Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that in both the case of wars and feuds mutual consent wars should cost nothing, and carry no consequences or alignment loss for the participants. We do not want the game to discourage people who want to kill each other from doing so. Penalties should never be incurred for killing a willing participant of a fight. PvP flags and mutual wars / feuds help ensure that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think groups could have to take more responsibility/consequences for their members? There could be possibility with that approach.Which would lead to organisations being insular as all hell. If I am responsible for the actions of one of my company members then I will only ever recruit people I either know in real life, or have known for a long time. There are maybe ten people I trust with that kind of thing. From the looks of it the developers are looking for companies to be competing for new players, not hiding away from them on the off chance they turn out toxic.
I don't think AvenaOats was suggesting that Companies should be punished when their Members do something inappropriate. Rather, I think he was suggesting that Companies should have an incentive to kick out members who repeatedly do inappropriate things, and that players should have an incentive to be in a Company. If you replace Company with Settlement, this is already the way Ryan has described PFO working.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that in both the case of wars and feuds mutual consent wars should cost nothing, and carry no consequences or alignment loss for the participants. We do not want the game to discourage people who want to kill each other from doing so. Penalties should never be incurred for killing a willing participant of a fight. PvP flags and mutual wars / feuds help ensure that.
I agree with this, of course, but it avoids the issue of one party not giving consent. What is the enforcement mechanic that supports Ryan Dancey's claim that no one can "Opt Out" of PVP.
AGAIN, before anyone jumps on it... I'm not referring to the traveler who is exploring, or the farmer, or anyone not participating in less than a moderate way, in "The Most Dangerous Game" (cant link DEV Blog), or manning a Watchtower, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... it avoids the issue of one party not giving consent. What is the enforcement mechanic that supports Ryan Dancey's claim that no one can "Opt Out" of PVP.
I may be misunderstanding your question, but it seems fairly simple.
The game mechanics don't allow anyone to "opt out" of PvP ever. The Feud/War system allows interested parties to "opt in" to consequence-free PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, sorry to dip off thread (- be right back!): Just exploring if there is any incentives for player groups to police themselves. I mean in sports you have (at least in football aka soccer) "Fair Play" ratings for the team with the fewest fouls in a season. That's a positive indication to police themselves in that type of game and league (I can't remember there's some sort of award). You could have negative indications eg docking of "influence" in a glaring case. The idea in that sense is that a member is representing their group in their behaviour as much as just themselves, so the group is aware of the member (normally a productive person perhaps) that they were bad mouthing say the ref or opposite team beyond a bit of ribbing/sledging that turned into a diatribe etc etc. A penalty in game adversely affects the team as well as the culprit - as does a "sin bin" (off for a period of time eg 10 minutes of the match) or red card (off for remainder of time) that's a big disadvantage for all the team. There's nothing like screwing over your team-mates to feel guilty about being in that situation. *shrugs*?
As said, it's exploring the idea and seeing if anything fruitful comes out of it. Those are egs of conduct in RL/sports, so how applicable the same ideas are in a mmorpg?
/carry on!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... it avoids the issue of one party not giving consent. What is the enforcement mechanic that supports Ryan Dancey's claim that no one can "Opt Out" of PVP.I may be misunderstanding your question, but it seems fairly simple.
The game mechanics don't allow anyone to "opt out" of PvP ever. The Feud/War system allows interested parties to "opt in" to consequence-free PvP.
Simple question, I hope gets a simple answer (even we don't know yet):
What happens if a settlement does not consent to war?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What happens if a settlement does not consent to war?I believe we do know, at least in general. It simply means their members aren't open to consequence-free PvP.
In that case, consequences should be reduced or the DI of the settlement should be reduced, otherwise, you will have some settlements never consent.
What incentive does a defending settlement have to consent?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
What happens if a settlement does not consent to war?I believe we do know, at least in general. It simply means their members aren't open to consequence-free PvP.In that case, consequences should be reduced or the DI of the settlement should be reduced, otherwise, you will have some settlements never consent.
What incentive does a defending settlement have to consent?
