Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you defend hexes? Will there be NPC guards for all the "points of interest"?
It seems like a large roaming band of players can sweep across the map like Ghengis Khan destroying inns and farms and watch towers, etc...
I think previous Blogs cover that. Have you read all the Blog posts? It could help.
Expecting them to re-iterate every previous Blog post, which are saved on their website for anybody to read, seems unreasonable.
Destroying settlement buildings takes serious time, and until they are destroyed, 'ownership' of the hex is not transferred/removed.
I believe PC settlements indeed can (somehow/eventually) get some NPC guards,
but even if they can't, the idea is to that some of your group should be able to notice what's going on sooner rather than later,
if for some reason most of the settlement PCs can't respond, anybody so authorized (re: setlement funds) can hire mercenaries.
As described in the blog, it's envisioned that attacking/taking over remote harvesting camps or auxiliary settlements will be easier and much more common than taking over main settlements.I'm confused by the premise of your post: is it surprising or unreasonable for a game emulating sword&shield medieval combat (+magic) to to allow for/resemble Genghis Khan's conquests? That's exactly what I would expect.
I am asking whether NPC guards are going to be available for the "points of interests" that are described FOR THE FIRST TIME in this blog post. I know settlements will have NPC guards I am asking about something new and specific to this blog post. Specifically will farms and taverns "points of interests" be protectable when we are off line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you defend hexes? Will there be NPC guards for all the "points of interest"?
It seems like a large roaming band of players can sweep across the map like Ghengis Khan destroying inns and farms and watch towers, etc...
It may sound/seem easy to have a large force plod across the entire map and wipe the slate clean, but I think that size of a force will take a very long time to create, and would have lots of other work to keep them busy besides wiping out everything under the sun. (If it happens, I hope it is done by us good guys!)
OTherwise I think it will be far more realistic to have regular mounted patrols riding the perimeter of your settlement area (this is what I previously discussed as the "effective control" area). I don't see any group becoming big enough and coordinated enought to scoure the countryside....just too much area and would take far too long. But it will be fun to try!
I am specifically worried about the MMO locus know as the goonswarm...
http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=GoonSwarm
A version of the goon squad is in almost every mmo. A sandbox game that lets them griefs the good guys is exactly their interest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Goons were successful in Eve because they were able to effectively field very large numbers of relatively low-skilled characters.
Unit Combat in PFO will give established groups that can effectively fight as a Unit an effective way to deal with swarms of low-skilled characters that aren't able to effectively fight as a Unit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Soldack, the "POI" eg Inns, Farms, Watchtowers, I assume all these will have higher levels of defensive protection - hence make a suitable holdfast in the wild. But nowhere near a settlement's.
So I don't expect them to be invulnerable. Maybe the devs will discern if a "sleep window" is required, but overall it would seem to make the most sense that they are protected by the settlement or affiliation to a settlement or other that provides patronage. IE "an act of war" or what's been discussed previously: Casus belli
Other patronage might be towards bandits or others who take a cut for protection etc? These would be my guess as well as good places to hold up eg possibly some heavy-siege stuff to break down defences, but much less than a settlement. A Tavern should have solid stone walls (more neutral too even), and a Watchtower should have it's own offensive capabilities high up (more militant)! Farms, might be the weakest and softest building of infrastructure to target - and require the most patrols etc? /few guesses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am extremely interested in a few things, and I've produced the following image to illustrate my questions.
The Hex marked "X" is my guild's Settlement. Green Hexes are Wilderness Hexes.
1. Are there any green Wilderness Hexes where we will not be allowed to exert Control? What determines whether or not we can control a Wilderness Hex? It strikes me that it would be really interesting if we could control any Wilderness Hex that bordered our Settlement or another Wilderness Hex that we control. If we over-extended ourselves, it might be possible to take a single Wilderness Hex that breaks a chain and removes our control over a number of other Wilderness Hexes as well.
2. If the dark blue Hexes are Settlement Hexes, are all of those configurations possible? For example, will there always be two Wilderness Hexes between any two Settlement Hexes, thus ruling out A and D?
3. Same as #2, but the dark blue Hexes are now Monster Hexes.
4. Does #1 depend on whether the dark blue Hexes are Friendly, Hostile, Neutral, or Unsettled Settlement Hexes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, as a Chaotic Neutral druid, will I only be able to ally with other CN creatures?
Not the way I read the alignment system. CN will also be able to ally with CE and CG as well as NN (True Neutral)...Did you spot something to suggest it would be otherwise?
I'm not super enthusiastic about how escalation cycles are looking. The only example we've heard of so far is a Hellknight attack. What about monsters? Can't I ally with a band of redcaps seeking to bring down a neighboring settlement?
We haven't seen a bestiary, but the implication appears to be that any of the humanoid factions as well as other monsters can spawn in an escalation hex. As you intend to be CN I should think there will be several 'monster' types in the Echo Woods region that might be approachable for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am extremely interested in a few things, and I've produced the following image to illustrate my questions.
