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
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.
Azure_Zero
Bringslite
Edam
Bringslite
I don't see any real solid reason for it right now.

I thought the reason for it was obvious.

There are player groups in the game who have randomly kept grabbing more and more settlements. Vastly more than they need or can use. When new players eventually come into the game the only way they have a hope of getting a settlement is to grovel and beg to the groups with excess settlement in the hopes they can make a deal and get one for themselves.

Out of the thirty odd landrush settlements none are currently available to just take they are all tied up. Sure you can negotiate with someone and buy or otherwise acquire one but that is beside the point.

What the game actually needs is someway that unused settlements if they are not maintained turn back into NPC settlements (not just become available for some large group to grab) so that eventually they can be made available for new groups to compete for when the game picks up.
Well that's not exactly true. The Commonwealth has already given, freely and without restrictions/requirements, a settlement to a guild from outside this game. We did this because the real goal here is to have the game GROW by making it be less onerous to get started. We will probably do so again for groups that show honest interest in playing the game. Would be nice if more "Groups" with more than one "castle" might follow that example. Another reason, is of course, that The Commonwealth simply doesn't need as much land or control at this really down time in the game situation. We are working on reducing the burden's of support, hoping that the game will get less "chore-full" than it is now, for now.

Also remember that these multi settlement groups formed organically because others were doing the same thing and it is human nature to want to "win". Most around today basically started as One Settlement groups and created Alliances <- a natural result in any Territorial MMO I have ever seen.

Edit: But I do agree that more land should somehow be freed up before OE. If not simply so that new players coming in, feel like there is hope of having their own castle. Who said anything about limiting the ability to take over settlements anyway? Even if shut down they still have to be sieged…

I agree that the game actually needs is someway that unused settlements if they are not maintained turn back into NPC settlements (not just become available for some large group to grab) so that eventually they can be made available for new groups to compete for when the game picks up.

I would like it that IF a settlement has and or is shutdown for over 6 months ALL buildings (sans Keeps) start degrading -1 every month after the 6 months, so +5 becomes +4 etc. When a Building is +0 and time to degrade comes it goes puff and is gone. When all the Builds sans the Keep is gone, the Keep starts degrading every month, when it goes puff and is gone the settlement is Now NPC with all the companies being kick out.
This gives A LOT of time for the group owning the settlement and it's banner companies to get back in gear and keep the settlement though with some losses if they decided NOT to keep an eye on it.
This means a Complete +5 settlement has 17 Months before it becomes NPC, while any +0 settlements will have 8 to 9 months before becoming NPC.
The degrading effect would force the issue of Maintenance even for dead settlements and make the taking of them easier for new groups with No strings attached and never have the appearance (public or hidden) of strings attached when settlements are given away.
Furthermore this approach gives the new groups an idea of WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED in running a settlement, as I think being given a settlement tells the new group it'll be easy running one. But when they get to it, they find out it is harder then they thought and might leave.
Azure_Zero
I also don't mind the re-use of art assets so new classes come out quicker.
Also don't mind if some class features/feats are missing as well.
Azure_Zero
Some of those items would work great with the Settlement roles I mentioned in another thread.
Azure_Zero
Then I think Edam's got the cost Just right.
Azure_Zero
+1

That sounds Very reasonable. Edam.
Azure_Zero
Oh a note for increasing WINE compatibility for the Windows version of PFO, should the Linux version be canned/shelved.
Change the Windows version rendering core from DirectX to OpenGL.
It'll remove the problems WINE has with DirectX 10 and up that the latest versions of Unity uses.
Azure_Zero
Questions:
1 - Is it really a necessary mechanic when there are so few playing the game at this time?
2 - What does it even accomplish as far as "enjoyment" of time spent in game, at this time?
3 - Is the original intent for a "support mechanic" a valid enough reason for it to be a part of the game, at this time?
4 - Would it really hurt anything to put off the "support mechanic", at this time, until the population is healthy enough to make it more enjoyable and serve it's original purpose?

