Goblin Squad Member
|
I've greatly enjoyed reading this thread and would like to ask for help in understanding how caravans might operate in PFO.
I have no experience with MMOs but came to PFO through the second Kickstarter after being referred by someone in the online Greyhawk community, Canonfire!. I now live far away from my old RPG friends and am hoping that PFO may enable me to enjoy RPing in ways redolent of PNP roleplaying.
Hence, I have been imagining creating nomadic or semi-nomadic Varisian characters, and I am hoping that posters might share links to relevant past discussions of the Regional Trait Pack, caravanning, etc., or simply comment on how / whether my notion of nomadic or semi-nomadic Varisian characters (perhaps including Szcarni), might relate to what the PFO community has already been discussing, particularly the latest blog post.
In a nutshell we really don't know more than just a bit. We will speculate to be sure and theorize, but understand that we do not yet know.
We do know, if I correctly recall, that Neutral aligned may flag themselves open to PvP as 'Travellers' and gain a speed/efficiency boost when they transport goods. By flagging yourself open for PvP I believe that just means you are willing to take the chance that you can make it to town before someone else flagged for PvP nails you for the sake of the boost to your potential profit.
Thus, it is a way to generate content as you race tensely for your market while the robbers flail about looking for you. Or something like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Harad,I like the concept, but I fear for a world filled with a glut of "special" named items.
I think it would be cool if such items were placed in the world by GW. This would limit how many of these items were present in the world and make certain it's "flavor" was in keeping with PFO lore (no swords of "Awsome Wanging"...sorry Pagan)
To keep the item "in play" in the world, I would flesh out your list of "restrictions" this way:
1. These items cannot be threaded.
2. These items, given their limited number, might (notice I said might...I know how much Ryan dislikes this option) remain on the ground once the corpse disappears and all unclaimed items are destroyed. Having it be lying there in the field to be claimed by a hapless passerby seems great to me. If limited, so as not to stress out the server, this might be an easier way for the server to keep track of it than having to place it somewhere else (like a nearby escalation or dungeon).
3. These items cannot be placed in storage or locked down in a building. Like too many rare items in other games, unique items often end up stored in collectors' bank vaults.
4. To gain the abilities of the item, it must be equipped (so it does you no good to stash it away on an alt that's always kept logged off so you don't lose it). I was originally going to say that it should have no actual power, but then there's no incentive as the owner to risk having it out in the world, and an alt could be used as "storage".These items would function similar to artifacts ...
My thinking was not to create (necessarily) artifact level items. I was thinking of specific items that have an RP, or personal lore, value to the character in such a way as to be persistent (i.e., not destroyed) after looting. We have an example of semi-unique items in the Daily Deals. These are limited edition items with some PFO lore behind them. My speculation was to take this a few steps farther in having an "heirloom" item that would not be lost in destruction of items remaining after looting. These should be very limited, possibly such that they have to be proposed by a player and (possibly) voted into play by crowdforging. Possibly like an RPG Superstar contest.
Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but don't the non-threaded items left after looting have a timer to allow the re-spawned character a chance to make it back to the body to claim them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont think people should be able to produce multiple unique items.
I am fine with there being only one of an item on the server. Nothing wrong with that. But there should not be bunches of those items. perhaps one each class archtypes.
Also perhaps a settlement and kingdom can each produce one unique item that gets destroyed if the settlement/kingdom gets taken out. So if you have the unique shield of another kingdom thats like stealing the mascot of your rival team.
I do think that there need to be some unique skins. So Player b is the only person that can make things with that skin. That player can make as many as they want, but they are the only one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but don't the non-threaded items left after looting have a timer to allow the re-spawned character a chance to make it back to the body to claim them?
That is correct. Threaded Items are never looted, but Non-Threaded Items are, AT THIS STAGE, still recoverable if you can return to your body within an as-yet undisclosed amount of time.
Think of it like looting yourself ...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To keep the item "in play" in the world, I would flesh out your list of "restrictions" this way:1. These items cannot be threaded.
2. These items, given their limited number, might (notice I said might...I know how much Ryan dislikes this option) remain on the ground once the corpse disappears and all unclaimed items are destroyed. Having it be lying there in the field to be claimed by a hapless passerby seems great to me. If limited, so as not to stress out the server, this might be an easier way for the server to keep track of it than having to place it somewhere else (like a nearby escalation or dungeon).
