Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...the guards of real world states don't get alignement or reputation hits for dealing with people who they know to be criminals but dont happen to be "flagged" right at this moment.
Strictly speaking there are no flags for prison guards unless they do break the law, but otherwise it is a very questionable assertion that they don't take 'alignment hits' psychologically, just like other law enforcement officers who must interface with criminals for a third of their day five days a week.
If you have ever known a peace officer who wasn't changed by having to deal with the underside of civilization then you knew a remarkable person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think a CC would be the minimum requirement to declare war. Said war could be waged from a base in an NPC town or from a hideout in the wilderness. As long as the aggressor has enough resources to sustain the effort, it really shouldn't matter what his particular situation is structurally. The War lasts until the target capitulates or the aggressor is unable to sustain the effort. The aggressor has a high degree of control over the engagements, but they are also footing the bill for mobilizing against their target. Siege engines and the like could not only be expensive and cumbersome to move, they could also incur an upkeep while deployed, increasing the weekly cost to maintain the assault.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm assuming GW and this communitity realizes that wars have been launched from nothing more than a cave (hideout) or from a tent on the open plains.
My point being, the war mechanics should not require a very high level of settlement structure in order to launch a war. Perhaps it could be the bare minimum of an encampment (pre permanent structure).
Respectfully disagree Bludd. We just came out of a multi-century period where nation-states had a monopoly on warfare, and prior to that a multi-century period where city-states had conducted war, and before that historical fluctuations between those two states. To the best of my understanding, the kind of very low-level, launched from a cave conflict you're pointing to was qualitatively different than warfare.
And that has relevance for your question, which is a good one I think. Different material, political and cultural conditions have determined what level warfare may be conducted on. So the question about the minimum DI for warfare is an abstraction pointing to the material, political, and cultural conditions of the world you've modeled. Something like, is the River Kingdom region and Golarion as a whole more like the Roman Imperial era, more like the Middle Ages Europe, etc.
If the world they're building is one where small group, hives of scum, etc. can't wage war, then setting a medium level DI as the minimum threshold for war makes a lot of sense.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm torn now- presumably there should be some level of protection against a huge nations simply destroying every new settlement before it can get established, but there should not be a punitive cost associated with a huge nation annihilating a small settlement that declares war on it for whatever reason.
In one sense, that one side is losing the war is not a good reason to force the other side to terminate hostilities, but that one side vastly overmatches the other is a good reason to have a high cost to the state of war.
To that end, I propose that either party can sustain a war by paying a cost (probably only in coin, which goes into the drain) which is a function of the size or DI of the larger of the two combatants. (For the math geeks: a strictly increasing function with a strictly decreasing first derivative)
Small settlements starting 'nuisance wars' with larger groups would have to find a way to gather a crazy amount of coin to fund their effort, which implies sponsorship by one of the major powers, while large organizations would have to fork over a big chunk for each little settlement they wanted to wipe off of the map; ideally it would be cheaper at some point to buy a settlement outright and have the previous owners leave happy.
For that matter, scaling many expenses to the size of a settlement/nation/alliance seems like a good way to keep larger organizations in interesting times while allowing small organizations to exist.
From historic stories that I've read, there were emperors who were once roaming bands of outcasts that began their path to the ruler from attacking military settlement. If they lose, the worst would be they'll be slain. Liu Bang (Han's dynasty 1st emperor) started with no land of his own, only by taking over one of the county for example.
Due to PFO not implementing severe death penalty, such scale of war (skirmish?) would become more like what griefer do in MMORPG... since they've nothing to lose.
If there are penalties applied to the losing side with no settlements such as losing equipment, loss of reputation, decreasing health condition, forfeit, payment of what they've damaged & waging skirmish, jail time (a character in prison cannot train certain skills during jail time), etc., the small scale wars (skirmish) wouldn't be as easy as griefers would like them to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about instances of an insurgency against an occupying army. Is it suggested that those displaced charter companies would have to build a whole new settlement, just to go back to war and try to retake their settlement?
What are the chances for these refugees to go to another settlement, gain membership to it, and then convince their new settlement to take up their cause?
The potential problem I see is that you can spend weeks or months building up you settlement, and lose it in a day. Then you may have to spend weeks or months again, either building a new one, to retake the old one?? Or convince your new settlement to help you tie your old settlement back?
