Goblin Squad Member
|
So while I was tinkering around in a different alpha level game I was thinking about Charlie George's point about who leads and my reply, which seems pretty sensible to me, that the commander of the largest friendly force should lead. It seems like a decent enough beginning but could stand some refinement.
Thinking of a meeting engagement.
Say Pax takes the field with seven companies. Crimson Wing adds maybe two, TEO has six. T7V has three. We arrive timely to someone's SOS. Across the battlefield looms our opponents with twenty companies in good order and who-knows-what reinforcements on the way. We expect reinforcements as soon as people can log in.
So because he has the most troops we set Charlie George as overall field commander. But say Andius is a possible contender (lets say TEO has some more companies incoming but they may not arrive before battle is joined).
I'd say that was an instance where we should do the lottery decision between the two. Now, if Charlie George and Andius alone are in contention the lottery is a fair mechanism. CG would likely choose a number out of 101 that would give him greatest likelihood of winning. Andius would surely take the next higher or lower.
A problem arises where there is a third contender. Two could bracket the first chooser. Unless the first man choosing hits the number right on the money they could lock out his chances. So the lottery method will probably only work between two potential commanders at any one time.
Once the battle is joined more companies entering the field should not alter command until the battle is over. This is simply for the sake of clarity in command.
Command is usually kept simple where the top commander issues his orders to a next tier of commanders. Each of those would likely have able commanders under them. So CG commands the alliance and then the captains in turn command their lieutenants and troops to accomplish the mission objectives.
I would expect that kind of hierarchical model should hold on the battlefields of PFO as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So while I was tinkering around in a different alpha level game I was thinking about Charlie George's point about who leads and my reply, which seems pretty sensible to me, that the commander of the largest friendly force should lead. It seems like a decent enough beginning but could stand some refinement.
Thinking of a meeting engagement.
Say Pax takes the field with seven companies. Crimson Wing adds maybe two, TEO has six. T7V has three. We arrive timely to someone's SOS. Across the battlefield looms our opponents with twenty companies in good order and who-knows-what reinforcements on the way. We expect reinforcements as soon as people can log in.
So because he has the most troops we set Charlie George as overall field commander. But say Andius is a possible contender (lets say TEO has some more companies incoming but they may not arrive before battle is joined).
I'd say that was an instance where we should do the lottery decision between the two. Now, if Charlie George and Andius alone are in contention the lottery is a fair mechanism. CG would likely choose a number out of 101 that would give him greatest likelihood of winning. Andius would surely take the next higher or lower.
A problem arises where there is a third contender. Two could bracket the first chooser. Unless the first man choosing hits the number right on the money they could lock out his chances. So the lottery method will probably only work between two potential commanders at any one time.
Once the battle is joined more companies entering the field should not alter command until the battle is over. This is simply for the sake of clarity in command.
Command is usually kept simple where the top commander issues his orders to a next tier of commanders. Each of those would likely have able commanders under them. So CG commands the alliance and then the captains in turn command their lieutenants and troops to accomplish the mission objectives.
I would expect that kind of hierarchical model should hold on the...
I would say that other factors will need to be considered over time. Let us say that this is the 7th such engagement. Charlie George has proven himself in 5 of the attempts, but Andius only led 2. The numbers come in close enough for the lottery-style assessment, but at this point we have a fairly proven leader in Charlie. I would rather go with the more experienced leader in a close call situation. For if they have successfully led such defenses in the past, they have already proven ability to work well with the other participating companies.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If the battle is being fought mostly with characters on the server, then my reason for involvement will NOT be that "We want a well-populated multiplayer RPG where PVP is well considered and provided for, and which can ultimately be expressed in the final arbiter War."
For any battle taking place on the server, the battle for the game to exist and not suck has already been decided.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being
I know your scenario was just an example, but in case someone takes it as not I want to vehemently advocate that I don't lead any military forces.
Right now I don't have the necessary experience. I am an administrative person with little experience in large scale pvp battles. I won't be leading Pax forces, or Aeternum forces.
My experience is in building structure, rebuilding structure with new information, or keeping dialogues and initiatives moving.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There has to be an option for a commander to defer his authority if another is going to do a better job. The most significant thing will be to settle on command structure quickly and without turning the whole thing into a political Fustercluck.