3. These items cannot be placed in storage or locked down in a building. Like too many rare items in other games, unique items often end up stored in collectors' bank vaults.
4. To gain the abilities of the item, it must be equipped (so it does you no good to stash it away on an alt that's always kept logged off so you don't lose it). I was originally going to say that it should have no actual power, but then there's no incentive as the owner to risk having it out in the world, and an alt could be used as "storage".
To further make sure these items are kept in play, they could have a "use it or lose it" mechanic, reflecting that these special items have either a 'will of their own' or a certain 'destiny' out of control of players.
The one ring appears to have a destiny/will of its own that is separate from its owners, many magical items in the BG series reflect this as well in their item descriptions, they get lost and then "seek" a new owner suitable to their needs.
To reflect this in a meaningful way, it could be the items need to be equipped in PvP combat once in a while or they will leave their owner (mysteriously get displaced, by freak accident or just inexplicably), effectively being removed from the game and returned to loot tables.
Some items could have more specific lose criterion, e.g. 'needs to be used by a champion and required to kill at least one evil aligned player each week'.
This could be a way that personal artifacts work, items that don't affect settlements' DI but exist for individual players' sake.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exercise for the readers: Why is is a terrible idea?There should be one per settlement hex.
Because you're making a bunch of unique items instead of items that many players will have access to.
It's too much content for too extreme of a minority.
While it's nice to have things in the game that are hard to access so that people always have goals to strive for... this idea is taking it to it's highest extreme, and diverting too much attention away from content everyone can enjoy.
Bludd was discussing items that SETTLEMENTS would possess, that would provide bonuses to the SETTLEMENT, not individual players.
So by definition, as settlements comprise many players, many players would benefit from what he is proposing.
AFAIK, GW already envisions such types of items via the Artifacts found via NPC quests/escalations.
Although apparently those would not be 'unique' but open to any Settlement that qualifies,
if the same Artifact is made available by the same NPC/Monster quest/escalation being completed at a later point.
Just going on what GW previous said about Artifacts,
it hardly sounds like many Settlements would have the same Artifacts even if that is technically possible,
and certainly Artifacts would not be seeing universal usage/application, so what he is proposing is not really that different there.
I would be OK with those Artifacts being 'unique' in the game though, as the functional difference isn't THAT huge,
and it adds a bit character to the game to possess specific unique Artifacts.
(although they could be taken or your settlement conquered, of course... which just means more players WILL benefit from them)
There could also be NPC faction/Monster escalation Artifacts that yield a recipe or ingredient that requires further crafting,
and in fact requires an extra specially high skill in crafting...
That changes the flavor of the Artifact a bit, and also establishes a more interesting in-game dynamic,
perhaps nobody in the game has that skill level when it is found, but the recipe is still worth hanging onto until it can be used,
and if/when there IS somebody who can craft it, they may not be in your settlement, so there could be negotiation to craft it.
This also gives a special, world-changing role to the highest peaks of crafting, which is nice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exercise for the readers: Why is is a terrible idea?There should be one per settlement hex.
I've tried to follow the suggestion of unique items and I have to say I'm still dumbfounded as to how they integrate into the rest of the PFO ie the game is supposed to be a network of interactions, so why pluck something alien and stick it in? Of course I'm sure some good reasons can be found.
Eg
1. McGuffin
2. The old powers of the Maiar are exceptional hence Sauron's Rings of Power are game-changers in the wars of Middle Earth which echo down the ages between The Valar and Melkor.
3. Power corrupts in the hands (literally) of the greedy.
4. So the war between races which echoes down from the supernatural powers has a few anomolies in the sources of power currently available: Namely they are devolved powers hence Sauron's Ring if found grants his powers back and if destroyed breaks him and the 3 are laid low.
I presume the answer to the above question might be that item creation and the quality of such is an inter-dependent thing and the more complexity of players and settlements involved potentially the better quality, rarer and more costly and potentially more desirable the item is?
Whereas just having a few special items to covet is much more individualistic and does not fit in with the above. Possibly a few other reasons eg settlement claiming wars to grab said items only which is counter-productive to building up settlements via the above complex inter-operations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exercise for the readers: Why is this a terrible idea?There should be one per settlement hex.
Bludd was discussing items that SETTLEMENTS would possess, that would provide bonuses to the SETTLEMENT, not individual players.
