Phew, thats a lot of questions. Ryan is correct - a lot of this is TBD. I'll have a whizz through and answer what I can... 1) Keep and auction house are large. Taverns are medium.
Then onto the next lot... 1) Architect: Keep (large)
PoIs and Outposts 1) I'm not sure what you are referring to...
Sorry to be vague on some of this but lots of it is pretty TBD/outline only.
These are unreal. Absolutely incredible.
That doesnt meet our intended design goals really. I get what you are saying, but I think it is more likely that we will make it somehow easier to switch to new deities when they are released rather than train players incorrectly from the start. That said... and dont quote me on this (someone totally will, I know it ;) ) but secretly its very likely that ALL domains will just end up being available to EVERYONE in early enrollment. The faction system is not scheduled for EE - so there will be no way to distinguish between clerics at all! Even alignment doesnt come in day 1!
EDIT : Temples can support up to 3 deities IN TOTAL with upgrades. The one you pick when building it and then 2 more as upgrades. As with ALL the large Role structures right now the Cathedral a bit of a weird sell since it only trains Clerics but it takes up a large plot. ITs the same for all of them to start though... The University for example will eventually cover Bards, Wizards, and Sorcerers, but to start with it ONLY covers Wizards. On paper then you may as well JUST build the Academy, which covers Wizards alone... But in the long run (and for the other settlement benefits they offer) the large structures are a much better bet.
A Cathedral (which is actually the large Cleric building, not the temple, my error) can have either additional deities added OR paladin training added (subject to alignment) Further down the line there will be other classes that may end up on the Cathedral too (its possible you may like to speculate on what those will be ;) ). So it supports 2+ classes vs. the 3 that others can. Temples (which are the medium Cleric structures) can also support up to 3 deities as upgrades (again, subject to alignment). So thats up to 6 domains initially, and 9 when each deity gets its 3rd domain. Each faith is not a role. There are not 9 roles for clerics and there fore 12 roles at launch. However, faith in Golarion is important and so it is reflected that way in our design. Settlements will be flavoured not just by their class choices but also by their faction choices and a large part of that will come from deity selection. So your question is tough to answer. If a settlement wants clerics of a diverse number of deities then sure! Its totally worth it! If a settlement is more concerned with a diverse breadth of classes then they are probably going to have to choose which (smaller number) of deities best represents their settlement (and are compatible with their alignment.) In short, we believe that this system is both fair and represents religion in Golarion. Being a cleric is not like being a Priest in WoW. You are not just a 'wizard that uses divine magic'. You are a devoted follower of a particular living deity, and as such you must make forsake the worship and associated abilities of other deities if you want to gain power.
I have covered this before so I'll just whizz through it once more. Cleric domains are a TINY fraction of what makes a cleric. MOST cleric abilities - I mean the VAST MAJORITY of them are generic. Spells, orisons, save bonuses, armor feats... the list is endless. The Seminary is the 'generic' cleric building and together with the temple will cover most of what you need for being a cleric. The domains (and eventually faction abilities, which is the same for evey class) are the only thing that is restricted to individual deities/temples associated with those deities. In addition - yes, you are correct - playing a cleric is differnt from playing a wizard/fighter/rogue. That is how Pathfinder works. In Pathfinder it is nigh on impossible to switch your cleric abilities and those available to you are extremely limited by your alignment and deity. In PFO you can change alignment and faction rep MUCH easier, making switching between deities much easier, but PFO is an online Golarion where your religious dedication matters. This does not gimp or nerf clerics. This does not make their advancement harder than other classes. This does not give them fewer options than other classes. This does not introduce any additional XP tax on clerics than on any other class. EVERY class must choose between feature feats and must by each of them individually. Clerics must source these feats from settlements with compatible alignments. This is the major difference between Cleric class features and those of the fighters/wizards/etc. This is a feature of Golarion and it is a feature we are deliberately mirroring in PFO. PFO is not WoW. It is an MMO set in Golarion. Alignment and affiliation matters - it has consequences and benefits for your character, your settlement, and your dreams of conquest. One last quick note - your understanding of clerics and their combat ability seems skewed. I get that you are probably just venting some concerns framed as fact, but I'd hold off until we release more about being a cleric or at the very least you get to play as one with all its skills and abilities in place. I play a cleric every day, by choice, when testing the game. Its awesome.
