Goblin Squad Member
|
Good is just about a measured and appropriate response.
I like this. Evil sets up laws the ones in charge are exempt from. When you insult evil you get run through on the spot and that is the end of it.
Good makes the punishment fit the crime and likely issues a warning first.
Unfortunately laws are a very abstract idea and it would be hard to set up a system where you lose alignment if the punishment doesn't fit the crime mechanically.
An exile system is something people can use to give their rules teeth. Then players can go on to say "you will cease and desist" / "pay a fine" / "do community service" and have a stronger punishment to back that up if you refuse.
Fact is they own the territory and it isn't like if you get exiled you instantly die if you enter their hex. You just have to watch out for their guards and players. Without some kind of system like this holding territory as a lawful-good organization will be pretty worthless. We should avoid systems that turn non-RPKers chaotic evil or we are back to Darkfall where everyone goes red because it's the only alignment that can get anything done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Decius is talking about the same stuff as the reputation system.
And don't tell me 'No. You're talking about "nothing more".' That is indeed all you have given so far for examples.
The reason I asked in the first place was because if I have a better idea the problems you're trying to solve, I can better use that to come up with my own suggestions. But in your own words, not mine, the worst the problem gets is a good nose thumbing.
Don't talk about indulging me specifically, that's the best reason you've given anyone as of yet.
@Andius and Brute, I'm curious how what you two are suggesting differs from the reputation system. Or perhaps you see need to alter the reputation system itself?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr I haven't seen anything in the reputation system about exiling people from your area and making them KoS *within your settlement*. Maybe you can point me to where those are referenced as part of the reputation system, becuase they seem pretty different from anything I've read about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaer- Not sure if caught this when I posted it earlier. I believe the rep system is universal. I'm proposing organizations can kick people off their own hexes. It's a very non-universal system. It's all about that specific org and the hex it owns.
Here is my suggestion:
Players with suffient permissions can exile someone from their hex. That player is given 5-10 minutes warning. After those 5-10 minutes expire the are criminal flagged whenever they enter that hex allowing players to attack them and making NPC guards to attack them.
So if someone is causing problems in your hex, you exile them. If you are in someone else's hex and someone is giving you trouble, you ask the authorities there to exile them.
If you are in someone else's hex and you don't like someone, but the authorities choose not to exile them... You deal with it. Or declare war and conquer that hex. It's their hex so they make the rules.
I would say there should be slight penalties if you exile too many organizations or people. Not huge ones, there should be lawful evil organizations that exile all but their own, or lawful good/neutral "Area-51" type hexes. But it should hurt the economy of those hexes as well as increasing the upkeep for guards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You and I seem to see eye to eye in thinking there should be alignment shifts for using such a mechanic.
I'm curious what you mean by "causing problems", of course. And please don't tell me "nose thumbing". From there I'd either start making suggestions for a new system to ban people, or go back to the reputation system.
What about using the alliance system to restrict entrance to your settlements? Even though they are NPC organizations, they are alignment oriented. Similar mechanics could be used concerning companies: make someone earn reputation with your company before entering your area. but of course that runs counter to the concept of compassion (synonym of good) for weary and wounded travelers who need a safe haven.
And yes, if we're talking settlements, rather than some random claim out in the wilderness, there may be some reasons for driving people off, but Nihimon's the one who said "nose thumbing". I don't see how to take that in a serious direction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see the use of the exile mechanic outside of settlements less for verbal abuse than for cases where Bob the Annoying is jumping up and down and keeping is avatar in front of everything I'm trying to do. But you're right, there's reporting for that - so maybe claiming territory outside of your settlement makes less sense than I thought, given the mechanics and GMs.
I do, however, strongly endorse the option to non-violently exile people from settlements for breaking rules other than being a thief/murderer - it's private property (ideally) but at least property that isn't yours, and the owner(s) have the right to remove you from their property if they feel you're violating the terms of free passing on it.
Absent the ability to remove you without violence or non-lethal damage, I'd be upset if I got tagged as a murderhobo for enforcing rules on my own property.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about using the alliance system to restrict entrance to your settlements? Even though they are NPC organizations, they are alignment oriented. Similar mechanics could be used concerning companies: make someone earn reputation with your company before entering your area. but of course that runs counter to the concept of compassion (synonym of good) for weary and wounded travelers who need a safe haven.
