Goblinworks Blog: On We Sweep with Threshing Oar


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

To be fair, raiding and strip mining are not the same thing, as written. Strip mining is an optional part of raiding. If you don't want to damage the assets of someone you're raiding for profit, you don't have to, just don't strip mine it after you kill the NPC/PC guards. Take your loot and run with it.

Yeah, get out while the going is good. If you stick around to strip mine, the enemy will have time to mobilize (and if they can't, they probably shouldn't have put up the structure in the first place!). Getting away with anything at all will be much harder once more defenders have time to show up.

The trip back to base with the raided goods will probably be a long one, the faster you can start it the better your chances of actually making it back and turning a profit from the raid (having the entire raid wiped out causes you to lose out on the profits, lose gear and lose the invested influence!).

The raid is not over once you loot the resources, the hardest part might be making it back to safety.

Goblin Squad Member

The problem is that it sounds like strip mining will be the preferable method to use if you are confident in the strength of your forces. Rather than running around hoping the outposts you're hitting haven't been checked recently you can run around and force them to produce for you.

That's a very good option so if I don't use it, it may be purely out of the goodness of my heart as opposed to a rational cost/benefit analysis.

So it won't just be your enemies torching your outposts, it will be everyone who's willing to rob from you. I know outposts are one of the more easily destroyed types of player structures, but they aren't gathering kits. I would hope people who establish one in a fairly stable area could expect to keep them standing for as long as the region remains stable in most cases. Sure they'll get raided, maybe even multiple times per day, but not burned to the ground.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people are overestimating the value of strip-mining, and underestimating the value of holding an outpost (that seems to be a common theme here).

Remember, even though you get 10 hours worth of resources in 1 hour and 40 minutes... you destroy the outpost.

Outposts won't get attacked every single day (most likely). Which means that if you can hold an outpost for just one measly day, you'll be getting 2.4x the resources as you'd get from a strip-mine.

We also have to consider PvP windows (assuming they apply to outposts), and the difficulty of taking an outpost (which we don't know). As well as the cost of building one (which we also don't know).

Let's look at a scenario, where we assume strip-mining is "easy":

- Strip mining is easy, so there are far more strippers (can I use that term?) than builders.

- Because it's easy, very few people build outposts, and there are tons of people to knock them over and strip them down the moment they're built.

- Outposts will be producing MANDATORY resources (keep in mind).

- This will create a scenario where these resources, become EXTREMELY scarce.

- This means that IF you can hold an outpost for even three days (such as by keeping people on in intervals, hiring Player mercenaries, or dedicating more NPC guards to it), you'll get 72 hours worth of resources (in just 3 days, remember). That's 7.2x what a stripper would get...

- You then take those resources to market, and can charge a HUGE Premium for them (again, keeping in mind that these resources are mandatory).

- This gives you the resources you need to build/defend more outposts (again, by buying more NPC guards, player mercs, etc.)

- So as you can see, at the end of the day, the market will self-regulate itself, and the easier stripping is, the more people will be willing to spend on defending the outposts, because the resources will become more valuable...

One caveat, it's possible that it could be made WAYYY too easy to strip-mine, in which case the economy would be destroyed, very quickly, but, if that happens, then that's something GW would no doubt fix VERY quickly (and long before the ACTUAL release date [hence the benefit of Early Enrollment/Beta]).

Goblin Squad Member

Before I even really engage any of the points you have made, let me ask this. What is the benefit of forcing raiders to destroy an outpost if they strip mine it? Wouldn't it just be more simple to make it take a hit to long term production gains and then resume functioning once that penalty wore off?


Andius, I would prefer a raiding system that allows meaningful economic damage. I think Lam is onto something in terms of simply tweaking the rate of destruction. Also, what if we're overestimating the importance of a single outpost?

Instead of a 10% every 10 minutes with total destruction at 100 minutes, the growth rate could be changed to give diminishing returns and total destruction at two hours, three hours, four hours, whatever.

Dedicated raiders can certainly lay waste to an enemy's economy, burning down orchards, tearing up workshops, and the like, but it should take some time. If raiders are willing to spend that time -- and forgo doing other things like attacking more outposts or killing PCs or whatever -- there ought to be some rewards.

Just some random thoughts at 5 in the morning here!


Andius wrote:
Before I even really engage any of the points you have made, let me ask this. What is the benefit of forcing raiders to destroy an outpost if they strip mine it? Wouldn't it just be more simple to make it take a hit to long term production gains and then resume functioning once that penalty wore off?

Yea, I thought of that too, as I was reading the post, and I think that that's a perfectly valid way to do it too.

I'm guessing they're doing it to keep things moving (as a resource sink for the materials needed to build) since Ryan mentioned that Settlements will be more permanent, and won't have too much "back-and-forth". Still settlements require upkeep, and that uses the same resources...

I'm guessing outposts are a bit more "flimsy". Just structure that are easy as pie to set up, and easy to tear down... but again, maybe not, because we don't know how hard/easy they'll be to defend, so strip-mining might be relatively hard to do.

Regardless, my points were addressing the general fear that stripping was too easy, as opposed to addressing your specific point about the destruction vs. resource loss of the outposts. I also think long-term resource losses for stripped outposts could work very well.

