Goblin Squad Member
|
What I asked is, what is the first structure of a settlement that should allow for war?243 posts and you're still having to ask. This thread seems to derail with almost no provocation :).
I propose none. If bands of hooligans from Settlement "B" are harassing my citizens and "B" won't stop it or is behind it, why should I have to have a War Widget Factory to declare war on "B"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I propose none. If bands of hooligans from Settlement "B" are harassing my citizens and "B" won't stop it or is behind it, why should I have to have a War Widget Factory to declare war on "B"?
Which is why I said whatever it takes to make a settlement. War should be dependent on the organization, not a structure. As long as what you have is enough to be termed a settlement by the system, you can use the war system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there will be a significant difference between the structures you'll need in order to Declare a War, and those you'll need to effectively Wage a War. I agree with Bringslite and Sintaqx that the only "structure" you should need for the former is the Settlement itself. As for the latter, I hope there's a lot of variety, and opportunity costs for each.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
Ok... let us see if this works...
If I set up a tent, can this then be considered a settlement?
That is what I mean by, what is the minimum structure required?
Saying we need a settlement, does not answer the question. I know we need a settlement... what is the minimum required building, living quarters, man-made thing (since structure seems to be confusing people) that a person must place on a formerly empty plot of land, to have a settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
Ok... let us see if this works...
If I set up a tent, can this then be considered a settlement?
That is what I mean by, what is the minimum structure required?
The minimum structure they are proposing is the resulting structure you get after upgrading your Fort/Watchtower with a Settlement Charter. That is, a Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the option to raze your settlement rather than allow someone else to claim itYou cannot claim a settlement. An enemy can only destroy a settlement, they cannot capture it.
It cannot be captured through direct combat, but it could be "captured" through devious sneakery by insinuating one or more characters into the settlement leadership and slowly breaking down settlement mechanics (voting, membership, sponsor charter companies, etc...). Much more involved, but intrigue should also be a viable way to remove a competing settlement from your enemy's inventory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
243 posts and you're still having to ask...
To the question "what is the..", there is no formal dev answer. But to the question "what should the minimum structure be..." we seem to have some sort of consensus:
The minimum structure they are proposing is the resulting structure you get after upgrading your Fort/Watchtower with a Settlement Charter. That is, a Settlement.
This is for war between settlements, which allows you to attack all members and structures in the enemy settlement without alignment/rep hits and criminal flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was under the impression that watch tower came first, then fort. Fort is proabably the minimum structure needed to get a settlement charter.
I may find that a fort is a bit too permanent / resource intensive to have "settlement" status. But, I guess we will have to deal with that expense.
I was under the impression that watch tower came first, then fort. Fort is probably the minimum structure needed to get a settlement charter.
I may find that a fort is a bit too permanent / resource intensive to have "settlement" status. But, I guess we will have to deal with that expense.
I have a feeling everyone is going to want to be a part of a settlement eventually. From what the blogs and post have hinted at, joining a settlement is going to be de rigueur very quickly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I assume that we will have to join or create our own settlment. I'm just not fond of the idea of having to wait for approval for war or being forced into a war that might not be in my CC's best interests.
As a Banidt Company, we see ourselves as being very mobile. Being anchored to a settlement will also tie ourselevs down to a fairly small region of operation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a Banidt Company, we see ourselves as being very mobile. Being anchored to a settlement will also tie ourselevs down to a fairly small region of operation.
I'm curious why you say this? What is it about being chartered by a settlement that you feel limits how far you can walk?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure about the relationship/escalation of a fort to a settlement. I may not be remembering correctly, but I seem to remember that there will be both settlement capable hexes and other hexes which are structure capable. I believe the devs have said that a settlement capable hex will be surrounded by 6 "wilderness" hexes. Control of surrounding hexes requires clearing out all watchtowers and forts before the hex can be claimed. If a fort is built in only a structure capable hex, I do not know if it can be upgraded to a settlement (i.e., a settlement capable hex).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a feeling everyone is going to want to be a part of a settlement eventually. From what the blogs and post have hinted at, joining a settlement is going to be de rigueur very quickly.I was under the impression that watch tower came first, then fort. Fort is probably the minimum structure needed to get a settlement charter.
