Goblin Squad Member
|
1. When you create a disguise, is the equipment still functional in the same aspect as before it was a disguise ?
To my understanding, the equipment is still functional in that it can be equipped, and abilities that require that item can probably be used. However, all of the other keywords are removed, so it won't be very effective.
2. When your disguise is blown, can the equipment be used again as a new disguise, and does it recover previous naming ?
From the blog:
But if the Disguise gets blown, not only are you in a tight spot, it's permanently useless and you'll have to make a new one for the next time.
Sounds like once the Disguise is blown, you can't use it again.
That seems kind of weird. At minimum, you should be able to wear it and everybody knows it is a Disguise, they just don't know who it is. I mean, even if you can't use it, can you sell it and somebody else can use it? If so, how can anybody know whether it is you or a potential new buyer using the blown Disguise? It doesnt' really seem a big deal either way, but that's my instincts there.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point of blowing disguises is to make it costly to have them blown; it's mostly a gameplay consideration, rather than a verisimilitude thing.
Think of having a latex mask ripped off, if that helps: You are unlikely to ever be able to put that mask back on. When your latex plate mail gets ripped of and you are exposed for everyone to see, you can't just gather it back up and put it back on, you need to make a new disguise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Scarlette wrote:
1. When you create a disguise, is the equipment still functional in the same aspect as before it was a disguise ?
To my understanding, the equipment is still functional in that it can be equipped, and abilities that require that item can probably be used. However, all of the other keywords are removed, so it won't be very effective.
So my +1 Flaming Long Sword says its a Long Sword <but functions as a +1 Flaming> or is that +1 and flaming gone? I understand the naming having to be changed to help hide identification, but not the loss of functionality.
Scarlette wrote:
2. When your disguise is blown, can the equipment be used again as a new disguise, and does it recover previous naming ?
From the blog:Quote:
But if the Disguise gets blown, not only are you in a tight spot, it's permanently useless and you'll have to make a new one for the next time.
Sounds like once the Disguise is blown, you can't use it again.
So that disguise is gone, what of the equipment? And can it be used again in a new disguise? I realize the backwards hat, blue jeans and black t-shirt and vans wont work together again, but now I use the hat, wearing it forward and a slightly off to the left side and my vans again with baggy sagging pants and over sized shirt. Why wouldn't this be a viable option?
I'm not sure if having the Disguise blown would mean the old keywords are active again, or if they are destroyed permanently, but either way you should probably be able to re-work the gear into a new Disguise for the same price as before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My understanding is that the process of turning a piece of armor/clothing into a disguise destroys the possibility of using that item for anything other than disguise - whether your disguise is blown or not. From the blog:
The Quality rating of the outfit effectively becomes the hit points of your disguise, so you won't just want to make a disguise out of any old rag; the opportunity cost for Disguise is that you're ruining a good piece of gear for a better chance at infiltration.
Presumably after a successful Disguise mission, though, if your Disguise still has lots of "hit points", you're free to keep using it as such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure where you got the info concerning "lawful war" but that just isn't true. Did Iraq consent to our invasion of their lands and displacement of their leader? I doubt it. Did Poland and other countries agree to have Germany invade and take over in WW2? As far as PFO is, I would like to see something similar to how war is declared and generally handled in Eve, war declaration gives a 24 hour notice to the people being declared on, and the people declaring war have to pay a upkeep fee each week. This gives the defenders some notice before they are at war, and helps to prevent groups from declaring war on everyone as that would be ridiculously expensive.
As for the assassination targets being online, it was already brought up higher up in the thread about that concern and I believe it will be looked into making some sort of online requirement to provide the bonus tied to being the "leader" of that building or whatever. So logging on to start it up, then play a different character will remove the bonus. This will make it possible to assassinate them as if they aren't on, they aren't providing the bonus and as such won't be a "good" target for the assassin anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Milo - Bear in mind the alignment/reputatation system and how that ties in with conditions and arrangements for declaring war. Why not have conditions drawn up for a war between two as an alternative to a zero-sum vendetta?
