Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been lurking these boards long enough to have a pretty good handle on how the game is shaping up as a whole and the more I read the more I see the Sandbox of meaningful interaction heading in the direction of a PFO full of one against all. By that I mean that a huge portion of the focus of the game is centered on PVP, confrontation, taking what others have created or ruining/destroying anyone not on your side/team.
While this can be fun and I fully intend to play this game no matter what comes out in the end, I had always imagined a Sandbox where the Players build the world and make the story as giving us more options to have Players Assisting Players or PAP.
When I read over these forums I see so many ways shaping up to destroy everyone else and as territory warfare is the object of the game now, it seems like each settlement will be an island in an ocean of enemies (with maybe a couple of other linked islands or allies). The ocean is everyone else and I for one wish to have more options to build and assist others and not have the only option be that we are only allies or enemies. There is a large world to build and I would love to see more options for being neutral to other settlements but being able to help each other grow, trade services, training, resources and other meaningful interactions that don't force everyone into a dichotomy of ally/enemy at every turn. I am not against PVP at all though.
I know that in order for you to have a game you have to have apposing sides, ways for you to have meaningful interaction, build teams, overcome obstacles, create a CC, Settlement, or Kingdom eventually. I know this isn't a PVE centered game and I don't want it to be so. What I do want to see is just as many options to help each other as to attack each other. Just as many ways to help that other settlement next door as to destroy it but not have to ally with everyone in all settlements to do so. Sure there should be perks to being allies that you don't get with simply assisting in some mutual way but when there is no neutral ground you always have to make the decision of ally or enemy to have meaningful interaction. I don't want to always have every other player be suspect unless an ally. If they are an enemy though, game on, play it to the hilt and annihilate them...or make peace if that is possible. Life isn't black and white, there is a ton of grey that we can play with. I'd like to see that filled with options.
Before everyone tells me that you can stay neutral and don't have to make everyone friends or enemies, I know that, but I don't think it very likely in a PVP world to have that be the case based on what I've seen and read on these forums. It will be kill or be killed unless you make another option. I'm just looking for ways to give those other options for the middle ground and not only options for allies or enemies. These may exist and just are not focused on. These may not be desired by anyone but myself.
What do others think?
I am a bit confused by this, maybe I am missing something here though.
Surely if you are in assisting settlement A in anyway shape or form whether by agreeing to mutual defense, just having a non aggression agreement or even just allowing their people to cross your lands this is a form of alliance with them (regardless of whether you are talking about a meta alliance or using some in game mechanic)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brighthaven aims to be more of a cooperative settlement. Though I share similar fears as you, that despite our best intentions and efforts, there shall be no shortage of enemies to come looking to force into drawing lines and taking advantage of any willingness to trust neutral parties.
No settlement will have everything it needs, agreements will be the bread and butter of growth from everything I have read. Overly aggressive settlements just might fine it harder to trade for what there hex lacks.
No one is saying settlements won't have agreements. I am just trying to fathom what this call for player assisting player is as it seems to me it is just a sort of weak and limited alliance type.
Most aggressive settlements btw will be looking to form multisettlement nations to ensure they can supply their own needs btw but that is irrelevant to this particular discussion
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No settlement will have everything it needs, agreements will be the bread and butter of growth from everything I have read. Overly aggressive settlements just might fine it harder to trade for what there hex lacks.No one is saying settlements won't have agreements. I am just trying to fathom what this call for player assisting player is as it seems to me it is just a sort of weak and limited alliance type.
Most aggressive settlements btw will be looking to form multisettlement nations to ensure they can supply their own needs btw but that is irrelevant to this particular discussion
I took it as a call for a design focus. Wexel (and others such as myself), hope that at the design level, ways we the community can assist and cooperate with each other is a large consideration; This, in opposition to ways we can impede and kill each other.
I think the reason why Wexel felt the need to mention it was because 98.72% of our posts here are PvP related. He wanted to mention his desire that PvP be balanced by the tools that actual create a community, as opposed to those that just require a community.
Make sense?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that maybe he is advocating NRDS as opposed to NBSI - which is something being promoted by the developers already from what I read.
I do not think he is talking about PvP at all. He is asking for other tools/features/aspects that promote and empower cooperation and community...without consideration to PvP.
Wexel, please correct me if I misunderstood.
EDIT: To clarify, consider this...for every PvP interaction we have discussed, what if you also had the option to assist the other player(s)? Why not altruistically help someone defeat an escalation, defend a mine, harvest a node, etc...none of which necessarily has anything to do with PvP (although it could). Why not a DAS (Defend And Support) mechanic?
I think that maybe he is advocating NRDS as opposed to NBSI - which is something being promoted by the developers already from what I read.
I am not sure where you get that idea, some recent dancey quotes on the subject
Aug 9th 2013
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".
Nov 28th 2013
NBSI seems Lawful Evil. We should think about how to make that work.
Hi rep newbies turns newbie characters into exploitable zergs.
