3/5.

DON'T include anything like the settlement system in TES unless you intend to have many unique holds/cities to offset the "samey" nature of the settlements.

Oh come now...just think of the possibilities! Just picture this!

An Oblivion gate opens and Preston Garvey sets foot into Tamriel. "Prisoner, a settlement needs your help!"

RE: 1) I reckon this would go well if Leadership perks were extended from two stars to five stars, or more, and different options made available as the player achieved those additional perk levels...

RE: 8-9) It would make more sense if attacks were primarily focused on places with the most provisioning connections (both to and from) as this dictates:

1. Where the settlement network is most vulnerable (Institute + Gunner's motive)


2. Where the most caps are flowing (Raider's Motive)


3. To a lesser degree of consideration, potentially where the most meat is at any given time (Supermutants)


4. Ghouls are psychotic (not to be confused with psychopathic; i.e. think oxygen deprivation/senility/LSD/PCP/dementia/altzheimers as opposed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy/"The Institute")

Certainly, the soft target focus makes sense but also neglects that all behaviour is driven by perceived gain - so indicators of gain ned to be there. Ultimately, the likelihood of any target to attack would be proportional to the ratio of total incoming and outgoing provisioners divided by defense rating.

About the whole quest not completing issue: I generally let whoever deal with the attackers and cast about for any single attacker, which the locals might have special difficulty with, for a bit of pie in the eye. I've only ever had the problem of the quest failing because I've bailed before some stragglers got their due. It'd be nice if there was a way to calculate separately; single firezone coverage of open access ways and overlapping firezone coverage of open access ways (from turrets) to determine a more accurate defense rating - which would also need to include the impact of settler weapons in both damage per second and combined arms (e.g. is there an adequate mix of automatic weapons and long range high power semi automatic weapons?) If done correctly, this could allow engagements to be decided without the presence of the player and leave the risk anolysis up to the player.

But I think it'd be better if there was the option to assign a detail of minutemen to deal with attacks instead of having to go there personally. Myself, I really enjoy turning up for the odd llight show and the occasional tall-poppy kill but I tend to agree that it's frustrating when one can't get anything else done without having to stop what one is doing and go to another location. Having attacks come up in a http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/4106 with the additional option to "Delegate to Sgt Kruger's section" or "Delegate to Cpl Donahue's squad" and not having to worry about the consequences (when playing below Survival level). This would let the player know which settlements are seeing action while giving the player the choice to opt-out if s/he's trying to concentrate on something else. I think it'd be especially good if the ability to opt-out like this was tied to a leadership perk level because it would increase the practical value of the extra leadership perk level while allowing the gameplay to vary noticeably as the player character levels up.

Anyway, this is just some thoughts about how an existing mechanic could be converted from annoying to "fun" or "interesting".

"Samey nature" issue really hits the nail on the head for something not quite right with the settlement system. The model sets really do need some variation and completeness in each style so that the players can charactize different zones, regions or provisioning networks (you can have more then one). I really think that this kind of variety is very important but, that's just my opinion.

Other stuff:

I reckon the option to negotiate alliances with different holds would be more the thing for TES because the administrations are already in place within the Tamriel world (as opposed to the Wild West" frontier space of the Fallout world) and tend to cover significant territories.

It would have been a blast to have been able to negotiate a neutral alliance straight up the centre of Skyrim, bolstering Whiterun and establishing a neutral no-go buffer zone between the Imperials and the Stormcloaks. If only to see the expressions on their faces -wait, NPC rendering's not quite there yet ... food for thought, no?

Anyway, being able to negotiate a neutral alliance among holds obstructing the two warring factions would have allowed a little leveraging to buttress an option to, say, table some intelligence at the truce talks in High Hrothgar and might have made for a nice third Civil War ending; perhaps, a better ending in the eyes of some of us. Of course, if the Thalmor were to interpret this as some obscure breach of the White Gold Concordat, there's be loads of potential for some war-time action against an opponent I think a lot of players really would have enjoyed defeating - but maybe I speak for myself on this one

The only problem is that Beth is heading like a train down this track. First we had homes in each town that we could theme, then we had Hearthfire and now we have settlement building. The Minecraft idea is firmly fixed in the developers mind. So there is no chance that the system will not appear again. More likely it will be very advanced.

