Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me that this MMO is going to be about all kinds of cool player driven building, and content.
That being said, will we be able to make our own wizards tower, or thieves guild or church, in the same way that one might make a mine or farm?
'Cause that would be the cats pajamas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... whilst individual Wizards towers would be nice and all, there would be an awful lot of them in a very small area if every arcanist in the game built one.Well, they'd still have to stop everyone else from tearing them down, so there probably wouldn't be that many, actually...
Or maybe simply taking them over. . . .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why not have wizards group together, and have maybe a "collage"? have maybe the 100ish nearest wizards group together, maybe even making their own "unchartered" company, and they pitch together to pay/build a tower? We are allowed to be in 3 companies correct? Only one being "chartered".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why not have wizards group together, and have maybe a "collage"? have maybe the 100ish nearest wizards group together, maybe even making their own "unchartered" company, and they pitch together to pay/build a tower? We are allowed to be in 3 companies correct? Only one being "chartered".
As far as we know, venture company is a term that GW is using in identical meaning to chartered company. Best stick with "sponsored" and "unsponsored" company to avoid muddling the topic further.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as we know, venture company is a term that GW is using in identical meaning to chartered company. Best stick with "sponsored" and "unsponsored" company to avoid muddling the topic further.
Yea sorry. unsponsored is what I ment to put. just got mixed up trying to type faster
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I seem to recall that we'll not be able to build individually-inhabited buildings, a logical move in terms of programming/server resources but a shame nonetheless.
The buildings look like they'll be limited to settlements, and to shared resources like smithys, sawmills and so forth. A shame, but there you are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The buildings look like they'll be limited to settlements, and to shared resources like smithys, sawmills and so forth. A shame, but there you are.
Like watchtowers? or hideouts? Inns?
From the blogs:
Q. Can individuals, groups, or companies own structures in the wilderness? In settlements?
Most structures will be located in player settlements. However, each potential settlement hex is ringed by half a dozen or so wilderness hexes, each with a "point of interest" site where a free-standing structure such as an outlying farm or watchtower can be built. Naturally, it takes a settlement to build a structure in a settlement, but a group or company can claim the point of interest site in an unclaimed wilderness hex and build an appropriate structure there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Groups or companies might build a shared structure, but individual's are unlikely to be able to just go build themselves a hut in the wilderness or wizard's tower or whatever.
We expect there will be many more players than space to build individual structures, so we have strict limits on what individual players can "own." There will be a few structures that can be fully owned by a single individual (such as those with the Tavern Owner reward from the Kickstarter), but these will be the exception rather than the rule. In general, structures will be owned by venture companies or settlements, and individual members of the settlement or company will manage the structure on the behalf of their group.
So the wizard's tower is likely a non-starter, unless it is a coalition of wizards who build a shared structure and call it their Tower, even though it looks like a Hall or Tavern.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite frankly in PFO, the tower is the LAST thing I'd want to build as a wizard player. You're just asking for it to be demolished by a griefer.
What you want as a wizard is a suite in some lords well protected castle.
I think I'd rather try to build a Wizard's Tower in the Wilderness Hex adjacent to a powerful, friendly Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A powerful, but friendly Settlement may already have plans or restrictions on what they would like to see in their neighboring hexes. A settlement powerful enough to protect your point of interest site would likewise be powerful enough to push you out for their own ends (either planned community structure or personal holding for influential figure). A friendly settlement would more likely try through diplomacy and may just get sore if you do not give way to their "larger vision".
I fear that having point of interest hexes be right next to settlement hexes would merely favor power players from said settlement. Lone characters who wish to associate with the settlement without being part of the settlement may quickly find themselves pushed aside.
And as mentioned, more distant unsettled regions will be easy for selfish groups or griefers to dislodge solo holders.
I find this unfortunate, but the lone player is going to have a rough time constructing and holding onto a personal structure. Hopefully I am just being overly negative. Time will tell.
On the subject of hirelings - I think it would make sense to be able to hire NPC guards for some endeavor. Such hirelings would be time-based and have static abilities. You might hire '10 Guards for 1 Month with X gold' to guard your point of interest. This would allow in-game wealthy characters to have holdings that are less easy to dislodge, but would ultimately fall to a concerted group effort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Given that bandits have those wonderfully invisible hideouts,* I wonder if there is anything to stop an individual ranger or druid building themselves a similarly invisible hideout?
After all, having a hideout hopefully won't mean that you have to go robbing and killing, and the ability to spring ambushes within an area of influence would make perfect sense for a ranger or druid on home turf. You could push the idea further and say that a wizard might built a magically obscured 'tower' which would function in a similar way.
*I am wondering about this. If stored wealth is vulnerable when your home structure is attacked, an invisible home structure makes you pretty much immune to being attacked and therefore having your stored wealth stolen. If this is available to everyone then I see a lot of hideouts, if it is limited to bandits then I see a lot of 'reformed' bandits who have built their hideouts and then decide to be good guys after all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know that the intention was to have some way to find the hideout, but until that has been decided and implemented the hideout is invisible. An invisible storage spot is safer than a well-defended stone keep!
Hideouts are used by bandits to waylay explorers and others who impinge on their areas of operation. Hideouts normally cannot be found once constructed, although the potential exists for certain types of characters to learn how to find them. Hideouts have limited storage, and they allow characters to be logged out of the game safely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Given that bandits have those wonderfully invisible hideouts,* I wonder if there is anything to stop an individual ranger or druid building themselves a similarly invisible hideout?
After all, having a hideout hopefully won't mean that you have to go robbing and killing, and the ability to spring ambushes within an area of influence would make perfect sense for a ranger or druid on home turf. You could push the idea further and say that a wizard might built a magically obscured 'tower' which would function in a similar way.
*I am wondering about this. If stored wealth is vulnerable when your home structure is attacked, an invisible home structure makes you pretty much immune to being attacked and therefore having your stored wealth stolen. If this is available to everyone then I see a lot of hideouts, if it is limited to bandits then I see a lot of 'reformed' bandits who have built their hideouts and then decide to be good guys after all.
the hiddenness of bandit hideouts is not meant to be absolute non-detectability, it is a layer of defense on what otherwise is intended to be the hardest to defend structure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the hiddenness of bandit hideouts is not meant to be absolute non-detectability, it is a layer of defense on what otherwise is intended to be the hardest to defend structure.
At present, however, the information is that hideouts won't be detectable under most circumstances. That makes it pretty safe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the hiddenness of bandit hideouts is not meant to be absolute non-detectability, it is a layer of defense on what otherwise is intended to be the hardest to defend structure.At present, however, the information is that hideouts won't be detectable under most circumstances. That makes it pretty safe.
I encourage any and all "bad guys" to stash good loots in their hideouts. It will probably take some time for skill levels to mature to the point of finding hideouts. By then, you should all be comfortable that it is nice and safe to store leet loots there.
I hope that no "good guy" hideouts get found and sacked while they are offline.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[whispering]I wonder which roles will have the hideout-finding skills in their skill-trees. I assume Rangers, but I can (just about) see that Rogues would also be able to justify it. I would be less convinced by Rogues as I always assume them to be more urban than wilderness, and tracking and discovering a Bandit hideout is surely the remit of the Ranger.
Having said that, is it going to be possible for Bandits to make hideouts in urban areas?
[/whisper]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well taking the Bandit flag would be a start....
More seriously, this is where I was going when I said that anyone could 'set-up' as a bandit to build a hideout, then decide that they had changed their ways. Unless the hideout suddenly disappears in a puff of smoke or the character suddenly forgets where it is, you have a nice little hideout without being a flagged Bandit.