I could see a SAD like system being used. The aggressor approaches the gate and issues demands. If accepted, the army moves off with the negotiated terms. If the defender declines, then the war flags begin within a set period of time (24 hours, 48 hours, etc.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are no rules in war. Whether in a fantasy game or RL war is conflict and any dirty trick to win should be used. There is no OVER GUBERNMENT to enforce civilized Rules of War. Barbarian Hordes never give warning.
If you build a settlement then it is your responsiblity to protect it 24 hours each day. If you do not, then you are ripe for the plucking.
Declarations seem fine for Lawful nations. Chaotic nations should not be forced into following any arbitary Rules of War.
Consensual war is fine to allow War Flag and no rep loss and/or alignment shift. Non Consensual War...you take your lumps for that but it is your choice.
SAD system seems like a good idea. "These are our terms. Refuse them at your peril!" There are countless examples of precedent for that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure where you got the info concerning "lawful war" but that just isn't true. Did Iraq consent to our invasion of their lands and displacement of their leader? I doubt it. Did Poland and other countries agree to have Germany invade and take over in WW2?
If you lack an actual casus belli, you can always get your spies to manufacture one... obviously, that's considerably less lawful, but perhaps not nearly as hard on the reputation - unless people find out.
The stated reason for war is often an excuse in any case. It is mainly propaganda for home consumption in order that your citizens believe right is on your side
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The stated reason for war is often an excuse in any case. It is mainly propaganda for home consumption in order that your citizens believe right is on your side
Which is pretty important, since those are the people who are doing the actual fighting and logistics. Not so much in PFO, mind you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a SAD like system being used. The aggressor approaches the gate and issues demands. If accepted, the army moves off with the negotiated terms. If the defender declines, then the war flags begin within a set period of time (24 hours, 48 hours, etc.)
Something like that sounds like a good basis. I just find it weird that by what we know so far,
ALL wars between settlements would be 'legal' morally absolved Wars... Just because, there's no reason not to.So the only place Alignment/morality applies is small scale banditry/skirmishes. I think both should exist (just/un-just wars)
I imagine for LE groups, they could get away with a war being Lawful if they follow the forms, even if it's just disguising aggression and so it would be Evil. LG or CG groups would have different limitations if they want to conform to their alignment. So your desired alignment really impacts the 'type' of war you want to pursue, in both the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil spectrums.
This could be implemented by changing the parameters of potential Alignment shift of PCs pursuing the war of their Settlement... i.e. If it is a Lawful War, then you won't get Chaotic consequences from pursuing it. If a PC doesn't participate, they wouldn't shift Alignment, but if EVERYBODY else in the Settlment IS participating and shifting Alignment, then the Settlement itself will soon follow, and the PC who is at odds with the new Alignment would be kicked out.
Declarations seem fine for Lawful nations. Chaotic nations should not be forced into following any arbitary Rules of War.
Nobody is discussing rules which limit one's actions. What is discussed are rules which determine consequences for actions. Like all the alignment rules governing attacking/killing... Which so far the official 'War' system apparently absolves you of completely and with no other limitations. If your nation acts like a Chaotic Barbarian Horde, then members going to war should reasonably be pushed towards a Chaotic alignment.
Whatever the details of how War is implemented, assuming it somewhat corresponds to the ideas that people are talking about here (just war, etc), I think it makes sense to actually call it that in-game, i.e. "Just War" or "Righteous War" (in fact, you could have both concepts, Just = Lawful, Righteous = Good... one, or both, or none, could apply to a war). That prevents confusion between that system and ANY 'war', which doesn't really need to be declared officially.
I am not sure where you got the info concerning "lawful war" but that just isn't true.
It's just not true? Well, if you don't have any history books on hand, try googling Casus belli.
I don't know what the point of bringing up Nazi or US aggression is,He never claimed anything like all wars are legal, the distinction of 'legal' implies the existence of 'non-legal'.