And alternatively, people could destroy an outpost faster than they could strip it... which would mean they could strip it first, then destroy it afterwards too (as an option).

So if it takes 1 hour 40 minutes to strip it, maybe it takes only 25 min. to raze it.

Goblin Squad Member

Valdemar Stor wrote:
Dedicated raiders can certainly lay waste to an enemy's economy, burning down orchards, tearing up workshops, and the like, but it should take some time. If raiders are willing to spend that time -- and forgo doing other things like attacking more outposts or killing PCs or whatever -- there ought to be some rewards.

If the raiders intent is to make a profit from their targets then they don't want asset damage, because that means their target doesn't have to keep rebuilding for them to raid, making it easier to farm them for resources over a prolonged period of time. In short, you want them to be successful because you make your living off stealing from their success.

If your intent is to make them suffer, destroy their economy, or to expand into their territory then the only reward you need is that there is now a smoldering pile of ashes where their structure once stood.

The two are very separate approaches to PvP and they should absolutely NEVER incentivize someone seeking the first type to partake in the second. That is VERY bad for everyone involved.

Destruction or profits. Take your pick but you shouldn't be able to have both at the same time. Not when it comes to player structures.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
- Strip mining is easy, so there are far more strippers (can I use that term?) than builders.

Good discussion Qallz, good elaboration to Andius' point that it could be OP option.

"Strippers" for Stripping ok then.

I thought Reivers would appeal to Tork as term to use possibly. I wonder if they flag as Reivers they're stuck with that flag for x hours? Then they have to commit to the possibility of failing to Raid successfully but still be "hostile" open to attack?

Goblin Squad Member

If strip mining would be costly for the raiders to the point where it seldom happens (except if they really want to hurt you because of settlement conflict or whatever reason), then the defenders won't have that much of a reason to defend. They know they will lose the current stash but will be able to resume normal operation afterwards. They might think mobilizing a counterforce isn't worth it.

Less opposition against the raiders -> boring raids + frustrated outpost owners (getting no support from settlement).

The more incentive to protect the outposts, the more fun and involved the system IMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:

Looks like the screenshot is from a PC with a very similar build to what Ryan posted (has the same attacks slotted).

Is this screenshot 1st person or is the PC one of the characters we can see?

Which types of armor (cloth/light/medium/heavy) are each of the ones we can see wearing? I can't remember where, but I seem to recall some comment something along the lines of being able to recognize armor type visually. Can't hurt to start learning how to recognize this sort of thing now ;)

Not sure if it's intentional or not, but there's a statue visible in the background. May be of interest to those who got that Kickstarter reward.

Edit: I'd guess that (L to R) it's medium, cloth, light, but don't know for sure.

1. Yeah that must be the solid work Ryan mentioned they've done for the basic UI. GJ GW art/design ui team.

2. I guess they can grab the character models and pop 'em up to snap so 1st person perspective?

3. Looks like Left->Right: Heavy (Fighter) -> Medium (Rogue) -> Cloth (Wizard) to me? Are there 3 or 4 categories of armour? I forget.

4. I confess my first thought was where's the pub sign... *pleads guilty* ^_^ (It could be that iconic I think they may have shown a statue of in a previous vid/screenshot, the fighter guy with sword?

Great work from the art team, nice to be getting their input more regularly, particularly the characters "feel right". Faces need a little more work but I'm sure that is always the case with a human face.


AvenaOats wrote:
Qallz wrote:
- Strip mining is easy, so there are far more strippers (can I use that term?) than builders.

Good discussion Qallz, good elaboration to Andius' point that it could be OP option.

"Strippers" for Stripping ok then.

I thought Reivers would appeal to Tork as term to use possibly. I wonder if they flag as Reivers they're stuck with that flag for x hours? Then they have to commit to the possibility of failing to Raid successfully but still be "hostile" open to attack?

I prefer the term "strippers" because I think it's funny, but thanks, as always Avena. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Wurner wrote:
If strip mining would be costly for the raiders to the point where it seldom happens (except if they really want to hurt you because of settlement conflict or whatever reason), then the defenders won't have that much of a reason to defend. They know they will lose the current stash but will be able to resume normal operation afterwards. They might think mobilizing a counterforce isn't worth it.

I agree, strip mining shouldn't be costly, it should be profitable. Asset destruction should be costly, so the two should be separated.

If people know that their outpost that's being strip mined is going to suffer a huge production penalty worth over 10 hours of resources because of it, they'll get their butts out there and defend it if it's within their capabilities.

If people know that their outpost will likely be burned to the ground if there aren't people constantly on to defend it, they'll never build it in the first place unless doing so is incredibly cheap / trivial. Personally I would like to see outposts be a bit more meaningful than that.

Goblin Squad Member

Areks wrote:
Woot!

First!!

Oh wait... LOL

Nice Blog GW, I wonder what the UNC will be doing in this blog?

