Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 'settlement' screenshot in the blog set thoughts in motion.
Core question:
Will settlements be constructed strategy-game style?
I mean like bases in C&C/starcraft/etc, placing one building at a time and having to consider logistics and defensibility. (Actually the best example would be SimCity Societies since that has 'development indices').
Background:
-settlements grow one building at a time
-some buildings may raise development indices (DI), other will require certain DI. The order or building therefore matters
-wares must be hauled between buildings (mine->smelter->smith->market), markets and storages should be easy to access, but buildings can also be attacked and destroyed. Travel paths and location of buildings matters.
-space may be limited, at least space inside palisade/wall.
IF we can design our own bases, then layout is a big part of the strategy. A single gate to make it defensible, or multiple gates shorten the travel routes? Compact build for effectiveness or open build to make it harder for assassins (and save space for future additions)?
I'd also love to see buildings placed on the map directly relate to develop indices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The question of how customizable is the building of our own bases is interesting both for strategy, "urban planning!" and sheer variety and interest. I hope Settlement Designs are therefore somewhat modular in this respect? I mean if a settlement can be broken up into discrete plots of any type of building eg a large building takes up 2 plots for example?
Also the actual site that settlements can be built on: How variable will these be? some better for defence, some better resources nearby etc? IE castles were invariably built on top of hills or in river-bends with moats and more constructed for additional protection to augment a natural site's defences.
Windmills, watermills naturally depend on water and exposed outcrop to wind... that is always an interesting factor: Energy generation for machines (eg burning animal dung).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also have a question - how can a group change the layout of a settlement to make it more defensive? Narrow, winding streets and choke-points should the walls fall, areas for siege engines to attack any attackers siege engines outside the wall, taller buildings with roof or arrow slit access, that sort of thing? As a military historian I know that building settlements with an eye towards defeating an attacking force should they breach the walls has lead to more than one victory. I'd like to know if the players will have control enough to plan such a settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Imagine the meaningful human interaction that will arise if they allow us to be urban planners. Too bad so little of it will occur in-game; I can imagine lots of Google Hangout conference calls (video will be important for its power to convince), software folks'll come up with to test design elements, such as siege defences, and none of that will pay GW their pennies :-(.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you look at Every Picture Tells A Story you will see a WIP image on fort layouts, as well as one on building improvements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Imagine the meaningful human interaction that will arise if they allow us to be urban planners. Too bad so little of it will occur in-game; I can imagine lots of Google Hangout conference calls (video will be important for its power to convince), software folks'll come up with to test design elements, such as siege defences, and none of that will pay GW their pennies :-(.
Urban planning meetings, complete with NIMBY concerns (Don't put the tannery near my house.) and political vs. military concerns (The merchants want straight, wide streets, but the army wants a twisty maze.). Sounds like fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the standard layout for Good settlements will be a brilliantly successful farming and ranching community which flows into the rolling hills of the countryside. Markets of all types are normally in place near the sturdy walls of the outer high keep, patrolled by stalwart guards on horseback and foot. The high walls are accented with battlements, verily bursting with weapons and boiling pots of oil. Highly trained archers line the walls ready to fire deadly volleys of arrows at hapless attackers.
The main gate is protected by a vast moat filled with wicked creatures, drawbridge closed and supported with an interior portcullis. The entry tunnels are lined with murder holes and traps of every variety and leads into a beautiful courtyard which in peaceful times gives the appearance of a well manicured garden filled with fountains and lawn sculptures.
The main keep is a high and thick built tower made of solid granite blocks held together seemingly with magic, as not even a crack can be detected between the stones, with no visible means of entry. High in the uppermost tower lightning flashes and clouds swirl as the wizards defending the tower prepare magical spells of awesome power to strike attackers dead in their tracks.
Far across the land is an evil settlement surrounded by hardscrabble farms dotted with sparse herds of half-starved animals searching for any edible weed. Occasional grain farms wither in the fields, neglected by part-time "farmers" who spend most of their time carousing and drinking in the various taverns in town.
A closer inspection of the settlement’s perimeter reveals broad streets once made of stone, now filled with pot holes and weed patches. Rats search for crumbs along the roadside trying to eke out a meager existence. Half-starved children stare vacantly out from shops of empty shelves while the crafters sleep the day away in battered workshops throughout the town. Emaciated women in threadbare clothing can be seen in the distance leaning longingly over the top of a dilapidated well trying to catch a glimpse of the polluted water below.
The bailey can be seen at the end of the scarred avenue, timbers askew allowing an open view of the interior. What appear to be soldiers lounge idly by leaning on their weapons (those that have any), while many others can be heard from far away snoring loudly with alcoholic vapors visible in the air.
This sounds about right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hardin, do you know how many players-to-be you've just excited with your descriptions? I'll bet these are exactly what others can't wait to create in PFO.