You're suggesting an inclusive system (work to be welcome in our settlement) which is fundamentally different from an exclusive system (Because of your behavior, you specifically are not not welcome here).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius, I really like your idea about Exile.
But in your own words, not mine, the worst the problem gets is a good nose thumbing.
As usual, you're being insincere.
Personally, I believe it's impossible to define all the behaviors that might qualify, so I never even tried.
And as usual, I find myself regretting attempting to treat with you as if you were sincere. For if you were sincere when you said "if I have a better idea the problems you're trying to solve, I can better use that to come up with my own suggestions", then you would apply your not-inconsiderable intellect to understanding me rather than looking for any excuse to attempt to ridicule and belittle.
There's a word for what you're doing, Blaeringr. It's Sophistry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not at all. If you disagree that you haven't given any worse examples than "nose thumbing", then by all means quote it. That's all you've needed to do all along if I missed something. Please, point out where you've stated the real problem you're trying to solve.
It's not sophistry to truthfully point out the examples you yourself gave.
I'm very open to a discussion of more serious matters, but so far you haven't given me much of anything serious to consider.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Blaer- I guess you missed this too. XD these were my examples of causing trouble outside "nose-thumbing"
Also I don't think there needs to be an alignment penalty but there should be a penalty of some sort, with the penalty being heavier the more you use it. This discourages it being used lightly or every settlement going members and allies only. I favor an economic penalty over an alignment one. Blocking everyone out kills trade / makes your guard's job much harder on them.
As far as using NPC alliances... I don't like it. They don't use their discretion. I do.
There needs to be a mechanic to ban people from your territory for a lot of reason, not just jeering.
1. If Justice Knights(LG) and Freedom Fighters(CG) have a war going on I will tell them to stay their blades in The Empyrean Order(NG) territory. If Justice Knights tries to ignore me I will exile them. Our territory is a place of peace and refuge and I will exile anyone who starts trouble with those I allow to dwell there.
2. If someone is feeding info to bandits outside our territory about the movement of traders, or feeding our enemies info about our forces and defenses, and I find out who they are, I want to exile them. I'm fine with spies but I should be able to deal with them when I catch them. Not have to deal with crappy spies who operate in the open with complete immunity.
3. I want to enforce some RP laws. Mainly I want to keep "50-shades" RP confined to a specific tavern, and people's private homes. (After we vote on the issue of course.) So if you stay out of that tavern you won't have to worry about creepy come-ons or half the population sitting there making out in the middle of the street where carts and wagons are trying to drive. This is just as reasonable as any city with ordinances about not being too loud or drunk in public.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please, point out where you've stated the real problem you're trying to solve.
The problem is that other players can come into your area and basically make a pest of themselves in a way that the game can't possibly detect, until your only recourse is to: 1) ignore them (which can be extremely difficult); 2) kill them and get flagged as a Criminal or an Attacker; 3) leave the area, thus rewarding them for being sufficiently obnoxious.
It's not sophistry to truthfully point out the examples you yourself gave.
It's sophistry to take an example from someone who says "these examples are meaningless" and pretend they have meaning.
And I'm done. I'm not going to get drawn into a boring back and forth with you while you cackle - you do cackle, don't you? - at your ability to derail my thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's sophistry to take an example from someone who says "these examples are meaningless" and pretend they have meaning.
You never said that. You're making things up in an attempt to exit this conversation. I don't care if you want to stop talking, but you're trying to smear me in doing so. I have been honest and straightforward in addressing your comments. You have been much less so, but accuse me of insincerity.
Here's a suggestion: Andius is coming up with some good ideas to discuss. How about you pretend that's what you meant all along and that I've just been totally misunderstanding you and should have telepathically known you meant all along what Andius said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius I like the scenarios you're painting as viable reasons for this.
That being said, I'd like to suggest that in such cases the exile system require you state a reason. That statement of reason won't have any immediate effect, but should someone think you're being too frivolous with the exile system they would be able to issue some sort of challenge with the game moderators who could then review your settlement's exile history and decide if it should result in an alignment shift.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius I like the scenarios you're painting as viable reasons for this.
That being said, I'd like to suggest that in such cases the exile system require you state a reason. That statement of reason won't have any immediate effect, but should someone think you're being too frivolous with the exile system they would be able to issue some sort of challenge with the game moderators who could then review your settlement's exile history and decide if it should result in an alignment shift.
Hmmm. I'm ok with that. They might choose to lie but I would imagine the penalty for being caught lying would be fairly harsh.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So far, I think we've identified three basic mechanics.
