Goblin

Vwoom's page

Goblin Squad Member. 138 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Fewer nodes sure, but not so few that bandits can set up an ambush on one of the "few" nodes in a hex.

Goblin Squad Member

I am in, but seems to be a complete wipe.

Goblin Squad Member

How are people going to fight when there is math involved?

Goblin Squad Member

It is not my intension to be rude, and I do not mean to shut anybody down, I did mention that such a thing (dampire) is out there.

Goblin Squad Member

ArchAnjel wrote:

I'm with a group grinding away at some camp of mobs, waiting for the respawn. One of the group members is running around in circles, constantly hopping up and down, up and down, up and down, and was just generally acting like a kid.

I whisper to one of my groupmates, "I'd be willing to bet that guy is, like, 12." The next thing I know, she says into group, "So, how old is everyone?"

This guy stops his jumping as he replies, "I'm 12. How old are you?"

She responds, "I'm 27."

The next words out of this poor kid's mouth, I s**t you not, were, "Wow! You're old! My mom is 27!"

...

... <I took a moment to do the math> ...

...

"Ummm... hey... just so you know... you probably should NOT tell people that. Just take my word for it - it does not reflect well upon your mom."

At the age of 17 I found myself telling my mom you know people are not dumb.... What?.... You can't tell them I am 17, and then tell them you are (still) 29 a few mins later....

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The advanced race guide doesin include Dampire if i recall correctly they are half vampire by birth. To be honest I'd say let's get the dwarves, gnomes, half orcs, etc done before we worry about the Umm exotic.

Goblin Squad Member

Edit no need for doublesssss

Goblin Squad Member

This is an important topic for discussion.

It is my very strong belief that every single member of a settlement should have some skill at arms with a ranged weapon.

Any attack on a settlements walls should first have to deal with a rain of fire that would wither the unprepared.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps I need to find and read that tab targeting post? My logic is that there must be a target selected. It could be that a formation leader could provide a /assist function for an area target that everybody fires on? Even better a visible ring to fire through that must be positioned by a spotter. To be clear I am thinking about a formation inside the walls that doesn't have line of site on the attackers.

Goblin Squad Member

There will most certainly be math involved with hitting a target but it will include targeting, skill, range, AC, dodge, evasion, and other factors on both sides. I don't think it will include the kind of physics you are describing sure the arrows will have a nice appearance but if factors like wind speed are added that would be dropping the PF rule set to a degree.

It does bring up an interesting question. Will an archer on the settlement wall have to choose a single target from the hoard? Can a archery formation fire upon a opposing formation sight unseen? I thing yes to the former, but would like to be wrong allowing the latter.

Goblin Squad Member

So have the available classes been expanded beyond Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue? If so I completely missed it....

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

We may decide to sublet out some or all of our POIs and their support outposts, giving other companies and settlements a stake in if not defending Aragon, at least not attacking it.

I have to chime in on this one... This really has my wheels spinning... The potential of this settlement is quite interesting.

If a company that is attached to a neighboring settlement is in control of one of what would be your POI they might choose not to attack your settlement I'll give you that.

You would be in effect paying your neighbor protection but just how vested would they be in protecting your settlement to keep those extra resources. If they have to declare war on a different settlement, thus opening them selves and their lands to attack.

If someone wanted to attack UNC / Aragon why would that settlement feel obligated to join in common cause. The feud with UNC would not open their POI up for attack, only a feud directed at their POI / settlement. Would Aragon further expand one of these agreements to not practice your banditry, on that neighbor or his borrowed POI?

How will you walk that line of collecting protection vs paying it? Of your six possible neighbors? If you were renting or even just allowing your settlement neighbor to use your POI would that POI be protected from the residents of Aragon, and would that protection extend to the neighbors other POIs.

Are you thinking of it as renting out the POI for a % of the resources, and providing protection for it? I understand that it would have to depend on the type of POI but what kind of %s are you thinking about? Would you only rent to a local settlement or any party that could defend it? What obligation would your renters have to defend the settlement?