I may find that a fort is a bit too permanent / resource intensive to have "settlement" status. But, I guess we will have to deal with that expense.
Seconded, I don't think they have desire for people without settlements to be doing much to settlements, and that I also fully agree with.
In a poker game, it isn't a good idea to allow a wager to be 100% regardless of how much money each player has, even with crap odds. Someone coming into the match with only a penny to lose, SHOULD be essentially guaranteed to fail against someone who loses thousands on a loss.
In my book, yes if you are going to fight, you are going to need to have something at stake that is of comparable loss to you as your opponent. Just like a suicide ganker wearing the bare minimum he can tread shouldn't do notable damage to a character wearing 3x what he can thread, a cheap thrown together overnight settlement, shouldn't have a chance of tearing down 6 months of work.
I really don't see why there's much objection to the thought of needing to be part of a settlement, GW has pretty much ensured there should be plenty of them, odds are there won't be particularly strong limits of how many each can hold etc... Odds are getting into one should be relatively easy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was under the impression that watch tower came first, then fort.
I don't think you upgrade Watchtowers to Forts. At least, I don't think that's a necessary step.
Once the settlement charter has been created, a minimum of 10 characters must sign it. The settlement must begin with a fortress in a wilderness area; if any other parties have a fortress in the chosen hex, it will need to be destroyed. Once the party has successfully defended their own fortress for a specified amount of time (variable depending on factors affecting the hex), a fortress in the hex must be upgraded to a settlement building; this act formally establishes the settlement.
Settlement Hex: Settlement hexes are where you build settlements...
Wilderness Hex: Most hexes are wilderness hexes. Each settlement hex is surrounded by six wilderness hexes...
Wilderness hexes are mostly undeveloped land with a space for a point of interest (an inn, watchtower, farm, or similar structure) to be built near the center.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was under the impression that watch tower came first, then fort.I don't think you upgrade Watchtowers to Forts. At least, I don't think that's a necessary step.
...
I think Bluddwolf is recollecting from a very early description that actually did describe upgrading a watchtower to a fort and a fort to a settlement. It does appear from your reference that this has changed, but I wouldn't say Bludd was exactly wrong either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks, @Nihimon. However, it seems that the "Put It in Writing" quote appears to inconsistent with the later "Over the Hill and Far Away" quote. The first seems to indicate that there can be multiple PoI in a hex while the second seems to indicate a single PoI per hex (at the center).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks, @Nihimon. However, it seems that the "Put It in Writing" quote appears to inconsistent with the later "Over the Hill and Far Away" quote. The first seems to indicate that there can be multiple PoI in a hex while the second seems to indicate a single PoI per hex (at the center).
My memory's a bit fuzzy, but wasn't "Put It In Writing" before the decision to split each hex into sub-hexes? Might that explain the discrepancy?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... a very early description that actually did describe upgrading a watchtower to a fort and a fort to a settlement.
Can you reference that description?
This is the earliest mention of any of them, and it does not describe upgrading a Watchtower to a Fort.
Watchtowers—Created as an initial step in securing a hex, watchtowers allow a character or group of characters to establish a secure base of operations in hostile territory. Watchtowers have a "detection radius" that determines when and if the occupants are alerted to the presence of potentially hostile forces in the hex. Watchtowers have storage and they allow characters to be logged out of the game safely. When a character enters the detection radius of the watchtower, there's a chance that the character's location will be revealed to the watchtower's occupants, who can in turn pass that information on to others. Avoiding such detection requires specialized character abilities.
Advancing a watchtower can improve its structural integrity, increase its local storage, and increase its detection radius.
Watchtowers can be destroyed by individuals. If a watchtower is destroyed, any objects in its local storage are destroyed as well.
