Goblin Squad Member
|
Seems like any claim goes out the window if you do not show up to defend said claim.On the topic of ownership for these goods, it would be a great thing to allow companies/settlements ownership of store-bought in-game items like the smallhold and basecamp. Eligible members could check them out, and if they left the company or settlement they no longer have access to them. (Could make them disappear for cooldown period before reappearing in settlement / company vault.) If the company or settlement is instead disbanded/destroyed, whoever had the item would likely retain ownership at that point, possession and all that.
Point being, a group could donate towards the smallhold, and not feel like a single member can screw them over.
If company/settlement store pseudo-accounts were feasible, that would be kinda nice. Just add money to the joint account and authorized users can spend it.
This gives me an idea, allow players to donate Skymetal Bits to their company. And allow company owners to purchase things from the cash-shop with those bits. If a renewable item is destroyed/despawns it returns to the companies storage, or company owner if no storage is available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your name is CALDEATHE. As was previously mentioned it is your BIRTHDAY. A number of JARS OF XYLEM SAP and HOCKEY MASKS are scattered about your room. You have a variety of INTERESTS. You have a passion for writing SHORT STORIES about your VIDEO GAME CHARACTERS. You like to argue with people on the internet but it DOES NOT OFTEN END WELL. You have a fondness for LARGE NORTH AMERICAN CERVIDAE.
What will you do?
>get hockey mask
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players pooling resources towards group assets that are individually held is not a new thing (Titans), and while it very occasionally ends in tears such things are exactly the kind of Great Story that emerges from sandbox games.
I don't believe any mechanical system to allow safety for this sort of asset would be a good use of development time, at the very least. It might even close the door on what I see as a rather valuable source of emergent gameplay.
Keepers Pass fully intend to be the first settlement to pool resources and effectively deploy dragons in combat :D
But if they die they die ... no point crying over dead dragons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is this, an MSPA Fanventure?
Your name is CALDEATHE. As was previously mentioned it is your BIRTHDAY. A number of JARS OF XYLEM SAP and HOCKEY MASKS are scattered about your room. You have a variety of INTERESTS. You have a passion for writing SHORT STORIES about your VIDEO GAME CHARACTERS. You like to argue with people on the internet but it DOES NOT OFTEN END WELL. You have a fondness for LARGE NORTH AMERICAN CERVIDAE.
What will you do?
> USE XYLEM SAP AND HOCKEY MASKS TO BUILD ALTAR
> SACRIFICE KOBOLD TO CERVIDAE> USE ANCIENT TEXTS CONCEALED IN SHORT STORIES TO SUMMON CTHULHU
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seem that Base Camp and Smallhold will be available early in EE. I suspect POI will not be available in WotT, though late in WotT there may be outposts to produce BULK needed after the Great Catastrophe/Cataclysm. (or so it might have been rumored under consideration, but may require crowd forging -- sic)
Even in the neighboring hex a bind point only available to one side may avoid spawn point camping.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seems like any claim goes out the window if you do not show up to defend said claim.
On the topic of ownership for these goods, it would be a great thing to allow companies/settlements ownership of store-bought in-game items like the smallhold and basecamp. Eligible members could check them out, and if they left the company or settlement they no longer have access to them. (Could make them disappear for cooldown period before reappearing in settlement / company vault.) If the company or settlement is instead disbanded/destroyed, whoever had the item would likely retain ownership at that point, possession and all that.
Point being, a group could donate towards the smallhold, and not feel like a single member can screw them over.
If company/settlement store pseudo-accounts were feasible, that would be kinda nice. Just add money to the joint account and authorized users can spend it.
This would lead to a situation when using cash shop is a requirement not an option, if settlements would ask all their members to donate. Even if they probably won't set it as mandatory, this "donating towards common goal" would be a huge stimulation for players to regularly spend money above subscription. With the ability to distribute costs amongst members bought items will also become "something that every settlement has", not an optional alternative for those individuals who are willing to get them for money instead of in-game effort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
. With the ability to distribute costs amongst members bought items will also become "something that every settlement has", not an optional alternative for those individuals who are willing to get them for money instead of in-game effort.