Are we talking about a sliding scale Aragon provides protection as well so the renters can specialize increasing base output of the POI and as a result would incur a much tax % to Aragon? If the renters are all in to protect the POI on their own would Aragon demand a smaller tax % of their output?

Will rented POIs still be open game as per your charter above? If you have an agreement to protect a POI would you compensate the renters or reduce the required tax? Should they be umm pillaged under your watch?

I have to wonder if other settlements have considered this possibility as they may well lack the people necessary to man all of their potential POIs.

Proper management of the agreements (diplomacy +20) could make many roads lead to Aragon but only if they go through one of your neighbors first. Insulating Aragon from the world like a back ally in the poor quarter, yet allowing you to practice your trade. Again that fine line between paying, and collecting protection. Of course never looking like the low hanging fruit, or the bully that needs to be taken out.

I wish you much success, just not too much success with this model.
nudge nudge wink wink.....

Goblin Squad Member

As will I....

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

You start in an NPC town "determined by... factors". When you join a new settlement membership in the previous is quit.

Also, the CEO doesn't think players in NPC settlements should be flagged red for everyone to kill outside the NPC town's influence. When he said "outside the NPC town walls they find a sea of red" it means he thinks players will set their own settlements to not welcome characters with NPC membership. He was predicting a player culture not a GW mechanic.

There were two recent dev posts saying these things but I'm far too lazy to link them.

This just a few posts up this page....

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I don't think being a member of an NPC Settlement and walking outside the Settlement's security zone should flag you as killable on sight by all everywhere.

I do think maybe there's a worthwhile idea to examine that a PC Settlement can define NPC Settlement members as hostile within the territory the Settlement controls so they can be killed on sight as a policy of the PC Settlement.

That ties back into the question of how and if we can enable Settlements to have security policies as a mechanic and not a social compact, and if they can how players are informed of them.

There is nothing in stone, just a acknowledgement that it is something to be "examine"

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:

Not to be argumentative...but forcing people who don't want to belong to a large group to join up or be flagged as hostile the minute they leave the NPC zones and we will have, I'm sure, several of our more enterprising friends creating bunk guilds that will allow membership for a fee in exchange for simply belonging to a group.

They will never adventure together and never care...it will just be another form of meta-gaming we can't stop. Maybe a better way to implement this would be to make rep losses for killing unaffiliated players dependent of level. If some first level noob decide he wants to see the world and a 19th level mage roasts him....smash the mages rep. but as the noob increases level...take away the cloak of penalty wrapped around him in increments.

That way by the time the noob is no longer a noob and has reached a decent level (4-5 th?) he will know enough about the game and the different guilds to make a decision about his direction. It's a nice combination of the presented options and won't make new players feel like they are being forced into a hurried decision...which might turn people off.

EDIT: IT might also make strides in the area of everyone's fear of unaffiliated alts being used as spies. The minute those alts begin leveling they will lose their security blanket. It might not solve the problem totally, but at least Meta-gamers will have to have a paid for account that does nothing more than erase and re-roll 1st level characters...and I am fine with taking their money in exchange for some guild knowing where my wood pile is.

Ryan said, Unaffiliated in a Settlement controlled Hex would be tress passers. (He did say considered, as a mechanic) Not all Unaffiliated are FFA.

A settlement like you describe would never survive the first considered attack as there would be nobody home to protect it. I believe it would be attacked sooner, rather than later IF its members were running a muck.

Rep losses do increase for low level / skilled characters.

Goblin Squad Member

EQ had a function that if you had not logged in for 24 or 48 hours you could click a button prior to login that would return you to your home city.

Goblin Squad Member

@Ryan,

Thank you.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Urman wrote:

@Bringslight, my thinking is sort of along these lines:

Members of any company, whether sponsored by an NPC settlement or a PC settlement have an affiliation with that settlement - which can be feuded. Members of player-owned settlements, even if they don't belong to a company, have an affiliation with that settlement, which can be war decced, or some of its companies can be feuded.

