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
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.
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.