Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, say a Settlement focuses on Civilization at the expense of the other two categories, at least at first. If that Settlement came under attack, and I liked to train there, I think I would be happy to help defend it.
Unless, of course, my own Settlement was out to conquer it. Then sabotage is in order. Come on Disable Device!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are building a system that positively encourages expansion, at the very least into your immediately neighbouring hexes.
Greetings, Tork! It's always nice to meet new Goblins, and I'm definitely psyched to have yet another User Posts page to bookmark for my research :)
Can you give us an idea of how many hexes (sub-hexes?) we'll need to have control of in order to maximize all three DIs? Is it likely that a single Settlement will want to put simple POIs in nearby Settlement Hexes rather than building another Settlement? Is that even possible?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the things I am still unclear on is my recollection from the early days when either Ryan or Stephen were first talking with us about settlements that the influence of a settlement would be limited to adjacent hexes. It sounds from this blog that we have progressed beyond that to where a settlement can lay claim to hexes beyond adjacency. Is this inference of mine correct, or was I misunderstanding?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is this inference of mine correct, or was I misunderstanding?
I believe your inference is correct. The prior statement was vague and "principle"-ish. Later information has been much more concrete.
I believe that Settlements will be able to control hexes that are not immediately adjacent by placing POIs in them. I expect, but can't prove, that the Settlement will need to control a line of hexes from the Settlement to the outlying hex in order to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Each settlement is measured in six development indexes: Security, Industry, Population, Civilization, Spirit, and Morale.
There are three development indexes: Security, Morale, and Civilization.
Are Security, Morale, and Civilization the only Development Indexes now? Or are they just the only ones that are relevant to a discussion of Settlement Warfare?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, a lot of people are worried about the PvP Window being a binary on/off thing. That's not accurate.
During your PvP window your NPC guards will be present, but in far fewer numbers than outside the window so you will need your players there if you are attacked. Meanwhile outside the PvP window the guards will be numerous enough that attacking the settlement will be extremely difficult if its player population shows up to defend it, but it is possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Welcome Tork! Congrats on being selected as a Goblin. You may have been there a long time so please forgive the late salutation. :)
Although the standard cap to each development index is 1000, there are a couple of factors that affect an individual settlement's maximum DIs. The first, and most significant, is the settlement's PvP window. This is the period of each day during which it is open to settlement warfare. Smaller PvP windows reduce the maximum DI cap significantly, and only those cities who open themselves up to trouble can reach their maximum potential. (Buying the protection of patron powers such as the Hellknights or the Knights of Iomedae to keep rival settlements at bay is costly, after all.) You need to take risks to achieve your maximum growth!
Emphasis mine. Forgive my lack of education on this matter. I have seen nothing discussed about it. Please someone educate me. This seems to indicate that "protection" can be bought from NPC sources. Is that all-around protection or just in the form of Marshals? Does this "protection" include invading forces and repulsing sieges?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The blog mentions that each Index is associated with two ability scores; maybe that is how they are incorporating the early idea? I would like to know what the scores are.
If player housing is incorporated, will it cost DI? I would hope if so that there would be a benefit to some index.
Settlements need a distance of a couple of hexes between them; what about POIs? Would we need a line of farms adjacent to each other?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The blog mentions that each Index is associated with two ability scores; maybe that is how they are incorporating the early idea? I would like to know what the scores are.
I think you're right. My first reading of the blog was actually my wife reading it out loud to me while we were driving around last night (yay, smart phones!). A closer reading just now led me to the same conclusion.
Security deals with the physical and spiritual security of a settlement, and covers things like fighter schools, guard towers, and cleric training facilities.
Morale deals with the well-being of the settlement, providing entertainment structures like theaters, buildings that provide bard and sorcerer training, and affecting the efficacy of the workforce.
Finally, Civilization is a reflection of a settlement's commitment to training and its economy. Wizards, rogues, and merchant classes benefit most from this index, and marketplaces, universities, and wizard's towers are purchased using it.
My guess would be:
- Security = Strength (or Constitution?) & Wisdom
- Morale = Charisma & Constitution(?)
- Civilization = Intelligence & Dexterity
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Each settlement is measured in six development indexes: Security, Industry, Population, Civilization, Spirit, and Morale.There are three development indexes: Security, Morale, and Civilization.Are Security, Morale, and Civilization the only Development Indexes now? Or are they just the only ones that are relevant to a discussion of Settlement Warfare?