If you want to say that is not true, you really need to refute the existence of the concept of Casus belli, and historical precedence going back to Roman times. None of what he wrote means that applying those rules means you are a Good person or anything, the only alignment concept he is referencing is 'lawful'.
It is widely recognized that the US and UK had no legitimate 'Casus belli' to attack Iraq in Gulf War 2 (riduculous assertions of association with al-Qaeda and possession of 'WMD' were some sort of lame attempt to assert 'imminent threat'), and /this is why that war was was illegal/. Likewise, the Nazis had their own flimsy attempts to appear as if they had legal justification, but in the end they were hung for wars of aggression/crimes against peace... NOT war in general.
Further, that the Nazis and US/UK felt it necessary to invent their weak justifications further emphasizes the existence of the concept of 'just war', they tried whatever b&#$$+$# they could to make things appear more like a just war. If such a concept didn't exist and have some weight of opinion behind it, they just wouldn't have bothered with that. You could buy one more cruise missile with the PR guys' salaries, after all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just find it weird that by what we know so far,
ALL wars between settlements would be 'legal' morally absolved Wars... Just because, there's no reason not to.
So the only place Alignment/morality applies is small scale banditry/skirmishes. I think both should exist (just/un-just wars)
I imagine for LE groups, they could get away with a war being Lawful if they follow the forms, even if it's just disguising aggression and so it would be Evil. LG or CG groups would have different limitations if they want to conform to their alignment. So your desired alignment really impacts the 'type' of war you want to pursue, in both the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil spectrums.
I like the idea of having different strictures concerning wars for differently aligned settlements. It would make far more clear the benefits of being closer to the Chaotic Evil end of things while limiting the potential abuse of the Lawful Good side of things (although I imagine most who plan to be Lawful Good would probably be unaffected in practice, since they wouldn't actually want to do the things they'd be prevented from doing anyways), and the trade-off of freedom of action vs better quality settlements would be more apparent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The question I have from reading this blog post is about that characters who will be assigned as bonus providers for certain structures. Is it necessary for that characters to be online to activate that bonuses? Do they have to perform specific actions to upkeep them?
I can imagine, for example, a highly specialized character with feats which provide benefits to structures, who just sits permanently offline and do nothing more than occupy the necessary position in settlement roster, being invincible to assassinations as he never logs in.
We're going to try to give every PC, even a crafter alt, good reason to be online more than once every blue moon (if for no other reason, you need to go get achievements to spend your XP on the things you want). We may look into inactivity falloff on the benefits of a manager if this becomes commonplace anyway.
What happens if the potential assassin targets (master smith, expert farmer, etc.) are alts who only come on long enough to do their chore as needed?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
RE: Warfare,
Clearly there must be some mechanism to allow for a unilateral (i.e. non-censentual) declaration of War....and clearly there must be some mechanism the degree to which larger entities can continualy carry out unrestrained aggression, particularly against smaller entities.
Lack of either one, I think breaks the territorial conquest game that PFO seeks to have as a major aspect of play.
I would suggest a simple monetary fee doesn't really work in that regard, as it simply selectively bypasses the control mechanism in favor of large entities....and provides them an additional advantage on top of those they already enjoy in competition against smaller entities.
A better control mechanism might be something similar to one employed by many strategic wargames... a "bad boy factor", essentialy a sort of reputation for nations. Essentialy the concept is that the player nations are NOT the only nations or powers in the world...in fact, they are quite minor powers who occupy a very small corner of the world. As those nations grow in size, particularly if such growth is a result of rapid agression, they would naturaly start to come to the attention of vastly more powerfull NPC nations and powers. Many of those NPC nations/powers might feel threatened by the agressive nature of the player nation and seek to enact measures to curb it and maintain the status quo (and political stability in the region, which would favor them).
In strategic wargames this usualy takes the form of DOW's from those NPC nations. In PFO it could take a more indirect form such as more serious escalation cycles, penalties to settlement index's in the form of political and economic sabotage (e.g. Tariff's, Embargo's, Denouncements).
