Discussion thread for new blog entry Goblinworks Blog: Over the Hill and Far Away.
It will be possible to seize control of wilderness hexes next to enemy settlements. That will for sure make for interesting gameplay.
I know their locating where structures can be built within a hex is so people can't lock in areas to keep others out. I wish however they would establish no build lines that span the map and let us place structures everywhere else.
Goblin Squad Member
|
This was another phenomenal blog. The map building unit: Hex (repeating, resources, types, states) is a great way to build a changeable world! Over the moon about this blog.
The 1:10 settlement hexes keeps a nice ratio of Settled-Developed-Wild also. It will be interesting to see if some settlement hexes have better defensible sites eg on side of a large hill or river bend and how that influences how desirable/defensible that hex is as well as what resources are naturally prevalent nearby. Happy to hear the other building structures have more viable roles now.
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.
That's useful for working out the dimensions. So this fits the design better and likely also the tech?
@Rafkin: I think this explains "control" of non-adjacent hexes ie gaining from them from affiliated structures?
Different point of interest structures provide different boosts to the controlling settlement's development indexes. For example, farms produce food and primarily boost the controlling settlement's population and industry, while watchtowers allow members of the settlement to see further into neighboring hexes and boosts settlement security. Other point of interest structures might include mines, inns, logging camps, or shrines that function as temples away from settlements.
I think if the monster hexes can be truly rock hard difficult, that is a good thing for the wilderness feel of the game:
Monster hexes produce resources but are very difficult to harvest due to all the hostile forces.
The greater the contrast between settled, safe hexes and these dangerous and difficult hexes would aid the atmosphere of both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting read. Thanks for the blog!
One thing that I thought was interesting was having NPC-protected 'major trade routes.' I'm wondering about how many there will be, and how useful they will be to players.
It would be interesting if several settlements could be founded along these routes, such that there is always a relatively safe highway for trade to come in on. Conversely, settlements far from these routes may have more wilderness hexes nearby to exert control over and they may be more varied such that they can be mostly self-sufficient.
I didn't really understand the basis for the inherent difference of monster and wilderness/settlement hexes.
Apparently you can defeat all monsters, but the hex remains a 'monster hex' and can't be developed as even a wilderness hex.
This is lumping all monster hexes together, instead of allowing them their own settlement and wilderness hexes.
(Having monsters in control of some of the map's settlement hexes seems logical and interesting)
I think fluidity is much better here, if players wipe out monsters, somehow new ones can be introduced into the game,
but that doesn't require monster hexes set aside for them, they can be introduced and start to try to take over ANY hex.
(possibly transforming wilderness hexes into settlements, or whatever)
The idea of settlement hexes surrounded by wilderness is cool, hopefully these wilderness hexes change appearance noticeably when converted to farms, etc.
I am also unclear on whether continuity in settlements' territory is needed or not...
The blog said 'In addition there are "extra" wilderness hexes seeded across the map to make things interesting and less regular.'
That makes me think that the norm will not be lots of continuous wilderness hexes, certainly not always adjacent to a settlement, suggesting that non-continuous territorial control of hexes would indeed be the case. It also sounds like only a certain limited portion of the hexes would be 'wilderness hexes' that can be transformed productively, presumably the rest would be monster hexes (or settlements)? Honestly, that is nothing like what I expected, I would assume that MOST of the hexes would be wilderness... That kind of gets into my critique of monster hexes, above.
If we have larger areas of wilderness hexes, possibly comprising more than one 'grand hex' (before it was split into 7), it seems like an obvious concept for the 'central hex' to be put to special use, like it is for settlements... The 'deep wilderness' of each 'grand hex' would have special signifigance for something, resource extraction, nature shrines, etc., and could be the special focal point of conflicts over the surrounding 'lesser' hexes...?
I also feel like it would be cool if wilderness hexes could be transformed into settlement hexes... So a large settlement could eventually expand into adjacent hexes, and that would in fact be required for the largest of settlements... That makes taking over the largest of settlements an even more serious proposition, although taking over a single hex of the settlement would substantially weaken the remaining settlement by removing the benefit of everything in the conquered hex. That also sets up more variety in settlement topography, expanded settlements could be onto rocky mountains, swamps, rivers, etc, and thus create both very different visual presences, and actual dynamics for movement, relevant to any combat that occurs to take them over.