The people have been starved out and the guards are drunk in their complacency.
I'll do everything in my power to make sure these two descriptions are absolutely correct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We need another town that appears prosperous, with immaculate roads and bustling trade in the squares, but where the people have a hunted look about them. Outsiders always feel like they're being watched. So do the townsfolk. Both groups are right, and anyone in town is liable to disappear in the middle of the night if the magically-enhanced secret police take an interest in them. Maybe we could steal a trick from Watership Down and make "Where is SoAndSo?" a question that no one dares to ask.
Then we need a town straight out of Pirates of the Caribbean, but with bandits instead of pirates. The whole town looks like a mix of Bourbon Street in New Orleans, New York City's Times Square (before it got cleaned up), and the seedier parts of Las Vegas. The town jail is more of a drunk tank, where what passes for a police force steals everything that the pickpockets might have missed.
Come to think of it, I'd love to see a settlement named TunFaire, complete with the Bledsoe, the Dead Man's House, and mansions on The Hill. (Unlikely, I know, but it would be fun to see how close we could get.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although not really a Settlement Structure in the physical sense, I was thinking of this as a management structure:
Meta Gaming a settlement in order to allow its "members" freedom of action and still maintain a desirable settlement alignment and reputation standards.
Context:
In EVE Online, in many cases a corporation is headed by a CEO Alt, that never actually plays in the game. He / She is actually a figure head and a placeholder for when wars occur. When a War Dec is received by the corporation, its members leave and join NPC corps, leaving the CEO behind. Since he/she never actually plays or leaves dock, then enemy just effectively declared war against a non participant. This allows all other operations of the corporation to continue, at a cost of just 10% tax rate paid to the NPC corporation.
Application:
What if a settlement were set up, with a figure head leader. This leader would do nothing but attain the alignment desired and flag the needed PVP flags to increase reputation or alignment, but never leave the settlement. This leader would be the only official member of the settlement, and the rest of the members would function as loyal, sub-contractors.
These loyal, subcontractors would receive all of the benefits of training for free (reimbursed for fees) and their membership would be kept track of out of game (separate CC forums).
In time of war, they could quickly join the settlement, officially, in order to defend it with the appropriate flag. The various hits that their alignment / reputation may bring could be weighed against the usefulness of their using the war flag. Or, they could just remain independent of the settlement and function with the usual PVP flags.
Even if several positions had to be held like the example of the settlement leader, it may be worth while to have several players dedicate a character to just figure head managing the settlement.
The Settlement itself becomes the collective "character" of the managing group. Immune to settlement alignment shifts or individual member reputation hits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's a number of approaches.
1. Space is finite in a settlement, I assume. OR is there an upper total size limit per settlement with a variable room for expansion? Can additional walls be built to include out-buildings and extend the settlement's perimeters?
2. Buildings evolve over time and with DI. What about certain buildings required for building higher level buildings in natural progression?
3. Combining the above:
a) Finite space
b) Many choices that are limited by space
= variety of settlement specialisations
4. So what proportion of a settlement will be needed for defence/offence, maintenance, production and consumption and other categories? Perhaps sites with higher natural protection might be smaller plots or have some other limitation to total capacity? So there's a high level strategic choice if so. Perhaps settlements on the edge of kingdoms will be more for war and inner hexes would be more for production over time? That might not be an ideal result: A balanced settlement in terms of war capacity/defences might be the best baseline wiht variation in the skill-training??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf - That may happen, but I don't think that's how GW intends the system to work. If and when it happens, the Devs might consider it an exploit (or not). A settlement with a handful of full-time members in leadership positions, and a passle of wartime-only members who frequently trade and train in the settlement, would be pretty easy to recognize if GW felt like checking the logs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally, a community can be built in one of several 'designs', allowing players to choose how their settlement will be built within a loose pre-existing framework.
Options could be 'Block' ('Fort' at the back, 'Settlement' at the front in blocks of 4 by 2 buildings, or more depending upon how many buildings they are prepared to spend the cash on, surrounded by a wall.)
'Wheel' (Fort in the middle, six wedges radiating out from it that can be filled with buildings, with roads forming the 'spokes' and the outer wall forming the 'wheel')
The 'U'. (Settlement has two long 'arms' where the majority of the buildings are, with a large, long, clear strip of land in between them that can be used for events or player-driven markets, and the Fortress forming the base of the 'U')
'Star' (a reversal of the 'Wheel', with the bases of the wedges facing the Fort in the middle, with 5, 6 or 7 'clear' patches within the walls of the Settlement that could be parks for civic beautification, internal farms in case of a siege or impromptue market-grounds.)
