Posts from Azure_Zero | Pathfinder Online

Page 16 of 84
←
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
→

Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 12:15
	Bob The question of whether or not to add another bulk resources sink is basically whether or not we want there to be a tradeoff between whatever the sink is paying for (in this case hex security) and overall settlement levels. There's a strict limit to how much bulk can be produced each day. Holding upkeep is sort of a bulk resource sink, but it's mostly a cost of production, limiting the total amount of bulk resources that can be produced. Companies can choose to have less optimal bulk resource production for a variety of reasons (e.g. preferring an inn for power refills, preferring a watchtower for better defenses, preferring particular holdings for DI reasons), and those choices lower the overall ability of those companies, and the server as a whole, to pay for structure upkeep and settlement levels. We could certainly add hex security as another sink feeding into those tradeoffs, but we'd want to be careful about how everything balances out. Coin doesn't have nearly as strict a production limit, since generally speaking there's no limit to how many mobs can be killed each day. As a result, coin sinks do result in trade offs for groups/individuals choosing to spend their coin on one thing instead of another, but they also lower the money supply and thus lower prices, so there's less of a system-wide trade off involved. Sorry Brings, but from what I see, Bulk resources are still on the table for Payment of that High Security certain groups want with no real cost or payment to be made, It might not be the same percentage as I posted, for All we know it could be end up being 10%, not 30%. Bulk resource cost as payment is a meaningful choice even if it is a little extra for that added security. As Bob stated; coin can be very plentiful, but the Bulk is not so, which makes it in part or all for the payment of added security, fair game. Quote

Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 12:15

Bob
The question of whether or not to add another bulk resources sink is basically whether or not we want there to be a tradeoff between whatever the sink is paying for (in this case hex security) and overall settlement levels. There's a strict limit to how much bulk can be produced each day. Holding upkeep is sort of a bulk resource sink, but it's mostly a cost of production, limiting the total amount of bulk resources that can be produced. Companies can choose to have less optimal bulk resource production for a variety of reasons (e.g. preferring an inn for power refills, preferring a watchtower for better defenses, preferring particular holdings for DI reasons), and those choices lower the overall ability of those companies, and the server as a whole, to pay for structure upkeep and settlement levels. We could certainly add hex security as another sink feeding into those tradeoffs, but we'd want to be careful about how everything balances out.

Coin doesn't have nearly as strict a production limit, since generally speaking there's no limit to how many mobs can be killed each day. As a result, coin sinks do result in trade offs for groups/individuals choosing to spend their coin on one thing instead of another, but they also lower the money supply and thus lower prices, so there's less of a system-wide trade off involved.

Sorry Brings,
but from what I see, Bulk resources are still on the table for Payment of that High Security certain groups want with no real cost or payment to be made,
It might not be the same percentage as I posted, for All we know it could be end up being 10%, not 30%.

Bulk resource cost as payment is a meaningful choice even if it is a little extra for that added security.
As Bob stated; coin can be very plentiful, but the Bulk is not so, which makes it in part or all for the payment of added security, fair game.

Quote

Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 11:55
	Thanks for looking at this Bob, it is good to know that Goblinworks is looking at balancing hex security and what each level of security should cost. The way I set it up the numbers was so that smaller settlement(s) with a small number of holdings could use High sec to protect themselves as they grow and when they got big enough and have enough players they could lower the security some and get more resources they need. While also making it a REAL Pain for any High End Settlements to go with a High Sec blanket for all their territory and force them into making some hard choices, Like; Needing more holdings with a lot more muling required, or lowering the security in various areas of their territory to the point where they don't need to increase the hexes they have and or the need to mule stuff around as much. I also hope my idea of a Holding Security effecting Monster/Home hexes is one that Goblinworks would look at. Quote

Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 11:55

Thanks for looking at this Bob, it is good to know that Goblinworks is looking at balancing hex security and what each level of security should cost.

The way I set it up the numbers was so that smaller settlement(s) with a small number of holdings could use High sec to protect themselves as they grow and when they got big enough and have enough players they could lower the security some and get more resources they need. While also making it a REAL Pain for any High End Settlements to go with a High Sec blanket for all their territory and force them into making some hard choices, Like; Needing more holdings with a lot more muling required, or lowering the security in various areas of their territory to the point where they don't need to increase the hexes they have and or the need to mule stuff around as much.