I suppose that an important question for clerics awaiting a preferred Deity is: Are the available domains required for level advancement in the generic (waiting for a diff God) "Role" that is available now? Ok, two things - 1) You are correct. Those domains may not be in the works. As far as I know, in fact, NO domains other than those of the core 9 are 'in the works' because until we get to the point when we are considering introducing new domains we are thinking about other things. This will be in part a crowdforging issue - we will probably need to add 'packs' of deities (and domains) according to their popularity in crowdforging. 2) The cost of domains is minuscule compared to the overall cost of all the other things you need to have purchased to become a cleric. You will have next to no trouble purchasing at least 1 of the domains you want when it becomes available, particularly if you choose to hold onto some XP for that purpose. Holding on to / banking some XP will NOT MAKE YOU LESS POWERFUL but it will mean you have VERY SLIGHTLY fewer character options until the domains you want come out. You might have to take just 2 crafting skills instead of 3. Or take ONLY the travel domain instead of Travel and <whatever> to start. Since you can ONLY slot ONE domain at a time this will not affect your character's power, only his options. On a related note - although you want Liberty and Healing you can ONLY SLOT ONE at a time. Clerics in PFO do not work the same way they do in PF, so its worth keeping that in mind from the start. You will find it very hard to mechanically build an existing (or imagined) PF character in PFO - but of course you can, and we encourage you, to role play with as much conviction as you can muster!
If it gets left up to crowdforging (very likely), the scream will be for new classes ahead of new Gods for the existing ones so be prepared to wait a while for Cayden & the gang. There will be only the opening 9 deities for a bit. You can switch deities with relative ease provided you keep you alignment on track. Faction rating will be relatively easy to gain, particularly if you are a cleric. It will not take you long to switch deities. It is also possible (it has been discussed but only in outline) that there could be ways to trade in faction rating when if we introduce new theistic content.
a) Each deity offers 2 domains (to start). You can learn both of these but domains are the cleric class feature, so they can have only one slotted at a time. Much like fighters can purchase weapon specialization in multiple weapon groups but can slot only one at a time. b) Only one domain benefit is available at a time. Domains only provide passive bonuses. They do not provide additional abilities. c) None. Domains do not provide additional spells/power per day. Each cleric in PFO picks a deity.
Example: I'm a neutral good Cleric of Iomadae with a positive faction rating with her church. I have the Glory domain and the Sun domain. I can switch freely between these domains when I like. I decide I want to Worship Gorum (or get the strength domain if I am playing in a totally cheesy non-role play way.) I need to move my alignment to something compatible - true neutral is probably easiest (Gorum is CN). I also need to raise my standing with Gorum's faction (which will in turn reduce my Iomadae faction). Now I can go and buy the Strength domain from a Gorum temple. Now I own Strength, Sun, and Glory domains. I cannot slot Sun because I dont have the right faction rating or alignment for it, but I do have the right features for both Glory and Strength (since Gorum offers both). I can still only slot one of these at a time, but I can switch freely between them when configuring my character.
Having a link to a diety is pretty core to a cleric, otherwise you are just an oracle that can't spontaneously cast. I think this should be something you have to define, if you can just pick as many domains and swap them out as the need arises I think it un-balances clerics and it also makes it so evey cleric is a cleric of everything, rather then having different clerics of different things. Someone with better forum-fu than me might be able to find it, but in Golarion there are no clerics without a deity. Its in the core rule book because the core rules are not Golarion specific, but James Jacobs has clarified that in Golarion all clerics must have a single deity who grants their power. This also means they will all have to select appropriate domains.
*pops head above parapet* I am into this. I'll have to have a bit of a think about the implications, but it could work if it were super 'spensives. One of the advantages of the Feud system is that the cost is variable according to the power discrepancy between feuder and feudee. This helps prevent too much 'bullying' by larger companies. Allowing feuds against unclaimed hexes doesnt have this balance factor which might be sticky... I'll have a think and watch this thread for the inevitable back and forth!