Goblin Squad Member

Tigari wrote:
Fanndis Goldbraid wrote:
Good thing we got some of those folks in Europe, Australia and, I imagine, many other countries to take care of defense while I am getting my beauty sleep! (You're right...I don't need it. But it's good to wake refreshed nevertheless, even if it does mean cleaning up the pile of brigand corpses the night shift left for us!)
Don't forget the U.S. people like me who's prime play time is late evening/Early Morning

This, That will be my play times as well... subject to work schedule change lol

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Wurner wrote:
If strip mining would be costly for the raiders to the point where it seldom happens (except if they really want to hurt you because of settlement conflict or whatever reason), then the defenders won't have that much of a reason to defend. They know they will lose the current stash but will be able to resume normal operation afterwards. They might think mobilizing a counterforce isn't worth it.

I agree, strip mining shouldn't be costly, it should be profitable. Asset destruction should be costly, so the two should be separated.

If people know that their outpost that's being strip mined is going to suffer a huge production penalty worth over 10 hours of resources because of it, they'll get their butts out there and defend it if it's within their capabilities.

If people know that their outpost will likely be burned to the ground if there aren't people constantly on to defend it, they'll never build it in the first place unless doing so is incredibly cheap / trivial. Personally I would like to see outposts be a bit more meaningful than that.

Gotcha. It makes much more sense to me now. I sometimes read faster than I comprehend.

Still, it makes sense to me that a strip mined outpost will require repairs and a long recuperation period. It need not necessarily be destroyed in the process of strip mining. Maybe after the full strip mining timer has run its course the outpost will still be there but not functional? Getting it up and running again requires some resources and construction work but not as much as the initial construction?

I mean that the outpost becomes damaged to a state where it is non-functional but not completely destroyed. It shouldn't in my view be possible to just pick up the process again a while after the raid is over without actively performing repairs.


Andius wrote:
Wurner wrote:
If strip mining would be costly for the raiders to the point where it seldom happens (except if they really want to hurt you because of settlement conflict or whatever reason), then the defenders won't have that much of a reason to defend. They know they will lose the current stash but will be able to resume normal operation afterwards. They might think mobilizing a counterforce isn't worth it.

I agree, strip mining shouldn't be costly, it should be profitable. Asset destruction should be costly, so the two should be separated.

If people know that their outpost that's being strip mined is going to suffer a huge production penalty worth over 10 hours of resources because of it, they'll get their butts out there and defend it if it's within their capabilities.

If people know that their outpost will likely be burned to the ground if there aren't people constantly on to defend it, they'll never build it in the first place unless doing so is incredibly cheap / trivial. Personally I would like to see outposts be a bit more meaningful than that.

So how will outposts ever be destroyed? They're permanent structures?

Personally, I think they should make them kinda tough to build, relatively difficult to take, and if a raiding group does manage to take them, give them options.

Such as A) Strip it and raze it (which would take say, 2 hours), so this would be hard to do, considering you'd have to get away with the resources, and reinforcements would be arriving. It would of course be good if you wanted to hurt the enemy and take their resources.

B) Just raze it. This would allow you to get in and out in say, 25 minutes. Remember, these would still be hard to do, and you wouldn't get anything out of it, aside from hurting your enemy, so it would have to take some careful consideration.

C) Just strip it. It takes 1 hour 40 minutes, so not as long as option A, and you don't hurt the structure, just drain it of resources for several days (maybe put it out of commission for like 3-5 days). This option would be for straight "raiders" who don't really care about hurting the outpost's owner, and just want the resources. It would allow them to get out faster than if they razed it, and, they'd be able to come back and raid it again later (to keep their options open).

In order to give raiders these kinds of options, again, the outposts can't be easy as pie to build/take, and will require some level of coordination and effort to take, but, the raiders will be rewarded with several different options if they succeed.

They could also combine stripping and razing, so if they wanted to get out in just under an hour (based on when they think reinforcements will arrive) they could strip it for 30 minutes, get 3 hours worth of resources, and THEN raze it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lam wrote:

@DeciusBrutus

Choose A:
get 1X
Choose B:
get 10x and deminsh the "enemy".

Pick 1 (A or B). ( when would anyone pick A. Okay one case but that is inside job and testifies to such).

The alternative to strip mining isn't holding the post permanently.

The alternative is taking the loot and running, which does not require 10 minutes, pvp superiority or gathering skills.

Not sure if this was implied, but I got the idea that resources accumulate in the outpost until collected. For an early morning raid, option A may then net you '8X' (if you can carry it), and in 20 minutes you may be raiding the next outpost for another '8x'.

Goblin Squad Member

If you and/or an ally can raid your own structure and strip mine it (suddenly making it more productive by an order of 6???) doesn't that seem to anyone else like burning down your warehouse for the insurance money? As a game mechanic? From the get-go? Really? A scorched earth policy has only ever involved a massive mobilization of manpower when one side in a war already new they were losing badly and that they would continue to lose.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Strip mining refers to the hydraulic destuction of the environment (think canvas hoses in the California Gold Rush or fracking today) or working an enslaved population to death collecting relatively ubiquitous resources until depleted (think Spanish Conquistadores and silver in the Americas or blood diamonds in Africa today). Strip mining would not increase the output of a structured, steadily producing mine-some of those produce for hundreds of years- and the skills to do so would be distinct. How raiders could show up and chop down 6 times more trees at a lumber operation escapes me.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Areks wrote:
Woot!

First!!

Oh wait... LOL

Nice Blog GW, I wonder what the UNC will be doing in this blog?

We will be discussing this internally in our next meeting (sometime next week).

