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 Flari-Merchant

So you can train it but not use it until your support level rises to the challenge.

While the population is so low, some really tough choices are going to have to be made by The Bigger Alliances about how many and which settlements are worth keeping propped up. Someone is still going to have to keep the lights on in certain places if the groups really want to hang on to all of their settlements.

The above is why, even though I basically like the idea and appreciate that Bulk will now have value, I am wondering if it might do more harm than good so long before you try and get a serious "New Player Injection".
Awesome and Thank you!
@ Bob

Server -11, -6 seems to be down. Are you aware of this?
I am a little bummed because I was not suspecting that to be fixed in this Roadmap. Having it happen after I have literally transformed ALL of a settlement's hexes to more efficient EE12 models, but I am not complaining per se. I still see good value in going with watchtowers pretty much exclusively in the mountains.

Still fully support getting that feature up and working.
Interesting factoid. An old company that has been booted from its settlement seems to maintain its holdings and proceed naturally with its last PVP window setting. At least for one full server down and up cycle so far.

I will watch it for a few days. This could mean that once established, a group could possibly have an independent hex or small group of them. Let's see what develops from more server downs. I will watch it for a few days.
It's a little of both.

In Eve… inequality in defensibility was simply a given. The map had bottlenecks in some places that made them good for defense, but since no outposts were assigned or given in advance no one got upset that all outposts weren't equally defensible.

The 10,000 new PFO players aren't going to care about it either, since all settlements recruit.

If you name a five minute solution for the dev team, then they might spend 5 minutes catering to a tiny number of players to assure the settlements they own have equality in vulnerability (in a game which is still going to be a builder game).

If the solution is going to take 100 hours, then that's 100 hours the devs will spend catering to that tiny number of players, rather than adding features intended to attract the next 10,000 players.

When I ask myself "why do I care about this issue?" it really is from a couple of different angles.

1. Though I understand that there are differences(many) in where settlements are, what resources are around them, who has better home hexes closer, even do I have enough bulk producing hexes to "maintain" I see things that I can overcome. By making war or placing a small hold or trading or even poaching. My sense of basic fairness can balance those problems with action. Nothing that I could do(so far) allows for my settlement hex to have 6 core hexes only vulnerable if the "puzzle" can be broken. It doesn't bother me that other settlements can have even more complex puzzles because of way more available hexes. Just that at the minimum base, some simply can't do anything as simple as 6 protected core hexes.
Then again, I could just decide that "the equal minimum" is 3 or whatever the most short changed settlement really is.

2. The second is even though the future new player base may not give a rats ass about Ozem's Vigil or Golgotha or Highroad or Carpe Noctem, they are unique places with personalities. At least I like to think so. As much history and hard work that has to be put into them(or will soon enuf) added to that, I don't like the idea of their ideals being easier to take away than anyone else's.
Clearly not everyone puts as much importance on these things and that's how the cookie crumbles. Yet if say you did conquer and take away Phaeros, they would indeed have to move in with allies/friends and they would be the same people(abit pissed off maybe) but Phaeros would be gone and so not really the same as it was or they were.
@ Midnight

Just replying here rather than quoting and therefor perpetuating labels. I'm trying to cut back on that. smile

Judging from my memories(pre game) of all of the lengthy debates back on the old Paizo forum about SO MANY subjects that turned out to be completely irrelevant, I can honestly say that this could turn out to be the same. Maybe no one will care about this in the slightest beyond a few players here and now. Maybe even they won't by the time it comes to being real time relevant in future warfare.

Besides that, I really don't know enough about EVE outposts or stations or even whether it takes more or less effort to take out any given outpost for some reason. You seem to be suggesting that all things being equal except position? that yes it is easier to take out some outposts/stations than others and EVE players don't care. Is that the case? Or is your position that it doesn't matter if you lose your settlement because you can find another?
Bringslite of Staalgard
No, not everyone will be ok with having to do so if the reason is an unequal mechanic.

And yet you still play in spite of unequal mechanics like resource distribution, escalation distribution, home hex distribution, etc.

I doubt my post will get a single settlement leader to think it doesn't matter. But I'm happy to go on record predicting that it won't matter to the next 10,000 players.

I already dislike the protected hex concept because it will make warfare as dreary as WW1 Trench Warfare. That alone will insure this remains a builder game rather than a game of conquest. But any effort it takes to make attacking equally dreary vs. all settlements is effort that the next 10,000 players won't even appreciate.

Somehow, to me at least, those bolded things do not seem even to be on the same type of radar.
Losing an inhabited AND defended settlement hasn't really happened yet. It probably will happen eventually if there are some more bodies around to handle the massive logistics involved. Pretty sure that everyone is aware of that.

Not too many are aware of how much work and material goes into building one up from scratch… except for EVERY SINGLE ALLIANCE of more than one settlement currently on the map now. Every group has taken over abandoned settlements and most have done some work on getting them up to more than a bank, a tavern and a large parking lot. If you haven't yet seen to that, even with the FREE buildings given by GW, then maybe yeah…. you have a hard time understanding how those people would not want to have their settlements any more minimally defendable than any others.

Yes settlements will likely get sieged and lost eventually. Yeah, alliances allow for allies to have options to move to other settlements. No, not everyone will be ok with having to do so if the reason is an unequal mechanic.
@ Bob

On the wiki, is it an error that mine holdings get a bonus of stone and quarries get a bonus of iron? Seems the only two that are out of sync.

Edit: Opps! Also nice to see those come in and the upgraded skins too! Bravo Cole!