Forts—The penultimate expression of power. Forts provide a significant strategic advantage to their owners. Forts are large and complex buildings and require substantial time and resources to construct. Forts have extensive local storage and allow characters to be logged out of the game safely. Like watchtowers, forts have a detection radius. Forts also have public spaces where characters can directly interact to conduct business or to socialize. Forts also have a limited number of private spaces where small groups can gather for private consultations.
Typically, a given hex will contain only one location suitable for a fort.
Advancing a fort can improve its structural integrity, increase its local storage, increase its detection radius, add facilities for smithing and repair of weapons and armor, and add offensive weapons that can be used to automatically attack approaching hostile forces.
Forts can only be destroyed by siege engines. If a fort is destroyed, any objects in its local storage are destroyed as well.
Settlements—In order to create a player settlement, a fort must be advanced using a special settlement construction process. Before this can begin, the hex must be cleared of any watchtowers or forts owned by any character not a signatory of the settlement's charter. Building a settlement requires massive amounts of resources and extensive amounts of time.
The features of a settlement are varied and warrant their own separate dev blog. Since we do not expect the first player settlements to be introduced into the game until well after launch, we'll reserve those details for now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you look at Every Picture Tells A Story you will see a WIP image on fort layouts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... a very early description that actually did describe upgrading a watchtower to a fort and a fort to a settlement.Can you reference that description?
I think that cite was it. Bluddwolf and I seem to have made similar leaps of logic inferring a sequence between watchtower and fort. I remember thinking it odd that we would have to destroy the Watchtower in order to upgrade it to Fort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks, @Nihimon. However, it seems that the "Put It in Writing" quote appears to inconsistent with the later "Over the Hill and Far Away" quote. The first seems to indicate that there can be multiple PoI in a hex while the second seems to indicate a single PoI per hex (at the center).
Well, I wasn't trying to say anything about how many POIs could exist in a hex. I was trying to source whether or not Watchtowers upgraded to Forts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... a very early description that actually did describe upgrading a watchtower to a fort and a fort to a settlement.Can you reference that description?
Watchtowers—Created as an initial step in securing a hex
Forts—The penultimate expression of power.
Settlements—In order to create a player settlement, a fort must be advanced using a special settlement construction process.
Both the layout and wording imply a progression from Watchtower through Fort to Settlements on a quick reading, so I could see how someone might have gotten that impression from the blog.
Me, I didn't even realize that Watchtowers and Forts were different things before you quoted that bit from the blog. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, neither was I.
Darn this confounded thing, that doesn't let us see the facial expressions and body language of the people we're conversing with.
I think the later blogs should definitely be considered to override whatever was described in previous blogs whenever there's a discrepancy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How I see the 'At War' flag working is basically as several people have mentioned, you need consent from the opposing Hex to go to War.
Yes, 'War' is restricted to the Guilds/Chapters owning or allied with one Hex going to war with the Guilds/Chapters of another Hex, and it doesn't even need to be adjoining.
That said ... people who decline to get involved in this big stoush might now be targets to both sides, but killing them will have repercussions as normal.
That said, if the second Hex refuses the challenge, it might knock down their status a few notches, assuming there's a mechanism to stop people spam-challenging a Hex to try and force it's rating down too far.
In that case, the Agressor Hex must resort to the old-fashioned PvP and burn, pillage and plunder until the Defender Hex either agrees to the War, or the Aggressor's PvPers are getting wafflestomped into ugly mud-puddles at the border.
'War' might include raiding and pillaging, but it's more than the usual PvP. A cunning team might start to purposefully attack key settlements and buildings to cripple a defending team's ability to supply weapons and arms to their Guard NPCs/PCs by stealing the ingots from the smithy or melting the whole building, burn down the farms to slow the production of food to a crawl, stage daring raids on the Merchant Convoys to cripple trade and prevent goods and wealth from being circulated easily within that Hex.
And then, when they do the big "IT WAS MEEEEEE!" Reveal and offer to go to War with the Defenders, the Defenders are mad as hell and willing and eager to go toe-to-toe with their 'bandits' without the alignment/reputation punishment ... but they are also subtly weakened at the same point.