Not that I am complaining though. I do love all of Beth's ideas and it is so cool that all our homes are unique. Just let me place glass windows and fix doors with clunky inset frames and I will be happy.

I also stay away from Minutemen quest lines so I have no raids going on. I will leave it that way thank you.

Re: 1) Someone said something about removing "underpowered" perks and my point was about keeping things optional. Some people might want to remove overpowered perks instead. So, if perks are going to be taken away to make room for other perks, I think that it would be better to let the player decide which perks to swap out via some kind of settings options. Alternatively, it might be an idea for DLC to extend the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. / Perks map to allow for the addition of new perks (especially settlement related perks) and extend the character-development stage of gameplay.

Related) I'd also say "More Options!" in opposition to removing options by "dumbing down settlements" or reducing the number of possible settlements the player can choose to establish. http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1576066-settlement-critics-and-suggestions-for-updates/?p=24794612.

Re: 3-5) I think that setting up a basic administrator system would open the settlement game up to dialogue options (like rattling off the names of those assigned to them or a "take me to Tony Moore, please" option) which would not only make sense but obviate the need for the pipboy to suddenly become omniscient (lojacking aside ) - especially when it comes to tracking down new arrivals and particular settlers for assignment and reassignment in some of the larger settlements like Sanctuary and Spectacle. It would also allow efficiency improvements to be easier to implement with respect to assigned resources and letting the player know what needs to be done to optimize the output of a given class of resources. I also think that administrators would be a great opportunity to incorporate relevant and more detailed portions of the help system into the part of the administrator dialogue, perhaps, under 'consultation'.

As for furniture assignment, this works very well where it is applied as part of the game design and I think you'll find that the lack of specific furniture assignment in settlements is what is causing some of those glitches (e.g. the midnight huddle, I Robot, anyone?). Further, by calling a path-test (which is what FO4 actors now do before beginning a journey from A to at the time the furniture is assigned, the settler can rigged to tell the player "I can't find a way to get there" just like the Companion NPCs do when told to go somewhere they can't access. This would allow players to adjust furniture spacing or placement to make sure that things worked as intended. You'd have to separate furniture assignment/reassignment from resource assignment for it to work but if the devs put this into place, there'd be no more midnight huddles and a lot less unnecessary processing arising from things like "this bed is taken, where is the next..." - not to mention eliminating those moments when a settler decides the player character is their hotwater bottle of choice (i'm sorry but sometimes I'd have to stop to laugh it off - "Really, you want something better than guard duty? Scrapping? Farming? Maybe a vacation? Downtown?" and, gee, I had to wonder if there's going to be a "I did not [sleep with] that settler!" dialogue option down the track? 10 minutes later and, Oh no! I'm surrounded by greenskins and still can't shoot straight...). At the end of the day, this means less glitches rather than more.

More to the point, the fact that the guards "never sleep" is a noticeable source of complaint. So, if we simply do things by the numbers and then the farmers and scrappers never sleep, wouldn't that just antagonize the problem even more? However, if we can find a way to fix the midnight huddle issue, then the sleeping arrangement and, even, shift planning, could be extended to include the guards and get rid of a game-mechanic people have been complaining about.

Getting to the heart of this, there seem to have been some engine changes going from Gamebryo to Creation Engine. For example,

Your idea of a Mayor - as separate from any of my ideas, opens up a whole new minigame and I have to say I like your idea. The player, while general, cannot be mayor (for pretty obvious conflict of interest reasons). However, there is an idea similar to some of what we see in Sid Meier's work in which one might have the game limit happiness to a maximum of 50% in feudal mode and only go above this when a town hall is built and the settlers are given ownership of whatever is in their possession, their assigned furniture, etc and the ability to elect a mayor from amongst themselves. This is not to convert the game into some kinf of "Sid Meier's Fallout" but to expand the players options to new levels of play which the Fallout world allows the player to experience in first-person with all of the issues of eing there in person. Among the RPG enthusiasts I knew back in the 1980s, this was a very much anticipated extension of the RPG to allow role play at any level or scale. I'm about to repeat myself, so I reckon I've made my point With respect to this idea of yours, I can see some interesting balancing themes as follows:

