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
Edam
Bob
I don't think that's a compelling enough benefit to justify taking away territory involuntarily, but I could imagine offering incentives (or even just opportunities) to consolidate settlements or move them closer in, then closing off the territory left behind.

I am not seeing how this could work.

Lets take Fort Ouroboros in the SW and Keepers Pass in the SE for example. Keepers is fully +5 buildings. Fort Ouroboros is mainly +4 buildings with a few +3 (and a +2 AH because we are considering knocking it down and putting up a large alchemist) They are complimentary settlements with a lot of different buildings and both need a lot of hexes to supply DI and bulk. Both have almost all there hexes relatively close by.

How could we possibly move one of those settlements without losing hexes and hence buildings or ending up with holdings to support on the other side of the map.

Or are you talking about making a deal on a new combined settlement where it gets more than the normal number of allowed buildings and gets given hexes that generate twice the normal amount of bulk ?

I simply am not seeing how two high level settlements can be "consolidated" or even moved closer together without a substantial loss or some very fancy dev tricks that will be labelled by the normal denzen/trolls on the forum here as some sort of dev special favor.

If you can't see it then you must be blind.

Since I run two settlements myself, I can say there is a LOT of common buildings and crafting options in both so you don't need to double the amount of buildings, in fact only Two things need to be done;
One; the third large pad in the settlement needs to be opened for use
Two; All holdings need to be tweaked some to allow for higher training and worth.

Now the first point is obvious, if Aragon pre-Combat Alchemist release had everything BUT the cleric class training, it means the third pad would make sure you could have it all
But with those that want an AH and or what everything trainable in there settlement, then the holdings will need some tweaking in it's training levels, and if I am correct the holdings training levels are controlled by a spreadsheet.
If the following table is followed it should work out right and reward those that put in the effort for +4 and really reward +5 holdings.
This does mean some training and or refining will need to be done outside of the settlement.

Proposed Holding Training/Crafting Levels
+0 -> Level 10 training
+1 -> Level 11 training and or +0 settlement crafting building
+2 -> Level 12 training and or +1 settlement crafting building
+3 -> Level 13 training and or +2 settlement crafting building
+4 -> Level 15 training and or +4 settlement crafting building
+5 -> Level 18 training and or +5 settlement crafting building
Azure_Zero
Drizzle
Bob
Azure_Zero
So how about instead you pop all settlements and Holdings within say 6 hexes of the border and then block all holdings and outposts within that 6 hexes to the border, that 6 hex border is Low sec only, only T3 mobs and they get stronger and more powerful you are to the map border, with all monster hexes in that area only giving T2 and T3 stuff, and the regular hexes only have T2 mats and a lot of it.
And everyone who lost something gets compensated for it.
Something like this would certainly be more feasible than adding to the map, but it would be difficult to come up with a compensation scheme that was both fair to those pushed out of their current territory and at the same time fair to those who didn't get compensated for territory further in. Sometimes I've wondered about coming up with more of a voluntary scheme, with compensation anyone can choose but which only results in closing things off from being retaken for territory along the edges. Not sure there'd be enough takers to get the results we'd be looking for, but it could be worth exploring.

Shrinking the map so that basically only Thornkeep, Carpe Deim and Aragorn are left would certainly reduce travel time for the bored and lazy casual weekend players and make PvP between those two groups a bit more common. However the voluntary option for edge settlements like PFU, Ozems, Fort Ouroboros, Keepers Pass to hand in their settlement and become vassels of the two settlements that survived may not get a lot of takers smile

As far as the attitude of the general Piazo forums goes I suspect unless it is a direct port of the table top game with identical classes, rules and so forth and no PvP, it will always be controversial over there.

If we did 6 hexes in you can count on even Carpe being nuked.
But ALL groups have a number of other settlements that they could relocated to.
The Commonwealth do have some settlements closer to the center of the map, as does Keeper's Pass.
I did a PFOGIS check and we could safely do 2 hexes in without any issues on any side except the northern side, which would nuke 3 settlements, the other two just make it and would need to be allowed to keep their core 6.
Azure_Zero
Something that doesn't require coding would be getting these forums some actual avatars.
Azure_Zero
Edam
Here is a thought:

Expand the map by about 3 hexes all around.

make it an area blocked to holdings and outposts with no settlements.

Make it low security for open PvP.

Make the random mobs harder (ninjas etc) .

Make the gathered hexes much better than the existing map (perhaps even dropping the amount of stuff in existing hexes to compensate) .