'Bullseye' for hexes near increasingly hostile regions (Fortress sits in the middle, surrounded by a wall, with the settlement built around that into three or four 'segments', each walled off from each other and with a mutual second wall built around the entire thing)
Alternatively, more experienced players/Chapters/Guilds could decide on 'Free-Form' and build as they want, but for Chapters/Guilds just starting out, a pre-made design would likely be more useful.
So each settlement starts out with building 'pads' that can be used to develop one single building at a time, or spread the building out over several 'pads' to make a bigger structure.
Houses, Smithies, Bakeries, Storehouses, etc. SMART Players will segment their cities, having Houses in one district, Finished Goods-Shops in another, Production-Shops in a third, Taverns and other 'entertainment' industries in a fourth and possibly their warehouses and Fortress in a fifth, and most secure, location.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Expanding on the above post, do you build the wall all the way around the settlement, possibly having less-than-perfect walls in exchange for a complete surrounding, or do you wall-off three 'sides' and rely upon NPCs and your 'inhabitants' to keep an eye on things?
Does the original 'design' you've settled on match the terrain? The 'U' for example might work well for a long, slender patch of land, but in a larger, rounder section, it might not be such a good idea ...
Furthermore, when you've walled off your settlement to the best of your ability ... where do you put the (main) entrance? As far from the Fort as possible to ensure an enemy raiding team has to rampage through your entire town in the process to get to you, which while ensuring EVERYONE is going to rush to the defense, is going to be very costly to the people who have chosen to live in your Hex.
OR .... do you put the Fortress at the front. Now at first glance, this seems a little bit kamikaze-tactics, but it also means that you are putting yourself at the fore-front of any conflicts. The people in your Hex can see this and realise you're going the extra mile to protect THEM by putting your control over the Hex at great risk.
Personal Protection vs Beloved Leadership ...
Also, Sewers .... will we be able to build them? I could fully see players being able to dig their own basements, but this is going to require people having badges in building and mining, or else there's a huge risk the tunnels will collapse under the weight of buildings above them .... plus getting rid of all that dirt and stone, and hoping you don't accidentally bust into somebody else's tunnels.
Imagine a group/Guild/Charter who specialised in this 'slow infiltration' technique, buying plots of land within a settlement, and slowly, over the course of several weeks and with the use of the 'Disguise' skill as mentioned in the Blog, buy the land under that 'Disguise', dig the tunnel into the warehouses and vaults of the controlling faction, funnelling raiding groups into said tunnels and sitting back and laughing with their cut of the loot while all hell breaks loose.
They bought the house under a 'disguise'. Players will not be easily able to associate the 'alter ego' with the actual player. They get a decent cut of the profits from the Raid, the Controlling Faction of the Hex is spending what resources they have left chasing down an alter-ego that now no-longer exists, and the Raiders now know the easiest entry-points into the Fort.
And that's assuming we can't 'disguise' any openings we make. Imagine in the space of a night, crafting a hidden 'door' to fit over the tunnel, so that people will walk past this 'crate' and not realise it can be slid to the side to reveal a 5 by 5 reinforced tunnel.
Imagine the glee of the Thieves Guilds as they realise they can make their own 'Ratway' and make it so that if and when the Controlling Faction of the Hex finally moves against them, all they have to do is 'lock' the hidden doors behind them, clear out of town for a few days and then sneak back in and restart the whole shenanigans all over again.
That is ... assuming the Controlling Faction has no 'thieves' of their own to discover, unlock and take control of this 'Ratway' for them ...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Player housing is itself still up-in-the-air, last I heard. Player designed housing, such that they can design their own 'basement' is even farther into the domain of the unknown.
I do think it is beneficial to be thinking and talking about these things, especially as regards strategic placement of fortifications, but at the same time I wouldn't want the casual reader just dropping in to get the impression that the developer has said something they haven't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise: I like the option of pre-built versus freeform building and youve listed some good basic layouts.
The key questions are going to be related to how much can a settlement build and can it expand beyond its initial boundaries? If yes, then what skills/developments influence that?
Id be in favor of requiring the settlement leaders to train up several key skill lines to be able to manage the settlement. Some could be optional such as reducing operation/maintenance costs and others could be mandatory such as requiring skills to maintain certain buildings in the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf - That may happen, but I don't think that's how GW intends the system to work. If and when it happens, the Devs might consider it an exploit (or not). A settlement with a handful of full-time members in leadership positions, and a passle of wartime-only members who frequently trade and train in the settlement, would be pretty easy to recognize if GW felt like checking the logs.
What we do know is that it takes 10 characters to create a charter for a settlement.
Charter companies are the first semi persistent player grouping, but their membership can be fluid, like a fleet in EvE Online. A CC is less like a corporation in Eve.
Individual players or charters can visit or join settlements, as both parties agree to.
A charter company can be made up of members that belong to different settlements.
Based on all of these, from various Dev statements, it is clear that meta gaming membership in what we might want to think of as a guild, is almost required by the loose structure of the CCs.