Goblin Squad Member
|
Mmm, raiding. With 10% damage each 10 minutes, an outpost could be destroyed in 1:40 hours, if the defenders don't take action.
I thought this piece was a curious hint: However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding.
That sort of sounds like each crime that occurs in a settlement adds to the settlement's corruption. So more laws => more crime => more corruption?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Urman, I think it is more of a system where you can't outlaw everything, because even a Lawful Good settlement will use raiding to weaken an enemy settlement. It seems like the "What goes around comes around." theory in action. That might now explain away your concern, but it seems to fit (you have to bend your mind around sideways a bit...). Raiding also sounds like it will make having a strong defense much, much more important than simply attacking your opponents to surrender. It you attack recklessly you will quickly find your resources depleted by a vigorous counter attack.
I like the raiding concept, because it means there will always be a need for vigilant patrols around the borders of settlements' Points of Interest, and the patrol route will have to be managed through a careful consideration of available guards, Soldiers and other defensive assets. Sounds cool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like what I read, and for the first read through, seems like a really good system. Especially if the guards can be assassinated. That would be a fun time spender, Assassinating NPC guards (with a group of assassins) so a group not so trained in combat could to a super quick Hit and Run Raid on a outpost.
As an example, some merchants hire some "farmers" (people with high cultivation skills) to go in and Strip mine a "rival" merchant's main source of product, and hiring a group of assassins ( The Bloody Hand maybe :D ) to take out the guards. This would allow a higher outcome and higher quality product, since the raiders would have a higher cultivation skills, rather then combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah... I see a lot of 2 am raids going on with this system. Any system that allows you to destroy player owned structures while most players will be in bed should cost large amounts of resources instead of providing them.
Right now raiding / strip mining seems like a great way to both wipe out your enemies and turn a huge profit at the same time. In short, it sounds overpowered.
A better alternative would be the option to strip mine the area or do asset destruction. Strip mining steals resources and harms production but keeps the structure in-tact. Asset destruction costs time and resources and does damage to the permanent facilities.
On an aside subject, a great third option would be slave raids where you steal paid laborers to use at your own outposts for free.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sort of sounds like each crime that occurs in a settlement adds to the settlement's corruption. So more laws => more crime => more corruption?
We'll hopefully go into more detail on this (and other tweaks to our ideas on settlement alignment) soon, but the basic idea is that higher Chaos creates a higher minimum Corruption, but having laws broken can temporarily increase Corruption (which is lowered back down by killing the criminal). A Lawful settlement with laws that it can't enforce could become worse off than a Chaotic settlement that played it cool and didn't make any laws in the first place; in the Lawful city, all the crooks know for sure they can get away with anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mmm, raiding. With 10% damage each 10 minutes, an outpost could be destroyed in 1:40 hours, if the defenders don't take action.
I thought this piece was a curious hint: However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding.
That sort of sounds like each crime that occurs in a settlement adds to the settlement's corruption. So more laws => more crime => more corruption?
Yeah, I did not get this either, can we get a clarification?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if raiding isn't a crime, doesn't require a feud, and isn't an act of war...
Settlement A can send eight 50-man companies across their border into settlement B, and raid the SW hex which has two outposts. Up to three companies from settlement B are sanctioned to fight: the hex owner and the companies that own the POIs. All other settlement B companies must burn Influence (in feuds) or DI (if a general war is declared) to help defend the hex. Settlement A's companies do not have to spend any Influence or DI to do this raid.
Hardin's patrols can alert the hex and outpost owners, but also must burn influence to engage.
Seems completely backwards, actually.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the basic idea is that higher Chaos creates a higher minimum Corruption, but having laws broken can temporarily increase Corruption (which is lowered back down by killing the criminal).
Very cool, law only being as good as the enforcement. You guys do think (at least) one step ahead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... I see a lot of 2 am raids going on with this system. Any system that allows you to destroy player owned structures while most players will be in bed should cost large amounts of resources instead of providing them.
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!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The simplest way to allow everyone to attack the raiders is to make it a crime. But that means if there's no one around to punish that crime, your Settlement will suffer. Ryan has always said it will be hard to maintain a Lawful Good Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have some questions about the Hostile flag.
