Discussion thread for new blog entry Goblinworks Blog: You Can Live in Grace and Comfort.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although the standard cap to each development index is 1000, there are a couple of factors that affect an individual settlement's maximum DIs. The first, and most significant, is the settlement's PvP window. This is the period of each day during which it is open to settlement warfare. Smaller PvP windows reduce the maximum DI cap significantly, and only those cities who open themselves up to trouble can reach their maximum potential. (Buying the protection of patron powers such as the Hellknights or the Knights of Iomedae to keep rival settlements at bay is costly, after all.) You need to take risks to achieve your maximum growth!
This paragraph bothers me, as it seems to be counter to the open PVP design of the game. If a settlement has a low or closed PvP window, it may have a low DI, but it seems like it would be effectively impossible to capture, as no one could engage in PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hard to tell how large a settlement would have to grow to get to a 3,000 DI, but it sounds like that settlement would be a whopper, and would have to have a PvP window open 24 hours. (That is my presumption, as the larger the PVP window the higher your DI can go, so, to max it, be able to be attacked at any time.)
Interesting possibilities arise in having allied settlement with specializations, and keeping them close enough to be useful, but not so close as to cut into your own settlements maximum possible DI.
Any notes yet on the range from center one settlement can gain influence from? That is, for a large settlement to max out, how big would its sphere of influence have to be? (Farms, resources hubs, etc.)
Brings to mind a large settlement in the movies...when an invading army comes close the population outside the walls can be seen for miles streaming down the roads and paths to the safety of the castle while Soldiers and guards hustle around stacking boulders and starting fires on the battlements, readying the castle for the long siege to come.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not clear on the idea of the PVP window. When the blog says "the period of each day during which it is open to settlement warfare," does it mean in-game day or out-of-game day?
If it means in-game day, them sieges are going to be very interesting, as attackers sit around for a couple of hours waiting for the window to open. People get bored, need to go to work or school, etc., so holding a siege for longer than one game day will be challenging.
If it means out-of-game day, then people will want to set which hours the PVP window is open to match prime time in the time zone when most of their players are online. Time zone manipulation had long been an essential element of EVE Online warfare.
DI damage also allows an attacker to reduce a settlement's defenses and DI without having to actively destroy the very structures they are hoping to capture. ....This is not finalized yet, but the principal is that capturing the hall should win the war and change ownership of the settlement.
So is this a change to what has been previously stated, that you cannot take over a settlement without first destroying all buildings, i.e. you cannot 'inherit' any buildings from a settlement you conquer? Pretty big change, so just making sure.
Assuming that is the case, and this system goes forward, I'm interested in how Settlement organizations persist for any period of time after their Settlement has been captured, possibly simply continuing the fight for the Settlement.
If the 'Hall' is captured, can it be captured back? Is it faster/easier to do so for a certain period of time after it was recently captured? Or by the preceding owner, possibly if they had held the hall for a certain period of time?
Are the DI of the conquered Settlement suppressed for some time after being conquered, or does everything immediately function at fall capacity?
How are DI and 'control'/ownership of buildings in outlying hexes owned by the Settlement handled when the Settlement Hall is taken?
If Settlement Halls allow the Settlement to be taken semi-intact, is there a similar option for developed Wilderness hexes with buildings?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Security/Morale/Civilization DI are interesting, it seems like their effects could be used to counter/moderate the normal effects from Settlement Alignment/Reputation, or amplify existing strengths. Ongoing costs of buildings (in DI?), other costs, and training, are supposed to be benefitted by high Rep/Lawful settlement alignment (low Corruption), so Security reducing Corruption and Civilization speeding building repair (meaning you can juggle the same DI to repair more buildings in the same time period) and boosting training seem potential avenues to at least partially address some downsides of Settlement Alignment/Reputation, if you dedicate the Settlement towards those DI (in lieu of Morale, apparently).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems like issues of how far one settlement can 'claim' hexes will inevitably run into issues of how multi-settlement nations operate, what reaching that level means for DI management, etc. It does seem plausible to say that you have to reach certain DI levels in order to expand the potential reach of the one settlement (in order to claim new hexes further increasing DI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree the idea of a no-PVP window preventing settlement warfare / conquering hexes seems problematic. Those would have limited DI, but a group could easily arrange for large areas to be settled by these weak settlements that are nearly immune to being conquered, and integrate the hexes to their own larger settlement/nation at their convenience (capability per DI).