Exile Mechanic would allow the leader(s) of a Player Nation or a Settlement to manage a list of Exiles, and a list of Enforcers. Both lists could include any Character, Chartered Company, Settlement, or Player Nation. Exiles would automatically be attacked by NPC Guards, and could be freely attacked (without negative consequences) by Enforcers, but only while the Exile is in a Hex from which they've been exiled.
I actually think it makes perfect sense to allow even a Member of the Player Nation or Settlement to be Exiled, for Role Play purposes and to give them an opportunity to atone.
Challenge Mechanic would allow any Character (the Challenger) to issue a temporary Challenge to any non-Friendly Character (the Target) they have targeted. The Challenger must have a Claim (see below) to the area, and the Target must not have a Claim. The Target would have a reasonable amount of time to leave the area after which they could be freely attacked (without negative conseequences) by the Challenger or his allies, but only while the Challenger is in the area Claimed by the Challenger.
Claim Mechanic automatically applies to the entire Hex if the Challenger is listed as an Enforcer (see above) for the Settlement or Player Nation that controls that Hex. Otherwise applies to the Immediate Vicinity (see below). Automatically applied by placing any Camp site, including Harvesting Camps. Manually applied by issuing /claim. First Claim takes precedence, and being present in an area when a Claim is issued automatically applies a preemptive Claim.
Immediate Vicinity refers to the area around the Challenger when the Claim was issued. The actual distance should be dependent on the range at which emotes can be seen, but we'll use 30 yards as a placeholder. Three concentric spheres define the Immediate Vicinity, at 30, 60, and 90 yards radius. The first represents the area the Challenger must be inside in order to issue a Challenge. The second represents the area the Target must be in in order to be Challenged. The third represents the area the Target must leave in order to avoid the consequences of a Challenge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You never said that. You're making things up...It's sophistry to take an example from someone who says "these examples are meaningless" and pretend they have meaning.
I think you should be able to issue a Challenge for any reason at all - even simply because someone is standing too close to you while you're Harvesting. So the question of "pesky behavior" isn't at all controlling.
Those are words that mean "these examples are meaningless". I didn't use those words verbatim, but I conveyed that meaning. Your insistence that I didn't convey that meaning because I didn't use those words is sophistry.
That statement of reason won't have any immediate effect, but should someone think you're being too frivolous with the exile system they would be able to issue some sort of challenge with the game moderators who could then review your settlement's exile history and decide if it should result in an alignment shift.
I think this makes a lot of sense, and would be worthwhile for Challenges as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the Exile idea. I'm not so sure about the challenge/claim suggestions though. I don't see why it's not a valid tactic if you come across someone running a gathering operation in the wilderness to harass them and impede their operations in the hope of taking them for yourself. Unless you're part of the local settlement, why do you have any more claim to the area than you can defend?
Now, if we're talking true griefing behavior, you can already report them, we don't need another system for it. This just seems like some sort of "I got here first, it's mine!" mentality. Plus, if you're operating in a controller area and don't have the authority, you can petition the local owners to exile the person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon those words communicate that those examples aren't the only possible ones, but that is a very far cry from saying they're meaningless. If they were so meaningless, why were they uttered in the first place? Clearly that's what you're now saying, but the accusation that I've twisted your words is absolutely false. If you want to avoid this kind of conversation, try saying what you mean next time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not so sure about the challenge/claim suggestions though. I don't see why it's not a valid tactic if you come across someone running a gathering operation in the wilderness to harass them and impede their operations in the hope of taking them for yourself. Unless you're part of the local settlement, why do you have any more claim to the area than you can defend?
Nothing about the Challenge/Claim system would stop that. It definitely doesn't stop - or even remotely hinder - you from being able to come in and attack me or my camp. All it does is allow me to threaten you if you don't leave the area. If you're planning on attacking me, you can just go out of my range and wait until the rest of your friends show up.
Now, if we're talking true griefing behavior, you can already report them, we don't need another system for it.
This empowers the player to get immediate relief, and reduces the burden on the devs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nothing about the Challenge/Claim system would stop that. It definitely doesn't stop - or even remotely hinder - you from being able to come in and attack me or my camp. All it does is allow me to threaten you if you don't leave the area. If you're planning on attacking me, you can just go out of my range and wait until the rest of your friends show up.