1. Will I be able to easily see whether another character sees me as Hostile?
2. Will I be able to easily see why I see them as Hostile?
2.a. If so, will I be able to control which reasons are more important to me?
I'm thinking something other than simple color-coding may be in order, maybe something like runes or icons before or after they're name. I'd also really like to be able to know whether someone's showing as Hostile because they have a Criminal Flag from Raiding a Settlement where that's a crime, or because my Company has a Feud with them, and I'd like to be able to make that determination at a glance. If that Raider is from a friendly or allied Company or Settlement, I really don't care about their Criminal Flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, if raiding isn't a crime, doesn't require a feud, and isn't an act of war...
Urman asked me to point out that the highlighted portion is likely incorrect. I did a little research and I think he's correct... that he was incorrect... That is, I think it actually does require a Feud in order to launch a Raid.
... a company can also declare a feud against an enemy settlement. This allows a company to launch a raid against holdings in the hexes controlled by rival settlements...
Also, FYI, the "link" at the bottom of that blog is still wrong. It's pointing to 9/26 when it should be pointing to 9/25.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The more I think about the currently described strip-mining system the more I don't like it.
1. The timeframe for structure destruction is incredibly short.
2. It apparently costs nothing.
3. It provides huge financial incentive to casual raiders to do it.
Raiding is something that you often do for fun and profit. Asset destruction is always something you do to clear way for an invasion or as a way of giving the asset's owner the middle finger.
Asset destruction should never be quick, cheap, profitable or really anything someone would ever engage in casually. This system makes it ALL of those things.
When I go raid one hostile factions outposts with the intent to bring home as much loot as possible, and I go raid another's with the intent of hurting them as much as possible, the difference should be plain as day. This system will turn many casual rivals into sworn enemies and you can bet that will spill over into the meta-game.
The restriction of raiding reprisal to the management company of the Point of interest (assuming that the settlement hasnt passed laws which they may not wish to due to the effect) seems ill conceived to me on both a practical front and from purely an rp front.
Firstly from a practical front if the company managing the POI is the only one for whom the raiders are flagged as hostile it has implications for their make up
a) Groups like Virgil Firecask's will find it difficult to set up a POI due to the fact the focus of his group is running a tavern and while they may have brewers and barmaids I suspect they may be short of seasoned fighters. This goes for all crafting/trade/ or gathering specialised groups
b)It will restrict POI management to groups that have a wide geographical base this will mean that these groups of necessity be large to cover the whole 24 hour cycle with sufficient warriors to repel raiders. Giving a generous 4 hour play window to each player in a group you can calculate just how many PVP ready players you would need to cover a full day with even a small complement of 5 people. Then add in the extra people to actually perform the companies intended function
I had up to now envisaged a central settlement run by the amalgam of chartered companies under an organising body surrounded by many points of interest run by individual companies as part of the larger settlement community and that this is where smaller groups would be able to find a niche. If Aeternum or TEO or TSV are unable to send troops in when news of an incursion in without causing their troops problems with alignment shift then I guess those smaller groups may be out of luck.
From an RP point of view things to my mind are just as bad. Are we really saying that a Paladin drinking in an inn or visiting a mine to arrange a shipment of ore should stand by and not interfere when bandits come to call. The fact that the Paladin suffers reputation loss and alignment shift if he does heavily implies that this falls under the unsanctioned PVP umbrella. Like many settlements Aeternum will be running patrols of its territory and to my mind these patrol's core purpose from an rp point of view would be to deal with, among other things, just such an incursion as these. To suggest they get penalised for doing something both reasonable and perfectly in keeping with the spirit of meaningful rp is bizarre
Apart from this detail the blog seems good. I just do not feel that a settlement should be penalised for supporting the POI and companies that fall under their defensive umbrella and the blog strongly implies their will be penalties either to the individuals within the settlement or the settlement itself depending on whether they go down the law against raiding route. Nor do I think it good that this will tend to discourage smaller groups from setting up and running points of interest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The more I think about the currently described strip-mining system the more I don't like it.
1. The timeframe for structure destruction is incredibly short.
2. It apparently costs nothing.
3. It provides huge financial incentive to casual raiders to do it.
I don't think #2 is accurate. See above.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is there going to be an option for palisades (extra-pointy sticks) or stone walls around outposts to give the controlling company and settlement time to mount a defense; and make 2am cheap shot raids slightly more difficult to execute?