Pros: Settler happiness can rise into the 50-100 range. Settlement no longer needs Minutemen to defend when player is absent. Mayor takes care of development which is automatic and optimized so that if the player is not interested in what goes on with the settlement in question, it can be left to take care of itself - a bonus for minimalist playstyle.

Cons: Automated settlement development is constructed out of the player's resource/workshop stock for the entire settlement network to which the mayor's settlement is connected. Automanaged settlement will automatically auto-scrap all scrappable items within the settlement boundary but this does not guarantee that development costs won't spill over into player accumulated resources stored in the connected settlement network. Player cannnot scrap, alter or build in an auto-managed settlement.

Basically, letting the settlers have a mayor is giving up all control of the settlement in return for the settlement taking care of itself without requiring player intervention.

Complications: If a player, on visiting an automanaged settlement, discovers that it is suboptimal, the player may, at his/her option, impeach the mayor who, as an elected officer, thereby engaged in "national service" activities, would be arrested by the Minutemen and court-martialled according to the same rules which apply to all other national servicemen. (OK, so the real world is still much more corrupt than this, but it's still a lot simpler than creating a whole other judicial minigame which would probably lack the necessary infrastructure in a Fallout kind of world). Effectively, the Mayor would disappear because any offense committed by a leader in a time of war would most certainly warrant a cigarette and a blindfild. Some of us are of the opiniion that political leaders might even be patriotic if any offence commited while holding political office warranted a mandatory death sentence. But, that's a whole other story. This period, when the town has no mayor, could allow the player to step in and correct the oversight and, if corrected by the player before the incoming mayor is elected (24 hours after the outgoing mayor faces the firing squad say, 48 hours after his arrest), revert the settlement to player control with the usual conditions (e.g. maximum happiness 50%) and additional 10% happiness penalty to the initial happiness condition for the "going backwards" change.

Anyway, food for thought....

Bon apetite!

I tend to agree that this idea will, ultimately, become more advanced because of how important it is to role-play, in practice. And I think that's what's powering the whole player-home train.

I think that this idea has nothing to do with Minecraft. The idea's been doing the rounds long before Minecraft alpha made release in 2009 and I think you will find that it's actually drawn from the modular building concept developed in RTS games like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer.

Anyway, I really like that idea about having an option to put in glass windows

I guess this is a good place as any to dump my wishlist for settlement improvements.

Building

1) I think it's safe to say more lenient clipping is on everyone mind.

2) Inline door frame? All of the doors only snap on to the outside of floors and we don't have any that can be snapped on to a wall only location.

Settlers

1) Have a settlers job next to their name so it's easy to tell who does what like: Settler (Guard)

2) It would be really cool of settlers had their own SPECIAL kinda like in FO Shelter that would make them better at different jobs. They can even gain experience as they do their jobs and level up, then you can upgrade their SPECIAL with their perk points. For instance a settler with high luck can scavenge more useful junk than normal. Ones with high Endurance would have more health/natural damage resistance, charismatic merchants would have better stock/generate more revenue and so on.

Defense

1) Better turret info when building them, like say a http://i.imgur.com/B3SyuYa.jpg reading out it's attributes such as Damage, RoF, Health, Damage Resistance, Range and Accuracy.

2) More turret building options. Such as the ability to make the ceiling/wall mounted versions, weak but very cheap to build pipe turrets, a turret that has average firepower but it's really heavily armored and long lasting, etc..

3) Change how guard station defense works. Have each guard post generate 2 defense provided there is someone to man it like normal, but have each guard generate an extra two points of defense for the post they man. In essence make it so filling up your guardposts will also increase your defense. So one guard and 3 posts would generate 8 defense, and three fully manned posts generate 12.