Answers:
1) Still is, reason is in answer 4
2) pride that you HAVE that support or thankful for the current support you have.
3) Still does AS IT IS PART OF THE GAME, would you like it if every class was removed from the game because one person wanted the game to be just a crafting sim with No combat, no escalation, nothing but crafting.
4) Best to keep it in, otherwise people WILL B**** REALLY HARD once it comes back. So best to Keep it in and nip potential backlash when the pop gets big enough to put it back in, that the new players leave the game and we get back to square one.

——–

Note on mobilization readiness,
It can happen at Any time, look at the attacks on some the of the Nations and settlements that existed or still exist in PFO.
If you don't want to be prepared, you take the risks.

——-

Talonguard, I know for a fact has 3 different active players, others I've not seen so I can't say if it is more.
Azure_Zero
Bringslite
You are a Troll
Bob, while you are busy helping people (even more) to avoid risk and drudgery could you please lower the influence cost for feuds? As some have mentioned, there is literally nothing going on in this game except (at this point) mind numbingly boring PvE in escalations and gushers. Maybe if it wasn't so painfully expensive to just *declare a feud* as you like to say companies should do to get around the absurdity of High Sec hexes there would be an uptick in dynamic play in the game.
Speaking of that, and not in any way with negatives toward your request, what is/are the costs for feuding (in all forms) at this time? It would be really informative and facilitative having the info in one spot. MUCH more easy to discuss things when we know what we are talking about…. I'm pretty ignorant on the current state of feud costs.

Cost of feuds is about 200->300 Influence.
So a Complete +0 Holding and +0 Outposts controlled hex to the cost of a complete +1 Holding and +1 Outposts controlled hex
Azure_Zero
Bringslite


Not a bad point guys and full kudos to you if you find it "fun enough" to pull Bulk that it does not wear on your ability to enjoy the game. Not everyone agrees with you, but the dwindling population that does… well I hope that you guys can stick it out for the long haul.

I am simply trying to point out that it isn't fun for everyone under the sun and I think that a partial or total suspension of "Support" would not be a bad idea while there is hardly anyone playing right now. At the current player level, it isn't critical OR needed that we COULD be able to take over other settlements. Probably more complicated than I know to set all settlement requirements to zero, for the time being, but I think that it might be a good idea. It's more about offering ideas to turn "playing the game" from LESS FUN ways right now, until MORE FUN ways to play the game are available. Balance of playing experiences vs. chore experiences. I know that, given time, the game will get there but it isn't even going to be within the next year that point is reached.
….

Brings
there are OTHER answers then asking the Devs to remove support so you don't have bulk movement troubles.
Here are 7 options;
1) Ask your Settlement/Nation mates HELP you with the Bulk chores
(or you can go full Dictator and kinda force them to do it with the threat of being ejected from settlement and or settlement is lowered until they do the work, though not recommended at all).
2) Pay a Player to do the Chores for You, likely someone who already is doing the bulk movement crap.
3) Compromise and lower your Settlement Support to level 16, it is MORE then Good enough for Combat and Crafting and saves a Ton on Bulk resources.
4) ONLY HAVE ONE Company (per settlement if more then one) that has all the holdings.
5) Not Moving Bulk to Company Vaults when feuded, let the raiders take some.
6) If you have multiple settlements, give them away to those that want one and or Abandon them completely.
7) Abandon and or give away every settlement you control completely, and then join another settlement.

I RUN TWO SETTLEMENTS BY MYSELF, so I know where your coming from, But I don't support the removal of the Support system Full or partial.
When the +X building upgrade costs and DI systems information was released, I weighed a number of a number of factors and went for a settlement limit compromise I could handle knowing what a +5 level 20 supported settlement would REALLY entail as a cost, and made plans with My Holdings so that I'd have as Little Work to do with holdings as possible.
You can do the same, and the work gets a lot easier.
Asking the Devs to make it easier with support removal (Full or Partial) is not a even a good answer for the health of the game.

Bringslite


….

Under current conditions, chores like Settlement Support are a burden to the game rather than an enjoyable experience. It is like being forced to be at mobilization level 100% ALL THE TIME even though there is no war threat.

Does War ever start for everyone involved at scheduled time in RL, it does not, that is why "military forces are always at the ready".
The scheduled PVP windows is the only real break we have on the "military forces are always at the ready" part of RL.