Goblinworks Founder
|
The recent Goblinworks blog regarding design of hexes reminded me of a pair of articles written by an EVE Online player regarding similar design issues.
I think the bottom-up sovereignty concept discussed in these articles might be a useful design guideline for establishing or maintaining control of Pathfinder Online settlement hexes. Anyway, it's just a thought. ☺
I hope everyone on the Goblinworks team is doing well and wish Ryan all the best at PAX East.
Cheers,
Jim
Goblin Squad Member
|
I never really cared too much for sov warfare in Eve. I did plenty of it with BoB back in the day, and it was really a drag. Rarely did we get into the epic battles it was supposed to create...
PFO is working toward a goal of levels and build up. I think they are looking at Eve's model and refining it in a way that will be more fun for its players. Not sure how thats going to work yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see hex / settlement control based on three aspects: Military, Economic and Social control.
The "owner" of the hex must keep it safe, maintain a good economy, and keep its NPC population content.
Although you won't lose ownership until military ownership is lost, the other two will make losing it easier if you don't keep the economy strong, and the NPCs content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As touched upon in another thread, I would like to see the various aspect of settlement functionality tied to members of that settlement. Instead of simply dropping the right amount raw materials into a bin and money into a hopper to raise your settlement from one level of proficiency to another, I would like to see it's "tier," if you will, tied to the skills of it's key citizens. One of the menus that the settlement chief manager could have, similar to other game's guild management screens for placing officers, could include the various key positions for settlement management. Using this, the chief manager could then assign those roles to the appropriate members of the settlement.
For instance, a portion of the NPC guard's effectiveness is tied to the level of skill training your designated Captain of the Guard character member has in a number of skills...perhaps his/her skill level in not only combat but leadership skills (like the skills hinted at for formation fighting). The effectiveness of your forge could be tied to the skill of your resident Master Smith.
In this way, it takes more than money and resources to maintain an effective settlement - it takes skilled people keeping the level of proficiency higher by their presence. Otherwise, you could have a rather hollow settlement running at peak performance simply because at one time, it had enough resources and money to pay for that level of performance. The most well built fortress doesn't provide much protection if the guards aren't well directed, nor does the forge run as productively if not well maintained by a skilled smithy.
If this were the case, the right skill sets could become very valuable. You would want to keep these people happy, lest they take their skills, and your settlement's peak performance, with them. There's a reason corporations head hunt for the best CEO's...so why not in PFO?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobs,
Fully agree with you. I especially like the idea of having functional roles that include passive buffs for the settlement.
I would like to see three tiers of management:
1. Squad Management
2. Charter Company Management
3. Settlement Management
4. Kingdom Management
Squad management skills would be martial in nature, impacting small squad tactics and abilities in combat.
Charter Company management would add to SM, construction / building, economic, and personnel management.
Settlement would add greater levels of all previous management skills, but also add NPC population management.
Kingdom Management would have greater degree of all others, plus the ability to manage events of global importance and major regional or geographic project management (building bridges, tunnels, canals, etc,,,)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO Hobbs has an excellent idea. This would be yet another addition to the rise and fall of settlements. As he mentioned it would require the leaders of the settlement to actively seek out good people to live and lead NPC's in the settlement.
If they don't have the people to lead than the settlement will fade and become more vulnerable to attack, whether the attack is physical, financial or social.
Yet another way of engaging the player base in the development of a settlement. One point I worried about with settlement development was that it would be a feature for a limited number of people.
If Hobbs suggestion (or something like it) was to be instituted it would give more people a reason to be involved in the settlement other than just using the settlement as a place to trade, train & sleep.
@Hobs. A question, which I sort of put forth in the assassin thread too.
Could more then one player be assigned to an office? I ask because I can see situations where a settlement might need more then one head Blacksmith, if the blacksmiths duties are more then just forging weapons, maybe they included arranging and receiving caravans of goods and materials as well as taking complaints from all the crafters.
I'm not trying to complicate the issue, just trying to get a feel for how broad the system could be tailored, to account for differing playstyles, organizational setups etc..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Valandur,
I don't anticipate that the settlement member filling one of the management roles would actually need to always be active to get the bonus for their settlement. Rather, with such an experienced person present, the part of the settlement they oversee runs more efficiently/productively/etc. If this were the case, I don't see why you would need more than one person in each position...the one with the highest prerequisites would provide the most benefits.
If I read your question correctly, what you are describing sounds more like the actual game-play/role-play for that person's position rather than a game mechanic, such as I'm suggesting.
Yea, I see what your saying. And I guess using the highest skill does make sense. I envisioned scenarios where people go offline for extended periods, or people switching characters to play an alt, settlements not assigning replacements. But honestly, plenty of time to tackle such issues closer to EE.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I would like to see hex / settlement control based on three aspects: Military, Economic and Social control.