I can't put any foundations around the diner in Starlight Drive-In, so I would appreciate the ability to do so.

If not, some support poles would be great.

To me the camera svcks.

I used to play The Sims 2 and they done it right. The camera moves everywhere to ground level to up top like a plan view. Not staying ground level.

Unless I miss something

My biggest whiny complaint about the settlement system has to do with certain models and how they can be placed.

Food and guard posts, especially, should have some "skirting texture" which extend below ground level, because ground is almost never flat. Power connectors, also, perhaps? Razorgrain on an even slightly sloped surface just looks silly. Turrets should maybe have this also - perhaps optionally, though, because sometimes you do want to place them on thin, flat surfaces.

Or maybe I should just give in to the inherent surrealism of the construction mechanics?

I love the settlement system. Not saying it can't be improved (and I know the modding community will turn it into something absolutely awesome), but I'm glad it was worked into the vanilla game. In Fallout 3 and New Vegas, we had mods like Real Time Settler and Wasteland Defense which were really cool, but because the game hadn't been designed with them in mind they were hindered by things like pathing issues due to things like walls being largely invisible to the NPCs. This sort of thing shouldn't be a major problem since the modding community will have a default system to enhance.

Yes, I know some people will fall back on the old cliche about Bethesda relying on modders to 'fix' their game, but modding is an intended feature of their games, and the one that is probably most responsible for my becoming a Bethesda game junkie. Some people enjoy trying to build the perfect settlement. Modding your game is a similar experience, except you are trying to build the perfect game.

Very well thought out suggestions. I agree with most all of the Opening Post but especially these points:

• AI improvement!


• Auto assign idle settlers jobs.


• Cleansing tools for shrubs, etc. No more waving shrubs clipping through my floors and beds, please!!


• More settlement face variety (or just giving them names would help).


• Ring bell for unassigned settlers option.


• Repairing homes, like Taffington Boat House.

I would like to add a couple of my own suggestions:

• Would like to be able to mark player character bed as Owned, so other npcs don't end up in it.


• Settlers should go inside during radiation storms.


• Ability to clean up rubbish/leaf piles or assign a settle as janitor.

My votes were as follows ~

Good

Yes, not in current state

Yes, made Minutemen unique

Yes, dlc exclusive

Update mechanics

I think it's ok if they let the player rebuild one or two towns to their liking. Kind of like how Kvatch and/or Helgen were wasted opportunities (only mods realized their potential). A town system that combines both unique/pre-existing structures with player input/customization is optimal.

Bethesda has enjoyed razing/destroying towns for the plot since Oblivion. It's only natural to let the player build and "redevelop" the town.

I'm with you on this one and it's really the modders who point the way because when people are only prepared to work for something they really want (while picking an option on a survey is open to all kinds of issues). I suspect that this is a big part of how Bethesda's system works so well.

The reason I mentioned Minecraft is because that is the game that Todd said was his inspiration for the whole concept.

Of course, there are a bunch of pc games out there on the settlement building. This one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banished_(video_game) is very popular now.

Idea for Fixing Defence Rating so it can be used to decide Settlement Attacks when the player is absent:

First, each settler needs to be assessed as a multiple of total armour value and equiped weapon's damage per second to produce rating numbers in proportion to the turrets.

Second, this is added (for each settler) to the firepower sum (formerly used as a settlement's "Defence" figure) to give total Settlement Firepower (F).

Third, as a settlement's area does not necessarily fill the entire allowable build area, we assess the dilution of firepower (e.g. battle-line length) as a function of the developed area's maximum extent and so we can use simple figure, like maximum placed object separation (M), as a divisor which can adjust total firepower so that its concentration throughout the area of conflict is represented.

Fourth, each attacker is assessed (as scaled relative to the turret ratings, exactly as per the settlers, above) is rated for health, armour, and equipped weapon's damage per second which is summed to give the attacking party's Total Attack Strength (A)

Fifth, every time the player trades with a settler, the defence rating of the settlement would need to be recalculated in addition to the other cricumstances when this is called.