From a game-play standpoint this mechanism would act as a natural break on the aggressive nature of large entities....allowing for them to participate in conflict...but preventing too much aggression and territorial aquisition, especialy at the expense of smaller player nations who were just starting out. Effectively keeping a healthy level of balance in the game, while allowing for growth and conflict.
Rather then a simple cash mechanism that can be overcome and advantages large powers, it acts as a natural feedback loop, by making it harder to maintain internal cohesion (and thus the ability to project power successfully), the more agressive the nation is and the larger it grows through said agreesion....without imposing a hard brake saying "you cannot do this"...but simply a soft brake that makes it increasingly more difficult to sustain such activity the more frequently you pursue it.
In terms of Assasination reducing the index's and other settlement effectiveness factors, it's a great way to interpret things. I also don't think it should automaticaly drop a settlement out of war...just make it eminantly clear that pursuit of the conflict is unsustainable by reducing the economic base neccessary to pursue a sustained offensive....or maintain an effective defense in the long term. Afterall the concept of total war was relatively rare (though not unheard of) before the modern era. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel your idea seems a good one, but it needs a way to be made evident to the player-nations what is going on, what they risk, and see the effects of Large off-board nations' actions.
How do you see the impact, and especially the risk, manifesting in a way that has real consequence in the game?
The NPC escalation thing is interesting, but I don't see how it matches what GW has said on that: that escalation zones are fixed on the map. I never liked that, and it seems like an adaptive system which can change where and how much escalation happens in response to in-game developments is much more flexible (with or without the approach mentioned by GrumpyMel) but that's what seems the plan currently. (albeit since GW runs the game servers, in fact that can and will change NPC escaation zones and functions as they wish, it is just the expectation of things and short term trajectory that is determined by the current set-up)
AFAIK there is already a "bad boy" system: Good/Evil, Law/Chaos, and Reputation, relevant to both PCs and Settlments. Why duplicate it?
There is also the Alignment PVP flags which enable 'appropriate' aggressive action, particularly Champion and Bandit and the Lawful one.
Neutral Settlements would have less use of those, but they are also 'immune' from repurcussionless attacks from Champions/etc.
Evil Settlements have much less problem with aggressive Evil aligned actions, the Rep hit might hurt, but that can be countered other ways and it isn't as much of a pressing danger for Class Abilities, Settlement Developments, etc, tied to Alignment.
So I'm just not seeing the problem with (some) Wars being able to have (some) Alignment/Rep repurcussions.
I don't know if it might work best to have Declaration of War ascertain the relative Alignment/Reputation of each Settlement, and change the moral consequences of participating in that war depending on that... Having the consequences of war based on the alignment/rep of each Settlement, rather than the individual alignment of each Citizen. (in other words vaguely similar to Alignment PVP flags like Champion but based on Settlement alignment). The 'War' flag might not fully absolve the Alignment consequences on it's own, but any characters ALSO flying PVP flags could be able to further negate certain Alignment/Rep consequences, that simply having further restrictions on what it applies to (e.g. actual Evil characters vs. members of an Evil Settlement).
If somebody doesn't participate in their Settlement's war they shouldn't get the alignment repurcussions personally (the War flag is changing the alignment repurcussions of situations that would normally grant attacker flag, etc), and some PCs could even play a role in their Settlment by being 'rear lines healers', healing up allies away from the battle where they won't get the "Involved" flag.
This means that those Citizens who are already one step away in an undesirable direction will be further pushed that direction (along with all Citizens) if their Settlement goes to war in line that Alignment, which will mean either the Settlement needs to shift it's alignment to accommodate them, or these PCs would be kicked out if the Settlement wants to maintain it's alignment (probably planning to make that war a one-time exception and they will take other actions to move the Alignment back later).... But for citizens who are NOT close to the alignment triggered by the war, getting involved in the war isn't going to necessarily move their alignment CATEGORY at all, even if they get POINT in that direction. And conversely, if somebody isn't participating in their Settlement very much, while their Settlement is going on Alignment-shifting Wars, they are likely to find that most of the other members have shifted Alignment and now want to vote to change the Settlement's Alignment to one that is incompatable with the non-participator's Alignment.
