Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.So all we need to do is find out the relevant pvp windows for each of the settlements. Roll up mob handed at the right time and enjoy unlimited killing rep free.
Sounds like a well thought out idea to me and will not be abused in the least
Yeah, I'd think if there were no-reputation effects, those effect should *only* apply to the settlement citizens unless there has been a war declared.
Yeah, I'd think if there were no-reputation effects, those effect should *only* apply to the settlement citizens unless there has been a war declared.I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.So all we need to do is find out the relevant pvp windows for each of the settlements. Roll up mob handed at the right time and enjoy unlimited killing rep free.
Sounds like a well thought out idea to me and will not be abused in the least
Yea, I would think that us in the settlement should have a complete advantage over our potential attackers, both from a normal mechanical standpoint, and a meta-game reputation standpoint.
People attacking other people under any circumstances should be strongly discouraged, so that the people who just want to bravely hang out in their settlement can do so in peace.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.Exactly. Now tell me that a settlement cannot codify instant death to all trespassers and all this starts to make sense.
Actually I think it makes more sense that a settlement under siege (declared war) would institute martial law and label (codify) all non blues as trespassers, subjecting them to instant death.
Or am I reading you wrong?
If you are at war and your settlement hex is not NBSI, you're a fool and soon to be a homeless fool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.Exactly. Now tell me that a settlement cannot codify instant death to all trespassers and all this starts to make sense.Actually I think it makes more sense that a settlement under siege (declared war) would institute martial law and label (codify) all non blues as trespassers, subjecting them to instant death.
Or am I reading you wrong?
If you are at war and your settlement hex is not NBSI, you're a fool and soon to be a homeless fool.
I think NSBI should only be available to the settlement under siege. Or probably more logically, a settlement status that eats index up fast enough to only be used during siege.
I think NSBI should only be available to the settlement under siege. Or probably more logically, a settlement status that eats index up fast enough to only be used during siege.I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.Exactly. Now tell me that a settlement cannot codify instant death to all trespassers and all this starts to make sense.Actually I think it makes more sense that a settlement under siege (declared war) would institute martial law and label (codify) all non blues as trespassers, subjecting them to instant death.
Or am I reading you wrong?
If you are at war and your settlement hex is not NBSI, you're a fool and soon to be a homeless fool.
Better explain that to Dancey he is a firm believer in NBSI it seems
Ryan has previously given us reason to believe there will be a lot of pressure for Settlements to have a largely "open door" policy when it comes to allowing non-Member Residents.If I gave that impression, it was in error.
I expect most Settlements to be NBSI (Not Blue Shoot It), a term from EVE related to how ships appear on the Overview that is used to select targets. This policy means "if you're not one of us, we're going to assume you're hostile and kill you".
Some may operate under NRDS (Not Red Don't Shoot), which basically means "if you're not a known hostile, we'll let you live". Depending on how all the alignment, reputation, flags, etc. stuff ends up working out, some Settlement Alignments may dictate NRDS.
The pros to NBSI are that it's easy to know what to do in any given encounter, which means you can have very lax rules about who guards the frontiers and what to do when strangers approach. Groups struggling to assert social cohesion can use NBSI to bypass leadership struggles and arguments over chains of command.
The cons are that you are intentionally cutting yourself off from potentially profitable trade, which means that NBSI requires a parallel resource harvesting, crafting, and logistics expertise that would seem to be counterintuitively complicated and interdependent for a group struggling with issues of who can tell who what to do. In practice it seems like the economic folks get their act together quicker than the military folks, and these groups manage to muddle through despite their lack of global cohesion.
The pros of NRDS are that you are open to trade and commerce, and you can rely on a handful of individuals who are preternaturally good at managing markets to do all the work for your whole group to maintain supplies and keep costs down. A handful of market superstars can let the whole rest of the group focus on other things (like killin!)
The downside of NRDS is that you're horribly insecure. Your enemies will know where all your...
Why only when the Rep Window is open? Shouldn't people at least be able to TRY to take out a settlement when the window's closed, if they deem it a good strategy (like at 4 am when no one expects it)??No, that's exactly why there's a window. Just like reinforced shields in EVE.