I don't know if ANY specific sub-system is needed here, but off the top of my head, perhaps a better approach would not be binary but just say that during the window PVP settlement war is at full effectiveness, and outside the window it is reduced in effectiveness, i.e. takes longer to do but you can still do it.
My understanding from previous blogs is that PVP window is not the only time when they can be attacked merely that the npc guards are easier to deal with during that time
Valentine operatives were used by the guiding hand social club to take down ubiquita seraph in Eve
My understanding from previous blogs is that PVP window is not the only time when they can be attacked merely that the npc guards are easier to deal with during that time
OK, and if it scales equally, then higher Security DI settlements would be more strengthened in off-PVP hours than low Security DI settlements.
@Quandary
While you may well be right I have seen little to suggest that, they did say the pvp window was so that smaller settlements could limit the times of extreme vulnerability until they have grown in numbers. That could indicate that all settlements are equally difficult outside the vulnerability window. It is certainly a question begging an answer though
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Quandary
While you may well be right I have seen little to suggest that, they did say the pvp window was so that smaller settlements could limit the times of extreme vulnerability until they have grown in numbers. That could indicate that all settlements are equally difficult outside the vulnerability window. It is certainly a question begging an answer though
You got it.The PvP window is essentially the 'best' time to make an attack since NPC guards will be much weaker. The extent to which Security DI affects the NPC guards *outside* of the PvP window is still to be toyed with.
Yeah, clarification would be nice...
But I saw it as relative, a larger Settlement should always be more difficult to conquer than a small one anyways, at all times.
Some DI may be 'set' or each category will have minimums, but it seems most will be chosen by the Settlement, so small settlements wanting to maximize defensiveness in 'off-PVP hours' very well may be motivated to prioritize Security first, which is reasonable.
It sounds like you probably will have to increase that PVP window if you want to expand and develop, DI-wise.
Large settlements are rarely going to have large off-PVP hours as a normal policy because the effects of that will lead to their long-term loss of power... Although once you establish a large Settlement/Nation, I suppose switching it to minimum PVP hours would still leave a formidable entity that works well as a 'blocker' for allies.
It does seem like any Settlement that feels like they are losing, especially in response to some offensive 'surge' would want to immediately change their PVP hours to increase their NPC defenses/invulnerability, since side-effects on longer term things are less important than immediately losing your Settlement.
EDIT: OK, good to hear the PVP window isn't binary...
re: How Security/NPC guards work during and outside the PVP window, I do feel like having Security increase defensiveness at all times (and disproportionately benefit from closing the PVP window) makes alot of sense... Although I can see how that could be TOO strong with more advanced high-Security (and everything) settlements who strategically want to 'turtle' for a period even if impacts their growth (which they may not be in a position to pursue anyways, vs. hostile neighboring hexes). That can also be addressed by changing how opening/closing the PVP windows works depending on the size of the Settlement's DI indices, i.e. relatively stronger for the smallest and weakest (although they are not so immune that they can't be conquered by a superior force), and while proportionately weaker, still a relevant tactic for larger advanced settlements. There could also be a 'ceiling' for NPC defense, so the largest of settlements/nations may not benefit from off-PVP hours at all, or only minimally. If the off-PVP-hour bonus is a flat additive, then it would quickly reduce in relative importance for larger Settlements with higher DI.
Having read the blog I take the following from it initally (personal perspective)
The good
--------
Settlements have to pick and choose what they build by using di points which leads to a bit of variation
There is an index which is advanced by keeping settlements more open for visitors (Civillisation index always good to encourage a lack of lock down)
PVP windows give both the larger conglomerates and smaller a chance.
The bad
--------
I really do not like the capturing a hall mechanic settlements should be able to utilise a scorched earth policy and fight to the last building. This will promote the highly organised pvp guilds who will possibly be able to specialise in forcing a breach and holding a hall against an unexpecting an disorganised opposition. 1 minute does not seem long frankly. If this time was longer for instance they had to plant the flag ( a minute still) then keep it standing for 30 minutes this gives chance for far flung members to get back to help defend.
