Goblinworks Game Designer
|
I sure hope that Player settlements will give a lot more benefits over NPC settlements then a few exotic Tier 3 Feats(and most certainly not just the 0.5-1.0% power-increase that Xeen keeps talking about). I wonder how much of Tier 2 is supported in NPC settlements? I always figured NPC settlements would give *some* Tier 1 skills (not even everything) so people could get started, and then were encouraged to find a PC settlement.
If you can do low *and* mid-tier progression almost all the way in an NPC settlement, I am not sure if PC settlements will get enough members.
I understand that people need to be able to fall back to an NPC settlement when theirs is destroyed, or they get kicked out or their alignment shifts and they have to leave, but I figure there will be more then enought settlements that will want to take them in. I am sure there will be settlements with a shortage of members, maybe even lots of them, and after all, every member adds to the DI of a settlement.
So being sent to an NPC settlement should be a temporary thing and an unwanted situation for a non-newbie player. And if nobody wants you as a member, then you should maybe change your tune.
I have heard that a lot of Eve players never leave high-sec; that's fine. However I was hoping that "high-sec" in PFO would mean your settlement(within the walls at least and near them) and not NPC-controlled cities. That is why I expect members to want to work(harvest/trade) and fight for their cities.
NPC cities are only really for starting players and as a fallback. It will almost always be better to be a member of a PC settlement. Aside from just tier III skills there are other benefits a PC settlement has over NPC settlements.
Building Upgrades and such will make a significant difference to crafting, so crafters will always be better off in those settlements. Building upgrades also affect a number of player focused abilities and features (that I'm being cagey about because we have not yet blogged about them and they are still being tweaked).
In addition, faction buildings are going to be SUPER-rare in NPC settlements so to obtain factional feats and abilities you'll need to be a member of a settlement (or in some very tiny cases a Company with a PoI) whose alignment, outlook, reputation, and faction standing are high enough to offer those feats.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've balanced the DI/settlement plots in such a way that you will ALWAYS have to make tough choices about what classes are covered in your settlement.So just to be clear, if I'm in a guild with a bunch of friends and we like a variety of classes....we can't all be members of the same settlement together without some of us not being able to obtain proper training? Beyond tier 2, at least?
You cant all be members of the same settlement if your alignments are wildly different anyway. They only time this really comes up is if you want to be in a company with classes with strict alignment restrictions.
To clarify - a bard, rogue, wizard, and fighter could all be in the same settlement since all these classes can be supported in a settlement of any alignment.
A paladin and barbarian could not be in the same settlement since they have conflicting alignment requirements (lawful/chaotic).
A paladin and a barbarian COULD be in the same COMPANY, however, since there are no alignment restrictions on non-sponsored companies. These individuals could be in different settlements (or all be in NPC settlements) and still in a non-sponsored company with each other. So they can still adventure together if they wish - they just cant live together.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the answers, Stephen and Tork. I am sure you guys do not want a situation where 75% of the playerbase holes up in NPC towns because it is just too comfortable there.
I am exited to hear about all these perks that settlements bring, I am curious about the player focused abilities.
My hope is that Tier 3 Feats and Factional Feats will be of the kind that can really add to how that character is played, but is not necessarily a Combat powerboost perse. The type of Feat that some players would die for to have, but for others could be kinda "meh".
An example would be for instance Tracking for PvE. I specifically mention for PvE only, since being able to track players would be incredably powerfull and a must have imo.
I *loved* to be able to check which mobs were near me in Everquest, and I dearly missed it on any Class that did not have it. I also know others could not care less about it.
If PvE Tracking was something that I only could learn/get supported through a PC settlement, that alone would be enough incentive for me to go join a Settlement that offers it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the answers, Stephen and Tork. I am sure you guys do not want a situation where 75% of the playerbase holes up in NPC towns because it is just too comfortable there.
I am exited to hear about all these perks that settlements bring, I am curious about the player focused abilities.
My hope is that Tier 3 Feats and Factional Feats will be of the kind that can really add to how that character is played, but is not necessarily a Combat powerboost perse. The type of Feat that some players would die for to have, but for others could be kinda "meh".
An example would be for instance Tracking for PvE. I specifically mention for PvE only, since being able to track players would be incredably powerfull and a must have imo.
