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
That could lead to players/groups leaving and not returning cause you just wiped out their hard work and gave no compensation.
Azure_Zero
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Azure_Zero
@ Paddy
I don't think this tax will work on settlement collectors, since all they need is ONE freaking holding.
If you want to knock out settlement collectors, change it so they NEED to control ALL 6 of the core 6 hexes

What do you mean? It was my understanding that you needed more than one holding for DI purposes and to take a settlement that was empty you needed holdings around the core six? Did that change?

No a way was found so that you'd only need one hex and it didn't need to be a Core 6 hex either.
The way does NEEDS a more bulk resources since it is using a crap ton of infrastructure buildings to generate the needed DI for a settlement to have the Keep and run at level 9 or 10 support.
Azure_Zero
If we start over I say we restart with something like the test server

* All alliances would be collapsed into ONE settlement each and would choose from open settlements (in order of most settlement or holdings?).
* Each alliance would get some starting buildings based on HOW successful they were.
*There would be ONLY one or two claimable settlements available, BUT they'd be locked up UNTIL certain conditions were met (i.e. player population rose to say 500).
* The number of available claimable hexes would be such that NOT ALL settlements could run at a support of level 20 with all +5 buildings, with the overall average for the settlements being a support of level 18 with all +4 buildings.
–> this point was made so settlements need to watch their PVP windows and defend to keep their levels, they go AFK for a while and could loose their stuff, but the setup is such that if a settlement got too greedy they'd piss off the other settlements and risk being attacked by a larger force who'd put them back into a more reasonable level of holdings.
Azure_Zero
@ Paddy
I don't think this tax will work on settlement collectors, since all they need is ONE freaking holding.
If you want to knock out settlement collectors, change it so they NEED to control ALL 6 of the core 6 hexes.

If you what holdings to go pop and WITH OUT the activity tax, we just make a timer that counts how long it has been since the HOLDING's HOLDING vault was accessed (it'll be checking bulk numbers and looking for a difference in values),
if that hexes holding vault has not been accessed in over say 3 months it sets all holdings and outposts to +0/+0 and degrades them like in a capture in a feud and only tehy have a week to access the vault and crank back up the holding and outposts, if they fail to do so, the next holding that goes in that spot takes ALL the stuff that was in the holding's vaults before it.
Azure_Zero
NightmareSr
One huge problem to making holdings and outpost cost more when they are further away, is the 'Little guy' and the 'new guy'… The only hexes I could grab to get Cauchemar built are very far from home.
With so much of the map already claimed there isn't are very limited opportunities for someone to build new with lower than maxed out characters.

Yes that is the case, but it also causes another problem, think of the bulk resources.
Most terrain types only have 3-4 types of bulk that can be collected and we need 5 types in large amounts, this means if your in the middle of one terrain type that settlement can be royally screwed over in bulk and taxes, while those at the edges of multiple types would have a very easy time on the taxes and bulk resources.
Azure_Zero
Flari-Merchant
Azure_Zero
* The Map is TOO big for the current Population, it need to be shrunk down (like the size of the test server).

Everything is too big. Every concept and every mechanical function was envisioned(originally) for a game that would have several 1000 players to start and many 1000s on waiting lists to get in. Suppose they can't be faulted for dreaming big, but yeah, it wouldn't hurt to scale things down a bit until some players sign up.

I agree, they can't be faulted for thinking big.
but if the map of now were to shrink down in size, all it'll do is cheese off the settlements at the edges that are active.
It'd require a WIPE of the game map with prizes (choices of a settlement spot, buildings, holdings and outpost etc ) based on the status of each alliance so you don't cheese them off and have them completely restart from scratch.

Now something that should be thought about, is the idea of perfect persistence for this game is suppose to have.
I don't think it'll work, as it seems we need a form of map reset under certain conditions and or based on time frames (say every 5 years).
This means when a reset happens a new group of players aiming for their own settlement comes in they have a really decent starting chance of getting and starting their own settlement.
Now if the alliances on each reset collapse into ONE settlement, it'll mean every reset has tons of opportunity for new groups, but have to get to work on getting their settlement.
Azure_Zero
Paddy Fitzpatrick
If we are going to go as far as a wipe once unity upgrade is done (preferably also after Alchemist is done too), then also maybe we can go a bit further and have a smaller map. One thing that also isn't fun is the constant run sim from one far flung area to the other. With a small pop just with us and a steadily growing one you will never interact with one another or meet anyone. Just a large world that takes forever to get from point A to point B.

At this point let's be real the existing groups only need maybe 1-3 settlements tops to get everything they need for what they wanna do. There is no need to have so many more derelict settlements all over the place to even have a settlement collector problem in the first place.

However that is an entire topic on its own.

Funny things is I recall mentioning an idea very much like this idea about a year or two ago.

I do recall the following points I did make;
* The Map is TOO big for the current Population, it need to be shrunk down (like the size of the test server).
* All alliances would be collapsed into ONE settlement each and would choose from open settlements (in order of most settlement or holdings?).
*There would be ONLY one or two claimable settlements available, BUT they'd be locked up UNTIL certain conditions were met (i.e. player population rose to say 500).
* The number of available claimable hexes would be such that NOT ALL settlements could run at a support of level 20 with all +5 buildings, with the overall average for the settlements being a support of level 18 with all +4 buildings.
–> this point was made so settlements need to watch their PVP windows and defend to keep their levels, they go AFK for a while and could loose their stuff, but the setup is such that if a settlement got too greedy they'd piss off the other settlements and risk being attacked by a larger force who'd put them back into a more reasonable level of holdings.
Azure_Zero
Sorry for rising this thread from the Dead,

But since the Unity upgrade is going to be happening, I wanted to make sure this got remembered.
Azure_Zero
Let's just say that the wandering escalation is special in a few other ways that I've not posted yet….
Azure_Zero
All Free-Trail Mode characters CAN NOT generate Influence, that loop hole has been closed.

They can be created and join companies as normal.