Could Ryan, Lee, Stephen, Tork, somebody share the rationale for limiting support? Probably not any clearer than we have already, heres a summary since some of these points are spread out across different threads/posts. 1) Encourage inter-settlement communication and travel- Specifically we want to encourage settlements to keep their gates open, at least while their PvP window is closed. 2) Encourage friction within settlement management - dont like the way your settlement is run or the choices they have made? Go and make your own, get elected to the leadership, or campaign for a leadership role in another settlement. Politic. Backstab. Organise a coup. 3) Encourage diversity in settlement creation - Alignment, faction interest, and reputation are mechanics that affect what a settlement can do. Social pressures within management, settlement location, and alliances are all external, non-mechanical pressures that will push each settlement in a unique direction. 4) Create interesting economic and social implications for Settlement - See a niche in the available training in-game? Fill it in your settlement and reap the rewards. First settlement to reach X% standing with a particular faction? Capitalize on that by being the first and only settlement to offer their specific training. Find yourselves in a relatively safe location and able to maintain some good alliances? Go crafting crazy and corner the trade market! 5) Create dependencies beyond the settlement - your settlement cant do everything and there are going to be gaps to fill... Maybe thats martial so you need to hire some mercenaries now and again. Maybe that crafting, so you need to ship in raw materials. Maybe thats gathering/harvesting, so you need to swap all your excess ore for some corn. Whatever the pressure, a settlement should not become a closed entity. 6) Create interesting mechanical balance and imbalance between settlements - settlements should be like characters. A mage can blast you from a distance but will come apart when you get up close. A cleric can play a long game with healing, buffs, and status effect removal for a long time but will struggle to close a battle...
Over all the answer is "your settlement should not be able to do everything". That is the driving principal within settlement systems. I hope from the above you can understand why, but I appreciate that there are players who will always say 'but I want to do X AND Y AND Z'. That, a good game does not make :) This is not a single player game and this is not WoW. You will not be the best at everything, even though you are paying to subscribe to this game. I know that for some players that is a frustrating prospect but that is the nature of PFO. That is the game we are setting out to make. Choices and consequences.
Well yeah, except if phaeros doesn't support cleric, because it needed something else.Brighthaven because I want to be cleric, and my friend in Phaeros, because he wants to be a roguee. These are not opposed roles, and I would consider it very bad design to discourage it.But you don't have to do that. You can have your friend live with you in Brighthaven, as long as it offers support for rogues. He would just need to go to Phaeros to train up his rogue. Yes. In in the remarkably unlikely situation you describe you would have to find another settlement to join together. OR, since this is a game about interaction you could lobby for Cleric support. If this really is the settlement full of all your friends you should be able to get some good sway going. Hell, you could even often to take your friends out adventuring to raise both the DI (through trophy capture) and the resources to cover the cost of the Cleric structure yourself. If, however, you are living in a settlement where a) your role is super-niche and contrary to their focus and b) you are being ignored by settlement management, you might want to consider a new home anyway. So in this example we can hopefully see the opportunity for both social interaction and meaningful choices.
There hasnt actually been a change, its just that the original quote wasnt quite as clear as it could be... Each tier of structure has a minimum reputation requirement to build. But a settlement's reputation requirement is set settlement wide. So if you want to build high tier stuff you have to have a high settlement reputation minimum. That minimum applies to ALL settlement structures, even if they are crappy. There is only ONE reputation minimum per settlement even if you have structures of diverse tiers in that settlement.
A settlement can potentially support nearly EVERY role up to the max level. Members of classes will have to travel to train but will hold onto any of the skills their home settlement supports. Let me say that again - A SETTLEMENT CAN SUPPORT NEARLY EVERY ROLE UP TO THE MAX LEVEL.At what cost? How much of a settlement's DI and structure slots must they devote to achieve this? If it's *possible*. with an astronomically high cost, it doesn't solve the problem for those who are concerned. At the cost of other settlement options. This question feels a bit meaningless. Your settlement cannot do everything, just like your character cannot do everything. If you want to have loads of classes supported you'll have to sacrifice crafting and special upgrades. If you want to support loads of crafting you'll have to sacrifice crafting and special upgrades. This is how the game works. If its not for you, its not for you.
This thread is pretty all over the place. There are a number of different goals and agendas at play and thats making it very difficult for this to become a genuine discussion. I'm not going to wade in on any side or direction, but I am going to summarize what I think are the specific complaints and than address them. Friends who want to play different styles/roles/alignments/reputations will NOT be able to: a) play together : Incorrect.
b) live together : Incorrect.
c) Train together : Correct.
