Goblin Squad Member
|
I assume settlements will be able to have or build banks...and I must assume they will be able to have their own inventory. I request that this central inventory (settlement inventory) be open to any members of the settlement. Additionally, I hope it can be subdivided and specific characters/sponsored chartered companies be allow sole access to those subdivisions.
I hope this system can be made as generic as possible. A single "folder" holds inventory only accessible by the ruling group (whichever that may be). Within this folder, new folders can be created and destroyed hierarchically. Each sublevel would allow the definition of a greater set or smaller subset of individuals/groups allowed access, with the option of each inheriting the former levels permissions.
Then, inventory could be freely moved between the system of folders/vaults...each move changing the accessibility of the moved items.
This generic system could be used generically for anything from individual characters to CCs to settlements and finally to nations...with each greater level adding to the subgroups that can be identified as having access. Characters for instance would only ever be able to default to themselves having access to their inventory subfolders. CCs base folder would be the leadership's, who could make the next one all inclusive...and would be able to specify specific individuals or ranks as having access to subfolders. Or, they could just create a bunch of subdivisions used to organize the inventory, but only ever allowing themselves access. Settlements would be like CCs, but would also be able to specify sponsored CCs as having access to folders (of course, loosing your sponsorship would revoke these accesses).
Additionally, anyone who has access to a given folder could be given admin access, which allows them to make additional subfolders and set internal permissions. To illustrate, a Settlement who gives a CC a bank vault also gives them admin power. The leader(s) of that CC can make subfolders and specify individual internal ranks that have access to those folders, but they could never give access to someone outside their company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Fire Bud, there have been a few threads discussing this, but the only official word I remember is:
From Goblinworks Blog: To Live and Die in the River:
You'll have storage that's perfectly secure. You may be able to create ad hoc storage in the wilderness but it will not be perfectly secure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Fire Bud, there have been a few threads discussing this, but the only official word I remember is:
From Goblinworks Blog: To Live and Die in the River:
You'll have storage that's perfectly secure. You may be able to create ad hoc storage in the wilderness but it will not be perfectly secure.
I would point out however 2 things that are not confirmed.
1. That includes things like settlement banks etc... ad-hoc in the wilderness sounds to me more along the lines of a chest or storage.2. That actual theft is possible, robbery/destruction are more likely.
Theft is something I find a much more slippery much more dangerous thing to add. Theft implies something done that all counter measures are automated, the victim does not know what happened until after it has occurred. Players do not tend to like these sorts of mechanics, as the overall helpless feeling it creates rapidly sucks into the fun. If you are attacked, ganked, city sieged etc... you at least can feel like you were an active part of attempting to defend. If it is players trained theivery vs your set defenses, the end result is inevitable, people will always maximize their defenses against it, attacks they can fight back or run from, but theft... is out of any control other than maxing your personal spot or your banks security etc... Leading to the only people being stolen from being the poor and new settlements.
Unless of course the best isn't good enough if the thief is also maxed in which case the helpless feeling becomes truely maximized, the end result from that is every settlement becoming super xenophobic, not blue stab it will be the only rational law for any settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that NPC Settlements (at least) will have 100% secure storage.
The ad hoc storage will likely be in Hideouts and such.
I hope they don't have 100% secure storage in settlements because it adds a huge reason to pvp/invader/war/use diplomacy against another settlement for resources.
Combined with the fact in a settlement you could have that unsecured thieve-able storage system but instead have it guarded by powerful npcs, traps, wards and other creations that only people allowed to use it are able to get around unharmed and it becomes interesting.
Add in the possibility you could have with a upgradable storage system that gets more secure and bigger with each new tier. Say you start at with a room full of chests, then you upgrade it into a vault with a couple guards, then a multi-chamber vault pushed underground with traps, golems and a magical lock that summons a boss style monster to stop thieves.
Part of the reason why EvE still has people playing it is that nothing is permanent, you can lose items, lose ships and it adds to the cycle to get things again and help keep the economy strong.
I'm not saying theft shouldn't have it's limits but it should definitely play a role in settlements, specially if a invading settlement just can't get past your resource stockpile and instead sends in a group to sabotage it to remove that advantage from you.
Combined with the fact you could have a system that flags stolen items, meaning you can only trade them for use via person to person contact, not on auction systems or to npcs, which again would be very interesting to the economy.