But if that's my goal - for you to attack me - then your challenge has just allowed me to fight you, and my friends to step in and help without getting flagged as criminals. There's nothing criminal at all about defending yourself in the wilderness.
If your concern about the guy suspiciously following you is that he might attack you, then you're talking about making it easier for him to do so without consequences.
Telling people to get out of your settlement is one thing, but out in the wilderness - there's no way an ensuing attack from the person issuing the challenge should be something you can't defend yourself against. You're just setting up a scenario where people are going to bait you into issuing a challenge so they can bring in their nearby friends and kill and loot you - without consequences!
For the original problem; in what situations would this deal with an annoying player that a simple /ignore function would not?
As for your exile mechanic, how would you propose to deal with this situation: Kingdom A has captured most of the important resources for settlement-building, for argument's sake I'll say 90%. They artificially increase the price of those materials to the point where it requires a lot of initial investment in order to found your own settlement. A coalition of organisations who want to try and reclaim some of those resources gather in a hex, claimed by Kingdom A, in a bid to recover these resource nodes. However, before they can found a base of operations, Kingdom A names them exiles which means that not only does our coalition have to fight Kingdom A's player characters but also their guards. In a game that states the power curve isn't going to be insurmountable, how does this mechanic not go against that grain?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exile is not the same as the challenge/claim mechanic, and I can see some reason to have it. It makes sense that a lawful hex's governing authority should be able to disallow persons entering that hex on pain of death.
I'm uncertain at which degree of specificity exile should work on: whether settlements should be able to exile persons, chartered companies, alignments, or just non-allied outsiders in general. The more specific it gets, the more tedious, powerful, and potentially abusive the mechanic becomes, as some have pointed out here. It also seems there should be some benefit for remaining an 'open' society to counteract the benefit of exiling undesirables.
Challenge/claim on the other hand, works on such a specific level, I don't see why a person shouldn't just deal with the small incremental changes in alignment and reputation for killing a character. There are other means to get rid of the player, after all: Use a 'reputation salute' (or rather, whatever the negative of that is...) and cause the offender's reputation to drop. Hire an assassin. Buy some bread from Tony's. Outside of assassinations, just pay some other person nearby that might not mind the reputation hit so much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the original problem; in what situations would this deal with an annoying player that a simple /ignore function would not?
As for your exile mechanic, how would you propose to deal with this situation: Kingdom A has captured most of the important resources for settlement-building, for argument's sake I'll say 90%. They artificially increase the price of those materials to the point where it requires a lot of initial investment in order to found your own settlement. A coalition of organisations who want to try and reclaim some of those resources gather in a hex, claimed by Kingdom A, in a bid to recover these resource nodes. However, before they can found a base of operations, Kingdom A names them exiles which means that not only does our coalition have to fight Kingdom A's player characters but also their guards. In a game that states the power curve isn't going to be insurmountable, how does this mechanic not go against that grain?
First off any resource essential to founding a settlement should not be localized. Those should be resources like stone, wood, and grains, that can be found just about anywhere.
A local resource would be like sacred oak or marble. High grade materials with special properties useful in certain items. So a spear made with sacred oak might have some really desirable properties, as well as an altar built from marble, but it isn't like you can't make a spear or altar without them.
Now this isn't what GW has confirmed but I'm just saying if they make it work any other way, it's a pretty bad system. Now provided it works that way it kind of blows this whole scenario out of the water as having this resource they control 90% of isn't disallowing other factions from building essential items or even drastically raising the cost of doing so.
But even if it doesn't work that way... I think if any faction plops itself down on a major resource and jacks the prices way up, that they won't last long. It won't just be minor factions they tick off. If will be factions like TEO, 7th Viel, and PAX as well. If you think they can hold out against that then you are seriously overestimating how strong NPC guards are. The ones in player cities are much weaker than the ones in starter towns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon It doesn't stop someone from attacking you, but it does stop someone from harrying you and interfering with your operation. And in doing so creates a complex and exploitable system to try to automate Customer Service's job. If it's happening often enough that customer service is just *that* overburdened, odds are good they're not gonna be deterred by your challenge, they're just going to be grateful for the chance to kill you without consequence to them.
Besides, if you're out in the wilderness, my understanding was that you wouldn't get the Criminal/Murderer flag, just the alignment shift.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the original problem; in what situations would this deal with an annoying player that a simple /ignore function would not?
Someone has already mentioned a player can intentionally stand on resources nodes, making it hard/impossible to click on them.