Why shouldn't every settlement have them? Are you saying that only those individuals willing/able to pay by themselves should be allowed to have them?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Your name is CALDEATHE. As was previously mentioned it is your BIRTHDAY. A number of JARS OF XYLEM SAP and HOCKEY MASKS are scattered about your room. You have a variety of INTERESTS. You have a passion for writing SHORT STORIES about your VIDEO GAME CHARACTERS. You like to argue with people on the internet but it DOES NOT OFTEN END WELL. You have a fondness for LARGE NORTH AMERICAN CERVIDAE.
What will you do?
XYZZY
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
. With the ability to distribute costs amongst members bought items will also become "something that every settlement has", not an optional alternative for those individuals who are willing to get them for money instead of in-game effort.Why shouldn't every settlement have them? Are you saying that only those individuals willing/able to pay by themselves should be allowed to have them?
Cause "everyone has something" is practically a requirement to have it, not an option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cause "everyone has something" is practically a requirement to have it, not an option.. With the ability to distribute costs amongst members bought items will also become "something that every settlement has", not an optional alternative for those individuals who are willing to get them for money instead of in-game effort.Why shouldn't every settlement have them? Are you saying that only those individuals willing/able to pay by themselves should be allowed to have them?
Practically everyone in North America has a cell phone. That doesn't make it a requirement. Some groups theoretically choosing to pressure their members into participating in group purchases because group purchases are possible does not make them a requirement to play either. (Rhetorical Question) Are things like Teamspeak or Mumble are a requirement to play? No. They are valuable tools that most groups will use in order to get the best experience for their members. Some of those groups will "require" their members to pay for the servers, others will rely on the generosity of a few. None of those cases represents a failing on the part of Goblinworks, so why would permitting groups to make store purchases be so?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Practically everyone in North America has a cell phone. That doesn't make it a requirement. Some groups theoretically choosing to pressure their members into participating in group purchases because group purchases are possible does not make them a requirement to play either. (Rhetorical Question) Are things like Teamspeak or Mumble are a requirement to play? No. They are valuable tools that most groups will use in order to get the best experience for their members. Some of those groups will "require" their members to pay for the servers, others will rely on the generosity of a few. None of those cases represents a failing on the part of Goblinworks, so why would permitting groups to make store purchases be so?
Cause "everyone has something" is practically a requirement to have it, not an option.
That's why i said "practically", realistically cell phone is a requirement, almost everyone end up buying it. So is teamspeak. Adding these "cell phones" in the cash shop is basically an indirect raise of subsription price. Yes, formally it would look "optional", but in practice - mandatory for almost everyone.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I hope that the high price and high convenience creates the dynamic where players with disposable cash and little free time (such as those who work 70-90 hours a week) can buy a smallholding from the cash shop and put it up on the auction block for coin.
At that point, it becomes de facto an item that can be purchased with coin; possibly even a commodity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Practically everyone in North America has a cell phone. That doesn't make it a requirement. Some groups theoretically choosing to pressure their members into participating in group purchases because group purchases are possible does not make them a requirement to play either. (Rhetorical Question) Are things like Teamspeak or Mumble are a requirement to play? No. They are valuable tools that most groups will use in order to get the best experience for their members. Some of those groups will "require" their members to pay for the servers, others will rely on the generosity of a few. None of those cases represents a failing on the part of Goblinworks, so why would permitting groups to make store purchases be so?
Just an FYI, the Lifeline program can subsidize Pre-Paid Cellphones because it is believed that Phone service, and now even Cell Phone service is basically considered a Necessity in the United States today.
And, for Voice Chat, yes, while it isn't exactly a Requirement, it almost is. Groups that don't use Voice Chat are going to be at a serious disadvantage to those that do.
That being said, groups will pool resources for things like this regardless of if there is a built in system to do it. It may be better to put a system in place to prevent fraudulent money gathering that doesn't even end up going to these purchases.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why i said "practically", realistically cell phone is a requirement, almost everyone end up buying it. So is teamspeak. Adding these "cell phones" in the cash shop is basically an indirect raise of subsription price. Yes, formally it would look "optional", but in practice - mandatory for almost everyone.