Perhaps there should be is a "Right of Return" war flag that allows evicted CC's to retake their former settlement. This type of war flag would only require the minimum, semi permanent base of operations needed to launch their new efforts. This "Right of Return" could have a window of opportunity or some other condition placed on it (ie the CCs did not join a new settlement), when they can initiate an attempt to retake their settlement.
Without such a mechanic, small settlements could fall prey to expansionist empires and have no means of retaliating. Imagine the uproar if those charter companies that just lost weeks or months worth of effort, in a day.
@MBando
Until the advent of gunpowder the incidence of conquering by nomadic warriors bands was actually fairly common. Many of these conquering nomads then became settled territorial holders subsequently.
Reference to back this up if interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_empire
@DeciusBrutus
The protection a small settlement has is other settlements. Either by forming an alliance for mutual defense with other small settlements or by playing one big nation off against another.
Examples of the latter abound in real life. Empire A may quite like for instance having settlement b as a buffer between it and Empire C so if C threatens b A may well rattle a sabre or two on b's behalf
Nor do I think the cost of war should be based on the size of who you are attacking. This happens in Eve as they changed it fairly recently and there are many complaints about it. Eve wars being mostly economic as I am sure pathfinder war's are it is now hard to make a profit waging war on a large entity
Perhaps there should be is a "Right of Return" war flag that allows evicted CC's to retake their former settlement. This type of war flag would only require the minimum, semi permanent base of operations needed to launch their new efforts. This "Right of Return" could have a window of opportunity or some other condition placed on it (ie the CCs did not join a new settlement), when they can initiate an attempt to retake their settlement.
The casus belli of land claiming from Crusader kings 2's systems may seem to work in this case. =p
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overall it looks like there hasn't yet been adequate granularity given to the design to accomodate every scenario. It may be that there will need to be different kinds or 'tiers' of war category, from guerilla insurgency, through patriotic revolution, to the total war that can be waged only by nation-states or kingdoms. Accordingly there might be graduated tiers of player organization capable of and appropriate to these articulate tiers of warfare.
My thought is that each of these tiers introduce different tactical abilities. Guerrilla-type conflicts apply to interdiction/disruption tactics where nation-state warfare describes a meeting engagement with massed open battle.
different tiers sounds like it might be a workable option. I think what this thread really says is that it would be worth them doing a blog on war sooner rather than later. It is after all one of the major systems in a game of kingodm building
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Zen - rofl: We "need" many such blogs!
I don't mind discussing other topics that are less pvp focused to mix things up tbh. Some of the constructive activities of players and affiliations and settlements are a good balance to the blogs. Coming back to this blog's title:
More on the types of structure development that settlements provide and how they fit into the economy and ecosystem of player-run settlements. :) eg "This is the war room!" being one of such many eg The Graniary: How does that work and player housing and space and rent etc. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@MBando
Until the advent of gunpowder the incidence of conquering by nomadic warriors bands was actually fairly common. Many of these conquering nomads then became settled territorial holders subsequently.
Nomadicy as an agricultural method is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the capacity to wage war depends on achieving a certain level of size and complexity, which we are abstracting in PFO as DI. The kind of nomadic tribes that could wage warfare were comparable in size to city-states, had capitals, legal systems, complex political arrangements, etc. To go from being able to execute a battue to being able to wage war required something comparable to the European city-state, and later nation-state.
So for example the Mongols were able to wage war and build an empire at a particular historical period and geographic area precisely because they were so advanced and developed politically and socially. War at that place and time was a tribal monopoly, and "tribal" in this context means a very complex, very advanced polity.
We're still left with the question, what's a good minimum DI to match the world modeled?
[For more information please see:
Houle, Jean-Luc (2010) Emergent Complexity on the Mongolian Steppe: Mobility, Territoriality, and the Development of Early Nomadic Polities. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Overall it looks like there hasn't yet been adequate granularity given to the design to accomodate every scenario. It may be that there will need to be different kinds or 'tiers' of war category, from guerilla insurgency, through patriotic revolution, to the total war that can be waged only by nation-states or kingdoms. Accordingly there might be graduated tiers of player organization capable of and appropriate to these articulate tiers of warfare.
That's a very interesting idea Being, and I like the idea of conflict being more granular. I'd point out though that these aren't tiers of war, but tiers of political conflict. In the 1970s you have terrorists--sub-state actors engaged in politically motivated violence outside of war, but unable to wage war because of the conditions of the time. They could never directly influence national policy. Fast-forward to the 1990s, and suddenly sub-state actors do have the means to wage war (asymmetrically). Substantial changes, mostly in material conditions, allow this change.