Kingdom A has captured most of the important resources for settlement-building, for argument's sake I'll say 90%.
That's not a valid premise. Ryan has explicitly stated they're intentionally designing the system to ensure this can't happen.
Challenge/claim on the other hand, works on such a specific level, I don't see why a person shouldn't just deal with the small incremental changes in alignment and reputation for killing a character.
That's the best reason I've yet read as to why it might not be necessary. Hopefully, it just doesn't happen often enough that those changes add up.
@Nihimon It doesn't stop someone from attacking you, but it does stop someone from harrying you and interfering with your operation.
And that's exactly what I think we should be able to stop without losing Law/Good alignment. If someone is burning my corn crop, I should be able to attack them without slipping towards Chaos/Evil.
Besides, if you're out in the wilderness, my understanding was that you wouldn't get the Criminal/Murderer flag, just the alignment shift.
You will still get the Attacker flag, and we don't know exactly how all of those will be tied together.
I believe you have noble goals, Andius, but this could cast your organisation into a whole new light. Assuming that TEO and their allies grow into a major political force then you'll make decisions on how much someone can charge for a rare resource? I think that it's a fair assumption that the materials required to craft the highest tier of buildings will be restricted in some manner. If TEO et al disapprove, shall we see moves made to take over those resources?
On the exile mechanic, the most obvious grief play that could be made with this is that any given organisation can inhibit movement into a particular hex. Scale that up and an organisation could feasibly annex entire areas of the map.
I think that this problem (that of someone bothering you in 'your' hex) could be fixed by permitting the wardec system to include individuals albeit at a similar price as that of declaring on an opposing company to prevent abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth, the devs have already talked about a mechanic similar to this Challenge mechanic. All I'm doing really is expanding on it.
From Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles:
2) Gang Fight: Need a better name, but effectively you as a group challenge them as a group to a fight without the various punishment mechanics kicking in. This is effectively a big duel that they have to accept for it to work, but if it's that or be murdered one by one by you in sneak attacks, they may go for it.
Yes but your mechanic as written does not require your opponent to accept and indeed, if they are bothering you, they are hardly going to accept.
What GW are speaking of there is a duel/party duel system which appears to be along the lines of a 'wardec lite' system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And that's exactly what I think we should be able to stop without losing Law/Good alignment. If someone is burning my corn crop, I should be able to attack them without slipping towards Chaos/Evil.
Now this example makes sense.
But the next logical step in discussing this is to ask whether pre-emptive action against someone with no past crimes against you - an assumption of guilty intentions - should involve an alignment shift.
If the "attacker flag" the devs have mentioned applies when attacking someone's property, then that pretty much solves the problem.
Unless of course you are of the belief that pre-emptive assumptions of guilty intentions are fair play.
If so, that leads to a discussion of how to avoid abuse of such a system. This is historically frowned upon by society because assuming guilt up front, rather than innocence, consistently leads to horrible abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe you have noble goals, Andius, but this could cast your organisation into a whole new light. Assuming that TEO and their allies grow into a major political force then you'll make decisions on how much someone can charge for a rare resource? I think that it's a fair assumption that the materials required to craft the highest tier of buildings will be restricted in some manner. If TEO et al disapprove, shall we see moves made to take over those resources?
On the exile mechanic, the most obvious grief play that could be made with this is that any given organisation can inhibit movement into a particular hex. Scale that up and an organisation could feasibly annex entire areas of the map.
I think that this problem (that of someone bothering you in 'your' hex) could be fixed by permitting the wardec system to include individuals albeit at a similar price as that of declaring on an opposing company to prevent abuse.
Well first off I was just using us as examples of large organizations given we are the 3 biggest organizations on the poll. Any large organization from Lawful Good and Chaotic Good to Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil to True Neutral will be ticked off if some faction monopolizes a resource and charges outrageous prices for it. It's going to hurt their expansion just as much as it hurts new companies trying to make their start. But they have bigger armies and more capability to do something about it.
TEO isn't largely concerned with breaking up monopolies but if it got to the point we seriously felt it was impacting people's ability to enjoy the game I'm sure the council would vote to get involved. Just like a Chaotic Evil company wouldn't get involved unless they felt the price gouging was hurting their operations enough to make it worth dealing with. There is no magic number but you can only gouge so much before people REALLY get ticked, and destroy you.
