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
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.
Azure_Zero
Ortallus
markelphoenix
Honey in Stead of Vinegar:

Leave the number of towers the same as they are currently in EE3.

Add a mechanic, so that every tower beyond X towers, you gain y amount of Knowledge AND Gathering as a bonus for all members. This would give an incentive for people to become 'more engaged' with towers, given that the primary benefit of owning a bunch of towers now is raising your training capabilities, which are largely an allowance for 'down the road' given xp being the primary 'delay' from being able to use that extra training ceiling.

This would give tangible reasons for everyone to participate, knowing that they will increase their gathering / drop-rates-from-mobs by being more aggressive in the war. This further helps by pushing forward the economic seeding that we're suppose to be doing, given that we are the pioneers and seedlings for the robust economy that is suppose to develop from our gardening efforts.

One could also consider adding an Encumbrance bonus from owning towers, this would also help in the movement of supplies, encouraging people to carry larger loads, which means more attractive PVP targets if you can catch someone moving material.

Given that the War of Towers is temporary AND the fact that we are in the seeding stage of the game world, it makes sense to me to incentivize not penalize to get this war going.smile

I agree other than the fact that the big 2 would receive the vast majority of this boost, and incentivize people moving to them.

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_Zero
Welcome to City 17, Stilachio Thrax.
It's safer here. smile

Sorry could not resist a half-life reference
Azure_Zero
Oh, that is not deities based.

That is NPC quest based.

There are about 6+ priests in any one settlement, they are scattered about the settlement.
Walk around the whole settlement to find them all
Azure_Zero
@Atheory
Thanks for the clarification, and I can somewhat under stand that point.
Azure_Zero
I think a formula should be made, one such that bigger companies would need to make a choice; recruit, or keep their level.
But it should also limit the number of towers anyone can hold (say 12) to help force the hard choice.
Example equation:
Settlement_Level = 6 + ( N_Towers / (round_up( (Total_Settlement_Pop) / 50 )));

This formula will also help the smaller settlements recruit more players since the bigger one will slow down their recruitment drive and give the smaller settlements a chance to recruit.
Since new players will want (security and community) and the power of their facilities and the biggest ones provide that, so they naturally gravitate to them.
Azure_Zero
I think a formula should be made, one such that bigger companies would need to make a choice; recruit, or keep their level.
But it should also limit the number of towers anyone can hold (say 12) to help force the hard choice.
Example equation:
Settlement_Level = 6 + ( N_Towers / (round_up( (Total_Settlement_Pop) / 50 )));

This formula will also help the smaller settlements recruit more players since the bigger one will slow down their recruitment drive and give the smaller settlements a chance to recruit.
Since new players will want (security and community) and the power of their facilities and the biggest ones provide that, so they naturally gravitate to them.
Azure_Zero
Nope, Deities are not in yet.
and no one has the list except the Devs
Azure_Zero
I have to agree with Atheory on most of his points.

1) I agree that stability and bugs should be ironed out first before new features come it,
Though I would like it if they added a race or class every 3 months, and it should not cause many problems.

2) Now I can understand wanting to be a non-settlement company or solo-player, but at the same time we need players to attach themselves to a settlement. So I'm in between here.

3) I mostly agree. Remove most of the NPC settlements, keep ThornKeep and (Marchmont or Rathglen), and keep the AH limited to Crafting and the two NPC towns mentioned. Keeping the AH like this, will keep players moving around to sell their wares.

4) Agreed, a formula should be made, such that bigger companies would need to make a choice; recruit, or keep their level.
But it should also limit the number of towers anyone can hold (say 12) to help force the hard choice.
Example equation:
Settlement_Level = 6 + ( N_Towers / (round_up( (Total_Settlement_Pop) / 50 )));
Azure_Zero
Ryan if you want I could run some more tests,
but would need to know what info your looking for.