Goblin Squad Member
|
Another kobold? The boards are replacing me! This will not stand.You know the first few of Tork's posts I assumed it was you because of the avatar. Tork sounds pretty funny with your voice.
Well, the voice I imagine for you when I read your posts.
Since Tork emoted some reptilian cackles, I'm definitely imagining similar voices when I read comments from Tork and Kobold Cleaver.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since Tork emoted some reptilian cackles, I'm definitely imagining similar voices when I read comments from Tork and Kobold Cleaver.Another kobold? The boards are replacing me! This will not stand.You know the first few of Tork's posts I assumed it was you because of the avatar. Tork sounds pretty funny with your voice.
Well, the voice I imagine for you when I read your posts.
Hilarious, isn't it? I confess I've done that to a few others as well. ZenPagan, for example, sounds startlingly like Professor Snape in the Harry Potter movies.
@Being funny you should say that :) Next time you drop onto the pax ts I will hop on so you can check
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Discussion thread for new blog entry Goblinworks Blog: You Can Live in Grace and Comfort.
Very excited to see the progress. Welcome aboard Tork.
I know there can be some slow downs but that happens in software development specially when dealing with feature sets which you can estimate but that do not always cooperate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tharkune
To attack a settlement you will need to be at war (or prepared to take huge alignement and reputation hits possibly). This means that it while you may be the aggressor currently there is nothing to stop us coming over and kicking over your sandcastle.
Bear in mind as well the much more important metagame, a settlement constantly warring with neighbours is unlikely to be winning many friends amongst the other settlements. This may manifest in losing out on potential trade all the way to counter attacks from other settlements forming an ad hoc alliance
Thanks. That helps. There is obvious incentive for the attacker (taking over the selttlement) with some potential dowsides (repuation hits).= but for the defender, besides protecting what they have, do they get any boosts or compensation for a successful defense. I would assume it would take some resources to rebuild structures etc. destoryed during the seige.
not as far as I know. However there will be intangibles from a successful defence in terms of people may be deterred from attacking you in the future. Attracting more companies to your settlement that have seen you can protect yourself
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... but for the defender, besides protecting what they have, do they get any boosts or compensation for a successful defense?
I'm not sure there should be any tangible benefits. Most certainly, it should never be desirable to be attacked.
As for intangible benefits, there's the cachet of having beaten back another army, which will probably translate into greater respect from others.
One thing that might be nice yet confers absolutely no in game benefits is when a war is declared and a winner is determined they get a facsimile of the defeated sides banner to hang up as a trophy in their settlement (assuming of course settlement banner designs are in game)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Welcome Tork! Good luck and god speed...
I have several questions that mostly just bring up more questions and may have been answered before then but I have not had the time to read all the posts for all the dev logs.
That said here goes….
Why are the smithy and stables so far apart....?
Will the Settlement Layout be something that can be customized based on when and where things are built, or will all settlements but the same cookie cutter smithy goes right here in every settlement or worse every hex. I lot depends on that question… Same question about walls and tower placement, height? If a settlement hex has a terrain feature that might allow for a force to approach or stage closer then I might want to mitigate that with not only patrols but also that corner of the fort might have a slightly higher tower to observe that area on a regular basis.
There goes the neighborhood...
The DI make great sense it has a cap relative to the size of the PVP window. You would necessarily put the PVPW as small as possible and when you hit your DI ceiling you are forced to choose stay at this size or increase the PVPW to allow for more growth. Which leads me to the question, will each DI have individual caps? Will there be a cap that is meet as the total of all DIs
a total that you arrive at depending on how you customized the settlement?
That would make early development just as important as later additions.
The Flag alone seems to have people in an uproar, and GrumpyMel makes some good points about control (VP) points. I personally like the idea of both if you don’t control the gate, the market, the temple and the square (all just examples) it is not possible take over the settlement (to start the flag timer). The larger the settlement the more control points it has.