The "owner" of the hex must keep it safe, maintain a good economy, and keep its NPC population content.
Although you won't lose ownership until military ownership is lost, the other two will make losing it easier if you don't keep the economy strong, and the NPCs content.
Completely agree, Bluddwolf. Further, that is how I expect the Development Indexes to work, at least in part. And I expect them to change based both on activity (building a temple makes NPCs happier) and PC skills (charismatic leader makes NPCs happier).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As touched upon in another thread, I would like to see the various aspect of settlement functionality tied to members of that settlement. Instead of simply dropping the right amount raw materials into a bin and money into a hopper to raise your settlement from one level of proficiency to another, I would like to see it's "tier," if you will, tied to the skills of it's key citizens. One of the menus that the settlement chief manager could have, similar to other game's guild management screens for placing officers, could include the various key positions for settlement management. Using this, the chief manager could then assign those roles to the appropriate members of the settlement.
For instance, a portion of the NPC guard's effectiveness is tied to the level of skill training your designated Captain of the Guard character member has in a number of skills...perhaps his/her skill level in not only combat but leadership skills (like the skills hinted at for formation fighting). The effectiveness of your forge could be tied to the skill of your resident Master Smith.
In this way, it takes more than money and resources to maintain an effective settlement - it takes skilled people keeping the level of proficiency higher by their presence. Otherwise, you could have a rather hollow settlement running at peak performance simply because at one time, it had enough resources and money to pay for that level of performance. The most well built fortress doesn't provide much protection if the guards aren't well directed, nor does the forge run as productively if not well maintained by a skilled smithy.
If this were the case, the right skill sets could become very valuable. You would want to keep these people happy, lest they take their skills, and your settlement's peak performance, with them. There's a reason corporations head hunt for the best CEO's...so why not in PFO?
I really like this idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another settlement mechanic that I would like more information on is how banking in a settlement will be run. Below are a couple questions I'd like to kick around with everyone's indulgence:
1. The Persistence of Money
If a settlement is captured/destroyed, I assume stored materials will be stolen, but what about money? Last I read, money isn't going to be a physical item in the game. Does the nonphysical money then leave with its fleeing owner, or if not transferred quickly enough, does it disappear or can it actually be "stolen" as well by the invaders?
2. Investment
On a related (at least monetary) thought - is there a mechanism that could be linked to however settlement banking will be handled that could simulate stock in a settlement? Could investors put coin and resources (you would want to get the average going auction house price for the resources to obtain a monetary value) into a settlement and have some number crunching game mechanic calculate the increase in sales for the settlement as a whole (perhaps total profit of items sold on the settlement's auction house, trainer fees, and contracts)? Once the growth of the settlement was ascertained, could then the investors collect dividends from the settlement for their investment?
In a related vein, could banks issue bonds as a way of investing in a settlement? Thus, rather than having investors skimming profits as they occur, the settlement could postpone payout until they were really well established.
3. Security Boxes
Assuming that settlement members would already have banking rights and potentially bank storage in their settlement bank, would settlement banks have extra storage that they could rent to outside sources? If yes, it would be neat to see them being able to charge either a straight fee or a percentage fee - both as a means of generating more income for the settlement. As I've mentioned in another thread, it would be interesting to see settlement fat-cats diversifying their wealth into Switzerland-style banks.
Just some ideas of how we might make settlements more economically interesting than simply forts with trainers, storage, and auction houses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really like the idea of having members appointed to political positions in a Settlement. I'd like to see the Settlement itself be able to "train" those positions to a higher level, and for the member to also train up that skill, and for the impact to be determined by both.
This reminds me, though, of a general problem that I think players will run into in PFO, which is that there will be a strong incentive to focus all of their training on a very narrow track. I would prefer a game system that made it obvious that training a broader set of skills in parallel was the better choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This reminds me, though, of a general problem that I think players will run into in PFO, which is that there will be a strong incentive to focus all of their training on a very narrow track. I would prefer a game system that made it obvious that training a broader set of skills in parallel was the better choice.
I wonder if the disincentive to focus so exclusively will be the long train times with higher level skills. Will you really one one more level of a very adbvanced skill if it takes 3 weeks of XP versus the dozen cool skills you get could for the same 3 weeks of xp spent? (for example)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This reminds me, though, of a general problem that I think players will run into in PFO, which is that there will be a strong incentive to focus all of their training on a very narrow track. I would prefer a game system that made it obvious that training a broader set of skills in parallel was the better choice.I wonder if the disincentive to focus so exclusively will be the long train times with higher level skills. Will you really one one more level of a very adbvanced skill if it takes 3 weeks of XP versus the dozen cool skills you get could for the same 3 weeks of xp spent? (for example)
This occurred to me when I started to post the same thing in another thread, but I don't think this will actually be a problem after all. It's one of those thing where I saw a problem based on setting a skill to train, and the change to gaining XP and spending it on skills hasn't fully sunk in yet.