In regards to how much work you need to be able to 'go' to War, for Hex-to-Hex combats, we're seeing at least 8 farms, 3 smithies, 2 wizard towers or cleric temples and a certain level of wealth within the hex, to sustain the need to purchase mercenaries, produce siege-weapons and war-rations and weaponry, as well as magical support, be it as artillery or healing.
For Chapter-to-Chapter "Wars", it's probably not nearly so expensive, but at the same point, the Chapters might not be welcome in neutral Hexes so long as they have the "At War" flag on them, which limits them to PC-Controlled Hexes, and if the fight drags on too long, the controlling parties of the Hexes might toss both Chapters out until either one side loses or they settle their grudge another way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@HalfOrc
I agree with you completely, that that is one way to force a settlement to finally consent to a mutual war. However, I see it more likely that a settlement that has no interests in PVP (because its founding charters have no interest), will complain that you are griefing them.
I can say this with pretty good certainty, because we have already seen at least one thread asking for a non PVP server. Since they will not get this, they will create a settlement and expect that they will be protected by the GMs and mechanics, from all non consensual PVP.
I would say this to them, in exchange....
If you wish to be a truly "protected" settlement and not face non consensual PVP, then you should have your doors open to all and offer free training to all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, that's the thing, if they won't accept the War, then you raid them ... and you're sliding towards the Evil/Chaos side of things, and that's, according to the blogs (I THINK!) meaning that you're going to have a hell of a time with neutral, lawful and good-aligned Hexes. NPCs won't want to talk to you or train you, PCs are probably going to go "Hummmm ..." you will be penalized in contracts for your evil alignment/chaotic alignment and so forth.
So yes, you can make their lives a living hell ... but you'll be the one suffering in the long run.
And while you're off trying to incite the pacifistic monks next door into fisticuffs, the hex on the other side is going "Hey, you've got no guards on your borders ... that's a nice everything you've got there, by the way!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In regards to how much work you need to be able to 'go' to War, for Hex-to-Hex combats, we're seeing at least 8 farms, 3 smithies, 2 wizard towers or cleric temples and a certain level of wealth within the hex, to sustain the need to purchase mercenaries, produce siege-weapons and war-rations and weaponry, as well as magical support, be it as artillery or healing.
What makes you think that all of that will be required to declare war? Do you know something that we do not?
@Bluddwolf
I really don't think that there will be a way to achieve "protected" status from marauders or land hungry expansionists. Sure, there are the deterrents of Allies and probable rep/alignment hits, but the game is going to be a lot about settlement vs. settlement as that further encourages PVP. If someone wants to harass you into a war or just wants to loot/destroy your storehouses (Dev's have said contents in structures are at risk when structure is destroyed) then nothing will keep you safe.
There will be no totally safe places except NPC hexes, and that depends on how fast the Marshal response time is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So yes, you can make their lives a living hell ... but you'll be the one suffering in the long run.
So then why do you suggest it as a viable option?
I agree with you it is an option, but you seem to say it is not one you would choose.
The only other recourse is to just accept their declination of the war and move on to another settlement to make war on. This will result in all settlements declining wars, unless they are certain they will win. If they are certain that they will will, you will be equally certain that you will lose. Therefore, you would not initiate the offer to go to war to begin with.
The problem is the "consensual" requirement for warfare. It really makes no sense. Likewise, it makes no sense that you can not capture a settlement. Wars (sieges) do not usually result in the complete obliteration of a settlement, that is usually the furthest things from the attacker's list of goals.
I agree that they should make wars, costly in both coin and resources. They should make the maintenance of large settlements, costly and difficult to govern. It is with these two things that will prevent a powerful kingdom from gobbling up the whole map.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only other recourse is to just accept their declination of the war and move on to another settlement to make war on. This will result in all settlements declining wars, unless they are certain they will win. If they are certain that they will will, you will be equally certain that you will lose. Therefore, you would not initiate the offer to go to war to begin with.
The problem is the "consensual" requirement for warfare. It really makes no sense. Likewise, it makes no sense that you can not capture a settlement. Wars (sieges) do not usually result in the complete obliteration of a settlement, that is usually the furthest things from the attacker's list of goals.