If the flag is in place with the timer running and the defenders retake the temple the flag timer stops or resets. It is realistic that is you have a defenders opposing force dug in to any one control point it is not possible to take over the settlement. More importantly that would prevent the quick one two punch from a small force. That brings up the possibility of a defender digging in and waiting out the attackers but if they have not stock piled food and water in that location they can only last so many (game) days in their hole. So to speak. Yes I know clerics can summon food and water.
Yonk!!
Oh nobody has really brought up the fact that attacking a settlement could be about an desirable outlining hex. So here I go...
Ok, we just took over a settlement because the original inhabitants claimed two hexes that we just have to have for the fishing hole, or gold, or lets say a dilithium mine. While in control of the conquered settlement would the original mine have to removed so it could be claimed at part of our own settlement? Lets face it I don’t want and cannot defend this settlement and my own at the same time. On top of it all someone destroyed the temple, the smithy, and the gate repairs alone would take away from building up my own settlement. Would abandoning the conquered settlement allowing it to be reclaimed lose us that new mine? Would the defenders returning realize recouped DI or are they starting from scratch? Would it be easier, faster, smarter to start a new settlement in an entirely different location?
Hey that is my Home...
Assuming we are not talking about my next door neighbor taking 3 or 4 of the settlement hexes and abandoning the town.
I think I would like to see a standard where would be conquers rebuilding destroyed building, walls, requires say X*4, but the same buildings rebuild by the original setters would require only X*3 of materials, time and labor? Maybe only original settlers have the ability to harvest stone, lumber etc from the ruins for reuse? I am looking for some metric that makes it a harder decision to abandon your original settlement sight for a new one. You know beside the fact that its where my ancestors are buried.
Well thats the last of them...
Defeating an attacking force would leave there bodies all about your town no? I say we check their pockets. I know don't bring your whole wad to war but they are not going to come naked. You can only soul bind so many items.
Perhaps when war is declared soul binding of items is reduced. I don't know how that would flesh out would it just be the attackers, the defenders after all are attempting to protect everything they own vs. someone with nothing to lose, not even reputation in a legally declared war.
Aggressors should face some repercussions to a failed attack, just in game mind you. I would not want anybodies thumbs.
The banner of the defeated... Love that idea but what happens next time the same company is defeated?
Ok this is out of control already, I am not sure how they are going to finish the game and read all of this debate at the time time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite a few interesting ideas in there, Vwoom. I especially liked the idea that a nearly destroyed settlement's repairs should go faster and use less material to repair than they did to build. Perhaps an invader destroys only enough to drop the development index, and the destruction of buildings is not always 100%. Consequently they would often have only to be repaired.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Just as an aside : While Harad (or Mr Navar's) example above is potentially a valid way to take a settlement, also remember that...
a) there are reputation implications to attacks outside war-time
b) a town has town-guards, so even if they try not to kill players the attackers will find it very hard to complete their mission,
c) when assassinations or sabotage start happening the settlement is very likely to react by increasing their watchfulness, defending the hall, and calling their allies
d) a small group of bandits would have very little chance of holding the settlement once they had captured it
e) as for defender reputation hits in this scenario - this hasn't been covered yet (sorry) but there are a couple of ways defenders can legitimize defense
Tork, thanks, but never "Mr", maybe "Brother" if I select that Add-on.
In regards to b), if PvP is the only time attacks have a reasonable chance of success "since NPC guards will be much weaker", does war alter the PvP window for the settlement? I seem to remember, but can not find, a reference about an attack outside a PvP window being repelled by the NPC guards if the settlement members supported them, but I think I am not remembering correctly.With respect to c), IIRC the Japanese made a serious blunder in timing when they didn't deliver their war declaration until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Timing is everything. I would imagine that any sabotage/assassinations would be timed to be most effective if they occurred immediately after the declaration of war. It remains to be seen just how fast a settlement can move to a war footing.
The question raised (for me) in d) is "Who can actually issue a Declaration of War?" As I read the blogs (my reading may be in error), declaring war is like an individual setting a long term PvP flag (like Outlaw or Enforcer) in that engagement of conflict does not require "consent" (as has been discussed elsewhere). It is clear that settlements and kingdoms can declare war, but what about chartered companies? They have charters just as settlements and kingdoms do. Can a group of chartered companies also create a charter, such as in a trading cartel? Could that cartel declare war (essentially a trader war with extreme prodigious)?