I *loved* to be able to check which mobs were near me in Everquest, and I dearly missed it on any Class that did not have it. I also know others could not care less about it.If PvE Tracking was something that I only could learn/get supported through a PC settlement, that alone would be enough incentive for me to go join a Settlement that offers it.
Agreed. I find tracking fun too when the game supports it. Plus a few other skills/feats that are not for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A paladin and a barbarian COULD be in the same COMPANY, however, since there are no alignment restrictions on non-sponsored companies. These individuals could be in different settlements (or all be in NPC settlements) and still in a non-sponsored company with each other.
Just to clarify, don't all companies (even non-sponsored ones) have an alignment which all members must be within one step of?
If true, that DOES leave open the possibility of a NG Company with a LG Paladin and a CG Barbarian... but that would be the ONLY setup allowing a Paladin and Barbarian in the same Company. There would be no way to have LG and CE characters in the same Company, correct?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The whole reason why I supported the Kickstarter was because I think that GW is making the kind of experience I want in an MMO. I want there to be risk and I want players to put in real effort to be successful.
I like the idea of not being able to get all training in one settlement. That forming alliances will be necessary. I can see how that might bother some people if they are used to games just handing them whatever they need.
The effort involved in developing a settlement and protecting it, to be able to use your T3 feats and gear adds a lot more value to the game. There has to be the risk of loss to keep the game interesting. It is going to feel terrible if your settlement gets destroyed and I think that is an amazing thing to have in a MMO. Obviously any leaders of settlements are going to have to handle stress extremely well and actually have leadership skills for the settlement to thrive. Which is also a great thing to have in an MMO.
Challenges create a sense of achievement. The whole thing that makes PFO different than other MMOs is that the challenges are mostly going to be made by the players. Players are going to be motivated to take over other territories for resources and they are going to be motivated to defend their own territory to keep what resources they have. Without the risk of losing your resources, be they actual materials or special skills, there is no motivation anymore for player interaction. The game would not work without players having risk as a part of their decision making process.
The loss of a settlement isn't going to make your character worthless, you can always join another player settlement. Instead of focusing on the negative of how the loss of settlement will impact your character, think about how not having any real loss would impact the game. Players should be invested in their settlement. It would be pointless if losing your settlement didn't impact you. Some people aren't going to be able to handle it, but PFO isn't for everyone, which is why it will be good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, that definitely eases my concerns about what we should be expecting. I think I was looking at some of these factors as a constant instead of being more like a curve.
To clarify - a bard, rogue, wizard, and fighter could all be in the same settlement since all these classes can be supported in a settlement of any alignment.
I do not want to put words in your mouth, is this a purely figurative example of alignment? Or could a settlement actually have support structures for a bard, rogue, wizard and fighter and still function reasonably well. Would this same settlement be able to hold a large training structure for at least one of these four classes and still function reasonably well?
Either way, it does seem that this is going to foster a lot of inter-settlement collaboration. I really like how this is developing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, that definitely eases my concerns about what we should be expecting. I think I was looking at some of these factors as a constant instead of being more like a curve.
To clarify - a bard, rogue, wizard, and fighter could all be in the same settlement since all these classes can be supported in a settlement of any alignment.I do not want to put words in your mouth, is this a purely figurative example of alignment? Or could a settlement actually have support structures for a bard, rogue, wizard and fighter and still function reasonably well. Would this same settlement be able to hold a large training structure for at least one of these four classes and still function reasonably well?
Either way, it does seem that this is going to foster a lot of inter-settlement collaboration. I really like how this is developing.
I see a lot of cross-training between TEO and TSV settlements. Plus a few other that are part of the alliance and maybe some nearby friendly settlements.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
A paladin and a barbarian COULD be in the same COMPANY, however, since there are no alignment restrictions on non-sponsored companies. These individuals could be in different settlements (or all be in NPC settlements) and still in a non-sponsored company with each other.Just to clarify, don't all companies (even non-sponsored ones) have an alignment which all members must be within one step of?
If true, that DOES leave open the possibility of a NG Company with a LG Paladin and a CG Barbarian... but that would be the ONLY setup allowing a Paladin and Barbarian in the same Company. There would be no way to have LG and CE characters in the same Company, correct?