I agree that they should make wars, costly in both coin and resources. They should make the maintenance of large settlements, costly and difficult to govern. It is with these two things that will prevent a powerful kingdom from gobbling up the whole map.
Have to agree with The Wolf on that. Perhaps the type of settlement that aggresses, non consensually, on others will need to keep their rep/alignments flexible enough to absorb the "hits" that they take for such aggression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In regards to how much work you need to be able to 'go' to War, for Hex-to-Hex combats, we're seeing at least 8 farms, 3 smithies, 2 wizard towers or cleric temples and a certain level of wealth within the hex, to sustain the need to purchase mercenaries, produce siege-weapons and war-rations and weaponry, as well as magical support, be it as artillery or healing.What makes you think that all of that will be required to declare war? Do you know something that we do not?
No, but if we look at the blogs, let's assume that going to War includes more than just 'we can PvP without alignment slides now' and more 'this is for everything.'
Declaring 'At War' shouldn't be something lightly done. We're not talking about going over, tipping somebody's cows over and urinating on their front door. We're talking armies clashing, villages burning, siege-engines hurling balls of flaming pitch and ballista bolts the size of a Titan's arm into the major cities. 'At War' should mean 'At War', as in anything goes, everything is on the table, and completely at risk.
Going to War should require the ability to create, maintain and sustain the ability to completely destroy the enemy, or failing that, force them to surrender before all their hard work goes up in smoke. Beating the enemy should not merely mean killing people who will just respawn five minutes later with half their gear missing.
Imagine taking the legs out from under a rival Guild, push them back to their stronghold and giving them an ultimatium, that they will tithe you 30% of all their income, or you raze everything to the ground, salt the earth, poison the wells and leave them with ashes.
Assuming that building up a settlement, let alone a Hex, takes as long, and is as expensive as it sounds in the Blog ... utter destruction isn't something most people will leap to, but if it's a choice between leaving a hostile bunch of players at your flank or wiping out an otherwise useful Hex to save your own lands .... the option starts to look a whole lot better.
So yes, you can make their lives a living hell ... but you'll be the one suffering in the long run.
So then why do you suggest it as a viable option?
I agree with you it is an option, but you seem to say it is not one you would choose.
The only other recourse is to just accept their declination of the war and move on to another settlement to make war on. This will result in all settlements declining wars, unless they are certain they will win. If they are certain that they will will, you will be equally certain that you will lose. Therefore, you would not initiate the offer to go to war to begin with.
The problem is the "consensual" requirement for warfare. It really makes no sense. Likewise, it makes no sense that you can not capture a settlement. Wars (sieges) do not usually result in the complete obliteration of a settlement, that is usually the furthest things from the attacker's list of goals.
I agree that they should make wars, costly in both coin and resources. They should make the maintenance of large settlements, costly and difficult to govern. It is with these two things that will prevent a powerful kingdom from gobbling up the whole map.
That's a point I was hoping somebody would pick up on.
There's got to be a point where the actions of players within hexes starts to tilt the balance of power against or towards them, one way or another.
Let's say, the Defenders of a Hex won't accept your declaration of War. Fine, let's go stampede the villagers, and [redacted] the cattle until they do.
But you're taking an alignment hit in the process, it's expensive and your Guildies are complaining that it's getting harder to take on contracts due to this.
During this process, however, you're also destabilizing the other community, and eventually the Defenders are going to have protests from the NPCs/PCs that they MUST do something about your antics. Trade is down, the bounty hunters are making a mess because they're rich and getting fat off the continual bounty system the people who have settled in the Defender's Hex are using to try and protect themselves.
Eventually, the very system itself might declare War between the two groups due to the amount of time and the sheer volume of attacks, or failing that, the Defenders might face an NPC Riot or Uprising for their percieved lack of care at the Commoners' plight.
The Alignment Shift can also be countered somewhat by players taking contracts with each other to ship goods or protect convoys, obviously not enough to fully counteract, but enough to slow this drift to Chaotic Evil, and then it becomes a staring contest between the two groups over who will budge first.
