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
In My Security thread, Maxen brought up that we need coin sinks.

I thought of a collection that work at a company level and one does have a minor gambling aspect.

My first idea of a set of interacting features with many parts that are coin sinks;

One Part is "Pay for Loyalty " and it interacts with "Take a Peek" and it's subsequent options.
Where companies put coin in their "Company Secure Vault" and set a Weekly coin value (Referred to as "Guard's Pay" ) to Keep their holding guards loyal, the amount that is Deducted Weekly is the "Weekly coin value(The Guard's Pay)" times "a quarter the number of your holdings(rounded down)."

The Second part is "Take a Peek" and it interacts with "Pay for Loyalty."
Where anyone in a Company (currently referred to as Bandit) can Bribe the Guards of a holding to peek into the holding's vault(s) (referred to as the Bandit's Bribe), but this is a gamble.
If the "Bandit's Bribe" is lower then 75% of the "Guard's Pay", the Guard will report the attempt to peek at that holding along with Which Company it was, and the bribe is not taken.
If the "Bandit's Bribe" is between then 75% and 125% of the "Guard's Pay" the guard will not report the attempt and take the bribe to keep quiet.
If the "Bandit's Bribe" is greater then 125% of the "Guard's Pay" the guard will not report the attempt, take the bribe, and allow peeking into the Holding Secure Vault.
If the "Bandit's Bribe" is greater then 200% of the "Guard's Pay" the guard will not report the attempt, take the bribe, and allow peeking into the ALL the holding's Vaults Vault.

The Third part is "Hiest" and piggy backs on "Take a Peek."
Where anyone with a successful "Bandit's Bribe" can Bribe the Guards of a holding to Move ALL contents from every vault into the Holding Vault.
This requires a "Hiest payment" that is two times the given "Bandit's Bribe" for that holding's Guards.

The Forth part is "Lockdown" and piggy backs on "Take a Peek."
Where anyone with a successful "Bandit's Bribe" can can Bribe the Guards of a holding to Lockdown ALL contents in the Holding Vault.
But requires that a "Bandit's Bribe" was high enough for the guard to Take the Bribe for this option to open up.
This requires a "Lockdown payment" that is two times the given "Bandit's Bribe" for that holding's Guards and only lasts 36 hours.

———————–

So now I ask what are YOUR ideas for coin sinks in the game what would ADD to the game and are New features and or new Game mechanics only.
Let's be creative here.
Azure_Zero
Bringslite
Azure_Zero
I don't think the factions system will completely fix the High-Sec issue.

As I recall only High ranking members of a factor are always PVP targets for opposing factions,
Anyone in the lower ranks can opt out of PVP of the faction system.

Therefore the Sticks and or Carrots for each level of hex security should still be balanced from what it is.
As was recently mentioned and probably previously mentioned, it might actually be beneficial to see more mechanics put into action and actually have players In-Game playing them before a bunch of changes are made to existing mechanics. Kinda a departure from my previous point of View but it could be valuable to see more things in action (working in sync) than keep adjusting things piece by piece and not really getting anywhere.

It just seems frustrating because it takes a long time to get there. For instance, I think that (right now and for a year to come) the Security mechanics could be totally removed but we wouldn't see an increase in PVP at all.

That I think is the best answer until the faction system comes in and we can start doing proper balancing of hex security costs and benefits.
Azure_Zero
I don't think the factions system will completely fix the High-Sec issue.

As I recall only High ranking members of a factor are always PVP targets for opposing factions,
Anyone in the lower ranks can opt out of PVP of the faction system.

Therefore the Sticks and or Carrots for each level of hex security should still be balanced from what it is.
Azure_Zero
We'll have to wait and see what Goblinworks does to Balance the hex security settings.

They might go down the stick route for High Sec and or Carrots for Med and Low Sec.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
I also hope my idea of a Holding Security effecting Monster/Home hexes is one that Goblinworks would look at.

We're open to things along those lines. For the moment, hex security was just a really quick, simple system we could put in to give companies a greater sense of control over the territory they'd claimed. We've always intended to add more depth to that area of the game over time.

Sweet,
Thanks Bob.

I hope the pseudo code design notes I posted for it give a good starting framework for implementation.
Azure_Zero
Bringslite
What I am most curious about is how anyone ever expects coin to have any value at all if it isn't needed for more things. Both Bulk and coin are needed to run a settlement. Why not also to run a holding? You don't want to loot coin from holdings someday?

As far as I am concerned, some small detail work on the Security Levels system is a great idea, but not at the cost of adding more "stick" to the game in the form of requiring both more holdings to run a settlement and more work to haul Bulk around.

Another puzzle: where was all this PVP BEFORE the sec level system was added?

There was PVP before the Sec system came in, even if it was rare.
The benefit of High Sec currently does NOT match the cost at all.

Bringslite
Finale puzzle: Do the few hollering for a new "chore making mechanic built only their way" grasp the importance that it is fine to have a game that includes PVP, but the market is better (willing players wise) to have some feeling of relative safety also in the description? It'll go much further(IMO) if it includes that. Look around the internet. Does PVP seem like a great idea for PFO at all to the people that talk about it?

Building the game that GW wanted had at its core the ability to include PVP but with built in compromises.

That player safely should be easy for new players and or weaker settlements to have access to, NOT the High End can do anything settlements.
Compromise is a two way street; Both the PVPers and the Non-PVPers need to sacrifice something.

Bringslite
For random PVP enthusiasts, your problem isn't about The Sec System (it has hardly been really tested). It is about your mature characters being unable to generate Influence and a lack of players romping around the map.

I'm Not Pro-PVP, but I do acknowledge it is needed and the current setup is too protective of Non-PVP groups all the way to Max level.

The Problem is the Sec system, it needs fixing and balancing of the cost for Each Security setting,
this NEEDS to happen and the Non-PVP groups may not like the coming costs and may start needing to sacrifice the security of their outer territory.
Right now bandits can't be bandits due to the High Sec areas where their prey shelter's itself, and the High sec groups say just feud us for your PVP, and what happens when they are feuded is they stash the goods and hide in their settlement for the feud or Company hop.
Azure_Zero
A feud can't be stopped with High Sec hex even now and if it did I'd of set the percentage to an extra 100%.
Feuds are a part of the game's design, so feud immunity should cost a settlement so much that it would be impossible to keep it up for no more then a week or two before being forced to lowering it to normal or even low, or face complete shutdown of everything and becoming extremely vulnerable to attacks.

If the High Sec was to just use Coin as a tax I'd be setting the formula as such,
Coin Cost for High Sec of any one Hex/Day = (max holding level in hex ^ 1.5f) * 1 gold piece;
So each +0 holding in High sec cost 1 gold piece for each day, while each +5 holding would cost 11 gold and 18 silver for each day.
Azure_Zero
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.
Azure_Zero
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.
Azure_Zero
Everything has a cash value, so paying in bulk is still valid and more meaningful then straight coin.