Jan 17th
2: Not being a member of a PC Settlement means that there's no good reason for anyone to treat you as anything but hostile if you visit their territory. It would be foolish to have an open door policy for NPC Settlement members, so I expect most PC Settlements will NBSI them. I don't know when or if we'll have systems granular enough to let a Settlement set an individual character to NRDS but even after we do, I suspect you'll have problems negotiating one on one with very many locations. The map, for you, will be a small circle of green safe territory around your NPC Settlement, surrounded by an ocean of red where you'll risk being ganked if you venture forth, without allies, and without any means of meaningful self defense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GW is building the mechanics of how the world works, conjuring the scenery and furnishing it with items. GW's design focus is necessarily on the mechanics of PvP and combat because those are things that will be possible, and they have the greatest potential for benefit as well as curse.
But the game will be ours to build. Shared. Some will do their utmost in a warlike fashion to make the world as they prefer it to be. Others will populate the world and nurture the player culture, build story and relationships and will largely be under the radar of the superpowers wrestling for dominion.
Granted, all might be swept away in fire and famine when we are caught in the tides of carnage, but we will not be gone. We will endure. We will rise again and continue the worthy cause.
The tyrants will come and go, just like in the real world. The people will remain. It is for us to craft the game of it, and together hand on our legacy to those who will follow.
It will be on us to help one another. The game design cannot do that for us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Steelwing
I have to admit it is a bit confusing and having read most of your posts it seems the farthest from your group's intended play style so would be even more confusing.
It essentially comes down to the community of players making the neutral/safe zones of PFO without it being an NPC game mechanics safe zone (something I would really rather be left to starter characters) or in the sense of it still being completely open to PVP but not a constant territorial warfare zone or NBSI area. Still PVP but the total opposite end of the spectrum from "toxic" PVP type situations.
As Vwoom mentioned, no settlement will have everything it needs and there should be plenty of options and locations for even un-allied settlements to work together effectively to fill those gaps without pointing their guns at each other in a Mexican Standoff because everyone not blue is effectively red. From your statements on this forum that is your intended way of playing (on your settlement's controlled land). I could only assume you would expect the same in anyone else's controlled lands therefore putting you into the above described scenario whenever not on your lands.
I don't have a solution to anything in regards to my PAP designs, as it will be either something we crowdforge, or that the devs build if they deem it is needed. My hope is that even if there is nothing in the game to allow for it that we as a community can build it ourselves. Maybe a settlement that is player run but built as a neutral hub. Sure you can still get Assassinated there or have a tavern brawl but it isn't NBSI. Work together even if in general you would see everyone as an enemy.
Maybe that clarifies a little but then again, it is a strange concept and I may not be communicating it very well. I have played RPGs for 25 or more years and while there are always enemies out there in them, there are so many more neutral and then the few that become allies.
Have fun with the settlement warfare, banditry and PVP options but don't make that ALL there is to a Sandbox PVP world, the only thing to think about in the game being to dominate everyone else. Makes for a very lonely world, with eventually only you in it if you play well enough. Win everything and you lose in the end because you run out of game, no competition, no one can touch you, no fun to be had. Or maybe that is fun for some but it isn't to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No settlement will have everything it needs, agreements will be the bread and butter of growth from everything I have read. Overly aggressive settlements just might fine it harder to trade for what there hex lacks.No one is saying settlements won't have agreements. I am just trying to fathom what this call for player assisting player is as it seems to me it is just a sort of weak and limited alliance type.
Most aggressive settlements btw will be looking to form multisettlement nations to ensure they can supply their own needs btw but that is irrelevant to this particular discussion
I took it as a call for a design focus. Wexel (and others such as myself), hope that at the design level, ways we the community can assist and cooperate with each other is a large consideration; This, in opposition to ways we can impede and kill each other.
I think the reason why Wexel felt the need to mention it was because 98.72% of our posts here are PvP related. He wanted to mention his desire that PvP be balanced by the tools that actual create a community, as opposed to those that just require a community.
Make sense?
Yes, I think you put it much more clearly than I did. And to further that I don't want to ruin the PVP by making EVERYONE allies to get there. No where in Pathfinder or the real world do you find an entire land fragmented and NBSI. In fact, most people will work together given the chance but larger nations have different policies and try to take each other over. Fine, I totally agree it should be in the game and be a major part, just not the only part that has meaning in the overall scheme.
@Steelwing
I have to admit it is a bit confusing and having read most of your posts it seems the farthest from your group's intended play style so would be even more confusing.
It essentially comes down to the community of players making the neutral/safe zones of PFO without it being an NPC game mechanics safe zone (something I would really rather be left to starter characters) or in the sense of it still being completely open to PVP but not a constant territorial warfare zone or NBSI area. Still PVP but the total opposite end of the spectrum from "toxic" PVP type situations.