So by definition, as settlements comprise many players, many players would benefit from what he is proposing. AFAIK, GW already envisions such types of items via the Artifacts found via NPC quests/escalations.
Ryan, perhaps you misunderstood my idea? Quandary explains it well, and more briefly then I did.
The items of unique power, may grant power to settlements, not to individuals. Their powers could buff the various DI indexes, but they will not stack.
A settlement will want to control at least one of each, but wont need to have more than one if their powers don't stack. However, they might want them all, in order to deny other settlements their power.
What my suggestion would do is create an added layer of competition between all settlements, each wanting to posses at least one of these items of power.
@Ryan,
I'm guessing that you feel that if there are too few of these items, players will feel that it is unfair that they do not have one. If there are too many, then the items will be devalued.
Remember what destroyed Star Wars Galaxies! It wasn't CU, it was much earlier than that. It was when SOE gave into the whiners and gave everyone a "Path to Jedi". Lesson: Let the whiners whine, they will about one thing or another anyway.
If your concern is too many, well that is in your control. GW can control the amount of these powerful items by not putting them in the hands of the crafters, but by seeding them into the game world, how and when GW chooses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is much to be said for not giving out presents when nagged to do so. The desire to climb that next hurdle is what drives any RPG, whether the hurdle be a Feat, skill level or acquisition of an item.
However, it should be possible to get those goodies, otherwise there is no point in striving for them.
I'm in two minds about unique items, though. It would be completely in keeping with myth and legends - the sword given by the gods rather than one made by human hand - but they can't be so powerful as to be overpowered in game terms.
Perhaps the answer is to make the item as powerful as a PC-made item (the equivalent of +5 sword, for example) but add in a unique, power that cannot be duplicated by PCs. Not a power that directly benefits the character, but one that steps outside the character and benefits in a meta-game capacity.
A sword that increases the healing capacity of a temple or settlement, a magic cup that speeds up building/crafting time, or a crown that increases the quality of farmland in the immediate area. They would be eagerly sought, but would only be of benefit to large settlements, so a individual holding them would be somewhat wasting the potential.
I know that the idea of the game is to let PCs do it all, but part of the fun of that is to have items that break those 'rules' seen as truly amazing. A gift from the gods should not be duplicated by PCs.
To avoid one settlement hoarding several such items, have the god they originated from jealously decree that no other god's toys shall be worshipped in that settlement if the item is to function.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm very community minded, but at the same time, I'm very tired of the player argument that just because they pay their subscription, they should have everything possible in the game made available to them. Rare items aren't rare because everyone has one.
"But why can't I have one?" Because you didn't find it first.
More selfish than demanding that you should be provided a rare item just because you're you, is demanding that it should not be in the game at all if you can't have one.
In other games, I've seen server wide announcements when a player is the first to complete a deed, craft a special item, gain a certain title, etc. They were the first. Everyone had a chance to be first, but only that one person accomplished it. The game designers aren't going to offer the privilege over again just because someone else didn't get it first, no matter how bad they wanted it.
Yes, in an MMORPG we get to live lives that we would never get to live in real life (do fantastic things, be legendary characters, etc.), but unless you're designing the MMO, you're not going to get to do, or be, or have everything. To me, just knowing those items exist is cool, let alone seeing one, being in a settlement or group where it's located, or maybe - just maybe - finding it first, or as it changes hands by death, have it fall into your lap. That's the stuff worthy of a story.
< end pet peeve rant >
Harad,
I like your suggestion a lot. Provide a nonmagical, indestructible, but uniquely named item, likely with some lore already attached when it enters the game would be great fun. Role-players especially will run with it from there. The lore players will add to it after it enters the game will be equally rich, if not more so, than what it comes in with. For instance, make one for each game-supported deity and watch those who role-play the devout followers (and enemies) of that deity create the unfolding history of the item by their interactions - player made quests, pilgrimages, perhaps whole wars. Hey, it would give Nihimon's group something to do on the side...recording all the player generated history of these holy relics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because you're making a bunch of unique items instead of items that many players will have access to. It's too much content for too extreme of a minority. While it's nice to have things in the game that are hard to access so that people always have goals to strive for... this idea is taking it to it's highest extreme, and diverting too much attention away from content everyone can enjoy.Exercise for the readers: Why is is a terrible idea?There should be one per settlement hex.