The incentive to go ahead and spend accumulated XP on a skill that you can afford right now will probably be strong enough to make players feel comfortable about diversifying.
I hereby formally withdraw my objection :)
.various thoughts about banks..
Weird! I hit reply to Hobs post about banks, and what came up was the quotes but the data field, what he typed, was empty. Strange..
Anyway, do we know if banks will be run by the settlement, or will they be owned and run by the game it's self? Will the settlement leaders have any say about bank policy? I've not heard much about it.
I like these ideas, but wish to stress my preference for a local instead of global system for any form of trade, especially the market system (AH).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Valandur,
I fully back the idea of local banks, just like local auction houses. I have no interest in a bank box that opens the same contents in any bank branch, anywhere in the world. If, as I hope, we do have separate local banks, this allows for bank contents to be taken during a raid and also for people to diversify their holdings to various separate locations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Valandur,
I fully back the idea of local banks, just like local auction houses. I have no interest in a bank box that opens the same contents in any bank branch, anywhere in the world. If, as I hope, we do have separate local banks,this allows for bank contents to be taken during a raid and also for people to diversify their holdings to various separate locations.
I'm sure you won't be surprised that I support this message! Actually one thing I picked out of the latest Dev Blog was the comment that settlements could be partially conquered. This gives me the idea that certain buildings could be targeted with a smaller force, than what sacking the entire settlement would require.
Not just banks would be potential targets: store houses, warehouses, jewelry stores, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So then, my good bandit, here's a touchy question...if the bank, storehouses and other similar localized buildings are raidable...what happens to the local auction house goods if the settlement that local auction house resides in is also raided? Hmmm...
I have a novel, but crazy idea for auction houses...... Make them real auction houses.
If you have an item you want to sell, you go to the auction hall and you pay the auctioneer to sell it. You are paying him for the centralized location and the partial automation of the process. You can remain there and watch the bidding if any, by the patrons that are actually there.
You can leave the area, go have a beer at the local tavern, take care of other business, and return later. If the item sells, you depart with your gold. If it does not sell, you can take your item to the bank or with you. You can return at another time and try again, or try a different auction house in another settlement.
This would lead to greater player interaction and removes the hard to explain, globally automated auction house in a fantasy / medieval setting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf,
I'm all for real auctions. I've been writing event templates lately and one was for a player run auction. I've run them in past games and they're great fun.
However, I have no doubt that for the convenience of players, especially casual players, more traditional but local auction houses will exist. Based on past information, I think any settlement will be able to establish its own auction house to sell its and guest's goods.
Put more bluntly, if a settlement is captured by enemies, are the goods currently on the auction house lootable? I think they should be. If you want the convenience of having an auction house sell your goods even when you're not in-game, the trade off is risking that the settlement, and thus the auction house and its goods, may be captured in a raid.
If this is the case, one side effect may be merchants selling more of their goods face-to-face for fear that goods on auction houses are at more risk than goods they sell personally.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that becomes the case, that's going to be a potentially long trip from settlements where refiners and merchants will likely temporarily store their goods to NPC auction houses for sale. You're going to have a lot of caravans to "visit".
Like the best trainers, I would hope that the best auction houses will be in settlements rather than in NPC towns. Part of the reason will be that settlement governments can set the tax on auction houses. Though I wouldn't want starting town auction houses to be limited to only new player level goods, I think a tax on those goods to counterbalance the safety of those auction houses would be a fair.
I think the balance between convenience, profit, risk of raid, and risk of transport will have an interesting affect on trade in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Jumping back for a minute, there's definitely a Pathfinder precedent for PC stats contributing to a settlement's well-being: A system fairly similar to the one described above was used in the Kingmaker Adventure Path. It might be worthwhile to think about borrowing some of those offices, in addition to the ones mentioned above.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Auctions would have to go 24 hours for all time zones. However I think it would be cool if it were an actual auction where the product goes to the highest bidder and the transaction could not be completed until the auction was over. There have been sorta auctions but there were always shortcuts, like being first to pay the acceptible price set by the person auctioning the item would shortcut the auction. I think it would be better if bids were sealed rather than public and the highest offer won the auction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
hmm...though I made a fortune in Rift selling harvested raw materials to people directly (always lower than the auction house), when I did use the AH to sell off stuff my customers didn't want, I usually used the "buy out" price option. People were willing to pay the price to get the goods right then, rather than having to waits hours or days for an auction to run.
If we're going to take out he buy out feature, then I'd rather just stick to face-to-face sales, whether that's regular or auction.