The Raiders, who are betting their reputations and ability to gain contracts with other players on the Defenders buckling under the pressure, or the Defenders, who are suffering hideous morale blows in their hex, are losing wealth and stability from the contant attacks on their merchant convoys, farms, lumber-mills and mines and could potentially be facing a coup from within over this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@various, I agree that requiring consent for wars makes no sense. So it's a good thing GW has previously stated that it won't be required. I have no idea why you guys are going on about it.
I agree with you completely, that that is one way to force a settlement to finally consent to a mutual war. However, I see it more likely that a settlement that has no interests in PVP (because its founding charters have no interest), will complain that you are griefing them.
Settlements with no interest in PvP will be very small and not very useful, because in order to raise their development indexes past a certain (rather low) level, they need to declare a "PvP vulnerability" window during which the settlement itself can be attacked.
Bluddwolf, you seem to be obsessed with this idealized concept of "the player who doesn't ever want pvp", you harp on it in every thread you can (and you post in a LOT of threads). But these players are so few and far between, I can't imagine there would be enough of them to even get a settlement started. Maybe it's all in your head? Are you starting to have paranoid delusions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tuoweit: Think it's lack of definitions and conlusions atm.
For eg, it seems to me there might be a standard sequence of declaring war or reaching up to that point? Now what consequences of what goes before influencing that declaration ie what factors the warring parties are tying into, if that is the case, and what variability might pop out of that to determine what sort of war is created: I think that could be the question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@various, I agree that requiring consent for wars makes no sense. So it's a good thing GW has previously stated that it won't be required. I have no idea why you guys are going on about it.
If this is the quote you are citing:
=Ryan Dancey]There clearly must be a mechanism to go to war against an enemy even if they don't wish it.
RyanD
First of all, one post / quote in a thread among hundreds of threads, thrown in with posts among thousands of posts, and still as ambiguous as this one is.... is hardly convincing that wars do not need to be consensual. certainly not when other posts, previously perhaps, have suggested the opposite.
We will in fact have to wait until a Dev Blog covering the nature and scope of warfare. But, we have seen that even Dev Blogs are not eternal, as some recent ones have overwritten some of the suggested systems from past Dev Blogs.
Misconceptions are never created from concrete facts. Development is by its very nature, not concrete.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for linking that, Tuoweit.
This post in that same thread goes into even more detail, and I suggest reading it.
There are quite a few 'well, duh!' comments on these boards that do little except detract attention from meaningful conversation. These extrapolations of how the game in 2 years will work are made based on incomplete information... information that the developers obviously must have, since they are so 'duh.' It can be quite frustrating at times.
I guess maybe I just have more trust in the developers, having interacted at various times.
Regarding the "PvP Vulnerability Window"
During your PvP window your NPC guards will be present, but in far fewer numbers than outside the window so you will need your players there if you are attacked. Meanwhile outside the PvP window the guards will be numerous enough that attacking the settlement will be extremely difficult if its player population shows up to defend it, but it is possible.
You can be attacked at any time, but guards will be present outside the proposed "PvP Window," making it much more difficult. Follow the link for the first full description of the concept; I don't believe we've had anything else to add to or contradict that post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding the "PvP Vulnerability Window"During your PvP window your NPC guards will be present, but in far fewer numbers than outside the window so you will need your players there if you are attacked. Meanwhile outside the PvP window the guards will be numerous enough that attacking the settlement will be extremely difficult if its player population shows up to defend it, but it is possible.You can be attacked at any time, but guards will be present outside the proposed "PvP Window," making it much more difficult. Follow the link for the first full description of the concept; I don't believe we've had anything else to add to or contradict that post.
Is PVP Window only applicable to those at war with the selletment, or anyone flying any type of a PVP flag?
Would being at war, especially consensual war, widen the window to "anytime, anywhere" access?
I do recall reading that settlements that have a wider PVP window, gain advantages for having them set at that.
