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

Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Bob
I don't have a great answer on the social issue yet, so for now perhaps I should fall back on something similar to what we've done with Spellcraft. In that case, we temporarily dropped the achievement requirement for advancement, since we don't offer the related achievements yet. As a result, you can advance a lot more easily in Spellcraft than you'll eventually be able to, but that's balanced by the fact that Spellcraft currently isn't as useful as most other skills. The same is kind of true for Seneschal, since refining codex collections is really only meant to be a small part of what Seneschal is for. As a result, it probably wouldn't be unfair to temporarily allow players to advance through those ranks more easily, either by temporarily lowering the Social requirements or by temporarily raising the amount of Social points provided by the Seneschal achievements. Either solution would be pretty obviously temporary. When we can get to more Social achievements, we'd rebalance things again. I'll add some notes to look at doing that with EE 15, unless any of you can point out some flaws I'm missing.

On the Feature Feat front, it looks like the best solution would be to just add it to Passionate in the Workshop with all the other refining skills, since I think it was meant to be added there and just didn't happen. Again, I'll try to get that in for EE 15, unless some of you want to talk me out of it.

The only reason that we could hand-wave this for the future is if we don't have to have higher level buildings BEFORE that future. I am sure that just like myself, no one wants you two to work yourselves until exhausted or dead, so that is a consideration too. Seriously though, it would be nice to have things in the correct order for a line of mechanics that involves actual character power levels.

Bottom line: I think that the population is too small right now to burden it with ANY of this support and building req stuff.

PS: If Engineers can really score +5 buildings with all +5 mats and +3 codex collections, then the problem is not super critical. I am not sure if Azoth can be used to boost crits on them or if Azoth can be used to boost skill for settlement buildings. It should, though, be a "doable" thing to make these buildings without Azoth as pointed out above.
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Lisa Stevens
Kenton Stone
Someone explain how this is going to be possible or where my math is wrong.smile

Kenton Stone.

You should use Azoth to get the rest of the way to +5 for building the +5 Lab. If you can get halfway to +5, then Azoth will bring you the rest of the way to +5 without using that many +4 codices. Of course, I haven't tried this in practice yet.

-Lisa
I could have sworn that either we could not use Azoth to craft Codex Collections or we could not use Azoth to help complete buildings. I am not our engineer or the seneschal to give it a check

Can anyone confirm or deny these things?
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Kenton Stone
We have no problems with most structures the problems arise when 2 codex collections are required.
Instead of having 3 mats and 1 collections it becomes 2 mats and 2 collections. This makes it mathematically problematic.
Taking an Engineer of level 20 with a score of 245 when geared up fully.
Lets use the +5 lab as an example

* 17 x Cleaning Supplies
* 2 x Workers Tools
* Alchemist Codex Collection x 3
* Engineer Codex Collection X 3

Now if we Make all 17 Cleaning Supplies at +5 and all Workers Tools at +5
We still need 5 of the Codex Collections to be +4 and one to be +3

To Get a +4 Codex collection one must make a +3 and hope for a crit.
A +3 Codex Collection requires 33 codices. That is [330 T1], [110 T2] or [33 T3]
Probability suggests that with Azoth you will get 1 x +4 for each 7 attempts.
So if luck is with us it will take
[6930 T1], [2310 T2] or [693 T3] for 3 x +4 collections.
[4620 T1], [1540 T2] or [462 T3] for 2 x +4 collections with a +3 also gained in the process.

This is after building the +2 - +4 versions.

Maybe we are not getting enough recipes but we seem to be a few thousand recipes short.

Someone explain how this is going to be possible or where my math is wrong.smile

Kenton Stone.
That is Many recipes, not even mentioning expendables(more difficult to get in quantity) for combat training buildings,,,,. smile
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Lisa Stevens
While I agree that the whole Social Points issue needs to be looked at, I do want to point out that it is pretty easy to make +5 buildings with only +3 codices and a touch of Azoth if you have a high level Engineer. If you have all +5 crafted materials, you actually don't even need the Azoth if you use +3 codices. So no crits are needed.
Codices can only be made at +0
I had thought that we couldn't use Azoth for Codex Collections. If I am wrong, well then I have no concerns smile
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Any ideas on a fix for this yet, Sir Bob?

Social Points are pretty hard to get to raise Seneschal levels. Without some decent lvls, crits on codex collections are beyond difficult. Need crits on those to make upgrades to buildings.

Thus we have a problem that can't be solved as of now. Unless I (and my group) are missing something here.
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
This is supposed to be a dynamic game. Companies and settlements do not have the luxury of turning on and off personal force fields that take their organizations in and out of real time.

The way that I interpret Bob's proposal to challenge settlement/company leadership is done from within that Org's own ranks. The other alternatives being already in place for more "physical" means of dealing with 100% inactive positions.

Only by feeding absentees the idea that their previous "positions SHOULD be static until they decide whether to return or not to find all the same for them do you get a twisted logic that it should be so. Time marches on.

It seems like a fair system for now if not abused.
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
How about completely dead companies with holding that can't be accessed? Will these returning players be less happy to find their settlement bulldozed the returny's holdings to make productive hexes?
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Not that I disagree with your point. I also feel that in the case of companies, there are avenues already available even if some are a real hassle.

What though should a person that lapsed their account, disappeared from possible contact, or won't return attempts to make contact really expect? Just for an opening question.
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
+1 even though I had surrendered the "company" level problem so as not to distract you guys from you other work loads. A break now and then from that load will be healthy for you, maybe?
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Before things get too nasty and we all stop even reading posts before we trash them, is this still a valid procedure for handling Settlement Leadership? I want to be sure that I am not just misunderstanding the issue here.

"Read this again- it was 2 years ago Dec 2016 - last I heard it was still valid..
“The only situation so far where we allow one player to request that another player be demoted from company leader is when the official settlement owner requests that a leader of the settlement's founding company be demoted, and that's only allowed because it's kind of essential to being a settlement's tyrant. ….. “

Yup, I continue to honor requests from settlement owners to demote founding company leaders.

I'm also writing up a proposal for handling leadership challenges for all companies. I'll post it here for discussion shortly.
lol My apologies to all those that I frustrated because I was… dumb. Especially Bob and Smitty.
Quote