Characters who are a citizen of an NPC starter town, but member of no company, are unaffiliated - no social group exists to impose any social norms on them. Nor does any social group extend its protection over them.

Such unaffilated characters should be given stern warning before they step outside NPC controlled areas. It shouldn't be impossible, but I'm thinking something on the order of Darkfall: across this line, anyone can treat you as a hostile/flagged for PvP IF you are unaffiliated. You have a 30 second timer before you glow red, in case you stepped across the line by mistake.

PFO is really intended to be a grouping game. Players should be strongly persuaded to join groups before leaving the "safe zone."

(Perhaps the unaffiliated are hostile-orange instead of hostile-red, just in case some might choose to be more merciful. Details.)

Not bad. I like a slightly different color or flag so that others can decide to not attack a curious new person.

Maybe another possibility is a 30 day (totally made up numbers) limit or 30 hrs logged in limit so that new players can see some of the world and the settlements before they decide who to join. This would not protect them from regular consequential gankers, just auto-flagging? After a time, wherein they had a chance to get to know the world and some of the settlements, it becomes obvious that they want to remain unaffiliated for another reason.

Sounds like the perfect spy, free to act for 30 hours or 3.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I am not sure whether Ryan is being sarcastic because he feels that the suggested state already exists or if he thinks that "more" of it would not be a bad idea. ;)

Ditto

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AvenaOats wrote:

The World Until Yesterday: Prologue - An Airport Scene, p.4-5, abridged:

(1931 was the date of the first contact of indigenous New Guineans with Western explorers)

I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" twice. We I read it, watched a Discovery channel version, and read it again to wipe away the Discovery version. I'll have to look for this title. Thank you.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Vwoom wrote:
My biggest interest in NDRS is To prevent rep/algn griefing before invasion. Sending people that must be removed for no other reason than to force the settlement to remove them and take faction hits to do so. I am not a fan of the take a bit for the team or monster in the basement method. I would prefer to have a way to make trespassers yes consequence free kills. Not that they all have to die just those trying to use the games rule in ways not intended to bomb a settlement.
There is somewhat of a disconnect between saying "I want to be NRDS, so I will have a list of hundreds or even thousands of players on my "Red List".

Unaffiliated PCs could be in the thousands. So whats your point.

Bluddwolf wrote:

Tork Shaw said it in the other thread.. There will be no red / white list. he also asked, why don't you just use the Feud?

How do you feud a NPC settlement?

Bluddwolf wrote:

That is what the systems are there for. Otherwise, since there is no information on the Influence system as of yet, GW should just drop it.

Why should a PVP focused MMO have a cost assigned to what it considers sanctioned PVP?

Why should settlement hexes that have laws, be FFA PVP, and the wilderness areas without laws have constraints on PVP?

You lost me here, one more time why should a settlement have laws and the wilderness not have laws, but if you attack someone in the wilderness it is not FFA. Well settlements would not be FFA is would be enforcing the law.

Bluddwolf wrote:
PC Settlements are not supposed to be as safe as the NPC Starter Towns. The wilderness hexes are not supposed to be as safe as the PC settlements.

Safer for who?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a lawful way to enforce your boarders is not to much to ask for given the game dynamics of lawful vs chaotic. As I have always seen D&D not the over simplification of good vs evil.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest interest in NDRS is To prevent rep/algn griefing before invasion. Sending people that must be removed for no other reason than to force the settlement to remove them and take faction hits to do so. I am not a fan of the take a bit for the team or monster in the basement method. I would prefer to have a way to make trespassers yes consequence free kills. Not that they all have to die just those trying to use the games rule in ways not intended to bomb a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Think of us all as Preppers.

Edit retracting this statement based on OP most recent post.