On the "Duh" point, I don't every expect anyone, especially a game designer not to have a "duh" moment during development. We have all played games, very successful ones, with very proficient developers, that have produced that "WTF were they thinking" moment in those early days after launch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is PVP Window only applicable to those at war with the selletment, or anyone flying any type of a PVP flag?
Would being at war, especially consensual war, widen the window to "anytime, anywhere" access?
I do recall reading that settlements that have a wider PVP window, gain advantages for having them set at that.
My interpretation:
"PvP window" applies ONLY to attacking a settlement directly. You need a War to attack a settlement during its PvP window (I think? That's an assumption), but a War is more than just attacking a settlement, it involves all the flaggy goodness we've discussed elsewhere. The term "PvP Window" is probably a bad name, since it doesn't restrict PvP - it restricts settlement attacks (or even more accurately, settlement defenses).
Having a larger "Settlement Vulnerability Window" (yeah I can see why "PvP window" is a more convenient term, if inaccurate) is required to have a higher development index, that's one advantage for it. I'm not sure there is any advantage to opening that window beyond the current needs of your settlement, though. The most highly developed settlements will require 24 hour windows.
as ambiguous as this one is
There clearly must be a mechanism to go to war against an enemy even if they don't wish it.
I dunno, doesn't look very ambiguous to me. It's not very specific, but it's not ambiguous: It plainly says "there must be a way to start a non-consensual war." Which I think we are almost all in agreement is a good thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
as ambiguous as this one isThere clearly must be a mechanism to go to war against an enemy even if they don't wish it.I dunno, doesn't look very ambiguous to me. It's not very specific, but it's not ambiguous: It plainly says "there must be a way to start a non-consensual war." Which I think we are almost all in agreement is a good thing.
Do you mean War as in attacking and destroying enemy settlements?
Or do you mean War as in doing it without aligment/rep loss?A 'consensual war' is one where there's agreement that there is a state of war.
I hesitate to give RL examples of non-consensual wars since this is an internet discussion, but there are many examples of conflicts where one side regards it as war and the other as terrorism.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It plainly says "there must be a way to start a non-consensual war." Which I think we are almost all in agreement is a good thing.
Yes, and the clearest way to have non consensual war is to not require consent to begin with.
That means non consensual for both aggressive and defensive wars. If a charter company wants to wage war against a settlement or another individual charter, it should be able to do so.
I guess I'm still struggling with the concept that charters are not the persistent, named, autonomous player guilds that we are accustomed to in most MMORPGs. Settlements strike me as being more related to alliances, and kingdoms to blocks or pacts.
What I foresee happening is that a lot of CCs will look to create their own settlement, keeping it small. Then going to larger settlements for their training as "outsiders". The reason being, there are both advantages and disadvantages, but more autonomy overall.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It plainly says "there must be a way to start a non-consensual war." Which I think we are almost all in agreement is a good thing.Yes, and the clearest way to have non consensual war is to not require consent to begin with.
That means non consensual for both aggressive and defensive wars. If a charter company wants to wage war against a settlement or another individual charter, it should be able to do so.
I guess I'm still struggling with the concept that charters are not the persistent, named, autonomous player guilds that we are accustomed to in most MMORPGs. Settlements strike me as being more related to alliances, and kingdoms to blocks or pacts.
What I foresee happening is that a lot of CCs will look to create their own settlement, keeping it small. Then going to larger settlements for their training as "outsiders". The reason being, there are both advantages and disadvantages, but more autonomy overall.
Do you mean to say the clearest way is for an aggressor to not be required to "declare" war? The war is quite consensual to the aggressor simply by the act.
Consensual war is the only way to allow for non rep/alignment hits to all sides isn't it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would being at war, especially consensual war, widen the window to "anytime, anywhere" access?
I do recall reading that settlements that have a wider PVP window, gain advantages for having them set at that.
Follow the link in Lee Hammock's name, that's where you read it. It also answers this question.
Also, scrolling through that thread, I quickly found another post that may give you some context.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you mean to say the clearest way is for an aggressor to not be required to "declare" war? The war is quite consensual to the aggressor simply by the act.Consensual war is the only way to allow for non rep/alignment hits to all sides isn't it?
