Obviously this game is going to include guild wars to various extents.
I'm curious about when two nations go to war with each other - when it's just two parties doing a little PvP, whatever, someone wins, someone loses.
But when a NATION, a settlement; with a castle and a town and civilians - gets invaded by another nation... what can happen? Can that whole nation be utterly wiped out, destroyed? Can their entire territory be consumed by the rival, invading nation?
Or if they "lose" a war will they just be able to respawn or whatever like nothing ever happened?
IF they can lose and be wiped out... would it be possible, in theory, for one player nation to dominate the ENTIRE game world and become a vast, all-reaching Empire?
I hope so! Because then that leads to my idea: Nations should be able to have rebellions. Coupes. In-fighting!
I love the idea of the different types of governments - monarchies, democracies, oligarchies, etc (also: you should consider adding THEOCRACIES! Although I guess those could just function as variations of monarchies/oligarchies, the distinction could be significant), but I also like the idea of people being able to change the status quo. There'd need to be limits on it, but in the event as described above where one nation takes over the world, it'd be quite interesting if PCs could form a rebellion resistance group to fight the nation.
Any input, ideas, feedback, criticism, suggestions, etc. are welcome.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would be very disappointed if one nation could not entirely wipe out the holdings of another or dominate the entire map in theory. By in theory I mean no game systems will prevent them from doing it, but it may be hard to achieve such goals because of the difficulty of maintaining a group of players large enough to do so without splitting apart due to in-fighting.
I think the bigger question is how quickly should this be able to happen? Can you lose everything overnight? Over the weekend? Over the course of weeks or months?
Obviously these questions have a lot to do with how firmly entrenched you are and how much territory you control but it would be nice to have a general idea.
How "big" will the world be? Will it be a finite size? If so... how finite?
If not... how will things exist geographically in comparison to each other?
How big of a role will terrain play in the development of various settlements?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Reliken, Introducing the Crusader Road does a really good job of answering your questions regarding size.
Ryan's said a couple of times that, as the map expands over time, it might do so into directly adjacent territory, or there might be "gates" to territory that's geographically distant but still likely in the River Kingdoms.
As for terrain, I don't recall anything specific. What kinds of things were you imagining might happen?
Thanks for the blogpost, that's really helpful!
As far as imagining, well... All kinds of things. For starters, I can imagine all kinds of "archetypal" locations - desert cities, forest cities, cities in rocky terrain, snowy cities among the mountaintops, and so on.
But then I can also see cities on more varied terrain, maybe a settlement that starts at the base of a mountain and works it way up. Maybe a settlement by a lake, but if you travel through a forest bordering the lake you come across a canyon. That sort of thing.
Also, I think it would be neat if the non-archetypal terrains had real seasons.
Did we hear any word on if rebellions would be a possibility?
Or how spies from other nations would work? It'd be neat if they could inhibit nations in various ways - sap their economy, disrupt trade, and so on.
When the game starts, will we be in an uncivilized land with no nations or kingdoms of any kind? Or will there be various NPC nations that, eventually, will be wiped out by the PC nations?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Reliken, are you asking for a special rebellion mechanic that allows a member of a community to declare themselves in rebellion and it passively decreases the effectiveness of the community (and the more people who choose this, the less effective they become)...or some similar mechanic, or do you just want to make it so it is possible to actively do without any special mechanics? Personally, I think the latter is already planned. If a community is led by an oligarchy and you as a rebel can gain the support of the the majority of that oligarchy in tossing out the minority, it seems doable. Likewise, if half the community wants to unit as Chartered Companies behind the leadership of some rebel, they can do so and destroy the works of the rest of the community...which should have the desired effect of destroying the community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did we hear any word on if rebellions would be a possibility?
depending on what political system your alliance has I'd imagine the decreased efficiency will most likely come from the players themselves stop doing whatever their normal job is. In a democracy or similar I could see voting etc... to attempt to upseat the leader. In a kingdom or system of direct authority, if you can't reason with said leader odds are the only real option will be if a large enough group breaks off, and takes the settlement/nation by force.
Or how spies from other nations would work? It'd be neat if they could inhibit nations in various ways - sap their economy, disrupt trade, and so on.
Most likely spies will be done via alts officially joining the settlement. I cannot imagine a mechanic in existance that would be more practical than that, which isn't wholey broken.
When the game starts, will we be in an uncivilized land with no nations or kingdoms of any kind? Or will there be various NPC nations that, eventually, will be wiped out by the PC nations?
There will be 3 nations, from the descriptions of the game so far, also player settlements aren't expected to even be possible until 6-7 months into the game so they will absolutely be necessary for the games launch, it sounds like thornkeep can eventually be overtaken by players, however I would imagine the other 2 will permanently be in NPC control, simply because charters etc... have to be sponsered by a settlement, and player settlements aren't likely to be willing to stake their reputation on brand new players, but new players are going to need to start somewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally hoping I can build a giant wall around my nation, isolationism and all that with minimalistic trading of goods that happen in small settlements just outside my nations walls near it's main gates/points of entry.