I'd also mention that the reputation system and the role/class/skill limitation system on settlements are ENTIRELY SEPARATE and designed to achieve separate goals. The reputation system is designed to discourage undesirable behaviour. The settlement limitations are designed to encourage interaction between settlements and players. These systems are not connected in the manner implied by much of the above discussion. Hope this helps!
This feels like something of a debate so I'm only going to pop my head in briefly to say: "What differences in basic combat can you be envisioning that would make them very different from theme park combat? It's the same stuff. Even just conceptually, what could be all that different from Everquest, SWTOR, LOTRO, WoW, any of them? You aggro some mobs and use various abilities to kill them. They usually run towards you and try to hit you. You either stand toe to toe with them, or kite them, or CC them, or root them, or AE them, or whatever.
With a definition this broad it is very difficult to say what will be mechanically different - what you are describing here is every killing mechanic in every game ever. However, if we narrow the definition to be more useful, as Quietus does: Its about tactics. The important goal we have for PvE is that the monsters do not behave significantly differently from the way that players would behave - much like monsters in tabletop which are controlled by the GM (effectively an omniscient player). Our monsters will have tactics of their own as well as responding to the attacker's tactics. They will not blindly follow aggro lists, but instead will react to certain types of play. Its impossible to see this in the current builds because there is very, very little AI right now. I believe they currently have ONE aggro list for each encounter, passed between the monsters. So first player to tag a monster is going to get them all on him almost indefinitely. What we want to achieve with monster AI is a system where playing the PvE game is not radically different from playing the PvP game. This is where the distinction lies between PFO and the games mentioned above.
Yes its true that you will not be able to be in a settlement with EVERY class. This is a deliberate design choice. Quick answers, sorry, I'm just doing some bug writing! 1) TBD. In principal the only advantage nations have is that they can freely move between/train between/and gain preferential training rates between associated settlements. Each settlement will still need to provide support structures for their members. 2) A quick example : The Cleric training facility is the Temple. It is a medium sized structure. The Temple can be leveled up to offer Cleric specific feats up to 1st, 2nd, then 3rd tier. The Cleric support structure is called the Graveyard. It is a SMALL sized structure. It too can be leveled up to support Cleric specific feats to 1st, 2nd, then 3rd tier. The building that trains Cleric (and paladin and likely druid/ranger/oracle) orisons/spells is called the Seminary. It is a medium sized structure. It can be leveled up to offer Wizard specific feats up to 1st, 2nd, then 3rd tier. The support structure for the Seminary is called the Mission. It is a SMALL sized structure. It too can be leveled up to support Seminary skills (including all the classes the seminary supports) specific feats to 1st, 2nd, then 3rd tier. SO - a settlement who wants to fully trains Clerics needs a Seminary (medium) and a Temple (medium).* A settlement who wants to fully SUPPORT clerics needs a Graveyard (small) and Mission (small). In both cases to support them fully they would need to upgrade those buildings with tier 2 and 3 facilities. The only way there would be a power disadvantage would be if your Settlement was too stingy to spend the DI on the upgrades to support your class all the way. *Note there are also large structures that can train clerics but I'm keeping this simple for now!
A quick note on this... The level of support offered by the 'kit' settlements is still a little in flux. It is very possible that in fact support will be to the full level of the trained classes in each settlement. In fact I think it is likely. As Lee mentioned he was still spit-balling a bit about exactly how that would work and we're still hammering out the deets. I've been drawing up the sample settlements and it seems likely we will end up with full support for non-trained classes.