The Hex marked "X" is my guild's Settlement. Green Hexes are Wilderness Hexes.
...
The way I read it the 'X' hex would be more likely to be an escalatory hex rather than a settlement site. It doesn't seem to me likely that one settlement site would be closer to another than two hexes away.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@avenOats - thoughtful response, thanks. I like your assumptions. If we keep comparing these mechanisms to eve, a declaration of war between alliances allowed fighting in the "protected" NPC hexes. Out in the wilderness you can fight and destroy structures any time.
I would like to see a blog post on how to protect these outlying hexes of your settlement. I am not sure how much fun it is to have to spend in game time, "patrolling" the border hexes. I have pulled guard duty in Iraq and it is extremely boring for very long periods of time (until it is extremely not boring for very very short periods of time). I don't see it as a "fun" game mechanic.
Does the game need a mechanism to alert you to your structures being attacked?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Goons were successful in Eve because they were able to effectively field very large numbers of relatively low-skilled characters.
Unit Combat in PFO will give established groups that can effectively fight as a Unit an effective way to deal with swarms of low-skilled characters that aren't able to effectively fight as a Unit.
Sadly they have been successful in many MMOs. They use spies and hidden alts to get ingrained in many of the good guilds. They recruit lots of new players but in most MMOs it is always easier to destroy then to create. For a vibrant economy, it will have to be easier to destroy then build or else the map, game play, and economy in the sandbox will stagnate.
I believe that watchtowers would come with a number of guards some of which would patrol in an area around the tower. I believe that these guards could be beefed up for a price.
I'm remembering this from posts quite a while ago, so matters might have changed, but I've heard nothing to indicate that they have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have pulled guard duty in Iraq and it is extremely boring for very long periods of time (until it is extremely not boring for very very short periods of time).
I did a small stint of military service and never saw active duty (never agreed with the politicians), but this is exactly the feedback of those I talked to who did go.
I am extremely interested in a few things, and I've produced the following image to illustrate my questions.
Hex Map Illustration.
The Hex marked "X" is my guild's Settlement. Green Hexes are Wilderness Hexes.
1. Are there any green Wilderness Hexes where we will not be allowed to exert Control? What determines whether or not we can control a Wilderness Hex? It strikes me that it would be really interesting if we could control any Wilderness Hex that bordered our Settlement or another Wilderness Hex that we control. If we over-extended ourselves, it might be possible to take a single Wilderness Hex that breaks a chain and removes our control over a number of other Wilderness Hexes as well.
2. If the dark blue Hexes are Settlement Hexes, are all of those configurations possible? For example, will there always be two Wilderness Hexes between any two Settlement Hexes, thus ruling out A and D?
3. Same as #2, but the dark blue Hexes are now Monster Hexes.
4. Does #1 depend on whether the dark blue Hexes are Friendly, Hostile, Neutral, or Unsettled Settlement Hexes?
That illustration is really useful.
1. I was assuming control referred to if a hex is passively contributing development points to your settlement via a POI constructed there ie developing the hex for Settlement A. Maybe "control" will be tied to a watchtower building specifically however than any old building? Not sure.
2. Assumed at least 2 wilderness hexes between settlements.
3. Assumed at least 2 wilderness hexes away from settlements also.
4. V interesting question. Wonder if NPC allies contribute to a settlement - perhaps ie temples etc?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that watchtowers would come with a number of guards some of which would patrol in an area around the tower. I believe that these guards could be beefed up for a price.
I'm remembering this from posts quite a while ago, so matters might have changed, but I've heard nothing to indicate that they have.
I "get" settlements, watch towers, and even hideouts. What I would like to know is the NPC protection options for the farm and tavern points of interest mentioned in the new blog.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am extremely interested in a few things, and I've produced the following image to illustrate my questions.
The Hex marked "X" is my guild's Settlement. Green Hexes are Wilderness Hexes.
1. Are there any green Wilderness Hexes where we will not be allowed to exert Control? What determines whether or not we can control a Wilderness Hex? It strikes me that it would be really interesting if we could control any Wilderness Hex that bordered our Settlement or another Wilderness Hex that we control. If we over-extended ourselves, it might be possible to take a single Wilderness Hex that breaks a chain and removes our control over a number of other Wilderness Hexes as well.
2. If the dark blue Hexes are Settlement Hexes, are all of those configurations possible? For example, will there always be two Wilderness Hexes between any two Settlement Hexes, thus ruling out A and D?