I'll echo this and add to it.
If the unique items have significant power, they will tend to accumulate. Many settlements will have none, a few settlements will have many uniques. Which means the effort to design these items has gone to support the gameplay of a very small minority of players.
Assuming the items can be moved, they can be sold. Putting very rare items into an MMO will result in them having value much larger than their use in the game. And people being people, the items will quickly move from being RP opportunities to being meta-gamed. The items will be bought and sold for game coin or real currency; a lottery payout for those that have the uniques, but nothing for the rest of the players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It could be argued that the same will result from "escalation artifacts". Heck, powerful settlements will even hoard every one of those (even to the point of redundant multiple copies) that they can wrest from the weaker, just to deny another from possessing such.
This is not only likely, but perhaps desired. GW Devs have said this game is about fighting for the control of settlement hexes. They have also said that they want to make large scale, settlement warfare a major facet of the game play in PFO. In time even access to high tier crafting and cornering the markets for those crafted goods will become a point of contention.
All if this is leading to one conclusion, PvP is the main interaction in PFO. Not just combat PvP, but all forms of PvP. There is even social based PvP argued in this thread, the prestige of "I did it first" is a form of PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a sufficiently determined and powerful group has a chance of gaining an 'escalation artifact', the number in play is only limited by groups, their determination and the frequency of escalations. There will always be an increasing number.
On the other hand, if there are only 50 settlement hexes, there will be only 50 'settlement artifacts'. Player time and effort can never change that. Only map expansions will change that number and each expansion of the map will have a short gold rush.
Obviously, there will be group efforts in finding the settlement artifacts, but once they are found the gold rush is over. It's spending development assets for a short flurry of activity. Escalations will be a continuing series of events. They will encourage large group activity; the possibility of gaining an escalation artifact will drive cooperation and conflict. Development assets spent here will be be used again and again and again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am in favor of 'escalation artifacts'. I am in favor of conflict and even commerce (if not forbidden) around them. I have the impression that they could be possible for each fully matured escalation. There will, eventually, be hundreds of 'escalation artifacts'. It is fine if they are just for DI buffs. Not for players though.
They will require and ensure the milking of escalations, which is a bit meta, but whatever...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Urman and Bringslite,
It would appear that Ryan Dancey thinks that having the number of these artifacts bring limited to the number of settlements was a terrible idea.
Unfortunately, he did not clarify the point with any details. Instead we have been tasked to exercise "our reading skills", maybe he meant "mind reading skills"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually I got the impression that "the readers" was meant as forum readers/posters. That given what advice Ryan, and other Devs, have written or said, we were invited to think of all the things that might be negative about the proposal. Negative is the wrong word... well he wrote "terrible".
I am not even sure what he meant (exactly) about your post Bluddwolf. If it was "all" or just "part".
He is at Paizocon, I believe. Perhaps he might elaborate a little when he is done with that?
IMO, your idea is not unique, you just got noticed. ;) IMO there are good and bad points that could be argued. It really depends on who you ask and how they feel. Much like all ideas posted herein...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even if there are only as many artifacts as settlement hexes, there's nothing that says they all have to be made available at the same time. They could be something that GW seeds into the game over years. I'd rather that - so we're kept guessing and searching while doing everything else we already plan to do in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even if there are only as many artifacts as settlement hexes, there's nothing that says they all have to be made available at the same time. They could be something that GW seeds into the game over years. I'd rather that - so we're kept guessing and searching while doing everything else we already plan to do in-game.
Honestly, either way would be fine for me. I don't plan, myself to be a settlement leader.
If they are supra powerful than they should probably be very rare. If they just slightly boost one or two DIs than being numerous would not really be a terrible issue.
All we can do is speculate off of vague statements and speculate from our own speculations. That starts getting wild, but does generate interesting ideas.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suppose there were 16 "rings of power", and 16,000 players. .1% of players or fewer will have a ring of power.
How powerful should that ring be to be that rare? Should the .1% who have one all be in the top 1% of players? That makes the RoP a "win" item, which is bad game design. It's not strictly a waste of time, it's worse because it actively harms a tiny bit of the game.
Suppose then that the RoP is not significantly better than ordinary rings. Why care if you have one or not? Those rings are wasted development resources that could otherwise have been spent on pets, swimming, or sitting in chairs.