Correct! Stephen just pointed this out too. My bad. However, its likely that buildings will carry their own specific restrictions - which means you may be able to pop a paladin support structure in a NG settlement but to stick a Chapter House in there (the paladin specific training facility) you would need your settlement to be LG.
We have a LOT of granularity because each structure can have its own alignment/rep/factional requirements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm beginning to think it might be possible after all to build up Phaeros as a University Town of sorts, where we forego some of the other major Settlement structures in order to provide additional Training facilities for a wide range of class roles. I think if this turns out to be viable, it will be very appealing to our members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm beginning to think it might be possible after all to build up Phaeros as a University Town of sorts, where we forego some of the other major Settlement structures in order to provide additional Training facilities for a wide range of class roles. I think if this turns out to be viable, it will be very appealing to our members.
I agree, if the mechanics allow it is a pretty solid tactic. I could see it theoretically bringing in a larger range of folks that are dependent on the settlement's success.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that definitely eases my concerns about what we should be expecting. I think I was looking at some of these factors as a constant instead of being more like a curve.
To clarify - a bard, rogue, wizard, and fighter could all be in the same settlement since all these classes can be supported in a settlement of any alignment.I do not want to put words in your mouth, is this a purely figurative example of alignment? Or could a settlement actually have support structures for a bard, rogue, wizard and fighter and still function reasonably well. Would this same settlement be able to hold a large training structure for at least one of these four classes and still function reasonably well?
Either way, it does seem that this is going to foster a lot of inter-settlement collaboration. I really like how this is developing.
A settlement can function pretty well with NO class training and ONLY class support structures. They can mix and match too! As a bit of a outline idea - I have constructed 3 mock settlements which get adjusted as I tweak numbers. These numbers are still ALL subject to change, but here they are (this is probably a terrible idea, ha!). Each settlement has a total DI of approximately 3000 (Max DI).
Crafting Focused: This settlement focuses on crafting, refining, harvesting, and trade, almost to the exclusion of everything else.
It trains 3 classes and supports 4 more (for a total of 7 supported).
It supports 2 feat schools.
It trains 12 craft skills.
It trains 7 trade skills.
It trains 12 Skills.
Class Training Focused: This settlement focuses on class training only.
It trains 9 classes and supports 3 more (for a total of 12 supported).
It supports 5 feat schools.
It trains 1 craft skill.
It trains 5 trade skills.
It trains 15 Skills.
Balanced Settlement: This is what I imagine a settlement who is trying to cover their bases will do. Its what I'd do, basically ;)
It trains 7 classes and supports 3 more (for a total of 10 supported).
It supports 4 feat schools.
It trains 6 craft skill.
It trains 5 trade skills.
It trains 12 Skills.
EDIT : Removed the profession stuff cos actually at this stage its more confusing than its worth. To me too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a bit of a outline idea - I have constructed 3 mock settlements which get adjusted as I tweak numbers. These numbers are still ALL subject to change, but here they are (this is probably a terrible idea, ha!).
This!! Thank you!
I will definitely take this with a grain of salt, but this helps SO much in outlining what kind of alliance arrangements we will need to make.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
3 more examples and we would know the actual DI costs (6 equations, 6 unknowns for those familiar with linear algebra) ...
Ha! You scare me ;)
Just to screw with you a little... The price of each individual structure is actually dependent on the DI the player has chosen to spend on that structure in the form of upgrades purchased. Each has a base cost, then a set of 'generic' upgrades (HP, saves/resistances, training tier and regeneration rate, etc), and then a number of special upgrades unique to that structure.
As a structure gets upgraded with more DI spent it also increases in tier (from 1-6). I dont know if this helps, but the AVERAGE tier of structure in each example is : 4.8, 4 and 4.25 respectively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3 more examples and we would know the actual DI costs (6 equations, 6 unknowns for those familiar with linear algebra) ...Ha! You scare me ;)
Just to screw with you a little... The price of each individual structure is actually dependent on the DI the player has chosen to spend on that structure in the form of upgrades purchased. Each has a base cost, then a set of 'generic' upgrades (HP, saves/resistances, training tier and regeneration rate, etc), and then a number of special upgrades unique to that structure.