Despite what people might think it can add a lot to the game if used right and while it might not be fun to have some of your loot taken from your settlement (note I say settlements and nothing to do with npc controlled towns storage or the like) it can add a depth of gameplay to sandbox games if used correct.
Sandbox is about freedom, players interacting with players as ryan puts it, the more layers you can add to it the more things are possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that NPC Settlements (at least) will have 100% secure storage.
The ad hoc storage will likely be in Hideouts and such.
I hope they don't have 100% secure storage in settlements because it adds a huge reason to pvp/invader/war/use diplomacy against another settlement for resources.
The 100% secure storage, is storage within NPC settlements. Of which there is only so much you can do with the stuff, as crafting skills etc... are limited to a resident of an NPC town, meaning to make the most use of it, it actually has to be shipped to a player settlement, which involves the risks of attacks etc... on the way, as well as the entire settlement having the potential to be destroyed or overtaken.
While I fully agree with the ideas of banditry, attacks etc... I still cannot come up with a way theft can both be possible, and not also rediculously horrible. Worse yet a significantly bigger issue that hits hardest in terms of strong players regularly hitting the weakest. As hitting up and tearing 10 mid sized mostly new characters vault, tends to be far better cost/benefit than going after a equally strong to you're sized vault, and again the entire helpless to defend side of the issue, and the inevitable result that the mere concept of theives will make almost any settlement that wants to ever keep their own stuff, need to turn to not blue shoot it, kill anyone seen within the city (I'm not saying those shouldn't exit, but they shouldn't be the only viable option).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think when they say settlement storage will be 100% secure...I think that just means as long as there is a settlement. I bet that if a settlement is destroyed, the raiders get spoils from the community bank.
This to me insures residents, even temporary ones, will do everything possible to protect their "home".
I bet banks in NPC cities will be 100% secure, but that requires you to travel there to deposit it.
Add in the possibility you could have with a upgradable storage system that gets more secure and bigger with each new tier. Say you start at with a room full of chests, then you upgrade it into a vault with a couple guards, then a multi-chamber vault pushed underground with traps, golems and a magical lock that summons a boss style monster to stop thieves.
I wish more than anything this were a possibility...but this seems extremely doubtful (at least on release) in light of their claim that buildings will have minimal interaction and possibly not even enter-able.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, can you see thievery of the sort you're talking about working if it requires something like a week's worth of real time to case the joint first? That would definitely remove the incentive to try to clean up on a large number of low value targets...
And still further put all settlements into a kill all outsiders on sight. Sure he could honestly be looking to trade, or repair/buy equipment, but we can't take the chance that he is also casing the joint while he is here.
And no I still don't see it, if we are talking guards etc... then we are talking exponential increases in the amount of people needed. So we have a group of 10 thieves, we could all rob settlement X and get away with say 5,000 coin worth of goods, or we could split into 2's and get 2,000 each pair from weaker settlements.
Now if we are talking theft as an individual task now it gets crazier, as you could be looking at much greater issues when hundreds of thieves are hitting everywhere at once. Almost every counter for that I have heard to keep a bank from totally being whiped out when too many people steal from it, is an arbitrary "banks can only be robbed once a week, after that they go into unrobbable mode", which well considering your hatred of arbitrary restrictions that make no sense, I think you can agree isn't a good idea (Why would having it's traps etc... disarmed make it imposible to rob and not easier, and if their measures are increased after that, why lower them).
I still hold strongest to the point of, if anyone entering a city could be a thief, why would any city ever allow outsiders within miles? I know in my case I would be moving all trade opperations to a designated spot at the edge of my hex, I would imagine the largest most sucessful settlements would also do the same, as the bigger they are, the less they need from outsiders. As well they would have their security at the maximum possible level it could get, and again, if the maximum level isn't enough to prevent theft... how isn't that a direct and absolute punishment for something completely outside the players control? If it is high enough... well then the victims will obviously be the people who can't afford the maximum security.
Banditry wars etc... are all player meaningful PVP, because there is a cause and a counter. If I am delivering goods and jumped and attacked, I could have fought better, I could have brought more help, I could have done any number of things. If my settlement is attacked by a significantly stronger force, I could have had better diplomacy, I could have made stronger allies, I could have focused on moving away from those psychopaths or squisehd them when they were smaller, or not built next to them etc...
If my max level bank was robbed, the only thing I could have done, is kill anyone who came within a mile of my settlement to prevent them from casing and robbing from me. The rational counter is pretty obvious to me, and I can't see why the inivitable counter for such a mechanic, would be desirable.
