Goblin Squad Member
|
If not Napoleon, how about Hannibal? Their normal range is a bit further north, but someone could import war mammoths!
Yes! And while we're at it, add skills to mimic the Mammoth Rider prestige class.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Previously our plan was to target 200+ hexes for the Crusader Road area, each about a little larger than a mile across with a settlement at the center of each. After some mucking around with maps and technical issues, we realized this plan would mean that war between settlements had to be an all-or-nothing affair; the only thing you could do to another settlement was sack it. There was no real sense of fighting for territory since the only territory you controlled was the hex around your settlement, and the only way to lose territory was to lose your settlement. We wanted settlement loss to be the climax of a massive struggle, not the only step, so we have decided to subdivide our previous "big" hexes into seven smaller hexes each, creating more discrete units of territory to fight over.
Before anyone panics, the total size of the game is not changing; if anything it may get bigger, since there are now a lot more hexes. Currently our hex-size experiments are falling into the range of 400 to 1000 meters across per new, smaller hex.
They have divided the old hexes into smaller, distinct hexes to allow more granularity in territory control.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've never understood how this siege window will work on a single server game. I keep getting this image of an Australian player empire destroying everyone while we sleep.
Warning, arbitrary numbers ahead:
So, there are 24 hours in a day (not an arbitrary number =P). Based on the level of development in your settlement, you must set your PVP window at 4 hours per day to get the full benefits. During these hours, your NPC defenses will be at their weakest, and you will have to rely on players to defend your settlement. You look at your settlement members and realize they are most active during US eastern evenings. So you set your PVP window to be 4-8pm eastern time. That way, when your settlement is most vulnerable, you have the most players on to defend it. This is in place to avoid a bunch of people from wiping you out at 2 am when you have no players on. The rest of the time (outside the window you set) you have a large NPC force to deter attackers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've never understood how this siege window will work on a single server game. I keep getting this image of an Australian player empire destroying everyone while we sleep.Warning, arbitrary numbers ahead:
So, there are 24 hours in a day (not an arbitrary number =P). Based on the level of development in your settlement, you must set your PVP window at 4 hours per day to get the full benefits. During these hours, your NPC defenses will be at their weakest, and you will have to rely on players to defend your settlement. You look at your settlement members and realize they are most active during US eastern evenings. So you set your PVP window to be 4-8pm eastern time. That way, when your settlement is most vulnerable, you have the most players on to defend it. This is in place to avoid a bunch of people from wiping you out at 2 am when you have no players on. The rest of the time (outside the window you set) you have a large NPC force to deter attackers.
Dario explained it nicely. Basically the reason for the PvP Window is the problem you describe.
If not Napoleon, how about Hannibal? Their normal range is a bit further north, but someone could import war mammoths!
And that brings us back to wanting a Mammoth Rider 'prestige class' later on in the game's run. XD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dario explained it nicely. Basically the reason for the PvP Window is the problem you describe.I've never understood how this siege window will work on a single server game. I keep getting this image of an Australian player empire destroying everyone while we sleep.Warning, arbitrary numbers ahead:
So, there are 24 hours in a day (not an arbitrary number =P). Based on the level of development in your settlement, you must set your PVP window at 4 hours per day to get the full benefits. During these hours, your NPC defenses will be at their weakest, and you will have to rely on players to defend your settlement. You look at your settlement members and realize they are most active during US eastern evenings. So you set your PVP window to be 4-8pm eastern time. That way, when your settlement is most vulnerable, you have the most players on to defend it. This is in place to avoid a bunch of people from wiping you out at 2 am when you have no players on. The rest of the time (outside the window you set) you have a large NPC force to deter attackers.
Also, if settlements range from 500-1,000 and +, then (additional to Kingdoms) recruiting according to real world geography/time-zones seems an additional security measure. In the above numbers, that is possibly enough to cover.
[Though, Oceanics might be a bit more 'in demand' given smaller population pool, potentially?]
People keep mentioning settlements of 500+. Where do you get this I really cant see it happening tbh not in the first few years of the game certainly.
In the first three years I would be more expecting the average settlement to run around 50 people with a large being 100 or so. Kingdoms probably may go as high as 3 to 4 hundred.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan, you've got say "Beetlejuice!" x3 times... I mean "Nihimon!".
There's about: 179 settlement hexes, possible. [Sub-hex aka new size that is of a total: 1792 total sub-hexes, within the original 256 super, original hex size]
Settlements may not be present intially. Exp. rough population for first 7 months or longer towards 18 months: "16,500 paying players at the end of that seven-month period."