Perhaps I misunderstood or was reading to much into aformenntion misrepresentations.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My job changes everyday. I get a new project and I start from scratch with the tools I am given and eventually write up the instructions for others to use. Then I am off to a new project and take phone calls when people don't understand my instructions or more often did not really read them completely.

Each set of tools is different for a different purpose, and every year of two the new tools are for the old job and I do a brain dump of that old data.

I think some people need to do that brain dump and accept the new tools. Sandbox has a definition in your brain that does not match PFO. If you have to call it the PFO Sandbox model, and move on.

I donated to the Kickstarter because they were talking about these tools you don't want from the beginning. People are asking for all sorts of things but the developers are only going to add those things if they feel like its a good idea, and then only after it is well thought out.

Perhaps when the rubber hits the road you will love the system?

Goblin Squad Member

Did I ever tell you how I got my scars?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@PS

Yes there is he has a hostility flag up meaning he just attacked someone twice. If he is mending his ways why is there blood on his hands.

Goblin Squad Member

If someone is caught red handed, they are caught red handed.

Occems razor.

***Wonder where that expression came from?***

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
If I kill a guy, who is not flagged hostile, but he is known for ganking people. Then I will lose rep, but my attack was not meaningless.

This started with if you see a guy marked as Hostile will you attack. I believe Steelwing asserted that most will not. Nihimon said he would if the Hostile was also Low Rep. There has a been a lot of byways but I support that "profiling" as expected, as well as Steelwings because if one harvesters is ganked, a different harvester will not expect he can defeat the ganker and will hope to simply not get involved.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Vwoom wrote:

All he proposed was a NRDS system that can be changed on the fly. While I do agree there should be a time delay its not that much to ask for. I Wish he would have left out that particular bullet at this point but it did not say "Crimes committed by exiles" it say "crimes committed to exiles" which was really unnecessary.

I digress, forget the word exile and call it a red list. If you are on the list and are in the hex that controls the list/hex you are FFA to the members of that settlement. Settlements will have a way to flag criminals they don't want in there house. We are arguing about something that is going to be in game, without a cost to maintain. I expect there will be no direct cost to NBSI why would there be one to NRDS? Sure those policies will have costs to the settlement but not a "to add a member to this list will cost one DI" cost.

SAD can be done anywhere in the world you want to break it out, their red list will be confined to their hex(s).

Vwoom,

If my company is on this red list, can we act without consequence within that territory, the same as if we were involved in a feud or at war?

It really does feel like you are pushing for your own desired play style here. I have been ignoring others assursions of that, you seem like a good guy but you already know the answer to that question.

The thing you want is to be a criminal with a 10 min flag and then be free and clear of the actions. You want settlements to have to take rep hits to hunt you down. If people do that within a hex that is controlled by a settlement the settlement is not going to sit back and say oh well we did not get to them within the timer I guess they are a good guy again now that the time is lapsed. They are going to create criminal lists. None of this back and forth is going to change that. Ryan said he expects NBSI, the OP is talking about a way to be NDRS. Which you seem to be opposed to because among other reasons he is the poster. You don't like each other we get it. He wants a way to flag criminals, you don't want a system that lets people hunt criminals in their own hex. You plan to be a criminal, he plans to hunt criminals. He wants a tool that would make your acting like a criminal harder, you don't. I don't even know why I am responding to be sure.

Here I go anyway...

Will you be able to act without consequences? Of course not but the reason to put someone on the list is because they are acting as if there are none in the first place, ie. raiding and robbing without a feud. The settlement leadership will find a way to enforce some consequences on those who are harassing their people, caravans, traders, outposts, POI, etc without the war / feud systems. The statute of limitations for a crimes are 10 mins (unless that changes) but if you operate in a area long enough that will have less and less meaning to those people you are exercising your chosen play style on. That is not unreasonable, if you were to establish a settlement you would do the same.