Ah-ha. This is what was confusing me. I forget it had already been called by 6 indexes. Now we are talking about 3. Could this be cleared up:
1. 6 -> 3
2. 3 'War' indexes; 3 'Non-war' indexes to be elaborated on in another blog.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2. 3 'War' indexes; 3 'Non-war' indexes to be elaborated on in another blog.
After giving it another read-through this morning, I think that there are only 3 Development Indexes total now.
There are three development indexes: Security, Morale, and Civilization. Each of these is associated with a of ability scores...
Each settlement is measured in six development indexes: Security, Industry, Population, Civilization, Spirit, and Morale.
My guess is that the previous 6 DIs were each associated with a single ability score like this:
- Security = Strength
- Industry = Dexterity
- Population = Constitution
- Civilization = Intelligence
- Spirit = Wisdom
- Morale = Charisma
This gives me more confidence in my prior guess that Morale = Charisma & Constitution because Morale also effects "the efficacy of the workforce" which is very close to "Population".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2. 3 'War' indexes; 3 'Non-war' indexes to be elaborated on in another blog.After giving it another read-through this morning, I think that there are only 3 Development Indexes total now.
There are three development indexes: Security, Morale, and Civilization. Each of these is associated with a of ability scores...Each settlement is measured in six development indexes: Security, Industry, Population, Civilization, Spirit, and Morale.My guess is that the previous 6 DIs were each associated with a single ability score like this:
- Security = Strength
- Industry = Dexterity
- Population = Constitution
- Civilization = Intelligence
- Spirit = Wisdom
- Morale = Charisma
This gives me more confidence in my prior guess that Morale = Charisma & Constitution because Morale also effects "the efficacy of the workforce" which is very close to "Population".
So based on this, Security is linked with STR and WIS, cine Security also affects Clerics and Temples.
Civilization has absorbed industry, becoming INT and DEX based.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you measure those for a Settlement? Check the rulers and average?
I don't believe the DIs are based on those ability scores. Rather, I expect the Skills that are relevant to those DIs use those particular ability scores.
So, you'll probably want a character with a high Intelligence managing your University, and he'll probably gain even more Intelligence as he trains up in the Skills that are relevant to running a University.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Phew! You guys are FAST! I'm running to catch up a bit so I'll need to come back to answer more questions later, but one thing that seems to have piqued interest is this business of capturing a hall.
A quick bit of background there: what I am keen to avoid is a scenario where warfare is a rush to destroy a single building or artifact. This was the case in Darkfall (largely) and it made for some frenetic and zerg-tastic combat. Lots of fun, but not wildly tactical or considered. While the hall scenario still has a hint of that flavour it will be SIGNIFICANTLY easier to take a hall once you have reduced the working DIs in a settlement by the various methods described (and some not yet described *cough*did someone say sabotage?*cough*.
The mention of "1 minute" in the blog is largely a placeholder. Combat in PFO is in some ways slower than other games, in particular action based games, but if you are players of the pen-and-paper game then think for a moment about the implications of defending a single character from harm for 10 rounds. Tough, innit? Now it might be that its just not tough enough and that will have to be raised to 5/10/1million minutes - but the post is only meant to give an outline, give us something to build and test, and get some (excellent) discussion rolling.
Capture of the hall will be the last thing that happens in mass combat, not just because it ends the conflict, but because it will become most viable when many other tactics have been successfully employed. Yes, there will be some scenarios where a mad dash for the hall is also viable, but that will be the fault of sloppy defenders and probably the end of a campaign of harrying holdings, assassinations, and other DI attacks.
I'll be back later!
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the "surprise victory" case is considered contrary to design goals, I'm satisfied. I was concerned that the only requirement was to get to the flagpole and not get hit for a minute, something which I can do by having a large enough force to keep the defenders busy for one minute sneak in, or roughly simple numerical parity during the off-hours of the defense.
It should almost never come as a surprise to anybody paying attention that a settlement has fallen. The surprise cases should hinge on long-term infiltration, where it's not a surprise to most of the principle actors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sabotage! Yay! Break your enemies' siege engines and then a quick Disguised exit. Traitors will be worth a lot, but then, aren't they always?
