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
Lol I can't help but wonder if this could have been accomplished with less spam.
At first I thought we were hit by another international fortune teller scam number. smile

Ozem's Vigil is controlled by Stilachio Thrax now. Hardy and Devoted Paladin in Waiting(2 plus years).
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Edam
To be quite honest if we actually get the 1000s of players Bringslite is talking about the handful of unsubscribed subs in the current game will make no difference.

Reading between the lines of the various forum posts here, the main motivation behind all this seems to be disenfranchised current players hoping to oust some of the existing settlement holders BEFORE any influx of new players.
Forgive me… you seem to see outrĂ© motivations in many things that people post. Are there disenfranchised players in control of settlements?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Bob
As soon as we have a rough plan worked out, I'll open up a more detailed discussion on the forums. Hopefully there'll be some time for us to work through the details during the early days of EE 13.

OK Thanks for putting up with this evening's badgering. I am confident you guys will figure something out smile
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
When you advise "Do not stretch much beyond what you can achieve in Influence right now"(paraphrasing) "because that is too far when we reintroduce the cap", it sounds like we will be dropped right back into the situation that we are already in. Most companies have been around long enough that they are capped and nearly fully "banked" as well.

I definitely don't want to give the impression that we'll be returning things to a state that feels limited much like the current situation is. We want there to be limits to influence use, but we want them to result in a world that feels reasonable at any scale. That doesn't necessarily mean that the results are exactly the same at any scale, just that they feel reasonable at any scale, and it's fair to say that the current method of limiting influence doesn't hit that goal at the current scale. Without the limits, we could very quickly find ourselves feeling unreasonable in the opposite direction, but between the limited pace of earning influence and the logistical problems of moving around too many bulk resources, there should still be at least some limits on overall development.

The system is both artificially skewed because of non existent characters in companies and scale locked because there is a hard cap AND a diminishing return. I don't see how you can scale things to seem right for tiny populations as well as much larger (by magnitudes) populations. Not unless you 1. get rid of the dead weight phantom characters and manually adjust caps according to populations? I suppose that you could possibly code a sliding scale in but Ye Gads! the work…

Maybe Influence is being held in the wrong place and being used for the wrong things or in the wrong ways or not enough ways?

How will you finally address all of these unsubscribed cap raising characters if you don't do it before you try and attract 1000's of new players? Do it when the population is healthy and growing and you might as well throw us to the wolves with our hands tied behind our backs. Never do it and it will be a real sore spot for new players coming in and trying to get established with their own influence pools. smile
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Oh and just to be clear, I am fine with the possibility that my alliance's territory is too large to realistically control. I would be fine with all non subscribed characters to cease counting for company influence pools. It is going to have to be addressed sooner or later, might as well be sooner. We Old Timers are controlling more territory than is realistic because of it. It will not be fair to new players.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Ah, I see where my statement was problematic. I didn't mean to imply that influence will necessarily be returning in its current form, just that it would continue to include the aspect of growing less and less efficient as companies grow in size. It clearly needs to be tweaked, and we have some tweaks in mind that should make it scale much better so it will work both with the current population and as the population grows. We just weren't going to be able to fully flesh out those tweaks in time for EE 12, but we still hope to be able to do them soon. My warning really is meant just to cover the more obvious cases of overreach, where a relatively small group works like crazy to earn influence while it's unlimited and then banks far more of it than larger, but still reasonably-active companies. As long as you don't feel like you're straining to take advantage of this temporary state and take over as many hexes as you possibly can, everything should be fine. That's certainly the goal of all the tweaks we're discussing.

For myself, it just seemed odd that the whole removing the cap thing was to help us be able to adjust to needing to bring in more Bulk and companies mostly already being stretched. Especially if you consider that some of many settlements Holdings are just THERE NOW without players to operate them due to declining interest in the game. They are gone. The companies are GONE. They have to be removed and replaced but there are simply no players to make companies to do so…
When you advise "Do not stretch much beyond what you can achieve in Influence right now"(paraphrasing) "because that is too far when we reintroduce the cap", it sounds like we will be dropped right back into the situation that we are already in. Most companies have been around long enough that they are capped and nearly fully "banked" as well.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
@ Bob

To be fair, I did know that this would be temporary. I think that I had the impression that it would last through this roadmap. After which, hopefully, we would have lots more recruits to flesh out companies so that we COULD maintain reasonable support levels.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Influence will be made relevant again, including the mechanics that make influence less and less efficient to work with the larger your company is. We don't intend to have influence be as unlimited as we're making it in EE 12 for very long.
See that really is disturbing. How many times a year are we expected to redesign and rebuild our Holding networks?

We do try to keep changes that really require a rethink of your Holdings and Outposts to a minimum, and when we do make changes requiring it we try to lump them together as much as possible. I did say when announcing this change (well, technically in my first follow-up post shortly after the announcement post) that this would be temporary, though we won't know exactly how temporary until we figure out where we can fit a more permanent solution into the schedule. Unlimited influence is better than what we have right now, but clearly isn't ideal, so we don't want to stick with it longer than necessary. Our current thoughts on a permanent solution try to avoid forcing significant changes unless a company really overreaches. Here was my original advice on that front:

When we do get something put in, some companies will fairly quickly find themselves with insufficient influence if they've spread too far. There aren't any specific numbers I could warn people about going beyond at this time, but I'd just say that if you really have to push yourselves to earn the influence to get those buildings placed/upgraded now, there's a good chance you won't be able to keep them later.

The reason for taking the cap off is so that we can have influence to better keep our support level high for the new reqs? We will be where we are now when you put the cap back on. Unless the game is going to spontaneously explode with new players earlier than expected?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Midnight

Now, do you think it is an unequal balance between small time, single settlement "groups" vs alliance blobs just because the smaller groups won't try and ally with other small groups near them? That is their choice right?

Yes it is people's choice whether to blob.

One of my concerns is I don't want the game to become blob versus blob, so I don't want to penalize people FURTHER for not blobbing.

Another concern is that the smaller group might not have a settlement. Can companies "ally" independent of settlements?

You could have company A with 2 holdings and a 23/7 PvP window for being unaffiliated with a settlement and their enemy, company B might have 2 holdings, both immune and thus NEVER having a PvP window.

23/7 PvP window versus forever immune. Defend that concept, please.
What I have found after ejecting a company with holdings from a settlement: The PVP window goes to two hours and not 23/7. Everything else looks normal. No idea if they can ally with anyone. Doubtful as that seems like a settlement level thing.
Edit: Get ingame and look up Peace Through Vigilance
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Midnight

You do grasp that even if some guys you don't like have hexes that are "protected" you can feud them any and every day including any hour of the week that you like with a minimal Influence cost?

If holdings have meaning than holding warfare is where it's at. If holdings don't have meaning, why the hell is the map littered with them?

That's a rhetorical question, the answer is obviously because people are hoping holdings will have meaning one day.
They do in a way now, possibly more than ever because you need Bulk to keep your shiny feats working right. But yeah, the amount of time that you can fight over them has been drastically reduced. I think that I am ok with it because 1. I don't go after holdings much without serious cause and 2. It's pretty boring…

There will be Raiding! and that is fairly close, sans the whole taking away the structure stuff.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com