Another angle that I hardly ever hear people mention is bartering. I've had characters who did nothing but barter goods. If someone tried to give them money, they wouldn't take it. I would act mildly insulted and point out that I was a trader, not merchant. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hopefully, PFO will return some commerce to direct sales, rather than auctions.
In Star Wars Galaxies, a player could set up a store, stock it with goods, set prices, and even hire an NPC sales clerk to handle transactions while the player was offline. More recent MMOs with global auction houses have made player-run stores all but obsolete. If PFO will have local auction houses, I'd prefer that they not include a "buy now" option.
Stores are for buying what you need right now. Auctions may sometimes end at prices below what the local merchants are charging, and they may feature rare items that aren't available for direct sale, but there should be trade-offs between convenience, price, and rarity.
Need it now? Visit a store. Want the best price? Place a bid and wait for the auction to end. Want something that the local shops don't have in stock? Check the auction house, and if it's not there, travel to a settlement with a bigger market.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I know from past experience that there's a good chance I won't use the AH to buy goods, and especially not if there is no "buy out" option. I would much rather trade face-to-face. However, many people prefer AHs. I would just like to see them used in creative ways to generate settlement income.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "Buyout" option in Auction Houses - and Auction Houses generally, truth be told - are a cheap way to get what I imagine most of us want, which is player-run shops that we stock up and allow customers to come and buy from us at any time.
I would much rather see "Auctions" be real, you know... auctions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm all for player run shops. One of the complaints of such shops is that they get spread all over the place and make comparison shopping too difficult. If we were going to be allowed to build our own private homes all over the place, that might be a problem. However, if such shops only occurred in settlements, I expect that the number would be considerably less. Add to that the number you couldn't visit anyway because of settlement alignments or laws that keep you from entering.
As for auctions being auctions, that's fine for some. I just don't like the waiting, checking in periodically to see if I've been outbid, etc. If you're going to have an auction, have a "real" auction with a live auctioneer and bidders competing in real time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there are player shops thieves should have a sleight-of-hand skill enabling shoplifting, counterable by perception skills for the shopkeeper. If shopkeepers are hireling NPCs then their wages should be set by their perception skill.
Being, we both know, there is a vocal group that feels that "passive defense" is not good PVP, it is unfun for the victim.
Thieves may not use stealth to steal from PCs unless there is an active defense against it. They do not want to train Perception to maximum level, just to defend against player theft.
Yes, I know that Perception has dozens of other applications, but they don't acknowledge that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being, we both know, there is a vocal group that feels that "passive defense" is not good PVP, it is unfun for the victim.
Thieves may not use stealth to steal from PCs unless there is an active defense against it. They do not want to train Perception to maximum level, just to defend against player theft.
Yes, I know that Perception has dozens of other applications, but they don't acknowledge that.
I felt it needed to be proposed. Since the community is split then the issue should find a root statement and proposition for GW to either decide or crowdforge. I think this aspect should be a consideration in whichever method of deliberation is chosen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being, we both know, there is a vocal group that feels that "passive defense" is not good PVP, it is unfun for the victim.Thieves may not use stealth to steal from PCs unless there is an active defense against it. They do not want to train Perception to maximum level, just to defend against player theft.
Yes, I know that Perception has dozens of other applications, but they don't acknowledge that.
As someone who sides with that "vocal group" but is currently way too tired to defend his opinion...I'm getting a passive aggressive vibe here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Passive Defense against Pickpocketing and Assassination will suck just as bad as Passive Defense against Getting Hit With Swords would suck.
[Edit for clarity] In the latter case, I'm talking about all combat being resolved by comparing the attackers Attack Skill with the defenders Passive Defense skill, with the result determining the battle. That would suck, in the extreme. I don't understand why anyone would insist that this is a perfectly reasonable system for any player-player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm all for a more localized market. Unless the Auction House is magical place, how do we explain the global reach of it?
Maybe the church of Abadar runs the AHs using their magical vaults.
Note: I know very little about the river kingdoms so no idea how much of a presence that the chrurch of abadar has in the area...was just a thought
If/when i catch you picking my pocket,Stealing from my shop i chop off your hand-Done,Next.
Lets think about some probs with a real AH system. Players need to be present to bib, few/small number of players and you will not reach your reserve price , All bids will be very low (no other biders to push up price), Who wants to sell there +3 flameburst for 10gp.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ruick,
There has already been talk of settlements being able to establish AHs, so once the game has been running for a while (long enough for there to be a good many settlements around), I think there will be quite a few AHs in the world...perhaps more than the 10 you anticipate.
I can see buyers and sellers needing to keep track of which AHs charge more tax per transaction, which tend to be located in safer areas so you risk less by going to or leaving that location, which AHs tend to have better/cheaper raw materials, refined materials, and/or finished goods, etc. All this will make market competition a matter of more than simply undercutting the lowest seller on a world-wide market.