Lee (or possibly another dev) clarified that PoI-based support was almost exclusively for Skills, and that Feats would need to be supported out of your settlement. Eep, sorry for making you dredge back through it all Nihimon - I was busy doing a wee playtest with Stephen and Bob. Which went well, you might be interested to know! I think Bob was the only one to die... To clarify - PoIs are almost exclusively going to train skills. There will be SOME feats available, but they will only go to Tier II and they will likely be limited. There is a possibility that there will be some Role/Class training included in those feats but it will be pretty minimal. The example bandying about right now is that Inns may be able to train SOME of the Bard feats (eventually). In this example it would only be to tier II and it would most likely only be a subset of those feats or potentially specific faction based Bard skills that went well with the inn in question. Obviously this idea could expand out to things like fighter feats for towers, rogue feats for hideouts, etc. (Note those are theoretical - the PoI list is still fluid!). This means that SUPPORT for skills is pretty much confined to settlements right now. Once the support tech is in place it may be possible (and desirable) to expand some kinds of support to PoIs, but that is unlikely to be the case anywhere in the near future. The important thing to remember is that support structures are cheaper (significantly) than Class/Role training structures. As I think I demonstrated in those example settlements there will be NO settlement that can train or support ALL the (eventual) classes/roles. An average settlement can train well over half, however, and a Class/Role focused settlement can nearly support them all. Yes its true that you will not be able to be in a settlement with EVERY class. This is a deliberate design choice.
Nopey. Towers only change hand with action. If you leave your tower undefended and no one bothers to come scoop it up it will still be yours when you get back from cancelling your subscriptions to all your other MMOs because you've just realized that PFO is the only one you need. (That is the only reason I can think of for you not being online in PFO the whole time).
So these are our current contenders. I think the only one to get a second so far is Auxiliary Structures. Morale Structures
Just to maybe add a bit of fuel- the current list of structures serving this purpose is as follows. Its a pretty diverse list of things and the terms should really take that into account. Not least cos it will be fun to come up with even more diverse ones in the future... I'm in LOVE with the idea of 'heads on spikes' - a kind of 'Garden of Skulls'. Warehouse
Oh I see. No. Pledges must be mutual. Just like settlement membership or company membership. All individual applications must all be 'accepted'*.*you can all call me a liar when you hear about the option companies and settlements will one day have to offer 'open enrollment'.
One more quick point: Lee mentioned yesterday that the success case for settlements in the WotT would be to win buildings at early enrollment. This is not quite true as written. I think Lee was suggesting that you get specific ROLE or CLASS buildings, but in fact the rewards will be support structures. Just to confuse matters that doesnt refer to 'structures that support classes and skills' - we have been using the term 'support structures' before that system came in. These 'support structures' to which I am referring are actually things like statues and wells and grain silos - decorative or utilitarian structures that actually provide a very minor DI bonus instead of costing DI like normal settlement structures do. This means that a settlement who does well in WotT will end up with a small bonus to their starting DI in EE. They will still need to manage the upkeep of these support structures to keep that DI bonus and they will still need to get their mitts on all the building materials to build whatever it is they want to make to fill their bonus DI. In short, the advantage to settlements who do well in WotT is that they will start with the ability to build more structures on day one (ability, not the materials), and will therefore potentially be able to ramp up their settlement slightly faster than others.
do bear in mind that preventing exploits to these systems is sort of my angle I'm not following... Could you phrase it as an example with 'group x does y, group b does z'? I'm not all that bright :/
Is there a way to declare yourself a defender of a tower? So that two groups could help each other hold towers, for example Golgotha and Aeturnum. Golgotha has its PvP window set up, and Aeturnum has a few folks show up to help out. Is there a way for these characters to count as helping the defenders even if they are from a different company/settlement? I think I just covered this in an answer that I was typing while you were typing this :) No - allies trying to take a tower together will have to coordinate in a such a way that only the one they want to succeed earns points towards capture. This should be relatively easy because of the layout of the capture areas. I should say - there are many, many additional systems we could add to WotT to allow alliances, more complex capture mechanics, mercenary play, etc. However, WotT is only going to last for a few months. This system is designed to be an introduction to settlement/PoI warfare in PFO. Its not perfect, its not comprehensive, but it wont be around for very long. It is designed to direct PvP play and to provide a platform for the alliances, politicking, and territory control mechanics that are the core of the PFO MMO. Believe me I have a gazillion sketches of how we could make this more comprehensive and a thousand additional features we could add. We discussed many of them and their technical implications and decided that the minimal subset workable areas described in the blog. Each additional feature we add to WotT is time taken away from completing the final product and while some of these may seem super-trivial they tend to bring with them a rabbit hole of cornercases and UI requirements that make them unfeasible as part of a temporary system. Them's the breaks :/
While you work on waterproofing the system, might we get an explanation of how 1 company claims 1 tower will then factor in that company helping attack another tower. Do they not count at all and just help pacify the area? I could also see some groups going for an exploit type system where they lock down towers then dump all but one player who is now a company of 1 with a tower and start a new company to continue rampaging. If there is no downtime between being in one company vs another this seems to open the door to zerg like behavior. After leaving a company a player must wait 24 hours before joining another. That is actually not War of the Towers specific and will most likely persist in the full game. Companies cannot 'assist' each other in scoring points when capturing towers - they can only assist as combatants.