With regard to chartered companies being kicked out when a settlement is defeated:
Chartered Companies are companies in their own right. Their settlement allegiance is a choice they (and the settlement) make together. Therefore, if their settlement collapses, kicks them out, or no longer meets their needs, their company is not disbanded - they simply break their charter and wander off elsewhere.This seems to mean that the company will retain some sort of structure after the charter is broken, placing them in a state similar to when they were first chartered. Does this also mean that after a company is initially chartered it can exist without a settlement if the settlement sponsorship is broken?
The charter sets forth the name the company will use, and its mission statement; these will become public information if the party is successful at forming a chartered company. If the vote for the charter is unanimous, the party enters an intermediate status; they have 24 hours to find a sponsor for their party before it becomes permanent.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
FYI, the information from Put It in Writing has been implied to be obsolete, with further details pending. The details subject to change probably include changes to who it is that charters a company and what the difference is between a group of people who adventure together and a chartered company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me the critical design decision is going to be the balance between
* the time & effort needed to build a settlement
* the time & effort needed to flip/raze a settlement
If something takes months or even years to build but could be torn down in a matter of hours (by using the most efficient means available), this is going to heavily impact on what kind of social structures we are likely to see.
Personally I would prefer to see settlement sacking as a long and resource consuming process to give smaller independent settlements a fighting chance. Things could get boring if a couple of major alliances would be dominating everything.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Phew! Ok - so apologies for cherry picking a little... there are some questions here that will certainly be answered in subsequent blogs. The business of chartering a company and their relationships with settlements is going to have to be its own entity to do it justice, to be honest.
Likewise, the business of declaring war (costs (spoiler: there is one!), rewards, punishments, and indeed 'win' conditions for both attackers and defender), and rebuilding after conflict - basically WAR - will need to be its own post. I dont mean to sound evasive on those issues, I just dont want to a) infringe on topics we will cover in some depth later on or b) let slip any of the details which are still in flux (of which there are many!)
Settlement layout is actually in flux at the moment too. The design and art departments have been hashing things out with construction paper to get a good sense of how settlements will look in different geography, layouts, and construction approaches. When it comes to an up date on that stuff we might even have some cool mock-ups to share!
I like where Vwooma and GrumpyMel were going with control points but there is a slightly tricky point of ownership/control. Dont forget that a settlement needs to remain in the hands of its current owners until the day is lost. If other parties start to 'take control' of small pockets it starts to add a lot of muddyness. I think that we may have achieved a similar effect with the business of DI loss, since if attackers take out a structure that grants significant DI it will be up to the defenders to either rush over and repair that structure (and defend those doing the repairing), or go on without that DI and trust they still have the skill and numbers to fend off their invaders. Am I making sense with that?
One two quick clarifications: Individuals are able to have settlement membership, yeh. You dont have to be in a company to join.
Oh also: I pride myself on sounding and looking like a kobold, but dont forget to add a British accent to the raspy little squeaks you are hearing in your head.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Settlement layout is actually in flux at the moment too. The design and art departments have been hashing things out with construction paper to get a good sense of how settlements will look in different geography, layouts, and construction approaches. When it comes to an up date on that stuff we might even have some cool mock-ups to share!
Pics or it isn't happening?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh also: I pride myself on sounding and looking like a kobold, but don't forget to add a British accent to the raspy little squeaks you are hearing in your head.Basil Rathbone on helium?
Which sounds like this.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Which sounds like this.Oh also: I pride myself on sounding and looking like a kobold, but don't forget to add a British accent to the raspy little squeaks you are hearing in your head.Basil Rathbone on helium?
'Mayzinz.
The likeness is UNCANNY.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip- Settlement layout is actually in flux at the moment too. The design and art departments have been hashing things out with construction paper to get a good sense of how settlements will look in different geography, layouts, and construction approaches. When it comes to an up date on that stuff we might even have some cool mock-ups to share!