As Vwoom mentioned, no settlement will have everything it needs and there should be plenty of options and locations for even un-allied settlements to work together effectively to fill those gaps without pointing their guns at each other in a Mexican Standoff because everyone not blue is effectively red. From your statements on this forum that is your intended way of playing (on your settlement's controlled land). I could only assume you would expect the same in anyone else's controlled lands therefore putting you into the above described scenario whenever not on your lands.
I don't have a solution to anything in regards to my PAP designs, as it will be either something we crowdforge, or that the devs build if they deem it is needed. My hope is that even if there is nothing in the game to allow for it that we as a community can build it ourselves. Maybe a settlement that is player run but built as a neutral hub. Sure you can still get Assassinated there or have a tavern brawl but it isn't NBSI. Work together even if in general you would see everyone as an enemy.
Maybe that clarifies a little but then again, it is a strange concept and I may not be communicating it very well. I have played RPGs for 25 or more years and while there are always enemies out there in them, there are so many more neutral and then the few that become allies.
Have fun with the settlement warfare, banditry and PVP options but don't make that ALL...
We will certainly be taking advantages of other people being NRDS in terms of going there if we need to. There is however no incentive that I have seen so far for us to reciprocate. There have been attempts in Eve for power blocs to go NRDS. They have generally been shortlived and resulted in loss of lands.
We certainly don't however plan on being at war with everyone all the time. I suspect most of the time most people will be grey to us. That means we won't necessarily be killing you outside our lands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wexel, I think it's already there. This isn't a PvP game--it's a Social Structure vs. Social Structure game. Those social structures require player cooperation and social behavior. There's as much explicit discussion of player cooperation in the design as there is player conflict. The farm system of having sub-contractors hold POIs for you, the economic chain of gathering, transporting, crafting and distribution, the training system, settlement management, alliances, all of this is about cooperating with other players. Even the conflict stuff is mostly about cooperation and mutuality: creating siege engines, logistics for combat, the formation system, are all about cooperation, and I'm sure there will be plenty of emergent stuff. Really assassination sounds like the only part of SSvSS that won't be explicitly cooperative between groups of players.
Of course all of this cooperation and mutual assistance is aimed at taking and holding territory, but, umm, it's a game. There has to be stakes for it to be fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Steelwing
Well, I would expect nothing less in a group like yours. The entire concept is not something that I thought or would expect your organization to be open to except to take advantage of if you can find a way. It isn't about what it can do for you but about what we can do for each other.
I am mentioning this now in the hopes that we can crowdforge and possibly have the devs add into the design a way for NRDS to be an effective and option rich choice instead of just a settlement open to being taken advantage of.
The whole premise of NBSI seems to align very well with LE Alignment and in PFO if the entire design is around that premise for PVP then LE is what the world will be no matter what your settlement's Alignment is set to.
I want other options because LE is not how the entire River Kingdoms is. Sure, some communities will be LE but would a LG or NG settlement really be NBSI? Only if that is the only game mechanic the system is programed to operate with.
Lets make a better system where all Alignments and NRDS works just as well as LE and NBSI
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wexel, I think it's already there. This isn't a PvP game--it's a Social Structure vs. Social Structure game. Those social structures require player cooperation and social behavior. There's as much explicit discussion of player cooperation in the design as there is player conflict. The farm system of having sub-contractors hold POIs for you, the economic chain of gathering, transporting, crafting and distribution, the training system, settlement management, alliances, all of this is about cooperating with other players. Even the conflict stuff is mostly about cooperation and mutuality: creating siege engines, logistics for combat, the formation system, are all about cooperation, and I'm sure there will be plenty of emergent stuff. Really assassination sounds like the only part of SSvSS that won't be explicitly cooperative between groups of players.
Of course all of this cooperation and mutual assistance is aimed at taking and holding territory, but, umm, it's a game. There has to be stakes for it to be fun.
I agree that there are a lot of ways for allies and CCs that are part of the same settlement to work together. I completely agree. It is at another level that I'm talking about. Maybe we just focus so much on the PVP settlement warfare that it all blends. I agree we need that element to have a game that is fun to play.
I just worry that it will slide into the only way to play. Every group is LE and NBSI in principals if not set that way in the game mechanics. I would wish for something more though I know not the way (and it may be more though I know it not).
@Steelwing
Well, I would expect nothing less in a group like yours. The entire concept is not something that I thought or would expect your organization to be open to except to take advantage of if you can find a way. It isn't about what it can do for you but about what we can do for each other.
I am mentioning this now in the hopes that we can crowdforge and possibly have the devs add into the design a way for NRDS to be an effective and option rich choice instead of just a settlement open to being taken advantage of.
The whole premise of NBSI seems to align very well with LE Alignment and in PFO if the entire design is around that premise for PVP LE is what the world will be not matter what your settlement's Alignment is set to.
I want other options because LE is not how the entire River Kingdoms is. Sure, some communities will be LE but would a LG or NG settlement really be NBSI? Only if that is the only game mechanic the system is programed to operate with.