Long-term infiltration might not be necessary if a Settlement has an open marketplace near the Hall. Just get enough people in at the same time and you could conceivably mimic that. I'd suggest mounting an attack from outside at that point just to distract the soon-to-be-former owners of the Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now it might be that its just not tough enough and that will have to be raised to 5/10/1million minutes...
Finally, a concrete statement we can trust the devs on! Capturing a Hall will take between 0 and 1,000,000 minutes!
I'll be back later!
Looking forward to it :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Welcome Tork,
My main concern is with the "Capture the Hall" mechanic described as well. I think this will lead to too much flip-flopping of settlements in Warfare and a sort of mad-dash charge of the light brigade style dynamic to get the Hall in order to gain "control" of the settlement.
One assumes that owners of a settlement will neccesarly have ALOT of power over managing it...including things like disbanding buildings or even the settlement charter itself.
That would be really problematic (and pretty unrealistic) if it was gained from simple capture of a single building for a brief period.
At the very least, I would suggest that you put a pretty significant timer (maybe something like 24 hours) before the new owners can issue most orders to the settlement.
Otherwise I can pretty much assure you that the standard tactic in Warfare will become...Mad Dash through the defenses, Quick Grab of the Hall, Disband the Settlement. Alot of the stratigic and logistic nuances of Warfare that you folks seem to be aiming for will be missed.
A better approach, IMO, would be to present a more layered approach to combat....allow for a number of buildings that would be considered "Control Points" each one of which must be caputured, destroyed or neutralized before exposing the option to capture a settlement. I would also say that if a settlement constructed "Fortifications" an attacking force must construct a "seige camp" and "seige equipment" in order to breach them and allow for capture of interior control point buildings.
Smaller, unfortified settlements MIGHT just have a single control point (e.g. the Hall)
The reality is that a loyal populace and a loyal guard force would not (and should not) just up and surrender just because some commando strike force captured somebodies "Throne Room" for a few minutes.
That makes for pretty unfun and unrealistic warfare, IMO. What you are really describing with that sort of dynamic is a dressed up game of "Capture the Flag" not "Warfare". You need to slow it down, and make it a matter of unpeeling layers of the onion for settlement capture. Note that this doesn't minimize the importance of things like Field Battles as allowing an enemy army to be in your territory unmolested means that you are going to lose the benefits of whatever resources you've got outside of your settlement....which has serious economic impacts on you, and your ability to fight. That is reason enough to make Field Battles really important. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A better approach, IMO, would be to present a more layered approach to combat....allow for a number of buildings that would be considered "Control Points" each one of which must be caputured, destroyed or neutralized before exposing the option to capture a settlement. I would also say that if a settlement constructed "Fortifications" an attacking force must construct a "seige camp" and "seige equipment" in order to breach them and allow for capture of interior control point buildings.
Smaller, unfortified settlements MIGHT just have a single control point (e.g. the Hall)
I really like this idea, the only thing that I would add would be having 3 of 5 points to control plus the hall(depending on size of the settlement). That way settlements would have to make choices on which building they need to hold on to. Instead well the settlement members just all grouping at the blacksmiths and holding on to that one, where the invasion group has control of the rest of the town. I know that after the points are taken thats what its going to be once the hall is that only thing left but hey eveything else has fallen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the very least, I would suggest that you put a pretty significant timer (maybe something like 24 hours) before the new owners can issue most orders to the settlement.
I totally agree. It should take time to pacify the citizenry and solidify control of the Settlement.
... allow for a number of buildings that would be considered "Control Points" each one of which must be caputured, destroyed or neutralized before exposing the option to capture a settlement.
I'm not sure I agree with this. It seems like there are basically three ways to attack a Settlement:
- Destroy POIs in outlying hexes
- Assassinate leaders
- Storm the Settlement
Obviously, the most effective warfare will combine all three. However, I think it's better if the game allows for any combination that works. If the Settlements walls are unguarded, why should I have to waste my time destroying a Guard Tower a hex away? Likewise, I would hope a Lawful Good Settlement would be able to wage war without being forced to resort to Assassinations.
But I definitely agree that conquerors shouldn't have complete control over everything in the Settlement as soon as they conquer the Hall, and I hope that gets addressed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From a different perspective, I think the game should definitely support a strategy of building defensive structures which - if properly managed, etc. - provide significant bonuses such that it is practically required to destroy them before taking out the Hall.