Actually, even the attacker needs consent from the other members of his charter company's settlement. Thus is why I predict that many charter companies will just set up their own settlement, a settlement-of-one, so as to maintain that autonomy. Sure they will have a small settlement, most likely, and have to go elsewhere for higher level training. But, they will not have to get approval to go to war if they want to.
As for consensual war being the on,y way to have no alignment or rep hits. I couldn't care less about alignment shifts. Chaotic is desired for bandits anyway. Being Neutral or Evil makes little difference, either is fine because we have both bandits and assassins.
Reputation is only lost, to any great extent, if your PVP is seen as not "meaningful PVP".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't see why a bandit fort couldn't be a fun thing for a Bandit Lord to establish. Kind of sticking your neck out to have a fixed (visible) base though. That requirement would not be fair.
I am all for CC's attacking settlements and it being war to them. I am sure an organized series of bandit attacks would seem like a war to any small/medium settlement. So, if you don't care about rep/alignment hits, you don't need any system or lack of one either...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm starting to think people are unclear on the meaning of "consensual". Or "war" for that matter, which refers to a specific game mechanic in the PFO context. Hopefully I can clear that up somewhat.
Yes, and the clearest way to have non consensual war is to not require consent to begin with.
That means non consensual for both aggressive and defensive wars.
A war which does not require consent from the target settlement is by definition a non-consensual war. It's not the "easiest way", it's the ONLY way.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "aggressive war" and "defensive war".
Do you mean War as in attacking and destroying enemy settlements?
Or do you mean War as in doing it without aligment/rep loss?
A 'consensual war' is one where there's agreement that there is a state of war.
"War" means the latter, bypassing the normal alignment/rep loss by using settlement mechanics (which will be limited by settlement alignment etc etc).
I disagree with your definition of "consensual war" - it's not that both sides agree that there's a state of war (which is a fact one can verify the truth of, there's no agreeing or disagreeing whether there's a state of war), a consensual war is one in which both parties participate willingly, probably done in-game simply by both sides mutually declaring war on each other. Think of it as a mutual declaration of war. But a non-mutual war is still a state of war in which both parties will benefit from the suspension of alignment/rep loss.
Actually, even the attacker needs consent from the other members of his charter company's settlement. Thus is why I predict that many charter companies will just set up their own settlement, a settlement-of-one, so as to maintain that autonomy. Sure they will have a small settlement, most likely, and have to go elsewhere for higher level training. But, they will not have to get approval to go to war if they want to.
Let's not confuse the issue. Whoever is in control of a settlement will be the ones who can cause the settlement to declare war, it's not something anyone who is a member of a settlement can do (unless the settlement gives that privilege to every member). But whether consensus within a particular settlement is required to do so or not is irrelevant to the concept of "consensual war", because War - the PFO mechanic - is between settlements, not individuals.
Finally, to be clear, I don't think GW has said anything about a "consensual war" having any kind of benefit as compared to a regular, one-side-declares-war-on-another war. That is, "consensual" - unlike "war" - has NO specific game mechanic as outlined by GW. The idea is merely extrapolated from EVE Online, where a mutual declaration of war between corporations simply means that there's no weekly maintenance fee charged to the aggressor in order to keep the war going.
What I foresee happening is that a lot of CCs will look to create their own settlement, keeping it small. Then going to larger settlements for their training as "outsiders". The reason being, there are both advantages and disadvantages, but more autonomy overall.
Except that certain abilities which are tied to advanced training facilities will be unusable unless the settlement which you are a member of actually has the appropriate (functioning) facility. It's not sufficient to merely get the training elsewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As most of you will have noticed, Lisa posted the following in the screenshot blog thread:
The building behind the palisades is an early version of the keep, the building where all the administration of the town takes place. It will be a very important building in PFO. Eventually, it will evolve into a castle, but in the earliest versions, it is actually a tent. The evolution of buildings is pretty cool and our concept artist, Darren, has been working his butt off to concept these evolutions out.-Lisa
The answer to the orginial question then seems to be confirmed: you need a tent to declare war.