Example: if Good attacks Evil then they aren't pushed towards Evil (although Champion flag already covers that for Good characters even those who are members of Neutral Settlements, this would also apply to Neutral members of Good Settlements), if LG attacks LE they would be pushed towards Chaos, but if LG attacks CE they would not be pushed towards Chaos, and Reputation function in parallel or possibly interacting with the Alignment function. This just means there may be a repercussion for totally aggressively maximizing power, but you can still do so and will still reap the benefits of that, and you have the option of doing so in the manner that has the least downside (by choosing enemies that are in-line with your own preferred alignment, rather than blind aggression ignoring alignment concerns).
It could also function much more nuanced than the Alignment PVP flags, and be based not just on the given Alignment of the Settlement, but on the average Alignment SCORE of all citizens (so a Neutral Settlement with majority evil Citizens would be counted as much closer to actual Evil Settlement vs. a Neutral with no Evil members... possibly they could be treated as more Evil than an officially Evil settlement with mostly neutral citizens). THat seems less 'exploit'-prone than the currently described set-up, where a 'Good' Settlement could be ALL Neutral characters who can embark on 'Evil' Wars (since Wars are absolved or moral consequences) and can routinely do Evil as well as Good actions, yet have the benefit of a 'Good' Settlement (whatever that is exactly).
Without something like this, it just seems like there is much less scope or reason for Settlements to ever change alignment, especially as the proportion of their Citizens who are of the stated Settlement alignment vs. those of '1-step away' alignments doesn't impact the Settlement's alignment, and neither does the more detailed Alignment 'Point Score', i.e. more granular than the 3 alignment zones. I don't think it's necessary to go al the way to Settlement Alignment working like Reputation where it is just a direct measurement of average PC Reputation, but it seems that something like I describe will keep Settlement alignment a bit more relevant to the Settlements' actions and have Settlement Alignment a bit more 'in play' or prone to variance as the game goes on, as a result of the Settlments' actions.
It seems like such a system is extrapolatable to broader concerns outside of war, such as covering alliances/treaties between Settlments, perhaps the breaking of which could then trigger 'Traitor' flags on PCs who then attack the other Settlement's members... etc. I feel that in general, Alignment consequences for the member PCs based on the Settlment's actions/declarations should require active confirmation by the PC. Certain actions of Settlements with Reputation consequence seems reasonable to transfer to all PC members, since Reputation depends on association (right?) That also makes the Reputation aspect of War, etc, more impactful since it will shift the Repuation of ALL members and thus the reputation of the Settlement as a whole will shift more than if just some members engaged in Rep-lowering activities. While Reputation as a whole is less 'dramatic' of a shift than Alignment, since it seems more about the detailed specific score progressively affecting certain economic costs, rather than Good/Evil/Law/Chaos categories having dramatic relevance.
Still, each PCs personal Reputation would still depend on their own actions, not JUST their Settlement's actions, so each PC of a Settlment would have a varying Reputation, it's just that the Settlement's Reputation-influencing actions would have an effect on all members. The Settlement Reputation (average of member Rep score) doesn't influence member's Rep score, only the Settlement's Reputation-influenced actions do (e.g. War, Settlment Treaties, etc), even if it's confusing because the latter feeds back into the former.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Quandary
Using the system you suggest the natural enemy, for grinding the alignment your settlement wants would be:
LG attacks CE, gains both Lawful and Good. Attacking any other alignment combination would hurt a LG settlement.