As a structure gets upgraded with more DI spent it also increases in tier (from 1-6). I dont know if this helps, but the AVERAGE tier of structure in each example is : 4.8, 4 and 4.25 respectively.
So if I understand you right then it's something like:
DI cost for a building = base cost + (upgrade cost)*(number of upgrades)
Or it could be a non-linear increase, eg:
DI cost = base cost + (upgrade cost)*(number of upgrades)^2
or something similar. Meanwhile:
Tier = (Number of upgrades)/conversion factor
If so that's a few more equations (averages), but quite a few more variables. Definitely trickier ;)
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
3 more examples and we would know the actual DI costs (6 equations, 6 unknowns for those familiar with linear algebra) ...Ha! You scare me ;)
Just to screw with you a little... The price of each individual structure is actually dependent on the DI the player has chosen to spend on that structure in the form of upgrades purchased. Each has a base cost, then a set of 'generic' upgrades (HP, saves/resistances, training tier and regeneration rate, etc), and then a number of special upgrades unique to that structure.
As a structure gets upgraded with more DI spent it also increases in tier (from 1-6). I dont know if this helps, but the AVERAGE tier of structure in each example is : 4.8, 4 and 4.25 respectively.
So if I understand you right then it's something like:
DI cost for a building = base cost + (upgrade cost)*(number of upgrades)
Or it could be a non-linear increase, eg:
DI cost = base cost + (upgrade cost)*(number of upgrades)^2
or something similar. Meanwhile:
Tier = (Number of upgrades)/conversion factor
If so that's a few more equations (averages), but quite a few more variables. Definitely trickier ;)
Yupyup. Each upgrade has a scaling cost and has 2-6 levels. Some (for example training tier upgrades) only have 2 (Tier II and Tier III) whereas others such as Core Functionality have 5 (from level 2 to level 6). So there is a great deal of variety in terms of individual structure cost.
Two settlements might have the same Paladin Chapter house at Rank 3, but settlement 1 has spent the DI on training and core functionality upgrades whereas settlement 2 has spent it all on Special upgrades and Hit Points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading Tork and Nightdrifter speak the language of math, to me is like watching two Wizards speak the language of magic. :)
Math teachers should start telling kids that if they want to grow up to run their own city in an MMO then they need to do their math homework.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like settlement leadership is a fun job where frequent meetings actually mean something (in or out of game). Reading the above makes me believe that something like a democratic leadership is actually a viable option. I was always a bit sceptic about how settlements could have different types of "governments" but there are actually a lot of informed decisions to take as to where you Settlement is heading.
You need to have the votes of your crafters, your combat folk, the traders.
Sounds so much more awesome then deciding what mob to Raid next week.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Only one thing that bothers me in this system: If paying a monthly subscription to PFO practically means that one character gains xp, then in the case of an accident(settlement destroyed etc), we might not be able to use the skills we have payed for. Is this intended as part of the spirit of the game?This is something I have complained about for a while.
I use a months worth of xp on a skill, then my settlement is lost... No other settlement in the game supports my skill because 99% of them are going Lawful... Then I am hosed for a months worth of XP...
I think that is how it should work. Find another settlement or work on creating one yourself would be the next step.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that is how it should work. Find another settlement or work on creating one yourself would be the next step.Only one thing that bothers me in this system: If paying a monthly subscription to PFO practically means that one character gains xp, then in the case of an accident(settlement destroyed etc), we might not be able to use the skills we have payed for. Is this intended as part of the spirit of the game?This is something I have complained about for a while.
I use a months worth of xp on a skill, then my settlement is lost... No other settlement in the game supports my skill because 99% of them are going Lawful... Then I am hosed for a months worth of XP...
And I think in a couple years, people are going to be very upset about the money they spent on skills they cannot use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I think in a couple years, people are going to be very upset about the money they spent on skills they cannot use.
If they can't use their skills, they have only themselves to blame. They might have to put in a little effort to join a settlement that supports their skills, how is that a bad thing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, like I said before, I think the setback in power, after you left the game for a while, is much worse in MMO's that constantly crank out expansions where they raise max level, and you have to completely re-gear yourself. Basically neutralizing the previous expansion that you payed for.
