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 Smitty

One major positive of PFO. Is there isn't roles that you lock your self into. If you want to do leather rogue stuff for armor and cleric domain for you feature. It's your call.. or you could reverse it do cleric healer armor.. and then concentrate in rogue weapons..

The versatility of the system is one of the best parts of the game right now.
As to settlement choice.. best advice I can give is find one that is active during your prime play times.
Decide if you want a good focused organization. Or would you be interested in being a bandit.. or at least okay with playing with them.
We definitely intend for it to be possible to take down even the most established settlement, and it shouldn't generally require anything on the order of 27 weeks to do so. It might take that long to do so very methodically, or if there's a lot of back-and-forth taking of territory along the way, or if the settlement is buried deep inside an established alliance, but it should be possible to do so more quickly with a powerful enough force of attackers. We don't expect it to happen often, but we expect it to be possible, and we do expect lone settlements and settlements on the outer borders of alliances to change hands more often.

In terms of being able to build for 4 days and be attacked for 3, that does give the defenders some opportunity to rebuild, but inside of smaller territory. If they lose territory each week, they'll still eventually fall, though they may eventually be able to concentrate their forces enough to prevent further losses, while the attackers are now more spread out and vulnerable during their own PvP windows. If the attackers do get to the point of actually surrounding the settlement with siege equipment, we'll also restrict the settlement's ability to repair damage during their 4 non-PvP days. With the rules I'm currently writing up, I simply won't count any new structures or bulk resources as part of the defenses if they're added after the siege begins. When we eventually automate the sieges, we'll have mechanics that restrict new buildings, or upkeep deposits, or whatever is appropriate to restrict during that time.

All that said, I'll agree that we do want a certain amount of stability, particularly deep within established alliances. We expect more PvP-averse players to feel relatively safe in those areas. We want the borders and less populated areas to be more dynamic, with holdings changing hands reasonably often, and settlements changing hands occasionally. More PvP-interested players would spend their time in those areas. Pushing back the borders of a successful, established alliance and taking it completely down will be a big deal, and very difficult to pull off, but at the very least technically possible.

I question whether there even exists today "established alliances" deserving of such protection. What I see are hollow shells of previous organizations that would crumble the minute you kick unsubscribed characters out of companies.

Under today's rules I can feud folks and see if they actually have the numbers to keep their holdings when their PvP window occurs.

Under the EE12 rules there are going to be holdings completely immune from attack. The company owning that holding might not even have any subscribed players. And all the holdings around it may also be owned by companies without subscribed players.

If you want to reward "established alliances" with stability, at least make sure the established alliances you are coddling are subscribed to the game. I would strongly urge you to expunge all unsubscribed players from companies before instituting any rules granting holdings immunity from attack. Under the current rules, the hollow shells can, at least, be fairly challenged.
Midnight, We had a similar thread not long ago discussing company influence..
I have to disagree with you on the just dump everyone out of their company if they are inactive.
We do have entire companies that have disappeared from the game with no active players, we have large companies with only a tiny active population- Yes that is a problem..

But the solution cant be kick them out- You want these people to come back- you don’t want their welcome back to be “Glad your back now start over”.
They wouldn’t be new players, so achievements wouldn’t help build influence for them faster. Entire company vaults could be lost if they had no active player, and come back to a settlement that is no longer active.

My view is they need to add another layer to influence, that decays over time when players go inactive. They need to track the inactive influence total of the company as well as the active influence. The active influence would represent active players, and the inactive influence would be available when and if players returned.

I just don’t see any good coming from wiping away previous accomplishments and making returning players start from scratch as a good idea in welcoming them back.
Restocked some buy orders.. Will see if Lilith goes 50c each again in cosl.. if not there is i put one up for 20c…
Added some t3 gem orders but not that much apiece. I use them bit not in huge quantities..

Added some more guys for t3 ores. but I'm wizard and don't know much about metal my bids may be lower than what your willing to take.
I keep placing wizard stuff up and for a while it sold immediately.. so up the prices a bit.. just so I can keep up making things as they sell.
Lilith has put up some bows and things that appear to be selling as well and fairly quickly… if folks are looking for some thing specific let us know here.. or talk with Tuffon in game smile

Appreciate the responses.

Wasn't meaning to nit pick the process apart (i was just wondering how the entire picture looked)-

As long as reasons exist(or are eventually part of the road map ) to show up and participate every day during a time of conflict -
So that one side cant just walk away and not be affected by that decision, then i think you are on the right track.
Also good that it sounds as though raiding will not be tied to the same feud mechanics!
We need levels showing our displeasure with each other without actually trying to blow up/take territory.
Raids sound like they may fit that niche.
Thanks for clarification- was getting bit confused- with how all that was going to play out-
and really didn't like the idea of taking damage for 7 days when you can only try to break a siege for 3 days.

That being said-
Still one question with 3 day windows..
Day 1 you take 2 outpost.
Day 2 you fight over the holding.. you win..
Day 3?? you don't fight because on day 4 you cant actually take a holding making anything you do on day 3 a waste of time-
(unless you manage to take 2 outpost on day 2- day 3 is a meaningless conflict day.)
So Will the vulnerable state of a holding carry over to the next 3 day window?-

Meaning that if you take 2 holdings on day 3 then on day 1 of a following week- the holding is vulnerable?
It is going to be odd to have a sworn enemy dedicated to wiping my settlement off the map, and to run into them and realize it's Tuesday so we have to ignore each other. But I'll have to wait and see what the PvP opt in is.