I don't think making the map bigger will help with the game any. If anything the map needs to shrink, a lot.
So how about instead you pop all settlements and Holdings within say 6 hexes of the border and then block all holdings and outposts within that 6 hexes to the border, that 6 hex border is Low sec only, only T3 mobs and they get stronger and more powerful you are to the map border, with all monster hexes in that area only giving T2 and T3 stuff, and the regular hexes only have T2 mats and a lot of it.
And everyone who lost something gets compensated for it.
Azure_Zero
Flari-Merchant
Bob,
If you or Cole know at this stage, it might be interesting to read about what this upgrade will do for the game play, look, your increased coding flexibility and new opportunities, etc…

All this tech talk is wonderful but useless to a complete tech idiot like myself. smile

What makes this upgrade worth hanging on for?

If this has already been posted maybe someone can help a guy with a link or post title?

I'll put it as simple as possible;
current engine is over 10 years old,
it's hard to work with,
can't accept art/content from other Computer based Pathfinder games,
platform restricted,
graphics system is old and can't do pretty things and is slow.

new engine is current
new engine will be easier to work with,
new engine can accept art/content from other Computer based Pathfinder games,
new platforms for the game to run on,
graphics system current can do many pretty things and run faster then current engine.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
I wonder what'll be happening to the Mac support since Apple is gonna start using ARM CPUs instead of x86_x64 CPUs?
Haven't done a ton of research on this yet, but it looks like the Macs with ARM CPUs will continue to support most apps built for x86_x64 CPUs for a while. Won't run quite as well as they could, I'm sure, but probably better than running on an older Mac.

This kind of thing is also why we need to update to the latest version of Unity, and then stay up-to-date as we go, since we let Unity handle all these build issues for the game client. Definitely not going to get an ARM build out of our current Unity version.

Apps as in iPhone apps or as in Desktop applications,
since from what I'm hearing a lot of desktop software will not be running on it out the door on the new ARM processors.
Azure_Zero
I wonder what'll be happening to the Mac support since Apple is gonna start using ARM CPUs instead of x86_x64 CPUs?
Azure_Zero
Actually Paddy, they sound closer then you think.

They are the same but both go through different methods of how systems interact kinda like connecting to the internet.
As the build points seem to be like influence, which we use for holdings which give bulk+DI which is used to pay upkeep on settlement upgrades.
Azure_Zero
@ Paddy
That does sound, bad, but the question more asked was "how easy is it to run a settlement in GV?"
if the only chore is to defend your settlement that in some ways an easier chore then what is in PFO at the moment.
Azure_Zero
Edam
Bob
BlackMoria
The new players are, in essence, telling us what is wrong with the game with their questions. We need to listen and learn what the real issues are so they feel the game is worth more than a night or two of poking around and finding the experience unrewarding.
The issues raise in this and other posts that new players run into are great points, and are generally things we're aware of and hoping to work on. Still, it's always helpful to hear which issues are being raised at a particular moment in time, because those tend to be the issues we should prioritize in the short-term. Hopefully it also means that some issues that aren't being raised as often have been fixed, or at least made better, by past updates.

We're planning to try to tackle some of these new-player issues in coming months where we can do so with content-only changes, even if sometimes that just means tempering player's expectations through better communication/documentation when they get started, while others will have to wait until we have more coding bandwidth.

One of the more common new player questions is "when do I get my own settlement" .

It is kind of irrational that people would think in an MMO with potentially tens of thousands of players, that all 30,000 of them can get their own settlement, BUT it does seem to be a common new player aspiration.

That expectation probably comes out of playing tabletop and things like kingmaker where you actually are a special snowflake and do get to dominate the known world eventually. or maybe they spend too much time playing Animal Crossing, who knows.

As for renaming - Golarion Online has been suggested in the past and would likely work.

Thing is at the moment, leaders with multiple settlements can't even give away a settlement with a reasonable number (8+) of holdings to a new player, as after about a month the settlement is back to the original leader the as the new leader has left the game, as I said earlier.
And a likely part of the reason we can't keep new settlement owners is the freaking chores we need to do to keep them running.
Even with all my holdings being so close to Talonguard and Corbenik, it still takes me about 3+ hours each weekend to empty and restock my holdings.
If the only chore a settlement owner had was to watch their territory, you can bet being a settlement owner would be way more appealing and settlements would really be something to fight over.
In fact I think Gloria Victis has better player retention because it is simpler and less of a chore to run a settlement.