Goblin Squad Member
|
Yessss, this pleases me. Nice to see that there will be some pros and cons to joining the various factions, as well as clearly defined lines for 'PvP' vs 'Griefing'.
Also, love that Declarations of War are such outright one-sided affairs with such a heavy cost. Love it.
The irony is, nobody really wants the other settlements to die off, because there's strength in numbers and all, but possessing all the resources allows your settlement to become an economic juggernaut and dictate terms to your neighbours.
Preventing economic juggernauts outright is boring.
Having such groups rise is a prerequisite to them falling.
This would seem to slow down the rate they could declare war against other groups though.
Of course all other means to achieve economic juggernaut status are unaffected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brilliant blog - and as it already has Nihimon, Areks and Bluddwulf agreeing, I can't be the only one who thinks that. The emphasis on opt-in as opposed to opt-out has put my mind to rest with regard to griefing, and as Bluddwulf has said, hopefully there will be enough targets for him to go after without picking on those who really don't want, for whatever reason, to be involved in PvP at that particular time (heavily laden caravans understandably excepted). I think we have all been arguing past each other over PvP recently and this seems to lay those arguments to rest.
This is also new to me, and very welcome:
a package of faction-locked feats
It brings up two immediate questions:
1) If you lose reputation with a particular faction to below a certain threshold, does this mean that feats previously trained are no longer usable?
2) Does anyone have any recommended reading for learning about the factions of Golarion and more specifically the River Kingdoms? My knowledge is poor, and it's something I really need to rectify.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There should hopefully be more complexity to our factions than Horde vs Alliance. Importantly, you can mix and match them. So someone who's Pathfinders + Church of Iomedae + Eagle Knights is going to have an interesting confrontation when running into someone who's Pathfinders + Hellknights + Church of Asmodeus and someone who's Aspis Consortium + League of the Wood + Church of Desna.
Thanks for the reply. That is good to hear but I hope it's as meaningful as it is complex. I want get fired up about going out and spreading the influence if my faction and conquering our vile foes. For me that means conflict that changes a lot more than the color of the banners found flying in a hex or the deities depicted in the local shrines.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Faction PvP is really meaty:
Factional conflict is driven by narrative as much as player action. The relationships between factions are determined by the lore of Golarion and may shift over time, influencing individual PvP opportunities.
This little nugget suggests reshuffling up the pack from time to time!
Engaging in combat with flagged players attracts no reputation loss for attacker or defender.
So it seems to me Reputation loss is going to be a big hitter, now there is a sanctioned way to pvp.
The granular nature of the system allows players to engage in as much or as little risk as they wish, earning rewards in equal measure. And, of course, some players will choose to avoid the faction system all together, allowing them to opt out of PvP in all but settlement level conflict.
I think this is really cool. War should grand and the world changing around your particular spot so it seems befitting that "caught up in events larger than yourself" is unavoidable and in fact good to avoid things becoming stale or dormant. But atst for communities to shelter away from the pvp storms blowing, it sounds very good they can do this.
The narrative aspect of factional PvP gives players the chance to influence the political development of those areas of the River Kingdoms not controlled by players.
This was asked by Andius already: What are the mechanical differences belonging to different Factions on top of lore/flavor or narrative, if any? Could an eg be different types of NPC Guards and/or different types of support offered by different Factions? And slavery resources used or not for a settlement for a DI difference as opposed to combat options?
In our earliest design documents, we put a lot of emphasis on combat between players of opposing alignments. In recent months, we've decided to shift the focus slightly to bring it more in line with the world of Pathfinder... characters performing criminal or heinous acts, for example—there are consequences of reputation and alignment.
Is Alignment then more about requirements for group membership, skills you've trained being usable and penalties in the case of Reputation for lowering this (combat and non-combat interactions)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does anyone have any recommended reading for learning about the factions of Golarion and more specifically the River Kingdoms? My knowledge is poor, and it's something I really need to rectify.