I don't think we can use 'standing on a node to make it impossible to target' as a valid reason as we've no idea how the harvesting system works. It could work like SWG where you construct a mine that operates automatically rather than having to manually click on a harvesting node.
We can replace my example with 'rare resource X for project Y'. I find it an unlikely premise that materials for the highest tier of buildings isn't going to be limited in some manner as that would limit meaningful interaction between players.
I'm really just trying to promote discussion, I'm aware that gouging can be a risky business. At the same time, a system like this could be open to one of the cardinal sins of griefing which is denying access to an area.
I can agree with an 'exile' system for settlements but not for hexes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think we can use 'standing on a mode to make it impossible to target' as a valid reason as we've no idea how the harvesting system works. It could work like SWG where you construct a mine that operates automatically rather than having to manually click on a harvesting node.
We can replace my example with 'rare resource X for project Y'. I find it an unlikely premise that materials for the highest tier of buildings isn't going to be limited in some manner as that would limit meaningful interaction between players.
Well, what qualifies as the highest tier? Is it the one that will last the longest? The one the lasts almost just as long but has a much lower upkeep cost? Is it the one that raises the morale of your settlement? The ones that gives bonuses if used in a religious building?
I personally don't favor "highest tier" materials. Just different materials with different properties.
So while one organization can horde the materials for the bows with the highest refire rate, you will likely still have access to the materials that make it do the most damage per hit etc.
Even supposing though, that material X is the "highest tier" material for project X, not having the "highest tier" material isn't nearly as big of a deal as not being able to complete project X at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth, the devs have already talked about a mechanic similar to this Challenge mechanic. All I'm doing really is expanding on it.
From Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles:
2) Gang Fight: Need a better name, but effectively you as a group challenge them as a group to a fight without the various punishment mechanics kicking in. This is effectively a big duel that they have to accept for it to work, but if it's that or be murdered one by one by you in sneak attacks, they may go for it.
Yes, but you're also making it unilateral, which is where (my) concerns of exploitation come in.
We already know that Goblinworks intends to limit the ability to train certain skills to certain structures in your settlement and that is what I'd call 'highest tier' in absence of a better term.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We already know that Goblinworks intends to limit the ability to train certain skills to certain structures in your settlement and that is what I'd call 'highest tier' in absence of a better term.
There is no confirmation that you need your temple to be built from white marble to gain access to all the skills though. There's no confirmation that you need anything but a temple at all, or that if you do need the uber-awesome temple that the uber-awesome temple requires specific materials as opposed to just specific skills.
I'm kind of hoping that if you are a level 5 architect with level 5 temple building you can build an uber awesome temple out of any building materials, and that the materials only determine bonuses. Not something as important as what abilities you can learn there.
Also there is one huge thing I don't think you've stopped to consider yet. Who says there will be any significant guard presence outside the settlement itself. If all you are there to do is steal their resources, you may be able to do that without ever confronting their guards in significant numbers, if at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, but you're also making it unilateral, which is where (my) concerns of exploitation come in.
I completely understand. I tried to address this with the "valid Claim" part, since it's hard to follow someone around harassing them with a mechanic that requires you to have been in the area before them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, but you're also making it unilateral, which is where (my) concerns of exploitation come in.I completely understand. I tried to address this with the "valid Claim" part, since it's hard to follow someone around harassing them with a mechanic that requires you to have been in the area before them.
Are you suggesting the claim is automatic then? So I can challenge anyone who wanders around me? Or is it something I have to invoke, in which case, what happens when I'm either a) moving around myself, and they're just following me, so I have to keep invoking it, unless it moves with me, in which case how long does it last to keep it from being automatic? Or b) I'm out in the woods and forget to invoke it because (again, running around) and so someone swoops in and invokes it on me, and then challenges me to get out of the area I was in first?
Edit to clarify: Not talking about around settlements or long-term operation site (mining, forrestry, etc.) Just the "they're following me around being obnoxious" approach.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm uncertain at which degree of specificity exile should work on: whether settlements should be able to exile persons, chartered companies, alignments, or just non-allied outsiders in general.
All of the above, with associated penalties. I would make banning alignments give no penalties, or at least banning alignments that are opposed to your own such as good banning evil or law banning chaos.
Beyond that you could ban X players and X companies without any penalty. Then X and X more for a light penalty. Then X and X more for a medium penalty etc.