3. Same as #2, but the dark blue Hexes are now Monster Hexes.
4. Does #1 depend on whether the dark blue Hexes are Friendly, Hostile, Neutral, or Unsettled Settlement Hexes?
1. Interesting idea about the possibility of 'breaking the chain of control' to deal a greater blow to a foe. If wilderness control necessitates a contiguous line of control back to the settlement, I would suggest that the hexes that become no longer contiguous simply stop giving bonuses to the owning settlement, rather than something more damaging like all their control buildings being destroyed instantly or even over time. We should be able to maintain control of an exclave indefinitely if we wish, even if it isn't giving any direct bonuses to our settlement.
2. I had assumed there would always be two wilderness hexes between settlements, as this would help achieve the goal of 'more granular' territory control. That's a good question to be sure about, so I'm glad you asked. (Note that in my hex analysis on the first page, I assumed settlements could not share a border wilderness hex.)
3. I did not share AvenaOats's assumption about monster hexes. That's another great question, I can see reasons to go either way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way I read it the 'X' hex would be more likely to be an escalatory hex rather than a settlement site. It doesn't seem to me likely that one settlement site would be closer to another than two hexes away.
Well, I was trying to ask whether any of the A, B, C, or D hexes would be valid Settlement Hexes, or if any of them were too close...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If wilderness control necessitates a contiguous line of control back to the settlement, I would suggest that the hexes that become no longer contiguous simply stop giving bonuses to the owning settlement, rather than something more damaging like all their control buildings being destroyed instantly or even over time. We should be able to maintain control of an exclave indefinitely if we wish, even if it isn't giving any direct bonuses to our settlement.
I agree that the cut off Hexes shouldn't immediately lose whatever structure is built, but I don't know if it's a good idea to allow them to remain permanently. I would think the POI Control Structure would eventually suffer from losing its supply line to the Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that the cut off Hexes shouldn't immediately lost whatever structure is built, but I don't know if it's a good idea to allow them to remain permanently. I would think the POI Control Structure would eventually suffer from losing its supply line to the Settlement.
I agree with Kakafika, cut off should be mean no bonuses, but I don't mind it remaining until the upkeep isnt paid or it is conquered. Then you could say an "enclave" can't grow in hexes if it isn't connected to the "capital"
Complicating this will be the Alliances system. If a kingdom is a group of chartered companies in an alliance, would one company's settlement be deemed the capital? Seems like it will be fun to learn how alliances will work.
If wilderness control necessitates a contiguous line of control back to the settlement, I would suggest that the hexes that become no longer contiguous simply stop giving bonuses to the owning settlement, rather than something more damaging like all their control buildings being destroyed instantly or even over time. We should be able to maintain control of an exclave indefinitely if we wish, even if it isn't giving any direct bonuses to our settlement.I agree that the cut off Hexes shouldn't immediately lost whatever structure is built, but I don't know if it's a good idea to allow them to remain permanently. I would think the POI Control Structure would eventually suffer from losing its supply line to the Settlement.
Settlements had to gather the materials to build the structures, so they shouldn't just poof if they are cut off from their parent settlement. But they wouldn't receive their normal upkeep if they are cut off, so they should begin to decay. We don't know how that process works, not in detail. But without upkeep the structure should decay pretty quickly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume there are two kinds of bonuses from 'outposts' (adjacent controlled wilderness hexes):
-control of the hex gives 'stat bonuses' to the settlement, allowing more/better structures to be built there
-direct bonuses from buildings in the 'outposts'. Ie a mine would generate materials for crafters, a farm food etc.
Thus controlling a hill hex outpost with iron deposits may add to the 'industry' stat of the settlement, maybe allowing an extra smithy to be supported. Building an actual mine in the hill outpost may further increase the 'industry' of the settlement, but also generates iron ore (and the occasional balrog). Building the mine in an uncontrolled wilderness hex also gives ore, but I expect mining in controlled hexes to be safer (less balrogs spawned, more npc guards, lawful territory), in addition to boosting settlement stats.
Since each controlled hex boosts the stats of the owner settlement, there is a clear incentive to grab as much land as you can as early as you can, which triggers the "realm vs realm" game. Great design!
So, as a Chaotic Neutral druid, will I only be able to ally with other CN creatures?Not the way I read the alignment system. CN will also be able to ally with CE and CG as well as NN (True Neutral)...Did you spot something to suggest it would be otherwise?
I believe they only mentioned LE players allying with Hellknights, is the thing.
We haven't seen a bestiary, but the implication appears to be that any of the humanoid factions as well as other monsters can spawn in an escalation hex. As you intend to be CN I should think there will be several 'monster' types in the Echo Woods region that might be approachable for you.
Well, if you're right, that's all good.
Pity that Pathfinder still insists on defining goblins as Neutral Evil, though. Doesn't make a lick o' sense. Still, there're always orcs.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If wilderness control necessitates a contiguous line of control back to the settlement, I would suggest that the hexes that become no longer contiguous simply stop giving bonuses to the owning settlement, rather than something more damaging like all their control buildings being destroyed instantly or even over time. We should be able to maintain control of an exclave indefinitely if we wish, even if it isn't giving any direct bonuses to our settlement.I agree that the cut off Hexes shouldn't immediately lose whatever structure is built, but I don't know if it's a good idea to allow them to remain permanently. I would think the POI Control Structure would eventually suffer from losing its supply line to the Settlement.