So seems a lot of room for different settlements. But I've always assumed big settlements will be able to destroy smaller settlements? Perhaps you're right Zen and alliances and smaller more cohesive settlements will win out, initially as the population grows at a steady rate?
Edit: A couple of quotes that are related:
The design assumes many hundreds of players in a Settlement. I've mentally been assuming a baseline of 1,000. We'll have to test and see how that works in practice so that's just one guy's estimate.
Obviously the resources of the Settlement have to be flexible enough to accomodate that many players. Since many will have more than one PC, we're talking potentially thousands of characters.
I think a big part of this conversation has to be about what your Settlement does.
I think a lot of people are thinking "my Settlement will be about crafting" or "my Settlement will be about robbing others", etc.
You need to think about your Settlement in broader terms. To be successful, you'll need groups within your Settlement that are harvesters, crafters, explorers, adventurers, soldiers and teamsters. You may have a certain goal for what you or a small group of characters that work with you will do, but Settlements require you to be extremely cross-functional.
There will be more people who want a Settlement than there are places to build them. So there will be a constant tension between those who have one and those who want one. That implies a state of near constant territorial conflict. To win, you'll need to be using all the various tools in the toolbox - both as defender and attacker.
If you want to opt-out of this struggle, you'll have to find ways to live and work out of NPC controlled Settlements which are immune from the territorial control battles. The downside is that those Settlements will be a long way from "wilderness" areas (and thus highest-value harvestable materials) and Settlement buildings will not support the full range of character development options. You may find that you're limited as to how specialized you can become while you remain a member of an NPC Settlement. And there will only be a few of them, and your alignment and reputation will further restrict which NPC Settlements will have you.
Even though we'll continue to add more territory as the game ages its inevitable that if we're growing on plan the number of Settlers will outpace the number of Settlements. You'll want to be thinking about how to form large, complex organizations and how to approach existing Settlements to get them to accept you (and your friends) into their own organizational structures.
@Bringslite
I expect at least 40% to stick with cc's based out of the npc settlements to start with so about 60% belonging to player settlements. But on the other hand I do expect there to be lots of player settlements at least in the first few years.
These over time will naturally be absorbed into kingdoms as time goes by to a certain extent. However I am also expecting the map to be extended rapidly over the first few years to keep pace with the increase in numbers. Larger settlements won't start arising in my view until the map stops expanding.
As I understand it they are estimating room for around 150 settlements and about 12k people initially. 60% of 12k (the portion not sticking with npc settlement charters) = 7.2k divide by 150 if all possible settlements are built = 48 players
I was more asking where the figure is coming from as I have seen no claims about players per settlement from GW. Could have quite easily missed it though.
It is certainly an area that could change perceptions though depending on who is nearer the mark as to the early game plans for a lot of people.
I should say I am not actually claiming I am right and they are wrong, just I have seen nothing supporting the higher estimate, nor mine come to that but I at least know what I am basing my idea on.
As I said bringslite I think it is certainly an area worth discussing. Perhaps you would wish to share your calculations. As I said mine are largely based on a few things gw have mentioned, some surmises on what they are going to do with the game area as people come in and some observations I have made during my emissary duties for Aeturnum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Zen: You might well be right. Looking at the original idea for the Land Rush, each "guild will get a settlement no doubt with early invulnerability perhaps to kickstart (!) development. Besides competition will be lower as resources/wild hexes to settlement and settlement size will be will be more higher.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My calcs were based off of what Avena posted concerning pop at 7 months and total number of settlement hexes. Those figures triggered my memory of the same or very similar figures that I had read somewhere.
16,500 players/179 settlements = 92 per. I also guessed 60% membership, that is an average of 55 per settlement.
Mine where based on the same figures as yours. Only an old blog stated 16,500 players by month 7.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan, you've got say "Beetlejuice!" x3 times... I mean "Nihimon!".
You realize that doesn't actually work, right? (Present case notwithstanding)
People keep mentioning settlements of 500+. Where do you get this I really cant see it happening tbh not in the first few years of the game certainly.
The design assumes many hundreds of players in a Settlement. I've mentally been assuming a baseline of 1,000. We'll have to test and see how that works in practice so that's just one guy's estimate.
Ah... I see AvenaOats has already found the relevant quote anyway, but I'm still going to post this just in case someone missed that [Edit].
@Nihimon
I certainly agree it could be the number eventually, I am more looking at the first couple of years of the game. Growth in a game like this is fairly linear after the initial spike and fall back. Over time I fully expect the average per settlement to rise.
I also expect if I am honest as population rises that the number of people who have CC's based out of npc settlements to rise from the initial figure I guessed at of 40%.