I also hope my idea of a Holding Security effecting Monster/Home hexes is one that Goblinworks would look at.

Quote

Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 09:27
	Everything has a cash value, so paying in bulk is still valid and more meaningful then straight coin. Quote

Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 08:59
	"You are a Troll" and a few others mentioned things about Hex security within this past week so I think it is time to really discuss the Pro and Cons of each player available security settings and WHAT the costs and consequences should be for each setting, I also should note that all hexes should have their security set by the week like with the rest of the settlement's security and PVP settings to avoid being abused especially by the Monster and Holding Sec relationship system mentioned below in Consequences. Now Looking First at the Pros and Cons of each security setting High Sec: Pro: No PVP outside of Fueds, No work needed for Player protection or watching for attacks. Can Ring Monster hexes for Protected transport out of hex. Cons: Can't stop a spy in your high sec turf. Med Sec: Pro: Can kill enemy spies, Rep Hits for non-fued PVP for PVP targets. Con: Need to be watchful for hostile players, gatherers could need player protection. Rep Hits for non-fued PVP for PVP Attackers. Low Sec: Pro: Can kill enemy spies, No Rep Hits for non-fued PVP attackers. Con: Need to be extra watchful for hostile players, gatherers would more likely need player protection. No Rep Hits for non-fued PVP for PVP targets. If we look at it from a protection scale of 0 (no protect) to 1(no worries level of protection) Low sec is 0.25f, Med is 0.5f and High is straight up 1.0f In terms of work needed to protect your stuff using a scale of again 0(No work) to 1(You need to be active) Low Sec is about 0.7f, Med Sec is 0.45f, High sec is 0.0f Conclusion: So from the Look of it High Sec is for players who Don't need to do ANY work to defend their Stuff and have everything easy. While Low sec hexes see No benefit for being more PVP open and require more work in keeping it secure. – So Now let's get down to Costs and Consequences to balance them A High Sec hex should require that the payment of the Holding be an extra 30% of the required bulk cost of the holding since there is No work needed in protecting players in the hex from the hex's owner. But this extra cost comes with a perk, a few(2-3) small or medium guard camps (same rating as holding) in the hex to weaken the monsters in the hex itself for the gatherers and won't do anything for a fued. A Low Sec hex requires a bit more work and a more watchful player in protecting that group's players in that hex, so they should have a bulk cost reduction of 20% for the holding. This would make even the worst hexes somewhat better for getting resources when all the good hexes are gone, but have the increased risk of PVP for that hexes gathering resources for the area. Now moving on the possible consequences for ringing a monster (and home) hexes with player holdings of the same or nearly the same security setting as Hinted near the top. Note This system does a good job of balancing risk and reward for a very good reasonable part, and should use a value of metric of 0 to 1 or -1.0f to +1.0f for decision on what spawns in the hex. If a monster or home hex is surrounded by Low Sec holdings chance of Teir 1 and lower escalations decrease by 25% with Higher T2 and higher escalations increasing by 25%. While if a monster or home hex is surrounded by High Sec holdings chance of Teir 1 or lower escalations increase by 25% with Higher T2 and higher escalations decreasing by 25%. Surrounding the hex with Medium holdings does near nothing on influencing the hex in either direction. And this is a bit more logical in game, in that Higher sec guard will prioritise stopping stronger monsters from setting up shop in the monster/home hex, and in the process miss some of the weaker mobs setting up shop. While the lower sec ones with no real guards would have stronger escalations setting up shop since no one is there to really stop them. The Monster/Home hex will count it's Neighbouring hexes with Holdings and read their Security Value (i.e -1,0,+1), and then do an average to see what direction the holdings have influenced the hex's spawning system. Now for Home hexes this would mean that Elite, Normal, and weakened versions of Home escalations would be needed. Note this system could be used in a useful in other ways, in that if you want an easier time with the monster raids, just set all the holdings around it to High sec and you'll likely get weaker, easier to fight off escalations for the holdings during the PVP raid window. While if you Like or Love fighting off hard escalations attacking your holdings, set the holdings around the monster or home hex to Low security. Now this system could also be helpful for new player groups starting with their own settlement in that they can influence their nearby monster hexes for either; getting better loot and a challenge, or getting escalations they can handle and have fun with. Quote

Azure_Zero 09.11.2018 08:59

"You are a Troll" and a few others mentioned things about Hex security within this past week so I think it is time to really discuss the Pro and Cons of each player available security settings and WHAT the costs and consequences should be for each setting,
I also should note that all hexes should have their security set by the week like with the rest of the settlement's security and PVP settings to avoid being abused especially by the Monster and Holding Sec relationship system mentioned below in Consequences.