NDRS is the kinder genteel posture if the game does not allow for that then it will be NBSI and you will still be flagged for stepping over the border. So what possible difference can it make to your play style if there is a way to pick and choose who gets those flags vs. flagging everybody?

The Devs are going to do whatever they have planned for this aspect of the game. Hell they might make the criminal flag 10 mins for all, and 3 hours for the members of the same CC who knows. Not that I am making suggestions, but if you want to be a pirate then expect to be treated like a pirate, are pirates hard to find and punish yes, but the red list will make things harder for pirates. You want easy pickings, then the settlements are going to be looking to find you when it is also easy pickings as turn about.

That is all I have to say about that...

Goblin Squad Member

All he proposed was a NRDS system that can be changed on the fly. While I do agree there should be a time delay its not that much to ask for. I Wish he would have left out that particular bullet at this point but it did not say "Crimes committed by exiles" it say "crimes committed to exiles" which was really unnecessary.

I digress, forget the word exile and call it a red list. If you are on the list and are in the hex that controls the list/hex you are FFA to the members of that settlement. Settlements will have a way to flag criminals they don't want in there house. We are arguing about something that is going to be in game, without a cost to maintain. I expect there will be no direct cost to NBSI why would there be one to NRDS? Sure those policies will have costs to the settlement but not a "to add a member to this list will cost one DI" cost.

SAD can be done anywhere in the world you want to break it out, their red list will be confined to their hex(s).

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

My personal understanding is that Reputation is the easy way to determine whether another player is generally a "jerk". That is, they frequently break contracts, or attack other players for no real reason, etc.

Is it reasonable for me to plan to use Reputation this way?

Specifically, my current plan is to generally attack and try to kill any Flagged Characters I see that are also Low Reputation. If they have a High Reputation, I'll base the decision on a lot of other factors like alliances, etc.

I'd very much appreciate any input from Ryan or the devs on whether Reputation is intended to serve as a signal to other players about the kinds of things a Character is prone to do.

I believe rep will be a pretty good measure for bad actors, but middle to high rep can could be grinded out. Then again high rep from low will take much effort perhaps I should do the same for both. Yeah it was me that got the thread off topic sorry. No wait it was Jayne, I like smack in em too...

Goblin Squad Member

Those are likely really good numbers if that outer ring does not contain another settlement. I think the odds are better than even that settlement density will have more than one other settlement in that second ring.

Did you mean outpost or POI?

Goblin Squad Member

Or my own grunt as I am stabbed from behind, neither of which will do me any good. I am quit hard of hearing myself. Not completely deaf but if I wear a headset it will be for TS not so I don't piss off the neighbors.

[e] I share a wall in a duplex.

Goblin Squad Member

+1 on sound toggle thingy thing.

Goblin Squad Member

I can agree with that Steelwing. I huge factor that we have no idea about is the spacing of settlement hexes on the map. That alone will change so very much... Never mind the number of potential settlements at OE and the number planed in the long run.

Goblin Squad Member

The more valuable the cargo the more specific the contract will be. Guards, a representative of the merchant etc.

Goblin Squad Member

@Steelwing

I did not say it was not meaningful, I said it should carry a rep hit if people engage in murder for profit.

Perhaps I was not clear. "I assume that means if you are kicked by settlement A you will be defaulted to the NPC settlement..." I was at least partially agreeing with you. If the same people (harvesters) stay in the NPC settlements they will have to stay below level 4 or be open for faction PvP in any case. They are going to harvest the lowest quality whatever, so they will have to move up or be in a different funnel of suck. Any group can work out who (faction wise) is the right person is to attack the harvester without a rep or alignment hit, or I guess break out their CE alt.

Goblin Squad Member

Not all hits to rep will be the -2500. That -7500 low rep guy might just be a -500 or less vs the +7500 or newbee. Ryan did say that LE CC will actively seek out and kill CE players for the badges and advanced skill involved. As well as something to the effect that they would be quit powerful as a result.