Do you seriously see "not blue shoot it" for 95% of settlements as a desirable result? If not what rationality do you think would make groups not turn to that when they have to soley count on NPC/Automated defenses to protect their banks?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... if anyone entering a city could be a thief, why would any city ever allow outsiders within miles?
Trade.
And if you were serious about moving all your trade operations out into the undefended wilderness away from your Settlement, I expect you'd quickly discover that most of the goods you traded for were stolen back from you right after you finished paying.
... the victims will obviously be the people who can't afford the maximum security.
I see three factors that have to be balanced:
1. Familiarity - Local petty Thieves should have a fairly easy time of picking pockets or nabbing fruit at the bazaar. For bigger jobs, the Thief would need to Case the location to increase Familiarity.
2. Security/Value Ratio - There should be sweet spot where X amount of Security is efficient for F(X) amount of Value. As Value exceeds F(X), then the payoff for the Thief starts to make it more worthwhile to strike the target.
3. Thief Skill - Should mostly be geared towards abilities that can help the Thief increase Familiarity and that inform the Thief of places where the Security/Value Ration is in his favor, with only a minimal impact on overcoming the Security.
It should be fairly easy even for poor victims to provide enough Security to cover their meager wealth. If the cost to providing increased Security rises faster at higher levels, then you create a situation where the best places to rob are generally the most secure places, since that's where the top end will be storing their massive amount of loot. There will probably be other cases where the middle tier gets some good drops, or foolishly overextends themselves by storing far too much Value for their level of Security.
This also creates a dynamic where "white hats" can set up real Honeypots and try to lure Thieves to try to steal from them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you seriously see "not blue shoot it" for 95% of settlements as a desirable result? If not what rationality do you think would make groups not turn to that when they have to soley count on NPC/Automated defenses to protect their banks?
A settlement on a "not blue shoot it" setting should be inefficient in attracting NPC commoners to help with all of the mundane harvesting, processing, and crafting.
The thief that is casing a target (or a spy that is casing a settlement's defenses) isn't walking around with an "Adventurer U" hoodie on. He's blending into the crowd, trying to look like one of the faceless invisible NPCs. Any settlement that is run as a police state should take a hit on their efficiency, because they aren't just turning away adventurers, they have to turn away anyone that might be an adventurer, working for an adventurer, might talk with an adventurer, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you seriously see "not blue shoot it" for 95% of settlements as a desirable result? If not what rationality do you think would make groups not turn to that when they have to soley count on NPC/Automated defenses to protect their banks?A settlement on a "not blue shoot it" setting should be inefficient in attracting NPC commoners to help with all of the mundane harvesting, processing, and crafting.
Why? I completely lack any common logic behind this? The invisible faceless NPCs should be largely unconcerned with the killing of adventurers. They are an invisible stat...
The thief that is casing a target (or a spy that is casing a settlement's defenses) isn't walking around with an "Adventurer U" hoodie on. He's blending into the crowd, trying to look like one of the faceless invisible NPCs. Any settlement that is run as a police state should take a hit on their efficiency, because they aren't just turning away adventurers, they have to turn away anyone that might be an adventurer, working for an adventurer, might talk with an adventurer, etc.
They would be keeping to internal force to do this, and be focused on recruiting people to do these roles. I cannot even follow the logic of blending in with invisible faceless people... how does a player hide in a crowd of invisible people? If players can blend in easily with the NPCs, then we also have no means for keeping out assasians, general griefers etc... until they strike. A PC could never fake to be an NPC, especially when we are talking PCs
And if you were serious about moving all your trade operations out into the undefended wilderness away from your Settlement, I expect you'd quickly discover that most of the goods you traded for were stolen back from you right after you finished paying.
How and why? I never said deep in the wilderness, I said the edge of my patrolled area near my civilization. Though certainly not within scout range, if anyone is spotted within vision range of the city, they would be attacked. The trade area would be within patrol range, but well outside of "scope the joint" range.
Obviously just like any trip out one would not go alone, it would be mostly safe from jumps from behind, considering that the area is usually patroled by players on my side, as well societies would fully be able to make exceptions, on a "yes you can deliver this, be at our settlement at 4pm Tuesday with the goods", we'll let the guards know you are coming and not to kill you, make the trade and get the heck out.