So if we want small groups to be able to wage war, we're talking about modelling something very much like the late 20th/early 21st century world.
I think it would be interesting to have a flag at a level lower than war, that allows members of a CC to wage an insurgency, and fight covertly without having their actions automatically change reputation and alignment. Just as the Assassin flag allows for you to do things while disguised (but have such a disguise contested), how cool would it be if there was a group of solid, upstanding citizens in your settlement or kingdom, who had a secret affiliation as "The Sons of Liberty?"
No one claimed nomad society was not complex, the argument was purely on the need for complex settlements. The mongols and many other nomads did not have fixed settlements when they conquered their first territory and the same should be in true in game. The fact that they then used their newly conquered territory as a base to expand further and create empires is irrelevant.
Settlements should not be necessary. If Goblin works decide to make them so then they have shut down many legitimate player options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose I could bring out the old Simulation vs. Playability argument that has raged among wargamers for decades (centuries?). I guess I could also point out that settled peoples won out fairly decisively-nomadic tribes exist today, on the same channel with lion prides and tree frogs-but this instead: In an online game with anti-griefing mechanics, there will have to be rules o' war. Remember, we are trying to attract players, not turn them off. The blog has specifically stated that structures short of fortresses can be destroyed by individuals, thus a bunch of characters organized into a 'barbarian horde' could do significant damage. Just not under the protection of a War Flag. There is probably a settlement/kingdom Development Index minimum and periodic War upkeep fee in our near future. The barbarians shouldn't care about alignment and reputation hits anyway. If two player organizations are always in conflict and their respective DIs are degrading because of it, they MIGHT be willing to mutually agree to come under the protection of the War Flag (while they fight it out) until one side surrenders. The losing side would give up something and then members would come under a protective Peace Flag for a game-stipulated amount of time. Oh wait, I've devolved into a Playablity argument! Take that, Simulation!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one claimed nomad society was not complex, the argument was purely on the need for complex settlements. The mongols and many other nomads did not have fixed settlements when they conquered their first territory and the same should be in true in game. The fact that they then used their newly conquered territory as a base to expand further and create empires is irrelevant.
Settlements should not be necessary. If Goblin works decide to make them so then they have shut down many legitimate player options.
Is this true? Even if it is, I'd argue that the Mongols were awesome and the exception to most generalizations of history ;P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well I like some others here agree that undeclared war i.e. barbarian hordes or surprise state on state aggression should deliver rep and alignment hits. Aggressors usually are the one's that start conflicts aren't they?
Mutually declared wars are the best case scenario and really don't interest me for debate.
As to insurgents trying to win back their land, maybe "War Flags" can only be dropped when both sides agree. Sue for peace kind of deal. That way the actual ex facto leaders can decide if they will fight on(insurgency) or drop out. Rogue elements that are not the ex facto rulers can fight on but it is an unlawful insurgency.
I can totally see why GW may want complicated Rules of War. They don't want to see hordes of morons forming up and slash/burning their way through the world while a lot of people may be offline or at anytime. That would be most unpopular with many players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements should not be necessary. If Goblin works decide to make them so then they have shut down many legitimate player options.
Entirely disagree.
The game is about territorial control at this high level. If you don't control territory you can't capture resources to process for further defence, development, production, trade, "geopolitics" etc.
If you can expound on the above, "they have shut down many legitimate player options," it would help explain your reasoning behind:
"Settlements should not be necessary".
But I think they will be fundamentally necessary for other levels of gameplay below this state/nation level, inclusive, we're discussing here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mutual warefare doesn't have to be consensual. When one side has reached the requisite level of structure(s), DI and warchest they could declare war in order to gain the protections of the War Flag. The risk is that the other side would automatically get the same freedom of action-without having fulfilled the requirements. What level of player organization we need to reach so we can wage war isn't clear yet. A blog about what Goblinworks is kickin' around the office on this subject would be nice. Presumably a monster hex that reaches a high state of escalation will also attack a player settlement-perhaps with player character help. The permutations of large scale conflict are such that many blogs and posts lie before us indeed.
I have already explained and given several examples
1) Retaking a settlement you have just lost
2) Gaining a foothold when joining the game late and not wishing to join existing kingdoms
3) RP for guerilla warfare or rebellion
Warfare is the ultimate player interaction in this game. Can you explain why you wish to restrict it to a small handful of groups which constitute those that hold settlements. Any group that can raise enough people that they think making war on a settlement should be able to do so.