If the defending settlement does not consent, they still have to defend their territory or lose it, and they cannot claim any territory in retaliation, even to recapture points. Meanwhile the aggressor is spending/reserving/using DI to maintain the war.
Remember, "war" is a specific term of art that does not map perfectly to vernacular usage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think that anyone attacking a powerful settlement owning faction for their territory should suffer reputation loss. With or without the consent of the faction being attacked. That is meaningful player interaction.
However I do think it should be costly, and that there should be a drift toward evil associated with it dependent on how evil the faction they're assaulting is. I'd rather see that drift attached to the act of waging a war itself rather than applied on each individual kill.
In terms of companies, I think it should be nearly if not entirely impossible to declare a feud with a fairly fresh, low influence group. Though if this was achieved by requiring them to feed all their influence into some sort of newb-protection boon in order to see that protection, I could support that. I certainly don't support continued immunity for older and larger, companies with higher influence. Feuds with them, should work much the same as warring with settlement holding groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Though if this was achieved by requiring them to feed all their influence into some sort of newb-protection boon in order to see that protection, I could support that.
I would see the need for some form of ramp-ing down protection for newer companies and maybe even settlements. I'm somewhat iffy on making them spend influence on that protection, though it should come at some price. The reason for my doubts would be that it's not as likely that in EE and maybe even in OE that people would waste influence on such when everyone is new and all are equal. This puts newer companies further behind the power curve when they start later on in the game's life. It also means they can forge fewer alliances and build up less protection in other areas; based on the newest blog. I guess really all I'm saying here is that the cost/benefit would be something that would really need to be fine tuned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They also mentioned that they intend to have an influence modifier for larger companies committing to a feud against smaller companies, didn't they? They could just work something into that to deal with 'newbie protection'.
Say you are a 50 man company of bad ass, highly trained PvPers. You want to start a feud with a 10 man company of fairly new players. Because there is a 5:1 ratio in company size, any influence cost is multiplied by 5. If the newer company had had 25 players (a 2:1 ratio), it would have instead been multiplied by 2.
However because the newer company was formed in the last month they also get a 'newbie protection' secondary multiplier of some amount. Say it was multiplied by 2, after the ratio modifier.
So now that 50 man, bad ass PvP company can, if necessary, commit to a feud with the smaller company, say if their resources are continually raided by some upstarts. But to do so is an extremely large commitment of their own resources, large enough that it would discourage random trolling of small groups of friends who aren't really interested in PvP. It would cost them 10 times the influence to attack a small, newbie company as it would to pick on someone your own size.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What happens if a settlement does not consent to war?
What incentive does a defending settlement have to consent?
Both line - we don't know, because it hasn't been spelled out. Some possibilities, off the top of my head:
Situation 1. If Settlement A declares war on Settlement B, and Settlement B does not declare war back.
- Settlement A expends DI to enter this state.
- Settlement A can attack Settlement B members and neutrals in Settlement B territory. They can also attack these parties in Settlement A territory.
- Settlement B can attack Settlement A members and allied forces in both Settlement B territory and Settlement A territory. They generally cannot attack non-criminal neutrals.
- Neither can attack enemies forces in third party lands. Either can attack each other in uncontrolled lands.
- Settlement A can demand territorial concessions depending on the outcome of the war. Settlement B may sue for peace, and they can demand monetary damages. They cannot demand territorial concessions.
Situation 2. Settlement B declares war in return. The DI conts may be lower.
- Settlement B can now attack neutrals in both lands A and B.
- Settlement B may demand territorial concessions.
In situations where a company is attacking a settlement, both sides should have skin in the game. If the settlement risks losing some part of their territory, what does the company have of equivalent worth? I'd offer that a company feuding against a settlement risks significant additional losses of Influence, and possibly elimination if all Influence is lost. I'd have to raise that as a possibility for all companies: lose all of your Influence and prehaps the company is lost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... otherwise, you will have some settlements never consent.
Why is that assumed to be a bad thing? Regardless of whether they consent to a mutually-declared state of War, they can still be attacked and kicked out of their Settlement.
What incentive does a defending settlement have to consent?