Assuming for the sake of arguments a target average of 300 players per settlement and 40% being sponsored out of npc settlements
you are looking for a player base of (179 * 300) * ( 60 / 100 ) = 32000.
Could it happen in the first 2 years? of course it could, but this would be a doubling of the 7 month figure.
We know we have 9000 kick starters therefore 16000 - 9000 is 7000 there fore I deduce they are expecting a growth rate of 1000 per month. Therefore to get to 32000 will take approx 22 months.
This is really why I was querying the 500 to 1000 figure. Yes I think it will get there but we shouldnt be basing plans on it for the short term for our in game goals I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
I certainly agree it could be the number eventually, I am more looking at the first couple of years of the game. Growth in a game like this is fairly linear after the initial spike and fall back. Over time I fully expect the average per settlement to rise.
I also expect if I am honest as population rises that the number of people who have CC's based out of npc settlements to rise from the initial figure I guessed at of 40%.
Assuming for the sake of arguments a target average of 300 players per settlement and 40% being sponsored out of npc settlements
you are looking for a player base of (179 * 300) * ( 60 / 100 ) = 32000.
Could it happen in the first 2 years? of course it could, but this would be a doubling of the 7 month figure.We know we have 9000 kick starters therefore 16000 - 9000 is 7000 there fore I deduce they are expecting a growth rate of 1000 per month. Therefore to get to 32000 will take approx 22 months.
This is really why I was querying the 500 to 1000 figure. Yes I think it will get there but we shouldnt be basing plans on it for the short term for our in game goals I think.
You need to double to triple the number of character form the kickstarter to account for guild/buddy pledges and destiny's twin characters.
@Imbicatus
I could redo the figures assuming 18000 or 27000 starters but that actually makes the situation worse if Ryan is as reported the 7 month figure to be around 16000. It implies an average loss of players per month rather than growth and will put the average settlement numbers on a decline.
Someone did in fact total up all the various levels on a separate thread and got to the figure 9286 if I remember correctly it was the forum population thread
@Imbicatus
here we are managed to find the calculation of kickstarters
"Early enrollment population 9000"
far more than that... There are 8,732 kickstarters, but there are levels that include more than one person:
2653 - Adventurers
189 - Music Lovers
83 - Lore Masters
3637 - Pioneers
717 - Buddies (1434 total)
38 - Brew Masters
44 - Geography Buffs
188 - Guild Packs (1128 total)
37 - Alphas
6 - Magics
5 - Item Masters
1 - Famous Ancestor
6 - Tavern Owners
1 - TT Exp
1 - Custom= 9263, so your estimate was about right... but, we have the option to add to our kickstarter pledges which will add to this number, possibly by hundreds or even thousands more.
I personally, may upgrade from Brew Master to a Guild Pack (adding 5 more EE players).
I should point out I am not doomsaying here by any means I think the game has a good future and will experience steady growth. I am just saying people shouldnt be going in expecting 1000+ settlements in the early couple of years.
@Avena I am not sure what you are getting at there tbh so difficult to answer
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
During Early Enrollment we will not have the Territorial Control game mechanic implemented. During this period, Settlements will not face the threat of being displaced by hostile forces. Near the end of Early Enrollment we will be expanding the territory in the game to include a lot of unclaimed Hexes where players will be able to create new Settlements even if they were not participants in this Promotion.
I believe there will only be 30 to 40* Settlements total at the end of Early Enrollment, which will be roughly 18 months after it begins. At that stage, I think it's reasonable to expect there to be 20,000+ players. I expect most of those players by that time will want to be living in a Player Settlement rather than an NPC Settlement. That will result in an average population around 500 for each Settlement.
* I'm having trouble finding the quote, but I seem to recall Ryan saying that the Land Rush would place the first 30 to 40 Settlements. At any rate, estimates that every Settlement Hex will have a Settlement seem wildly unlikely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah...as I understand it there will be a few player settlements at EE handed out by the landrush but they will be little more than a clickable building.
In the main though most CC's will be chartered by npc settlements. As settlements enter the game there will be a rush by these CC's to grab a hex. I wouldnt be that surprised to almost see 1 settlement per cc at that point.
As settlements evolve they will probably require more people to make them function reasonably. Hopefully this will match the rising numbers of players in the game.
I don't really forsee settlement consolidations happening until the number of players starts leading to resource starvation however.
So I am not sure the gradual evolution will change very much on the whole. Don't forget here I am speculating on average numbers. That is not to say some settlements won't be well above that figure and some well below.
As I said I think it is an area for valid speculation but not one necessarily contentious It may be for example that the devs might decide to limit the number of settlement hexes to force bigger settlements from the outset.