I think that is a reasonable and smart position.
Regardless of how I feel about the premise, or Pax's official position, there does need to be groups coming together from now and unto the future.
As long as you guys can agree to some degree of structure, the idea might actually be a decent start at least.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's kind of hard for me to figure what it is you want, so if I got it wrong ,correct me please. You talk about how it is 'our' game and they are aliens so we will have to unite to fight them, kind of vague about who is us and who is them, I mean if they buy the game and subscribe it is their game too.
If what you are getting at with this is a way for independent settlements to exist long term in PFO , in the face of groups who have say 5-10 settlements or more ,all under one leadership ,then game mechanics that allow that is better than out of game agreements.
If what you want is a confederation of independently governed settlements ,then what about that being an in-game diplomacy choice that has advantages that allow it to compete with other kingdoms. The details can be worked out by GW if there is support for the option of wanting to be independent as a settlement, but with a mutual defense arrangement with other independents.
There would have to disadvantages , like no protection from others in the confederation who fight each other and no help if a single outside settlement attacks you. But I think the game structure "should" support remaining independent , except for being part of a loose defensive confederation so you can survive and play the game your own way. So as a type of kingdom we could choose a confederation that would mean all members are at war with any attacker of a member but as far as internal relations it would be as if there is no alliance, your neighbor in the confederation can attack you. Big advantage for one kind of threat but you are still like an independent settlement that can be attacked.
So unless I am wrong about what you want to do ,GW could just add a diplomacy option that allows for your play-style to survive rather easily. Myself, I kind of cringe at the idea of everything becoming big alliances that oppose each other , a kind of barbarian tribe confederation with lots of possible in-fighting and no mutual defense except against more that one enemy settlement would allow for more varied game play that many might be interested in as possible in the long term . The big groups can fight each other or take on a confederation, they could have an allowed size that makes them competitive with the kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like clansmen who fight among themselves, but when interlopers arrive from the flatlands and decide they own all the decent bottomland we present a united front until they are gone and we can get back to our scotch and wrestling.
Actually I think the 'them' is any bully outfit that will not let the rest of us players have fun playing but is too strong for any one of us to take down a peg or two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just exactly what are we afraid of here? A large swarm of Open Enrollment Goons? I know that many are concerned about the relatively level power curve that is supposed to be present in-game-that a bunch of organized bozos can quickly train enough combat skill, don some inexpensive gear and then, I guess, overwhelm us with numbers. What happens when we hit 'em with 'relatively level' fireballs? They quickly train fire resistance? What happens when we heal ourselves? They quickly train to do the same? We'll have settlements, fortresses and watch towers already in place. They'll quickly train siege weapon expertise? This is not EVE, a bunch of crappy ships can't permanently destroy an expensive capital vessel; they can respawn to rejoin the fight but so can we.
Instead, if the worry is large well organized groups importing and playing the settlement/player nation/alliance/warfare game, complete with out of game communication, isn't that Pathfinder Online? The formational combat as described so far for PFO is a rather novel idea; that some army is going to suddenly show up and whip, say, Golgotha? I just don't see it. If there is a proposal to put aside differences and unite to destroy any entity that's going to ruin everybody's fun I'm all for it, just don't pretend that any commitment to answer such an SOS in force is anything less than an actual alliance. I also think it's a little early to be deciding who's going to play Leonidas.
And finally, I'm not scared of any invader. If they're dumb enough to stumble upon the Temple to our Dark Lord they'll regret it.-Sepherum
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there is a proposal to put aside differences and unite to destroy any entity that's going to ruin everybody's fun I'm all for it, just don't pretend that any commitment to answer such an SOS in force is anything less than an actual alliance.
That is what this is about. Nothing else. If some organization somehow sets out to ruin the game for the rest of us they must be resisted and overthrown. If an outfit is working within the game using it as it was designed to be played then it isn't a situation where this emergency league is merited. But if they play the game in a fashion that violates the mechanics of the game making it meaningless and futile then we may have cause to join together temporarily until the emergency is past.
Agreeing on a method to decide the command structure against such an eventuality is prudent. Agreeing to the principle before it is needed is timely. It would be best if we could also identify how we can distinguish 'game-breaking' practices, but those characteristics have been difficult to clearly identify.