This would be acceptable. I was just wondering if the loss of benefits already makes for an interesting choice for the settlement:
Re-deploy armies back to the contiguous lands to better defend productive lands, or keep them entrenched in the exclave in order to keep a wider battle front and to lessen the total damage done by the enemy's attack?
Before the attack, you were paying upkeep on the POI building for settlement bonuses and strategic bonuses. Now, you must choose whether paying the upkeep is worth the strategic bonuses and whatever potential you feel there is to connect it back up to your contiguous lands. I'm not sure we need to put either a time-limit on how long you have to re-take your lost hex, nor a higher upkeep cost. That might make the decision too easy =)
I suppose I should ask: What are the perceived issues, if any, with allowing a settlement to have an exclave, given that they won't receive direct bonuses from it? I don't really see any undesirable circumstances myself. I also wouldn't be opposed to a 'degradation' time limit on the scale of a month or two if that solved some problem I haven't foreseen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Liking the bigger map, but I am not sure how much I like ALL settlement sites being both uncreatable and pre-located, but it's early days yet.
I hope to see the implementation of the ancient D&D trope of keeping a wilderness 'tamed' over a certain minimum area to 'create' a settlement site.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really hope with being able to start a monster horde , there will be someway to setup which monsters come to the hex. I feel like that would be really awsome to setup umm lets say a group of bugbears near an rival settlement, go through the quest loop of making them allies and then use them to attack said settlement. Thoughts on this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I define goblins as 'Chaotic-Stupid' and play them as such. I like the information given in the blog, and the fact that settlement hexes won't be too regular is a very good thing. While reading through the blog for the fourth or fifth time, some questions came to mind. Most of these will likely be determined later on since they are more about control and structures than terrain itself. A few things that interest me with regard to land and settlement are:
What kind of upkeep, if any, would be required for various points of interest? Settlement, camp, watchtower, hideout, inn/waystation, etc?
How would ownership be determined?
How can ownership be contested after it's established?
A long while ago it was mentioned that it may be possible to claim/reclaim a structure/point of interest from npc encroachers. Would it be possible for npc squatters (say from an escalation) to capture or overrun a poorly defended or abandoned structure? Would it be possible to cleanse the infestation and claim the structure yourself?
The base values of your settlement's development are determined by the characteristics of the hex where you build your settlement, but are then increased by the wilderness hexes your settlement controls and the structures your settlement builds in each controlled hex's point of interest.
Will there be a limit to the number of structures that could be built in a non-settlement hex?
Will these structures be limited to 'nodes' that define a suitable location?Is there only one point of interest in each hex or will there be a variable number?
Would a hideout or watchtower be limited to the point of interest?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few things that interest me with regard to land and settlement are:
What kind of upkeep, if any, would be required for various points of interest? Settlement, camp, watchtower, hideout, inn/waystation, etc?
How would ownership be determined?
How can ownership be contested after it's established?
A long while ago it was mentioned that it may be possible to claim/reclaim a structure/point of interest from npc encroachers. Would it be possible for npc squatters (say from an escalation) to capture or overrun a poorly defended or abandoned structure? Would it be possible to cleanse the infestation and claim the structure yourself?
The base values of your settlement's development are determined by the characteristics of the hex where you build your settlement, but are then increased by the wilderness hexes your settlement controls and the structures your settlement builds in each controlled hex's point of interest.Will there be a limit to the number of structures that could be built in a non-settlement hex?
Will these structures be limited to 'nodes' that define a suitable location?
Is there only one point of interest in each hex or will there be a variable number?Would a hideout or watchtower be limited to the point of interest?
These are my questions, just better articulated than I have!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose I should ask: What are the perceived issues, if any, with allowing a settlement to have an exclave, given that they won't receive direct bonuses from it? I don't really see any undesirable circumstances myself.
I'm torn... no surprise there :)
I like the idea of players being able to build unaffiliated Inns, Watch Towers, etc. I am extremely partial to the idea of a rogue Wizard Tower.
I suppose I wouldn't have any objection, as long as the Upkeep Cost were significantly higher while it's not connected to a Settlement.
I really hope with being able to start a monster horde , there will be someway to setup which monsters come to the hex.
I don't think I could point to a quote, but I always got the impression that the Monster types would vary over time. I too would very much like to be able to start a specific type of Escalation.
|
I kind of wonder how big a settlement can actually get. I am sure that there will be a guild (whats the name of that one guild that has been together for like 15 years and has a group in like every game? Yeah, that one) that will create a giant, successful empire that crosses many different hexes and such. But on a settlement to settlement basis, I wonder (in an excited fashion) what they can grow into.
