Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing that bugs me about settlements is the segregation. I don't want to see people being forced to play separately because of alignments. I want to see LG Paladins and evil barbarians able to play and be successful together. Just because my friend and I have differing character concepts, shouldn't mean our activities are limited, or ether of us must change our concepts.
When I think of a settlement, I equate it to an Assassins Creed city(maybe half the size). And would like things like sub-factions within the settlement to be possible, so you could have your paladins that patrol their district, a thieves guild in another, and so on.
I don't think alignment should play a large role in the hex as a whole. I think there should be some alignment specific things, but it should only be the top 10% of so of training. Like 19th and 20th paladin badges must be from a settlement that bans evil, and the 19th and 20th barbarian badges must be from a settlement that bans lawful.
So I propose this: Districts
Each hex is divided up into 7 sub hexes, and the sub-hex the settlement occupies is divided into 7 district sub-hexes.
When a settlement is erected, you get one district, the administrative district, this is largely static, and not much can be done to it, it houses basic general training, training, and banking facilities, along with the "town hall" which is the hub for buying improvements for your settlement. There is no alignment(not TN) to the administrative district, though you can set global alignment restrictions for the settlement if you choose.
As you build more resources, you can start constructing other districts. These start out basic, and can you can spend more resources to improve them. Districts must have a defined threshold for each alignment axis and reputation. These thresholds must ban any two non neutral alignments, but can go further. You can ban lawful and good, but also require members to be at least -5000 evil. This means your settlement can be at most, open to 3 alignment possibilities 1 step from eachother and TN.
So an evil district could setup as follows:
*-3000 or less Good/evil
*any chaotic/law
*2000 or more reputation.
The settlement alignment restrictions overide the district restrictions, and district restrictions are automatically changed to fit in. So in the above example, if there was a threshold of -2000 chao/law for the the settlement, the evil district would be changed to:
*-3000 or less Good/evil
*-2000 or more chaotic/law
*2000 or more reputation.
If the alignment of the settlement is permitting, one district should be able to house 150% of a single category. This makes it so you can have setups like:
-Masterwork sword crafting facilities(100% of single category)
-1-6th badge fighter training(10%)
-1-6th badge Cleric training(10%)
-minor housing(20%)
-small market(10%)
or
-1-20th badge wizard training(100%)
-1-10th badge sorcerer training(30%)
-minor housing(20%)
or
-1-15th badge rogue training(70%)
-1-15th badge bard training(70%)
-shanty town (10%)
The amount you can advance district buildings is limited by that 1000 point scale that one of the Ryan or Lee mentioned representing the vulnerability. Good facilities = more risk. I'm torn between this limiting how much one district can advance, or how specialized their building can be, or both. I'm leaning towards just limiting how specialized, so an 800 settlement could fill all 150% with lesser facilities, but you still have to be 1000 for the good stuff.
During warfare each district(expect administrative) acts as a 'capture point', once all districts are captured, the administrative district must be captured to take control of the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sympathetic with the desire to be able to capture and capitalize on the work already done by the defeated, but I believe there are good reasons why the developer has suggested that settlements cannot be captured by force of arms, but only destroyed.
If I invade the game with a very large group of other new players I should not be able to just roll over settlement after settlement gaining more and more power as I did so. Such a juggernaut would quickly become unstoppable and usurp all the rewards resulting from the labors of those who actually played the game and built them from the ground up.
Those players would have little recourse but start anew on the frontiers with nothing but the clothes on their backs and the skills they had gained, and the invaders would not have to learn to play the game beyond basic combat techniques. They would enjoy all the benefits of advanced training and all the treasures that had been so hard won by those who went before.
Instead a settlement must be destroyed to be captured by force of arms. To gain the benefits of owning an advanced settlement the invader will have to invest time in learning the game. The invader may be able to make thei own settlement in a proven successful location, but they would not be able to divest everyone of what they built and also capitalize on the work of others to boot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing that bugs me about settlements is the segregation. I don't want to see people being forced to play separately because of alignments. I want to see LG Paladins and evil barbarians able to play and be successful together.
Just because my friend and I have differing character concepts, shouldn't mean our activities are limited, or ether of us must change our concepts.