I never played EVE, but, alright, fair enough. I was just hoping that attacks when the Window was closed would be LESS viable but still possible, rather than not viable at all...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why only when the Rep Window is open? Shouldn't people at least be able to TRY to take out a settlement when the window's closed, if they deem it a good strategy (like at 4 am when no one expects it)??No, that's exactly why there's a window. Just like reinforced shields in EVE.
Love it. Great. Now why would you allow settlements to establish random killings of all trespassers in their hexes. This is the part I don't understand. It doesn't vibe with the rest of the plan and I can't for the life of me see how it improves the game in any way.
Sounds like a well thought out idea to me and will not be abused in the leastSeems ridiculously easy to impose arbitrary and capricious penalties for intentionally abusing game mechanics.
Ah so you think attacking a settlement during or its inhabitants during an open PVP window is an exploit? The system gets more coherent by the minute.
If we want to launch a surprise attack without declaring a war first we should be able to damn well do so and not feel we can't because we may incur penalties by transgressing ill thought out systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one issue with using the settlement PvP window is that from my understanding that can last anywhere from 0 hours a day to 24 hours a day. It may be when sieges are most likely to happen but there will be sieges on settlements outside their PvP window, and there will be a lot of PvP window time that settlements aren't under siege.
One thing I can nearly guarantee you, is that when a major battle of a siege is going on, the bulk of each side's forces will be in formation. Settlements are the holdings of super large organizations and alliances and without the ability to field hundreds of players you will have no hope to either take or hold one.
I would imagine that in general a lone player can cover ground much faster than a formation of soldiers marching in unison for balance reasons even if someone wants to talk up the superhuman attributes of a formation of marching soldiers in real life. And that everyone around will hear something along the lines of this probably accompanied by drums, horns, banners waving over head etc. Basically, it will be a massive ball of death that's impossible to miss.
When soldiers enter formation, which I believe should take some time, slow them down, and require at least 20-30 players to do. It should send one clear message to everyone around. Clear the hell out, because something big is going on, and you don't want to get in the way of it. If you're not already involved, you don't want to be. Because of that, formations are the level where I think it makes the most sense to drop rep consequences.
Sounds like a well thought out idea to me and will not be abused in the leastSeems ridiculously easy to impose arbitrary and capricious penalties for intentionally abusing game mechanics.Ah so you think attacking a settlement during or its inhabitants during an open PVP window is an exploit? The system gets more coherent by the minute.
If we want to launch a surprise attack without declaring a war first we should be able to damn well do so and not feel we can't because we may incur penalties by transgressing ill thought out systems.
@Steelwing, Just quit while your behind. Ryan is easily making a fool out of you, and since your new here, that's creating something of a bad first impression. At least make sense when you post.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Ah so you think attacking a settlement during or its inhabitants during an open PVP window is an exploit?
Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that you would lurk around Settlements to gank people without rep concerns during the PvP window and without being involved in an attempt to attack the Settlement.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
But my first question remains, why allow a settlement to NBSI? What does the game gain from giving settlements that power in the first place?
Making meaningful choices is the heart of the game design. If you want to have to carefully manage rep to keep your territory free of outsiders, those are fine choices.
@Qallz
You obviously fail to realise what Dancey has said
Using irregulars to blockade a city will be a legitimate tactic or should be. If it become able to be regarded as intentionally abusing game mechanics because they have coded in something so we don't get rep loss then that is a huge problem.
They (gms) have no way to distinguish whether the attacks are legitimate because we are running a blockade or attacks for the sake of it because we can.
We shouldn't need to run the risk of capricious gm action because they designed the system poorly
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that the balancing factor for NBSI should be that activity in your area should have positive impacts on your DI and influence levels regardless of if the players are from your company / settlement or not. Say your own group going out and harvesting and questing in your area gives 100% benefit and other players gives 50% benefit as long as the aren't breaking any laws.