Haulers that fulfill contracts more often than not will still have positive rep. Haulers that fail to fulfill contracts more often than not will get fewer contracts. Sounds like a good system to me even if it is meta only. The same can be said of any contracted service.

To that earlier example of a harvesting node? Attacking someone who took the time to find the node, and is extracting it should carry a rep hit. You are describing theft unless it is within your settlement hex. It is MEANINGFUL that your settlement needs that rare deposit, but it is still murder for profit.

Influence the way I read it is not a portable currency it is local? "Influence for clearing a hex would allow a CC to build...." comes to mind. What have I missed? If that it is true random companies will have to set up someplace to do their feuds each time they move they have to start again on the scale. If they stay put then settlements or other local CC with respond. It could even be the local bandits that push them out to preserve there milking cow(s).

Again Ryan said NPC settlements are designed to push players out into the world as they will max out training and trade skill faculties and will need to branch out join a CC or form one to advance. Not exact words but I am sure most of you read the same thing not that long ago. I have yet to see anything that said you would be prohibited from returning to the NPC settlements, but I did read all players will be part of some settlement meaning NPC or PC. I assume that means if you are kicked by settlement A you will be defaulted to the NPC settlement you came from.

Goblin Squad Member

The Postman: Uh... Strangers... I hate this. Do they want to share what they got or take what you got? Do you say 'hi' or do you blow them away?

Goblin Squad Member

Cirolle wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Cirolle wrote:


I hope EE brings a ton of people that are good at breaking the rules.
And that they will do it a lot.

I am going to stun the usual suspects on these forums and respond to this....

"I don't hope there are a lot of "rule breakers", if you mean that in the way I'm taking it.

It is one thing to take a reputation hit for the betterment of your settlement, to dish out punishment to a betrayer or to rob that mother load of a score. These I hope are rare exceptions, which will by virtue if that rarity, will give the action taken more meaning.

Meaningful reasons for PvP are more important to me than meaningful consequences for PvP. That is an ideological difference that I will never concede on.

I don't know how you took my meaning on rule breakers.

But, don't tell me you wouldn't consider having a bunch of low rep alts to do the really dirty work for your little band.
Sure, they wont be able to go many places, most likely not even to your own settlement (if you get one)
But they will have the full back up of your mains and thereby access to trading they normally wouldn't have.
The next step would be to use your other accounts to boost your main accounts rep, makimg it possible for them to take some "meaningful" hits there.
I have no doubts that things will stop there for your band either.
You will come up with countless ways of making things just a little bit easier for yourselves, just by having another account.
And if you wont do it (which I doubt) someone else will.

I hope you do it in EE and as soon as possible though.
And a lot.
I would rather have the mechanics tested out in the early stages, so we can see what works and what doesn't

Assuming 6 friends have two different accounts one that is High Rep, one that is completely Low Rep CE doesn't stand to reason that the High Rep accounts would be in a better position to get better gear in the first place?

The low rep 6 finding, and attacking players will end up only getting un-threaded gear and gear that has taken damage from that encounter as well as what ever damage that they took before the fight. It will more than likely NOT be a 6 on 6 fight as the low rep ambushes will be looking for easy wins, and as the training, and equipment of their targets out pace the low rep accounts it will be harder and harder for them to find profitable wins.

The premise is an easy answer but I don't think it will hold water for long. Sure they can stick to new players for easy picking, but that will just make it easier for Lawful players to intervene in their activities. New players will generally be in the same locations hence easy pickings. That will just give those lawful players content to get positive reputation as well as PvP badges.

Their are several people on these boards that have every intention to spend time supporting new players. That will include killing those low rep players that are looking for easy kills.

As far as other cheats, giving yourself PvP kills with alt accounts for badges what have you that is just ummm... well in the military they use a phrase "Stolen Valor" (which might be a bit stronger than I need) and if that is the only way you can advance the High Rep account then I don't expect those people will ever be any good at PvP for real. People will do what they will... I prefer to earn my trophies.

