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

Agreed, the math guarantees they'll always be pretty poor at generating Trading Goods, but even with the exclusivity pairs they're still usually better than the other options at generating Trading Goods in any given hex. Of course, those hexes are almost definitely better suited to generate other bulk resources instead, and it may be pretty rare to find yourself with a mix of hexes making those tradeoffs worthwhile. Still possible though, which is enough to make picking a "balanced" point require far more math. Some quick calculations convince me I can find the right numbers, and they wouldn't be a huge change or hard to implement, but running the math to convince myself the new numbers are in the right range is going to take some work.

Sorry, Bob but I disagree with Trading outpost being better trade good producers as they currently are,
As the OP clearly states they at best a match to a hunting outpost in trade good production and the Hunting also generates the same amount of food on top of it.

I think if the percentages were raised to at least about 37.5% it would start to match a ranching outpost in trade good production in a plains hex, which is currently the best outpost and hex type combo for trade good production.
I'll agree that Trading Outposts have flexibility in hexes they can be placed in,
but the math don't lie if the numbers for trading outposts are still 25%/25%/25%/25%.

The main problem is the bulk rating exclusivity pairs that are in the Trading outpost, Wood/Ore and Game/Herd
so no one can ever even get 75% of the hexes bulk resource rating and can only get 50% and even then the rating will be poor since one of them will be lower then the other.

So options 1 and 2 might need to be looked at to balance it.
So Bob want can one get for; a Ruby Crypt souvenir, and a Marbled Quartz?
For trade I've got;
a Ruby Crypt Souvenir
a Marbled Quartz.
People rarely play in their own self interest. Game designers have to consider that what players say they want and what they actually want are not always the same. Games have killed themselves by doing exactly what their player base asked for.

It's true.
It seems the Choose Your Own Escalation! option was popular among the player base. I'd like to see it continue in some limited form. If a Settlement could accomplish a set of reasonable conditions or quests, they could earn the right to call in an escalation to their assigned hex like what was done during the Home Sweet Home Event. To avoid using code, requirements would have to be something Bob could monitor, or items gathered or created that could be turned in, etc.

I would think with limited coding, a charm/totem item could be added to the crafting recipes list for Seneschal that used Bulk Resources, Tokens, Refined Mats, Codex, etc. of an acceptable quantity. A different charm/totem to summon Tier 1,2,3. Maybe even different recipes for each of the different escalations. In effect, create "lures" a Settlement could set out for each of the different types. Molochs like to burn things. Goblins like FOOD!

The above figures on Bob doing the work manually each time. Hopefully with minimal coding, the lure could be made durable to some extent and add a certain percentage increase to the chance a certain type of escalation drops into the hex each time it is cleared.

Some of use would like to have the escalations pop into hexes other then the settlement's hex, since a settlement's hex could change. And I also put fore the idea that calling in a escalation could also be put into a home hex to shake things up from the normal stagnant state.
Any updates?
The main issue driving a desire for a smaller map seems to be that the low population is wide spread, so the issue is really the population density.
If we change to smaller map and lose players we will be in the exact same state we are now. For example if we have 50 active actual players and 800 hexes, then we shrink the map to half the size but we lose half the players the density would be the same at 25 players in 400 hexes.
I really think the focus needs to be on ideas that will help retain players and make the game more enjoyable to play than just resize due to not enough players.

Given the Pop density, I'd be cutting the map down to about 1/4th to 1/7th it's current size.
But your right in that we need to focus on making the game more playable, but we also need to make the game more lively and active so a new player doesn't see a dead or dying game.
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
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.