People are used to this, I do not see them leaving in droves because they find out that a few skills are greyed out after they went away for 6 months; the spending XP is long in the past, they did not actually lose the skills, and it probably takes all of an evening browsing the Settlement boards to find a new Settlement that supports your skills and is desperately in need of new members.
After all, there are hundreds of settlements, and I expect lots of them will be in dire need of members(members are an asset, members = DI). The moment the Leader adds you to the roster, your skills are not greyed out anymore, and you can walk to your new home as the Powerhouse that you were.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I think in a couple years, people are going to be very upset about the money they spent on skills they cannot use.If they can't use their skills, they have only themselves to blame. They might have to put in a little effort to join a settlement that supports their skills, how is that a bad thing?
Because someone may decide to not be a part of settlement politics.
My group had full intentions of being mercenaries that did not have a permanent settlement, now we have no choice unless we want to be subpar.
Our meaningful choice of providing a service to everyone who needed it was taken away. Sure we could still do it, but how much value is there going to be in a group that cannot even use high end skills. There is no sand in that part of the box.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sure there is. You join a settlement and you provide them with gold. Or you are a part of an NPC settlement, get your training, and stick with T2 equipment meaning that you're always ready for a fight and don't need to worry about losing T3 gear.
You are correct of course. We shall see how it works out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So "people (are going to be very upset about the money they spent on skills they cannot use)" is actually you and your group, and folk with similar intent? That sounds already a bit more cornercase then worrying about people not being able to use skills they payed for. :)
I see how this is a problem for you and your group, however we must keep in mind that the whole game is pretty much built on association with a Settlement.
Every time they losen that association a bit more, the fundaments grow weaker. Everything depends on it, even Mercenary groups(no settlements to defend, no need for mercs).
So how's this: as a Mercenary band you could associate temporarily with the settlement that needs/hires you for whatever reason. They just have to make sure that they support your Mercenary skills. Then when the job is done or the War has been fought, you could move to your next Contract and settlement.
I expect Settlements that want to make use of Mercenary Bands, to provide skill-support for them: it would sure add to their chances if they can throw in Mercs in a War, where a Settlement that can not provide these skills will have a hard time finding a Merc Band to fight for them.
I agree there will be alignment restrictions but a LG settlement should not be making use of Mercs anyway. As long as your Company isn't all Chaotic Evil(which would make you suck anyway), I think there will be enough Settlements for your group to make deals with.
You would still be a free agent, and only fight for Settlements that can support you fully. I expect these to be the bigger and richer Settlements(Mercs don't come cheap). I would also advice Crafter/trader-settlements that do not have strong allies, to provide skill-support for Mercs: at least I expect these settlements to have lots of Gold so that part is covered. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or you can be part of a settlement which serves as a den of mercenaries; a piece of land that nobody who knows what's good for them messes with, where the biggest and baddest groups for hire reside. It may not have the strongest economy, or support the wider niche jobs, but such a settlement more than makes up for it with their military training. Just an idea. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is by no means a corner case.
There will be a large number of people that will want nothing to do with settlement politics and the nonsense that goes with it by the time we hit OE... if not sooner.
Those people will not stay and play a game, that they spend real money on for skills, if they are going to lose those skills or have no chance of getting them in the first place.
Yes, there are ways around it as you suggest.
I know there will be LG settlements that pay us for services. It will happen at some point. Most people will set their alignment and not care about what it means one bit. Most of the people we will see in this game will not be PnP gamers.
Ok, let me ask you this...
Me, as a pure PVPer wants to join your settlement. I will not help run that settlement. I will not haul resources around to different areas, and I will not buy them to haul to the settlement. I will not be grinding to get the DI up unless it involves me making gold for stuff. I will fight for the settlement and when there is no one to fight, I will go find fights of my own.
Do I have a place in your settlement? (doubtful but never know)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lord Zodd wrote:
Xeen wrote:
And I think in a couple years, people are going to be very upset about the money they spent on skills they cannot use.
If they can't use their skills, they have only themselves to blame. They might have to put in a little effort to join a settlement that supports their skills, how is that a bad thing?
Because someone may decide to not be a part of settlement politics.My group had full intentions of being mercenaries that did not have a permanent settlement, now we have no choice unless we want to be subpar.