Anyway, I don't think the CE account is going to be some sort of cash cow for the High rep account. Joining an in game community and building something will be far more rewarding, and fun.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Who is going to spend an hour and forty minutes destroying a shed?

Would you change your mind if during that 1:40 you were looting the contents of the shed, and had a wagon(s) big enough to take the contents?

Goblin Squad Member

Just waiting for this thread to die. PFO will never be anything like that video. It was disturbing, and its just a game doesn't cut it. If you can't see that try putting yourself in the shoes of those people being told "take your pants off and you can live" for about a second. That's all I got.

Goblin Squad Member

Just Vwoom.

Goblin Squad Member

I have four email accounts and that is not even by choose. I could add ten more in five minutes.

Goblin Squad Member

Count me in. Just don't expect me to stand around for an in game wedding. That specific event does not interest me as it is likely to cause drama flashbacks.

Just plan to PM me for now.

Goblin Squad Member

The advantage you are missing I think is that one person is tied to the task of holding down the El destructor button* so long as he is doing that then the timer is running. Everybody else is maintaining control of the hex that is the structure so he can keep his finger on the button. If someone gets close enough to attack him he will have to take his finger off the button to defend and the timer stops (resets?), as that would show a lose of control. There is only one button and one finger.

There could be several control points (buttons) that increase based on the level of development, and / or size of the structure.

The destruction of someones hard work should take some % of time related to what it took to build it in order to destroy it. I know you could throw some gas, a match, and run in real life but this blah blah blah.

I guess this could be connected to the swarm prevention line of thought. If a swarm has to stop, and stand still to destroy something it will lose momentum.

*I don't think you have to push a button, just making the metaphor. It could be standing on the button. I joke, I joke...

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I did I break the seal on SAD for this thread? If I did it was not intentional I swear it. Nor was that tiny part of my post meant to be the main focus. Oh well, what are you going to do???

Goblin Squad Member

Ok one more thought, it would stand to reason that uncontested POI might be better suited to be contracted out to a CC given the right agreement. Defending that POI by the CC, or Settlement or both being part of the conditions of the agreement.

Of course other considerations would come in, but on the raiding line how that agreement was written would best be a closely guarded secret.

[EDIT] Will an unaffiliated CC be able to build on Contested hexes? That has interesting possibilities as well.

Goblin Squad Member

I think the more clear way to say that would be an "enforcement" version of SAD that did not require a rogue level to train, but a guard subclass. That is based on a judgment call by the patrol. Instead of a blanket "Trespassers will be shot" rule. Yes I just made that up. The enforcement would be leave or else, vs give me gold or else. Rejecting those terms allowing for the free kill. Not that I am a fan of either concept.

But back to this raiding thing....

I suppose a great deal will depend on how many of the POIs are outside the settlement hex as well what they produce. Raiders are going to want the POI that is of most value for their efforts. Settlements as well, but location will be as important as the possibility of denying your neighbor something by taking that POI even if you are already producing that resource yourself.

My first thought is that all the contested POI/Outposts will be outside the hex that the settlement can claim by virtue of building the settlement. Uncontested POIs being inside your hex.

I believe I read 6 to 11 POIs per settlement with at least 3 to 5 of them being contested between neighboring settlements. The question then is do those contested resources become the most well protected or least? Which of course also depends on what they are producing. Just one more lumber stand or something that cannot be produced inside the hex that is easier to defended? Raiders may find the Uncontested POIs easier pickings with the right timing, as such a lower return for lower risk.

Ok, I ran is a big circle there but...

All that said, my point is even a trespassing law might not cover all your POIs as you can only enforce laws in lands you can claim sovereignty over. I for one expect the "contested resources" to be the ones that are of more value to promote PvP. If the Devs choose a more random dispersal pattern it seems like a lost opportunity.

On the other hand perhaps the POI belonging to the settlement will automatically adopt its laws and aforementioned lists. I do love this type of brainstorming.

1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>