LG vs. CE = +L, +G
LG vs. LE = -L, +G
LG vs. NE = -L, +G
LG vs. CN = +L, -G
LG vs. LN = -L, -G
LG vs. NN = -L, -G
LG vs. CG = +L, -G
LG vs. LG = -L, -G
LE vs. CG = +L, +E
LE vs. LG = -L, +E
LE vs. NG = -L, +E
LE vs. CN = +L, +E
LE vs. LN = -L, +E
LE vs. NN = -L, +E
LE vs. CE = +L, +E
LE vs. LE = -L, +E
Just in these two examples LG vs. LE, LE has an advantage of producing three wars that benefit it on both axis.
That is unless Evil murdering Evil is not Evil, but good. I have only read that the Lawful or Good shifts can be rejected, not Chaotic or Evil shifts.
But this would also support the idea that running a LG settlement is more difficult, probably the most difficult, as far as alignment is concerned. It has to be closely monitored. Chaotic Evil might be the most difficult to manage when you want to, but if you want to keep it CE, that is easy... No Rules, No Holds Barred, Free For All!
I didn't go into specifics, but I was envisioning the consequences to be based on more nuanced distinctions than PVP combat / PVP Alignment flags are. So many of the Good vs. X examples you have which have identical results even though one side is different, would probably have different results for War Alignment consequences. Crucially, Neutral would have much more of it's own position and not just lumped in to be equivalent to another alignment. And the results would not be binary, but would smoothly scale based on each sides Alignment score (that's even how PVP Alignment works) Given that, and that PCs have specific Alignment scores while Settlements have a chosen Alignment separate from a score, it would be necessary and valuable to base it not just on given Settlement alignment, but ALSO factoring in average member Alignment, and possibly even Reputation feeding back into the Alignment Consequence Appraisal.
Like you say, certain alignments are just inherently more restrictive, Evil that wants to be Evil is happy attacking more people, Chaos that wants to be Chaos is happy attacking more people. If you don't like a restriction of an Alignment, then that isn't the Alignment for you. PFO seems to honestly be trying to create a game experience where Good and Evil is more important than a game like EVE, but the answer here is not to enable Good to act no differently than Evil without consequences, but to maintain those distinctions of what Good and Evil are, while enabling each to balanced as a whole.
Of course, a CE Settlement that goes around attacking everybody is going to create their own problems without specific mechanical penalties needed, while conversely a LG settlement has a smaller scope of problems to deal with (and apparently will be getting the benefits from Lawfull and Good Alignments along with likely High Reputation). And if Settlements are motivated to shift alignments at different phases of the game, I'm all for it, certainly if we already accept the idea of Alignment shifting and past actions mattering less (as amplified by the Lawful shift), I don't see what the problem is with having alignment conform with actions, both per PC and per Settlement. That doesn't mean the exact same rules/relationships of Alignment based PVP have to appy to Settlement vs Settlement Wars, but I think that making the space for Alignment to be relevant and dynamic here is good for the overall game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't go into specifics, but I was envisioning the consequences to be based on more nuanced distinctions than PVP combat is. So many of the Good vs. X examples you have which have identical results even though one side is different, would probably have different results for War Alignment consequences.
Yes, if I understood you correctly, there would be double bonuses or double negatives for certain combinations:
LG vs CE = 2x +L, 2x +G
were as...
LG vs. NE = -L, 2x +G
LG vs. LG = - 2x L, - 2x G worse case scenario for a LG aligned settlement is to find itself at war with another LG settlement. I doubt that could happen if the players are playing their alignment correctly, but there you have it.... The players are the variable.
Power, corruption and greed can twist the minds and hearts of the best of us.
Thinking about the graphing, a CE settlement gains on both of its axis no matter whom they attack. That really does make sense and is why I think this may be one of the systems put in place as part of the war mechanics.
