full of casual (or in the military) players, it'll be a problem as they'll be losing their stuff when they all take a break for a bit due to RL, then you'll permanently lose them as paying players as when they get back the system will have nuked their stuff they worked hard at and then lost.
I will say a more realistic influence cap would be around 10,000 as that'll be enough for single company settlement to attempt running at about level 19 with nothing but +4 and +5 buildings pending on how they setup the holdings.
Right now the game CAN NOT afford to lose any paying casual players from forcing a chores on players.
Instead we should be looking at removing chores from the game to make it more fun.
|Azure_Zero 06.20.2020 06:22|
Bob there is an even easier and better answer to your perceived problem then putting in that freaking activity Tax
Just change the Influence Max from 1,000,000 to say 20,0000. Done.
Don't put in code people hate to fix a problem, and create a new problem in the process, put in a answer that works.