No, not "in practice -mandatory." You are conflating incredibly useful with mandatory. There are still millions of North Americans that do not have cell phones and somehow manage to get through the day without being arrested for it, dying, or even being inconvenienced by it. The items will be incredibly handy, and almost everyone will want to acquire them. That does not make them mandatory. It is not somehow unfair of cell phone manufacturers to offer them simply because everybody will want one. Grown-ups should be able to handle deciding what extras they will or will not buy, and there will be settlements that do not "force" their members to contribute to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why i said "practically", realistically cell phone is a requirement, almost everyone end up buying it. So is teamspeak. Adding these "cell phones" in the cash shop is basically an indirect raise of subsription price. Yes, formally it would look "optional", but in practice - mandatory for almost everyone.Practically everyone in North America has a cell phone. That doesn't make it a requirement. Some groups theoretically choosing to pressure their members into participating in group purchases because group purchases are possible does not make them a requirement to play either. (Rhetorical Question) Are things like Teamspeak or Mumble are a requirement to play? No. They are valuable tools that most groups will use in order to get the best experience for their members. Some of those groups will "require" their members to pay for the servers, others will rely on the generosity of a few. None of those cases represents a failing on the part of Goblinworks, so why would permitting groups to make store purchases be so?
Cause "everyone has something" is practically a requirement to have it, not an option.
I don't have a cell phone and have no intention of buying one as it doesn't currently fit my lifestyle. If work wants to get ahold of me when I am out seeing clients, they can provide me with a cell phone or call me at my client's house.
[which has nothing to do with what is really being talked about here but just wanted folks to remember "'Everybody has' or 'Everybody is doing'" is never a valid argument. :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say that isn't fair. The existing smallholder should have prior claim, property rights. It should require more investment to claim a hex on which there is one or more opposing smallholdings than would be required if the smallholdings not there.Seems like any claim goes out the window if you do not show up to defend said claim.
You make my point. Cheatle is saying, if I understand his point, that his settlement can simply despawn my smallholding without his settlement having to destroy it. Under his adjustment I would not have the option to defend it if they merely make claim to the hex.
I say if they wish to claim the hex where I have been working out of my small holding then they should have to either destroy my small holding with some measure of effort beyond suppression of the escalation that may or may not be present, or if that is not in the cards then to have to either destroy my smallholding or convince me to pack up and move somehow after gaining control of the hex.
They should not be able to just erase my labor without expending the effort to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Going to totally have to disagree with you here.
Also, "Heartless Corporate Giant" is not an apt description, perhaps "Settlement that doesn't want an enemy bind point within 2 hexes" describes it better.
No, heartless corporation is fitting.
If the people dropping the small holding wanted that particular hex so badly, why didn't they claim the Hex for themselves?
Because they were only placing their deer camp in the wilderness. Your settlement came along and decided later that they wanted the land the smallholder was using. I'm saying you should have to put some effort into removing my deer camp if you want the deer camp gone. You are saying that just because your corporation of codependents want the land you should be able to wipe my deer camp out with no more effort than would be necessary were my smallholding not there. You have argued that it is enough work to lay claim to a hex, and that should be sufficient. I say no, you also have the smallholding and the independent player who placed it there to deal with.
I object to your proposal that you shouldn't have to deal with an independent individual, and that you should be able to wipe him out without lifting a meaningful finger. Sounds pretty 'heartless corporate giant' to me.If they have enough people to maintain escalation cycles, they can claim the hex, other wise there investment in that hex is little more than putting down a premade house on a plot of land (Note Premade, they didn't actually build it, they bought it knowing that it can be removed/destroyed at any time). If its none of the above, then they are placing the small holding for strategic reasons, in which case there needs to be more than just one way for them to be removed.
Currently, we have only one method of removal, Sieges, which will be implemented in 1 Year+, and we can beat the crap out of it to increase upkeep. Unless we can increase upkeep beyond what they can pay, it does nothing.
Having an ability to remove structures places limitations on exploitation of what is essentially player housing. This is also a game of Civilization, Territory, and Resources, unless a player is specifically part of an organization/company/settlement that accepts certain unalienable rights, certain things like placing small holdings within range of Settlements, without permission will not be tolerated, most likely by any group currently with a settlement.