Just playing the game better than the rest of us shouldn't constitute 'game-breaking' activity. But just because we can't yet foresee how it would be done does not mean it cannot be done.
In fact the closest I have imagined to a game-breaking organizational behavior was suggested by a recent arrival to the forums who announced his organization intended to interdict any and all 'trespassers' in hexes his settlements cannot directly control. If his organization gained position in a ring around all established settlements, preventing even trade or refugees from reaching the frontiers it would essentially trap everyone in the center unless they united to overthrow him and deny his ability to project power into non-settlement hexes.
Do I think that is a possible condition? I can imagine it happening someday. He would have a monopoly on the entire frontier while keeping everyone else bottled up, resource-starved with no where to go and no way to get there.
If I can imagine one case there will be others. The topic is not talking about ascendant gameplay. It is about game-breaking play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Establishing a common place for communication between the "Forces of Good" isn't a bad idea though, Being. Even if it might take more than that before one huge Alliance is made, at least it is a place to discuss the world and it's troubles.
This would of course rely on the fact that "evil" organizations actually roll L/N/C Evil settlements. If not then who would be responsible for deciding who gains access to it or not.
Steelwings suggestions are good though. Start with smaller groups and look at the possibility of joining your settlement to an Alliance.
Smaller groups like the Blockade removers etc would provide good training and testing of such a system.
Either way...getting all the Good Settlements to work together if a rising Evil force is brewing would demand that a place for communication was already in place.
And that is why I am supportive of your suggestion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Absolutely, JayBrand. We need our communications.
That was one of my early thoughts too, and a good one. The problem I ran into on that path, and maybe you can see a solution that I didn't, is that anyone setting up such a site or medium would also be a player and could be unscrupulous, weak before temptation, biased, or buyable. That pretty much leaves the forums unless everyone exchanged email addresses or some such, and that latter has its own set of problems.
As to Steelwing, as spiteful and arrogant as he or she seems, his input is invaluable. Were I to fully describe my sentiments about him... I'd better not. But I suspect his, mmm, characteristics are moderate compared to some who will join us in OE.
~edit~ I saw your suggestion in the other thread of an /SOS channel: seems like a good idea to me, but I suspect most of the traffic there would not really be about the level of problem that would prompt formation of emergency alliance. Still for a settlement to try and establish some degree of safety nearby for travelers, harvesters, refugees and similar it seems a very useful tool. It would help greatly if an SOS included understandable coordinates or nearby landmarks any first responders could recognize.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Large scale settlement vs. world conflict may very well not be possible until 18+ months into EE or the start of OE, whichever is first.
From day one of EE, coordinated denial of wild/road hexes to anyone WILL be possible. Some of the organizations here (already) are quite large enough to achieve that if they wish.
IMO, a good first step will be for the medium and/or smaller orgs. to band together (for at least EE) with some NRDS and mutual defense/protection. See and experience what it is like to work together in the loosest and most basic structures possible. See who you actually like to work with and who you can actually trust a bit to have your back while you have theirs.
Build some camaraderie in this early EE stage that will serve you well as things grow more complex. Then the agreements will grow organically and be much more acceptable to those that guard their authority and positions with vigor at this early stage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO, a good first step will be for the medium and/or smaller orgs. to band together (for at least EE) with some NRDS and mutual defense/protection. See and experience what it is like to work together in the loosest and most basic structures possible. See who you actually like to work with and who you can actually trust a bit to have your back while you have theirs.
Build some camaraderie in this early EE stage that will serve you well as things grow more complex. Then the agreements will grow organically and be much more acceptable to those that guard their authority and positions with vigor at this early stage.
Buildng from that, f custom chat channels are possible, simply creating a "good aligned group" channel for the good-aligned organzations to use (consistently) for communication or for organizing cross-organization parties would be a good first step in getting to know each other and organizing cross-company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
~edit~ I saw your suggestion in the other thread of an /SOS channel: seems like a good idea to me, but I suspect most of the traffic there would not really be about the level of problem that would prompt formation of emergency alliance. Still for a settlement to try and establish some degree of safety nearby for travelers, harvesters, refugees and similar it seems a very useful tool. It would help greatly if an SOS included understandable coordinates or nearby landmarks any first responders could recognize.
