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
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.
Azure_Zero
Flari-Merchant
Azure_Zero
You don't need as dynamic a system and as UNFUN taxing as you think you need.
I propose something that WON'T cheese off settlement leaders and players while keeping "Bad Actors" in a weaker state.
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.
Bad actors tend to be kicked from a settlement so they would auto drop to the support of level 8.

It would also remove the UNFUN of bulk resources.

I like this elegant solution, to a situation that is just too mechanically heavy now to be justified by the current pop levels. Especially seeing as larger pop levels look like they will be real world years away in reality.

Glad you like it, I'll try putting up a more detailed version in another thread.
Azure_Zero
Flari-Merchant
Well I think that we all added(back in the day) to the pressure to encourage characters to polarize to established settlements.

I also think that it has proven to be a penny wise, pound foolish angst since there are not any masses of homeless characters.

Something that again, feels like it would make sense if the world was crowded but(with the world empty) turned out to be very burdensome, bothersome and unnecessary.

Until such a time as the world does become crowded, I feel like this system will heavily contribute to the factors that slowly kill the game off.

You right, Bob is not reading or accepting the warning I gave.
and seems even to of missed some of the hints of How bad the idea is even in this thread.
My prediction will come to pass Bob, if you proceed no matter how you do the influence tax, the only way to avoid it is to drop the idea.

Cause I already know of a number of settlement leaders that are ready to leave this game over the freaking fun influence tax, and that in itself is the biggest warning about the idea.
Cause I know players don't want to doing the chores that settlement leader do and they will leave.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
This new tax effectively sets settlement level to the activity of a settlement, this means that if a settlement was running at level 20 and had nothing, but casual players, it would nuke the players to say low teens, and the players would Hate this and leave.

This proposed change would indeed limit settlements based on the activity level of their characters, but that doesn't necessarily mean that many (or any) existing settlements would find their settlement levels reduced. It all depends on the exact numbers. As an extreme example, if we set the Max Influence reduction to .001 per Holding per day, a settlement could have 30 holdings and only need to generate 11 influence per year to keep that running.

Admittedly, a number that low probably wouldn't have a significant impact on the overall balance, since the additional influence needed per holding would basically be .365 per year. Then again, groups considering having 30 underutilized holdings might at least think twice before increasing their influence needs by 11 per year to do so, unless holding them serves other important strategic purposes.

Our goal is to find a number low enough not to put an undue burden on more casual groups will still being noticeable for more active groups. The originally proposed reduction of .5 per day was probably too high, and very well might have pushed the more casual settlements down to something like level 14 or 16, depends a lot on what one means by casual. We still think there's a number in there somewhere that hits the right balance, or perhaps a slight tweak to the calculations/rules that does the trick, but if not, then we'll look for a different solution.

You don't need as dynamic a system and as UNFUN taxing as you think you need.
I propose something that WON'T cheese off settlement leaders and players while keeping "Bad Actors" in a weaker state.
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.
Bad actors tend to be kicked from a settlement so they would auto drop to the support of level 8.

It would also remove the UNFUN of bulk resources.
Azure_Zero
Flari-Merchant
Totally off topic but the entire Settlement Support for character level maintenance needs a real hard looking at. The concept, if I remember correctly, was originally an ideal to place a check on "Bad Actors" in game play. It has morphed to something much more invasive towards overall game enjoyment, or it would if there were enough players for it to even matter.

Taking(even temporarily reducing) player POWER was never going to work out favorably in gen public realization… Notice I call it "Realization" rather than knee jerk "Opinion".

This is one of (and as Azure is trying to point out, I think) part of the many "frustrations" that playing the game so sweetly delivers in a negative snowball accumulative way.

Messing with, what people see rightly as, earned power potential has probably grown into a badly implemented mechanic. It can still work but needs real revamping and original goal re implementation.

Right on the Money.