Like the blog makes mention of a smithy using 100 industry out of a settlements 500. Of course, I have no clue how big a smithy is or what it would do or anything like that, but I wonder if you can increase those numbers somehow and how big a settlement can grow.
I might be really optimistic, but I think it would be awesome if a large guild made a giant, almost new york-ian (New York-ish?) city. Just a giant city with tons of players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I kind of wonder how big a settlement can actually get. I am sure that there will be a guild (whats the name of that one guild that has been together for like 15 years and has a group in like every game? Yeah, that one) that will create a giant, successful empire that crosses many different hexes and such. But on a settlement to settlement basis, I wonder (in an excited fashion) what they can grow into.
I might be really optimistic, but I think it would be awesome if a large guild made a giant, almost new york-ian (New York-ish?) city. Just a giant city with tons of players.
I was under the impression that settlements are small. From the photographer blog posting it looked like a square "fort" structure developed to a slightly larger fort structure. My impression was not very big.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was under the impression that settlements are small. From the photographer blog posting it looked like a square "fort" structure developed to a slightly larger fort structure. My impression was not very big.I kind of wonder how big a settlement can actually get. I am sure that there will be a guild (whats the name of that one guild that has been together for like 15 years and has a group in like every game? Yeah, that one) that will create a giant, successful empire that crosses many different hexes and such. But on a settlement to settlement basis, I wonder (in an excited fashion) what they can grow into.
I might be really optimistic, but I think it would be awesome if a large guild made a giant, almost new york-ian (New York-ish?) city. Just a giant city with tons of players.
I'm thinking the size of Carcassonne would be a kingdom.
IIRC in a post Ryan mentioned settlement population cap to be somewhere around 1000, but when he said that he made sure to stress that it was an early guess and the number could change. So it's pretty safe to say 500+.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I kind of wonder how big a settlement can actually get.
I did some research in Population Density that you might find interesting. I linked to a post from Ryan where he described his vision for an advanced Settlement.
I'm thinking the size of Carcassonne would be a kingdom.
That's actually just an advanced Settlement. See my link above.
I found the post I was quoting earlier....
The design assumes many hundreds of players in a Settlement. I've mentally been assuming a baseline of 1,000. We'll have to test and see how that works in practice so that's just one guy's estimate.
Obviously the resources of the Settlement have to be flexible enough to accomodate that many players. Since many will have more than one PC, we're talking potentially thousands of characters.
Taken from this Thread
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are all good questions, but of the lot, the two I really want to hear more about (Stephen, are you listening?) are:
1) What are the geographical rules for extending control (must it be contiguous)?
2) Are monster hexes permanent?
1) I don't think we're decided yet. If we did allow noncontiguous settlements, there would probably be some factor that at least makes them more difficult, to encourage contiguous settlements without requiring it. What do you guys want?
2) Yes. In a lot of ways, they're another lever to balance desirability of an area. A spot with access to more hexes that aren't immediately adjacent to a settlement hex may also have more monster hexes and thus be more dangerous.
In general, to some of the questions in this thread, art is a big consideration for what we can do with hexes. Even if we could come up with a system that balanced letting you do majorly different things in a hex, we wouldn't have the art resources at this stage to have a wide variety of appearances for that hex to make it match. This way, we allow art to make each hex look really awesome with the kind of thing that's going to be in the hex.
Also, to answer Nihimon's question earlier, the minimum distance between two settlements is two wilderness hexes in between them. Each settlement has six adjacent hexes that don't directly overlap the six next to another settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) What are the geographical rules for extending control (must it be contiguous)?1) What do you guys want?
This makes the most sense to me:
1. You can build an "outlying structure" in any Wilderness Hex, anywhere on the map.2. You can only connect that outlying structure to your Settlement if there is a contiguous chain of Controlled Hexes between them.
3. The benefit to the Settlement decreases as the length of that contiguous chain increases.
4. The maintenance costs for a connected outlying structure increase as the length of that contiguous chain increases.
5. The maintenance costs of an unconnected outlying structure would be fairly low, since that structure isn't providing any benefit to a Settlement.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Stephen, since you were kind enough to ask...
I want largely contiguous territory to emerge naturally from the same realistic factors as we see in the real world, rather than enforced by an absolute game mechanic. So the network effects of linking hexes together should make compact closely coupled kingdoms compelling, while still permitting less optimal 'colonies' for strategic or geo-political reasons. This will lead to interesting kingdom-level conflict.
The network effects could include aspects such as easier upkeep of wilderness hex buildings where they are connected. It could include joined up markets where safe transport of materials is assumed to occur via NPCs rather than requiring explicit PC caravans through dangerous hexes. There are also a set of levers around the development indices that can be used to reward, not require, contiguous kingdom building.