Lost a long post I had written so gonna keep this short:
/SOS was mainly meant to be a source of aid for small events like bandits, monsters, and others. This was suggested because I don't want a General Chat. How to get a /SOS accepted Lore-wise? Hmmm...messenger pigeons/ravens/sparrows? The inert SpiderSense of anyone flagged as Enforcer?
If the leaders of the top Nations and any Independents interested could sit down and agree up what sort of behavior that would directly contradict GW's intention and vision of a healthy player environment, then all that would be required of them was
1. Write a proclamation detailing this.
2. Ensure that each leader has a way of contacting the others (Custom Chat Channel, group-PMs etc)
3. Upon leadership change the new leader of a group would have to be introduced and sign the proclamation.
4. Wait for the Bat-Signal 5 years from now.
5. Oh, and decide on a snazzy name for them.
I vote for Joint Effort For Future.....or JEFF for short.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's not assume the alignment of any game-wide dominating player nation just yet. Such a force could be LN or even Lawful Good, using the mechanical advantages of same to build the structures required to control roads and resources. They could declare a crusade against the World Wound and then announce to the smaller settlements 'You're either with us or against us'. This would give them roleplay/alignment cover to cut off our freedom to play the game in the ways we wish. Making sweeping laws could give them reputation cover as well. You might need the willing, evil participants of a temporary alliance to do their part to combat such a Power, each component completing missions according to their particular specialty. And I still think openly discussing a command structure this early opens up a coalition to subterfuge-witness, already on these boards we've had people announce possibly allying with such a Power or fighting for them as mercenaries. We don't know enough about the mass combat system to determine who has the skill and experience to lead; last I heard, mass combat was going to be a coordinated, rhythymic effort to stay in formation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth...
I very strongly favor systems with bright-line definitions. When determining whom I would want such an alliance to oppose, I'm currently leaning towards "any organization which attempts to enforce a Not-Blue-Shoot-It policy in the area of the game where new players are likely to first venture away from the safety of the NPC Settlements". Obviously, there's some firming up of that definition that would happen once we know how the map is laid out and how we can determine into which areas new players are likely to first venture. It seems very likely that this definition might need to be limited to the areas around one particular NPC Settlement instead of all three.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be more clear, I do not think that Being's idea is not a good one or does not have merit. It is obvious that what he sees is possible (from what we know so far) and that it would be a terrible infringement on what will make the game enjoyable for the player that is less concerned with the political game.
Making a general plan for such an eventuality would be very prudent. The first obstacle that I see to it is getting everyone on the same page as to when it would be necessary to enact said plan. At what point does this "large group" cross the line? Obviously few organized groups will be willing to give up the strategic value that they can get by exerting control over important hexes.
The second is getting all of these "Dogs of War" to agree on leadership of such an endeavor. Especially at this point, when we know so little about the future and everyone is still interested in their autonomy and their group's personal vision.
While it is good and important to prepare for the future, I think that this (even though important and of merit) is premature. There is a "future" that is much closer than the one feared, to consider.
It is EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the battle is being fought mostly with characters on the server, then my reason for involvement will NOT be that "We want a well-populated multiplayer RPG where PVP is well considered and provided for, and which can ultimately be expressed in the final arbiter War."
For any battle taking place on the server, the battle for the game to exist and not suck has already been decided.
Huh?
Has something been decided already?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you join together and fight some big group that tries to dominate the game world in a way you find unacceptable, sounds fine so far, but then what? The big group wont go away , they will still be there , so you have put yourselves in the position of using force to dominate the game. One big battle wont settle it or even one war, it will be an ongoing fight. If you start out on the path to dictate to 'troublemakers' what they can't do, even for 'good' reasons , you are stuck in that position. If you don't want to police the world your defense alliance will break up when it becomes your new role.
You cant just form an army and smite them good and then everything will be different, they will remain and do what they have done again that caused you to go to war with them. Once you have used force , you put all settlements in the position of needing your permission to do something. Nothing wrong with wanting to dominate the world and make it a better place , except it never works out that way. The only way you can make this work is to destroy them over and over or become their ruler and tell them how to behave , or else.
Unless all members are in one piece of the map and you defend it, and the rest of the world can do what they want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the battle is being fought mostly with characters on the server...
For any battle taking place on the server, the battle for the game to exist and not suck has already been decided.