Goblin Squad Member

V'rel Vusoryn wrote:
Keep in mind that they don't automatically "feed" to the settlement. Little Joey and Big Bob have to use their characters, amongst a few others, to carry those materials ALL the way back to your settlement, which is going to be 3 hexes at least.

Since wilderness hexes (even those with a PoI) can be next to a settlement hex an outpost could be very close to the settlement. Outposts are for processing bulk materials that do not occur as "unmanaged resources", as the blog says. I read "unmanaged resources" as nodes. The example of a bulk resource from the blog was farming cotton. I think this means that outposts could be anywhere in a wilderness hex, however we have yet to see how to identify those bulk material source locations in order to place an outpost. It does make some sense that if a settlement wishes to establish an outpost farther away than the next hex, then they will want to hold the hexes between the outpost hex and the settlement hex to better guard the caravan route from the outpost to the settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the things that occurs to me in reading this is that the raiders are going to need to move all their ill-got gains, especially if they take the time to strip the place. The returning caravan may make for quite the tempting target, especially if the bulk of the raiders move on to other endeavors.

Goblin Squad Member

And every night the world will burn.

I also must chime in that the time frame for strip mining an outpost to nothing is waaaaay too short.

Outpost management is not going to be a very fun endeavor if you need more than a hundred people so that you can spread out guard duty shifts and still have enough people to drive off a raiding party.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:
One of the things that occurs to me in reading this is that the raiders are going to need to move all their ill-got gains, especially if they take the time to strip the place. The returning caravan may make for quite the tempting target, especially if the bulk of the raiders move on to other endeavors.

Well if done right the raiding/caravan aspect of pvp could really be a lot of fun and generate a good deal of what they're calling meaningful human interaction.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

And every night the world will burn.

I also must chime in that the time frame for strip mining an outpost to nothing is waaaaay too short.

Outpost management is not going to be a very fun endeavor if you need more than a hundred people so that you can spread out guard duty shifts and still have enough people to drive off a raiding party.

Unless putting one up isn't that big a deal. This blog reminded me a lot of GW2 W.v.W.v.W. From what's in this blog I am assuming they are also thinking about having NPC wagons take the cargo from the outposts to the settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Seeking clarification on one bit here:

Attacking an outpost will make you and your group hostile to the members of that outpost's managing company (as well as the owners of the controlling PoI if that company has subcontracted outpost management). That means that they can attempt to stop you without penalties.

What about guards? Yes, Raiders must first kill any NPC guards at the outpost in order to gain access to the outpost's bulk goods container. What about PC guards? Can the POI or Outpost companies have hired PC guards that can likewise protect the outpost without penalties?

Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

And every night the world will burn.

I also must chime in that the time frame for strip mining an outpost to nothing is waaaaay too short.

Outpost management is not going to be a very fun endeavor if you need more than a hundred people so that you can spread out guard duty shifts and still have enough people to drive off a raiding party.

Unless putting one up isn't that big a deal. This blog reminded me a lot of GW2 W.v.W.v.W. From what's in this blog I am assuming they are also thinking about having NPC wagons take the cargo from the outposts to the settlements.

True, but that seems it could be lackluster in the other direction.

I think a huge problem we are facing with these blogs is that they have been focused on attacking and destruction while we are missing huge gaps on the other side - acquisition and construction. It is hard to know the balance of the loot being destroyed/robbed on player death or the cost of having an outpost burn down without knowing how challenging it was to acquire them in the first place.

Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

And every night the world will burn.

I also must chime in that the time frame for strip mining an outpost to nothing is waaaaay too short.

Outpost management is not going to be a very fun endeavor if you need more than a hundred people so that you can spread out guard duty shifts and still have enough people to drive off a raiding party.

Unless putting one up isn't that big a deal. This blog reminded me a lot of GW2 W.v.W.v.W. From what's in this blog I am assuming they are also thinking about having NPC wagons take the cargo from the outposts to the settlements.

I guess the timings are hinged on how the cycle of development how long that should take and how frequent they want to provide this type of gameplay (the most frequent form of pvp interaction kicking off or at least the first in the settlement kingdoms game)?

Not sure how I feel about NPC caravans, I guess I don't remember escorting quests in other mmorpgs too fondly. I thought that was a job for hauling/logistics PC's to take "ownership" of that phase in the game. Buy up a couple of Rhinos to pull the cart!

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman, as written the outpost company can have PC guards from the same settlement as long as raiding is made illegal in the hex where the outpost is set up. I'm not sure whether companies outside of your settlement can defend it, however.

I'm thinking along the same lines as Qallz; sure, every night some outposts may come under attack somewhere in the world, but even if they're destroyed it isn't that big a loss. Think of the math here:

Even if we don't go with my (I feel) extreme situation of 20 outpost feeding one settlement with only one raided a night, there are still large profits to be made. Let's tone it down a bit, say 10 outposts for one settlement, and one grouchy neighbor who raids 3 of them every night. That would be a huge loss, right?

-If they raid them at the same each night, you can have those outposts giving you about 12-16 hours worth of collection before they're destroyed. If you don't set them up again, the raiders could move on to your other outposts and further damage your economy, so it's probably best to just rebuild after every night.