I like where Vwooma and GrumpyMel were going with control points but there is a slightly tricky point of ownership/control. Dont forget that a settlement needs to remain in the hands of its current owners until the day is lost. If other parties start to 'take control' of small pockets it starts to add a lot of muddyness. I think that we may have achieved a similar effect with the business of DI loss, since if attackers take out a structure that grants significant DI it will be up to the defenders to either rush over and repair that structure (and defend those doing the repairing), or go on without that DI and trust they still have the skill and numbers to fend off their invaders. Am I making sense with that?
Settlement layout sounds extraordinarily awesome.
Combining settlement layout with the idea of "control points", if LAYOUT is highly flexible and their are building/planning options, then you could almost create tactical control points without actual a formal game system to say "point 1 of 10 is now under Attacker or Defender Control"? Maybe the way to ensure Settlements are not a warren of trenches, is a trade-off in the efficiency of the running of the settlement or otherwise the rules of who owns buildings and how and where and in what relation they can be in spacial arrangement or how augmented with walls and gates and so on?
One two quick clarifications: Individuals are able to have settlement membership, yeh. You dont have to be in a company to join.
I think that sounds like quite a big deal especially for the more Lawless (chaotic) inclined players?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Phew! Ok - so apologies for cherry picking a little... there are some questions here that will certainly be answered in subsequent blogs. The business of chartering a company and their relationships with settlements is going to have to be its own entity to do it justice, to be honest.
Likewise, the business of declaring war (costs (spoiler: there is one!), rewards, punishments, and indeed 'win' conditions for both attackers and defender), and rebuilding after conflict - basically WAR - will need to be its own post. I dont mean to sound evasive on those issues, I just dont want to a) infringe on topics we will cover in some depth later on or b) let slip any of the details which are still in flux (of which there are many!)
Settlement layout is actually in flux at the moment too. The design and art departments have been hashing things out with construction paper to get a good sense of how settlements will look in different geography, layouts, and construction approaches. When it comes to an up date on that stuff we might even have some cool mock-ups to share!
I like where Vwooma and GrumpyMel were going with control points but there is a slightly tricky point of ownership/control. Dont forget that a settlement needs to remain in the hands of its current owners until the day is lost. If other parties start to 'take control' of small pockets it starts to add a lot of muddyness. I think that we may have achieved a similar effect with the business of DI loss, since if attackers take out a structure that grants significant DI it will be up to the defenders to either rush over and repair that structure (and defend those doing the repairing), or go on without that DI and trust they still have the skill and numbers to fend off their invaders. Am I making sense with that?
One two quick clarifications: Individuals are able to have settlement membership, yeh. You dont have to be in a company to join.
Oh also: I pride myself on sounding and looking like a kobold, but dont forget to add a British accent to the...
Understood. As players we'll tend to ask for the "kitchen sink" in terms of thing we think are cool, it's understood that you can't always offer the "kitchen sink" and sometimes it doesn't make sense to do so.
The mechanic of not opening up the hall for capture until a certain DI threshold is met and using DI to represent loss of control of a settlement could totaly work. Only thing I would worry about a bit is you guys making sure to only have things effect DI which pretty much make sense in terms of making a settlement vulnerable to capture.
For example....not being able to afford to pay ones (NPC) guards or having the (PC) "Captain of the Guards" (If that's one of the leadership positions you guys impliment for settlements) assasinated probably has a big effect on making a settlement vulnerable...... lacking an Art Exhibition Hall, probably not so much.
Maybe the DI's could be weighted on how they effect the possibility of capture with security being given more emphasis then culture for example?
Also, you may want to think about the actual "Hall Capture" mechanism a bit. The "1 guy doing an action uninterrupted for x seconds" seems like it might be a bit gamey/quirky/simplistic. I've seen some FPS games use what I think are better capture mechanics. Usualy it's something like each active defender in the area pushes a capture meter 1 tick toward the defenders side, each active attacker in the area pushes the capture meter one tic toward the attackers side. Maybe with a max number of points per tick for either side. If the meter ever gets all the way to the attackers side, it means victory. IMO that is a little better in representing what controling an area really means. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, you may want to think about the actual "Hall Capture" mechanism a bit. The "1 guy doing an action uninterrupted for x seconds" seems like it might be a bit gamey/quirky/simplistic. I've seen some FPS games use what I think are better capture mechanics. Usualy it's something like each active defender in the area pushes a capture meter 1 tick toward the defenders side, each active attacker in the area pushes the capture meter one tic toward the attackers side.