Now suppose the middle ground exists: RoPs are better than ordinary rings, but not too much better; there is reason to want them, and people can meet the fair price at which they would be sold. Nobody (rounded down) ever has one or notices that someone else has one. Again, a waste of time.
The harm done by having "I win" items is worse than their number would indicate, because they will end up in the hands of people who want them the most, which are the people who will use them to maximum effect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Suppose there were 16 "rings of power", and 16,000 players. .1% of players or fewer will have a ring of power.
How powerful should that ring be to be that rare? Should the .1% who have one all be in the top 1% of players? That makes the RoP a "win" item, which is bad game design. It's not strictly a waste of time, it's worse because it actively harms a tiny bit of the game.
Suppose then that the RoP is not significantly better than ordinary rings. Why care if you have one or not? Those rings are wasted development resources that could otherwise have been spent on pets, swimming, or sitting in chairs.
Now suppose the middle ground exists: RoPs are better than ordinary rings, but not too much better; there is reason to want them, and people can meet the fair price at which they would be sold. Nobody (rounded down) ever has one or notices that someone else has one. Again, a waste of time.
The harm done by having "I win" items is worse than their number would indicate, because they will end up in the hands of people who want them the most, which are the people who will use them to maximum effect.
Very good points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, et al. Some of what Ryan mentions briefly in a thread like this one has either been discussed in detail elsewhere, or might be established ideas of good game design. I'm pretty sure that Ryan has in the past explained that having small numbers of some items isn't good in MMOs, something along the lines of Decius' post.
Edit - here we go:
Imagine you have a million players. (this is what you imagine and not what you expect, just to be clear but MMOs DIE due to the lack of imagination on scale).
Multiply whatever percentage of the players you think CAN do something and WILL do something. Those numbers had better at least be in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of players.
Now design that system.
In an MMO, you don't build ANYTHING that a small number of people do infrequently. That's a horrible use of resources and a terrible allocation of support for your paying customers.
What you want to do is make a system that as many people as possible CAN do, and that a very big number WILL do.
That would be the value of the first "M" in MMO.
Being a unique snowflake is what you achieve by deeds and reputation, not because you got access to something of limited availability or opportunity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe an (true) "I win" ring of power could be a part of a limited dev-driven event, ie the item is lost/destroyed/returned "at the end of the day"?
If the context is right then such items as part of a storyline with a start and end, then that could work and throw a (awesome) wobbly at player expectations which I think such grand items primary purpose in a game should be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe an (true) "I win" ring of power could be a part of a limited dev-driven event, ie the item is lost/destroyed/returned "at the end of the day"?
If the context is right then such items as part of a storyline with a start and end, then that could work and throw a (awesome) wobbly at player expectations which I think such grand items primary purpose in a game should be?
I hope that someday, someone designs game engines that are much more friendly for things like "plug-n-play" events. There are some, but I mean real versatility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...someone designs game engines that are much more friendly for things like "plug-n-play" events.
In one of the threads after the announcement of Unity, didn't someone say one of the perceived benefits was ease-of-change, or something related? Perhaps Unity has the kind of flexibility you mention, and we'll see another benefit of their choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which all comes full circle. If the designers don't have time or resources to make them without taking away from what would serve more players (Decius Brutus), and Ryan has stated (somewhere) that such items aren't on his list, then it's up to players. Nothing stops us from making/finding an item (albeit one that anyone else could make/find) and attach to it some player determined importance. If a settlement/kingdom/religious group/etc., says it's important to them, it's worth protecting, stealing, etc. Again, we are the content.
Give us the world to play in and we'll make our own fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the primary engines of roleplay should be driven by the game mechanics. The further away you get from the game mechanics, the more you push the roleplay into a secluded niche that is both inaccessible and delusionary...That sounds a little bit absurd to me.
The further you get away from being mechanical the more deluded the niche? Profoundly untrue. The game is the players, especially in a sandbox game. Games are human entertainment, not machinery.
Good job of using all the words I used in a different order and context so they meant something completely different!
We will argue RP on another thread soon enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, et al. Some of what Ryan mentions briefly in a thread like this one has either been discussed in detail elsewhere, or might be established ideas of good game design. I'm pretty sure that Ryan has in the past explained that having small numbers of some items isn't good in MMOs, something along the lines of Decius' post.