-One days collection is going to be (7*24)+(3*12) = 204 hours of collection. Through these 3 raids (which will take your enemies about 4-5 hours to pull off in succession; not a huge amount of time, but quite significant given they need a sizable group to actually take over and strip mine), they have deprived you of about 24-36 hours of collection. That's at most ~18% of your collection as losses.

-So then, if 204 hours of collection is profitable enough to cover and exceed the cost of building 3 outposts (which I suspect it will be), then you have made a profit for today and can consider the outposts a success. Only if you lose many more outposts in a single night will you have to be worried, and that will likely only happen if your economy is being specifically targeted by a big enemy or by several smaller enemies.

So, to sum up, I think the system as described will work well; the raiders get a good reward for taking the PvP initiative, and the defenders don't suffer such a huge loss that they're disincentivized from building more outposts (unless outposts are way more expensive than I'm predicting). Building outposts will almost always be more profitable than raiding them, especially given the man-hours vs profit ratio (outposts probably only require one or two specialists to set up and will get you more total resources unless immediately raided, whereas a raid will likely need several people and take about 1.5 hours per raid).

EDIT: Why would you need guard duties with 100+ people? If the game doesn't alert you that your settlement's holdings are under attack, you would need at most about 5 scouts to patrol for trouble, then a more sizable group to deal with said trouble when it pops up. In a settlement that has hundreds or even over one thousand people, I don't see this as being that big an expenditure. Sure, they have to do the boring job and patrol the outposts, but you can reward them for doing it to incentivize your guards. Meanwhile your other settlement members are doing whatever they're doing, and once the call goes out in settlement chat that an outpost is under attack, they can all run off to whichever outpost is under attack ready for a fight. Even if it's an early morning affair, I think a raid of only 6 people would have to be well prepared to last 1.5 hours, especially if they're close to the settlement. If it's not hitting them at their most vulnerable, you're probably going to need a lot more than 6 people to raid.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:
Outpost management is not going to be a very fun endeavor if you need more than a hundred people so that you can spread out guard duty shifts and still have enough people to drive off a raiding party.

I think it's helpful to remember that the design anticipates that settlements will be 1000+ characters. I think we're supposed to see settlements late in EE(?). I imagine that before settlements, players might still be able to at least establish some POIs, control some hexes, and place a few outposts. There will be a lot of cattle-raids going on in those days, and yeah, outpost management will be more chore than fun some days.

While we may not have settlements until later, pre-settlement groupings will start to coalesce pretty early on (and already have). The most successful of these groupings will win more raids, lose fewer outposts, and have more bulk resources on hand when settlements are unlocked. And histories of animosities may be well established before the settlements construct their first buildings.

Goblinworks

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to add a note that the faces are just static placeholders at the moment (one male one female), and we will be doing a ton of work on that.

I'm also working on a video and a bunch of screenshots with the players actually doing something interesting. Taking decent MMO screenshots obviously requires multiple people, and I generally try not to pull the art team (or rest of the team) off to do screenshots and such considering how much we have to do. That being said, I am working on setting up a capture scene with more dynamic cameras and we are planning to do a quick capture session in the next day or two to get some good shots and footage for another art update video. I expect we will have quite a bit of that to show for the next blog :)

Thanks for the feedback and compliments. The art team always loves to hear both!

Goblin Squad Member

Sepherum wrote:

If you and/or an ally can raid your own structure and strip mine it (suddenly making it more productive by an order of 6???) doesn't that seem to anyone else like burning down your warehouse for the insurance money? As a game mechanic? From the get-go? Really? A scorched earth policy has only ever involved a massive mobilization of manpower when one side in a war already new they were losing badly and that they would continue to lose.

Yep, which is why I mentioned scorched earth a few posts back in this thread. I'd much rather set up an outpost and then strip mine it myself in certain cases. Especially if I can recover the cost of putting it up in the time I have before the act of strip mining destroys the outpost.

I wouldn't do this in a hex that was relatively safe. But a hex that would be potentially raided several times a day...how much am I really gaining from it just letting it go normal? Not much if it is being raided several times a day. So reap it for what it's worth, let it burn, then build another when the node respawns. Rinse and repeat.

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:
V'rel Vusoryn wrote:
Keep in mind that they don't automatically "feed" to the settlement. Little Joey and Big Bob have to use their characters, amongst a few others, to carry those materials ALL the way back to your settlement, which is going to be 3 hexes at least.
Since wilderness hexes (even those with a PoI) can be next to a settlement hex an outpost could be very close to the settlement. Outposts are for processing bulk materials that do not occur as "unmanaged resources", as the blog says. I read "unmanaged resources" as nodes. The example of a bulk resource from the blog was farming cotton. I think this means that outposts could be anywhere in a wilderness hex, however we have yet to see how to identify those bulk material source locations in order to place an outpost. It does make some sense that if a settlement wishes to establish an outpost farther away than the next hex, then they will want to hold the hexes between the outpost hex and the settlement hex to better guard the caravan route from the outpost to the settlement.

If I remember correctly the article said that outposts would most likely be on the far edge of hexes away from the settlement.