The blog isn't specific how long it will take to breach the settlement, if they need to declare war a decent period before this may not be such an issue. If however the warriors of Blah can enter the settlement because it is pretty open to boost its civilisation index. Surround the town hall, declare war then immediately plant the flag this is a huge problem
The still unanswered
---------------------
Quandary's question about whether defence scales with di outside the pvp window
The prelude to razing a settlement
Costs incurred fighting a war...automated deductions
When settlements combine into kingdoms do they support each other in anyway through di boosts
@Quandary
as I understand it DI maximum depends on size of pvp window,so decreasing the window decreases DI. Also I would hope that when a war is declared that pvp windows can not be changed for the duration
My apologies Tork, I didn't realise as I am not a PfO tabletopper so the name didn't ring any bells. Welcome aboard
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't believe none of you mugs didn't think to welcome Tork to the team with his first official post!
Tork Shaw was a beloved contributor to the Pathfinder RPG, now he's part of the MMO Development Team.
I didn't think to welcome Tork to the PFO family. (Your triple negative had me scratching my head...)
But, Welcome Tork! It sounds like fun! I have not played Darkfall: Unholy Wars, but good to know you have a gaming background (it is important for people that are designing games to know what is fun, and what is not fun.)
We are a critical but easy going bunch....usually.
(Hey Jim! Tell Lisa and whomever else was involved the new Forums interface and spellchecker is pretty cool. Nice to be able to type freely and check my work after.)
The duration of flag planting is surely just an initial proposition. Most likely it will depend on testing in alpha initially, but more in during EE when there are more combatants available for the purpose..
Quite sure you are right Being, the things I listed as bad were not necessarily meaning they should be thrown out merely that it is something I think that we need to examine and I did suggest why I was worried and the sort of thing that would ameliorate my angst :)
Great to see Pathfinder blood in PFO!
And that's a funny trick, I see you can change '[Paizo] Contributer'/'Goblinworks Game Designer' hats between posts!
@Quandary
Hmm that sounds a bit like someone using disguise...we had better all watch out for the under observation flag appearing on us :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, could a Settlement destroy its own Hall to prevent capture by an enemy force? I'm not certain why a Settlement would do that (maybe that would force the DI low enough to strengthen guards?), but I don't recall seeing whether or not we can raze our own buildings.
Also, welcome to the family, Tork!
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The duration of flag planting is surely just an initial proposition. Most likely it will depend on testing in alpha initially, but more in during EE when there are more combatants available for the purpose..Quite sure you are right Being, the things I listed as bad were not necessarily meaning they should be thrown out merely that it is something I think that we need to examine and I did suggest why I was worried and the sort of thing that would ameliorate my angst :)
Indeedy. All of this will be subject to testing and tweaking. Warfare is going to be a total riot to test!
These systems are designed to give both attackers and defenders as many options and viable tactics as possible. I know there is only a relatively small amount of data on the blogs and forums for you folks to work with, but if you don't mind be being a bit vague for a bit longer I would say that MOST warfare tactics will have a place, subject to the decisions the defenders have made. There will be settlements who hunker down and make their primary defensive position around the hall. There will be others who rush out to meet attackers in the field. There will be still more who mount their main resistance at the city walls, raining spells and arrows onto would-be invaders.
As more details come out I hope will find this easier to picture, but at the moment the most important takeaway from this blog post is the great deal of variety in both settlement construction and settlement destruction :)
The question of DI vs PvP availability is another issue to be heavily tested. It may not come out so clearly in my post but DI is extremely important to a settlement. We are building a system that positively encourages expansion, at the very least into your immediately neighbouring hexes. Low PvP window settlements will find themselves very limited and since upgrades rely on DI as well it will not be a viable option to 'shut down' a settlement once you have milked it. Well, it will be an option, but it will become extremely difficult to defend against powerful attackers, even with small PvP windows.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that I haven't seen suggested yet is the possibility of using your crafters to sabotage facilities. Just a thought that if anyone would know how to sabotage a forge it would be a master smith. Gives an added dimension to crafters, adds an alternative to assassination and frankly the thought of offensive crafting skills quite tickles me
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although the standard cap to each development index is 1000, there are a couple of factors that affect an individual settlement's maximum DIs. The first, and most significant, is the settlement's PvP window. This is the period of each day during which it is open to settlement warfare. Smaller PvP windows reduce the maximum DI cap significantly, and only those cities who open themselves up to trouble can reach their maximum potential. (Buying the protection of patron powers such as the Hellknights or the Knights of Iomedae to keep rival settlements at bay is costly, after all.) You need to take risks to achieve your maximum growth!This paragraph bothers me, as it seems to be counter to the open PVP design of the game. If a settlement has a low or closed PvP window, it may have a low DI, but it seems like it would be effectively impossible to capture, as no one could engage in PVP.