The more you put restrictions in the way of warfare the more likely you are to end up in a year with 2 or 3 huge kingdoms who have to much to lose by fighting each other and just sit there picking of smaller settlements.
Anyway this is my last post on the subject seems a bit of a waste of time as no one is persuading anyone else on this topic
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have already explained and given several examples
1) Retaking a settlement you have just lost
2) Gaining a foothold when joining the game late and not wishing to join existing kingdoms
3) RP for guerilla warfare or rebellion
Warfare is the ultimate player interaction in this game. Can you explain why you wish to restrict it to a small handful of groups which constitute those that hold settlements. Any group that can raise enough people that they think making war on a settlement should be able to do so.
The more you put restrictions in the way of warfare the more likely you are to end up in a year with 2 or 3 huge kingdoms who have to much to lose by fighting each other and just sit there picking of smaller settlements.
Anyway this is my last post on the subject seems a bit of a waste of time as no one is persuading anyone else on this topic
You can't retake a settlement you just lost, it's been destroyed. There's no capturing of settlements.
There's no way to allow guerilla warfare without letting groups with nothing to risk arbitrarily harass any settlement they wish without appropriate consequence. The alignment/reputation consequences for PvP are there for a reason.
The process of initial land claiming and settling is a one-time game event. Its purpose is to grow the game world organically to the "steady state" (and I use the term loosely since there will be plenty of flux) of having all the land used. If you start playing after that period is completed, you're not "coming late" to the game, you're joining the game during the main phase of its existence. Practically everyone will be part of a settlement that has members beyond their own group of friends.
There won't be only 2 or 3 huge kingdoms, because kingdoms will for the most part be limited in size to a handful of hexes due to exponential maintenance costs.
Where do you get the idea costs will be exponential from? I can only find you mentioning them not anyone from GW. The same thing was said about null sec in Eve currently there are two large bloc's. Anyone wanting to settle there has to pay exorbitant rent from one of these two and become their minions. The same will happen in PfO
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where do you get the idea costs will be exponential from? I can only find you mentioning them not anyone from GW.
I'm afraid I don't have a direct quote for you, I don't see a direct reference in the blogs - it must be in one of the blog threads. (Also I didn't mean exponential in the mathematical sense, because we don't know the math yet, I meant nonlinearly-escalating costs.)
Reading over the blogs, though, I have to correct myself about what I understood as the "steady state" of the game:
We also want to avoid some of the missteps that have happened in other games. We want to ensure that there's always enough space so that new settlements and kingdoms can form. We want to avoid the problem of choke points that restrict access to key resources, making whomever got to those points first the de facto "winners" in the economy. We also want to retain the sense that the land is wild and untamed. You'll be able to leave civilization behind and go out in the dark areas of the map where nothing rules except monsters, robbers, and cults.
So the design intent then is that there should always be space for a new settlement somewhere. You needn't worry then about that :)
The only way to ensure there is always room for people is a constantly expanding world which will then make kingdom building easy. Kingdoms that don't have to bicker over space and resource will be indeed a hugely boring world.
I did a search on upkeep costs and could find no statement indicating anything about how they would scale so it could be linear or non linear simple answer is I don't believe we know so making statements such as that sound like fact (which we are all guilty of) is something we should avoid.
In part this is why I am no longer discussing who can go to war. Both sides have made a case now we need to see what GW thoughts are.
As far as I could see from the over the hills blog you have a settlement hex surrounded by wilderness hexes which can be claimed by a watchtower. To claim these hexes you only need to fund a basic settlement and a watchtower for each intermediate wilderness hex. Large kingdoms will be probably able to fund this easily after a few months have passed.
As to me not worrying about finding space, as I pointed out earlier none of what I am arguing for actually affects me as I am part of one of the larger organisations already and have been for a while before I became interested in pathfinder. I am merely suggesting what I think would be best for the game
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where do you get the idea costs will be exponential from? I can only find you mentioning them not anyone from GW. The same thing was said about null sec in Eve currently there are two large bloc's. Anyone wanting to settle there has to pay exorbitant rent from one of these two and become their minions. The same will happen in PfO
I do remember reading that the costs "go up significantly"...
It's the age old question of sitting on land that is not being productively used, and solving that by making that land cost more than it is worth to merely keep it for the sake of hording (which is bad for the economy and bad for "growth"/competition. :)
Imo, it's good that we have strongly competing alternative positions on this discussion. As you rightly point out the 3 major powerblocks not budging is as bad as perpetual lord of the flies: One system is too chaotic and the other is too stable.
