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
Welcome, kennsing.

If you have questions ask around folks will answer your questions.
And be sure to check out the Settlement and Companies subforums for a gaming group that fits your playstyle.
But you should also pay attention to the geography and political landscape when picking a settlement or company.
i.e. In the Western Side of the Map in the Highroad Covenant Alliance* we have 0 to 5 PVPing PKers moving around in the area in a week at most at the moment. So you can enjoy the PVE content with out getting PKed and robbed of your stuff.

*High Road Convenant Alliance is made of the settlements, Talonguard, Tavernhold and Stoneroot Glade

Signed
AZ, Talonguard
Azure_Zero
I believe Talonguard will be happy with this change to WoT, compared to the original planned EE4 WoT changes
Azure_Zero
Now is that Windows 7 Home Edition, 64-bit or 32-bit?
Azure_Zero
Avari
Azure_Zero
The point of this equation is to get the smaller settlements moving, and the bigger ones to slow down.
And get players to start exploring and finding other settlements than the big fish.
The sweet number in the equation is 90-99, but still gives a push into the 100+ settlement area.

You are forgetting the towers are temporary, this equation is stop gap like the towers are for POI.

There is absolutely no good reason for the larger groups to slow down when they aren't even half way to the #'s of a successful settlement.

It does when the big fish poach from the small fish.
And getting the diveristy now, is easier than forcing it later
Azure_Zero
There is a place you can go without the need of being tied to a settlement and have low rep,
It is called Rotter's Hole.

As for your small scale settlements, I think small scale in Ryan's eyes would be something like 100-200 people, not 10.
And the reason for the current setup is to stop jerks and trolls from leveling up and become the civil player's content.
Azure_Zero
Avari
Azure_Zero
You see a sweet spot appears in the equation, a Settlement between 50 to 149 players has ease of levels and the numbers to back it.

Again you are completely missing the endgame for GW on this. They don't want settlements at 50-150 players, they want settlements to be 3x the current size of Brighthaven's roster. 200 players is supposed to be the MINIMUM for a bare bones settlement. The answer is most certainly not to curb the only groups headed towards those #'s, the answer is to funnel the current population into groups who can achieve those #'s ASAP.

The point of this equation is to get the smaller settlements moving, and the bigger ones to slow down.
And get players to start exploring and finding other settlements than the big fish.
The sweet number in the equation is 90-99, but still gives a push into the 100+ settlement area.

You are forgetting the towers are temporary, this equation is stop gap like the towers are for POI.
Azure_Zero
Ortallus


That'll be awesome. Will said mechanics put a hardcap on settlement populations?

Nope, no pop caps
Azure_Zero
Sspitfire1
…………

Boosting small settlements incentives keeping a settlement small. Boosting large settlements encourages small settlements to grow so they can get the benefits of the larger settlements.

"Two large settlements in the game" is also a bit naive. TSV, KP, TEO and Hammerfall will never converge into one settlement. We all have very different play styles and settlement-level personalities that work great in an alliance- but not with us all under one roof. Moreover, if everyone joins into two large settlements, then training in the roles that are not covered by those 2 settlements will be stuck at Rank 8. Incentivizing larger settlements might force folks in small settlements to "join" larger settlements for the time being. But as the game grows, the larger settlements will need to shed players and the smaller settlements will be the first to depart for their homecoming.

Their needs to be a mechanic to help attract new players to the smaller settlements.

As for the larger the settlements it is the easier to recruit new players. This is due to many new players looking for the largest settlement that meets their profile. As the larger settlements will be guaranteed to full-fill most their psychological needs (shelter, safety, belonging, and esteem), while the smaller ones can only provide at best one to two psychological needs (shelter, and (Safety or Belonging)). Now that is one factor that effects the recruitment.

Many smaller settlements have to work many times harder just for one new member, where a single recruitment message from a large settlement one can net like 3 recruits.

Hence you need to tilt things in favor of smaller settlements.

You should also note the equation for settlement level I gave is non-linear.
Settlement_Level = 6 + ( N_Towers / ( round_up ( Total_Settlement_Pop / 50 )));

If a small settlement takes to many towers they will not have the numbers to hold them,
they will get have easier time holding levels, but the loss of a single tower would be very bad.

Say settlement A of 40 holds 4 towers ( level 10 ) they can hold their towers well, but a single lost tower will damage their settlement. They also might get greedy and take a tower from another (say b) who then later steals all of A's towers and holds them hard, dealing a big blow to the settlement ( level 6 ).

Now settlement B with 80 players holds 4 towers ( level 8 ), and they want to level up their settlement, Now A stole two towers from them and they then stole them back with interest now holding 8 towers ( level 10 ), B now overpowers A in level and numbers because A had an opportunity to recruit with their higher level, but did not do so.

You see the sword is double sided for both smaller and larger companies.
Smaller companies can use the level mechanic to recruit people in, but also know that a single tower taken or gained has big impacts, as you get bigger the effect of a single tower loss weakens, but you need more to sustain your level.

now the biggest settlement has 200+ characters, so they would need 5 times the towers to be the same level as a settlement of under 50.
But have the numbers to back holding those towers, though it would be a bit harder.

You see a sweet spot appears in the equation, a Settlement between 50 to 149 players has ease of levels and the numbers to back it.
Azure_Zero
KevinPhoenix
so if there isn't a list, can anyone tell me where to find:
    hemp, and
    ordered essence
thx

South west corner of the map
Azure_Zero
Ortallus
Sspitfire1
Azure_Zero
Ortallus
markelphoenix
Yep the two largest settlements would get one hell of a boost, and new players would flock to them,
Hence why my example equation before only gave smaller settlements the boost, with the biggest needing to choose.

Azure, small settlements were never meant to survive in this game.

No. They were meant to grow and gain new people. If all the people flock to 2 settlements, though, then there can't really be any multi-settlement kingdoms, which was also intended in the game.

Exactly, the smaller settlements are suppose to grow. but if they get hindered by a new design spec, you'll be left folks moving to large settlement and with only very large settlements left you'll have a Red vs Blue stick.

If goblinworks wants their to be many settlements and many groups with various fights going on, they need to help the smaller settlements and hinder the biggest ones. They need to get players to spread out and create diversity.