Now Looking First at the Pros and Cons of each security setting
High Sec:
Pro: No PVP outside of Fueds, No work needed for Player protection or watching for attacks.
Can Ring Monster hexes for Protected transport out of hex.

Cons: Can't stop a spy in your high sec turf.

Med Sec:
Pro: Can kill enemy spies, Rep Hits for non-fued PVP for PVP targets.

Con: Need to be watchful for hostile players, gatherers could need player protection.
Rep Hits for non-fued PVP for PVP Attackers.

Low Sec:
Pro: Can kill enemy spies, No Rep Hits for non-fued PVP attackers.

Con: Need to be extra watchful for hostile players, gatherers would more likely need player protection.
No Rep Hits for non-fued PVP for PVP targets.

If we look at it from a protection scale of 0 (no protect) to 1(no worries level of protection)
Low sec is 0.25f, Med is 0.5f and High is straight up 1.0f

In terms of work needed to protect your stuff using a scale of again 0(No work) to 1(You need to be active)
Low Sec is about 0.7f, Med Sec is 0.45f, High sec is 0.0f

Conclusion:
So from the Look of it High Sec is for players who Don't need to do ANY work to defend their Stuff and have everything easy.
While Low sec hexes see No benefit for being more PVP open and require more work in keeping it secure.

–

So Now let's get down to Costs and Consequences to balance them

A High Sec hex should require that the payment of the Holding be an extra 30% of the required bulk cost of the holding since there is No work needed in protecting players in the hex from the hex's owner.
But this extra cost comes with a perk, a few(2-3) small or medium guard camps (same rating as holding) in the hex to weaken the monsters in the hex itself for the gatherers and won't do anything for a fued.

A Low Sec hex requires a bit more work and a more watchful player in protecting that group's players in that hex, so they should have a bulk cost reduction of 20% for the holding.
This would make even the worst hexes somewhat better for getting resources when all the good hexes are gone, but have the increased risk of PVP for that hexes gathering resources for the area.
Now moving on the possible consequences for ringing a monster (and home) hexes with player holdings of the same or nearly the same security setting as Hinted near the top.
Note This system does a good job of balancing risk and reward for a very good reasonable part, and should use a value of metric of 0 to 1 or -1.0f to +1.0f for decision on what spawns in the hex.

If a monster or home hex is surrounded by Low Sec holdings chance of Teir 1 and lower escalations decrease by 25% with Higher T2 and higher escalations increasing by 25%.
While if a monster or home hex is surrounded by High Sec holdings chance of Teir 1 or lower escalations increase by 25% with Higher T2 and higher escalations decreasing by 25%.
Surrounding the hex with Medium holdings does near nothing on influencing the hex in either direction.

And this is a bit more logical in game, in that Higher sec guard will prioritise stopping stronger monsters from setting up shop in the monster/home hex, and in the process miss some of the weaker mobs setting up shop.
While the lower sec ones with no real guards would have stronger escalations setting up shop since no one is there to really stop them.

The Monster/Home hex will count it's Neighbouring hexes with Holdings and read their Security Value (i.e -1,0,+1), and then do an average to see what direction the holdings have influenced the hex's spawning system.

Now for Home hexes this would mean that Elite, Normal, and weakened versions of Home escalations would be needed.

Note this system could be used in a useful in other ways, in that if you want an easier time with the monster raids, just set all the holdings around it to High sec and you'll likely get weaker, easier to fight off escalations for the holdings during the PVP raid window.
While if you Like or Love fighting off hard escalations attacking your holdings, set the holdings around the monster or home hex to Low security.

Now this system could also be helpful for new player groups starting with their own settlement in that they can influence their nearby monster hexes for either; getting better loot and a challenge, or getting escalations they can handle and have fun with.