That right there is the incentive to run a NRDS policy, and not use an exile/trespass system to kick out players who aren't truly causing problems. Every group has a major incentive to keep their hexes populated, and NRSI runs directly contrary to that objective unless your organization is independently massive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Love it. Great. Now why would you allow settlements to establish random killings of all trespassers in their hexes. This is the part I don't understand. It doesn't vibe with the rest of the plan and I can't for the life of me see how it improves the game in any way.Why only when the Rep Window is open? Shouldn't people at least be able to TRY to take out a settlement when the window's closed, if they deem it a good strategy (like at 4 am when no one expects it)??No, that's exactly why there's a window. Just like reinforced shields in EVE.
I believe that when there is a declared war and /or a settlement is under siege, the settlement manager should be able to hit a switch and immediately turn the hex to NBSI. This amounts to declaring martial law.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They (gms) have no way to distinguish whether the attacks are legitimate because we are running a blockade or attacks for the sake of it because we can.
I think we're talking about two entirely different things. I'm talking about the topic of this thread which is naked newbs being injected into combat environments to trigger rep penalties, which is clearly an abuse of the game system.
We shouldn't need to run the risk of capricious gm action because they designed the system poorly
I'll reiterate: I want to induce people who want to be jerks to leave or reform. And I'm ok if some small number of people who think there is a gray area feel unfairly compromised when they are caught in that net. This isn't a game with easy to abuse bright line rules about where jerkiness begins. It is, as I have repeatedly said, in the eye of the beholder. and we are the beholders.
They (gms) have no way to distinguish whether the attacks are legitimate because we are running a blockade or attacks for the sake of it because we can.I think we're talking about two entirely different things. I'm talking about the topic of this thread which is naked newbs being injected into combat environments to trigger rep penalties, which is clearly an abuse of the game system.
To which you proposed a solution which was even more exploitable and I was referring to that solution as you know.
We shouldn't need to run the risk of capricious gm action because they designed the system poorlyI'll reiterate: I want to induce people who want to be jerks to leave or reform. And I'm ok if some small number of people who think there is a gray area feel unfairly compromised when they are caught in that net. This isn't a game with easy to abuse bright line rules about where jerkiness begins. It is, as I have repeatedly said, in the eye of the beholder. and we are the beholders.
We aren't talking about pushing lines to the limit here though are we...we are talking about perfectly legitimate tactics...the surprise attack and the blockade which may suddenly get you banned.
Or perhaps you feel that these aren't legitimate tactics. Perhaps you think all PVP should be by appointment only?
They (gms) have no way to distinguish whether the attacks are legitimate because we are running a blockade or attacks for the sake of it because we can.I think we're talking about two entirely different things. I'm talking about the topic of this thread which is naked newbs being injected into combat environments to trigger rep penalties, which is clearly an abuse of the game system.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. I think Steelwing was having an entirely different argument with you in his imagination.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To which you proposed a solution which was even more exploitable and I was referring to that solution as you know.
Asserting something is exploitable doesn't make it so. In this case, you haven't even suggested a meaningful exploit.
Or perhaps you feel that these aren't legitimate tactics. Perhaps you think all PVP should be by appointment only?
So ... You really have no idea what you're talking about or to whom. Do you?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Qallz
You obviously fail to realise what Dancey has said
Using irregulars to blockade a city will be a legitimate tactic or should be. If it become able to be regarded as intentionally abusing game mechanics because they have coded in something so we don't get rep loss then that is a huge problem.
They (gms) have no way to distinguish whether the attacks are legitimate because we are running a blockade or attacks for the sake of it because we can.
We shouldn't need to run the risk of capricious gm action because they designed the system poorly
If there is a declared war, I expect the entire area to be a free-fire zone for everybody. If there is not a declared war, then everyone taking part in the undeclared war by performing a blockade should be losing reputation for doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually we're having a lot of discussions about how we can make NRDS a more viable option.
I'd offer that if NRDS/NBSI was a settlement level switch, then:
- At NRDS then normal rep hits for attacks might apply for defenders as well as transients (assuming that the settlement is at peace.)
- At NBSI then settlement citizens (maybe everyone, maybe just flagged guardians?) can engage non-citizens without rep hits*. Of course, there are a metric boat-load of NPC commoners running around, and a NBSI settlement is going to have to be constantly checking commoners for citizenship papers, big queues entering the town, etc - so a DI hit to security (guards doing populace control) or economy (everything slowed down by oppressive security), maybe both.