I think the blogs need more pictures and diagrams.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't like the idea of monster hexe if they are random. It will be easy at long term to just know where they are and always throw adventurers at them.
What i will like it is the monster hexe to be have extreme rate of spawning high level monster and spreading easy to the closest hex but more difficult the more it is far from the monster hex. I wish that they will be lore known.
I think for non-contiguous nations/etc, it is reasonable to require that each non-contiguous 'block' (contiguous area) have it's own settlement. In essense, this settlement can have it's governance 'delegated' to the same single government (since the whole settlement/hex was controlled and created by this government, it can dictate things anyways, allowing them to merge governance for convenience is just that, convenience). But if the other parts of the nation 'fall' (are taken over), the remaining non-contiguous settlement becomes the new 'seat' of the nation... Enemies taking over some other area doesn't make any sense to affect the governance of a non-contiguous area. This is like the 'Free French' colonies not going along with the Nazi/Vichy take over, for example. Requiring non-contiguous areas to have a Settlement within their own continuity establishes the basis for the non-contiguous area to have the resources for government in that scenario.
Alternatively, the original group would just have their territory erased, and need to start a new group to take over the non-contiguous territory block which nobody ever threatened (which should be easy, since nobody is challenging them there, but it seems like a pain in the ass, and requiring them to deal with a bunch of the details of group organization which seems silly if they don't want to change those details).
Non-contiguous areas with different settlements also make sense to have their own local-governance, which can reject or secede from the larger group if/when that is necessary, especially if originally created by distinct groups which agree to a larger 'nation'. ...That is getting outside the scope of the Hex issue itself, though.
If non-contiguous areas are to be a major part of the game, certainly for larger nations, there needs to be some sort of solution addressing this sort of thing.
All this IS tied in with the actual geographic distribution of wilderness/settlement hexes, how much continuity there is with those, and how/whether hexes can be transformed from one type to another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did some quick math right after I read the blog based on the estimates in the blog to help myself visualize how the map may look.
256 * 7 = 1792 hexes total
If roughly 1 out of 10 of those hexes is a settlement hex (given in the 3/20/2013 blog), that gives us 179 settlement hexes.
If each settlement hex is surrounded by 6 wilderness hexes (given in the 3/20/2013 blog), that gives us 1074 wilderness hexes.
1074 / 1792 ~= 60%
So more than 6 out of 10 hexes are wilderness hexes, taking into account the "extra wilderness hexes seeded across the map."
So, considering that there are 12 hexes bordering the wilderness hexes of a given settlement, it seems the norm will be for those wilderness hexes to border the wilderness hexes surrounding at least one other settlement.
(If that were not the case, only 6 of the 19 hexes [1 settlement hex surrounded by 6 wilderness hexes surrounded by 12 'other') would be wilderness hexes, and that would not fit the 60+% mandate for wilderness hexes).
So, in fact, a settlement's wilderness hexes will on average be bordered by at least another 6 wilderness hexes. In other words, on average, half of the hexes next to your wilderness hexes will be the wilderness hexes of another settlement.
It seems like this achieves the stated goal of creating a more granular, fluid system of territorial conquest (of wilderness hexes).
Somebody please correct me within the hour if I missed something so I can edit out my shame.
EDIT: Added more analysis as I wonder about things...
How do you defend hexes? Will there be NPC guards for all the "points of interest"?
It seems like a large roaming band of players can sweep across the map like Ghengis Khan destroying inns and farms and watch towers, etc...
I think previous Blogs cover that. Have you read all the Blog posts? It could help.
Expecting them to re-iterate every previous Blog post, which are saved on their website for anybody to read, seems unreasonable.Destroying settlement buildings takes serious time, and until they are destroyed, 'ownership' of the hex is not transferred/removed.
I believe PC settlements indeed can (somehow/eventually) get some NPC guards,
but even if they can't, the idea is to that some of your group should be able to notice what's going on sooner rather than later,
if for some reason most of the settlement PCs can't respond, anybody so authorized (re: setlement funds) can hire mercenaries.
As described in the blog, it's envisioned that attacking/taking over remote harvesting camps or auxiliary settlements will be easier and much more common than taking over main settlements.