Quote

Azure_Zero 09.10.2018 18:27
	—- Quote

Azure_Zero 09.10.2018 15:34
	If I recall T2 gear is SUPPOSE to be the PVP gear of choice since it is; cheap, easy to make, and still powerful. Quote

Azure_Zero 09.10.2018 11:24
	Bob Azure_Zero Bob DirectX vs. OpenGL is something we could experiment with further at some point. Sadly, there usually turn out to be various forgotten dependencies in large projects like ours that result in unforeseen complications, though it's usually possible to work around those eventually. The only thing I could think of that would cause an issue is having HLSL shaders rather then GLSL shaders. But given you have a Mac version PFO, I REALLY doubt Goblinworks will have any issues switching the rendering Core from Direct X to OpenGL. Most likely such a change would go pretty smoothly, though we don't really even have the option right now with the current version of Unity we're on. For that version, all we can do is use a command line parameter to force the game to run in OpenGL, we can't really change how the base game is built until we upgrade at least a little. When we get to that point, we could try it out (assuming we can easily make the change throughout our build pipeline) and see if it results in any performance/compatibility issues for various subsets of players. If you need a tester I don't mind being one. I just need a FPS counter in the game to see performance and manually note problems for compatibility. Quote

Azure_Zero 09.10.2018 11:24

Bob
Azure_Zero
Bob
DirectX vs. OpenGL is something we could experiment with further at some point. Sadly, there usually turn out to be various forgotten dependencies in large projects like ours that result in unforeseen complications, though it's usually possible to work around those eventually.

The only thing I could think of that would cause an issue is having HLSL shaders rather then GLSL shaders.
But given you have a Mac version PFO, I REALLY doubt Goblinworks will have any issues switching the rendering Core from Direct X to OpenGL.

Most likely such a change would go pretty smoothly, though we don't really even have the option right now with the current version of Unity we're on. For that version, all we can do is use a command line parameter to force the game to run in OpenGL, we can't really change how the base game is built until we upgrade at least a little. When we get to that point, we could try it out (assuming we can easily make the change throughout our build pipeline) and see if it results in any performance/compatibility issues for various subsets of players.

If you need a tester I don't mind being one.
I just need a FPS counter in the game to see performance and manually note problems for compatibility.

Quote

Azure_Zero 09.10.2018 11:21
	Believe Me I would of Liked it if Unity Offered a Vulkan rendering core option. Vulkan would be offering speed, features and Multi-OS support, though given Apple's current isolationist ideas on APIs, Macs would be stuck with OpenGL 3.2 since Apple doesn't want Vulkan, but their Metal API to be used. Quote

Azure_Zero 09.10.2018 10:21
	Bob DirectX vs. OpenGL is something we could experiment with further at some point. Sadly, there usually turn out to be various forgotten dependencies in large projects like ours that result in unforeseen complications, though it's usually possible to work around those eventually. The only thing I could think of that would cause an issue is having HLSL shaders rather then GLSL shaders. But given you have a Mac version PFO, I Really doubt Goblinworks will have any issues switching the rendering Core from Direct X to OpenGL. Quote

Azure_Zero 09.10.2018 10:21

Bob
DirectX vs. OpenGL is something we could experiment with further at some point. Sadly, there usually turn out to be various forgotten dependencies in large projects like ours that result in unforeseen complications, though it's usually possible to work around those eventually.

The only thing I could think of that would cause an issue is having HLSL shaders rather then GLSL shaders.
But given you have a Mac version PFO, I Really doubt Goblinworks will have any issues switching the rendering Core from Direct X to OpenGL.

Quote

Azure_Zero 09.10.2018 10:15
	One part is an easy reason why groups would not want to take another settlement. The Cost of Taking another settlement and then Maintaining it when you already have even a single +4 or better settlement would be enough of a pain and burden that groups would not want to put the effort in taking another. In that would be even more taxing to the point that folks would likely rather leave your settlement or group then help with the need to take and maintain another settlement. Even if you did take the other settlement and lessened the burden of maintenance as much as possible you'd likely keep it rather low which makes for much easier sieging then a mid or higher level settlement. Quote

Azure_Zero 09.10.2018 10:15

One part is an easy reason why groups would not want to take another settlement.
The Cost of Taking another settlement and then Maintaining it when you already have even a single +4 or better settlement would be enough of a pain and burden that groups would not want to put the effort in taking another.
In that would be even more taxing to the point that folks would likely rather leave your settlement or group then help with the need to take and maintain another settlement.
Even if you did take the other settlement and lessened the burden of maintenance as much as possible you'd likely keep it rather low which makes for much easier sieging then a mid or higher level settlement.

Quote

Page 16 of 84
←
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
→

Cookies Disclaimer

All posts created by Azure_Zero