Of course, when either settlement is at war, then the settlement hex should be a war zone, and the defenders can engage anything without rep or alignment hits.
* Good/Evil hits might still apply, making NBSI best for evil settlements.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One way to make NRDS more viable would be to require hostile intentions to be declared a certain distance away from settlement walls, either by mechanical fiat or by making closer declarations very costly in reputation.
To make it more viable would require reducing the benefit caused by intelligence which can be gathered from neutral spies. Making that information easier or possible to obtain without a character present would seem to reduce the incentive to be NBSI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One way to make NRDS more viable would be to require hostile intentions to be declared a certain distance away from settlement walls, either by mechanical fiat or by making closer declarations very costly in reputation.
Agreed - a normal declaration of war against a settlement should happen before your forces are on their soil. Perfidy should cost. Maybe rep hits on your forces already across the border, or higher DI costs for the war dec. Likewise, declaring a feud against a company holding a outpost should happen before you enter the hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One way to make NRDS more viable would be to require hostile intentions to be declared a certain distance away from settlement walls, either by mechanical fiat or by making closer declarations very costly in reputation.
To make it more viable would require reducing the benefit caused by intelligence which can be gathered from neutral spies. Making that information easier or possible to obtain without a character present would seem to reduce the incentive to be NBSI.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
I love both of those suggestions.
The first one plays on my long-held belief that games should force us to explicitly inform the system of our intentions in order to be able to accomplish our goals, so that those intentions are available to other systems.
The second one plays on the idea of using a character's Divination magic to unveil the secrets normally only unveiled by making an alt so the player can gain access to secrets.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
One way to make NRDS more viable would be to require hostile intentions to be declared a certain distance away from settlement walls, either by mechanical fiat or by making closer declarations very costly in reputation.
What is a "hostile intention"? Are you saying my intention is hostile if I want to watch your market to see what things you want to buy and what you want to sell? Or figure out if you advanced the Temple of Orcus or the Wizards Laboratory? Or just who comes and goes?
How do you deal with my alt who is a harmless non-entity nobody cares about, and will never do anything to be noticeable or break your rules, who is in a Settlement you consider harmless? You'll never know it's me, or that all I learn is being piped back to the Settlement you're at war with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Likewise, declaring a feud against a company holding a outpost should happen before you enter the hex.
Raiding outposts is supposed to be the most common PVP in the overall settlement vs. settlement conflict. Outposts are cheap to set up, cost little to lose and are defended (typically) by NPC guards. The state of feud should not have to exist to raid an outpost, nor should there be any warning of such a raid. There is also the issue of knowing that an outpost is in a hex, before actually enter that hex. How would this knowledge be gathered?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... The state of feud should not have to exist to raid an outpost, nor should there be any warning of such a raid. There is also the issue of knowing that an outpost is in a hex, before actually enter that hex. How would this knowledge be gathered?
The state of a feud does not have to exist to raid an outpost; Tork has specifically said that. He's also said that raiding can be a crime depending on the settlement setting, but they have to enforce it.
So let's say some raiders enter the outpost's hex in a reconnaissance in force - but they haven't declared a feud - they're just there for a smash and grab. Oh - there's a boatload of citizens nearby, and once the raid starts, the raider will be flagged criminals and attackable by Tom, Dick, and Harry. Ah, but if the raiders change it to a feud, then they can only be freely attacked by the POI and Outpost companies.
I'm just offering that the time to declare a feud was before you entered the hex (or it could have a time delay). Likewise, declaring a feud at the moment of an ambush is like dropping your parley flag just before an attack - it should be a rep gutting move.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is a "hostile intention"? Are you saying my intention is hostile if I want to watch your market to see what things you want to buy and what you want to sell?
I got the impression Decius was suggesting that, in your example, the visiting character would have to declare his intention to gather market intelligence in order to actually gain market intelligence (declare he was going to use the market), and that the Settlement could make it illegal to come to town with the intention of using the market, if they so chose.