Yeah, this bothers me as well. Open world pvp... Doesnt seem to apply here. The flagging system as designed was kinda weird but doable. Having a pvp window for settlements, by which allowing limited times for pvp... kinda defeats the purpose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Setting a PVP window is a nice way to work around the sticky situation that always arises with an international presence. This PVP window doesn't necessarily mean that all PVP against the settlement is going to be done during that time. Disrupting or destroying outlying hexes, general siege, waylaying and exploitation of local wildlife should all be available, basically the only thing someone can't do is directly assault the settlement to eradicate or capture it.
One thing that I am curious about, though: you pay materials to construct a building, and that takes up X development points. How long would it take to dismantle that building (compared to erecting it)? Would any resources be recoverable in that event? If some insidious force insinuated a sleeper agent into the settlement, would it be possible for them to put the torch to a key building in the middle of the assault? Could they let an enemy in the back door during, or even outside of the PVP window?
Would settlement maintenance be tied to DI? The larger the settlement, the more food and materials are required to maintain it?
If someone kicks down an outlying structure, reducing the DI required to maintain the structures, could the settlement use coin/materials to maintain the settlement integrity during the interim, while the POI is being restored?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, this bothers me as well. Open world pvp... Doesnt seem to apply here. The flagging system as designed was kinda weird but doable. Having a pvp window for settlements, by which allowing limited times for pvp... kinda defeats the purpose.This paragraph bothers me, as it seems to be counter to the open PVP design of the game. If a settlement has a low or closed PvP window, it may have a low DI, but it seems like it would be effectively impossible to capture, as no one could engage in PVP.
It sounds like (based on Tork's description above) the "window" only determine the strength of the NPC guards. A window that is open 24 hours gives the opportunity for a settlement to reach it's full potential, but at the cost of substantially weaker NPC guards. A smaller settlement might start off small, with a narrow PvP window, so when the guards are strong it can grow, but when they are weak the settlement's residents should be home defending instead of harvesting or exploring.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I like almost everything here, from the intimation that we might want to carefully decide what our settlement leader(s) train in to the cost/reward limits of developing development indices.
Two things really bother me: First, that a nation with a fixed territory seems like it would have to sacrifice one settlement for another, because there aren't enough hexes within their borders for both settlements to develop. That probably falls into 'meaningful choice', but it's a choice that I don't want to have to make. (Which means it's probably the right design decision to make).
Second, I'm bothered by the explanation that capturing the town hall would take 'about a minute' with no discussion of when that minute would be or how hard the prerequisite for starting that minute would be. If the capture attempt must fall within a 1 hour period once a day (set by the defender), then the defender can be expected to offer a fight to the attacker; if that minute can take place at any time, the attacker has the advantage in being able to mass an attack at any time, while the defender must defend with their full force at all times. If the attacker can set the time when the defender must respond, they have the advantage of choosing the time when they are more available and having longer advance notice of when that time will come.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
During wartime, it may be a worthwhile tactical move to have your assassins stake out your own Hall, to take out anyone trying to capture it. If your Settlement is being attacked and defeated, that may give attackers an unpleasant surprise as they get close to their goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm certain there are several other prerequisites before an enemy army can plant a flag. It did say they could not be stealthed, and carrying the flag may be much like in several other instanced PvP arenas where the flag carrier is lit up like a Christmas tree so all of the defenders can see who has it. That way no one could just sneak in the front door and walk over to your hall and plant the flag quietly so no one notices.
Following a scorched earth policy maybe the defending forces could booby-trap all the structures so if defeat is imminent they may lose but would not allow the attackers to occupy a functional fortress...more like a burnt out husk of what used to be a settlement with no functioning structures. They might have run off the defenders, but have little else to show for it.
Two things really bother me: First, that a nation with a fixed territory seems like it would have to sacrifice one settlement for another, because there aren't enough hexes within their borders for both settlements to develop.