I just don't want that to be hard-coded, as it were.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Following up to my previous post, another interesting mechanism you could use is rather then a simple timer determining capture...you could switch to a point accumulation system.
This allows you to use multiple areas or actions and WEIGHT them rather then a simple hold this spot for X seconds.
So imagine that a settlement capture attempt kicks off a "Capture Timer"... it starts ticking down until a certain time limit is reached or until a certain threshold of Victory Points (which can vary depending on Settlement Index's) is reached. Each tick of the timer BOTH defending and attacking forces earn points. These can be control of certain important buildings in the settlement (Hall, Temples, Gatehouse, etc) each weighted for the importance of the building...deaths of attacking and defending troops, presence or absence of Leaders in control points, presence or absence of relics, castings of magic rituals, etc. If either side reaches the Threshold, they "win" and gain control of the settlement....if neither side achieves the threshold, their point totals are compared to determine the "winner" (you can weight or modify these by Settlement Indexes if desired).
The advantage of this system is that it allows you alot more finite control over what it takes to capture a settlement....you can add things that feel "right" about capturing a place and tweak as needed. It makes the actual capture a potentialy more complex and interesting endevour then a simple hold X spot for Y time (although that is still potentialy 1 route to victory)....it means both sides aren't so single-mindedly focused on a single spot and a single thing. The other nice thing, IMO, is that it can spread the battle out a bit more within the settlement and mean that even less powerfull characters can contribute.... it also gives the defender more of a chance to recover from a single moment of vulnerability or a single push of the tide.
YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the very least, I would suggest that you put a pretty significant timer (maybe something like 24 hours) before the new owners can issue most orders to the settlement.I totally agree. It should take time to pacify the citizenry and solidify control of the Settlement.
... allow for a number of buildings that would be considered "Control Points" each one of which must be caputured, destroyed or neutralized before exposing the option to capture a settlement.I'm not sure I agree with this. It seems like there are basically three ways to attack a Settlement:
- Destroy POIs in outlying hexes
- Assassinate leaders
- Storm the Settlement
Obviously, the most effective warfare will combine all three. However, I think it's better if the game allows for any combination that works. If the Settlements walls are unguarded, why should I have to waste my time destroying a Guard Tower a hex away? Likewise, I would hope a Lawful Good Settlement would be able to wage war without being forced to resort to Assassinations.
But I definitely agree that conquerors shouldn't have complete control over everything in the Settlement as soon as they conquer the Hall, and I hope that gets addressed.
Nihimon....to clarify...I meant Control Points WITHIN a Settlements Walls...... for example: The Gatehouse, The Hall, the Food Stores, The Temple, The Towers where the Bastilla are mounted, etc.
It's possible that a small settlement might have only the Hall...but larger more built up settlements should have more...and a surgical strike to the Hall, even if you could control it for an extended time (constricted area to defend and points of approach) wouldn't really mean much if the entire rest of the settlement was in a defenders hands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
you can add things that feel "right" about capturing a place and tweak as needed. It makes the actual capture a potentialy more complex and interesting endevour then a simple hold X spot for Y time (although that is still potentialy 1 route to victory)....
The hall-capture/flag does not "feel" right in the current given description. Though it's bare of context. I like the idea that working out what needs to be captured, in priority, might factor in as it's highly modifiable, as above in GM's description. Eg that chock-off Wizard's Tower with the swirling miasma of power is definitely in need of being captured or collapsed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon....to clarify...I meant Control Points WITHIN a Settlements Walls...
Okay, that makes a lot more sense than having to control something a hex away. However, I still think it's better to allow different styles. And, again, I think it's good if there are Defensive Structures that can be built inside the walls of the Settlement that are practically required to take before Capturing the Hall - I'm just not sure it's necessary or good to hard-code that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My guess is that the previous 6 DIs were each associated with a single ability score like this:
- Security = Strength
- Industry = Dexterity
- Population = Constitution
- Civilization = Intelligence
- Spirit = Wisdom
- Morale = Charisma
This gives me more confidence in my prior guess that Morale = Charisma & Constitution because Morale also effects "the efficacy of the workforce" which is very close to "Population".
That is my guess as well, and meshes well with the "settlements are shared characters" line of thinking. Hopefully "2 abilities associated with" means that the DI depends on two abilities rather than the two abilities being modelled by a single DI. (ie a rogue-centric high Civ settlement should be different from a wizard-centric high Civ settlement).