Edit - here we go:
Imagine you have a million players. (this is what you imagine and not what you expect, just to be clear but MMOs DIE due to the lack of imagination on scale).
Multiply whatever percentage of the players you think CAN do something and WILL do something. Those numbers had better at least be in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of players.
Now design that system.
In an MMO, you don't build ANYTHING that a small number of people do infrequently. That's a horrible use of resources and a terrible allocation of support for your paying customers.
What you want to do is make a system that as many people as possible CAN do, and that a very big number WILL do.
That would be the value of the first "M" in MMO.
Being a unique snowflake is what you achieve by deeds and reputation, not because you got access to something of limited availability or opportunity.
I was really quite clear in my example that said items of power would be something that benefits a settlement and not an individual character. Even with that, a settlement would only gain a limted DI benefit from items that do the same buff (no stacking). But, a settlement would still desire to control all just for the purpose of denying other settlements of the same advantages.
I had also previously brought up a historical context, of when villages had build within their main hall a "cornerstone". These cornerstones were largely symbolic, but fiercely guarded and coveted by conquerors.
Perhaps the Town Hall of every settlement comes with one stone, and two empty slots. The settlement manager can set which DI that stone will buff (strength of buff to be determined through testing). If that settlement's town hall falls, the cornerstone can be looted and installed into the conqueror's town hall, now receiving two buffs.
Whatever the system is, or the power of the item is, it can be tested and controlled. But, the argument that because there will be so few that it is bad for an MMO is just the opposite of what we learned from the Star Wars Galaxies example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
I am probably "vibing" your post wrong, but here goes.
When you take only one quote, partially related, from many and use it as an "I have been wronged" argument, you are acting beneath yourself.
If Ryan does not like the idea or the way that you phrased it, well at least it is feedback. Most of us don't even get noticed. If you are angry because of his reply, try to remember that your idea was commented on.
/end-mini-rant
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will there be a limit on how many jobs a player can have pending at any one site?
Or could an enemy easily tie up your blacksmith for the next two weeks?
I hope that the settlement leaders will be able to choose who gets access to what. Myself, I would have half (or so) of the settlement's building capacity reserved for my own people, with the other half open to the public. That way we still have income from outside as well as have our own stuff built fast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd was discussing items that SETTLEMENTS would possess, that would provide bonuses to the SETTLEMENT, not individual players.
I'm aware of that, but when I think of rare items that actually added a lot to a game. I think jedi from SWG (pre-NGE), I think titans from EVE. These are things that the vast majority of the population will never have access to. And that's great because even though I've never played a jedi or flown a titan, just knowing that goal was out there, that it was possible greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the game. And titans at least are very community owned. No one player can build and protect a titan.
Was it 16 hexes that we can settle? I can't remember the exact number. Anyway that means 16 unique items. And more as the map expands. 16 items that the developers have to model, code, and balance. I would rather see things like tamed dragons. Things that are really, really, hard to get. But things that they code once, and then everyone can strive for. Not things that are all going to be held by The Seventh Veil, PAX, and The Empyrean Order. Or whatever groups actually end up being big by the time the game releases.
Those items only have to be coded once, and the people holding them will be nearly just as happy as if they had a unique item. I'm not saying the idea is 100% off. I'm saying that a good idea is being taken to it's furthest extreme.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does it even really matter? There are 4 blogs mentioning rewards from escalations that will be "artifacts" that add to settlement DIs.
There will be "artifacts" useable only to boost settlements.
They will not be unique but they will be fairly rare.
They will be fought over. "Always with the fighting!"
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Everyone is already getting a little of what they want here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
escalation/NPC faction artifact: something that lets you use given monsters/ faction NPCs as town guards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There should be one per settlement hex.Exercise for the readers: Why is is a terrible idea?
First, I should say I'm quite sure I don't see the nuances Ryan does with why this is a bad idea.
That said, my guess is that the problem with it is related to this golden oldie:
A thing you should consider before posting your ideas is "what happens in a world where tens of thousands of people can react to the idea all at once"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There should be one per settlement hex.Exercise for the readers: Why is is a terrible idea?First, I should say I'm quite sure I don't see the nuances Ryan does with why this is a bad idea.
That said, my guess is that the problem with it is related to this golden oldie:
A thing you should consider before posting your ideas is "what happens in a world where tens of thousands of people can react to the idea all at once"?