Not blue shoot it societies certainly work, take a look at eve. Among their top alliances, I believe one or 2 of the top 10 corps, are NRSI last I checked. All others are NBSI, and that is in a game where they don't have the issue magnified with people outside the corp able to take things without it being obvious who did it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We'll have to learn more from Ryan about how exactly you're going to hand over a Caravan of goods to another character. However, if it was like the real world, I would expect both sides in the trade to be very worried that they'd be attacked and robbed during the transaction. Even if they didn't rob each other, both sides are going to be more vulnerable outside the walls than they would be inside, and there would be a lot of value sitting there making a very tempting target to any reasonably large force that knew about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We'll have to learn more from Ryan about how exactly you're going to hand over a Caravan of goods to another character. However, if it was like the real world, I would expect both sides in the trade to be very worried that they'd be attacked and robbed during the transaction. Even if they didn't rob each other, both sides are going to be more vulnerable outside the walls than they would be inside, and there would be a lot of value sitting there making a very tempting target to any reasonably large force that knew about it.
Even still, even assuming that the patrolled space was still somehow filled with bandits etc... an NBSI settlement could certainly get by on a within walls trade, by appointment only, if we see you take 10 steps outside of the transaction area, and aren't gone within 2 minutes of the completed transaction we will kill you. With theft and breakins as a high possibility, no one would blame them for such strict policies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With theft and breakins as a high possibility, no one would blame them for such strict policies.
That's not really what you see in the real world.
There's a certain level of theft, corruption, and waste that's tolerated because the steps that would be required to try to lower that level are unacceptable to a Free People. Not to mention those steps are rarely effective.
What I'm suggesting is that it's possible for that level of theft to exist in PFO without it automatically breaking everything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A settlement on a "not blue shoot it" setting should be inefficient in attracting NPC commoners to help with all of the mundane harvesting, processing, and crafting.
Why? I completely lack any common logic behind this? The invisible faceless NPCs should be largely unconcerned with the killing of adventurers. They are an invisible stat...
NPCs are invisible because the demands of rendering dozens or hundreds of apprentice crafters, common laborers, idle layabouts, alewives, etc., etc. would hinder the game. In a perfect world where the MMO servers are driven by supercomputers, all of those folk would be there - and that is the sea that our characters are swimming in.
So how does a "not blue shoot it" settlement distinguish between an NPC laborer and a character passing as a NPC laborer? Logic says that a settlement that has draconian security measures in place will also be making it difficult for laborers to work there; their security will slow down the rate at which laborers can be cleared to work in the settlement. A settlement that has more open policies towards PCs will benefit because more NPCs can flow in with open policies.
I think "not blue shoot it" is one possible security stance for a settlement. I do not think it should be the only stance. I think it would be good if settlements have to balance themselves somewhere between the most efficient security and the most efficient productivity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So how does a "not blue shoot it" settlement distinguish between an NPC laborer and a character passing as a NPC laborer? Logic says that a settlement that has draconian security measures in place will also be making it difficult for laborers to work there; their security will slow down the rate at which laborers can be cleared to work in the settlement. A settlement that has more open policies towards PCs will benefit because more NPCs can flow in with open policies.I think "not blue shoot it" is one possible security stance for a settlement. I do not think it should be the only stance. I think it would be good if settlements have to balance themselves somewhere between the most efficient security and the most efficient productivity.
In player controlled territory, YOU are supposed to run around and be law enforcement.
Your form of conversation seems to be under the assumption that settlement security is NPCs, while ryans posts seem to be pretty clear that security is the players. So the fact that a player can see it means they are a PC.
The idea that NPCs productivity is going to be heavily controlled by how players treat other players, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. OK so hypothetically they mix in a mechanic that kills within a settlement effect how the NPCs work, wouldn't theft and crime also be factors if we were to be rational here?
That's not really what you see in the real world.There's a certain level of theft, corruption, and waste that's tolerated because the steps that would be required to try to lower that level are unacceptable to a Free People. Not to mention those steps are rarely effective.
What I'm suggesting is that it's possible for that level of theft to exist in PFO without it automatically breaking everything.
People don't tolerate draconian security measures? I take it you haven't been to an airport in the last 10 years.
Also factoring in that in real world society, people willing to break the law are an extreme minority when we are talking career thieves, maybe .01% or less. People willing to risk the extreme harsh penelties are much fewer. In an MMO... I'd say, at the hypothetically lowest fathomable number, 10% will likely have a character who train in theft as either main character or an alt. realistically especially counting alts a more realistic expectation is closer to 25%, but 10% is a good intentionally lowest ballpark assumption.