On the other hand, there are still 6 indices that dictate what buildings you can operate in the settlement:
*security
*morale
*civilization
*lawfulness
*goodness
*reputation
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon....to clarify...I meant Control Points WITHIN a Settlements Walls...Okay, that makes a lot more sense than having to control something a hex away. However, I still think it's better to allow different styles. And, again, I think it's good if there are Defensive Structures that can be built inside the walls of the Settlement that are practically required to take before Capturing the Hall - I'm just not sure it's necessary or good to hard-code that.
I think that's why I'm going to try to advocate for the VP system I proposed afterwards. I believe it allows GW the maximum flexability in tweaking things until they feel "right"...and make sense to most. It also provides the ability to provide dynamics other then a simple Capture and Hold X spot into play and see if they make sense (like enemy death's)....if they don't make sense, you just don't use them...but it opens up the option to try it out if they do....as it allows for a more generic "Capture System" that you can plug things into and tweak as needed. From a design standpoint I think it becomes more flexible. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would still like to know what happens to the charters of all the companies a settlement has when the settlement is captured.
I would think nothing other then having to find a new sponsor (including the NPC cities) within a certain amount of time after capture IF the settlement gets destroyed. I'm assuming that withdrawing sponsorship is something that settlement owners can always do if they choose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think that when sponsorship is lost, whether through revocation or destruction of the sponsoring settlement, the CC would have X amount of time (I think a week would be a good starting point for testing), to find a new sponsor. If one cannot be found, the CC is dissolved.
I would suggest whenever a chartered company loses the settlement endorsement whether that be due to settlement destruction or mere withdrawal of the endorsement by the settlement that the logical and easiest thing to do is to switch the sponsoring settlement of the company to be the appropriate npc settlement.
The chartered company are then at their leisure to seek alternative player settlement sponsorship. Anything else such as giving the company a time limit to seek new sponsorship or be disbanded will result in bad results such as a company getting disbanded because they were unfortunate enough to have lost sponsorship while all of their leader was on holiday for 2 weeks so there was no one to agree to a new sponsorship
*seems like me an mel were busy typing at the same time*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In what way does having three capture points instead of one limit different styles...?
It's possible that a small settlement might have only the Hall...
I think the game should definitely support a strategy of building defensive structures which - if properly managed, etc. - provide significant bonuses such that it is practically required to destroy them before taking out the Hall.
Upon further reflection, I think I'm getting caught up on a triviality, and that GrumpyMel and I are saying basically the same thing.
The only distinction I would make is that I want a fully developed Settlement to have the choice to have their Hall still be their only capture point.
And to directly answer you, Dario, I was not saying the presence of multiple capture points would limit choices. I was trying to say that forcing all defenders to have multiple capture points would limit choices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would still like to know what happens to the charters of all the companies a settlement has when the settlement is captured.
I suspect that a dying Settlement might calve off a number of Chartered Companies but they'll be in a race to find new sponsorship before their home Settlement is destroyed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GumpyMe
I like the VP idea, but it could mean that a quick and messy shove would become the most effective strategy at taking a town, as the longer you wait, the harder it becomes to take the town. Also, what happens when the defender wins? Does the attacking army just have to give up and go home and wait X time before they can try again?
So I was thinking that towns having heath (as an abstract representation of the defenders willingness to fight) might be a better way to do it. What I was thinking is that destroying or sabotaging buildings and assassinating leaders would do direct damage to the town, while capturing buildings and/or locations deal damage over time. To throw some numbers around, lets say that destroying a gate deals 100 damage to the settlement, while capturing it deals 5 damage per minute. However, just doing this would encourage attackers to capture a building, hold it for awhile, then destroy it and run to the next one. So I thought that if a building gets destroyed, the damage it dealt is set to whatever it would have been if it just had been destroyed and not captured. Back to my previous numbers, holding the gate for a whole hour would deal 300 damage to the settlement, but if the defender manages to destroy the gate the damage would be reduced to 100, effectively healing the town by 200 damage.
Fluff-wise, it could be said that the defenders come to see the gate as an enemy building over time, and destroying it counts as a victory.