I'm assuming a LG Paladin is a player who enjoys protecting/upholding laws of a hex. And a barbarian perhaps enjoys raiding and ambushing in the wilderness? So players might feel an appeal for either "concept" but actually the "what's the day-to-day" of each amount to that matters? In this comparison they behave quite differently?
When I think of a settlement, I equate it to an Assassins Creed city(maybe half the size). And would like things like sub-factions within the settlement to be possible, so you could have your paladins that patrol their district, a thieves guild in another, and so on.I don't think alignment should play a large role in the hex as a whole. I think there should be some alignment specific things, but it should only be the top 10% of so of training. Like 19th and 20th paladin badges must be from a settlement that bans evil, and the 19th and 20th barbarian badges must be from a settlement that bans lawful.
That makes a settlement sound more heterogenous, but the whole map then might become more homogenous as things pan out? The way I see it: LG type settlements will form High civilized hex regions of the map, and neutral will be fluctuations of change and the c/e axis settlements will be highly volatile regions more along the wilderness hex regions (less built-up/developed)? The Lawful Evil sound like the most war-ambitioned groups of players (I think Ryan mentioned something like this).
I think if you have hexes/settlements as a bit of everything, it might be too patchwork in what player's are expecting out of an area of the map with open pvp?
I assume Neutral will have widest range of alignments, but in terms of range of player behaviours, that could be any alignment type other than LG which seems most conditional?
Possibly hexes could have a small aligment immigrant quarter of limited permissible numbers/passes as another settlement feature?
/Just throwing some fuel onto this discussion.
I'm sympathetic with the desire to be able to capture and capitalize on the work already done by the defeated, but I believe there are good reasons why the developer has suggested that settlements cannot be captured by force of arms, but only destroyed.
If I invade the game with a very large group of other new players I should not be able to just roll over settlement after settlement gaining more and more power as I did so. Such a juggernaut would quickly become unstoppable and usurp all the rewards resulting from the labors of those who actually played the game and built them from the ground up.
Those players would have little recourse but start anew on the frontiers with nothing but the clothes on their backs and the skills they had gained, and the invaders would not have to learn to play the game beyond basic combat techniques. They would enjoy all the benefits of advanced training and all the treasures that had been so hard won by those who went before.
Instead a settlement must be destroyed to be captured by force of arms. To gain the benefits of owning an advanced settlement the invader will have to invest time in learning the game. The invader may be able to make thei own settlement in a proven successful location, but they would not be able to divest everyone of what they built and also capitalize on the work of others to boot.
Actually Being, Ryan has posted that there will be means for settlements to be overtaken without total destruction of all facilities within the hex. We don't have details on what those means are, but settlement leaders will be able to sign control over to others.
If I invade the game with a very large group of other new players I should not be able to just roll over settlement after settlement gaining more and more power as I did so. Such a juggernaut would quickly become unstoppable and usurp all the rewards resulting from the labors of those who actually played the game and built them from the ground up.
You have a valid concern here. I hope that there will be enough mechanical time stops, like having to build siege camps prior to attacking a town, that settlements will have enough time to prepare themselves so they won't be caught totally flat footed by this army of enemies.
I actually do envision this scenario playing out in PFO. It may even call for an alliance of settlements, even those of opposing alignments to put the threat down. The perfect example of course is that of Jenghis Khan. A loose horde of players traveling fairly lightly can sweep through, quickly plunder and move on before a force can be assembled to meet them. The one good thing for the players is that it's impossible for this mass to hold the settlements they defeat, doing so would require them leaving a substantial number behind at each settlement they conquer. This would quickly reduce the size of the attacking army lo a manageable number.
A tactic that would also work to defeat the marauding mass is for a settlement to destroy any food just prior to its being overtaken. So long as there is no other source of food nearby, then it's possible to "starve" the attacking force out so long as their supply lines can be disrupted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Actually Being, Ryan has posted that there will be means for settlements to be overtaken without total destruction of all facilities within the hex. We don't have details on what those means are, but settlement leaders will be able to sign control over to others.
Right: he said that in response to speculation we were making in another thread about what happens when, say, a CG settlement is founded, yet many CN players join, turning the CG settlement alignment into a CN settlement, at which time CE players could join it. If then enough CE players joined the settlement alignment would shift to CE and the original settlers would be suddenly out of a home since their alignment is now incompatible.