The expansion of land will tie in with the population density of the map ie the growth of the playerbase as above.
The land in Eve is often used. The power blocs make money renting it out to small corps in return for exorbitant amounts of money and supply cannon fodder when needed
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
That's a very interesting idea Being, and I like the idea of conflict being more granular. I'd point out though that these aren't tiers of war, but tiers of political conflict. In the 1970s you have terrorists--sub-state actors engaged in politically motivated violence outside of war, but unable to wage war because of the conditions of the time. They could never directly influence national policy. Fast-forward to the 1990s, and suddenly sub-state actors do have the means to wage war (asymmetrically). Substantial changes, mostly in material conditions, allow this change.So if we want small groups to be able to wage war, we're talking about modelling something very much like the late 20th/early 21st century world.
I think it would be interesting to have a flag at a level lower than war, that allows members of a CC to wage an insurgency, and fight covertly without having their actions automatically change reputation and alignment. Just as the Assassin flag allows for you to do things while disguised (but have such a disguise contested), how cool would it be if there was a group of solid, upstanding citizens in your settlement or kingdom, who had a secret affiliation as "The Sons of Liberty?"
Well there are a few other historical examples to draw upon, such as the 'Letter of Marque'.
Primarily to articulate the conduct of war I think we can agree we have to rise in organization above the individual level, which I think may already be adequately sketched out with the flag system.
Between the individual and settlement level of organization however are 'groups', if there are to be such in PFO, and above that then 'chartered companies'. Yet chartered companies must be granted charter by a settlement, so warlike actions by such companies may necessarily implicate their settlement.
Which leaves groups, in my thinking. Possiby we could extend the system of flags for individuals but I'm not yet sure that is merited.
But for groups that are not chartered companies, and whose actions cannot be therefore be traced directly to a specific settlement, there might be 'Letters of Marque', a formalized agency of a nation state as we had in the 15th-16th century for buccaneers.
England might grant an independent captain a Letter of Marque which recognized service as an agent of the Crown and granted particular benefits and immunities for committing acts of what was really piracy against the Crown's competitors, if memory serves. Letters of Marque were granted in relative secrecy. The Crown's agent would only reveal the letter itself when needing supply or support or if accused of piracy. It ostensibly legitimized what would otherwise be a criminal act.
Buccaneers then interdict the competition, essentially waging a naval version of guerilla war without necessarily entailing open warfare for the crown.
So too might our Agent Provocateurs interdict the competition's supply with relative impunity to alignment shift and murder flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did a search on upkeep costs and could find no statement indicating anything about how they would scale so it could be linear or non linear simple answer is I don't believe we know so making statements such as that sound like fact (which we are all guilty of) is something we should avoid.
My search-fu is also failing to find the comment.
I believe it was a Ryan Dancey comment to address the potential emergence of huge power blocs. Costs to maintain a large empire will increase non-linearly to put a soft-cap on the ability to dominate the game world.
EDIT: Found something.
Wealth in MMOs tends to become concentrated in large social organizations so that is where we'll focus significant Coin sinks. Operating a large Settlement and/or Kingdom is going to be expensive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So too might our Agent Provocateurs interdict the competition's supply with relative impunity to alignment shift and murder flags.
Isn't that basically already possible via SAD? No need for extra Letter of Marque mechanics, really. (Though it could be a fun RP element to have one in your inventory with Nihimon's "user objects" idea :))
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Could War be considered PvP between settlements or kingdoms? As in PvP between characters, attacking does not require consent. However the aggressive character gets the Attacker flag while the attacked gets the Involved With flag. Declaring war gets the declarer a long term PvP War flag while the target of the war gets an At War With flag. Just as taking on a long term character PvP flag (like Outlaw) negates certain penalties, so should the War flag.
2. Could PvP between Chartered Companies be satisfied by declaring a Vendetta? It is clear that individuals or a group of individuals can not destroy a settlement by themselves. That requires siege engines, which could be bought, but they must also be maintained. That cost may be beyond the ability of chartered companies without the buildings, resource nodes, and harvesting camps of a settlement. Vendetta would be a PvP flag for companies which do not have the full resources of a settlement. The target (or targets) of a Vendetta would get the Mortal Enemy flag. Same benefits as a War declaration but the costs would be manageable. The target of a Vendetta could be another chartered company (especially one who is business competition) but it could also be a settlement or kingdom. This would satisfy the insurgent and roving hoard argument.