As for the amount of health a town has, I was thinking that it should be set at around half of what destroying the entire town would deal, as a lighting strike that sweeps through defenses as if they are not there is more scary than a long, drawn-out war of attrition.
I should probably point out that I‘m assuming that buildings under defender control will regenerate the town‘s health.
I really see any purpose or gain in disbanding companies forcefully when they can just be moved to npc sponsorship. It merely serves to irritate people
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really see any purpose or gain in disbanding companies forcefully when they can just be moved to npc sponsorship. It merely serves to irritate people
I agree they should have the option to do so (provided they meet the requirements that the NPC settlement has for its CCs). I don't think it should be automatic, though. If the leadership has left for two weeks, and nobody else has the authority to do it, then your CC's leadership has failed. Sorry, that sucks. Reform.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In what way does having three capture points instead of one limit different styles...?It's possible that a small settlement might have only the Hall...I think the game should definitely support a strategy of building defensive structures which - if properly managed, etc. - provide significant bonuses such that it is practically required to destroy them before taking out the Hall.Upon further reflection, I think I'm getting caught up on a triviality, and that GrumpyMel and I are saying basically the same thing.
The only distinction I would make is that I want a fully developed Settlement to have the choice to have their Hall still be their only capture point.
And to directly answer you, Dario, I was not saying the presence of multiple capture points would limit choices. I was trying to say that forcing all defenders to have multiple capture points would limit choices.
Nihimon, I'd say that would depend upon what the settlement has built in terms of interior structures. I don't think it, neccessarly, makes for the defender to designate a single interior choke point as the only place they need to defend anymore then it does for the attacker to only need to concentrate on attacking a single point. Both sides probably should get a certain leeway as to how they approach defense or offense into a settlement.....but ultimately neither is going to be able to be completely determinative in what it means to "control that settlement".
If you are trying to defend New York....you can no more say "as long as we got the mayor's office everythings ok"....then an attacker can say "we only need to take the mayors office".....what control means is going to depend alot upon how the settlement has grown.....Although I DO believe you should be able to design a settlement where only one point is important...as long as you are willing to forgo the benefits of what the other points might bring you.As an aside....it might be a benefit for GW to try spread combat out a little more if possible from a purely technical persepective. I have no doubt that they are going to be working on systems to handle the load of high capacity battles....but the more they can naturaly spread battles out a bit....the less extreme those systems need to be.
YMMV.
@Dario
The people able to sign a new agreement will be few and probably at most 2 in a company. Why do I say this? Because it is a dangerous power to hand out to all and sundry. More than one corp has been badly damaged by handing power like this to too many individuals.
What is the advantage you see in the automatic disbandment after a time? If there is no advantage to doing so then don't do it. It really is that simple.
It is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that all officers are on holiday at the same time, especially during the school holidays
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) It provides additional incentive for a settlement's CCs to come to it's defense.
2) It helps reinforce the understanding that CCs are chartered by (and thus tied to) a settlement, rather than simply being hosted by one.
3) CCs may not want to be associated with an NPC settlement, which may have restrictions it does not want. Additionally, determining which settlement you automatically default to may not be clear. It can't simply be alignment based, since a LN CC can default to either Fort Riverwatch(LG) or Fort Inevitable(LE).
4) If they players don't maintain their structure, why should it get to exist? You wouldn't expect to leave your settlement unsupervised for a month and then get upset when you come back to find it destroyed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GumpyMe
I like the VP idea, but it could mean that a quick and messy shove would become the most effective strategy at taking a town, as the longer you wait, the harder it becomes to take the town. Also, what happens when the defender wins? Does the attacking army just have to give up and go home and wait X time before they can try again?So I was thinking that towns having heath (as an abstract representation of the defenders willingness to fight) might be a better way to do it. What I was thinking is that destroying or sabotaging buildings and assassinating leaders would do direct damage to the town, while capturing buildings and/or locations deal damage over time. To throw some numbers around, lets say that destroying a gate deals 100 damage to the settlement, while capturing it deals 5 damage per minute. However, just doing this would encourage attackers to capture a building, hold it for awhile, then destroy it and run to the next one. So I thought that if a building gets destroyed, the damage it dealt is set to whatever it would have been if it just had been destroyed and not captured. Back to my previous numbers, holding the gate for a whole hour would deal 300 damage to the settlement, but if the defender manages to destroy the gate the damage would be reduced to 100, effectively healing the town by 200 damage.