The interesting kingdom-level conflict comes becasue sometimes a key wilderness hex will be worth building on and defending simply to deny it to the enemy, even if it cannot be connected to your settlement. Or it may be possible to leapfrog leapfrog a contested area and fill in later. It gives more options for a war of attrition, supporting the same goals that led you to split the original hexes and give buffer layers of wilderness.
TLDR: I want the option of non-contiguous territory, with significant benefits for being more self-contained.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
1) What are the geographical rules for extending control (must it be contiguous)?1) What do you guys want?This makes the most sense to me:
1. You can build an "outlying structure" in any Wilderness Hex, anywhere on the map.
2. You can only connect that outlying structure to your Settlement if there is a contiguous chain of Controlled Hexes between them.
3. The benefit to the Settlement decreases as the length of that contiguous chain increases.
4. The maintenance costs for a connected outlying structure increase as the length of that contiguous chain increases.
5. The maintenance costs of an unconnected outlying structure would be fairly low, since that structure isn't providing any benefit to a Settlement.
Nihimon, this set of rules makes sense to me and would achieve largely the emergent outcomes I described. I'd quibble with point 5. We don't yet know all of the sorts of benefits that an outlying structure may provide to it's owning settlement. Some of them may make sense to still be provided even when disconnected. For example an disconnected watch-tower might still provide early warning benefits (think of the signal fires scene from movie-RotK). At the very least it provides the benefit of preventing a rival kingdom from erecting an outlying structure in that hex.
1) I think requiring each non-contiguous block (internally contiguous) to have a settlement somewhere within it in order to benefit from development resources seems more than reasonable, and provides for the case where a guild loses control of the 'mother' settlement, they still have a settlement to be running their fiefdom from. (These remote settlements may be weak and undeveloped, and thus taking over the remote settlement could be relatively easy, and remove the development resource benefit from all the nearby wilderness hexes, albeit those are still 'controlled' by the guild as long their building is there).
2) Re: resources from non-contiguous blocks, the actual harvested resources need to be transported anywhere needed, so that is already covered. For 'development resources', instead of having that being an 'immediately accurate measurement', why not treat them either as independent physical tokens which need to be transported to the destination they will be used, or 'associate'/attach development resource points with the actual harvested resources (or other objects), and to the extent you can transport the actual resources back to the primary settlement/wherever they are intended to be used (a nation may not have just one primary settlement), those development resources can be 'logged' and that settlement can put them to use. The harvested resources (not development resources) may simply be shipped off to some customer, but this system means that to benefit from isolated hexes 'development resource', there needs to be a continual traffic between the hexes.
Or instead of transporting the development resources (attached to harvested resources or other goods, or distinct tokens) from the remote hex-block, you can use those development resources in that remote hex-block itself, the transporting is just about letting you 'optimally' apply the resources where you want to, e.g. building up one mega-settlement. If a remote hex-block can't reliably transport to the core settlement block, then it shouldn't supply development resources to the core settlement, but it COULD apply those resources to develop the isolated hex-block itself. The system could easily allow 'check-in/check-out' of development resource tokens (or removing/applying development resource markers to/from harvested resources), so you can change your mind later and send those resources to another settlement of yours...
That somewhat changes the nature of 'development resource', from simply an up to date 'measurement', to something dependent on in-game 'flow'/transport, but that seems like a reasonable 'fix' to the dynamic of remote/non-contiguous hexes. Obviously, if the non-contiguous hexes aren't really that far, and the intervening space isn't controlled by anybody else and isn't menaced by bandits (the guild just opted not to build buildings there because that isn't as profitable/etc), transport between the non-contiguous blocks isn't really a big deal. But transport between hexes on the opposite side of the map, with different enemy guilds in-between, as well as bandits, obviously does become more of a big deal... But to the extent you can ship X% of the harvest resources to the major/core settlement, the major/core settlement can benefit from X% of the developpment resources, otherwise the remote hex-block will have to 'self sufficiently' make use of those itself. As long as you can 'self sufficiently' apply development resources in each isolated hex-block, there doesn't seem like there should be any problem.
That does create the question of what happens when these development resources tokens/marked goods are stolen or lost when a porter is killed. I don't think other groups should really be able to benefit from these, besides the actual goods stolen, simply removing the benefit of the development resources to their owner seems like enough.
(this approach in combo with #1) could have the development resources for any contiguous hex-block accrue into a designated settlement within that hex-block, if you don't have a settlment in a given hex-block, then you don't get the development resources. all this implies some sort of enforced/motivated movement or 'commute' of PCs between settlement hexes, at least if the settlement's development resources are to be applied elsewhere, but that seems pretty reasonable to me.)