Right, and the Lawful Drift means LE can get away with a bit more naughtiness (vs LG/LN) without worries of Chaos. (ESPECIALLY if the LG/LN aren't really very Lawful in the first place, and perhaps if the LE has higher Rep then they also have further protection vs. Chaos shift) You also have to remember that the PVP Alignment flags still exist, so the LG members of a LG Settlement can be flying the Champion flag while attacking an Evil Settlement - that doesn't apply vs. the Neutral members of the LE settlement though, and LN members of the LG Settlement can't fly the Champion flag either. There would probably be some Chaotic consequences of LG attacking LE even with the Champion flag, but perhaps as long as the LG has higher Rep, there will be effectively none or very little (as long as nearly all the members of the LE settlement are LE, too many LN members make that LE settlement not really fully LE and no longer Champion-bait.) So it's important to remember the distinction between the chosen alignment of a Settlement, which all members must be within one step of, and the actual alignment score of all the members both individually and on average. Somebody wanting to not suffer alignment conqequences could restrict their participation to only attacking the Evil Priests and Necromancers of a settlement which may be Neutral and even have Good members.
Small amounts of shift are supposed to happen anyways in non-Settlement PVP, it won't be substantially different if some shift happens in Settlement Wars (even if the exact parameters are slightly different), unless you're doing extremely clashing things (and targetting opponents whose relevant score is extremely exemplar, increasing the point shift).
I think it's similar to discussion about alignment in tabletop D&D, it's very easy for many people to think you need to always act in conformance with alignment, when that ignores that the whole point is that your alignment is always subject to shift. For the vast majority of PCs their alignment doesn't matter much for class abilities. It seems reasonable that those who it does matter for their class should be extra attentive to that, and if that means they don't associate with some people who go against that, so be it. I like a dynamic of Settlements shifting Alignment, or maybe even if they act 'bad' they will try to 'repent' by kicking out their 'worst' offending members (furtherst in the direction the Settlment's actions/policies recently went) and going back the opposite direction (probably letting back in said members after all the Alignments have normalized again).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The idea of providing for NPC incursions into the River Kingdoms by nation states outside which can be triggered by significant imbalances of power in the game realms has an attractive appeal in my view. It could be the game's way of ensuring no one state can achieve complete control of the game.
Second, such incursions could presage the opening of new areas into our field of play whether GW chooses to go the route of incrementing the existing map or providing 'portal' access to new lands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that having outside groups come in and force political stability in the region is contrary to major design goals.
A cash system can provide a disadvantage to large powers (by costing them more instead of less in real terms).
The problem with simple cash systems is that they tend to be pretty circumventable....just by simple grinding...or by using force to take cash from lesser powers or by scamming others, etc. Cash is so fungible and can be gained in so many different ways that it becomes too easy of a problem solver if it's the only thing that is required.
I think you would want to push multiple impacts, ones that are more complex to try to address as an organization and need to be addressed across multiple areas of gameplay. Simply throwing cash at a problem should be, at best, a remarkably inefficient way of addressing it. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Great blog but there is one thing I take objection to. If you make disguises random they will be obvious. I don't care how good your random name generator is, people will start to catch patterns, and watch everyone they don't know who has a random name very closely.
I would make as much of the disguise customizable as possible. I think players will really get a kick out of creating their own disguises, and it will ensure there are no easily identifiable patterns to disguised players that can't be avoided.
Finally it will allow people to use disguises to actually assume an entirely new identity. For instance the player "Edmond Dantes" may want to get revenge on an old friend of his who's greviously wronged him and disguise himself as an aristocrat named "The Count of Monte Cristo." Every time he is out in public he may assume the same identity with the same name.
I would imagine the most accomplished (but not well known) masters of disguise may maintain many different identities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That means Jazzlvraz is up for grabs?!!!
What a horrid charname for an RPG. It'd be right up there with xXxLegolasxXx. I sincerely hope I don't start a "what will be the naming rules?" conversation with that, because those never avoid turning into flamewars.
Yes, I know we'll eventually have that flamewar here on the boards, unless Ryan & Co blog something on it for us first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I explained why I switched names on here. I still haven't picked a "real name" I will use. This "name" will definitely (if allowed) be what I am known as, like my callsign or something in the assassin world. I might go ahead and make it my character name as it is what I am called. Not 100% on that yet but we will see.
Speaking of "naming rules....." THREAD TAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!