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
We could use some New events types that I posted up earlier
And they could ALL easily use code or code fragments that already exist in game.
Now I will say one could also be used in siege warfare to make the final stage more interactive and a race for both sides.

Now one thing that could make the game more Fun is to go backwards some or take some steps back, but modify them.
Now what I'll be talking about will be removing a Number of the chores that come in this game, the only few that'll be left are;
watching you PVP window, tracking DI, and keeping your monster hexes clean and or properly surpressed.

We go back to the Old War of Towers System, but modified somewhat.
* No Influence, or Bulk resources.
* All Feuds are FREE, and only require ONE day's notice (mainly due to needing the daily server down)
* PVP window system stays as is, no dealing with the PVP window every darn day.
* Siege engines DO NOT require a supply line, if the company is NOT in a settlement.
* base settlement support level will be level 12, and every 2 hexes is 1 support level, so with a complete core 6 you'll have level 15 support, then you'll only need 10 more hexes for level 20.
* All settlement buildings and upkeep will not need bulk resources and their training level is still based on their +X/+X values.
* All hexes still have holdings and outposts, but they Can not be torn down, and can only be changed by a leader/officer that has either;
level 12 engineer and or 6 seneshal through a building interface (all are available sans the T3 siege stuff)
if that leader/officer is both a level 12 engineer and level 6 seneshal, they can change a holdings and outposts to the T3 siege stuff.
* All holdings and outposts in a hex will run at the same +X/+X values
* A hexes holdings and outposts +X/+X values will be determined by a number of factors and they are cumulative with a starting base of +2/+2,
–> Hexes in the core 6 are +1 higher
–> Hexes adjacent to a Monster or Home is +1 higher
–> Hexes adjacent to a Shield hex (sans pass hexes) or NPC town are +1 Higher (happens only once).
–> Hexes Running High Security take a -1 hit and are lowered
–> Hexes Running Medium Security gain nothing.
–> Hexes Running Low Security are +1 higher.
–> Hexes that have their best resource at 400 or lower also get a +1 bonus.

An optional added point could be;
* All hexes are UN-protected except for the Core 6 of a settlement and to take a core 6 hex requires the use of a siege engine in a adjacent hex.
Azure_Zero
I'll be posting something up soon that'll be removing some of the UNFUN chores, but at the same time depending on how my idea is setup could open up possibilities for NEW players to get started in claiming stuff and getting their own settlement.
Azure_Zero
Rynnik
The fact that 'settlement collectors' is even a phrase being thrown around in this discussion should be setting off alarm bells that there is a serious issue here.

Well actually it is just one settlement collector in game at the moment and he is known to most of the groups as such,
but oddly he is stopped by the Aragon alliance from taking more settlements all thanks to their expansion of territory that this tax takes aim at, while the tax would be impacting him and his collection little.
Now I do say it's best to nip any that decide to follow him along with that known collector, but at the same time not nuke the casuals.
Azure_Zero
I can counter you on that Rynnik, we have had groups come in get a settlement with no work need along with it's core 6 and then leave within a MONTH once they realise the UN-FUN of running a settlement.

And if you read my post above yours, you'd see I've come up with a way that would pop open hexes for new players since a group would need to put in more work to control more hexes in a expensive way.
Azure_Zero
I can come up with some ideas (in fact I have a few that were posted up) and most would be re-using code and stuff that is in the game or Has been in the game at one point in time and only need minor tweaks here and there to be put in.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
As currently settlements can have infinite holdings, what if instead you capped the number of holdings a settlement can have?
In a way, we already have one soft cap on the number of holdings in any given settlement, in the form of decreasing DI from each additional holding. Beyond the holdings needed to provide a settlement's required DI, it's far better to transfer a holding to another settlement, at least in DI terms.

A harder cap, perhaps set at a very high number, could potentially add another hurdle to expansion, requiring that alliances grab another settlement whenever their limit for their current settlements is reached. Actually grabbing another settlement is a fairly big deal, and even just keeping a minimal settlement active involves a certain amount of effort, so that could provide some of the disincentives we're looking for.

As Kenton points out, holdings are really owned by companies, and there are definitely some issues with making a cap work. From an implementation standpoint, we'd have to block member-companies from placing new holdings if the settlement is at the cap, and block new companies from joining if they'd put the settlement over the cap. We generally lean toward mechanics that make each additional member less valuable rather than just completely blocking them, but at times hard caps are necessary.