It is also a game of individuals. You know, the little people who together make large groups and nations. I don't believe you get to leave the individual player out of the picture just because you magnify your self image in the looking glass of your corporate power.
We already cannot place a smallholding in a claimed hex without the settlement's permission. But if we place a smallholding in an unclaimed hex then you shouldn't be able to just waltz in and wipe out my smallholding without an effort commensurate to removing it. Just claiming the hex isn't enough. You're going to have to step on my toes to make me move. A glance and a wave of the hand is just an haughty empty gesture.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you are missing a vital point being....
Not only does a group have to suppress an escalation/clear a hex of enemies, but they have to spend influence (a resource) to claim/build a PoI, then they have to attach it to a settlement increasing upkeep costs the farther away it is from the settlement.
It takes a good amount of resources and labor to really claim something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It might be a game of individuals, but there isn't enough space for everyone to have a small holding, and since small holdings take groups to remove, groups to defend, and groups to probably pay the upkeep, I don't see these buildings as an individual investment (except maybe the person who actually bought it).
You also miss the point that these things will be in a year before Siege Warfare, and there needs to be a way for them to be removed by other means. If so, go with my original suggestion, except this time just say that the small holding has to take X% of damage before your claim can despawn it.
Oh, and if you wanted to defend it from us "Heartless Corporate" types, then you could just defend your property by stopping us from clearing the hex. If you can't do that, then there is no way you could have held your property either, oh and by the way, it goes right back into your pocket, its not like your lost your total investment here.
You seem like you have a problem with me, or perhaps with my group, or perhaps just any big group. Whether you want to see this or not, the game is played at a party level, group level, settlement level, and nation level. You might be an individual, but an individual means nothing unless said individual has the back of others. Furthermore, with the first come first serve mechanic of Small Holdings I foresee most Settlements even limiting Small Holdings, over time, to groups rather than individuals, to be fair.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The end result should be that a community that intends to expand into a hex should invest in their own smallholdings whether crafted or bought, and place them as soon as possible as a first step in claiming a new hex. There are only so many 'campsites' that will take a smallholding. You are a corporate giant, so act like one wit a little foresight and investment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, that is just so wrong I don't even know what to say, absolutely dumbfounded.
So, you are suggesting that we have to spend 200-600$, per hex, or have to build in game houses to lay claim to a hex?
Yea, I am going to have to totally and utterly disagree with you, mainly because this eliminates the whole "You have to expend influence to claim a Hex."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It isn't you, you big meanie. I am pro-individualism and anti group-dependency. You just happened to come up with a typical corporate opinion is all.
Well considering that they specifically say in the Blog that Small Holdings are for Parties and Companies, I am just going to assume that its going to take Parties and Companies to pay the upkeep. If you don't want to depend on other people to help you, then you shouldn't be playing a game where 90% of the content is revolved around being apart of a group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, you are suggesting that we have to spend 200-600$, per hex, or have to build in game houses to lay claim to a hex?
Unless you are being deceptive. Any thinking man should recognize that an outfit should invest in the value of crafters rather than ignore them if they don't want to contend with foreign smallholdings.
Smallholdings generate finer granularity in competitive content and should not be minimized as you are attempting to do. Your end-run around the idea of an obstacle to expansionism and dominance will fail simply because of this evident fact.
Evident in this very conversation.
As for the $600: Only those who actually support GW by purchasing the smallholding from the store would pay that kind of money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Crafting requires PvE, Gathering, and Refining groups to craft even one object. I guess unless you want to do it all yourself, which doesn't leave much experience for being viable in the wilderness.
Escalations requires teams of people to beat down, no exceptions.
PvP requires teams of people to keep what the whole group holds.
Settlements requires teams of people to build, gather bulk resources, and maintain the settlement.
PoIs/Outposts same thing as Settlements, just smaller scale (30-50 people).
Just to name a few things that takes more than a couple people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anti group-dependency has no place in PFO, it's a social game. A single person shouldn't be able to make a big problem for a group.
