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've done some math based on numbers and responses.

This tax gets put in, I expect somewhere between a loss of 5-15 players (directly and or indirectly with in the first few months)
and if we have say 30-40 players, that would be a player loss of between 8% to 50%.

I'd also be predicting that only these settlements would remain:
Aragon,
Oakknoll,
Carpe,
Ozems,
Alderwag,
Keepers
Hammerfall(likely the first on this list to fall next)

The two I figure that will be the last two standing will be Oakknoll and Carpe.

——————————-
Now on to WHY there will be this player loss

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.

Here is a chain of events
Influence/activity tax put in,
Settlements start losing stuff and support for levels they have
Players Leave since they are no longer support at levels they want but can't give more time to raise it
This leads to points; A, B, and C

Point A
settlement leaders leave
a players take leader role
new leader find out how UNFUN it is to run a settlement
New leader leaves
Leads to point C

Point B
Settlements empty and become claimable
New players see the number of empty settlements and ask some question
sees the work needed for settlement and how UNFUN it is
new players leave
re-enforcing the 0 new player retention.

Point C
Players leave, less Money
Less Money, less income for Goblinworks
and since GW has some fixed expenses you can start seeing where something will need to give.
Azure_Zero
I get that you could make a new company as a work around, but even a new company adds work.
If a settlement has only one company with holdings and that company is full of casual (or in the military) players, it'll be a problem as they'll be losing their stuff when they all take a break for a bit due to RL, then you'll permanently lose them as paying players as when they get back the system will have nuked their stuff they worked hard at and then lost.

I will say a more realistic influence cap would be around 10,000 as that'll be enough for single company settlement to attempt running at about level 19 with nothing but +4 and +5 buildings pending on how they setup the holdings.

Right now the game CAN NOT afford to lose any paying casual players from forcing a chores on players.
Instead we should be looking at removing chores from the game to make it more fun.
Azure_Zero
Bob there is an even easier and better answer to your perceived problem then putting in that freaking activity Tax
Just change the Influence Max from 1,000,000 to say 20,0000. Done.
Don't put in code people hate to fix a problem, and create a new problem in the process, put in a answer that works.
Azure_Zero
Flari hits it on the head here, Bob.
Your adding a very mandatory and UN-FUN chore to the game and there is currently enough UN-FUN chores for running settlements that it is currently just at a tolerable level and now you want to add a freaking influence tax.
Currently it is really taxing to claim a settlement and then build it up to around +2 with around level 14 support hence why NO ONE is claiming and building up any settlements.

If there is No Fun, there will be No Players.
And if there are No Players, there will be No Money.

There is a Large Number of other elements that SHOULD be focused on, and this is NOT one of them.
Flari's list but a small list of what should be looked at,
In fact this should NOT be look at all UNTIL AFTER PVP and FEUDs gets properly FIXED, and not before.
Azure_Zero
BOB, you think NOW is the best time for putting that back in, it is the dumbest thing to do right now.

One; Player retention is 0 that means no great influence generation and most active settlements are at the edge of what they are supporting with what few active players they have.

Two; Players who have gotten to a high level and are casual players will leave this game when their settlement can no longer support them and they are one of the forms of cash income Goblinworks has left and some are on the edge of leaving, PFO can't afford that.

Three; You'll be creating more dead settlements then live ones which will give the impression to new players the game is dying or dead, which is really bad for player retention.

Four; During this time that system was not in place, settlements got a chance to grow and that took time and effort and now your going to nuke their work, congrats you've now cheesed off companies and players, some of which will leave making more dead companies, and settlements which is very bad given the game's number of active players (not accounts) is likely less then 40.

This is something that SHOULD ONLY BE THOUGHT ABOUT AFTER; the Engine Upgrade AND the game's active player count (not number of active accounts) is more then say 500.
Until these two conditions are met, doing this is the equivalent of PFO shoting it self in both legs, with a sawed off shotgun in the middle of a desert.
It'll be a guaranteed death for PFO.
Azure_Zero
I do get the idea of Max influence needing to be calculated, but I don't think it'll ever work and it'll kill some of the smaller active settlements since they WON'T be able to keep their DI and Bulk Up for the levels their players are used to, or want to have, and we don't ever really seem to retain ANY new players that hop in.

Some settlements only have a few active and dedicated players who are also casual players in a mid to high teens supporting level settlement with a number of buildings running at +2 or better, so congrats, your bring in a broken system and it'll be killing off some actually active settlements and not just the one's in a settlement collectors collection.

also that formula still favors settlement collectors since they only need a holding to keep there absolute minimum of DI and bulk for a settlement running at a low level.

If holdings need to be cleared, why not do a timer on the holdings counting the days since the Holding vault was accessed, if the count exceeds say a year then tear it down.
This game is built on PVP and the rule, "You have What You Hold."
Now I play more casually then I used to, but every week I still watch my PVP window(s), and do the weekly holding management for two settlements, so why are you killing off the dedicated casual player settlements?

We have the PVP system for clearing and claiming hexes, and what this'll do it make feuding even harder to do since the influence you earn for getting a feud ready is now being eaten for holding upkeep,
[sarcasm]what a great idea giving another hit to the feud system that needs more nerfing and butchering[/sarcasm]
Azure_Zero
Demiurge
Some Cathedrals only cover two temples smile

Aside from that - the only minor issue is that the expert training doubles up with the Guild house. I think this is the first time that a double up within large has occurred.

In some ways a different third trainer, like for instance the library discussed earlier, might have worked better however its a minor point and not a huge issue.

That is not the Only one that is doubled up, Skirmisher is in the Guild and Garrison.
Azure_Zero
Finished doing a major round of Upgrades to Talonguard over the Past 2 weeks, Upgraded both the Armoursmith and Smelter to +4, and upgraded the Cooperative to +3.

I am working on Upgrading Corbenik a bit more.
Azure_Zero
Bob


  • Medium Combat Alchemist Attack Structure: Combat Alchemist Attack Trainer (similar to a Skirmisher or Dreadnaught Trainer)
  • Medium Combat Alchemist General Structure: Combat Alchemist General Trainer (similar to a Fighter College or Rogue Trainer)
  • Large Combat Alchemist+ Structure: Combat Alchemist General and Attack Trainers, Expert Trainer
….

Good to hear things are more of less in place for the trainers,
But this does make the large a bit lack luster compared to the other Large class buildings,
as all do cover 3-4 Medium buildings, with The Guild holding two half-classes to make it viable.
So as it stands the Combat Alchemist large is currently sitting at about 2.5 trainers worth, with the guild sitting at a full 3 trainers worth, as Freeholder and Expert are more like half-classes

Bob
FYI, the Large structure is just being given three trainers for now to keep it in line with the majority of Larges that currently only cover for 2-3 Mediums (Guild House is the outlier at 4 Mediums), and to leave room for including any future roles that match it well (just as several other Larges are slated to take on additional roles when they become available). We explored adding in some non-role capabilities, but ultimately decided to keep Role trainers/capabilities on M/L structures and the more profession trainers/capabilities on S/M structures, mostly for consistency.

The Cathedral is 4 mediums actually, it's just that there is a lot of overlap, as the Cathedral is actually; 1 seminary, and 3 temples.
So it seems like there are only two medium buildings in the one large at first glance.
Azure_Zero
Did Middenheim call in some Ninjas?