I don't think a Settlement needs an incentive to consent to a mutually declared state of war as much as they need - and will have - incentives to expose themselves to greater risk in order to reap greater rewards.
There are perfectly valid reasons for a Settlement to avoid automatically exposing all of its members to consequence-free PvP everywhere in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the defending settlement does not consent... they cannot claim any territory in retaliation, even to recapture points.
I don't think we know that's the case. It might be, but it might not.
Just as it should be possible to lose a Settlement without consenting to a state of War, it should probably also be possible to conquer a Settlement without automatically exposing every single member of your Settlement to consequence-free PvP everywhere in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The answers might lie hidden in this bit: "Likewise sponsored companies share the settlement's alliances or sanctioned hostilities with other settlements."
So a company automatically acquires/shares in all of the settlement' alliances. The opposite is not obligatory (but might be the case; I don't know). So if Bad Company, notorious bandits, declares a feud against a merchant company from Settlement Pacifico, they might be able to attack it for some time without alignment and rep losses.
Now, Pacifico Settlement might declare against Bad Company. Or maybe a couple of guard companies from Pacifico declare feud and use the next three days to kill members of Bad Company regardless of their flags.
Bad Company might have something to lose, in such an event. Are hideouts now going to be free? Or are they going to obligate some amount of Bad Company's Influence? If Bad Company wants to continue their feud, they may lose control of their hideout.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just because Gerland and Frace are at war doesn't mean a Gerlish citizen can kill a Frash citizen in Switzmany.
I would say it should be considered a chaotic act, and if it happens near NPC guards or player settlement guards told to stop fights between neutrals, it should flag you to them.
Wars inside safe areas is a tool used primarily for straight up griefers to kill newbs in every game I've seen it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What incentive does a defending settlement have to consent?They get to bash up their attackers free of consequence.
The should already be free of consequence if being attacked... Depends on point of view I guess, the aggressor or the defender.
Aggressor being the one to declare war
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I posted on this topic in the blog thread but since the feud discussion has moved here now:
Should feuds allow companies to attempt to conquer or raze another company's PoI? If not, how should control of PoIs be lost?
Since a single company controlling a PoI would likely not have the manpower to defend it 24/7, some rules governing loss of PoIs will be needed. Open vulnerability window (if such a thing will be possible for PoIs) + feud might be good enough as prerequisites for an attack. The vulnerability window should maybe be open about twice a week, chosen by the owners.
Another alternative:
The owners might have to keep spending influence (maybe on a weekly basis) or lose ownership of the PoI, this will ensure that PoIs belonging to inactive companies are allowed to change hands.
The alternatives could be combined to a system with constant upkeep plus vulnerability windows and conquer mechanics made possible through feuds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you Bringslite, I found it in the "They Flew the Colors.." blog, stating the same thing you said.
However, should the influence and possibly the feud systems tie into this? Settlements have DI and can take a hit to maximum DI to reduce the PvP window, can PoIs do something similar using influence? Since fewer people will likely be involved in protecting PoIs, do they need extra safeguards?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess POIs are always going to be more vulnerable though as useful defensive position as long as they can call on allies to come in time?
Seems POI are going to be useful for big settlements to make a deal with the CCs running them day-to-day, and let them hold up there and have first dibs on products for the cost of guarding them when under attack? That way won't have spread their guards too thin over a wider territory which they can usefully "claim"?
Imagine as settlements prosper they can send pro POI CCs out to claim more POIs and take on running nearer/safer POIs under different management?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see the rationale in forcing a Company to declare a Feud before they begin to attack another Company's holdings, and I can similarly see the rationale in forcing a Settlement/Nation to declare a War before they begin to attack another Settlement's holdings, but I don't think there's been any official announcement of such a requirement., and I have a nagging doubt that I can't identify that's whispering to me that it's not a good idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In response to Bluddwolf's post in another thread, which wasn't really the right place for this discussion.
I don't see the correlation between alignment and toxic grief play. As a few posters suggested, you can grief in Global Chat or with certain emotes, neither of which will impact alignment or even reputation.
Are you suggesting that if a solution can't be 100% effective, then it shouldn't be implemented at all?