Mechanically, yes. But when you get into the world you will see why this is wildly, wildly impractical. A huge alliance however... That could be a formidable issue. And thats exciting. When The Empyrean Order, Talonguard, Keepers of the Circle, and The Seventh Veil all become best pals - then you have to worry.
How frequently is the "PVP window is open based on how many towers you have" factor recalculated? If it's immediately upon taking or losing a tower, we need to react one way; if it's each day at midnight (or the beginning of Redmond office-hours), another. 24 hours after capture/release. I feel like I know where these questions are going. I think you are all asking about how a settlement and their allies could exploit the windows/benefits/pledges system to benefit their warfare agenda. I appreciate your smoke-tests and I completely understand why these are fun questions to ask, but do bear in mind that preventing exploits to these systems is sort of my angle - so I've already run the smoke through a couple of times. These systems are still in development so any numbers that come out will be tweaked up to and beyond implementation. I cant get them right first time - I'd like to say no one can - thats the nature of iterative game development. That said, I believe the system to be sound/water-resistant, if not yet waterproof.
Lee and I are going to whip up a company/settlement (text) blog in the near future to cover all this. Much of this has been stated but its all mixed in across a bunch of blogs/posts/etc. Its probably valuable to consolidate this all into one place.
I will admit we actually had 3 different possible solutions to the complexity of multiple company memberships. At the time of the blog multiple Tower ownership WAS permitted (in a form) but we can save on a bit of tech my simply restricting company membership to one company in the short term. Please note, however, that in any case a player can only be a member of ONE sponsored company, and pledging a tower to a settlement would have been the equivalent of 'sponsorship'. The effect is almost identical, therefore, except that players can no longer be members of one sponsored company and two other 'social group' companies. You will unfortunately need to manage you non-mechanical social groups externally until after the war of the towers and band together in companies along territorial/alliance lines.
For the duration of the War of the Towers characters will only be able to be members of ONE company. In the long run players can be members of 3 companies, but the War of the Towers will be over by then.
Ok. Really. I cant say this enough times so I hope I make it clear this time: Towers are owned by COMPANIES.
If your group wins a settlement in the land rush it comes with NO FREE TOWERS. Your company can capture one, and then you MUST make alliances with AT LEAST FIVE other companies to secure your other 5 adjacent towers. This BENEFITS small companies and is an absurdly beneficial arrangement for the really small companies that happen to win a settlement in the land rush. There is NO WAY a small company of 5, 10, 15 people can hold a settlement in the real, full game. The ONLY scenario in which they can do so is in the land rush. If they do not gather members and alliances between now and the full system they will not survive. War of the towers forces alliances and will hopefully make this easier for both companies and settlements.
As I said elsewhere, they also said we'd have months to get to that number. Now we don't. If we don't have dozens of members on day one of EE, we will not be able to hold any towers, thus shutting down our settlement's ability to support training on day one of EE.This is going to seriously disadvantage the smaller groups. Especially if they have to hold their surrounding towers. Some groups will be hard-pressed to put a person in each immediate hex if even a single player or two aren't online.They said small groups were never intended to hold a settlement. They mentioned in a post mentioning hundreds. This definitely will play into that. A few answers! a) Each settlement can train X things up to level Y. X always remains the same and is determined by which prebuilt settlement you choose. Y, however, is determined by the number of towers you have. Basically, every ability/skill/feat in the game has 20 levels. Every tower you own adds another level to the training available in your settlement. b)This harks back to a previous post. So - being able to TRAIN means that there will be a structure in the settlement from which a player can purchase skills for that class or role. Being able to SUPPORT means there will be a structure in that settlement that can maintain the training gained for a player's class or role (i.e. it will not get turned off/decay), but cannot actually sell any skills or abilities.