@Nihimon
I take the figure of 40% estimation from the number of Eve players that never leave the npc corporations. For exactly the same reason as they will stay chartered from npc settlements here. The number of disadvantages is quite small compared to the fact you do not risk having war declared on you
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the main though most CC's will be chartered by npc settlements.
Being a Chartered Company sponsored by an NPC will become the equivalent of being a Nigerian email scammer - nobody will trust you. (This will not be true in the beginning because until Settlements are added to the game, all Chartered Companies will be NPC sponsored, but once Settlements come in, I expect them to re-sponsor most Chartered Companies very quickly).
I wouldnt be that surprised to almost see 1 settlement per cc at that point.
I think there will be many more people who want to run a Settlement than there will be Settlements. The difference will be which of those people are good enough social engineers to put together a large enough group that is cohesive enough to take and hold territory.
I'm trying to generally base my own expectations on what I understand to be Ryan Dancey's expectations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you are overestimating the number of settlements that will be constructed. Settlements will be time-consuming and expensive, requiring the efforts of a large-ish number of players. (or at least that is what i have surmised, its very possible i am wrong)
I think there will be a significant portion of the player base that will not be forming their own settlements for many reasons (not interested in the control portion of the game, lack of drive, incompetence leading to loss of the settlement, etc.), and all of those players are almost certainly going to have to join some settlement or another.
@Nihimon
I see little reason to necessarily mistrust a CC because it chooses to be sponsored by an npc settlement. I see a lot more reason to distrust any cc sponsored by any settlement other than my own.
However we are getting away from the point I said up front I am not saying the people estimating 500+ are wrong I am merely saying for the reasons I have given I find them unlikely. I felt it was a valid discussion and I have seen nothing yet to change my mind. Remember my estimates show settlements around 300 2 years after launch. I am talking about those first two years and people planning as if they will have 500 people helping build their settlement are in my opinion likely to be disappointed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you are overestimating the number of settlements that will be constructed. Settlements will be time-consuming and expensive, requiring the efforts of a large-ish number of players. (or at least that is what i have surmised, its very possible i am wrong)
I think there will be a significant portion of the player base that will not be forming their own settlements for many reasons (not interested in the control portion of the game, lack of drive, incompetence leading to loss of the settlement, etc.), and all of those players are almost certainly going to have to join some settlement or another.
This is my gaming group's plan, certainly. We clubbed together for a Crowdforger Guild pledge, and our tentative guild name is on the leaderboard in the midst of all those other names with no/one votes... but we did the guild pledge to get the maximum number of accounts for the minimum cash outlay. We've no interest in starting or running our own settlement; we'd much rather act as a landless chartered company and be affiliated with someone else's settlement. I doubt we're the only "land rush" group thinking this way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon Thank You for the answer. You guessed 20,000+ players by the end of month 18. Isn't it more likely to be around 40,000? That is assuming Ryan's projection of an attrition rate of 75% of loss. Fairly generous loss estimate, IMO.
@ZenPagan Okay, we have to do a lot of assumptions here to even guess settlement pop numbers.
Month 18 general pop#: Projected 40,000
Number of settlements
estimate compromise: 30+179=209 209/2=105
Conservative settlement pop %: 50%
Settlement pop avg by month 18: 190
If I have some numbers wrong, as guestimates, then speak up my good People.
One point I would make as well regardless of who is right. Alliances that come together too quickly have a habit as people in Eve say of exploding in spectacular failscades.
We will need significant time working out just who we want to work with. I am sure there will be groups that rush and recruit anything that moves but a good alliance is built bit by bit from groups you get to know by interacting with them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One point I would make as well regardless of who is right. Alliances that come together too quickly have a habit as people in Eve say of exploding in spectacular failscades.
We will need significant time working out just who we want to work with. I am sure there will be groups that rush and recruit anything that moves but a good alliance is built bit by bit from groups you get to know by interacting with them.
Very true ZenPagan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Deianira Dang it! Your new avatar catches me by surprise every time. :)
Blame the Hellknights Most Wanted add-on! When I sat down and thought about Deianira's background, personality and appearance for that, I realized the old avatar just wouldn't work. This one's closer, but still not quite a match.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One point I would make as well regardless of who is right. Alliances that come together too quickly have a habit as people in Eve say of exploding in spectacular failscades.
We will need significant time working out just who we want to work with. I am sure there will be groups that rush and recruit anything that moves but a good alliance is built bit by bit from groups you get to know by interacting with them.
For which those TeamSpeak chats are helpful. And, sorry I haven't made it into one yet - my speakers have died, so tomorrow's project is replacing them. Sigh.