Oh, and the quote you have from me above was in reference to raiding an "enemy's" outpost in one of their hexes. You will have to travel through their hex, one of your own, then your home hex to carry raided goods to your home. So if you take and hold an enemy's outpost, that outpost isn't automatically "feeding" your settlement. Goods still have to travel 3 hexes, a period of time we don't know how long will take yet, but could see your raided goods being stolen/destroyed on the road making the raid fruitless.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:

So how will outposts ever be destroyed? They're permanent structures?

Personally, I think they should make them kinda tough to build, relatively difficult to take, and if a raiding group does manage to take them, give them options.

Such as A) Strip it and raze it (which would take say, 2 hours), so this would be hard to do, considering you'd have to get away with the resources, and reinforcements would be arriving. It would of course be good if you wanted to hurt the enemy and take their resources.

B) Just raze it. This would allow you to get in and out in say, 25 minutes. Remember, these would still be hard to do, and you wouldn't get anything out of it, aside from hurting your enemy, so it would have to take some careful consideration.

C) Just strip it. It takes 1 hour 40 minutes, so not as long as option A, and you don't hurt the structure, just drain it of resources for several days (maybe put it out of commission for like 3-5 days). This option would be for straight "raiders" who don't really care about hurting the outpost's owner, and just want the resources. It would allow them to get out faster than if they razed it, and, they'd be able to come back and raid it again later (to keep their options open).

In order to give raiders these kinds of options, again, the outposts can't be easy as pie to build/take, and will require some level of coordination and effort to take, but, the raiders will be rewarded with several different options if they succeed.

They could also combine stripping and razing, so if they wanted to get out in just under an hour (based on when they think reinforcements will arrive) they could strip it for 30 minutes, get 3 hours worth of resources, and THEN raze it.

Maybe this is contrary to how GW view's things but at the moment I view settlements as the structures owned by kingdoms/alliances, POI's as the structures claimed by medium sized and active companies belonging to a nearby settlement, and outposts as structures claimed by individual players and small groups belonging to a nearby company.

So you could be Qualls the sawmill owner, who lives in Sherwood Forest owned by the Merry Men, who is part of the larger Outlaw's alliance. I would expect that when you build that sawmill it might be the product of a few weeks of in-game work, or maybe if you've run a sawmill before, just a week. But it's a decent investment, and it's your own little piece of PFO.

Tearing it down, in my opinion, should take a minimum of an hour, using a minimum of 1/10th the value of the structure worth of consumables. I'd actually prefer a bit more unless you've been neglecting to maintain it.

Structures will get destroyed because if a nearby kingdom really wants your space, that cost will still be worthwhile to them. Especially if you are neglecting to maintain your stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shane Gifford wrote:
Let's tone it down a bit, say 10 outposts for one settlement, and one grouchy neighbor who raids 3 of them every night. That would be a huge loss, right?

Why would the neighbor stop after raiding 3 of your 10 outposts?

Presumably, everyone available to defend the outposts is going to show up to try and defend the first one attacked.

If the raider has shown himself capable of overcoming your defenses at one outpost, why wouldn't he then proceed to strip mine all of your outposts?

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Shane Gifford wrote:
Let's tone it down a bit, say 10 outposts for one settlement, and one grouchy neighbor who raids 3 of them every night. That would be a huge loss, right?

Why would the neighbor stop after raiding 3 of your 10 outposts?

Presumably, everyone available to defend the outposts is going to show up to try and defend the first one attacked.

If the raider has shown himself capable of overcoming your defenses at one outpost, why wouldn't he then proceed to strip mine all of your outposts?

Yup. If I'm profiting from strip mining one outpost AND destroying the outpost of a group I don't like, I'm just going to go down the line until they are capable of stopping me, only taking long enough breaks to secure the resources I'm stealing before hitting the next outpost.

If it's costing me to destroy their outposts then I'll probably stop after a certain point unless I'm really rich and really hate them.

Goblin Squad Member

I could see this raising and stripping of outposts playing out as a constant never ending tug of war that takes the place of "capture the flag" pvp from theme park games. At least that's the way I'm reading it.

Goblin Squad Member

What i´d like to know is this.

has a damaged outpost its production reduced?

Because if not, i imagine every CC that build one will imidiatly stripmine 90% and leave it at 10% health, before going into normal production to deny raiders stripmining there in the future.

Goblinworks Game Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shane Gifford wrote:

@Urman, as written the outpost company can have PC guards from the same settlement as long as raiding is made illegal in the hex where the outpost is set up. I'm not sure whether companies outside of your settlement can defend it, however.

I'm thinking along the same lines as Qallz; sure, every night some outposts may come under attack somewhere in the world, but even if they're destroyed it isn't that big a loss. Think of the math here:

Even if we don't go with my (I feel) extreme situation of 20 outpost feeding one settlement with only one raided a night, there are still large profits to be made. Let's tone it down a bit, say 10 outposts for one settlement, and one grouchy neighbor who raids 3 of them every night. That would be a huge loss, right?

-If they raid them at the same each night, you can have those outposts giving you about 12-16 hours worth of collection before they're destroyed. If you don't set them up again, the raiders could move on to your other outposts and further damage your economy, so it's probably best to just rebuild after every night.

-One days collection is going to be (7*24)+(3*12) = 204 hours of collection. Through these 3 raids (which will take your enemies about 4-5 hours to pull off in succession; not a huge amount of time, but quite significant given they need a sizable group to actually take over and strip mine), they have deprived you of about 24-36 hours of collection. That's at most ~18% of your collection as losses.