That way I give birth to the need to have thieve and smuggler guilds so all those crazy roleplayers have something to actually do in that avenue.
Greatest advantage would be that I can hold greater protection of my lands from monsters and outside invaders, naturally I'd expect the cost to be enormous but the pay off if possible would be so great.
But at the end of the day if I couldn't lose everything then there would really be no point in me trying to acquire it/build it in the first place.
@Fire Bud - you'll be disappointed. There won't be walls around Hexes.
Why can't we build walls around our castles?
The only way to even attempt to wall off an entire hex would be to settle the entire perimeter with fortified thorpes. I can't see this as being economically feasible, especially if 'sties' suitable for settlements are limited in any way.
Granted, if it is possible, even in theory, it would certainly provide for a specific enough focus for a (large to enormous) govornment.
It will be exciting to see if this is pulled off. :) if only for a few "maintenance cycles" before the bills start rolling in...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way to even attempt to wall off an entire hex would be to settle the entire perimeter with fortified thorpes. I can't see this as being economically feasible, especially if 'sties' suitable for settlements are limited in any way.
Granted, if it is possible, even in theory, it would certainly provide for a specific enough focus for a (large to enormous) govornment.
It will be exciting to see if this is pulled off. :) if only for a few "maintenance cycles" before the bills start rolling in...
It isn't going to be possible even to attempt. Buildings themselves have to be placed on designated areas. there may be multiple spots they can be placed, but they won't be nearly dense enough to even consider forming anything resembling a wall.
I realize this. Walling a settlement should be par for the course at a certain point.
^__^
I'm not trying to say that it *should* be possible - - to wall off an entire hex. Merely that it would be entertaining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Great Wall of Glenebon, built to ward out the savage Glenebon Highlanders, much like Hadrian's Wall? :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Fire Bud - you'll be disappointed. There won't be walls around Hexes.
Oh not around a whole hex, that would keep explorers, adventurers and traders away because I wouldn't claim any taxes because they are outside of my hex control. I'm talking about my primary settlement really, my home is my castle, well my nation is my home so my home is my castle =P
I don't think I could even imagine a entire city spanning a hex, that would just be insane (it would be cool but insane).
Anyway you stated that the better a settlement the higher the dungeons in that slide show, so if you stick with that walling and isolating a whole hex would be detrimental to a nation or settlements growth.
Prove me wrong if I'm incorrect but the better a settlement becomes the better the territories under it become for players overall.
So from my understanding it creates a kind of competition between nations and/or settlements to beat the others down (or ally) while keeping your own nations and/or settlements at a high standard to improve the overall experience for the players who want to venture into your lands.
So that ultimately the more people that come to your territories the more taxes you can acquire to improve everything even more and further dig your feet in against others while providing a core gaming experience to others at the same time.
Essentially from my point of view a settlement is a giant treasure trove that you give out to players for free but they give you lots of rewards in return for making it a great little playground for them and to improve that little playground.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is my vision of an advanced Settlement site:
Such a thing will evolve from something like this:
And it will probably start with something like this:
You won't (at least not in any time frame I'm worried about currently) be placing buildings or building walls. You'll let the common folk do that on the orders of the Settlement and they'll build the structure according to our visual target, thus ensuring that each building looks appropriate for its surrounding and the nature of the Settlement that is developing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You won't (at least not in any time frame I'm worried about currently) be placing buildings or building walls. You'll let the common folk do that on the orders of the Settlement and they'll build the structure according to our visual target, thus ensuring that each building looks appropriate for its surrounding and the nature of the Settlement that is developing it.
I’m a bit confused. I had the impression the structures in the settlements would be built from the crafters, whether it be creating (and erecting) walls or buildings.
Where I realize crafters would not have the ability to do so right away, as I’m sure it will take some extensive skills, I had just assumed a settlement would be very basic until it has the means to build more elaborate and better defensible structures.
And not trying to be difficult or antagonizing (if it comes across that way), just trying to understand how this will work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, ok. You do the directing, not building.
Was kind of hoping you could actually craft the components, but as long as there is some recognition you are the responsible party having ‘the inn’ erected, and a fun mini-game associated with it, then I am ok with this.
Thanks for the response, Ryan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Was kind of hoping you could actually craft the components, but as long as there is some recognition you are the responsible party having ‘the inn’ erected, and a fun mini-game associated with it, then I am ok with this.
This sounds a little too much like Puzzle Pirates for my liking.
I was thinking more of having collected all of the materials from harvesting, monster killing, and dungeon delving, you give the stuff to the foreman and he clicks 'Build Inn'. X amount of time passes and the building appears.
No RTS-style construction crews toiling away during the daylight (night for certain races) hours? ^__^
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This sounds a little too much like Puzzle Pirates for my liking.I was thinking more of having collected all of the materials from harvesting, monster killing, and dungeon delving, you give the stuff to the foreman and he clicks 'Build Inn'. X amount of time passes and the building appears.
At least in the beginning that's basically what will happen. You may get notifications that the project needs some unusual component or something else needs your attention the project will stall until you fix the problem. No mini-games.