Huh?
Has something been decided already?
I believe Decius is making the point that if we're fighting battles on the server with our characters, then that in itself is proof that we already have "a well-populated multiplayer RPG where PVP is well considered and provided for, and which can ultimately be expressed in the final arbiter War".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You will end up with the Battle of Five Armies scenario. So once the "Outsider Horde" has been destroyed, time will come to divide up the spoils of war.
LOL.... That will turn out good!
I predict almost immediate fracture and hostility will break out. Chaos will reign, and new opportunities will rise up.
Then of course there is the possibility that your siege fails, and then the sparks will really fly!!!
Meanwhile, with all of the major powers having their armies off fighting in foreign lands, their outposts and POIs will be left unattended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Notmyrealname, thus my desire to have bright-line definitions. I would very strongly resist any alliance whose stated purpose was to "impose our will". But I would gladly join an alliance whose purpose is to "ensure that new players' first experiences outside of NPS Settlements is not being slaughtered by NBSI Settlements".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You will end up with the Battle of Five Armies scenario. So once the "Outsider Horde" has been destroyed, time will come to divide up the spoils of war.
LOL.... That will turn out good!
I predict almost immediate fracture and hostility will break out. Chaos will reign, and new opportunities will rise up.
Then of course there is the possibility that your siege fails, and then the sparks will really fly!!!
Meanwhile, with all of the major powers having their armies off fighting in foreign lands, their outposts and POIs will be left unattended.
Personally, if the malefactor's force has been knocked down for the count, then I'm good with all the rest of what you describe.
It should be expected from the very start that this is what will happen, we will surely turn on ourselves if we see each other weakened by battle. If we do battle while knowing this will happen, the enemy we ally against will enjoy the advantage of knowing every power will be considering the position they want to have, and the forces that will remain after the battle.
Everyone will want a mobile rez point on the field to ensure they are not overly weakened.
Or it could be that part of the agreement should include a cooling off period after the battle just to let everyone involved recover... but I don't know that such a provision will ever really be a viable recourse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you join together and fight some big group that tries to dominate the game world in a way you find unacceptable, sounds fine so far, but then what? The big group wont go away , they will still be there , so you have put yourselves in the position of using force to dominate the game. One big battle wont settle it or even one war, it will be an ongoing fight. If you start out on the path to dictate to 'troublemakers' what they can't do, even for 'good' reasons , you are stuck in that position. If you don't want to police the world your defense alliance will break up when it becomes your new role.
You cant just form an army and smite them good and then everything will be different, they will remain and do what they have done again that caused you to go to war with them. Once you have used force , you put all settlements in the position of needing your permission to do something. Nothing wrong with wanting to dominate the world and make it a better place , except it never works out that way. The only way you can make this work is to destroy them over and over or become their ruler and tell them how to behave , or else.
Unless all members are in one piece of the map and you defend it, and the rest of the world can do what they want.
Indeed, you are describing the future like one of the great prophets of the religion of WAI (working as intended). ~edit~ to clarify the object is specifically NOT put any one of us in the dominant role. The object is to demonstrate as often as necessary that anyone who does dominate to the effect of strangling or harming the game itself for everyone will be put down like a dog no matter how persistently they try. Eventually the practice should ensure that the whole constellation of political establishments will be tolerant of the little guys and careful about asserting dominance over others. It is to be the PFO community's self-moderation tool.
Anyone can go power mad. Any alignment and wherever we came from. The purpose is not self aggrandizement, it is providing for the players to ensure we can all have fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple years ago I wanted to play an online fantasy strategy wargame ,so I decided on one ane tried it. It turns out that the community decided that they don't like conquest ,so they built up huge armies and didn't allow anyone to attack a weaker opponent. It was a war game without much war because they would wipe you out if you were perceived as a bully. I think it was called Illyriad. The developers didn't see that one coming, they designed it as a war game but the community was more social and too nice to play it that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes. Since day one.For any battle taking place on the server, the battle for the game to exist and not suck has already been decided.Huh?
Has something been decided already?
The linked quote you provided is either not Germaine to the conversation or it runs against some of what you, Nihimon and or Decious have said previously.
Are you now saying the "EE us versus Them OE" is now meaningful PvP based solely on that difference?
