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
Azure_Zero
That 6 food and 6 trade tell me that it was not a pure forest hex (it and it's core 6 being the same), as I use Hunting in pure forest hexes and get 7,7.
Whoops, you're absolutely right, I missed my target hex by 1. The one I was using had slightly lower Game/Wood ratings. Switching to the correct hex, the Hunting Outpost +0 does indeed produce 7 Trade Goods (plus 7 Food) while the Trading Outpost produces 8 Trade Goods (5 for Wood, 3 for Game). The spread increases to 22 vs. 26 at +5. Again, not a huge increase, and rarely worth the substantial trade-off in Food production, but still hits that minimum bar of being better at Trade Good production in any similar hex.

If the trading outpost only produces barely a bit more then a Hunting outpost in trade goods, and the hunting produces nearly double the amount of total bulk, it's still not worth it.
If a single trading outpost can't make more then 10 bulk resource total units in it's best hex (forest or mountain), it's just not worth it,
as example a Inn (in forest) with 2 Hunting outposts would not only feed itself (up to +2), but also generate all the extra needed trade goods you'd want.
while a Inn holding in the same hex with 2 Trading outposts would need to be fed food and only make two or a bit more in trade goods each day.

Too put it simply, if outposts that can only work on at best a secondary resource rating in a hex that generates one bulk resource (i.e trade goods) is less then 2/3's a best production of 15 at +0, (this means a min of 10 should be reached)
it just is not worth it to put it up when I can get more bulk in total using another outpost.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
Sorry, Bob but I disagree with Trading outpost being better trade good producers as they currently are,
As the OP clearly states they at best a match to a hunting outpost in trade good production and the Hunting also generates the same amount of food on top of it.

I think if the percentages were raised to at least about 37.5% it would start to match a ranching outpost in trade good production in a plains hex, which is currently the best outpost and hex type combo for trade good production.

It's not a big difference, but I went on Zog and placed a Hunting Outpost +0 and a Trading Outpost +0 on a very standard Woodlands hex (400 Stone, 800 Wood, 600 Game) to test it out. The Hunting Outpost (the only other option that would produce Trade Goods in that hex) said it would produce 6 Trade Goods (plus 6 Food), while the Trading Outpost said it would produce a total of 7 Trade Goods (broken into 4 for Wood and 3 for Game). That lined up pretty well with the spreadsheet math I did, though I had to fudge a little to account for rounding issues.

Basically, I agree that Trading Outposts aren't the best Trade Goods producers, and are in fact guaranteed to be relatively inefficient at it. You're almost always better off using a different outpost for Trade Goods production, but in a different hex. It's just that in over half of the claimable hexes, they're the best choice if you want to focus on producing Trade Goods in that specific hex, which might be needed if someone can't line up a better hex. That's not a very high bar to reach, but they'd be clearly broken if they didn't meet it at least some of the time. That would then define the bare minimum fix, and would be pretty easy to define. I'd go ahead and make that now, knowing that any balanced change has to go at least that far, with plans to adjust further when I had time to run more numbers. Since they meet that low bar, there's no clear bare minimum fix to make. That doesn't mean they're balanced, it just means I shouldn't do anything until I have time to run all the numbers.

That 6 food and 6 trade tell me that it was not a pure forest hex (it and it's core 6 being the same), as I use Hunting in pure forest hexes and get 7,7.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Agreed, the math guarantees they'll always be pretty poor at generating Trading Goods, but even with the exclusivity pairs they're still usually better than the other options at generating Trading Goods in any given hex. Of course, those hexes are almost definitely better suited to generate other bulk resources instead, and it may be pretty rare to find yourself with a mix of hexes making those tradeoffs worthwhile. Still possible though, which is enough to make picking a "balanced" point require far more math. Some quick calculations convince me I can find the right numbers, and they wouldn't be a huge change or hard to implement, but running the math to convince myself the new numbers are in the right range is going to take some work.

Sorry, Bob but I disagree with Trading outpost being better trade good producers as they currently are,
As the OP clearly states they at best a match to a hunting outpost in trade good production and the Hunting also generates the same amount of food on top of it.

I think if the percentages were raised to at least about 37.5% it would start to match a ranching outpost in trade good production in a plains hex, which is currently the best outpost and hex type combo for trade good production.
Azure_Zero
I'll agree that Trading Outposts have flexibility in hexes they can be placed in,
but the math don't lie if the numbers for trading outposts are still 25%/25%/25%/25%.

The main problem is the bulk rating exclusivity pairs that are in the Trading outpost, Wood/Ore and Game/Herd
so no one can ever even get 75% of the hexes bulk resource rating and can only get 50% and even then the rating will be poor since one of them will be lower then the other.

So options 1 and 2 might need to be looked at to balance it.
Azure_Zero
So Bob want can one get for; a Ruby Crypt souvenir, and a Marbled Quartz?
Azure_Zero
For trade I've got;
a Ruby Crypt Souvenir
and
a Marbled Quartz.
Azure_Zero
Rynnik
People rarely play in their own self interest. Game designers have to consider that what players say they want and what they actually want are not always the same. Games have killed themselves by doing exactly what their player base asked for.

It's true.
Azure_Zero
OrinSonders
It seems the Choose Your Own Escalation! option was popular among the player base. I'd like to see it continue in some limited form. If a Settlement could accomplish a set of reasonable conditions or quests, they could earn the right to call in an escalation to their assigned hex like what was done during the Home Sweet Home Event. To avoid using code, requirements would have to be something Bob could monitor, or items gathered or created that could be turned in, etc.

I would think with limited coding, a charm/totem item could be added to the crafting recipes list for Seneschal that used Bulk Resources, Tokens, Refined Mats, Codex, etc. of an acceptable quantity. A different charm/totem to summon Tier 1,2,3. Maybe even different recipes for each of the different escalations. In effect, create "lures" a Settlement could set out for each of the different types. Molochs like to burn things. Goblins like FOOD!

The above figures on Bob doing the work manually each time. Hopefully with minimal coding, the lure could be made durable to some extent and add a certain percentage increase to the chance a certain type of escalation drops into the hex each time it is cleared.

Some of use would like to have the escalations pop into hexes other then the settlement's hex, since a settlement's hex could change. And I also put fore the idea that calling in a escalation could also be put into a home hex to shake things up from the normal stagnant state.
Azure_Zero
Any updates?
Azure_Zero
NightmareSr
The main issue driving a desire for a smaller map seems to be that the low population is wide spread, so the issue is really the population density.
If we change to smaller map and lose players we will be in the exact same state we are now. For example if we have 50 active actual players and 800 hexes, then we shrink the map to half the size but we lose half the players the density would be the same at 25 players in 400 hexes.
I really think the focus needs to be on ideas that will help retain players and make the game more enjoyable to play than just resize due to not enough players.

Given the Pop density, I'd be cutting the map down to about 1/4th to 1/7th it's current size.
But your right in that we need to focus on making the game more playable, but we also need to make the game more lively and active so a new player doesn't see a dead or dying game.