Lets make a better system where all Alignments and NRDS works just as well as LE and NBSI
I am confused as to what you think I am saying. Here is a synopsis of how we operate
If we need something such as raw materials, manufactured goods we consider where we can get it and then do a simple cost benefits analysis of the methods of obtaining it. The methods being
a) Trading
b) Raiding or stealing
c) Demanding as tribute
d) Settlement warfare
We then use the most cost effective of these to obtain it. This will often but not always be trading. This however does not mean we need to open our lands up to all and sundry but is cooperation with others.
We work efficiently and we only embark on a course of action when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. We expect going to war to be as costly and enterprise in PfO as in Eve and we will be damn sure before we do so that we are aware of what we are trying to achieve.
We certainly will not be attacking people for trivial reasons such as alignment or reputation.
I would hope most settlements work the same way and do things for rational reasons.
At anyone time we are likely to be at war or raiding against some, neutral to others with some trading going on, and allied with others. The categories others are in will change as circumstances change.
Do you really think any other settlement is going to be acting that differently to this model?
Incidentally I doubt we will be LE we would probably look at being either LN or LG given current information
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Steelwing
Well, I would expect nothing less in a group like yours. The entire concept is not something that I thought or would expect your organization to be open to except to take advantage of if you can find a way. It isn't about what it can do for you but about what we can do for each other.
I am mentioning this now in the hopes that we can crowdforge and possibly have the devs add into the design a way for NRDS to be an effective and option rich choice instead of just a settlement open to being taken advantage of.
The whole premise of NBSI seems to align very well with LE Alignment and in PFO if the entire design is around that premise for PVP LE is what the world will be not matter what your settlement's Alignment is set to.
I want other options because LE is not how the entire River Kingdoms is. Sure, some communities will be LE but would a LG or NG settlement really be NBSI? Only if that is the only game mechanic the system is programed to operate with.
Lets make a better system where all Alignments and NRDS works just as well as LE and NBSI
I am confused as to what you think I am saying. Here is a synopsis of how we operate
If we need something such as raw materials, manufactured goods we consider where we can get it and then do a simple cost benefits analysis of the methods of obtaining it. The methods being
a) Trading
b) Raiding or stealing
c) Demanding as tribute
d) Settlement warfareWe then use the most cost effective of these to obtain it. This will often but not always be trading. This however does not mean we need to open our lands up to all and sundry but is cooperation with others.
You forgot harvesting and other methods of production. You have to produce something in order to trade for anything, even if what you produce is coin.
You forgot harvesting and other methods of production. You have to produce something in order to trade for anything, even if what you produce is coin.@Steelwing
Well, I would expect nothing less in a group like yours. The entire concept is not something that I thought or would expect your organization to be open to except to take advantage of if you can find a way. It isn't about what it can do for you but about what we can do for each other.
I am mentioning this now in the hopes that we can crowdforge and possibly have the devs add into the design a way for NRDS to be an effective and option rich choice instead of just a settlement open to being taken advantage of.
The whole premise of NBSI seems to align very well with LE Alignment and in PFO if the entire design is around that premise for PVP LE is what the world will be not matter what your settlement's Alignment is set to.
I want other options because LE is not how the entire River Kingdoms is. Sure, some communities will be LE but would a LG or NG settlement really be NBSI? Only if that is the only game mechanic the system is programed to operate with.
Lets make a better system where all Alignments and NRDS works just as well as LE and NBSI
I am confused as to what you think I am saying. Here is a synopsis of how we operate
If we need something such as raw materials, manufactured goods we consider where we can get it and then do a simple cost benefits analysis of the methods of obtaining it. The methods being
a) Trading
b) Raiding or stealing
c) Demanding as tribute
d) Settlement warfareWe then use the most cost effective of these to obtain it. This will often but not always be trading. This however does not mean we need to open our lands up to all and sundry but is cooperation with others.
I didnt mention those because I was specifically talking about things we didnt have access to ourselves. If we can gather it we don't need to trade, raid, war for it etc.
In a previous post I had also mentioned that we considered all pve and resources in our controlled hexes to be off limits to outsiders which was one of the reasons for instituting NBSI
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look forward to at minimum pushing a policy of reciprocity with a INSI (If NBSI, Shoot It) policy.
(Seems there should be a term/name/word for making acronyms of/with acronyms?)
That is the attitude to take. This is a sandbox game. If you do not like the way we are playing the solution is in your hands. Band together and kick our butts back to the NPC settlements. This is something I fully endorse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Wexel, you brought up the idea of something neutral and I am going to assume you mean some way for players to play the game without settlement vs settlement loyalties deciding how we are going to react to each other . No way for that to happen in hexes that are claimed by a settlement but if the entire map is designed so that every hex can be claimed by some settlement that would be a huge mistake as I see it.