As combat seems to revolve around a last-man-standing mechanic, it is enough to compare A with F/M to get an idea of the likelihood of success an attack would have on a typical settlement with the corresponding F/M figures.

However, as there is an in-game reality, partly via the game's combat mechanics, it would make sense to tweak this so that it actually reflects what the player sees when attending a settlement's defensive action as an observer. The most rigorous method would be by running a testbed that sets a finite number of value ranges for each of A, F & M and then renders 100 attacks for each combination of A, F, and M ranges to produce a probability table defining the likelihood or success failure of settlement defence in each case.

Although more of a back-end anolytical system, this is an important mechanic to develop considering that the option to rely on a strategy set in place rather than getting tactically involved is a very important role-playing decision (especially in high level role-play i.e. of leaders, generals, etc.) which becomes more emphasised as role-playing games become more strategically enabled (to optionally allow higher levels of role-play). I think a big part of why some of us love the settlement system is because it introduces the opportunity for some strategic gameplay elements (like strengthening defences by repositioning assets) and if this is going to be on the cards for the long term, then it would make sense to correct the behind-the-scenes errors (like the settlement "defence" rating) sooner rather than later (i.e before it gets forgotten and propagated into the next release).

I tend to think of inspiration as a trigger for becoming motivated to do something, rather than being a source for an idea - which is, often as not, drawn from something else. For example, our discussion has inspired me with http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1576066-settlement-critics-and-suggestions-for-updates/?p=24802634 by optimising a compromise between simplicity (so the calculation doesn't stall rendering) and accuracy (so that the defence rating actually has something to do with how effectively the settlement can defend itself when rendered in-game). If, at this stage of reading this reply, one was to suddenly start reading the post about that other idea, I think one could be forgiven for wondering what on earth this has to do with the price of mirelurk meat?

On the other hand, in terms of similar ideas in extant, the Fallout settlement minigame strikes me as more of the beginnings of 'Sid Meiers does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires; in person' kind of game. The way Bethesda have set up the settlement minigame has tremendous potential to add a serious strategic angle to the Fallout series while greatly enhancing, rather than detracting from, the first person role-playing focus of the game. Already, the settlement defence placements offer an opportunity to engage the Fallout world on a strategic level (even if on a very small scale). After all, if turret placements turn out to be a little off, during an attack, it really is a bit late to adjust them and your character has to take the tactical measure of stepping in and filling the gap, personally (at least before it becomes practical to start moving things around).

I think something that really stands out about Fallout's settlement minigame is that it's centred on a first person experience of the process and, sometimes, this aspect introduces some interesting challenges one just doesn't see in the traditional "god's-eye" presepctive. Fallout 4 also adds another feature which I think could be quite new in the real time settlement-building game; the beginnings of communication networks (which is what one is assembling when one assigns a provisioner). This is very much a feature of turn-based strategy games like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_%28video_game%29 (e.g. trade routes, embassies, etc.) but I think this is the first time I've seen it implemented on a real-time basis where there is the opportunity for a tactical recovery in the event that a strategy fails.

Anyway, that's my take on inspiration, propagation of ideas and Fallout 4

Also I'd like to have power armor management improved. Right now if a settler gets in a frame during an attack, you can tell them to get out if you say so immedietly after the batte. But if you leave the area, they get stuck inside and unless you got good pickpocket to swipe the fusion core, you can only get the armor pieces off by trading with them, but they still roam around in the frame. And those ain't easy to come by, 3k caps a piece man. I don't mind them using it, it actually makes my bases look really cool with my extra suits getting used. But if only I can tell them to get in/out whenever I want.

Settler Power Armor Changes:

-Can be assigned to get in a suit by commanding them to PA station with a suit inside

-Can be told to exit by commanding them to an empty power armor station

-Settlers in PA do not drain fusion cores

-The armor components on settlers PA do not degrade with damage

-Settlers in PA should get a slight increase in happiness because they are in a FREAK'N ROBOT SUIT were entrusted with a powerful tool to help them protect themselves, their fellow men and the sense of security it brings.