Fluff-wise, it could be said that the defenders come to see the gate as an enemy building over time, and destroying it counts as a victory.
As for the amount of health a town has, I was thinking that it should be set at around half of what destroying the entire town would deal, as a lighting strike that sweeps through defenses as if they are not there is more scary than a long, drawn-out war of attrition.
I should probably point out that I‘m assuming that buildings under defender control will regenerate the town‘s health.
Golnor,
That could work as well. It's really just a slightly different way of expressing the same concept. The main point is that it's a system that moves away from "Do X Action = Win" and abstracts things to a point based system where you can assign point values to different actions until some threshold or limit is reached...and then tweak the point values as feels appropriate. It's a much more open system where you can add new things that have values later on to expand upon the system.
Either way would work....although yours does to seem to keep to a theme that is more in Spirit of Pathfinder. I'm actualy less concerned about the specific details at this point....as those can always be played around with.....then them going with a system that affords them a high level of flexability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It strikes me that one of the design goals is to leave a lot of room for emergent behavior when it comes to conquering Settlements. I think this is a very good goal, and am wary of anything that would serve to standardize the way in which Settlements are conquered.
1) It provides additional incentive for a settlement's CCs to come to it's defense.
2) It helps reinforce the understanding that CCs are chartered by (and thus tied to) a settlement, rather than simply being hosted by one.
3) CCs may not want to be associated with an NPC settlement, which may have restrictions it does not want. Additionally, determining which settlement you automatically default to may not be clear. It can't simply be alignment based, since a LN CC can default to either Fort Riverwatch(LG) or Fort Inevitable(LE).
4) If they players don't maintain their structure, why should it get to exist? You wouldn't expect to leave your settlement unsupervised for a month and then get upset when you come back to find it destroyed.
1) any cc that fails to help defend will get kicked out of its settlement quickly in any case
2) sorry supposition
3) As soon as someone able to sign new agreement returns they can move back out of npc sponsorship so not an issue as far as I can see.
4) People have lives, If people have to start logging on every couple of days and can't ever take a break in case the settlement they are sponsored by falls then you won't hold players for very long. I would suggest that people returning off holiday to find that their company has been disbanded are going to be pretty vexed. Lotro had a similar issue initially with house foreclosure and they lost quite a few players over it. I suspect the same would be true here.
Companies that don't feel connected to their sponsoring settlement have no need to ever move out from under npc settlement sponsorship as far as I can see. They can still train and trade in player run settlements so...
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to jump in quickly between meetings...
There are some really nice ideas and interesting comments about how the hall capture could be expanded beyond 'one building to rule them all'. As it happens we have had some of our own and there is a very strong possibility (in fact it is in the current design but was left out of the blog because some complications I might have to cover in a different post) that in order for the hall to reach a 'capturable state' the attackers must first reduce the TOTAL DI of a settlement by a certain amount.
Tying it to total DI instead of control points would allow both settlement and defenders much greater freedom to decide how they both build and defend their settlements. Attackers will likely head for the 'heart' of the town - the area the settlement has focused their development on - for (potentially) the most efficient use of manpower in reducing DI. Conversely, these are the very locations that a settlement would be keen to defend.
It adds a nice hint of flavour to where the 'real power' lies in a settlement right the way through warfare. Granted, there may end up being some slightly odd corner cases, like where a settlement has the most awesome theatre in all Golarion so preventing them putting on plays is enough to break the back of the town, but I think these can be quite nicely fluffed into the conflict. If you were to destroy London's west end, for example, the financial and social impact would very possibly be enough to unseat the mayor.
In any case this mechanic is currently pending. It is in discussion, and has an outline design, but there are some really complex issues around it that I'm not quite ready to go into just yet. At least not until I have decent answers for the rush of questions that would follow... I have only one pair of arms (sadly)!
I'll be back later to address a few more issues. Great insights guys I really enjoy getting your take on this stuff. Apologies that I dont get answers for everything but there is some stuff touched on here that we are not quite ready to reveal, is still in flux, or we think will be answered by upcoming blog posts.
Aww, fanks Jim :)
EDIT :: And 'fanks' everyone! I will endeavour to be as useful as I can to you all.
Another kobold? The boards are replacing me! This will not stand.
In seriousness, welcome aboard, Tork!