It is possible to limit how much land a settlement can claim so there would be buffer zones of no-mans land in between settlements where you wont be attacked rep free for trespassing. Now the POI in these no-mans land hexes will be neutral to the direct influence of settlement conflict. The type of gameplay you want could take place there , I would like part of the map to be available for gameplay that is not directly related to settlement pvp conflict but is open to other possibilities .
The whole game does not have to revolve around just settlement war but can include other reasons to have the choice to pvp or work together with people . GW could create new types of POIs that make cooperation a priority in a no-mans land hex , like a Trade Fair POI where players set up trade shops to sell things.
So depending on the map design and the placement of settlements and how much land they are allowed to own, plus the inclusion of permanent 'neutral' hexes with POIs that have reasons to use beyond
just PVP , you could see what you want without any changes to the basic game design.
I don't want to see the entire map being able to become no-trespassing. Some of the map or a lot of it being like a permanent semi-wilderness would be very cool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there are recursive acronyms like GNU (GNU's Not Unix), but I guess it'd be something like a "layered acronym."
Oh...recrusive is good...I am going to have to go with nested though. "Nested Acronym"
That is the attitude to take. This is a sandbox game. If you do not like the way we are playing the solution is in your hands. Band together and kick our butts back to the NPC settlements. This is something I fully endorse.I look forward to at minimum pushing a policy of reciprocity with a INSI (If NBSI, Shoot It) policy.
(Seems there should be a term/name/word for making acronyms of/with acronyms?)
*laugh* thanks!
Well, actually, I have seen you say very little I disagree with, I just have a different playstyle. Simply, if you intend to be killing my people as they pass in or near your land (as in the example of the claimed road), I do not intend to keep them from killing you in/near ours.
But, just so everyone knows, there is lots of talk of NBSI, but any such system will include ways to become Blue. Want to pass through someones land? Pay them for the right and promise (upon penalty of death and Blue revocation) that you will not touch their resources. Make a friend, have him broker a deal...forget friends, just give someone a good deal a few times then repeat. Social interaction, the options are limitless. No peoples in The River Kingdoms are an island.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Wexel, you brought up the idea of something neutral and I am going to assume you mean some way for players to play the game without settlement vs settlement loyalties deciding how we are going to react to each other . No way for that to happen in hexes that are claimed by a settlement but if the entire map is designed so that every hex can be claimed by some settlement that would be a huge mistake as I see it.
It is possible to limit how much land a settlement can claim so there would be buffer zones of no-mans land in between settlements where you wont be attacked rep free for trespassing. Now the POI in these no-mans land hexes will be neutral to the direct influence of settlement conflict. The type of gameplay you want could take place there , I would like part of the map to be available for gameplay that is not directly related to settlement pvp conflict but is open to other possibilities .
The whole game does not have to revolve around just settlement war but can include other reasons to have the choice to pvp or work together with people . GW could create new types of POIs that make cooperation a priority in a no-mans land hex , like a Trade Fair POI where players set up trade shops to sell things.
So depending on the map design and the placement of settlements and how much land they are allowed to own, plus the inclusion of permanent 'neutral' hexes with POIs that have reasons to use beyond
just PVP , you could see what you want without any changes to the basic game design.I don't want to see the entire map being able to become no-trespassing. Some of the map or a lot of it being like a permanent semi-wilderness would be very cool.
I think this has real merit! I honestly am completely fine with Steelwing's view of how his settlement should run as well as how they he feels others should run that way too. I'm just looking for something outside of that and the direction you are going with this is a solution that could work.
The neutral ground between settlement controlled areas being area that players can create POIs that are not associated with settlement warfare but with other activities. That Trader's post or Inn along the road, the Bandit's hideout, the temple to a foreign God, Crafting fairs or anything we can dream up and get GW to implement. I know these would get raided unless all involved parties were backed by powers you don't want to cross or are friends with or there is a game mechanic to make them work an another way.
To me this is working in the direction I was thinking of. I hope there are more ideas like this.
Well, there are recursive acronyms like GNU (GNU's Not Unix), but I guess it'd be something like a "layered acronym."Oh...recrusive is good...I am going to have to go with nested though. "Nested Acronym"
That is the attitude to take. This is a sandbox game. If you do not like the way we are playing the solution is in your hands. Band together and kick our butts back to the NPC settlements. This is something I fully endorse.I look forward to at minimum pushing a policy of reciprocity with a INSI (If NBSI, Shoot It) policy.
(Seems there should be a term/name/word for making acronyms of/with acronyms?)
*laugh* thanks!
Well, actually, I have seen you say very little I disagree with, I just have a different playstyle. Simply, if you intend to be killing my people as they pass in or near your land (as in the example of the claimed road), I do not intend to keep them from killing you in/near ours.
But, just so everyone knows, there is lots of talk of NBSI, but any such system will include ways to become Blue. Want to pass through someones land? Pay them for the right and promise (upon penalty of death and Blue revocation) that you will not touch their resources. Make a friend, have him broker a deal...forget friends, just give someone a good deal a few times then repeat. Social interaction, the options are limitless. No peoples in The River Kingdoms are an island.