Socialization does not mean dependency. You should recognize that a team of independent players working cooperatively will generally be superior to a collection of dependents.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Crafting requires PvE, Gathering, and Refining groups to craft even one object. I guess unless you want to do it all yourself, which doesn't leave much experience for being viable in the wilderness.
Escalations requires teams of people to beat down, no exceptions.
PvP requires teams of people to keep what the whole group holds.
Settlements requires teams of people to build, gather bulk resources, and maintain the settlement.
PoIs/Outposts same thing as Settlements, just smaller scale (30-50 people).
Just to name a few things that takes more than a couple people.
I'm not finding a point to your observation, Cheatle, but I am a simple man without depth or subtlety.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
POI/Outposts are larger grain than smallholdings, which are larger grain than camps, which are larger grain than resource nodes.
I have noticed a tendency in some to make snap judgments without thinking things through, then losing themselves in defending their position rather than realizing the advantages of evolving their position.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The plan is for Outposts and Points of Interest to be a superset of the functionality of Smallholdings. Those structures have not been designed yet - their subsystems remain in flux. But in some configurations, Outposts and/or Points of Interest will do everything Smallholdings do, and more. Those structures will be built by player characters no not be premium items.
Here is the quote I was referring to in my last statement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think my arguments stand for themselves.
The game requires more than a couple people to play, unless you don't want to actually participate in most of the content. Whether you want to or not is up to you, but the game is going to be in favor of groups over individuals.
When it comes to small holdings, my point has always been in limiting them, because anything you can just buy and plant has to have some inherent limitations, or it becomes too powerful. I believe a group, expending time, effort, influence, and aligning themselves with a settlement is more work than creating/buying a small holding and dropping it. Since there is no other way to remove said small holding from the game, other than siege mechanics, I am suggesting at the core of my argument that there are alternative ways, because Siege Mechanics won't be in game for more than a year.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right. You are reading them into equivalence when they are not. Smallholdings and campsites are among the subsets, but some POI/Outposts are greater than smallholdings and campsites. Campsites dissipate over time. A smallholding does not (unless it is not maintained).
That quote should have informed you, upon reflection, that POI/Outposts can be reduced using siege engines and do not simply evaporate with the wave of your corporate hand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dude, look, I am suggesting an alternative to Sieges, that is the end all be all of my argument on small holdings.
Sieges will not be in the game until around OE. The only other way to remove your small holding, is to sit there and attack it for days, maybe weeks increasing the cost of your upkeep, which if you have enough people supporting you can keep it. This will allow you to keep a bind point, near or directly in a settlements territory to bind to.
My greatest issue, is a company/settlement declaring war on another settlement, and then dropping several small holdings near by, so that they can have bind points to then constantly attack said settlement. Furthermore, I also have a problem with a random individual coming in and dropping a small holding in a Settlements claimed hexes.
When there is no alternative, but sieging, and there is no game mechanic for sieging, whom ever has a small holding essentially has the upper hand, and that is pay to win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, Dude. If smallholdings are released before siege engines, then yep, that might be the only way... unless somehow someone thinks: "You know, Being was a reasonable guy. Maybe if I contacted him we could work something out".
But, then, what sort of corporate guy would think of that?
Not the TEO CEO?
...and if you bothered at all to check facts, nobody can drop a smallholding in a claimed hex without the owners' permission.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Smallholdings erected outside the perimeter of a player controlled Settlement (but inside the ring road) will require the permission of the Settlement's management prior to deployment. Allocation of locations for Smallholdings in the wilderness will be based on when players build structures. Having a premium item in your inventory gives you the perimeter, but not the right, to deploy it where you wish."
That is all I have seen, which suggests that the only permission is within settlement hexes, not all settlement claimed hexes.
You might be reasonable, but my enemy might not, which is who would exploit the use of small holdings against me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thus there should be an alternate method, or tool if you will, that can be utilized if these things occur. That is the heart of my suggestion, and something GW will have to consider, so that small holdings won't be exploited.
I agree with froggalpha there. But your alternate method should be dialog. Negotiation. And if it is your enemy, negotiate with a siege engine.