I like the idea, but I realize it's probably not practical for PFO to categorize and formalize all the types of "information" a character can get from a Settlement... but... it'd be a whole lot cooler if you did :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To make it more viable would require reducing the benefit caused by intelligence which can be gathered from neutral spies. Making that information easier or possible to obtain without a character present would seem to reduce the incentive to be NBSI.
I think this last sentence may have some merit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I am saying is there is no reason to declare a feud from the raider's standpoint. It is actually counter productive.
Scenario:
My band of raiders enters a hex. We have no clue what we will find, because harvesting nodes randomly spawn and anyone can take control of it and set up a harvesting operation.
We see a harvesting operation. We watch it for a bit, maybe even send in a scout for a closer look.
Our scout reports back, no sign of PCs, just usual NPC guards.
We launch our attack, kill the NPCs and grab what we can haul off.
We are now flagged as hostile towards the owners of the outpost, and only the owners of the outpost, unless raiding has been made illegal in that hex by the controlling settlement. Quick Note: There are detractors to making raiding illegal, but I expect most will anyway.
We are flagged hostile anyway so nothing unexpected there. We don't lose rep for raiding outposts, nothing lost there. We may move alignment towards Chaos and Evil, which is most likely our core or CN is our core, no lose there.
The owners of the outpost won't know of our raid, unless they were there or not until they return to find NPCs dead and stuff stolen.
Now, we will add your Feud mechanic:
We spend influence to initiate the feud, we didn't have to spend.
We give advanced notice that we are about to attack, losing surprise.
We get flagged as hostile, which we would have had anyway.
We won't lose rep, which we would lose anyway.
We won't shift alignment, to an alignment we are probably already.
Why would we ever use the feud system to do something it is not designed to be used for?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I got the impression Decius was suggesting that, in your example, the visiting character would have to declare his intention to gather market intelligence in order to actually gain market intelligence (declare he was going to use the market), and that the Settlement could make it illegal to come to town with the intention of using the market, if they so chose.
I like the idea, but I realize it's probably not practical for PFO to categorize and formalize all the types of "information" a character can get from a Settlement... but... it'd be a whole lot cooler if you did :)
... Bluddwolf makes mental note, "Don't window shop in Nihimon's settlement, it could get me killed."....
I can see you're not shooting for being a trade hub are you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would we ever use the feud system to do something it is not designed to be used for?Not everyone that is attacking a outpost is doing it for the loot. Many will be doing it as a prelude to war, or war by other means.
This may be hard to believe, but just because you won't use the feud mechanic when attacking an outpost doesn't mean others won't.
They won't to raid the outpost. They will use the feud mechanic to attack a specific company, and then also raid their outposts.
The feud is a conflict between two companies. It could be a prelude to war between two settlements as well, but it doesn't have to be. The feud allows you to attack the enemy company wherever they are, including at their outposts but not exclusively so.
Will some people spend influence they don't have to? Maybe they will, but that won't make it a necessary or a wise use of influence.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
One way to make NRDS more viable would be to require hostile intentions to be declared a certain distance away from settlement walls, either by mechanical fiat or by making closer declarations very costly in reputation.What is a "hostile intention"? Are you saying my intention is hostile if I want to watch your market to see what things you want to buy and what you want to sell? Or figure out if you advanced the Temple of Orcus or the Wizards Laboratory? Or just who comes and goes?
How do you deal with my alt who is a harmless non-entity nobody cares about, and will never do anything to be noticeable or break your rules, who is in a Settlement you consider harmless? You'll never know it's me, or that all I learn is being piped back to the Settlement you're at war with.
That's the second half of the suggestions- making the 'neutral' spies sitting in the settlement less valuable. I don't think it's possible to make them completely worthless, but every piece of information that they provide that could be acquired easily some other way is one less incentive to mass-murder everyone who might be a spy.
Using the metaphor, making more information fully available takes carrot away from NBSI.
The first half of the suggestion (quoted above) was only intended to cover actions which resulted in flagging; basically apply a rep penalty for people who go to an outpost and then declare a feud, rather than declare the feud and then start the raid. That is also removing carrot from NBSI, by making a pattern that NBSI is used to prevent less common in NRDS.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
What I am saying is there is no reason to declare a feud from the raider's standpoint. It is actually counter productive.