I always love getting new information in the blogs. Please tell me those character faces and postures and especially their faces are some of the work that's going to be in a lot of progress in the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon, So the raiders have spent the Influence on their feud/launching the raid, and after they have dispatched any guards they have access to any accumulated resources. So they've paid Influence to get to that point.
Then after each 10 minute tick, the group gains another hour's production and and inflicts 10% damage in their pillaging activity. Are those additional resources free, with the risk of being caught in the act the only downside?
I think the initial feud cost might limit the amount of casual raiding. That and possibly the target having knowledge of who declared feud on them overnight. But once the raid has started, why wouldn't the raider stay as long as possible? Maybe because that almost ensures a counter-feud? Ah, but being caught in the act means that perhaps none of your loot-wagons make it home, so maybe grab-and-go is sometimes the best method.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pagan, Remember that, as described, the only way your patrolling guardsman would not be able to defend the outpost is if raiding was legal in your lands. The benefit to making raiding illegal is that you can better defend against incursions like this by including members of other companies; the drawback is that, should the raiders successfully raid you despite the illegality, your settlement suffers increased Corruption (which certainly seems like a bad thing, but I guess we need to wait for a clarifying blog post to see just how bad).
I think the intention here is that settlements would usually make raiding illegal, but that it's possible to not do so. As of right now, things looks heavily weighted in favor of making it illegal, but maybe that's only because I don't have a full picture of the situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yum!
Reminds me of Kingdoms of Camelot with differences between individuals and kingdoms (I had troops, millions in waves of 100,000 to 125,000). Kingdom alliances were limited to 100 players, scattered around the world. As @Fanndis Goldbraid discusses the team included those around the world. Pacific group (California, Hawaii, Japan, New Zealand, Australia [really miss Lady Volvo and her heavy armor (knights)) and Europe covered the flanks, but the big raids were coordinated by the one everyone respected (now moved to NJ).
Concepts of these PoI and Outposts belonging to a CC is fine. They get the income. Settlement get use of the harvest. Settlement must be allow to defend. If CC are considered max 50, they will be really stretched to defend. If 2 or 4 CC attack an Outpost and only the Owners can defend will quickly become a tactic. In KoC multiple alliances would attack certain other alliances. Usually not "ganking" (that term was not in play there) but in retribution for the play by that alliance. It must be possible for the whole settlement to respond if the cry is raised.
Consider even allowing allies to defend (either on individual by individual basis or formal commitment by the other settlement). GW needs to consider how that plays for the ally, what benefits do they get for declaring (and being HOSTILE) or individuals of uncommitted ally not being HOSTILE until they commit to defend (need to raise flag before any infiltrating or attempt to break 'siege').
What happens if another CC from same settlement attacks an outpost. Hmm, that is an internal settlement matter. What are the laws for internal dispute? That determines who can respond and how they are flagged.
-- Aside one which should be its own thread, but may not be deemed worthy of discussion by others
Speaking of which, attack an outpost, PoI, settlement; attacker must be flagged as HOSTILE before attack. Defending CC and settlement individuals are not flagged HOSTILE until they attack. Those rushing to defend or support the must be flagged as HOSTILE before they move to support.
This concept should be extended. Those being attacked must be allowed to defend without penalty BEFORE the first attack happens; and are not presented as HOSTILE to attacker for This flaw has been discussed before (yes this should have been new thread and if there are others who want to debate this, let's take it elsewhere (other thread)and leave this to attacks on outposts.
[Consider A presents as HOSTILE preparing to attack B. Bsets up defense against HOSTILE A. If A attacks a non-HOSTILE B as planned, still takes penalty (whatever that is).
Otherwise A presents as HOSTILE, B has choice of undefended hit or Defends and A has no penalty for starting unflagged encounter (may still be sanctioned but not flagged as HOSTILE)
-- Aside two which should be its own thread, but may not be deemed worthy of discussion by others
Hmm yet another thread, are all flagged situations equal or are there different benefits and penalties for different flags, let alone sanctioned vs unsanctioned.
Sorry two new thread in this response. If you want to discuss take it elsewhere and we can talk.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This thread is not appearing on my front page of the forums???