3. Would it be reasonable for both parties to declare War or Vendetta? Just as the Outlaw and the Enforcer (or Champion and Heinous) flagged character have bonuses that off set each either, it makes sense that both parties should declare war or vendetta on the other to gain a balance of bonuses.
4. Wouldn't the cost of war be set by market pressure? If there is no war, the cost of siege engines along with their support and maintenance would be low. Once a war is declared, the cost of all of that would go through the roof. Profiteers would jump at the chance to make inflated profits providing raw materials and services to both sides. I believe that the materials drain caused by open warfare would surpass the ability of even a large settlement to maintain over any length of time. I don't think that GW needs to set any fee for waging war. The marketplace will take care of that just fine.
5. When would a Vendetta or War be over? Vendetta could be in place for a very long time. It is, after all, great story. I think that only the declarer of vendetta should be allowed to call the vendetta satisfied. This might be difficult if the other party has declared vendetta back at them. Wars would be more difficult to stop. The war could be settled by diplomacy, however, that may or may not satisfy the members of the settlements involved. Wars generate a lot of emotion, and the chartered members of the settlement might vote out the leader or leaders who declared the war if they do not wish to carry it to its finish. The other settlement may not want to stop the war, especially if they have declared war in return. If their chartered members have suffered greatly in the war they may want revenge and nothing less than "flawless victory".
Comments?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
6. If a settlement declares war (or a company declares vendetta) does every member of the charter automatically get the war/vendetta flag? What if some of the characters named in the charter (assuming that to be included in the settlement you have to sign the charter) don't agree with the declaration? Do they get the Trespasser flag, or even the Traitor flag? If a member of a chartered company or settlement withdraws from that charter, do they loose the war/vendetta flag? Do they loose reputation if they withdraw from a charter in time of war/vendetta?
7. If a settlement declares war and there are characters resident in the settlement but not part of the charter, what is the condition of these characters? Are they automatically flagged because they live there? Does the flag only extend to characters that have signed the charter? What about visiting characters who are training at the time in the settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Harad
I think it is entirely possible to have different levels of War Flags.
These different levels could and should have different requirments and different buffs, debuffs, bonuses etc. based on the types.
We do know from the Dev Blog, that there are Letters of Marque issued from Fort Inevitable. At this time, we are not sure how they will be issued or even if they will make it to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no permadeath for players, but there is permadeath for settlements. Since I regard wars as "settlement pvp", I get the following logic:
-only settlements can declare war. The minimum settlement structure to declare is the minimum requirement (fort?) to form a settlement.
-There should be a requirement to have a pvp window defined (ie "flagging the settlement for pvp"), and there could also be requirements for morale index or similar (allowing assassinations to undermine morale/infrastructure to the point of disrupting the war).
-the war ends when one settlement ceases to exist (or when a truce is signed). If for argument sake your 1000 mongol archers operate out of a simple tent, I should be able to burn down that tent and formally destroy your settlement and end the war (ie removing the WAR flag for all parties).
-Any further hostile action by the losing warriors is formally banditry, and since they do not belong to a settlement any more they cannot declare war. If they should spontaneously all choose to join the settlement of the next tent (or the one rebuilt on the same spot), that is technically a new and unrelated war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika - I think that is the quote my memory recall is associating with. Also think it is clear that conundrum is anticipated/understood as to be necessary to counter. Civil War also would be interesting: We all think ants as eusocial insects or bees are harmonious, but sometimes outright pandemonium is exhibited.
@Harad - on mobile atm, but will consider those questions. But seems to be useful to consider politics internal and external on war declaration and a state of war to be an expensive impact on the settlement's running/reserves etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Harad My personal answers to those questions (Good questions BTW):
1. war can be considered settlement vs settlement. I think that is basically the idea. War wouldn't be between smaller groups, unless they banded together to take a larger common foe, but even then it would be an alliance vs a settlement.
2. I think the vendetta idea is sound and workable. Same idea as a war but smaller.
3. I don't think it should come down to both side declaring war/vendetta. Assume for a min that 1 side declares war and the other does not. If there are bonuses with declaring war and being declared on, then why would the other side declare war back? That would be like the enforcer flagging outlaw for some reason? Basically I say just leave 1 side declaring war on the other and leave it at that. Give opposing bonuses maybe, but there should be a need for a reverse declaration.