Scenario:
My band of raiders enters a hex. We have no clue what we will find, because harvesting nodes randomly spawn and anyone can take control of it and set up a harvesting operation.
We see a harvesting operation. We watch it for a bit, maybe even send in a scout for a closer look.
Our scout reports back, no sign of PCs, just usual NPC guards.
We launch our attack, kill the NPCs and grab what we can haul off.
We are now flagged as hostile towards the owners of the outpost, and only the owners of the outpost, unless raiding has been made illegal in that hex by the controlling settlement. Quick Note: There are detractors to making raiding illegal, but I expect most will anyway.
We are flagged hostile anyway so nothing unexpected there. We don't lose rep for raiding outposts, nothing lost there. We may move alignment towards Chaos and Evil, which is most likely our core or CN is our core, no lose there.
The owners of the outpost won't know of our raid, unless they were there or not until they return to find NPCs dead and stuff stolen.
Now, we will add your Feud mechanic:
We spend influence to initiate the feud, we didn't have to spend.
We give advanced notice that we are about to attack, losing surprise.
We get flagged as hostile, which we would have had anyway.
We won't lose rep, which we would lose anyway.
We won't shift alignment, to an alignment we are probably already.Why would we ever use the feud system to do something it is not designed to be used for?
My thought was that there might be a rep bonus for declaring that you were raiding the outpost while you were still some minimum distance (meters or minutes) away from the outpost. That would result in fewer people wanting to walk up to the outpost and THEN start the raid, which would result in less reason for the controllers of the outpost to kill everyone who walked up to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My thought was that there might be a rep bonus for declaring that you were raiding the outpost while you were still some minimum distance (meters or minutes) away from the outpost. That would result in fewer people wanting to walk up to the outpost and THEN start the raid, which would result in less reason for the controllers of the outpost to kill everyone who walked up to it.
My understanding is that most outposts will have just the NPC guards. They are too cheap to build, not to costly to lose to expend the human resources of PC protection. I would guess that the NPCs could be set to NBSI, that would be wise.
It's an outpost, not a tavern, no PC is approaching it for a social visit.
As for looking to gain rep from I guess SADing an outpost... Meh! I'm looking to dip my sword into some guts once in a while. SADs only work when I have the reputation that I can and will kill you, if you don't hand over what I wish to make mine!
You can use your motto "one million for defense, not one copper for tribute" that is fine by me. I may kill someone and take one copper, and leave the million, just to make my point. ;-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Bluddwolf makes mental note, "Don't window shop in Nihimon's settlement, it could get me killed."....
I can see you're not shooting for being a trade hub are you?
I see now why you're so easily confused by what the devs say. You seem unable to differentiate between a statement of policy and a hypothetical used to illustrate a concept.
Or maybe you just have a really bad sense of humor and an axe to grind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Bluddwolf makes mental note, "Don't window shop in Nihimon's settlement, it could get me killed."....
I can see you're not shooting for being a trade hub are you?
I see now why you're so easily confused by what the devs say. You seem unable to differentiate between a statement of policy and a hypothetical used to illustrate a concept.
Or maybe you just have a really bad sense of humor and an axe to grind.
I was clearly joking, I'll use my ax to carve a smile this time...
/ax ;-)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My thought was that there might be a rep bonus for declaring that you were raiding the outpost while you were still some minimum distance (meters or minutes) away from the outpost. That would result in fewer people wanting to walk up to the outpost and THEN start the raid, which would result in less reason for the controllers of the outpost to kill everyone who walked up to it.My understanding is that most outposts will have just the NPC guards. They are too cheap to build, not to costly to lose to expend the human resources of PC protection. I would guess that the NPCs could be set to NBSI, that would be wise.
It's an outpost, not a tavern, no PC is approaching it for a social visit.
As for looking to gain rep from I guess SADing an outpost... Meh! I'm looking to dip my sword into some guts once in a while. SADs only work when I have the reputation that I can and will kill you, if you don't hand over what I wish to make mine!
You can use your motto "one million for defense, not one copper for tribute" that is fine by me. I may kill someone and take one copper, and leave the million, just to make my point. ;-)
I differ; I assume that there will be somebody close enough who will respond to the raid.