We will certainly be open to making useful groups blue. We are not unapproachable and if a merchant came to us and said I can supply this every week and it is a good deal we would agree a mutual price and put him on the blue list.
Blues are not necessarily just people in our nation by any means. We just don't intend letting unknown randoms into our lands on a regular basis
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Steelwing
I feel that a policy of NBSI is always LE unless it isn't truly NBSI and is simply determine if said party will become Blue, can work out a deal, comes in peace and so forth and if this fails then shoot it.
I have never heard of any Pathfinder city that was LG or LN and if they saw a merchant caravan coming to their gates they weren't familiar with, would send out the guard to for all intents and purposes murder and rob them. This is a LE action, it is not neutral or good even if there is a law about it.
I may not fully understand how NBSI works in EVE but by the sound of it there is no warning or communication, just annihilation, shoot first and ask no questions later. Please feel free to educated me be if that is not the case.
If that is the case I would feel a LG community would slide towards LE and arrive there promptly. If that isn't built into the game and being LG means just being Lawful and forget the Good bit then alignment has lost its meaning and is just a game mechanic for you to use as efficiently as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We will certainly be open to making useful groups blue. We are not unapproachable and if a merchant came to us and said I can supply this every week and it is a good deal we would agree a mutual price and put him on the blue list.
Blues are not necessarily just people in our nation by any means. We just don't intend letting unknown randoms into our lands on a regular basis
And for those who do not want to make friends, NBSI territory is also easily passable if no one can see you, catch you, or...beat you. Make it too expensive financially/resource-wise to stop you and they will not try.
@Wexel, very true...we will just have to see how it all balances out (and sorry for the semi-off-topic waylay)
@Steelwing
I feel that a policy of NBSI is always LE unless it isn't truly NBSI and is simply determine if said party will become Blue, can work out a deal, comes in peace and so forth and if this fails then shoot it.
I have never heard of any Pathfinder city that was LG or LN and if they saw a merchant caravan coming to their gates they weren't familiar with, would send out the guard to for all intents and purposes murder and rob them. This is a LE action, it is not neutral or good even if there is a law about it.
I may not fully understand how NBSI works in EVE but by the sound of it there is no warning or communication, just annihilation, shoot first and ask no questions later. Please feel free to educated me be if that is not the case.
If that is the case I would feel a LG community would slide towards LE and arrive there promptly. If that isn't built into the game and being LG means just being Lawful and forget the Good bit then alignment has lost mean and is just a game mechanic for you to use as efficiently as possible.
An NBSI settlement for all intents and purposes is one which says no foreigners allowed except for those with proper paperwork. People sneaking over the border despite knowing this suffer the full effect of the law (in this case execution). There is nothing intrinsically evil about that because people know the risk when they cross the border. They are immediately flagged as criminal because they are now law breakers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An NBSI settlement for all intents and purposes is one which says no foreigners allowed except for those with proper paperwork. People sneaking over the border despite knowing this suffer the full effect of the law (in this case execution). There is nothing intrinsically evil about that because people know the risk when they cross the border. They are immediately flagged as criminal because they are now law breakers.
I still feel that this action is Evil even if Lawful. It is a lack of care for life, circumstances or having compassion. Making someone a criminal because they came on your land and having the penalty be death is a valid game mechanic and completely lawful. If that is the law of the land then that land is ruled by evil even though pragmatic and what the game may enforce as LG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An NBSI settlement for all intents and purposes is one which says no foreigners allowed except for those with proper paperwork. People sneaking over the border despite knowing this suffer the full effect of the law (in this case execution). There is nothing intrinsically evil about that because people know the risk when they cross the border. They are immediately flagged as criminal because they are now law breakers.
I still feel that this action is Evil even if Lawful. It is a lack of care for life, circumstances or having compassion. Making someone a criminal because they came on your land and having the penalty be death is a valid game mechanic and completely lawful. If that is the law of the land then that land is ruled by evil even though pragmatic and what the game may enforce as LG.
I believe Lothlorien famously had such a law which they breached for the fellowship. Perhaps Galadriel was more evil than she appeared?
The assembly city in the janny wurts daughter of empire series also had such a rule as did the mages of chakaha (probably mispelt). I am unconvinced they were lawful evil.
Asking for no visitors is not inherently evil and even less so when your options are limited to either ignore or kill as they are in a game like this. If we were able to capture and expel you might have a point but we arent
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fult would expect, to achieve PAP, that settlements could not reach the highest levels in time of war.
Fult thinks only at peace time, there should be opportunities to develop cultural institutions, or to access specific knowledge. Culture can be a nice incentive to prefer peace. Ask any bard ! Players doing only PVP would limit the growth of their settlements accordingly.