The settlements do not actually get a choice initially whether to engage in war - they are automatically engaged into war with everybody from the beginning, even if the general settlement style is "specialized raiders of the nearby dungeon" or "dwarven crafting guild". Every settlement is completely surrounded with towers, and, depending on the size and placing of the PvP window, the situation can just develop into "every commoner going out of the city to harvest is automatically a viable targeet for anyone except for people from the same settlements". We cannot say in advance, how many wars a settlement would wage (it depends on people playstyle, alignment etc.), but with...Yes, and even worse: this 30% free murder zone actually rewards the otherwise "low-reputation" behaviour, granting long-term bonuses (currently of unknown value). And after such game mechanics enters the field, killerfolks will surely know, that they can urge GW to remove "hindering" reputation and probably alignment mechanics, if the say they are "bored", thus effectively robbing the game content from people who are NOT bored when they do not PvP. It happens at start? It sure can happen at any time. I think you concern might be based on a slight misinterpretation of the full settlement system. Settlements (in the full system) cannot maintain their structures without upkeep. Upkeep requires the ownership of multiple hexes. Thus, a settlement cannot survive without capturing and holding land around them. Just like with War of the Towers. That has always been the case - settlement warfare and land control is the central system to drive PvP in PFO. Now I should point out that 'every commoner is a viable target for PvP' ONLY when the PvP window is open for that hex. This commoner will know when the PvP window is open and can therefore choose to visit another hex. If a player is not interested in PvP they can make their home in one of the NPC settlements and visit any hex they want that is either not a tower hex, or a tower hex whose PvP window is not currently open. Is that clearer?
As I said elsewhere, they also said we'd have months to get to that number. Now we don't. If we don't have dozens of members on day one of EE, we will not be able to hold any towers, thus shutting down our settlement's ability to support training on day one of EE.This is going to seriously disadvantage the smaller groups. Especially if they have to hold their surrounding towers. Some groups will be hard-pressed to put a person in each immediate hex if even a single player or two aren't online.They said small groups were never intended to hold a settlement. They mentioned in a post mentioning hundreds. This definitely will play into that. I'm still not sure I'm making this clear... You and your settlement will not be able to hold ANY towers (well, your company can). You will NEED to ally with OTHER companies to hold towers. Only companies can hold towers. Everyone will need allies. A small company will certainly be able to hold a tower - and if they are worried about defense they would be wise not to pledge it to a settlement with a huge PvP window unless that settlement can offer defensive support.
Right, I know that this system is supposed to get more complex later on. I just worry that it... won't. Oh heavens I hope it does. I've been working for 12 months on a kookoobananas complex settlement warfare system. I'd be very put out if it doenst make it in ;)
"Is there a name for the way you talk?" Properly? ;) I am indeed Scottish. I come from the Western Isles (the middle of nowhere - the Isle of Seil, specifically) but I spend about 10 years between Glasgow and Edinburgh and then about 8 years in London. So my accent is pretty neutral now. Scots think I am English, the English think I'm Scottish.
This is going to seriously disadvantage the smaller groups. Especially if they have to hold their surrounding towers. Some groups will be hard-pressed to put a person in each immediate hex if even a single player or two aren't online. One important thing to remember - I'm not sure I got this across strongly enough in the video - towers are held by Companies and then allied to settlements. Settlements themselves cannot be attacked. So defense of the towers falls to EACH COMPANY that owns them with the support of the settlement to which they are pledged. Make the right alliances and size will be much less important.
1) The settlements will train at least 2 of the 4 (alpha base) classes, but will support all of them. This means that Settlement A may train Wizard and Cleric but it can have fully supported members who are Fighters, except that they will have to visit another settlement to train new skills. 2) Nopey - in order to get settlements out in some form we have had to simplify them significantly. The only management will be of PvP windows (a more detailed answer on that is imminent!) 3) Not really... The impact of this system on settlements post-cataclysm is still being tweaked. The JIST of it is that holding towers will earn your settlement's some sort of credit (basically a bonus to starting DI). I dont want to say too much about that because we are really still working out how that will feed back into the system. To be brutally honest when I was designing the settlement/DI systems I did not anticipate us doing the War of the Towers first (no-one did!) so I am working out the best way to feed it back into the long term system.