-So then, if 204 hours of collection is profitable enough to cover and exceed the cost of building 3 outposts (which I suspect it will be), then you have made a profit for today and can consider the outposts a success. Only if you lose many more outposts in a single night will you have to be worried, and that will likely only happen if your economy is being specifically targeted by a big enemy or by several smaller enemies.

So, to sum up, I think the system as described will work well; the raiders get a good reward for taking the PvP...

I'd like to draw your attentions to this reply :) Mr Gifford has really caught how this system is intended to function. Stripmining, however, is not the primary function of raids. In fact I think it will be a rare occurrance...

Let me add a few points;

- Creating an outpost is relatively cheap. The outpost management role is meant for smaller, dedicated companies. They are designed to be semi-permanent structures - difficult to defend abut easy to create.

- The transport of a large amount of goods from a strip-mined outpost will be a serious concern for raiders. Bulk goods are HEAVY and that amount will certainly require a caravan. It is much more likely that strip mining will be an act of war and the majority of these goods will end up being left on-site. Or even on-corpse, as raiders are cut down making their escape. Alternatively, some of these goods might play an important role in building a siege camp/weapons in a PoI hex you may have recently captured...

- Almost ALL settlements will declare the act of raiding illegal. Even Chaotic settlements. The only place you will be able to raid without attracting a criminal flag will be the outposts of non-allied PoIs, and even they will have options for hiring mercenary companies to defend their outpost or hex. In addition, the upkeep costs on PoIs are minimal - so their outpost goods are really for trade only.

- Stripmining will be an effective way to interrupt the steady stream of resources being fed to a settlement. It is not as effective a way to gather resources as having outposts. Bulk goods are cumbersome and only valuable to settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Gedichtewicht wrote:

What i´d like to know is this.

has a damaged outpost its production reduced?

Because if not, i imagine every CC that build one will imidiatly stripmine 90% and leave it at 10% health, before going into normal production to deny raiders stripmining there in the future.

Unless there is a meaningful cost to replacing one. Which can't happen if every powerful raider is incentivized to strip it down to nothing. Making the idea of a longterm production penalty and/or damage that requires repairs less than the cost of the building a much better solution.

Goblinworks Game Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
AvenaOats wrote:
Qallz wrote:
- Strip mining is easy, so there are far more strippers (can I use that term?) than builders.

Good discussion Qallz, good elaboration to Andius' point that it could be OP option.

"Strippers" for Stripping ok then.

I thought Reivers would appeal to Tork as term to use possibly. I wonder if they flag as Reivers they're stuck with that flag for x hours? Then they have to commit to the possibility of failing to Raid successfully but still be "hostile" open to attack?

Ha! Thanks ;) I'm not sure what you are saying about my heritage there...

There was actually a 'raider' flag early on in development of this feature. In fact, raiding was something that you 'declared' at one point. When we rejigged the management of outposts, however, it not longer matched up as neatly.

This blog post has made raiding a hot-button topic among the design team again, particularly with all of this input we are getting. The basic position at the moment is that raiding is mean and powerful and that is exactly how I intended it. What we are discussing is whether its TOO powerful, since there seems to be a lot of feeling on the boards that it might be. I am very much on the 'you have what you hold' side of the River Freedoms but there are more sympathetic whisperings in the office that might well have legs!

This discussion is very helpful!

Goblin Squad Member

One other thought from KoC, storage. How much storage is on site? Do bigger Outposts have bigger storage? Can storage be expanded independent of the outpost?

The concept is that what is harvested needs to be kept somewhere. And that somewhere needs to be protected (or there is no need to raid, just pick up items laying in the field). In KoC, and the idea is offered for consideration for PFO, production ceases when storage is filled.

The impact on strip mining is that the caravans have to be set up to haul away this extra production before full storage stops production.

Other ideas:

Speaking of strip mining, it seems there is growing consensus that strip mining should not destroy structure, but put dent in production after stripped. (Though I like the idea the those stripping the resource are called reavers).

Still more:
Stripping the resource should required investment in different tools. Stripping a resource is inherently different from just harvesting faster.

After stripped, production is stopped until restarted. There should be a maximum on how much can be stripped (total current production of hex) in addition of how much can be in strage at the site. There should be a delay in return production due to loss productivity of the hex.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
The basic position at the moment is that raiding is mean and powerful and that is exactly how I intended it. What we are discussing is whether its TOO powerful, since there seems to be a lot of feeling on the boards that it might be. I am very much on the 'you have what you hold' side of the River Freedoms but there are more sympathetic whisperings in the office that might well have legs!

I'd offer that the players might be working with different ideas of scope than the developers.

The general player frame might be: a company can place a POI, so once 20-30 people get together they can place a POI structure if they're willing to grind out 8 hour days for about 3 days. The GW frame might be: we don't really expect players to successfully place and hold a POI with less than 120-150 people in 3-4 allied companies. And it will take more than 3 days of work.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tork Shaw wrote:
I am very much on the 'you have what you hold' side of the River Freedoms but there are more sympathetic whisperings in the office that might well have legs!