The punishment for a thief will also obviously be drastically lower than in real life. In real life you catch him, fine him disproportionate amounts to what he stole, or jail him for a few years. In a game You catch him, kill him... he moves to a new city to steal again. Assuming somehow you can paint or have a reputation stain that is strong enough, he rolls a new alt, or moves from theft to banditry.
The main reason why I have the most issue with theft, is by definition it more or less is a PVE encounter designed to be possible, with a consiquence to another player, but not directly defensible by the player, which IMO will be unacceptable to most players once they see it in action, which will almost certainly result in players moving it so that it does actually have to be PVP, which involves fighting anyone with the potential to steal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your [Urman's] form of conversation seems to be under the assumption that settlement security is NPCs, while ryans posts seem to be pretty clear that security is the players.
I think this is a serious misreading of what Urman is saying.
Nothing he said can reasonably be read to mean he thinks "settlement security is NPCs". Rather, he's describing phenomena we can see in the real world, and proposing a way of modeling that in the game.
It should be uncontroversial to say that "a settlement that has draconian security measures in place will also be making it difficult for laborers to work there; their security will slow down the rate at which laborers can be cleared to work in the settlement".
You might argue that the system doesn't really know your implementing these draconian security measures, and therefore they won't have an impact on the NPCs. But then you'd be getting into implementation rather than design.
I take it you haven't been to an airport in the last 10 years.
I take it you haven't seen the outrage generated by it.
Prohibition lasted almost 15 years, but it's certainly not unreasonable to say that Americans didn't "tolerate" it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this is a serious misreading of what Urman is saying.
Perhaps I maybe missunderstood, but perhaps I couldn't come up with any other meaning for how invisible laborors could be by an overactive security force, unless that security force were also associated with the invisible people.
Why would crime rate security etc... not effect the laborers work as much or more than adventurers that kill any other adventurer on sight?
In addition the biggest thing of NBSI is it is not inconvinient to residents of that city, because residents have the ability to automatically identify natives. Which well whether wanted or not is an inevitability of any game.
It is only a minor inconvinience to groups not allied with the settlement, which the settlements would likely work around by allying with the specific groups they want to work with, both having an auto boot policy on any suspected thefts.
Again though real life analogies aside, I still point out that in eve, which is probably teh most similar game to this. In eve NBSI is what 90% of 0 sec groups use, Goblinworks will need mechanics to lower paranoia to make NBSI less than 90%. Adding difficult to detect theft is about 15 steps into increasing the paranoia, meaning unless some other huge mechanism is added that makes people less paranoid, we can expect more than 90% not less than 90%.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, I think you're focusing too much on the game mechanics to see that Urman (I think) was talking about a general truth in the real world.
It's not already modeled into the game mechanics. Rather, he's (I think) suggesting that it could/should be.
And as for Eve, Ryan has already spoken about a number of things he intends to do differently to avoid fostering the kind of anti-social behavior that's rampant in Eve, starting with not deliberately setting out to create a world rampant with anti-social behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not already modeled into the game mechanics. Rather, he's (I think) suggesting that it could/should be.
And as for Eve, Ryan has already spoken about a number of things he intends to do differently to avoid fostering the kind of anti-social behavior that's rampant in Eve, starting with not deliberately setting out to create a world rampant with anti-social behavior.
Exactly. Nothing's modeled into game mechanics at this point.
If GW wants to foster social behavior, rather than anti-social behavior, then they have to design it in. One big difference between EvE and PFO is that in EvE, all "people" are PCs. In PFO, there will be PCs and there will be NPC commoners that act as a multiplier for a settlement's crafting/economic strength. I think that NPC behavior (and NPC reaction to player behavior) is an obvious tool in Ryan's toolbox.
NBSI is an out-of-game player stance, as far as I understand it. It wouldn't be recognized by the game software. But there will be any number of settlement laws and settings, and some of those will indicate "we are unfriendly and untrusting". Other settings will indicate "we are open to non-hostiles". Player/group reputation and chosen alignments can also serve to identify antisocial groupings.
But to foster social behavior - that is, to take NBSI down in the neighborhood of 50-70% - the game has to be built in such a way that open groups and social behavior is not at an obvious disadvantage to closed groups and anti-social behavior. The NPC economic multiplier can be a carrot and a stick.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But to foster social behavior - that is, to take NBSI down in the neighborhood of 50-70% - the game has to be built in such a way that open groups and social behavior is not at an obvious disadvantage to closed groups and anti-social behavior. The NPC economic multiplier can be a carrot and a stick.