I know in the past when I suggested that sort of stance, it was rejected as being insufficient reasoning to kill (RPKing).
I'm curious what has changed, if anything?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple years ago I wanted to play an online fantasy strategy wargame ,so I decided on one ane tried it. It turns out that the community decided that they don't like conquest ,so they built up huge armies and didn't allow anyone to attack a weaker opponent. It was a war game without much war because they would wipe you out if you were perceived as a bully. I think it was called Illyriad. The developers didn't see that one coming, they designed it as a war game but the community was more social and too nice to play it that way.
Depending on the nature of owning territory, this would also be a massively beneficial power preservation scheme. If powerhouse #4 is satisfied being powerhouse #4, then through mutual support of powerhouse #1,2, and 3 they would become unassailable. If this is true for the top X powers, they can become entrenched. At that point, the most difficult aspect is eliminating threats before they can become threats: IE - anyone aggressive enough to try to advance themselves. Put them down early and subjugate them, and the threat is over.
I'm interested to know what they did instead of war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple years ago I wanted to play an online fantasy strategy wargame ,so I decided on one ane tried it. It turns out that the community decided that they don't like conquest ,so they built up huge armies and didn't allow anyone to attack a weaker opponent. It was a war game without much war because they would wipe you out if you were perceived as a bully. I think it was called Illyriad. The developers didn't see that one coming, they designed it as a war game but the community was more social and too nice to play it that way.
That is why I consider Care Bears as equally toxic to a game as griefers. That being said, if that is what culture the majority of the community developed it leaves the developers little choice but to either concede or shut down. Few if any shut down as long as the game is turning a profit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A year from now we won't be able to agree on what in-game group "they" are.
You know, as long as we're going for prophecy.
While I do find that amusing and probably true, it is possible to find several different groups of people that can agree on who "they" are. Would they be enough?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple years ago I wanted to play an online fantasy strategy wargame ,so I decided on one ane tried it. It turns out that the community decided that they don't like conquest ,so they built up huge armies and didn't allow anyone to attack a weaker opponent. It was a war game without much war because they would wipe you out if you were perceived as a bully. I think it was called Illyriad. The developers didn't see that one coming, they designed it as a war game but the community was more social and too nice to play it that way.
It seems ludicrous to me to expect that happening here. Did you make that up?
It seems quite strange, after all that has been said in this thread, that you've somehow construed to think this system is supposed to commonly occur. It is only a consideration if there is a present danger to the whole game. Once the threat is reduced it is disbanded. If the threat or another like it is commonly agreed to threaten it could resurface but again it is only for extremes. It isn't to stop bona fide conquering.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Still, just because I hadn't imagined a thing doesn't preclude its possibility. What if the very opposite of griefers show up, billions upon billions of Bludd's care bears with pink fur and hearts on their cute little tummies, banding together to CRUSH anyone fighting?
So I guess that's example #2 of a threat to the game that would be a candidate for the defense league.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still, just because I hadn't imagined a thing doesn't preclude its possibility. What if the very opposite of griefers show up, billions upon billions of Bludd's care bears with pink fur and hearts on their cute little tummies, banding together to CRUSH anyone fighting?
So I guess that's example #2 of a threat to the game that would be a candidate for the defense league.
I don't know if I would have the will to join the fight. I have a poorly concealed weakness towards adorable things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if I would have the will to join the fight. I have a poorly concealed weakness towards adorable things.Still, just because I hadn't imagined a thing doesn't preclude its possibility. What if the very opposite of griefers show up, billions upon billions of Bludd's care bears with pink fur and hearts on their cute little tummies, banding together to CRUSH anyone fighting?
So I guess that's example #2 of a threat to the game that would be a candidate for the defense league.
Could not resist showing you where that can get you! Adoarble Thing :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't know yet the amount of time and work to build up a settlement, lets say it takes a year . Is it socially acceptable to make players start over and need another year to get back what you destroy, just as normal gameplay as in something to do , just cause you can. Will it be normal and fine with everyone to lose a years worth of work when your settlement burns ? Or will settlements be too valuable and the majority will do what they have to so they don't lose it.