Yeah, this seems like a better mechanic to me, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KarlBob,
I agree that any in-game capture mechanic is going to seem arbitrary to a certain degree. But to my mind, that degree is on a scale. If we can find a mechanism that feels like it is on the lower end of that scale but still results in a workable game mechanic...that's a plus in my book.
@All,
Some thoughts....
- On the assasination thing. Does that mean the best defence for a settlement's DI is to keep leaders logged off in time of War? Seems a bit of an exploit to me.
- One would assume that an assasination of a settlements leaders or sabotage of it's buildings AUTOMATICALY made the person doing it a CRIMINAL within that settlement, so there shouldn't be any negative implication in terms of alignment for going after them once the act was commited.
- I would suggest that settlements NOT be capturable outside a declared State of War. I'd also suggest that there be a timer between the declaration and the State coming into effect. You can hose a settlements DI outside of that all you want...but the actual capture should only be applicable during War. That helps deal with the issue of it being a game and players being able to feel like they can still play without needing to be logged in 24/7/365. Furthermore, it does mirror reality a bit. Within any society there are accepted rules for behavior...even in conflicts...and there tend to be pretty serious ramifications for groups that violate said rules. Remember the player groups represent fairly small powers within the wider world.....even an Evil human kingdom (especialy LE) isn't going to want to be viewed in the same light as a bunch of maurading orcs....who tend to be enemies of ALL civilzed societies. YMMV. (At the VERY LEAST. There should be a VERY SERIOUS reputation hit for not waiting for an official declaration to take place.)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Also, you may want to think about the actual "Hall Capture" mechanism a bit. The "1 guy doing an action uninterrupted for x seconds" seems like it might be a bit gamey/quirky/simplistic. I've seen some FPS games use what I think are better capture mechanics. Usualy it's something like each active defender in the area pushes a capture meter 1 tick toward the defenders side, each active attacker in the area pushes the capture meter one tic toward the attackers side.Yeah, this seems like a better mechanic to me, too.
Consider the variant where a single living defender in the zone prevents all progress towards the capture, which has to start again after the defender is eliminated.
I'm cautious against any mechanic that allows for the victory condition to be met without actually winning the battle. (Reference the last battle of Dragon Army in Ender's Game.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel,
Agreed. At times, I've just had a feeling that people were advocating for realism beyond what we can expect in an MMO.
I like the capture meter idea. Less arbitrary than Plant the Flag, but technically less challenging than street-level capture and control mapping of a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consider the variant where a single living defender in the zone prevents all progress towards the capture, which has to start again after the defender is eliminated.
There would have to be the possibility of the attackers exerting enough control to keep defenders from entering and resetting the timer.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Consider the variant where a single living defender in the zone prevents all progress towards the capture, which has to start again after the defender is eliminated.There would have to be the possibility of the attackers exerting enough control to keep defenders from entering and resetting the timer.
Yeah, that's the system described in the blog: Have someone in the area for a consecutive minute while no defenders are in the area.
I specifically think that "We kept an average of 21 people alive in the zone for a minute while you averaged 20, therefore we win." is not a good summary of a battle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the presence of even one defender in the control area prevents the counter from advancing, then I hope the control area is pretty small (much smaller than the settlement). One defender inside a circle centered on the flagpole in front of town hall suggests that active resistance is still ongoing. One defender holed up in a fortified closet or basement on the edge of town should not be able to prevent capture of a settlement indefinitely.
Edit: This is the mechanism Guild Wars 2 uses for capture in its PVP areas. Even when capturing the largest castle in the game, the actual control area fits inside the throne room.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There should be no two points such that one of them is within the zone which the attacker must occupy to capture, the other is within the zone that the defender may occupy to deny the capture, and line of sight does not exist between the two zones.