All that said, this does make me wonder if there's some solution that's more about adding incentives for matching the number of holdings a settlement has to that settlement's needs. Just spitballing here, but if we gave some kind of bonus for having X-or-less holdings for any given Banked DI, settlements would have a meaningful incentive to build up their structures somewhat in line with their territorial expansion, and to shift their expansion to another settlement whenever they could no longer take advantage of that bonus. Of course, they'd still get the extra bulk resource output, but a good enough incentive would make that only worthwhile if the settlement could truly take advantage of it. Gonna put some more thought into that, try to turn it into a cohesive idea and make sure it doesn't create more problems than it fixes. For example, this may just overly increase the incentives to attack other settlements, but there are probably ways around that. And, of course, I have no idea how difficult anything along these lines would be to implement once this was fully thought through, have to wait until it's developed enough to get an accurate estimate.

I've looked over your numbers
And they do seem about right for a settlement, but I'd add a bit of a buffer to level 20 to figure out a reasonable cap.
I'd say a baseline of about 30 Holdings (since some settlements may have a hard time making the +4 holdings while still need the bulk and DI for level 20 and to be a buffer should they be attacked),
Now if the Main Company holds the 30, and a company was under there settlement's banner and then wanted their own settlement and aimed to take a one, and have it run well and get it setup quickly, I'd add to the baseline say about 50% of 15 holdings.
So we are now at 45 holdings, but what if two banner companies decided to do the same thing at the same time, we'd need to double the 15 to 30, and this additional 30 is a reasonable division number since that could give enough holdings among 6 banner companies aiming to take their own settlement and get them running with a reasonable starting level of about 15 provided they premade all the keeps for their new settlement to get the support they need.

Now to make it work well, I'd say the cap is broken into two halves; the Founding company has a Full 30 holdings or hexes it can claim, the remaining 30 holdings/hexes have to be divided among the settlement's banner companies.
This does make it harder for the founding company to feud and take more hexes since it is more costly to start the feud in the first place.

To make sure this works the support level of a settlement needs to be more tied to the Keep itself,
this means that the Keep sets the Max support a settlement can set.
I've seen dead settlements with a +1/+1 keep suddenly shot up to level 19 support, that is broken in they didn't invest in making the support like other active settlements have and it would help in making it more expensive in using a proxy settlement for expansion.
The setup should be the max being only +1 of what the keep should support so;
+0 Keep, level 11 Support max
+1 Keep, level 13 Support max
+2 Keep, level 15 Support max
+3 Keep, level 17 Support max
+4 Keep, level 19 Support max
+5 Keep, level 20 Support max

Now this adds something that will also impact settlement collectors in that they can't suddenly raise their support levels to defend their holdings, if they have not invested properly into upgrading their Keeps of each of their settlements in the collection.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
Simple put, have all settlements have a base support of 14, each hex of there core 6 gives one support level,
Any additional hexes mean jack all.
Are you looking to completely replace the upkeep system with this, or just to separate out Settlement (Support) Level as its own thing determined purely by hex quantity (up to 6)?

Sorry, I seemed to of missed this in all the posting

Pretty much it is a replacement of the support system and kinda like what we had during the War of Towers,
except it does require "the Core 6" to have additional support and not just any 6 hexes.

This removes the UN-FUN that is managing Bulk resources, and DI calculations which makes settlement management easier, maybe even easy enough to get some new players interested in claiming and running a settlement.
Azure_Zero
Bob, I came up with a simple way to do this with NO influence tax that can hinder expansion.

Right now your just looking at the influence, but what about the holdings?

As currently settlements can have infinite holdings, what if instead you capped the number of holdings a settlement can have?
Then that means if a settlement aims to expand, they'd need a proxy settlement to allow expansion, BUT to get the support level to have strength for taking more holdings, they'd need to spend resources increasing the proxy settlement's level.
Azure_Zero
Bob, we have 5 settlement Leaders who have voiced their there vote publicly and ALL against the tax.
Azure_Zero
Sorry Bob, but I don't by it.

Many against the tax have posted so publicly and with very valid points with no counter arguments on them so far.
If they don't voice it publicly, they shouldn't count in weighing.

As Crowdforging is like voting, you don't vote (in this case in public), you can't b**** about the result.