I mostly agree on that point, I do agree that improved commoners can be a good carrot for many different social actions
I think that direct theft of items in the bank in a way that if the opposition can't directly react until it is too late, is a very very huge stick, beyond saying any non-good civilization is cut down by some ridiculous amount I would say that is a hard stick to counterbalance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ya, I'm not a fan of direct theft. In a game without serious death penalties I fail to see what could possibly be a deterrent; if there is no deterrent and no defense I think it needs to be disallowed.
It's sort of like teleporting; in old D&D, teleporting blind could get your wizard killed by a misjump. If there is no serious death penalty, so what? Teleport blind and the worst that happens is you respawn somewhere safe - without baggage, of course. The lack of a hard death penalty can be a good thing - it lets us get back into the game quicker - but it might be the single biggest departure from the tabletop.
I mean, thinking back on my tabletop years... It would have been a drastically different game if we knew our characters could never die and never be imprisoned.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
On the gripping hand, theft without interacting with other players breaks a design goal.
For that reason, the only way to steal from settlement vaults will be to get permission to access them from the ruler(s) of the settlement. That can be done through social engineering or by using military force to become the ruler, both of which increase interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... theft without interacting with other players breaks a design goal.
I don't think that's true. If it were, then that same design goal would also prohibit:
- Constructing a Harvesting Camp Facility "without interacting with other players";
- Processing materials "without interacting with other players";
- Crafting "without interacting with other players";
- Exploring "without interacting with other players".
Obviously, there is a design goal to maximize player interaction. However, I think it's unreasonable to conclude that any activity that doesn't involve interaction with other players will therefore not be supported.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... theft without interacting with other players breaks a design goal.I don't think that's true. If it were, then that same design goal would also prohibit:
- Constructing a Harvesting Camp Facility "without interacting with other players";
- Processing materials "without interacting with other players";
- Crafting "without interacting with other players";
- Exploring "without interacting with other players".
Obviously, there is a design goal to maximize player interaction. However, I think it's unreasonable to conclude that any activity that doesn't involve interaction with other players will therefore not be supported.
I think the specific thing is directly harming another player, without needing to interact with them that is the huge issue. Namely on the player who lost something without getting to actively defend against it. Certainly building cities far away from others are not in the same category as removing items from someones storage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Namely on the player who lost something without getting to actively defend against it.
But isn't that exactly what's going to happen when someone logs out in their Hideout and then logs in to find that their Hideout has been burned to the ground, along with all the stuff they were storing there, and they never got a chance to actively defend against that?
Quoting the Mote in God's Eye makes me smile.
Yeah, that "on the gripping hand" sent me scurrying to Wikipedia.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Namely on the player who lost something without getting to actively defend against it.But isn't that exactly what's going to happen when someone logs out in their Hideout and then logs in to find that their Hideout has been burned to the ground, along with all the stuff they were storing there, and they never got a chance to actively defend against that?
Quoting the Mote in God's Eye makes me smile.Yeah, that "on the gripping hand" sent me scurrying to Wikipedia.
Your houses buildings etc... may not have yourself as the active defense, but that is exactly why those are group projects. SOMEONE is supposed to be guarding them. A big difference between people of whom if you allied with the right people they are going to do everything in their power to prevent the destruction, and a PVE encounter that was scripted with it being possible in mind. The exact same reason why I suspect the most inevitable reaction if theft exists will be an NBSI, kill anyone who is in a position that they might be able to steal. I'll take an active defense with someone I trust over any passive I hope it's good enough system.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
... theft without interacting with other players breaks a design goal.I don't think that's true. If it were, then that same design goal would also prohibit:
- Constructing a Harvesting Camp Facility "without interacting with other players";
- Processing materials "without interacting with other players";
- Crafting "without interacting with other players";
- Exploring "without interacting with other players".
Obviously, there is a design goal to maximize player interaction. However, I think it's unreasonable to conclude that any activity that doesn't involve interaction with other players will therefore not be supported.
What makes you think that those other activities will be worthwhile without other players? You could scout resources, gather some, process them, and build the level of finished goods possible using the NPC available buildings, or you could scout many resource nodes, share the information, and with other players get better equipment.