Mine has done this also, often in the last couple of weeks. Seemed strange, the threads at the top were up to a year or more old, and all I had done was go to my "Pathfinder Online" in history, but had not saved any old thread searches off. Weird. I refreshed and it worked fine...but it seems to come up every 5 or so tries.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm also curious if the dynamics will ever make it worthwhile to strip-mine your own POI if you know you won't be able to defend it.
This is exactly what I was thinking. In reading the blog I really got ZERO incentive to hold onto an outpost. Maybe if it isn't in a "threatened" hex. However, if you have reason to believe that enemies will harass a given hex that is Outpost capable, build the outpost and strip-mine it from the start.
A sort of scorched-earth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
outposts: semi-permanent structures in wilderness hexes, linked to a holding in that hex. ... Holdings are permanent player-owned structures that establish ownership over a hex, while outposts produce a steady supply of bulk goods every hour they are in operation.
If taking over an outpost can divert the outpost output from the hex's holding structure without having to destroy the outpost, I think that occupying an outpost has more value than strip mining and the destruction of the outpost. Outposts feed bulk materials to the structure holding the hex. Taking over the outpost could give a group a base for raiding the holding structure. I think that this may have additional value over strip mining and destruction of the outpost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
outposts: semi-permanent structures in wilderness hexes, linked to a holding in that hex. ... Holdings are permanent player-owned structures that establish ownership over a hex, while outposts produce a steady supply of bulk goods every hour they are in operation.If taking over an outpost can divert the outpost output from the hex's holding structure without having to destroy the outpost, I think that occupying an outpost has more value than strip mining and the destruction of the outpost. Outposts feed bulk materials to the structure holding the hex. Taking over the outpost could give a group a base for raiding the holding structure. I think that this may have additional value over strip mining and destruction of the outpost.
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.
Depending on how much time that takes, and how "safe" it is from NPCs and PCs alike as you will have to provide escort for them PLUS defend the outpost...
As someone else pointed out if you can hold it for longer than 1:40 then it may be worth it. If you can't, then strip-mine and get out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In reading the blog I really got ZERO incentive to hold onto an outpost.
You should consider the cost of setting up an outpost (which we don't know). I'd expect such a cost to be significantly greater than 10 hours worth of outpost collection, to incentivize the hex-holders to make and keep control of these outposts. Otherwise, it's as you say; people would likely just set it up and immediately strip-mine it, to eliminate the risk that their enemies can get something out of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
you need large organized groups to provide defence 24/7.
But companies larger than 50, maybe even at 50 will see other penalties(e.g. reduced accumulation of influence or ...). If you need quote, I am certain @Nihimon can find it.
The defense needs to allow for settlement/allies/nation to support after the alarm goes off. Small groups get in, grab what they can and leave. Large groups assault, skilled harvesters arrive, then wagons and finally leave with booty, guarded by army. See comments on KoC.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
'Additionally, the criminal flag is always overcome by active feuds or wars, so raiding will be a legitimate action if you first declare a feud or war on the settlement, PoI, or management company associated with your target outpost'-I think you can initiate a raid whenever you wish; you just have to take the rep/align hit if there is no feud or war in effect. It does sound as if strip mining is far more efficient and fun than running a harvesting/gathering operation. The former you attack and reduce extraction time 1/6, the latter you're on call/guard duty and nothing at all may happen on your 2 a.m. shift.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In reading the blog I really got ZERO incentive to hold onto an outpost.You should consider the cost of setting up an outpost (which we don't know). I'd expect such a cost to be significantly greater than 10 hours worth of outpost collection, to incentivize the hex-holders to make and keep control of these outposts. Otherwise, it's as you say; people would likely just set it up and immediately strip-mine it, to eliminate the risk that their enemies can get something out of it.
*nods*
True. Even when we do know, lets use your number and say it takes 11 hours of outpost collection. If I know the node is in an area that has threat I'd probably expend the effort to provide extra guards to recoup my 11 hours, then normal guard until the first signs of trouble. Then ramp up guard and strip mine it.
Of course, that would depend also on an unknown (to me at least) which is how long/often til another such outpost node respawns. Even with that, at some point you would hope to be enough ahead in the resource collections game that strip mining it at dangers notice doesn't affect you (other outposts going in other areas, trade relations). You just do it and after the area calms put it right back up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
you need large organized groups to provide defence 24/7.But companies larger than 50, maybe even at 50 will see other penalties(e.g. reduced accumulation of influence or ...). If you need quote, I am certain @Nihimon can find it.