Griefers won't care about their alignment at all. They will grief until their character is useless due to reputation and then wipe or switch to an alt, and grief with second character, until the first recovers.
If that's the case, then I imagine Goblinworks will realize they actually need to ratchet up the consequences of meaningless PvP, instead of relaxing them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see the rationale in forcing a Company to declare a Feud before they begin to attack another Company's holdings, and I can similarly see the rationale in forcing a Settlement/Nation to declare a War before they begin to attack another Settlement's holdings, but I don't think there's been any official announcement of such a requirement., and I have a nagging doubt that I can't identify that's whispering to me that it's not a good idea.
I wish you would track that niggling down and expose it for what it is, because it seems to me this facet of warfare may be critically important.
Where one company has so offended another, but they are of allied settlements perhaps within the same kingdom they would otherwise have no way to work out their differences by trial of combat. If My kingdom is not ready for war with a neighboring kingdom but my company was attacked by a company in that neighboring kingdom our kingdoms can remain relatively unperturbed while our respective companies work out their differences in a feud.
Feuds should make it possible for border skirmishes to occur without precipitating total war.
Without the feud system settlements and nations will be inadequately articulated to respond to smaller scale issues. Like the Roman Legions we must articulate our line if we are to refuse a flank and maintain good order.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DeciusBrutus I'd offer that if the hex you're in is in a warzone, your minimap or your on-screen map icon should be flashing. And you should get a message in your chat window. It doesn't need to be subtle or a surprise; we'd be getting all sorts of cues from the commoners fleeing the area.
If you look at your map with all the hexes on it, the war zones should be red, either outlined or shaded, or otherwise marked. This would be in keeping with RD saying that some game information should be readily available; if some people have access to it, everyone should have access to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In response to Bluddwolf's post in another thread, which wasn't really the right place for this discussion.
This isn't really the thread to have that discussion either.
If you want to have that discussion, why don't you start a thread to support tying alignment tracking and shifts to what people type in global chat.
This thread is about PVP and Settlement Politics during the final month of EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This isn't really the thread to have that discussion either.
I assumed you wouldn't mind the off-topic conversation in a thread you started. We both seemed quite willing to engage in an off-topic conversation in the other thread; I only moved it here out of consideration for the person who started that thread because they pointed out that it was off-topic.
I don't really have a desire to continue that conversation if you don't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This isn't really the thread to have that discussion either.I assumed you wouldn't mind the off-topic conversation in a thread you started. We both seemed quite willing to engage in an off-topic conversation in the other thread; I only moved it here out of consideration for the person who started that thread because they pointed out that it was off-topic.
I don't really have a desire to continue that conversation if you don't.
It was your idea, so I recommend that you start thread and we can discuss your idea as a community, in a thread all of its own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next level meta: what determines if a hex is a war zone hex or not?
Just a very, very wild stab here, with nothing from devs to back this up...
I'd expect that when one settlement declares hostilities/war with an enemy settlement, all of the target's hexes become war zone hexes. The attacker's hexes might not be warzones unless the declaration is reciprocated.
Likewise, when a company declares a feud, I'd expect any hexes that their target owns would be highlighted. I *don't* expect that the hex would be the same as a warzone; feuding companies might not be able to attack neutrals, for example. So maybe a different highlight color. I think I'd prefer that the feud instigators' possessions be open game automatically.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To attack or raid a settlement, sure, you might just need siege engines. But I don't think mere raiders should get consequence free attacks, which a war zone implies.
I'd hope that the process leading to conquering a settlement would require the attackers to obligate, in their declaration of war, at least as much influence (or DI equivalent) as it would take to found the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It was your idea...I just read back over the posts leading up to that, and I think you must be confused. I didn't really present any of my own ideas.
All of the posts referring to global chat griefing have been removed. That is where you had expressed the idea of something typed in global chat could be used to impact alignment / reputation (likley by a GM, I would hope).
It ran along the same lines of the player-moderator idea you had expressed.
I do have the pre deleted posts still active on my Iphone, but reposting them woiuld be a violation of the forums. I can of course copy and paste it into a PM or repost it on the public portion of my forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlement Politics Question:
When a Settlement Manager sets the laws for a settlement, can He/She exempt certain individuals, classes of individuals, alignments, companies, etc.. to be exempt from those laws?