4. While it is possible and likely, I still think there should be a weekly fee (upkeep) for those declaring war. This will aid the idea that war should not be declared lightly. Think death curse. It isn't meant to be used all the time. Just to settle a dispute or if one side wants to take territory or remove someone from the map.
Concerning vendettas, I don't think there should be an upkeep, but both sides should be restricted (disguises withholding) from interacting (using trainers, shopping, ect.)
5. I agree that a vendetta should end when the declaring side chooses to end it. Wars on the other hand can be ended by the same means, but also there would be an "objective" like a building to destroy that would declare victory, or maybe total settlement destruction.
6. I think everyone who claims residency (though a charter or something) to a settlement or CC that is involved in a war gets flagged and must deal with all that comes with it. After all, just being an American in Iraq makes you a target, regardless if you carry a weapon or not. So why should crafters and other "non combatants" be immune to a war declaration? You live there, your the enemy.
7. I don't think that "being a resident" will be possible without signing the charter. That is like living in a neighborhood but not being a resident? Now, visiting to use the market or training does not make you a resident and so you would NOT be flagged. Now you may be collateral damage should the settlement come under attack, assuming there is splash damage from siege weapons.
For those worried about people griefing by declaring random wars just to avoid rep and alignement loss through pvp. How would you feel if the people declaring war automatically became full loot for the duration of the war?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those worried about people griefing by declaring random wars just to avoid rep and alignement loss through pvp. How would you feel if the people declaring war automatically became full loot for the duration of the war?
I am for most of what you have proposed but if you are suggesting what I think... No, not good.
For those worried about people griefing by declaring random wars just to avoid rep and alignement loss through pvp. How would you feel if the people declaring war automatically became full loot for the duration of the war?
With that penalty, who on Earth would ever declare war?
full loot isnt much of a penalty you just don't take your top end gear. It gives the defender a little advantage as they can still use their good gear, ensures that war causes a big upsurge in demand from crafters.
It means people will only declare war when they really feel they have a cause to. It was just a suggestion I threw out as a means of combatting frivolous war declarations without banning them outright. I am not totally wedded to it by any means was more a random thought.
full loot isn't much of a penalty you just don't take your top end gear. It gives the defender a little advantage as they can still use their good gear, ensures that war causes a big upsurge in demand from crafters.
Full looting might not be a problem once.
Wars will last a long time. Weeks, months, maybe years. If the aggressor could lose everything in battle, they won't be able to use their best gear for that same period of time. Not to mention the fact that their debt will become astronomical, since they're completely replacing ALL their gear at every death.
It means people will only declare war when they really feel they have a cause to. It was just a suggestion I threw out as a means of combating frivolous war declarations without banning them outright. I am not totally wedded to it by any means was more a random thought.
I understand what you were trying to do, I just think it won't work for the aforementioned reasons.
I also don't think "frivolous" war should be outright banned. There just needs to be adequate disincentive to not make it worthwhile. Full looting would discourage any war whatsoever, regardless of how good a motivation one had.
Eve you lose everything everytime. There has been more than a couple of wars fought over the years so I don't see why it should be any different here. The only difference is that Eve both sides are full loot.
One problem with highsec wars in Eve is often the defenders avoid the war by not undocking which is why I was musing if making only the attackers full loot might be an idea here as the defenders have a reason to be active in their own defense
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe a good place to look from, is:
1. 1st priority of a settlement = Security from attack
2. Which influences government domestic policy as an extension of Foreign Policy
3. Which equals: Trade arrangements, Peaceful Treaties (I'm thinking Entente Cordiale!), Alliances, Conditions of War provocating and exceptions.
From there we should be able to look further into how declarations of war can be formed.
4. In terms of expansion = economic reasons obviously. And in terms of "fair game" ie booting another settlement's watchtower to build your own, that is the grey area I guess of conquest?!
@Harad: Possibly the vendetta could be the CC level of "kos"?!
Eve you lose everything everytime. There has been more than a couple of wars fought over the years so I don't see why it should be any different here. The only difference is that Eve both sides are full loot.
True, but that doesn't apply here and I'll explain why I think so.
It has already been established that death in PFO will result in loss of some, but not all gear currently carried. This is what players will be used to prior to any war declaration.
War resulting in full loss would adversely change the normal state-of-affairs for aggressor players. This has a major psychological impact. Now, they're risking a lot more than previously for very amorphous gain.
Look at it this way....