The defense needs to allow for settlement/allies/nation to support after the alarm goes off. Small groups get in, grab what they can and leave. Large groups assault, skilled harvesters arrive, then wagons and finally leave with booty, guarded by army. See comments on KoC.
Lam
Currently as described it does allow for support from settlement if the settlement makes raiding illegal. Then the raiders would be flagged Hostile to all residents. It should extend to allies too, as that's what "allies" are for in large part.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems clear that the intent is that outposts not be constructed where the competition can reach them; the risk/reward is in the construction of the outpost (risking theft and/or destruction of the outpost).
The ante is the construction cost of the outpost; the raises are the time spent building and transporting, and the pot is the output of the outpost.
If the pot odds are bad enough, there will be no outposts. Since that goes against design goals and philosophy, I assume that it will not be the case after testing.
Outposts will either be cheap to build, very difficult to attack, or have AMAZING output. I think the most player interaction occurs when outposts are expensive (requiring dozens of player-hours) to construct, simple but not easy to defend (numerical parity should be a certain victory for the defense, but the attackers pick the time of attack; or the defenders pick the time of attack but require a superior force to be sure of victory), and either the only or a primary source of a very important material.
High risk, high reward- or it becomes "Nobody does X".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Sepherum - ah, good catch. That would seems to supercede the bit from The Man in Back blog which said you'd need to declare feud to launch a raid. But if you time the raid really well, you'll have no opposition, so suffer no rep/alignment hit. So most/all raiders might wander in sans feud and only declare feud if there are defenders.
It only takes one unflagged defender being attacked in an unsanctioned raid to flag his attacker as such (defender doesn't even need to be killed, I think). Then anyone/everyone in the defending settlement can smoke that flagged attacker.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In reading the blog I really got ZERO incentive to hold onto an outpost.
GW should consider the cost of setting up an outpost (which we don't know). I'd expect such a cost to be significantly greater than 10 hours worth of outpost collection, .... if too expensive yet too easiy to loose, it is a wasted construct. This is econ 1.
Immediately the arguement may be that 10x strip mining and/or destroying Outpost is too high. GW may want to consider other concepts (below). Also what does it take to repair damage. Strip mining should be a risk strategy for the attacker, they get higher rate eventually; but. perhaps, initially nothing:
Concept: strip mining involves reconfiguration of site. For first 10 minutes --reconfigure, no output; second 10 minutes START, at 50%; third 10 minutes (getting to know how) at normal; fourth 10 minutes (know what to do and accelerating -- total 40 minutes) at double rate (0 + .5 + 1 + 2) * 10 minutes - 35 minutes, etc.
From then on production is higher than normal -- 4x in 5th 10 minutes( equal to 75 minutes). 8x for 6th 10 minutes ( equal to 155 normal minutes), etc. ending at MAX production, exhaution and collapse at 100 minutes -- same as 10x concept, but riskier for attackers if they can not hold. Still better if they can hold, but somewhat better than normal if the attackers can hold for 50 minutes or more.
Another complexity: Does attacker need to bring resources or does local talent cope out before max rate is achieved?
This can be tuned by GW. Instead of power of 2, consider root 3 or root 2. (or Napier Constant 8-). These take longer to pay off and Max out. This concept provides for later 'tuning.'
Additionally, there can be different models (expansion post minimal release). Production per year (well aquifer depletion), productive capability which replenishes (land fertility). Or stone quarry dependent upon personnel, vs raider working them to death, ....
I will start a new thread (not tonight) about KoC lessons. Not really appropriate here, but layered defense. How might that be achieved in GW. If there are others from KoC (or Evony), start the thread and I will join in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The raiding mechanic sounds wonderful, though the hostility interaction may need some refinement (it's really difficult to judge without seeing how all the pieces interact).
The strip-mining mechanic, however, sounds far too powerful (at least if outposts are any sort of investment). As things are described here, any sufficiently sized force is probably easily capable of destroying as many outposts as they want in a given evening. Mounting any sort of defense force, much less a sizable one, is nigh impossible without foreknowledge of the attack (ask anyone who's done null-sec in EVE). Controlling an outpost for 2 hours will require markedly little effort compared to the (assumed) investment. Furthermore, they're rewarded not just by depriving their foes of resources, but by destroying their means of production while gaining said resources. That's way OP.