Our meaningful choice of providing a service to everyone who needed it was taken away. Sure we could still do it, but how much value is there going to be in a group that cannot even use high end skills. There is no sand in that part of the box.
Ah, ok that makes sense.
I ran a Merc guild in a sandbox game before so I can understand your pain. We were hoping that we could play without our own city and be a roaming band of Mercs, but the game mechanics just didn't lend themselves to being able to do that successfully. We ended up having to start our own city to get the skill trainers we needed for our members. The only problem with having a city was that if we did a contract and helped destroy some guilds city they might want revenge and attack our city. Being a smaller guild that depended on our strict neutrality as our main defense means that we would be hard pressed to defend it. As Mercs you can't have allies that would help you defend your city.
I had to have good relations with all of the other guild leaders to make being mercenaries work. It was way more effort than I bargained for. I had thought that as Mercs we would just spend most of our time in epic siege battles, being contracted to help attack or defend. However, most of my time in game ended up as politics, trying to get contracts and keeping people from attacking our city for revenge.
So there are pros and cons as Mercenaries to having a settlement or not having a settlement. You guys just need to decide which is more important to you. You can't really be upset about the game mechanics not working perfectly for your specific company. You guys are the ones that are trying to fit a cube through a round hole. Don't get me wrong, I obviously love the idea of a Merc guild, I just know from experience that the realities involved in making it work are harsh.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Me, as a pure PVPer wants to join your settlement. I will not help run that settlement. I will not haul resources around to different areas, and I will not buy them to haul to the settlement. I will not be grinding to get the DI up unless it involves me making gold for stuff. I will fight for the settlement and when there is no one to fight, I will go find fights of my own.
Do I have a place in your settlement? (doubtful but never know)
Yes. Actually, I've been waiting for someone to set up a Company based on this kind of game play. Since I haven't seen any I've put together one myself. Just been holding off posting it since, as the founder, I'd be the one member who potentially WOULD have to deal with settlement politics and nonsense.... which now that I think about it is probably why no one else has started one. Grrr.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes. Actually, I've been waiting for someone to set up a Company based on this kind of game play. Since I haven't seen any I've put together one myself. Just been holding off posting it since, as the founder, I'd be the one member who potentially WOULD have to deal with settlement politics and nonsense.... which now that I think about it is probably why no one else has started one. Grrr.Me, as a pure PVPer wants to join your settlement. I will not help run that settlement. I will not haul resources around to different areas, and I will not buy them to haul to the settlement. I will not be grinding to get the DI up unless it involves me making gold for stuff. I will fight for the settlement and when there is no one to fight, I will go find fights of my own.
Do I have a place in your settlement? (doubtful but never know)
Contact Bluddwolf and talk to him. We are that kind of company. The UNC
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lord Zodd wrote:
Xeen wrote:
And I think in a couple years, people are going to be very upset about the money they spent on skills they cannot use.
If they can't use their skills, they have only themselves to blame. They might have to put in a little effort to join a settlement that supports their skills, how is that a bad thing?
Because someone may decide to not be a part of settlement politics.My group had full intentions of being mercenaries that did not have a permanent settlement, now we have no choice unless we want to be subpar.
Our meaningful choice of providing a service to everyone who needed it was taken away. Sure we could still do it, but how much value is there going to be in a group that cannot even use high end skills. There is no sand in that part of the box.
Ah, ok that makes sense.
I ran a Merc guild in a sandbox game before so I can understand your pain. We were hoping that we could play without our own city and be a roaming band of Mercs, but the game mechanics just didn't lend themselves to being able to do that successfully. We ended up having to start our own city to get the skill trainers we needed for our members. The only problem with having a city was that if we did a contract and helped destroy some guilds city they might want revenge and attack our city. Being a smaller guild that depended on our strict neutrality as our main defense means that we would be hard pressed to defend it. As Mercs you can't have allies that would help you defend your city.
I had to have good relations with all of the other guild leaders to make being mercenaries work. It was way more effort than I bargained for. I had thought that as Mercs we would just spend most of our time in epic siege battles, being contracted to help attack or defend. However, most of my time in game ended up as politics, trying to get contracts and keeping people from attacking our city for revenge.
So there are pros and cons as Mercenaries to having a settlement or not having a...