I'm confused by the premise of your post: is it surprising or unreasonable for a game emulating sword&shield medieval combat (+magic) to to allow for/resemble Genghis Khan's conquests? That's exactly what I would expect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like a large roaming band of players can sweep across the map like Ghengis Khan destroying inns and farms and watch towers, etc...
I certainly hope so. The blog did mention that there are many forms of warfare that will be viable, and specifically mentioned wars of attrition where a group will destroy the buildings in the enemy's wilderness hexes.
As far as large roaming bands, however, I expect that if a group goes to war with somebody and can burn their farms with impunity, that group will simply start a siege and destroy the settlement itself.
I think the case we will see in PFO will be a 'midnight raid' on the enemy's farms while their players are logged off, with a retaliatory strike the next day.
I expect this because IIRC, we have been told that while Settlements cannot be destroyed without siege warfare, the same protections have not been extended to Inns. That said, I expect it will take some work to destroy a Wilderness Point Of Interest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't really understand the basis for the inherent difference of monster and wilderness/settlement hexes.
Apparently you can defeat all monsters, but the hex remains a 'monster hex' and can't be developed as even a wilderness hex.
This is lumping all monster hexes together, instead of allowing them their own settlement and wilderness hexes.
(Having monsters in control of some of the map's settlement hexes seems logical and interesting)
I think fluidity is much better here, if players wipe out monsters, somehow new ones can be introduced into the game,
but that doesn't require monster hexes set aside for them, they can be introduced and start to try to take over ANY hex.
(possibly transforming wilderness hexes into settlements, or whatever)
If we are beginning at very low stages it will be awhile before we have spread across the maps to quell the escalations. I feel confident that by the time we reach some of them the escalations will be well advanced and wandering.
The idea of settlement hexes surrounded by wilderness is cool, hopefully these wilderness hexes change appearance noticeably when converted to farms, etc.
...and that we may build roadways between settlements where roads are not already NPC emplaced.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you defend hexes? Will there be NPC guards for all the "points of interest"?
It seems like a large roaming band of players can sweep across the map like Ghengis Khan destroying inns and farms and watch towers, etc...
It may sound/seem easy to have a large force plod across the entire map and wipe the slate clean, but I think that size of a force will take a very long time to create, and would have lots of other work to keep them busy besides wiping out everything under the sun. (If it happens, I hope it is done by us good guys!)
OTherwise I think it will be far more realistic to have regular mounted patrols riding the perimeter of your settlement area (this is what I previously discussed as the "effective control" area). I don't see any group becoming big enough and coordinated enought to scoure the countryside....just too much area and would take far too long. But it will be fun to try!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you defend hexes? Will there be NPC guards for all the "points of interest"?
It seems like a large roaming band of players can sweep across the map like Ghengis Khan destroying inns and farms and watch towers, etc...
My guess is it would be costly to raid structures, siege equipment cost a lot of resources.
I'm sure you could hack away at structures with your axe but it might take some time.
I imagine raiding settled hexes will be a little more involved and expensive...
I'm pretty sure settlements will be able to hire NPC guards for watchtowers, and maybe other types of structures like farms, inns. Definitely they can be hired for settlements. I think I heard that in an interview.
I wish the Devs would consider allowing hexes to change their status, like a wilderness hex that gets invaded by monsters becoming a monster hex. Or a monster hex that has its entire population wiped out becoming a wilderness hex. I might cause too much confusion, I donno, but it sounds like it would be more interesting then just having the hexes remain fixed.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
On a semi-related note, Goblin Squad presence and identification at the mentioned panels is strongly encouraged.Already checked: they are already sold out of badges. We wouldn't be able to get in.
First person to PM me can arrange to pick up a set of passes Friday morning at the convention center before the event starts.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Perhaps the settlement sites nearer the roads will have fewer uncontested wilderness hexes near them, putting be a higher density of settlement sites near those roads; any benefit that might accrue from having a 'secure' back border would be offset by having even less territory and more competitors for that territory.
The more distant settlements could have a little more lebensraum before hitting against a human competitor, but would have to deal with longer supply chains to the largest markets and more escalation zones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think breaking each super-hex into smaller ones that can be fought over individually is a very good change.
I'm also ok with the monster hexes being permanent, I immediately thought of Mirkwood or a haunted swamp that can never truly be tamed. Eventually having some system to convert wilderness hexes to settlement hexes or monster hexes to wilderness might make sense but I don't think its needed for a minimally viable game and would have a lot of implications that would need to be worked through. Having the world become to civilized would be boring after all.