If you turned on the option for exile all but allies, you would take 100% of whatever the penalties are, which should be a pretty substantial penalty, but still something that can be dealt with if having a private hex is very important to you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure direct mechanical penalties are needed for an exile system to function. They've already said that no settlement should be self-sufficient, so I'd think cutting off trade would have it's own issues that arise out of that naturally. If you're talking about exiling people and particular chartered companies, I'm not sure what sort of penalty that would rationally impose, other than making enemies, of course, unless you're just looking to apply artificial penalties for the sake of applying penalties.
Edit to add: I'm not sure I like the idea of banning alignments. It's not something that's readily apparent, so I have trouble picturing guards attacking strangers on sight. Now, you might be able to say that if their alignment is detected somehow, it puts a criminal flag on them then, but I think that would be more likely to be handled under the laws of a settlement rather than some sort of exile system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banning certain alignments could simply amount to closing services to them in your settlement, or something different like not allowing them protection under certain or all laws of your settlement.
I'd like to see this happen more based on factions and company than on alignment though.
I understand your desire for high end structures not to be built with some kind of limiting factor but then it kind of removes what I feel would be an integral part of 'meaningful interactions'. Not only that but then what is to differentiate between the companies? It removes an essential draw for those companies who are competing for the most important resource of all; people.
I'd hope that rare resources are required. That could mean that a small company could settle around that resource and use it as their resource stream to larger settlements who need it. Yes, they might run the risk of one of those larger settlements crushing them but then they might appeal to the others who would come to their defence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand your desire for high end structures not to be built with some kind of limiting factor but then it kind of removes what I feel would be an integral part of 'meaningful interactions'. Not only that but then what is to differentiate between the companies? It removes an essential draw for those companies who are competing for the most important resource of all; people.
I'd hope that rare resources are required. That could mean that a small company could settle around that resource and use it as their resource stream to larger settlements who need it. Yes, they might run the risk of one of those larger settlements crushing them but then they might appeal to the others who would come to their defence.
Any rare resources are likely to be claimed quickly by the first major factions in the game and control of them will only be lost to other major factions.
TEO and other good aligned organizations aren't going to run around constantly liberating rare resources then giving them away to tiny factions. We are are nice... but not that nice. We'll give them to settlements that swear allegiance to us instead most likely.
This whole thing just turns me off to rare resources. I sincerely hope that most hexes have some kind of unique draw to them. Anything else will shaft the small organizations super hard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I seem to recall a dev mentioning that all resources will randomly repopulate after being harvested, so you can't just monopolize them by picking a good hex. And "rare" resources will tend towards non-claimed wilderness. Sorry, no quote on hand, but Nihimon is here, so I'm sure he'll find it pretty quick!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a big fan of the Exile Mechanic, but not at all in favor of the challenge mechanic or the claim mechanic.
The Exile Mechanic should really work to allow both an open environment within a settlements borders to encourage trade, but still allow the faction to drive off enemies when needed. Good idea Andius!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was trying to explain the Challenge mechanic to my wife in the car today, and I agree there are a lot of unanswered questions related to the "following around" element.
I still think it would be really great for a Settled Hex, but it would probably need a lot of work to make it suitable for use in the wilderness, and I'm not sure the problem is worth it. In a Settled Hex, though, being able to shoo away a pest would be really nice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One permutation of the challenge mechanic that might work is the ability to appoint players as guards, or law enforcement in a settled hex. Allow them to challenge people as sort of a "you're performing an action we do not allow" and then attack freely to enforce the law if they persist. Could appointed LEOs abuse it? Do cops become corrupt? Then if a settlement revokes your LEO status, they should be able to put in a negtive mark that affects your rep and/or alignment
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One reason some way to dissuade player characters from anti-community behavior is thought needed (and considering the behaviors I've witnessed in other games, all the way back to the 'Teefs' of Dragonrealms, such truly is needed) is that for those preferring to authentically role-play evil alignment there appears to be nothing else to distract them from anti-community behavior.
They have nothing whatsover to do but grief you.
So much focus is being given by this community on how to counter behavior as certain as Doom himself, yet nobody appears to have considered that if they have nothing else worth the doing then no amount of dissuasion will meet the real need.
Why not build the game from the PoV of the evil character, and the neutral character, and the chaotic character as well? Why this lawful good ethnocentrism? Do we not realize that many are so good in RL that it amounts to psychological repression, and providing an opportunity to be evil safely is a potentially profitable exercise?
Relieving repression might actually benefit real society.