Ryan appeared to identify for us that is how it would work.
There was nothing in that that said a sttlement could become controlled through military action, and in fact there have been several statements (now pretty old, bear in mind since things can change) stating that the only way to take over a hex by force of arms involves the destruction of every structure on that hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh no my temple!
I wonder how players and building destruction will work. attack vrs wall? cannon vrs flower pot?
Catapults were in the tech demo, so I presume those will be part of it all. Fire also, I would imagine, for wooden structures. Who knows what deviltry the devs have planned?
There was nothing in that that said a sttlement could become controlled through military action, and in fact there have been several statements (now pretty old, bear in mind since things can change) stating that the only way to take over a hex by force of arms involves the destruction of every structure on that hex.
I was assuming that the threat of a siege or declaration of war could cause a settlement to cede control to an attacking force rather then going through being defeated by an obviously more powerful force. Or where subterfuge and espionage have been used extensively to such a degree that the settlement will fall even if left alone, the owners may decide to capitulate and receive some amount of coin rather then going through a war and receiving nothing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was assuming that the threat of a siege or declaration of war could cause a settlement to cede control to an attacking force rather then going through being defeated by an obviously more powerful force. Or where subterfuge and espionage have been used extensively to such a degree that the settlement will fall even if left alone, the owners may decide to capitulate and receive some amount of coin rather then going through a war and receiving nothing.
There was nothing in that that said a sttlement could become controlled through military action, and in fact there have been several statements (now pretty old, bear in mind since things can change) stating that the only way to take over a hex by force of arms involves the destruction of every structure on that hex.
This is really good story-generation material: I could see the "leaders" selling-out the rest of the settlement in a more evil/chaotic settlement via this. Mergers and acquisitions of settlements?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah! I hadn't considered that option. Sorta like 'Join our Kingdom or lose your settlement the choice, and responsibility for the lives of your commoners, is on your head."
I don't see why it couldn't work unless GW will institute an 'extortion' flag.
So while a settlement can't be taken by force, the threat of force can be a tool to force a settlement to cede control to another group. Which basically amounts to the leaders being presented with the choice, either turn control over to us and we give you XXX coin (or whatever), or we attack and destroy everything and take over anyway.
hopefully there is some meaningful infrastructure located outside of a settlements walls. I would like to make money threatening to burn stuff down.
Don't forget that with the Devs subdividing hexes into 7 sub hexes, and the fact that each sub hex can have a guard tower located within it. If there are buildings like farms or what have you outside of the settlement walls, these buildings will likely be guarded by the guards in the guard towers. We don't know if these guards will be bad ass NPCs like the Dragoons in EQ, or if they are just standard level NPCs, but any attack on them will summon the PFO equivalent of Concord which Will consist of Dragoon powered NPCs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So while a settlement can't be taken by force, the threat of force can be a tool to force a settlement to cede control to another group. Which basically amounts to the leaders being presented with the choice, either turn control over to us and we give you XXX coin (or whatever), or we attack and destroy everything and take over anyway.
I could see it working something like the 'peaceful' exchange method I described above, except a shortcut is taken where the inhabitants are offered something they value if they will simply relocate while accepting the, ah, application for membership of those making the offer. The purchasers move in and the original settlers move out.
I doubt anything players can create will spawn concord level NPCs. I know these insta death NPCs will exist in the newbie area but they arnt going to be running around in player controlled lands.
Your right, but whatever the most powerful guards available will be the ones that spawn when someone breaks the laws in a hex. I sort of figure level 14-18, there might be one or two of these guys along with some low teens guards is how I'm imagining it.
There should be no way to take a Settlement with hostile action for all the reasons Bing cited. Capitulation in a negotiated resolution seems legit to me.
SAD for cities!
Question - If a LG city ceeded their ownership to a CE group, would the CE's get access to the improved training grounds?
I think that would depend on if the training facility had some sort of requirement for the settlement to use it, like an alignment or reputation or whatever. If there was no requirement, or if the CE leaders met the requirement, then I don't see a reason they couldn't utilize the training facility, it just makes sense.
And I see this scenario being a major factor in if a settlement gets assaulted, or is victim to overtaking by subtle methods.