Do these whisperings say anything about folks having to sleep at night? My large concern is that most of these raids will be perpetrated in the dead of night. Small, dedicated companies are not going to have the manpower to guard around the clock. The ultimate problem is that holding onto a raided operation for an hour and a half at 9 PM EST/6 PM PST could seem like an eternity, while the same thing at 7 AM EST / 4 AM PST is going to be fairly easy.

On the subject of strip-mining, what benefit does a raider have in NOT doing so. My concern is that if Raiding Group A can either take everything they can carry now and run versus take everything they can carry and leave a crew to hold and strip-mine the place to the ground that they are going to choose the latter option just to leave their mark. In a game such as this, if room is left for maliciousness with no additional consequence, the safe bet is going to assume maliciousness aplenty.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaskon wrote:
Why would the neighbor stop after raiding 3 of your 10 outposts?

1. It's taken them about 5 hours to do that much. I dunno about you, but I am rarely successful at keeping a group of people going for that much time.

2. The amount of resistance is likely going to increase as the raiders go, as more people learn of it happening and their "window of opportunity" they were targetting lessens. So, they get to the first one, they kill the NPC's and maybe one or two PC's. They get to the next one and all the available PC's are likely ready to defend it alongside the NPC's, making it a much tougher fight. Maybe they also call in allies, who take time to arrive and get there by the time the raiders have moved to the third. And then more people start getting in because your window of opportunity is shrinking.

3. The raiders will have a lot of goods to move around after 3 successful strip-mining operations, which provide incentive to just head home with the spoils or risk overburdening your group.

There are many things which could lead to the group's rampage being cut short. These are just some examples.

I agree that a big, powerful enemy might be able to steamroll through a whole bunch of outposts in one night, but that would likely take a good deal of coordination, numbers, and planning, with the net return that you halted the enemy's income for one day and force him to spend extra resources rebuilding everything for just one hex among several.

Could you do that the next night as well? Assuming they don't bring in more allies to defend, yes; but why is that a bad thing? The defenders will be stuck with a dilemma; they'll have to solve the problem, by going on the offensive themselves, preparing better for the next attack, making some quick alliances, etc. Otherwise their economy will take a noticable hit. I think it's a good thing that attacking the economy to "put the squeeze" on your wartime enemies is a valid tactic, and I hope to see a lot of different wartime tactics in-game.

Goblin Squad Member

@Tork Shaw / Goblinworks

Awhile back it was said that we will be able to set PvP windows where we have powerful NPC guards at all times outside that window, and lowered levels of defense inside it.

Does this apply only to settlements, or also to POIs and outposts? If it should apply to outposts, about how difficult would you expect it to be to overcome these NPC guards outside the PvP window when raiding an outpost?

Also, while strip mining a settlement will these guards continue to respawn / put constant pressure on the strip miners or will it be wipe them once then you're done?

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:


This blog post has made raiding a hot-button topic among the design team again, particularly with all of this input we are getting. The basic position at the moment is that raiding is mean and powerful and that is exactly how I intended it. What we are discussing is whether its TOO powerful, since there seems to be a lot of feeling on the boards that it might be. I am very much on the 'you have what you hold' side of the River Freedoms but there are more sympathetic whisperings in the office that might well have legs!

This discussion is very helpful!

Please remember what the whispers of Grima Wormtongue did to the King of Rohan.... Just saying.

Here is a question that has not been asked yet, Will hideouts be similar to outposts, as far as easy of construction and destruction? Also comparable in the relationship to having a dedicated company or relying on mercenary or NPCs to guard them?

Other than a POI being more significant in constructing and probably in destroying one, will the system be roughly the same as outposts?

Finally, I still have not had much of a chance to really dig into the Blog, but it is sounding very awesome!

Raiding outposts may very well become my secondary activity, only after banditry of caravans. But, from the sound of it, raiding outposts sounds like it might be more profitable, is this a fair assumption?

Goblin Squad Member

Outpost raiding is going to produce the cheaper BULK goods used by settlements. They are heavy and will likely require caravans to move in any significant quantity themselves.

So I am not sure which would be more profitable. Probably depends on how you are moving them, IE: Selling bulk wood to a settlement without much native wood.

Goblin Squad Member

Gedichtewicht wrote:

What i´d like to know is this.

has a damaged outpost its production reduced?

Because if not, i imagine every CC that build one will imidiatly stripmine 90% and leave it at 10% health, before going into normal production to deny raiders stripmining there in the future.

This is what I have talking about for a while. If it is going to be this easy to raid and making raiding against the law (so your settlement can defend the outpost feeding it) only really causes your corruption to go up in the settlement, then if I'm a settlement owner with a few outpost nodes in the surrounding hexes I'd think seriously about strip mining my own outposts. If they are going to be raided so easily it's not worth it to leave them up for long periods.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

Outpost raiding is going to produce the cheaper BULK goods used by settlements. They are heavy and will likely require caravans to move in any significant quantity themselves.

So I am not sure which would be more profitable. Probably depends on how you are moving them, IE: Selling bulk wood to a settlement without much native wood.

When bandits ambush and capture a caravan, they will need to take the caravan intact or bring their own carts / wagons to haul the loot.

I'm guessing Caravans might be the next Dev Blog.

51 to 100 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: On We Sweep with Threshing Oar All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.