As Andius mentioned, destroying infrastructure should require a significant investment from the attackers. In this case, I would suggest some sort of continued presence at the location for many hours. Perhaps some sort of system where damage to the structure starts of very slowly but increases exponentially with time and effort (you have to chip away at the mortar before you can tear down the wall; or bring siege weaponry).
Also, working toward destruction and working toward resource collection should be opposed efforts. Dealing damage to the structure should reduce, or outright halt, all production of the outpost, not accelerate it.
That said, I do like the idea of accelerating resource production at the cost of future production. If the generation 'curve' for the resources is tuned well (tails on both ends, best rate in the middle), it could be good incentive for raiders to put themselves at increased risk by staying around to exploit the outpost for a while. They could even choose to strip-mine it before destruction, should they be so confident. Naturally, the decrease in production after such an event would have to be great enough to be a net loss for overall resource generation so that it's not exploited.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DeciusBrutus
Thanks. I just propose some nerdy concepts. Though I will strongly argue that the attacker must pay some costs/consideration for strip mining or it becomes a no-decision/route always chosen:
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).
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right now raiding / strip mining seems like a great way to both wipe out your enemies and turn a huge profit at the same time. In short, it sounds overpowered.
A better alternative would be the option to strip mine the area or do asset destruction. Strip mining steals resources and harms production but keeps the structure in-tact. Asset destruction costs time and resources and does damage to the permanent facilities.
I think you have a point. I also think it should be either gather large amount of stuff and leave the structure standing or gather less stuff(what's in the trunk) and destroy the structure. I think such options would make much more sense in strategic thinking.
I like that the ui is simple. The more simpler the better means more time looking at the game world. :)
Hostility sounds like a good concept. You can be hostile to someone but he isn't hostile to you or vice versa or both are hostile or non-hostile. And then if you want you can check the reason for hostility. PC mobs has such a nice ring to it. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think #2 is accurate. See above.The more I think about the currently described strip-mining system the more I don't like it.
1. The timeframe for structure destruction is incredibly short.
2. It apparently costs nothing.
3. It provides huge financial incentive to casual raiders to do it.
Not really what I was talking about. It may cost influence but it gives a ton of resources and costs nothing beyond the cost of declaring the feud. That isn't really high burden.
In all similar titles I have played going and raiding someone for resources is a quick and fairly easy activity that benefits you. The attitude around raiding is. "Hey let's go hit Sick Bastards mine!" "Yeah sound like fun!" *15 minutes later* "Good fight SB! Yay look at our loot / we'll do better next time."
The attitude around asset destruction is. "I've had it up to my ears with The Gentlemen blue-blocking for Fallen Lords! Let's go blow up their damn city!" *3 hours and 200k worth of siege equipment later* "Take that you ***holes! 2 million gold worth of asset destruction! That will teach you to **** with us!!!"
Raiding should be cheap, easy, and casual. It should be beneficial to the raiders and a great source of constant fairly low stakes content.
Asset damage should be expensive, time consuming and risky. It should never be undertaken lightly, and nobody should come out ahead. You do not want casual asset damage because when people lose permanent assets they get pissed. Beyond that I don't even want to damage the assets of someone I'm raiding for profit. Asset damage should always be something that even in the heat of the moment you have to stop and think "Is this really worth the cost to us?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
That being said, I do agree that simultaneously removing a portion of your enemy's resource collection, adding that amount to yourself in a smaller amount of time, and destroying his structure seems pretty darn powerful for not having a cost in and of itself (it's more like a big benefit of the feud you were already going to do).
Then again, this is destroying an outpost, which GW has identified as "semi-permanent". Perhaps it isn't that powerful because one outpost isn't a big loss, and the resources gained from 10 hours of collection (in other words, what they get when strip mining for 100 minutes) are only a modest amount? For example, if you had 20 outposts set up around your base, and you lost one a night due to carefully planned raids, well, you still have 19 outposts worth of collection for 24 hours. The loss of one outpost for 24 hours wouldn't affect your income in a large way in this case.