Why not make buildings destructable?!

[DeathMetal4tw]

Think about it! You could need powerful siege weapons to destroy or damage buildings (except for wood buildings which could be burnt) so it won't exactly be easy to destroy an enemy stronghold. If destroying key buildings is difficult enough, it could require sieges over an hour in length. Of course it's always easier to defend a castle than it is to tear it down, so such sieges would require a tremendous prolonged effort. This could give the game a cinematic "Helms Deep" feel as player factions struggle to aquire/destroy land.

Destructable/stealable buildings would heighten the stakes for players in a game where death doesn't grant terrible penalties, and it would make Pathfinder Online's wars feel much more important that some world of warcraft guild battle.

[Onishi]

DeathMetal4tw wrote:

Think about it! You could need powerful siege weapons to destroy or damage buildings (except for wood buildings which could be burnt) so it won't exactly be easy to destroy an enemy stronghold. If destroying key buildings is difficult enough, it could require sieges over an hour in length. Of course it's always easier to defend a castle than it is to tear it down, so such sieges would require a tremendous prolonged effort. This could give the game a cinematic "Helms Deep" feel as player factions struggle to aquire/destroy land.

Destructable/stealable buildings would heighten the stakes for players in a game where death doesn't grant terrible penalties, and it would make Pathfinder Online's wars feel much more important that some world of warcraft guild battle.

I also agree on that, I'm pretty sure some way or another destroying built structures has to be possible. Things have to be lost, items destroyed etc... and well it just doesn't make sense for a town to be taken over in mint condition just as it was before.

[Scholar-at-Arms]

GoblinWorks Blog wrote:

Encampments: Encampments represent organized bands of monstrous humanoids actively engaged in trying to control their hex. ... If the people living in a hex don't regularly sweep their lands and the nearby region for encampments and deal with the ones they find, the residents may find themselves facing a full-blown horde with the potential to destroy even player created structures!

Sounds like PC-built structures will be difficult but possible to destroy. I'm slightly leery of the ability to destroy structures as part of PvP simply because of my experience on public Minecraft servers. It was very common to build a house and log out, then log back in a few hours later to find that my house had been cannabalised for blocks. Granted, Minecraft is a bad example since it's punch-to-harvest structure makes it uniquely suitable for griefing, but the difficulty remains: if structure destruction is part of PvP, it leaves players who are offline constantly vulnerable. I imagine there are ways to mitigate that, but I haven't heard anything about them yet.

[Nihimon]

I hope there are sufficient low-risk housing options for players who really don't want anything to do with PvP, and are willing to put up with the low-reward nature of not taking PvP risks. Perhaps in the NPC-faction controlled permanently civilized areas.

[Onishi]

Scholar-at-Arms wrote:

GoblinWorks Blog wrote:

Encampments: Encampments represent organized bands of monstrous humanoids actively engaged in trying to control their hex. ... If the people living in a hex don't regularly sweep their lands and the nearby region for encampments and deal with the ones they find, the residents may find themselves facing a full-blown horde with the potential to destroy even player created structures!

Sounds like PC-built structures will be difficult but possible to destroy. I'm slightly leery of the ability to destroy structures as part of PvP simply because of my experience on public Minecraft servers. It was very common to build a house and log out, then log back in a few hours later to find that my house had been cannabalised for blocks. Granted, Minecraft is a bad example since it's punch-to-harvest structure makes it uniquely suitable for griefing, but the difficulty remains: if structure destruction is part of PvP, it leaves players who are offline constantly vulnerable. I imagine there are ways to mitigate that, but I haven't heard anything about them yet.

The other large factor of minecraft is that the game itself is a very individual focused game. PFO most of your buildings are going to be in towns etc... It won't be just you defending your structure, it will be you + the local guard in high sec, and you + your guild in low sec. If your entire guild is offline at the same time, than you are in a dying guild that will likely not have the town at all for very long.

[DarkLightHitomi]

Of course like stated in an older thread, leave your pc in world at your house to defend it as an npc, or maybe hire some npcs.

Oh I just remembered the leadership feat, yeah that would work, have all my minions work at and protect my home.

[Deidre Tiriel]

Nihimon wrote:

I hope there are sufficient low-risk housing options for players who really don't want anything to do with PvP, and are willing to put up with the low-reward nature of not taking PvP risks. Perhaps in the NPC-faction controlled permanently civilized areas.

+1 I love the idea of destroying another faction's headquarters, but I'd want it to be a little rare. Also, I personally will not want to be PvPing, just because I don't play often, so I'd like a non-PvP option.

[Daniel Powell 318]

Minor buildings might be destroyed directly by characters; major buildings would need to be destroyed by siege weapons, which are themselves minor buildings.

An unattended hut is easy to burn down, but a castle requires building and defending a number of siege weapons long enough to defeat it. I'm not sure how long it should take to capture a castle, but it should be long enough to allow time for the target to coordinate a defense-a day seems too short, but a week seems too long. (from the declaration of "we are under attack" to "we have been defeated".

[Forlarren]

Just some thoughts on buildings and communities.

In so many games (as well as real life if you ever lived in a suburb) town are far too sparse for their populations, especially for a fantasy setting where historically your domicile was also your shop. Star Wars Galaxies had this problem, player towns were very chaotic and every last one of them felt like a ghost town.

One solution to this problem is city planning. I would propose a sim-city or even better Caesar III. Where buildings are placed and produce NPCs for the city, these NPCs have a range they are willing to walk, and if they don't have access to the proper buildings (a market for food, a cleric for health, a magic shop for luxury good) then they would top out. For example if a domicile is placed withing X spaces from two good providing structures then it could be upgraded two times, going from a hut, to a shanty, to an apartment. Or if located outside the city walls, it goes from a hut, to a cottage, to a farmstead, etc...

The next part is instancing. These domiciles should be rent-able by multiple players as an instance. The number of renters is something that is going to have to be balanced but lets just say twelve to one on average. Why? Because we take the average amount of time each player has to play (generously saying about two hours per day) divide by 24 and you end up where at leas one person is "home" or at least online per domicile. Rent is part money sink (maintenance) part profit for the community. The community portion of the rent would then be spent by the city planner to place more buildings improving the community, as well as paying for the upkeep of community buildings.

How does this tie into destructible buildings? Well in my system there would most likely always be someone home to defend not only the town but the specific building they occupy. Making greefing much more difficult. Also buildings that fail to make rent would become dilapidated and eventually degrade then fall down. NPCs would be generated by the buildings, higher quality buildings generating higher quality NPCs giving an elegant way to level up a town. But at the same time as a siege destroys buildings the NPCs would cease spawning.

I haven't thought through how to appoint a city planer, but I assume some sort of election, or even different methods depending on the government type. A logging town would be ruled by the a bossman as long as he has the money.

Food for thought.

[Forlarren]

What if warlords could sac your town or even take it over. They could demand heavy tribute and let everything just fall down keeping all the towns taxes unless adventures show up to sack the villains that is. Maybe a bounty?