Example: Theft is illegal for anyone but company members of the local Thieves' Guild?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think thieves guilds aren't exempt from laws, not in most fantasy literature. Typically, corrupt patrols and judges selectively enforce the laws that exist. Any thief that gets caught during the act (ie, killed by concerned citizens while they're flagged for the criminal behavior) is just the price of doing business. Training injuries, if you will. And maybe the concerned citizen gets a lesson later, y'know?
When thieves from the local guild are paid up with the local constabulary, those guards just seem a little slower during pursuits. When public outcry gets loud enough, some thief is caught and then gets out after the furor dies down. If there is a list for banning or exiling individuals, paid up members of the thieves guild generally won't end up on the list. Or not until politics within the guild causes them to make space for someone's promotion.
Likewise, a settlement may have swaggering bravos wandering around that are a protected class. If they kill someone, guards will just look the other way, not charge in. It's not a special law, it's just corrupt systems. Something to role-play as individuals and organizations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not a special law, it's just corrupt systems. Something to role-play as individuals and organizations.
Role Playing does not apply to NPC wardens. I'm not arguing that the system would not be corrupt, it most certainly would be. Or if not corrupt, it would be Lawful Evil.
My question is, could there be within the settings of a settlement laws and "exempt status" for certain individuals, groups, companies, etc?
Another example:
A settlement can make Bounty Hunting a crime within its jurisdiction, unless the Bounty Hunter is a member of their settlement, or if the Bounty originated from a member of the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think your method (if I understand it), of determining at the settlement level who gets extralegal immunity will bypass a whole lot of player interaction.
Basically, if the player(s) making the decision to give the thieves guild an exception is just the guy(s) at the top, then it's a cheap facsimile of a corrupt system. The thieves guild pays the city boss who now has money to burn. Player constabulary observe crimes which now, automatically, are treated as not-crimes. No message from on high, no trickle down of dirty money, it just is. Maybe it's magic.
Imagine an alternative. The thieves guild (a player company) approaches Randy's Reavers (a player company providing muscle in the town) with the offer of an alliance. Gold is exchanged. Now, when crimes are committed, the Reaver's see both the Criminal flag and the Ally tag and know to look away. Some Reaver's are fine with the arrangement. Some want to see more of that gold from their leadership. City leadership gets frustrated because crime is up and the Trader company and the Crafter company are complaining. They set up a second guard company. The thieves now either have to bribe that company as well, or work with the Reaver leadership to figure what hours are best for working. Interaction ensues.
Are there automated wardens during the settlement's PvP downtime? Maybe so. In which case, maybe the thieves guild has to operate mostly during open PvP hours, when they might have to, y'know, interact with people, including the corruptible guardsmen. Or maybe the thieves guild can heavily invest in alliances with the NPC faction providing guards to gain some immunities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Next level meta: what determines if a hex is a war zone hex or not?Just a very, very wild stab here, with nothing from devs to back this up...
I'd expect that when one settlement declares hostilities/war with an enemy settlement, all of the target's hexes become war zone hexes. The attacker's hexes might not be warzones unless the declaration is reciprocated.
Likewise, when a company declares a feud, I'd expect any hexes that their target owns would be highlighted. I *don't* expect that the hex would be the same as a warzone; feuding companies might not be able to attack neutrals, for example. So maybe a different highlight color. I think I'd prefer that the feud instigators' possessions be open game automatically.
It's a good stab I think +1: How the information is visually displayed probably determines how it's done and the "where" display is very important on consequence on alignment vs not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlement Politics Question:
When a Settlement Manager sets the laws for a settlement, can He/She exempt certain individuals, classes of individuals, alignments, companies, etc.. to be exempt from those laws?
Example: Theft is illegal for anyone but company members of the local Thieves' Guild?
Of course, happens all the time not only in real life but in gaming.
Why should the King not make outlaws of those that do not pay him taxes. My guild on the other hand, will pay him taxes so he runs my competition out of business.
Something along those lines