I would have to agree there. When I started reading the blog I thought of every non NPC hex in game having a settlement... then thinking how lame that would be.
Good Blog
Having the world become to civilized would be boring after all.
If monsters can turn any hex back into a 'monster hex' or a monster controlled hex, then that isn't a danger.
GW controls where and how much monsters spawn ANYWHERE in the world, so if there is no more monster controlled hexes,they will spawn in other hexes, and do there thing from there...
GW already described how the minimal level of 'infestation' progresses to stronger points,
but if 'monster hexes' are fixed, then once they are defeated, they will just return at the lowest level,
which any strong and developed settlement/nation should easily be able to keep 'pruned'.
...Which sounds just as much a boring, civilized world to me.
I would have to agree there. When I started reading the blog I thought of every non NPC hex in game having a settlement... then thinking how lame that would be.
Those are going to be incredibly weak and poor settlements if they don't have wilderness hexes to harvest. Any settlements who are stronger (with wilderness, in all likelyhood) will easily be able to wipe them out... Razing the settlements, and reverting the hexes to wilderness if they wish to. It is a self-regulating problem.
Another idea to explore but certainly not needed at launch. A chance of PvE content in settlement hexes based off of the attribute of the hex, kind of like monster zones.
I think there is a good chance of something like that happening, based on what GW has written about 'monsters in the sewers' and urban location 'dungeons', etc. It seems like having monsters spawn within the settlement to run around it seems dubious, at least if settlements can get NPC guards which would thus be spending server cycles for NPCs to fights NPCs, although if small poor settlements CAN'T afford their own NPC guards, that could happen also.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Another idea to explore but certainly not needed at launch. A chance of PvE content in settlement hexes based off of the attribute of the hex, kind of like monster zones.I think there is a good chance of something like that happening, based on what GW has written about 'monsters in the sewers' and urban location 'dungeons', etc. It seems like having monsters spawn within the settlement to run around it seems dubious, at least if settlements can get NPC guards which would thus be spending server cycles for NPCs to fights NPCs, although if small poor settlements CAN'T afford their own NPC guards, that could happen also.
In a nod to gameplay over realism, I think that small settlements will have stronger NPC guards than settlements with other benefits.
That said, I think larger cities are much more likely to have an amateur alchemist who dumps failed experiments into the sewer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I may have missed something, but what is actually meant by "controlling" a hex? Is it building a structure or harvesting camp at the center point? Is it clearing the monsters and building a structure? I don't think that you can control a hex by simply building in the adjacent hex. Do we have any clear definition of what controlling means?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I read it as "Wilderness hexes will have a build site, and the settlement which owns the building on that site controls the hex."
There's a different line of though saying that a building node is not the preferred way of implementing it, but my opinion is that designing with the constraints 'Wilderness hexes must have a clearing meeting the requirements of a build site' and 'All buildings must be able to be placed on any qualifying build site' is enough easier that the benefit of allowing arbitrary building locations is lower than the benefit of improving other systems for the same time investment.
I expect to see a clear area about 50m in radius, with a flat section for building most buildings, optionally a watercourse for watermills and water structures, and optionally a hill for windmills and hill structures. (possibly other optional features as well)
The upshot would be that an experienced player could scout a hex, find the build site, and know what could be built there, and the scenery designers can spruce up the entire hex except for that small point without worrying about how arbitrary buildings will fit in. They can spend their time making most of the hex interesting and varied. Meanwhile the building designers can work on new models and only have to be compatible with a small number of terrain choices. They can spend more time working on the insides of the buildings.
I don't think ANY building will be able to be sited in a Wilderness Hex (at least while that Hex IS a Wilderness HEX), i.e. most Settlement buildings will not be compatable, rather there will be a list of specific buildings/'features' that are Wilderness-compatable... Unlike Settlements, you can't really build tons of these next to each other in the same Hex (again, if it is to remain a Wilderness Hex, and if it somehow becomes a Settlement, then it is no longer functioning as a Wilderness Hex, so some of the Wilderness buildings may no longer function if you do that).