Well, if N hexes are supposed to provide X DI, why would you ever expect that you are entitled to more just by having more Settlements, when the Settlements themselves are not providing any more DI? Like for Harvesting, more nodes and resources don't flow depending on how many people want to harvest them. Nothing is being taken away, but nothing is being given for free, either. If a settlement's worldview is that the potential national sister settlements are just occupying resources that it should claim only for itself, then joining the same nation is probably not what it should do.
The Settlements would likely continue to exist at similar development levels, one doesn't need to be 'sacrificed', and it will likely make sense to have different settlements specialize in different things, with the different focuses in Settlement DI (Security, Morale, Civilization) probably promoting that - with the /same/ DI you can have multiple Settlements each relatively specialized where beneficial... Whereas individual self-reliant settlements would not be able to specialize as much.
Of course, more Settlements does also mean more sites to install DI-increasing improvements upon, and it likewise makes sense to keep a decent level of improvements which efficiently help it's defense so you don't lose those investments, and those that increase it's economic efficiency, help format combat in it's region, etc. But if SOME of the local resources can go to support national features which all members can use (that each Settlement couldn't otherwise afford), then most people will see that as a good outcome. If you don't like that, a single vast Settlement, or a Nation ruled by your single settlement, seems the way to go.
Second, I'm bothered by the explanation that capturing the town hall would take 'about a minute' with no discussion of when that minute would be or how hard the prerequisite for starting that minute would be.
I had similar concerns, although the defender dictating the hour to try to take their Hall is one approach to reduce problems. Really, I think taking over a Hall should be difficult enough that only a force with overwhelming superiority can expect to win it most of the time. It shouldn't really be something that you try to do because it has more chances of success, rather it should just be to speed up the game when your forces realistically do already have an overwhelming chance to win the battle the normal/long way. Having the option to take over the Hall only kick in after a certain amount of damage has been to the settlement as a whole still allows for a normal battle and for allies/mercenaries to be called up, etc.
The idea of effects for taking out specific buildings seems interesting, you could take out a local spawn point for the defenders, increasing their 'resurrection commute', you could take out buildings organizing/improving NPC guards, temples buffing the defenders and granting powers to clerics/paladins, etc. If the defenders move all forces to defend one building, then others become easier picking. But it seems reasonable to say that X% of buildings must first be destroyed before taking over the Hall, so the defenders don't need to be paranoid about defending the Hall from the very beginning, before they have even lost battles and had a chunk of other buildings destroyed. (Assasinating the manager of the Hall could have some other effect though) Requiring a certain amount of damage to be done seems reasonable when taking over a Settlement (without agreement), the victors will need to repair buildings, rebuild destroyed ones, etc, and the full capabilities and DI should only recover after some period of time. If a Settlement is being fought over and sequentially taken over by a series of forces, it's infrastructure and DI should end up very degraded rather quickly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't believe none of you mugs didn't think to welcome Tork to the team with his first official post!
Tork Shaw was a beloved contributor to the Pathfinder RPG, now he's part of the MMO Development Team.
Hehe, no worries, this was my first thought, now I have read the blog (seems a bit on the RHS of the median posting time... ;)
First off, hello! I am super-excited to be working as a designer on Pathfinder Online along with Lee, Rich, and Stephen. I join the team fresh from Greece and the PvP MMO Darkfall Online: Unholy Wars. While the design process at Goblinworks is pretty collaborative, I have been focusing a wee bit on the mass combat/settlement building/settlement warfare stuff. To that end, here is an overview of those often mentioned, rarely clarified tricksters—development indexes!
Welcome and have a pineapple Tork! I've always heard strong things about Darkfall from it's very faithful fans, and the pvp range seems a good fit with PFO: pvp, mass pvp, pvp + pve, sieges/settlements etc.
Morale deals with the well-being of the settlement, providing entertainment structures like theaters, buildings that provide bard and sorcerer training, and affecting the efficacy of the workforce.
In terms of specialisation of the DIs, the description is pvp/war slanted with a stray reference to non-combat development measures eg above: "efficacy of the workforce" and below Civ: Merchants. Obviously most/all settlements will require high defense/offensive options, but could a settlement specialise as a center of trade or center for growing crops and other useful things? Or if the settlement is located in an area high in a particular resource, specialising in extracting and processing that resource. Maybe that is another side to Settlement Development Indexes/Indices that could be elaborated on in the future?