Good idea Steelwing! We need more mechanics to handle intruders without killing them. Then we could have a major distinction between a legitimately LG and LE playstyle for the macro game.
Players in the west have never liked the thought of losing control of their characters however, even when it is only a 10 second CC let alone being arrested and transported to a border for release. While it might be a solution to NBSI killing I suspect it would raise howls from those detained
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Lawful Good settlement will most likely not suffer any alignment hits due to an NBSI policy, because it would just be called "Trespassing". We already know that the Dev plans for settlements is that Lawful settlements will have a lot of laws, compared to Neutrals or Chaotics.
Since the punishment for violating any law in PFO is death, it is unlikely that this disconnect would unfairly impact Lawful Goods. Then again, alignment is being used as a mechanic and not in a traditional use like in TT.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, what other ways can we remove people from the borders besides killing them?
A teleport to the edge of the territory seems like it would be fairly useless; they could just run right back in with no problems.
A teleport back to their bound spawn location might work better; the key difference between a "detaining teleport" and killing the trespasser being that the teleport wouldn't result in their stuff being taken. These are the types of tradeoffs I hope to see people facing when choosing their group's alignment; the benefits of highest-tier training and facilities (as a Good group) versus the benefits of slaves, undead, looting trespassers, and whatever else Evil would get.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ehhh, if you have a NBSI policy just kill the characters. I think any type of non lethal carrying people away type of mechanic isnt worth the time it would take to create it.
The only thing thats interesting would be how do you let someone know who is NBSI and people who are not. Perhaps when you enter the territory you get a message that says "This settlement is controlled by Us, Unless you have been cleared you will be killed on sight (NBSI has been declared in this hex)."
but then you might still get away with it since they still have to see you trespass then come after you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Pax Shane and Leperkhaun
I think for LE settlements you could just kill the characters but for LG and LN you need a mechanic. As Pax Shane described, so way to get them off your land. This wasn't the intent of this thread but having a similar system to SAD but for settlements, a Cease and Desist (CAD) where you could request papers, contracts, tolls or taxes and allow possibly a temporary (timed) blue status to get their business done or could even assign an NPC guard to escort the trespasser off your territory if that was the end result of the Cease and Desist. If they break the deal, they lose Rep, get an alignment hit and the guard(s) get to kill them and loot to bank or whoever issued the CAD. No magic teleport, no taking control of someone else's character, but you still have the option of killing or extracting resources, controlling your territory and don't just have the option of kill or ignore.
I'm pretty sure this has been suggested before and could just be an extension of the SAD system or even just further options of the SAD system. It could even extend into a Assist and Defend system for proactive assistance to others even if not directly involved with a fight giving others the option for a short term alliance to pick a side and jump in without getting flagged as a criminal or something similar.
I think that if a SAD system is valuable then a non-lethal carry people away type of mechanic can be worth the time to create it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
As things stand right now I agree that there would be no hit as Alignment isn't Alignment but a rules mechanic and this type of activity is following those rules.
I am hoping that Alignment isn't just rules/laws and the only sentence death for breaking them. Maybe we could have a "Pay the fine and get the hell out of my town" with PC or NPC enforcers option as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@leperkhaun, declaring NBSI and declaring a law against trespassing could be separate things, which is what I was suggesting. The reasons are mainly as follows:
1. It seems odd that the Good guys should kill anyone who enters their claimed territory and remain Good. Good people simply don't kill strangers without asking questions.
2. Mechanically, it could serve as one of the examples of Evil getting more flexibility than Good, in that an Evil settlement could simply declare NBSI and kill all intruders where a Good settlement couldn't. I believe the original idea was that LG gets the best training to compensate for the fact that playing LG requires a much more limited set of player actions; this would be only one example of limits on player actions to balance that equation. LG would still be the most mechanically powerful 1v1, but this is one example where an Evil settlement makes up for lower individual power with a wider range of options.
3. This wouldn't take hardly any time to implement: give Good guardspeople some ability to mark Criminals which makes it so they don't leave a corpse on death (or let the settlement have a toggle which makes any guardsperson kill on specific types of Criminals result in no corpse). Just make sure that they can only use it in their own territory while assigned as a guardsperson, and it should be fairly good to go. The Criminal affected would probably be "detained" rather than killed; maybe not have a death animation, but instead some other animation.
As for your second question, a settlement which declares a law against trespassing would mark you with the Criminal flag once you were trespassing. I assume the Criminal flag would let you know how you got the flag, and you would have the option of turning back around and dropping the flag by leaving the territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
honestly i think this could be a point between going good/neutral vs evil.
Are you LG, then NBSI will be very difficult for you to enforce unless they step inside your actual settlement unless you want to put alignment/rep on the line. If you are NE then there isnt an issue.
I would like to see criminal flag for mining/gathering on a protected hex, but not for just walking on it.
I dont think npcs should do anything outside the settlement.
a CAD could work I suppose instead. They have 5 minutes to get off the land then they are flagged and free to kill.