Players who don't opt in ought not be allowed to post about PvP or politics. only 1/2 smile

You can still kill each other on Tuesday, you just can't take each other's territory. Of course, if you can't do that, you may not want to bother feuding on Tuesday, but you certainly can. Also, if your PvP days don't overlap with your enemy's PvP days, you may still be able to trade territory every day but Tuesday (or whatever the 7th day is in your case), so that's still a lot of possible fighting if you choose to do so.

May be a different topic- but I was under the impression Sieges were going to use the same PvP windows and Feud mechanics that exist elsewhere.
If that is still true…

Can you address this?

What i think we know about Sieges.

A Siege can be done by multiple settlements and they use the PvP window and feud system.

These windows are suppose to overlap the defending settlement ( or as close to it as they can get)..
So If a siege takes place..

All the settlements involved align their PvP windows ( and now days? ) to the settlement they attack.

The defender can try and remove camps and engines for 3 days?
After 3 days the Defender takes damage from the siege engines for 2 days( as long as the engines are supplied),
without fighting back because there is a 2 day pvp free window?
Hoping the bonus you alluded too is coming or the numbers get tweaked quite a bit..
Because this is still what i see with this proposal….
A perfect wood hex- can easily produce 700-750 wood a week-
Now if we have to put 128 units into maintain that production- instead of 10 ( or even 70 like original cost )..
and also mule over 250 units from 2 other holdings (those 250 units have to come from somewhere-)
Just to maintain 550 wood a week -

while banking 200 more influence for the +4 holding and 400 more influence on the 2 +0's to supply it..
as well as finding time to run a mule back and forth between the 2 +0's to the +4 to keep it stocked ..
It would make way more sense to just do 2 +0 hexes- for 400 influence total, and eliminate the all the hassle.

one perfect wood, and one almost perfect wood hex ..
You could probably get 450 -500 wood units a week
Both hexes would be self sufficient..
No running around to stock em..
defense would be an issue- but blobs and numbers are more of an issue- no matter the + of the hex..
So for now this is strictly a math based formula ?
A wizard that is attached to a settlement without wizard training- will only need to worry about the level of support,
and not the fact their settlement actually has no wizards to train them.
Answered one of my questions,

Holding upkeep is currently daily..

A +4 holding will use 3 resources at the rate of 18/day each..
so 126 of 3 resource types consumed to operate the holding ..
For a total of 378 resources used

A +0 Holding will use 14 resources for the week for one type..
For Comparisons

A settlement that wants to run at level 15 will use 150 of all 5 resources types .. (750 total)
Rank 14 will use 95 of each type.. (475 total)
Rank 13 will use 55 of each (275 total)
Rank 12 will use 28 of each ( 196 total)
A +4 Holding is going to consume the same amount of resources that a level 12-13 settlement is going to consume a week..
That seems crazy to me..


Its probably likely that 3 hexes running at +0 are going outproduce a +4 hex(for the same influence cost)

+ 4 Holding influence cost = 100 to place - 50 for each plus (200).. so 300 influence
2 +4 outpost - Influence cost - 50 each to place (100) plus 25 for 4 plus( 200) - so 300 influence
total influence running 1 hex at +4 is 600

Compared with

+0 holding is 100 to place ( 100)
2 +0 outpost is 50 each to place ( 100 )
total influence for a +0 hex is 200

You can run three of them for the same influence cost..

Those 3 +0 hexes will use a total of 42 resources-
While A +4 will look pretty and use 378 resources
(and that is if they are the right type and you mule around the things you need to stock it..)

Hoping to get Bob's thoughts on if these numbers are going to be tweaked at all,

Lots of you guys have done holding and outpost stuff more than I have - So Perhaps the +4 outpost production
makes up for the difference- But I am not seeing it, help me do so if I am missing something.
The +4 Holding Option seems like a good thing to have in case of feuds, war time, etc. but to run holdings at that expense full time doesn't look that appealing to me..
Would like to hear more about -

"Restrict Outposts to only producing bulk resources at the upgrade level of the Holding."

1. Holdings that run at +1 and higer require a secondary , or even a third resource ( when you get to +3 and +4).
Will those Values be evaulated?

(someone refresh my memory are the current holding cost per day or per week?)

Are the cost of holdings going to be reviewed / changed?
I Also See this

"Bring back support, but provide partial support to learned ranks above those supported by Settlement Level."
1. Will Support mean that my wizard has to be part of a settlement that offers all wizard training and that settlement will have to run at what ever level my max skill is?
2. Or will my wizard work just as well with any settlement as long as they run at the highest level skill I have?
Finally the fun One…
" Add elite (T3) variants of selected T2 escalations."

Is it not fun to picture a legend and Hero Goblin..
Or an entire Natures Wrath with super hard wolves?!?

Not sure how why- but makes me smile thinking of a T3 goblin escalation..
Side request-
Boss Loot on escalations..
Cleric, wizard seem okay with the variations..
Fighter and rogue escalations .. well they need help..( due to not that many items on those tables)

How easy would it be to add expert expendables to one and free holder expendables to the other?( just feels like there needs to be an escalation boss drop for those 2 things besides the random T3 ones)