I.e. if you are trying to capture and being blocked, then you have line of sight to the character blocking you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, depending upon the size of a Settlement, there may be a larger number of 'Capture' Points.
For truly massive Settlements, we might be looking at a sector-by-sector street-battle that could take several days. Players log in, manage to drop a wall and take over a 'sector' of a Settlement and expend resources to move their NPC Mercenaries into the Sector, creating friendly combatant NPCs within the Sector that can help them expand into other Sectors, or can slow down the Defenders while they are Offline.
Alternatively, the 'fall' of a Sector within a Settlement might very well remove some benefits from the Defenders and apply benefits of the same nature to the Attackers. Or the 'fall' of a sector might instead reward the Attackers with immediate material resources, such as gold, finished goods and crafting items that they can use to replenish their own resources and pay for mercenaries.
Mind you, we're talking about HUGE Settlements if we go for the 'Sectors' scenario. Like, Neverwinter sized here, with whole sections walled off from each other, each 'sector' is a district specialising in specific crafting or professions.
I could fully see an Invading Force aiming for not the weakest area, but the 'richest' area, purely to gain that wealth as quickly as possible so as to deny it to the defenders, while the Mercenary NPCs are camped at the 'weakest' area to keep the Defenders guessing which area will be hit first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Curious how destructable Buildings will be? If they are indestructable that forms part of the "street fighting/battles" of a breach into a settlement. Likewise their destruction would be a scorched earth policy if defeat is looming. Also the extra graphical assets for destroyed versions of buildings would be fairly heavy-going also?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Half-Orc: What you are describing is practically a game unto itself. As cool as it is, I really hope it doesn't get implemented in PFO. I highly doubt it would be, since the kind of city sizes you are talking about won't be possible in PFO, I think. Settlements will never grow to cover their whole hex, otherwise people might be able to cut off whole regions of the map.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, but we're talking two or three years required to build something like that, if we're talking the EvE method. You'd need to create the infrastructure first to support such a massive settlement for it to last without players having to devote all their time to slavish maintenance.
Also, The Hexes themselves are huge, something like 12 miles across, I believe? A Settlement a Mile wide isn't so big in comparisson, and depending upon how many settlements can be built within a Hex, it might even end up with two or more settlements growing 'together' into a single sprawling monstrosity with three 'capture' points.
Which would be freaking awesome for World PvP if there were three hostile Chapters/Guilds involved who each captured one of the three capture points, and the city slowly got ground down to rubble by the conflict.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, The Hexes themselves are huge, something like 12 miles across, I believe? A Settlement a Mile wide isn't so big in comparisson, and depending upon how many settlements can be built within a Hex, it might even end up with two or more settlements growing 'together' into a single sprawling monstrosity with three 'capture' points.
Which would be freaking awesome for World PvP if there were three hostile Chapters/Guilds involved who each captured one of the three capture points, and the city slowly got ground down to rubble by the conflict.
You're confusing hexes with the entire map. The entire map is 11x12 miles, if memory serves.
Previously our plan was to target 200+ hexes for the Crusader Road area, each about a little larger than a mile across with a settlement at the center of each. After some mucking around with maps and technical issues, we realized this plan would mean that war between settlements had to be an all-or-nothing affair; the only thing you could do to another settlement was sack it. There was no real sense of fighting for territory since the only territory you controlled was the hex around your settlement, and the only way to lose territory was to lose your settlement. We wanted settlement loss to be the climax of a massive struggle, not the only step, so we have decided to subdivide our previous "big" hexes into seven smaller hexes each, creating more discrete units of territory to fight over.
Before anyone panics, the total size of the game is not changing; if anything it may get bigger, since there are now a lot more hexes. Currently our hex-size experiments are falling into the range of 400 to 1000 meters across per new, smaller hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is one comfort for fans of the sector conquest approach: Even if it doesn't apply to a city, that's a very likely way for a kingdom or alliance to fall. Target the city that builds most of your opponent's war machines first, or head straight to the richest city? Cut the kingdom in half, or chip cities away from the edges to the center?
With an alliance, of course, there's always the third option: Convince someone to turn on their allies.