I have played RPGs for 25 or more years and while there are always enemies out there in them, there are so many more neutral and then the few that become allies.
Have fun with the settlement warfare, banditry and PVP options but don't make that ALL there is to a Sandbox PVP world, the only thing to think about in the game being to dominate everyone else. Makes for a very lonely world, with eventually only you in it if you play well enough. Win everything and you lose in the end because you run out of game, no competition, no one can touch you, no fun to be had. Or maybe that is fun for some but it isn't to me.
PFO is not and never will be a virtual representation of the PnP game,(i wish it would be but...), Its a PvP Settement building game that happens to be set in the pathfinder world. Thats about as PnP "Pathfinder" as it gets.
Embrace the game as it will be, not as it could be.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have played RPGs for 25 or more years and while there are always enemies out there in them, there are so many more neutral and then the few that become allies.
Have fun with the settlement warfare, banditry and PVP options but don't make that ALL there is to a Sandbox PVP world, the only thing to think about in the game being to dominate everyone else. Makes for a very lonely world, with eventually only you in it if you play well enough. Win everything and you lose in the end because you run out of game, no competition, no one can touch you, no fun to be had. Or maybe that is fun for some but it isn't to me.
PFO is not and never will be a virtual representation of the PnP game,(i wish it would be but...), Its a PvP Settement building game that happens to be set in the pathfinder world. Thats about as PnP "Pathfinder" as it gets.
Embrace the game as it will be, not as it could be.
I will and do even now. I just hope that we can give a plethora of options in other areas as well. Settlement building is great, settlement warfare will be a lot of fun. The social interaction will also be great. I don't expect the PnP game (though I too wish it could be) but I truly hope for a lot of the feel of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will and do even now. I just hope that we can give a plethora of options in other areas as well. Settlement building is great, settlement warfare will be a lot of fun. The social interaction will also be great. I don't expect the PnP game (though I too wish it could be) but I truly hope for a lot of the feel of it.
settlements, taking control of them and keeping them is one of the main themes of the game.
There will be groups like steelwing, however there will be groups not like his. i dont think the game will have a PnP TT feel, only because i dont think its possible to deliver on something like that, heck to me ESO hasnt delivered the feel of the elder scrolls games and that was a much closer conversion.
The other thing is that while there will be some themepark elements this game isnt being built to be a themepark.
in general sandbox games go; Here is your character, here are the things you can do, then they shove you out into the world and tell you go. the result is that i would highly doubt (at least until much much later into development) that there will be things like epic quests and such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFO is not and never will be a virtual representation of the PnP game,(i wish it would be but...), Its a PvP Settement building game that happens to be set in the pathfinder world. Thats about as PnP "Pathfinder" as it gets.
Embrace the game as it will be, not as it could be.
I really think this misses the mark. GW may well be building a settlement warfare PvP system within the Golarion setting, but that is not all the game is about. Believe it is and you are playing right into the hand of the PvP enthusiast.
It is a sandbox game. We can make it be the game we want it to be if only we will do our part and play our game rather than only playing the Eve game as the Eve players insist will be the ONLY way to play it.
And they will try and ensure it is the only way you can play. They will attempt to lure you in, to draw you into their game, or they will attempt to force their game on you and at times it will be unavoidable. But we don't have to abandon our game just because they showed up to play Eve in PFO with all their presumptions.
Try and think for yourself. Then popularize your ideas and sway the rest of Golarion. Sandbox game, not Eve in Golarion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Being ,good points. All the recent forum talk about settlement warfare is not very relevant to what we will be doing as players in EE. I mean there will be about 18 months of gameplay before settlement warfare is implemented, so the realty of settlement conflict will be built on top of what we all will do for 18 months in the game. In 18 months the community will develop based on what we do with the tools we have and PFO will have its own established community standards way before settlement conflict begins.
Anyway I find it a bit odd that a lot of forum talk seems to imply settlement warfare is relevant to what we will be doing but we wont be doing settlement warfare for a long time after EE begins. All the rules and influences from settlement vs settlement war are really a long way into the future and don't matter at all for day one of EE until about a year later. So what we think about it will be quite different when it gets close to the time for it.
It would help if we had a better idea of what we will be able to do on day one of EE and some idea of what and when things will be added, but we do know settlement war is way in the future and crowdforging shouldn't skip ahead of one years worth of game development, what we know after a year of EE will make a huge difference.
So we have about 18 months of game time where settlement warfare has no influence on what we will do, other than competition that doesn't include all out war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
EE will be crowded, competitive, and bloody. The Dawn of the World. The Age of Chaos.
It is true that settlement politics and strategies will not be very relevant for some time, but group dynamics will be very important. The groups that work together will be at an advantage then, just as they will later. I don't believe that there will be anywhere that you can go where others will not show up.
It will likely be a long period (18 months+) and the most successful of us will either be well versed at PVP or well versed in cooperative grouping by the end.
It is a good thing.