And I wasn't suggesting anything like or related to a SAD. I was suggesting that there be a rep bonus (equivalent, if we assume that the raid is going to happen regardless, to the lack of a penalty) to making your intentions known prior to approaching the outpost. If the outpost is NBSI and you are not blue, then their behavior is identical whether or not you have declared to be raiding; however, if they are NRDS, once you declare your intent to raid, you go red to them and forfeit the advantage that NRDS provided to you. The rep bonus to you is NOT an effort to reward you at all- it is an effort to change the incentive structure to offer less carrot to NBSI and less stick to NRDS.
If the outpost is indeed PvE content (typically contains only NPC guards), it shouldn't be part of the reputation system at all. I think that if it ends up being that way, there will be changes intended to fix that failure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't say no rep consequences during PvP windows is an exploitable solution so much as that it has a lot of consequences that I assume are unintended. For one, it means that a settlement without a PvP window cannot be sieged without taking rep consequences for any neutral parties that get in the way.
For another, it means that larger and more established settlements with really wide PvP windows essentially become EVE null-sec for huge portions if not all of the day.
The problem with null sec being, you have no idea who is there to kill you and who is just passing through because security standing means nothing in null sec. Likewise there will be groups that specialize in nothing but causing problems in settlements during their PvP windows that will never do anything to hurt their rep outside of them. That's the reason EVE is a predominately NBSI culture, you can't be sure who's a threat, so it's easier to just remove everyone who's not a declared ally.
You don't want game systems pushing the largest and most successful settlements toward a NBSI type culture.
I say again. Formation combat is the answer. I feel pretty comfortable saying that I don't mind a culture where when people see large groups of soldiers marching in military formations they get out of the way. There are actually all kinds of benefits to this:
1. Any unaffilated player running along with your formation is a potential spy.
2. As Ryan said, people not involved in massive conflicts should be clearing the area to prevent lag.
3. Even in the real world the only people who run toward battlefields are people involved in the battle and complete idiots.
The only potential abuse I can see for no rep loss in formations is that people might enter formations to clear people out of spawns or push them away from gushers. As long as there isn't a ridiculously low minimum cap for the numbers needed to make a formation though, I don't see this being a major issue. Who's going to get 20-30 guys together just to clear someone out of a spawn? And gusheres are kind of intended to be fought over from my understanding.
I wouldn't say no rep consequences during PvP windows is an exploitable solution so much as that it has a lot of consequences that I assume are unintended. For one, it means that a settlement without a PvP window cannot be sieged without taking rep consequences for any neutral parties that get in the way.
For another, it means that larger and more established settlements with really wide PvP windows essentially become EVE null-sec for huge portions if not all of the day.
The problem with null sec being, you have no idea who is there to kill you and who is just passing through because security standing means nothing in null sec. Likewise there will be groups that specialize in nothing but causing problems in settlements during their PvP windows that will never do anything to hurt their rep outside of them. That's the reason EVE is a predominately NBSI culture, you can't be sure who's a threat, so it's easier to just remove everyone who's not a declared ally.
You don't want game systems pushing the largest and most successful settlements toward a NBSI type culture.
I say again. Formation combat is the answer. I feel pretty comfortable saying that I don't mind a culture where when people see large groups of soldiers marching in military formations they get out of the way. There are actually all kinds of benefits to this:
1. Any unaffilated player running along with your formation is a potential spy.
2. As Ryan said, people not involved in massive conflicts should be clearing the area to prevent lag.
3. Even in the real world the only people who run toward battlefields are people involved in the battle and complete idiots.The only potential abuse I can see for no rep loss in formations is that people might enter formations to clear people out of spawns or push them away from gushers. As long as there isn't a ridiculously low minimum cap for the numbers needed to make a formation though, I don't see this being a major issue. Who's going to get 20-30 guys together just to clear someone out of a...
You do realise 20 to 30 is a small gang roam and not unusual in sovereignty null sec in Eve? I think your assumption may need a little work
To which you proposed a solution which was even more exploitable and I was referring to that solution as you know.Asserting something is exploitable doesn't make it so. In this case, you haven't even suggested a meaningful exploit.