Simple, it doesnt encourage confrontation. If there a rule of one artifact by settlement They will be:
A) a augmentation of little settlement inside a player nation. (because more power)This will decrease interaction between settlement because all will know it a trick for bypass the system.
B) A battle for only the most ''powerful artifacts'' The other will be cast off and their value will decrease to a price that isn't consider a artifact, just a 'maybe good item'. If GW want to introduce a new artifact, it should be more ''powerful'' or it will be cast off and if it is. We will have the same war for item who will be more game-breaking for those who don't have a artifact.
This two effects should devaluate the immersion to pathfinder online and have a pressure by players to devlopper to have more ''powerful' artifact to counter balance the power they have. becoming just a item.
P.s don't hate me for my bad english.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm sorry, but every time someone uses 'immersion' like it exists outside of their own mental state, I rage and die a little bit inside.
I'm not going to rage on the outside, but I am going to start making passive-aggressive little responses that amount to "You're doing it wrong."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Bluddwolf hinted at the answer when he saidExercise for the readers: Why is is a terrible idea?There should be one per settlement hex.
But, a settlement would still desire to control all just for the purpose of denying other settlements of the same advantages.
If each settlement hex could only contain 1 "settlement artifact" there would be no incentive for one settlement to wage war on another settlement to secure the artifact for the first settlement.
From the blog there will be approximately 15 settlement hexes in the initial area of EE. I actually don't think that there will be 15 artifacts. If every settlement wants one and there are fewer artifacts then settlements, instant conflict to generate content. As someone has already said, there can only be 1 "first".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We know that GW has plans for there being artifacts. Will these items be rare or common? Will they be powerful or mostly symbolic? Will these items be coveted or mostly ignored?
I think these three questions have an obvious answer. So how is this any different than was was suggested here in this thread?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys.
Random idea that came to me as I sit here with a 3-day-old headache and a raging fever.
Relics. What if the Relics are what we need to 'unlock' the final stages of the Settlements?
12 Relics. 3 Fighter-type Relics, 3 Rogue-type Relics, 3 Wizard-type Relics, 3 Cleric-type Relics.
Holding 1 Relic for X amount of time will allow your Settlement to achieve the 'final stage', ie 'maxing' out your Settlement's growth, but the trick is that the Relics will focus on a specific type of Development Index.
Fighter Type Relics might augment the Settlement's defenses, offenses or training costs of Fighters.
Rogue Type Relics might augment the Settlement's wealth-per-day ratios, diplomacy with NPC factions or training costs of Rogues.
Cleric Type Relics might augment the number and efficiency of healing spells that can be cast within the Settlement's borders, affect the Undead and Outsider-type Mobs in a variety of ways, depending upon the alignment of the Settlement in question and affect the training costs of Clerics.
Wizard Type Relics might augment the number and power of spells cast within the Settlement's borders, augment specific schools of magic and affect the training costs of Wizards.
So that's 12 'Settlements' that could reach their full potential ... but wait, there's more!
Grabbing a second Relic might unlock the ability to go from Settlement ... to City.
And I don't just mean "Here, have another building." I mean "Here, go expand your settlement to three or four times it's current size."
Doubling up on Relics of the same type may expand the effects of the Relics to allied players to each and every Hex controlled by the Settlement's primary faction, or unlock new, more powerful abilities.
Grabbing a Relic of a different type may grant you the abilities of both Relics, for example a Settlement that possesses a Fighter Relic and a Rogue Relic might have bonuses to defending itself and attempting diplomacy with NPC factions, while a different Settlement might have another Fighter Relic and Rogue Relic, and have bonuses to attacking other Settlements and increasing it's wealth-per-day.
Boom. We have a reason for Settlement to seriously consider going to war with each other, and unearthing a new Relic can make a player wealthy beyond their wildest dreams ... or turn their lives into a living hell as every Charter with dreams of becoming the biggest dog in the yard sends an endless array of Assassins after them.
To me, this gives a valid reason for Settlements to accept the 'At War' tag with each other, as it offers a real mechanical advantage to sacking the other Settlement in exchange for the expenditure of resources. Suddenly, sacking the Settlement of Jinglebells becomes very, very worth-while if they have a Relic that you want, while in turn they may be eager to accept your Declaration Of War because they want your relic for themselves.