"Mini-games" was actually used in the blog:
There may be more active engagement with the crafting job as well; we envision many sorts of "mini-games" that crafters will participate in to ensure their jobs are completed.
Has that changed?
If I am crafting, I just would like some type of meaningful interaction in creating something than just hitting 'combine'.
I am curious to see how, mechanic-wise, the game will have you fix 'log-jams' or 'direct crafting projects'.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my vision of an advanced Settlement site:
Such a thing will evolve from something like this:
And it will probably start with something like this:
You won't (at least not in any time frame I'm worried about currently) be placing buildings or building walls. You'll let the common folk do that on the orders of the Settlement and they'll build the structure according to our visual target, thus ensuring that each building looks appropriate for its surrounding and the nature of the Settlement that is developing it.
Based on that, advanced settlements would sprawl outside their original walls, and then potentially have larger walls built around the new sprawl. I'm fine with all of that being fixed rather than player-directed, since the payers will not be dictating exactly where every hovel is built.
As I understand it, PCs will say "build us a sawmill", and will be told "We need this much time to complete it, this much material to start, and will need these amounts at these known times to continue, are you sure?" Later on, the PCs might hear "We've encountered a problem, and we need you to [provide additional materials|clear out the cave that we discovered digging the foundation|refine the architectural plans] before we can [finish|continue]."
Will there be different architecture styles of building up a foundation? A Taldan's building would look drastically (?) different from Garundi, for example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will there be different architecture styles of building up a foundation? A Taldan's building would look drastically (?) different from Garundi, for example.
Pretty sure it was ryan that said structures would match the environment in which they were built in, whether this relates to different architecture styles or not is something you'd have to get him to answer but I'd guess that a settlement built in a desert would be different then in a snow region, forest region, etc.
Pretty sure it was ryan that said structures would match the environment in which they were built in, whether this relates to different architecture styles or not is something you'd have to get him to answer but I'd guess that a settlement built in a desert would be different then in a snow region, forest region, etc.
Sounds cool, thanks for the answer. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like everything, systems for crafting will start with the most simple system and then become more complex over time. That includes building Buildings.
Ryan,
Just a thought....will you guys be varying construction rates and/or chances of problems/stalls based on the status and sorts of things going on in the hex?
For example....If the hex is generaly "unsafe" (i.e. lots of wandering monsters showing up, lots of dangerous lairs that haven't been cleaned out, frequent hostile raids or banditry)...one would think one of the natural effects would be that the "workers" would be more hesitant and run into greater difficulties doing construction projects (or other types of crafting projects).
How much freedom will players have in designing the layout of their settlements/kingdoms? Not just in terms of WHERE on the hex it is, but where there are businesses, where there are walls, where there are residencies, where there is a fort?
How much freedom will players have in designing what those forts LOOK like? Dark, towering spires? Or elegant, crenelated battlements? Inspired by medieval castles, Roman architecture, or with a more Asian flair, that sort of thing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How much freedom will players have in designing the layout of their settlements/kingdoms? Not just in terms of WHERE on the hex it is, but where there are businesses, where there are walls, where there are residencies, where there is a fort?
How much freedom will players have in designing what those forts LOOK like? Dark, towering spires? Or elegant, crenelated battlements? Inspired by medieval castles, Roman architecture, or with a more Asian flair, that sort of thing?
At day 1 of this feature launch, I think zero control. As I understand the proposals, you won't even be able to enter into a rendered 3d environment and walk around, it'll just be some sort of interface. The idea behind this is that they'll add more and more features to expand the experience as time goes by, so (theoretically) styles and layouts might see the light of day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Have I mentioned I cannot wait for this game often enough?
MOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
It would also be interesting to see the Fort (primary residence of the Core-Group of Players) surrounded by a wall, which is then surrounded by a town, which is in turn surrounded by another wall and possibly other fortifications, such as a moat perhaps.
The Fort proper then becomes the most secure place in the Settlement, and that's where the Players In Charge will (hopefully) direct all the NPCs and non-combatant Players to seek refuge during a Raid, while everyone else goes out to man the walls.
If the Raiders get into the first wall, they burn, loot and pillage, but are ultimately divided up by the streets and buildings and businesses just begging to be looted, giving the Defenders a chance to regroup and push back.
Why this option? Because it is rare that Players are going to risk antagonising other Players to this level for anything short of total domination or a need to pay the bills.
Raiders will raid for one of three reasons
1) Because you're too close to their camp and they want you snuffed out before you stumble across it.
2) Because while your defences are up to the challenge, you have a lot of shinies, and they want them. Now.
3) Because you hold a potent command of the surrounding dominion with your Fort and they want it for themselves.
And +1 for Rebellion.
Be it because the Players In Charge are douchebags and are taxing everyone to death, or are incompetent, or even just people who belittle your High Elf Soup-Chef Character Concept as mediocre, the ability to shake up the status quo can be a good thing.
This aspect off the game is going to require some very fine balance to stop the players who are able to afford to pay more cash into the game from totally dominating things from the start.