3) i don't see the need for permanent monster hexes (do they have their own distinct wilderness/settlement hexes anyways?)
monster spawning code can prioritize hexes already controlled by monsters, and secondarily, hexes that are considered more 'remote' (the more nearby settlements there is lowers the chance). having distinct hexes just isn't necessary for that kind of result. i think allowing hexes to change type (even from settlments/wilderness) is just more interesting and dynamic (i previously went into more detail on that up-thread) and ultimately, more 'sand-boxy'. (having monster hexes which need a certain effort /development resources/ to 'clear' into productive wilderness, after succeeding at suppressing the monsters, seems more than reasonable though... that isn't so much a 'monster hex' class as an adjective applied to wilderness hexes preventing their normal usage until the adjective is removed...)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) I don't think we're decided yet. If we did allow noncontiguous settlements, there would probably be some factor that at least makes them more difficult, to encourage contiguous settlements without requiring it. What do you guys want?
Thanks for answering Stephen.
I would like the idea of interdiction to be meaningful, so Lines of Communication should be present in the game. If someone takes hexes between a settlement and a controlled wilderness hex, then the controlled hex shouldn't contribute to the settlement's development index.
This could mean either contiguous territory, or clear LOCs with no hostile control blocking access between controlled hexes and the settlement.
2. You can only connect that outlying structure to your Settlement if there is a contiguous chain of Controlled Hexes between them.
3. The benefit to the Settlement decreases as the length of that contiguous chain increases.
4. The maintenance costs for a connected outlying structure increase as the length of that contiguous chain increases.
I think these paradigms break down when you consider that groups may easily not have one 'central' settlement, certainly not when they merge settlements into nations/kingdoms. If you aren't trying to USE the development resources from a hex-block in further away hex-block, why should the distance matter? Why should the relative benefit of a hex-block's development resources suddenly drop when that settlement joins another settlement/nation whose 'core settlement' is far away, as long as the development resources are largely to continue being spent in the same hex-block?
I think the 'physicalized transport' model I suggested is simply more compatable with non-centralized groups, while still imposing requirements on TRANSPORT of development resources for use away from where they originated. My approach also means having your own territory hexes over-run by bandits or enemies who impede 'internal travel' of your own citizens would indeed have a reasonable negative effect on this, unlike your approach where 'official hex ownership' has priority over all other factors... likewise, if the isolated hex-blocks are merely separated by the hexes of a close ally, your approach seems unrealistic and the 'token transport model' seems better.
1. You can build an "outlying structure" in any Wilderness Hex, anywhere on the map.
5. The maintenance costs of an unconnected outlying structure would be fairly low, since that structure isn't providing any benefit to a Settlement.
These seem 100% compatable with what I was talking about.
I like the idea of 'development resource banks' in each settlement, besides general flexibility, it allows for the kind of scenario like Taiwan removing all the gold reserves from the Mainland China, if you are losing a war in your major settlement, it might make sense to cut your losses and try to move the development resources to a remote settlement that is safe(r). Of course, the enemy can try to intercept the people carrying those development resource tokens/markers, or they can decide not to divert their attention from conquering the settlement and let you 'evacuate' the development resources unmolested. Not to mention that in a 'open war' siege type scenario, utilizing resources from far-flung settlements/hexes becomes it's own issue if you want to use them in the besieged settlement. THAT SOUNDS COOL(tm).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) I don't think we're decided yet. If we did allow noncontiguous settlements, there would probably be some factor that at least makes them more difficult, to encourage contiguous settlements without requiring it. What do you guys want?
If I am empowered to say a wish, then I would wish that if two settlement hexes seperated by two controlled/improved wilderness hexes merge into a kingdom, then those two improved wilderness hexes might also become settlement-possible hexes.
So if the one merging settlement had 500 industry points and the other had 300 industry points, then the two wilderness hexes might convert into settlement hexes themselves, part of the kingdom, with their own industrial potential adding to the whole so long as they new industry is built in each respectively.
1) I think requiring each non-contiguous block (internally contiguous) to have a settlement somewhere within it in order to benefit from development resources seems more than reasonable, and provides for the case where a guild loses control of the 'mother' settlement, they still have a settlement to be running their fiefdom from. (These remote settlements may be weak and undeveloped, and thus taking over the remote settlement could be relatively easy, and remove the development resource benefit from all the nearby wilderness hexes, albeit those are still 'controlled' by the guild as long their building is there).
2) Re: resources from non-contiguous blocks, the actual harvested resources need to be transported anywhere needed, so that is already covered. For 'development resources', instead of having that being an 'immediately accurate measurement', why not treat them either as independent physical tokens which need to be transported to the destination they will be used, or 'associate'/attach development resource points with the actual harvested resources (or other objects), and to the extent you can transport the actual resources back to the primary settlement/wherever they are intended to be used (a nation may not have just one primary settlement), those development resources can be 'logged' and that settlement can put them to use. The harvested resources (not development resources) may simply be shipped off to some customer, but this system means that to benefit from isolated hexes 'development resource', there needs to be a continual traffic between the hexes.