So being able to kill people freely while not in a declared war or feud with them with no reputation loss is "working as intended" ? Given your latest blog on alignment and reputation I think not and I think most of your acolytes would think not
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't say no rep consequences during PvP windows is an exploitable solution so much as that it has a lot of consequences that I assume are unintended. For one, it means that a settlement without a PvP window cannot be sieged without taking rep consequences for any neutral parties that get in the way.
For another, it means that larger and more established settlements with really wide PvP windows essentially become EVE null-sec for huge portions if not all of the day.
The problem with null sec being, you have no idea who is there to kill you and who is just passing through because security standing means nothing in null sec. Likewise there will be groups that specialize in nothing but causing problems in settlements during their PvP windows that will never do anything to hurt their rep outside of them. That's the reason EVE is a predominately NBSI culture, you can't be sure who's a threat, so it's easier to just remove everyone who's not a declared ally.
You don't want game systems pushing the largest and most successful settlements toward a NBSI type culture.
Andius,
It hasn't occurred to you that this might be "working as intended"?
Ryan has often said, he envisioned that there would be a security zoned system like EVE. The difference here is that Null sec is not defined by its geography, it's opted in for by those settlements that choose to have it.
Look at the incentives being rolled out to large settlements:
1. Be of Lawful Alignment, because you will be more efficient.
2. The more your PVP window is open, the higher and faster your DIs will rise.
3. Formation Combat is powerful offense / defense and can only be used by Lawful settlements.
4. Large, powerful settlements with wide open PVP windows will typically be NBSI and have the number of PCs available to patrol their lands for security.
All the PVP Window adjusts is the level and speed in which NPC wardens / guards respond to criminal or hostile acts within their lands. It does not make their lands reputation or alignment consequence free.
They are not giving up security if they have enough PCs to patrol and secure their laws against those looking to break them.
"Welcome to Bigtown!" Don't come uninvited, and play nice or die!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You do realise 20 to 30 is a small gang roam and not unusual in sovereignty null sec in Eve? I think your assumption may need a little work
In EVE you can jump through a gate to find a whole group of people you were completely unaware on just the other side of that gate. On EVE, massive slow moving ships can jump to within firing range of you in the blink of an eye.
I'm going to make to make a few assumptions here. First I don't think a massive formation of players will be able to overtake pretty much any lone player on foot unless that player is overburdened or something. They are trying to move as a unit, so they can only run as fast as the slowest member of the formation. I think mechanically, to keep things balanced, a formation should always just assume there is a pretty slow player among them and compensate for it with greater offense/defense. We should also assume that a formation is extremely audible and visible, even from great distance with full on fanfare to accompany the marching of many feet announcing their presence.
With no jumpgates, only the deaf, blind, and incredibly crippled should ever be chased down or taken unaware by a group of players in formation. So why would you get 20-30+ guys together and build a formation? To attack stationary targets such as settlements and outposts that can't just move out of your way.
If that isn't enough, Ryan has expressed the possibility that formations may not be able to go to certain locations.
It hasn't occurred to you that this might be "working as intended"?
I wouldn't say no rep consequences during PvP windows is an exploitable solution so much as that it has a lot of consequences that I assume are unintended.
As anyone reading that statement should be able to infer, it has occurred to me but I assume that it is not the case.
The point of a settlement PvP window is trading automated NPC security for higher growth potential. It is meant to incentivize groups to spend more time defending their own territory, not to encourage them to go NBSI. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that nothing in this game is meant to or ever will be meant to incentivize NBSI, and much of it is meant to incentivize NRDS. There will simply be some systems that allow for NBSI.
I think it would be extremely unwise to reward settlements with higher DI's for running a policy that will likely turn them NBSI, but I understand why you would be willing to adopt something as broken as making the lack of rep penalties for battles attached to a window that can be turned off entirely just to get something like that into the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see more NRDS, if for no other reason than it provides more meaningful interactions. Meeting a guy and finding out what he wants in your settlement, maybe seeing his travel papers from another settlement and/or checking out his credentials, to me seems like a lot more meaningful interaction with an incoming unknown player, than to simply kill him no questions asked.