So, as a Chaotic Neutral druid, will I only be able to ally with other CN creatures? That rules out any humanoid monsters right there. It'd be nice to have the option of allying with creatures within a step of your alignment, honestly. I want to be able to make pals with goblins and orcs, guys!
I'm not super enthusiastic about how escalation cycles are looking. The only example we've heard of so far is a Hellknight attack. What about monsters? Can't I ally with a band of redcaps seeking to bring down a neighboring settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think ANY building will be able to be sited in a Wilderness Hex (at least while that Hex IS a Wilderness HEX), i.e. most Settlement buildings will not be compatable, rather there will be a list of specific buildings/'features' that are Wilderness-compatable... Unlike Settlements, you can't really build tons of these next to each other in the same Hex (again, if it is to remain a Wilderness Hex, and if it somehow becomes a Settlement, then it is no longer functioning as a Wilderness Hex, so some of the Wilderness buildings may no longer function if you do that).
From what I understand of the blog...
Each hex surrounding a Settlement Hex, which are wilderness hexes, will allow you to build outposts but not settlements. Really just lookout towers and etc. for the settlement.
GW have written that you can have relationships with NPC Factions (not individual NPCs),
some of which will be exclusive with different opposed NPC factions,
and that at the upper levels of the relationship you will effectively count as 'allies' of the friendly NPC faction
in terms of conflict with other groups including NPC factions in conflict with the friendly NPC group.
I haven't seen anything suggesting these NPC Faction relationships are subject to the same sort of alignment restrictions applicable to joining a settlement, since actually joining as a member of the NPC Faction was never suggested as a possibility... Likewise, I haven't seen anything restricting differently aligned Settlements from having agreements with each other, or treating each other as 'allies'. (merging into a Nation/Kingdom would have an Alignment restriction though)
Until I see information to the contrary, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I'm not aware of anything specific to cause concern here...?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I read, in the Live Through This blog, you can join NPC alliances.
There are Rank levels for alliances, must be 2 to join one. Not sure if Alignment plays in as yet (cant find the blog) but I thought I read somewhere that you need a similar alignment.
Even settlements can join alliances.
As for Druid/pet relationships, No Clue, havent seen anything about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I may have missed something, but what is actually meant by "controlling" a hex? Is it building a structure or harvesting camp at the center point? Is it clearing the monsters and building a structure? I don't think that you can control a hex by simply building in the adjacent hex. Do we have any clear definition of what controlling means?
It means that a player group has built a structure that then precludes a different player group building a structure in that sub-hex or in the case of the settlements: "super-hex" (ie core-hex plus surrounding 6 wild hexes), essentially.
And the benefit of "capture"/property digs is resource capture or utility in some way eg watchtowers allow surveying of an area for enemies etc. Or for a settlement a total increase in development "index"/budget:
The type and amount of terrain your settlement controls naturally determines your settlement's strength and prosperity.
I think "control" has been a bit loosely used, as if there is more barriers to "non-controlling" players than there are, but it means "claim & benefit" I figure?
I did some quick math right after I read the blog based on the estimates in the blog to help myself visualize how the map may look.
As already questioned, looking at Kakafika's quick numbers of types of hexes:
1792 total hexes
179 settlement hexes (1:10)
1075 wilderness hexes (6/10)
537 (rem.) wilderness, monster and some npc-hexes
Monster Hex: Located among wilderness hexes (and never next to a settlement hex), monster hexes are hostile spaces were monsters often lurk.
Of those 537 (minus a few npc hexes) are the Monster Hexes inter-changeable with the wilderness hexes, depending on where the spawn escalation cycle begins, instead of fixed hexes which then spread? ie a Monster Hex may simply become a Monster Hex from a Wilderness Hex once the spawning occurs? Or a Monster hex is always fixed and high in resources?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another idea to explore but certainly not needed at launch. A chance of PvE content in settlement hexes based off of the attribute of the hex, kind of like monster zones.
For example in a lawful settlement with a temple there would be a chance of an NPC cult springing up dedicated to a chaotic evil god. The event could start with heretic NPCs and alters to the cult spawning around hex that could be interacted with or fought, a few at first but more and more over time if the event is not dealt with.
...
I like this idea quite a bit!
It allows for an NPC resistance movement in a lawful state, and a desire for order in a chaotic state. It allows for the seeds of evil in the good and the spark of good in the evil.
Worthy thought!