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
it gives armour, weapon, and some other items to help you get started
Azure_Zero
Stilachio Thrax
This game often feels like it has a lot of sticks, but not enough carrots.
……….

I recall Playing EE version 1.0,
This version currently has a crap ton of carrots, and not enough sticks.
I recall Escalations; growing in power, spreading, and being a pain to remove.
I recall that you had to go to certain areas of the map to get specific resources in a decent amount (like cooper only being on ZKM).
I recall being encumbered by copper coins from doing escalations and we wanted to keep those coins.
I recall Recipes used to be far more rare (or that is how it felt).

Currently;
Recipes drop like crazy
Escalations are no big deal.
No one cares about coins unless they are gold or Platinum.

So yeah, where are the Sticks and the Carrots, eh.
Azure_Zero
Duffy Swiftshadow
It's mainly a good practice thing since people reuse emails and passwords, that said it's all stored in the usual hashed formats to my knowledge so in most cases the only way to really get someone's info is to intercept their connection and I doubt anyone is gunning to do that for Storehouse. But it never hurts to be careful as a developer, all sorts of crazy exploits appear from time to time.

That I have to agree with a lot.
Heck, Look at WannaCry it used a remote exploit found in windows and made a freaking mess of things for people.
Azure_Zero
Yeah I noticed that in a few hexes, and with the extra spawn spots added to the hexes it is now more common.
I think you can use a small holding to help lock in the first outpost.
Azure_Zero
The Eternal Balance
Azure_Zero
I think the holding changes you want bob would hurt new comers.
As one-outpost setups do need to be possible with the secondary or tertiary resource, and not everyone wants to be flooded with one freaking resource.

Isn't this what Trade is for? Perhaps this would help us do more of that.

Not Everyone wants to trade, and then add the possibly that one group holds one resource damn well and use it to leverage better deals for themselves.
I don't want to be held hostage to a resource like high quality cheap black gold is for the developed nations of the world.
Azure_Zero
I think the holding changes you want bob would hurt new comers.
As one-outpost setups do need to be possible with the secondary or tertiary resource, and not everyone wants to be flooded with one freaking resource.

The costs I posted do allow for one-outpost setups that allow the use of secondary or tertiary resource of the hex.
Azure_Zero
Bob
I left all the resource types alone and just altered the numbers for each resource. As an example, here are the new upkeep numbers for Inn Holdings:

+0: Bulk Food 11
+1: Bulk Food 14, Trade Goods 2
+2: Bulk Food 18, Trade Goods 4
+3: Bulk Food 22, Trade Goods 6, Bulk Wood 1
+4: Bulk Food 26, Trade Goods 9, Bulk Wood 2
+5: Bulk Food 30, Trade Goods 12, Bulk Wood 4

For comparison, these were the old numbers:

+0: Bulk Food 2
+1: Bulk Food 4, Trade Goods 3
+2: Bulk Food 8, Trade Goods 8
+3: Bulk Food 10, Trade Goods 10, Bulk Wood 10
+4: Bulk Food 17, Trade Goods 17, Bulk Wood 16
+5: Bulk Food 26, Trade Goods 26, Bulk Wood 25

The numbers are the same for every holding type, only the resource types change, same as before.

Comments/concerns?

Wow, you just made it expensive to claim more hexes with the lower end by a lot
And you made Inns No longer usable in forest hexes, since the best an Inn can generate in a forest is less then 11 food.

I would of done:

+0: Bulk Food 4
+1: Bulk Food 8, Trade Goods 2
+2: Bulk Food 12, Trade Goods 4
+3: Bulk Food 16, Trade Goods 8, Bulk Wood 4
+4: Bulk Food 20, Trade Goods 12, Bulk Wood 8
+5: Bulk Food 24, Trade Goods 16, Bulk Wood 12
Azure_Zero
Most subbers disappeared when they announced the layoffs over a year ago.
Azure_Zero
New Guy
…..
Go Free To Play or Buy To Play at a very low buy in.
….!

Uh, we have many examples of where something went Free To Play and was worse for it.
Evolve comes to mind foremost out of the list.
Azure_Zero
Midnight
Bob
We definitely intend for it to be possible to take down even the most established settlement, and it shouldn't generally require anything on the order of 27 weeks to do so. It might take that long to do so very methodically, or if there's a lot of back-and-forth taking of territory along the way, or if the settlement is buried deep inside an established alliance, but it should be possible to do so more quickly with a powerful enough force of attackers. We don't expect it to happen often, but we expect it to be possible, and we do expect lone settlements and settlements on the outer borders of alliances to change hands more often.

In terms of being able to build for 4 days and be attacked for 3, that does give the defenders some opportunity to rebuild, but inside of smaller territory. If they lose territory each week, they'll still eventually fall, though they may eventually be able to concentrate their forces enough to prevent further losses, while the attackers are now more spread out and vulnerable during their own PvP windows. If the attackers do get to the point of actually surrounding the settlement with siege equipment, we'll also restrict the settlement's ability to repair damage during their 4 non-PvP days. With the rules I'm currently writing up, I simply won't count any new structures or bulk resources as part of the defenses if they're added after the siege begins. When we eventually automate the sieges, we'll have mechanics that restrict new buildings, or upkeep deposits, or whatever is appropriate to restrict during that time.

All that said, I'll agree that we do want a certain amount of stability, particularly deep within established alliances. We expect more PvP-averse players to feel relatively safe in those areas. We want the borders and less populated areas to be more dynamic, with holdings changing hands reasonably often, and settlements changing hands occasionally. More PvP-interested players would spend their time in those areas. Pushing back the borders of a successful, established alliance and taking it completely down will be a big deal, and very difficult to pull off, but at the very least technically possible.

I question whether there even exists today "established alliances" deserving of such protection. What I see are hollow shells of previous organizations that would crumble the minute you kick unsubscribed characters out of companies.

Under today's rules I can feud folks and see if they actually have the numbers to keep their holdings when their PvP window occurs.

Under the EE12 rules there are going to be holdings completely immune from attack. The company owning that holding might not even have any subscribed players. And all the holdings around it may also be owned by companies without subscribed players.

If you want to reward "established alliances" with stability, at least make sure the established alliances you are coddling are subscribed to the game. I would strongly urge you to expunge all unsubscribed players from companies before instituting any rules granting holdings immunity from attack. Under the current rules, the hollow shells can, at least, be fairly challenged.

True, if you attack the border it'll take a while to get to the core.

But you can take them out, as the; Shield, Ruin, NPC Town, Monster, and Home hexes are all UNclaimable. This in turn makes a number of cracks in EVERY alliances territory. Areas that bend in the Shield Road, or a small group of Unclaimable hexes is a Weak point in every area. Attack the Weak point and the crack grows.