Palisade and inactive claims

[vatas]

*Maximum palisade soak reduced to something like 10. (Regardless if it's unclaimed, claimed, or under inactive claim.)

SnuggleSnail raised a legitimate concern. If Palisade has maximum soak of 10 with current mechanics, even in early game you can't be secure until you have fully dried palisade enclosure. Different solution is needed, such as giving Palisade an effective soak penalty when inactive claimed or non-claimed.

*Claims only give hand-bash protection when active. Currently the best definition for an active claim is that it makes you leave scents if you have no permissions.

If you maintain your claim, nothing effectively changes.

However, inactive claims become much easier to break in. (You would need as little as 81 STR and a pickaxe.)

Discussed previously here.

[SnuggleSnail]

Soak mechanics are already too complicated and should be simplified instead of additional rules being added, IMO.

Otherwise +1, it's dumb that inactive claims prevent crime / still require siege / do anything, really

[vatas]

I wouldn't really call the change complicated. Imho biggest possible genuine criticism is that you create another returning player trap but anyone whose played Haven enough to not read all the (hopefully up-to-date) guides and wiki articles, would know to not let Presence/Authority drop.

Actually, which one is more complicated?

"When claim goes inactive, it stays in the game world and every claim function, aside from protecting palisades it covers from pali-bashing, ceases to function until reactivated."

"When claim goes inactive, it stays in the game world but ceases to function at all until it becomes active again."

[SnuggleSnail]

I mean lowering pali soak. In the very early world when PVP/raiding is super active your palisades become /effectively/ fully soaked pretty quickly because even at half soak nobody has the strength to destroy it. If max soak is set to 10 people's villages would remain fully raidable for days, which seems a bit much to me.

Big agree on with simplifying claims as suggested. It's worse than you think, btw. Pclaims/vclaims have different rules when inactive, for example visitor on a Pclaim prevent aggro, on a vclaim it does not. There's 20 different little intricacies/technicalities like that which I feel should not exist. Also, destroying authority objects with no presence does sometimes yield scents, lol.

[vatas]

This is complicated territory, but what if palisade receives -50% penalty to soak when unclaimed or inactive claimed?

[Nightdawg]

I remember being able to smash palisades with my bare hands once the claim was drained of any authority.

Why was this changed again?

[vatas]

I remember being able to smash palisades with my bare hands once the claim was drained of any authority.

Why was this changed again?

tbh I haven't tested it myself, just read somewhere that inactive claims DO protect from bashing.

[Oddity]

I remember being able to smash palisades with my bare hands once the claim was drained of any authority.

Why was this changed again?

tbh I haven't tested it myself, just read somewhere that inactive claims DO protect from bashing.

where did you read it?

[DonVelD]

tbh I haven't tested it myself, just read somewhere that inactive claims DO protect from bashing.

where did you read it?

I told him that in another thread, this is in fact true.
Source: tried to bash into a BUNCH of inactive bases

[vatas]

bump