1) You can only be a member of ONE settlement. The entity that runs the settlement is the SETTLEMENT. 2) You can be a member of the settlements rulers without being in any sponsored companies. Membership in settlement leadership is INDEPENDENT from company membership. 3) This question is about functionality too specific to discuss at this stage. I'm up for going over the conceptual top-level stuff about settlements but there is no sense in giving answers about individual functionality until the top-level stuff gets locked. Soz.
Ryan has covered pretty much everything here. I have added a tiny bit of detail above where I think it is useful. Remember that although I have all of these systems planned out none of them will be implemented for some time, so all these designs are subject to change.
Just a quick post to say thank you to all the devs who have posted in this thread. I think I speak for all of us when I say that it really is appreciated. Sure! Its equal parts frightening and fun to keep you all up to date. You never quite know how folks are going to react! Its very helpful to get feedback on these systems though - positive or negative. And this place is a damn sight less frightening than the Darkfall forums... There be dragons.
Two speedy answers: - A settlement will most likely eventually be able to set prices on individual structures. This might be in later patches (because settlement UI is going to be such a beast it will very possibly come out in fits and starts). - Members of settlements do NOT get PoI benefits unless they are also members of the company who owns the PoI. They can train at PoIs if the PoI owners let them (which is VERY likely of course, if they are allied) but the settlement itself will need to have a support structure to cover the skills trained at the PoI for those who are not members of the PoI company. This may be subject to change in the future, but bear in mind that PoI training is mostly skills (few feats) which are trained by so many structures that most settlements will end up covering most skills without even trying.
I think the answers you got to these questions were correct above, but I'll provide a quote so you can hold it against me later ;) 1)A company does not default to anything, since a company does not need to be sponsored. A player DOES default to an NPC settlement. Discussions are on-going about exactly how we determine to which NPC city a person/new player is allocated. 2) Nopey. The PLAYERS are still linked to their NPC settlements AND to their PoI (if it offers any skills), but the the Company itself remains independent. 3) Yes. 4)Yes, he can. Settlements can determine WHO can buy from them. This allows them to set additional restrictions for outsiders making purchases (like higher Rep or Alignment or Factional ratings) above and beyond what is required for membership. They can also set different prices for members and non-members. 5) No. Purchasing skills and skill levels is the same process, except that nothing very exciting happens when you upgrade a skill except that it gets better. By that I mean you dont get something NEW, you just get something better. 'Maintaining skills' refers to being able to USE skills that you have ALREADY purchased. So lets say I buy a tier II skill and a tier III skill in my settlement. I can continue to USE these skills ONLY for as long as my settlement has a structure that can either sell or support that skill. If my settlement gets destroyed I will default back to an NPC settlement. The NPC settlement will not support my tier III skill (because its a total craphole) but I will lose the use of that skill until I find a new settlement who does support it. In the mean time, however, I can continue to freely use my tier II skill to smash faces with.
A paladin and barbarian could not be in the same settlement since they have conflicting alignment requirements (lawful/chaotic). You're right, of course. In all of this. I think we corrected my mistake a bit further up. Unfortunately some of our restrictions will stricter than in the PFRPG precisely because they are meant to be restrictions. I mentioned up above that although there is 1 step leeway on most things (and as a result the 'non-lawful' class restrictions become effectively meaningless) there WILL be restrictions on training that go above and beyond the class descriptions in the Core Rulebook. We have much greater granularity than that so while Paladins will most likely be able to live in a settlement alongside Barbarians that settlement they will not both be able to train there. Its likely, for example, that Paladin Chapter houses will only be able to be built in LG settlements. Paladin support structures will probably be allowed in settlements with an alignment 1 step out from that, but the Paladins who live there will need to travel to train. This is a restriction that exceeds those in the PFRPG, and this is deliberate. Settlements will have to make these meaningful decisions. This is not meant to complicate the issue of alignment, its meant to increase diversity across settlements and to encourage inter-settlement relationships.
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).
Class Training Focused: This settlement focuses on class training only. It trains 9 classes and supports 3 more (for a total of 12 supported).
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).
EDIT : Removed the profession stuff cos actually at this stage its more confusing than its worth. To me too.
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.
|