Each settlement structure and structure upgrade has both material construction costs and a development index value.
Q: The material costs: Are they only an upfront cost or a rolling cost ie x wood is required per month to keep it "running"? And stockpiling is possible? This would feed into the blockade style of pvp.
This is not finalized yet, but the principal is that capturing the hall should win the war and change ownership of the settlement. This action will usually take place at a late stage in settlement combat, after first weakening the settlement's defenses in order to make it easier. There may indeed even be a DI damage/reduction level that has to be achieved before the hall even becomes available for capture.
I think some means of capturing officially a settlement is good as players would otherwise just respawn and fight to the "death". Perhaps part of this would be knocking the means for the settlement's defenders to spawn and populate the settlement ie its population falls below a certain level for a certain amount of time is conducive to attacking and claiming the hall additional to other conditions reached collectively?
I would hope however that inhabitants might have some limited means of pressing a minor "self-destruct" button and sabotaging some of their buildings if not all of them (that would be too powerful/prevalent). Maybe an idea for an upgrade and destruct them while attackers are fighting within them also? The idea of a fake hall (aka a Russian Doll device) seems fun too. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well depending upon how many Settlements a Hex might comfortably support, we might have the 'Capital' of the Hex focusing on two of the Development Indexes, such as Security and Morale, and a smaller 'Secondary' settlement might focus on the Civilisation Development Index, meaning that a single Chapter can have their 'Primary' Settlement be a Fortress in times of Warfare against rival players or an Esclation of hostile NPCs, but the 'Secondary' Settlement is the focus of their 'culture', hosting a less military atmosphere and attracting the free-thinkers and the PCs/NPCs looking for pleasant distractions.
While possibly not as 'balanced' as having everything contained within the one Settlement, this can help players who take over a Hex and find that the current buildings really aren't helping them with the Development Index(es) that they want to focus on, and rather than upset the natives further by tearing their settlement down, building a second, smaller Settlement within the Hex might end up being a cheaper option.
There's also the thought that, if specific buildings are responsible for building up/replenishing certing Development Indexes, Chapters building their Settlements are likely to focus on Security first, for the addition of strong NPC Guards to help guard their territory while they are away from the game, and then likely build up Security and Civilisation buildings in the second 'burst' of building, once they have their Security DI built up to a level they find acceptable.
This could lead to large Settlements where there are multiple 'rings' of walled sectors within a Settlement, with the Fortress in the middle, surrounded by Guard Barracks and Smithies, with an imposing stone wall surrounding it, as well as possibly a moat, and then there could be an 'entertainment' district containing buildings and structures to improve Morale, a 'housing' district where players not of the Ruling Chapter have paid a premium to build their houses/mansions within the strong 'Second Wall' of the Settlement' and finally a 'University' occupying the third 'slice' of the 'Second Ring' to help improve Civilisation.
The 'Third Ring' would likely have lesser defenses, at least at first, and include a 'Market' (again, improving Civilisation) that is spread out over a large area, a 'Storage' area where there are large warehouses partrolled by NPCs where the bulk of the good needed to run the day-to-day needs of the Settlement is stored under lock-and-key, and possibly a 'Slum' (home of the poorer players and possibly Thieves 'Guild' Chapter territory) and depending upon the location, an industrial area to improve Morale as well as produce goods or if near an area of Water, may even be the Docks which allow ships to dock and unload fish or trade-goods ferried up and down the nearby body of water.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Second, I'm bothered by the explanation that capturing the town hall would take 'about a minute' with no discussion of when that minute would be or how hard the prerequisite for starting that minute would be.
This is the one thing from the blog that made me raise an eyebrow. I immediately thought 'several invisible mages casting wall of force in a square around the flag bearer, drop out of invisibility and become guards against other mages using dispel magic, plant flag...game over man'.
I would think a longer time, or some other criteria being required prior to flag planting to take over a hall needs to be there. I'm sure there are a myriad of options, but I keep thinking back to Dune2000 and having to damage a structure prior to sending in your saboteurs to take the structure over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting to see 3 distinct flavours of settlements:
Security: defense by city walls. Fighters and clerics (defensive classes). Likely hardest to siege outside pvp window, may perform well with few players online. Best law enforcement.
Morale: defense by armies. Bards (buff class) and sorcerers (um... also charismatic?). Potentially the best if many players online (formations). Best harvesting/crafting??