Full-loss for aggressors in PFO would be the equivalent in Eve of a war declaration resulting in full loss (as per what's in Eve now), simultaneous loss of ship insurance, and loss of some stuff the player has stored elsewhere. How many players would want to declare war if that was the loss result in Eve?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair game would also be disruption of trade, disruption of harvesting. Disruption of alliances. Many settlements will turtle when war is declared upon them. Meaning they will have restricted all of these things voluntarily, in fact it is quite possible that the aggressor won't necessarily have to fight at all.
This I anticipate being a hotly argued grey area.
Incidentally here is a question. When two settlements are at war does that make people from other kingdoms travelling in their hexes fair game?
Personally my thinking is it should otherwise you have to accept that it is not possible to cut off a settlement from supplies and that neutral alts will be able to bring in stuff
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair game would also be disruption of trade, disruption of harvesting. Disruption of alliances. Many settlements will turtle when war is declared upon them. Meaning they will have restricted all of these things voluntarily, in fact it is quite possible that the aggressor won't necessarily have to fight at all.
Works for me!
Incidentally here is a question. When two settlements are at war does that make people from other kingdoms travelling in their hexes fair game?
Personally my thinking is it should otherwise you have to accept that it is not possible to cut off a settlement from supplies and that neutral alts will be able to bring in stuff
I disagree, but not because those neutral players might not like it.
I disagree, because I think not allowing open season on neutral players operating in conflict territory makes the game more interesting.
Like you said, ZenPagan, neutrals could bring in supplies to a cut off settlement. Does the aggressor engage these neutrals or not?
This is an excellent problem the attackers must solve.
Do they attack the neutrals or not?
If they attack the neutrals, they risk losing alignment, reputation, etc. If they don't, the neutrals supply their enemies.
Of course, the aggressor could then, to avoid the aforementioned alignment or reputation loss, declare war on the primary offending neutral power. Now, the war has grown, and the faction previously cut off is joined by an ally.
This is a fantastic diplomatic issue we should not overlook. It's what Germany faced in WW1. In that war, the US was supplying Britain & France with absolutely massive amounts of war material. Germany had to decide to interdict with their u-boats or do nothing. Either choice could mean something bad.
The possibilities here are really, really interesting and I think will make for a better game. Being able to attack neutrals freely in a war zone isn't bad gameplay (I don't think), I just think it's less interesting than the alternative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there are bonuses with declaring war and being declared on, then why would the other side declare war back?
Two reasons that I can think of, off the top of my head.
One, because we are players and not our characters/settlements, it's certainly possible for players to agree that a consensual war is in the players' best interests for fun gameplay and agree to make the war mutual to reduce the burden of continuing it. There's a famous example within EVE of "Red vs Blue", two alliances which are eternally at war with each other simply for the opportunity to have some fun fights in a relatively controlled way.
And two, because maybe the defender wants to press an advantage they gain during a war and don't want the attackers to simply cancel their war when things start going badly for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Warning: Rambling, disjointed text below. Viewer discretion is advised.
I like the idea of Vendettas between groups while wars are between settlements. However, if you are in a new alliance of CCs, based out of Fort Inevitable, and you want to go out and claim some real estate but (late game scenario) all of the settlement sites are taken, what can you do? You can't establish your own settlement, and, for the sake of argument, all of the settlements are friendly to each other (horror of horrors) so you can't make a deal with one to declare war for you to join. Could a large group based out of an NPC town buy a bunch of siege engines and go knock down a settlement, raze it to the ground, and claim the spot? Should this require a declaration of war?
I would think that if a settlement is at war, either as the aggressor or the defender, then entering their hex would flag you as a valid war target (for either side). Just because you are a peaceful merchant that doesn't mean supplying the besieged settlement is a peaceful act. Otherwise, the city can get supplied, or a spy could get in (posing as a peaceful merchant) and do serious damage to your infrastructure.
Having the attackers fully lootable, it's a possibility, I don't think it really fits though. I was kicking around the idea that the aggressors might be flagged as attackable to everyone, not just the defenders. Still not sure how I feel about that.
I would like to see the possibilities for mutual 'forever wars', similar to Red vs Blue in Eve.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those worried about people griefing by declaring random wars just to avoid rep and alignement loss through pvp. How would you feel if the people declaring war automatically became full loot for the duration of the war?
It might be interesting economically but I also think it would discourage MANY players from actively participating in wars.
Eve you lose everything everytime.
Except that EVE has ship insurance (which is a rather large currency faucet in EVE). Think of being able to thread a limited amount/quality of equipment as the equivalent of EVE ship insurance, but without being a currency faucet.