Once the nerds figure out they can rule the world and outlaw attacking nerds, what will stop them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple years ago I wanted to play an online fantasy strategy wargame ,so I decided on one ane tried it. It turns out that the community decided that they don't like conquest ,so they built up huge armies and didn't allow anyone to attack a weaker opponent. It was a war game without much war because they would wipe you out if you were perceived as a bully. I think it was called Illyriad. The developers didn't see that one coming, they designed it as a war game but the community was more social and too nice to play it that way.That is why I consider Care Bears as equally toxic to a game as griefers. That being said, if that is what culture the majority of the community developed it leaves the developers little choice but to either concede or shut down. Few if any shut down as long as the game is turning a profit.
They expanded the map and added a PVE area ....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't know yet the amount of time and work to build up a settlement, lets say it takes a year . Is it socially acceptable to make players start over and need another year to get back what you destroy, just as normal gameplay as in something to do , just cause you can. Will it be normal and fine with everyone to lose a years worth of work when your settlement burns ? Or will settlements be too valuable and the majority will do what they have to so they don't lose it.
Once the nerds figure out they can rule the world and outlaw attacking nerds, what will stop them?
I've no idea what it will take to build a settlement, but okay lets say a year for the sake of the argument.
Is it socially acceptable in a PvP game to make a competing settlement start over? Yes, as normal gameplay but not just as something to do. They are competing at the settlement level. While we could both race to maximize our settlements and see who maxed our DI first, that is probably not always how it will be. It may very well commonly be how it will work, but eventually one or the other, or a third party will try and sack that settlement.
If it were me, and my group had enough of whatever we need to progress, I would not assault my neighbor without cause. I'd rather he were just as juicy a target for the wolves as I am, and hope they go for him rather than me. If they go for him and he asks my help I may very well help him, and certainly would help him if I could and he has been a good neighbor. The wolves on his flanks will not nearly be so desirable as neighbors.
But normal game play? Sure. It will be normal to raze someone's settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple years ago I wanted to play an online fantasy strategy wargame ,so I decided on one ane tried it. It turns out that the community decided that they don't like conquest ,so they built up huge armies and didn't allow anyone to attack a weaker opponent. It was a war game without much war because they would wipe you out if you were perceived as a bully. I think it was called Illyriad. The developers didn't see that one coming, they designed it as a war game but the community was more social and too nice to play it that way.Depending on the nature of owning territory, this would also be a massively beneficial power preservation scheme. If powerhouse #4 is satisfied being powerhouse #4, then through mutual support of powerhouse #1,2, and 3 they would become unassailable. If this is true for the top X powers, they can become entrenched. At that point, the most difficult aspect is eliminating threats before they can become threats: IE - anyone aggressive enough to try to advance themselves. Put them down early and subjugate them, and the threat is over.
I'm interested to know what they did instead of war.
It is a very in-depth city building type game , designed for casual gameplay , there is PVE content too. You log in and make a few decisions on what gets done next and then a long wait until it is finished. People join a huge alliance for security and the huge alliances aren't going to fight each other. The community didn't object to fair fights when I was there.
While I had decided I was finished with this thread having given what I believed was some good advice I have been tempted to post again after my daughter pointed out something tonight which I think has a little relevance to the discussion. The part I think it has relevance to is the command question so if you will excuse me I will talk about it for a little bit....feel free to ignore it if you like.
First a little background. I as an Eve player have commanded fleets in excess of 1000 on multiple occasions. The point? I am an experienced and established fleet commander.
Your loose alliance will have several of these after a while. If you want some tips for early ones I would look to Arturus Reno of Pax for a start who is an established one. (though this is beside the point I am trying to make)
My teenage daughter as I have noted before is beginning to establish herself as a useful commander as well although to date she has never commanded more than 200 however there is a growing number of our alliance that have fleeted under her command and trust her. I often end up in my daughters fleet as an interceptor or interdictor even though I have vastly more experience of fleet command than she does. If my daughter gives me what I believe from my experience is a bad order...I do not argue, I do not complain...I carry out that order exactly. I will certainly chat to her afterwards about it and explain why I felt it was bad. However I have to remember that I do not necessarily have a full picture of the engagement which she does. I have found that a good proportion of the time she has valid reasons for orders that to me seemed inefficient.
The trouble with a loose alliance that I am trying to point to here is the second guessing and armchair general problem. You really need to have trusted chain of commands implemented even for ad hoc alliances