Civilization: defense by heroes. Rogues and wizards (glass cannon classes). Potentially good for zerging (faster player respawn)?? Best economy/trading??
On top of this, I expect alignment to make a difference: A lawful high-civ settlement should be better for wizards and merchants while a chaotic high-civ settlement should be for rogues and gamblers. An evil high-morale settlement might 'motivate the workforce' in very different ways than a good one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some means of capturing officially a settlement is good as players would otherwise just respawn and fight to the "death". Perhaps part of this would be knocking the means for the settlement's defenders to spawn and populate the settlement ie its population falls below a certain level for a certain amount of time is conducive to attacking and claiming the hall additional to other conditions reached collectively?
Capturing the Hall effectively means you are in complete control of the settlement. Knocking down Civ index (to reduce player respawn rate) and Security index (to reduce npc guard respawn rate) are obvious routes to achieve that.
Incidentally I see this mechanic as an incentive to declare war on settlements with the same alignment, since many buildings may have alignment criteria and therefore be usable only by conquerors of similar alignment.
On the good side, it should make wars between polar alignments more about total destruction and wars between similar alignment more about conquering with minimal damage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Capturing the Hall effectively means you are in complete control of the settlement. Knocking down Civ index (to reduce player respawn rate) and Security index (to reduce npc guard respawn rate) are obvious routes to achieve that.
Incidentally I see this mechanic as an incentive to declare war on settlements with the same alignment, since many buildings may have alignment criteria and therefore be usable only by conquerors of similar alignment.
On the good side, it should make wars between polar alignments more about total destruction and wars between similar alignment more about conquering with minimal damage.
Ah, so it already goes that route. I found the structure of the blog post pulls in so many different things, hard to organise in my head how it all works.
What you suggest about possible outcomes is really neat possibility for alignment conflicts!
On top of this, I expect alignment to make a difference: A lawful high-civ settlement should be better for wizards and merchants while a chaotic high-civ settlement should be for rogues and gamblers. An evil high-morale settlement might 'motivate the workforce' in very different ways than a good one.
Hmm, again that is something I'd not even considered. Would the complement of this be that those not necessarily catered to would be in higher demand in such settlements to balance out the proportions of skills supply/demand? Idk, would they have access to funds to skill-train at other settlements to offset the extra costs of being a non-member?
I think I need a diagram to get my head around all this. But it's really promising.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Second, I'm bothered by the explanation that capturing the town hall would take 'about a minute' with no discussion of when that minute would be or how hard the prerequisite for starting that minute would be.This is the one thing from the blog that made me raise an eyebrow. I immediately thought 'several invisible mages casting wall of force in a square around the flag bearer, drop out of invisibility and become guards against other mages using dispel magic, plant flag...game over man'.
This would probably be a good tatic to use when attacking. However, I doubt that it would be a “instant win“, as the wizards will have to fight off the entire defending force. As such, the attacker would need to defend his wizards, so he would have to bring in a force of fighters/paladins/whatever, and archers to shoot the defending archers. In fact, the only people the attacker wouldn‘t need to bring in would be the camp followers (the bucher, the baker, and the candlestick maker.) Which kind of breaks the whole sneak in part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, consider the '1 minute' is going to be after a long hard fight through the defenders, who will have intimate knowledge of the battlefield and will likely have either reserves waiting in the fortress for just such an event and/or have a 'resurrection' point nearby.
1 Minute, under those circumstances, can seem like forever!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Welcome aboard Tork!
Ive also got some concerns about the '1 minute capture' mechanic, particularly when taking into account time zones. Even though the PvP window (as clarified in this thread) would allow for the 'beefing up' of NPC guards, Im fully expecting groups to build up enough of a force to attack during those periods simply because AI cannot (as far as I have experienced) be as creative as a skilled player. Which could potentially lead to a game of 'hot potato' where the settlement trades hands in alternating time zones.
It would be particularly useful to understand:
a) How the capture mechanic is initiated (wander up, attack through the keep, etc)
b) How the NPC guards would react to a capture attempt during a 'non-PVP window'
c) If there is a minimum time that must elapse before the settlement can be recaptured (whether by the original owner or a third party)
As far as the DI's go, I really like the different focus each settlement can take and the consequences therein, although i would have expected Clerics to go under Morale and not Security.