Or instead of transporting the development resources (attached to harvested resources or other goods, or distinct tokens) from the remote hex-block, you can use those development resources in that remote hex-block itself, the transporting is just about letting you 'optimally' apply the resources where you want to, e.g. building up one mega-settlement. If a remote hex-block can't reliably transport to the core settlement block, then it...
Not sure what you mean by tokens? Wouldn't the resources produced by a hex need to be physical so they can be transported, sold or used? I could see some form of token system if your dealing with a broker who handles the raw material for you... .?
I don't understand your confusion.
I specifically referred to harvested resources already being in-game physical objects needing transport to move.
'Development Resources' are distinct from the material results of harvesting,
which can be sold for cash, used for crafting, stolen, or forgotten about, without affecting 'Development Resources'.
'Development Resources' have been presented as a 'measurement' of the Settlement/Kingdom's HEXES which means it (currently) is a non-physical, non-local abstract rating, although linked to the hexes themselves being 'controlled', it is independent of everything else in the 'physical' in-game world (such as harvested resources or PVP interactions).
My proposal changes that, so that you must transport 'development tokens' (independent, or 'attached' to other objects) to where they are to be used.
I suggested that nobody but the settlement/entity which owns the Hex which is the source of the Development Resources can actually make use of them themself, although the reverse could possibly be implemented.
If you only want to use Development Resources within the contiguous hex-blocks where they originated from, you don't need to move them at all, that's only a potential concern for settlements/nations/etc with non-contiguous holdings who want to use development resources from one area in another... And that dynamic already exists for how they will use (physical object) harvested resources from one isolated region in other regions, so it just makes sense to piggy back on the same 'system'.
Ultimately, smaller Settlements don't need to worry about this... But it seems highly relevant once things get to larger scales like Kingdoms, even though it can also be relevant to small/medium scale settlement groups.
Alternatively, we can say that settlements/entities CAN control any non-contiguous hex-blocks, but there is simply no way for development resources from non-contiguous blocks to be spent outside the contiguous area from which they originated, necessitating a settlement in any contiguous hex-block IF those development resources are to be benefitted from at all.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
1) there needs to be a huge incentive for an attacker to sever a sprawling settlement's empire, and for strong empires to make it hard to sever them. The six adjacent hexes already are guaranteed to be contiguous, meaning severable parts are already an edge case; making them simply ineffective is enough.
If monster hexes are used to mitigate the desirability of a hex, they need to be a seriously mixed curse. "Balance", here, means that there are some settlements that want to be surrounded by monsters and some that want to be surrounded by settlements, not that many want to have some adjacent monsters and some adjacent settlements. (Although many will try to be neither hot nor cold, and some will succeed in biting off exactly as much as they can chew.
I don't understand your confusion.
I specifically referred to harvested resources already being in-game physical objects needing transport to move.
'Development Resources' are distinct from the material results of harvesting,
which can be sold for cash, used for crafting, stolen, or forgotten about, without affecting 'Development Resources'.
'Development Resources' have been presented as a 'measurement' of the Settlement/Kingdom's HEXES which means it (currently) is a non-physical, non-local abstract rating, although linked to the hexes themselves being 'controlled', it is independent of everything else in the 'physical' in-game world (such as harvested resources or PVP interactions).
My proposal changes that, so that you must transport 'development tokens' (independent, or 'attached' to other objects) to where they are to be used.
I suggested that nobody but the settlement/entity which owns the Hex which is the source of the Development Resources can actually make use of them themself, although the reverse could possibly be implemented.
If you only want to use Development Resources within the contiguous hex-blocks where they originated from, you don't need to move them at all, that's only a potential concern for settlements/nations/etc with non-contiguous holdings who want to use resources from one area in another.
I see what you mean. I was confusing development resources with something else. I agree that they should require transportation.
1) there needs to be a huge incentive for an attacker to sever a sprawling settlement's empire, and for strong empires to make it hard to sever them. The six adjacent hexes already are guaranteed to be contiguous, meaning severable parts are already an edge case; making them simply ineffective is enough.
If monster hexes are used to mitigate the desirability of a hex, they need to be a seriously mixed curse. "Balance", here, means that there are some settlements that want to be surrounded by monsters and some that want to be surrounded by settlements, not that many want to have some adjacent monsters and some adjacent settlements. (Although many will try to be neither hot nor cold, and some will succeed in biting off exactly as much as they can chew.
I "think" the Devs intend for monster hexes to have higher quality resources then other hexes. If that is the case, I'm sure some settlements would not mind having them closeby provided the settlement is strong with a large force for defense.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
They won't just have better/more gathered and/or harvested resources, they are the only source for artifacts.
That's an interesting thing to balance, and it can't be done simply by increasing risk moderately and keeping expected reward roughly constant.
A small casual crafting settlement could easily get along with other settlements, but would be obliterated by an escalation. The hardcore maximized settlement would chafe against inefficient player neighbors, but could handle multiple escalations at once.