I did it quite a bit in Eve. We were not forced to run any city/settlement at all. We were recruited for a job, and moved from place to place with no worries about what we left behind.
I was hoping for some of that here
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did it quite a bit in Eve. We were not forced to run any city/settlement at all. We were recruited for a job, and moved from place to place with no worries about what we left behind.
I was hoping for some of that here
That does sound fun and less of a headache.
I hope the fact that you can't do that in PFO as easily doesn't dissuade UNC from being Mercs. You guys just need to make some hard choices to get it work is all, but Bluddwolf seems to have the determination to make it happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...people are going to be very upset about the money they spent on skills they cannot use.
I don't know the answer: does that happen in EVE? Do people train something like Titans and then get very upset about that training if they can't find anyone to build them or give them one?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...most of my time in game ended up as politics, trying to get contracts and keeping people from attacking our city for revenge.
Sounds like David Drake's Hammer's Slammers. Alois Hammer never did get in the field for exactly those reasons.
I started my career in Management Consulting in New York, and my first boss had turned down partnership three times because he "preferred doing the work to selling the work". The Big Four (was the Big Eight then) are probably as close as America has to legitimate mercenary companies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are hideouts a type of POI? It seems like this this is what a group like UNC would want to capture and hold. POIs should be able to support classes, without providing training for them.
So what you are really going to be missing out on is a dedicated place to train chaotic specific skills past a certain point. Even then, given the nature of banditry, it may even be that hideouts (assuming they are a POI) are one of the few POIs that offer some form of training instead of simple class support.
Another thing to consider, the primary benefit of having a settlement is to have access to advanced (read: T3) skills and abilities. There is an inherent difference in the potential of lawful and chaotic settlements. It is pretty reasonable to assume that accessing T3 structures in a chaotic settlement is going to be extremely difficult to accomplish.
Where then is the motivation to even have such a settlement, when most of banditry can be achieved using the freely available T2 skills?
That said, as long as your reputation is not too low and you have not harried a particular settlement or its inhabitants too much, there likely are not going to be too many settlements that will outright deny you use of their facilities.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We do want to support mercenary companies, which likely involves a straightforward way for you to buy into a settlement's active war on their side once they've paid you rather than having to temporarily join their settlement.
This would still imply being an official member of some settlement that supports your build and thinks your contribution as roving mercenaries is valuable (maybe just because you give them a cut of the proceeds and serve as good protection if anyone attacks them). This may be a diverse settlement that employs one or more mercenary companies that want to war more often than the settlement does, a settlement that's primarily just a mercenary clearinghouse, etc.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It is by no means a corner case.
There will be a large number of people that will want nothing to do with settlement politics and the nonsense that goes with it by the time we hit OE... if not sooner.
Those people will not stay and play a game, that they spend real money on for skills, if they are going to lose those skills or have no chance of getting them in the first place.
Yes, there are ways around it as you suggest.
I know there will be LG settlements that pay us for services. It will happen at some point. Most people will set their alignment and not care about what it means one bit. Most of the people we will see in this game will not be PnP gamers.
Ok, let me ask you this...
Me, as a pure PVPer wants to join your settlement. I will not help run that settlement. I will not haul resources around to different areas, and I will not buy them to haul to the settlement. I will not be grinding to get the DI up unless it involves me making gold for stuff. I will fight for the settlement and when there is no one to fight, I will go find fights of my own.
Do I have a place in your settlement? (doubtful but never know)
Probably not the settlement I will be running, but I will point you towards the settlement that offers training and/or support for all the things that a mercenary company wants or needs, in exchange for a percentage of the take of those companies (and a promise to make anyone who attempts to attack that settlement regret the decision.)
I suspect that "the settlement that supports all the mercs" will be rather difficult to win a war against, simply because they get all the merc assistance when defending.
EDIT: Maybe I should read through before replying so I don't get ninja'd by 90 minutes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would very much be interested in assisting the development of such a place.
Not as my own, but as a collaborative effort. Hopefully one which we could work with on an ongoing basis.
Getting a bunch of different Merc companies to work together on building and maintaining a settlement would be a truly amazing accomplishment. There is a phrase that comes to mind about too many hands in the cookie jar...