For $8 you can download the "Guide to the River Kingdoms" (64 page .pdf)and it gives you a run through of the different cities, areas and noted personalities and some factions of the larger River Kingdoms area. Saying that, I do not know if there are well known, fixed factions that area widely known in the larger lore of Golarion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are often asked why PvP is a central part of our game design. This is the reason— conflict, and the special case of combat, is an engine that drives the rest of the game design. To become competent in battle, able to drive opponents from the field, or stand one's ground against an assault, requires players to invest time and energy in harvesting, processing, crafting, building and training. It promotes social cohesion. It gives people a sense that "freedom isn't free"—that if they want to play the Kingdom Game, to create settlements of a rich and powerful nature, they'll have to do so as others try to pull them down and take their place. They have to earn it.Even though many people do not like PvP at all (Hobs, I'm talking to you) it does create a more cohesive community. I played Ultima Online for seven years, and there was an "event" that tore most of the communities apart. The game developers decided, after much complaining about the open world PvP, to split the world, making two parallel dimensions (identical except for the game rules and the subsequent housing placement that came later), one called "Felucca", the other called "Trammel". Trammel was the "no PvP" side and Felucca remained full PvP (except in towns, and you could game that if you were crafty).
The towns that needed to stay united on the PVP side fell apart because most of the non-PVPers moved to the safety of Trammel. You could still cast spells to go to the Felucca side to do stuff like hunt for the richest hidden treasure chests, but that split pretty much killed PvP, and subsequently killed many of the player created communities.
Don't fear the PvP aspect of the game. It will make the settlement you belong to a much more cohesive (dare I say "neighborly") city, and to completely remove the PvP will erode much of the dependency our communities must have to grow and prosper.
Good lord...not again. Let me clarify..., I have nothing at all against PvP. In my opinion, you can't have a meaningful, realistic MMORPG without it. I lived through the UO split and fully agree, trying to remove all chance of undesired PvP was a nail in the coffin for the game, not to mention player made towns (like Kinship on the Catskills server).
Personally, I've played some very militant characters in a number of games. If Darkfall's UI wasn't so ridiculously poor (...and I hate first-person-shooter anyway), I'd likely be out there whacking stuff myself. And who knows what my alts or destiny's twin might be like. I'm a past table top GM, so I do like playing a multitude of roles. But Hobs...no. I find it far easier to run my community networker as a pacifist or near pacifist to avoid seeming against any particular group.
Now stop dragging me into PvP threads or I'll hit you with my shovel. I'm looking at you Hardin, and with a 100 digging in Darkfall, that's no small threat. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nice and interesting post. gives me food for my next blog post as well.
However, some thought.
- How can one raise the index needed to declare war and how bad is the decay? It basically voids the idea of Red vs, Blue (ala eve) in this concept.
- What is and isn't allowed on a hex that is controlled by a player owned settlement? Will it be possible for them to set rules on that hex so that Not Blue Shoot it rules (or variants of it) apply?
- Is it possible for compagnies to join as a compagnie a faction? or is it only for players individually?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once you reach rank 4 or above with a particular faction you are automatically flagged as a PvP target for members of opposing factions who are also rank 4 or above.
I love that mechanic.
Now,
How many companies can declare 'feud' on a single settlement at the same time ?
& how many settlements can declare war on a single settlement at the same time ?
As written, no limit.
But multiple attackers makes wars shorter , easier to afford, and easier to win than intended, as I read it.
Let's keep Golarion Zerg-free !
Doubling the 'costs' for each declarer after the first, in each category (Co. and Sett.) , might be sufficient.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad to see you holding firm on, and reaffirming that stance.That aside, there are two points of interest for me in this blog. First the idea that when you declare a feud on someone their allies are not drawn in. While I appreciate this, will there be a mechanism for a willing ally do join the conflict without spending all the influence required to issue a feud declaration of their own?
Also it sounds like there will be a lot of factions. Do you see there being factions we can join if we really want to open ourselves to conflict with many of the other factions, and do you see the choices in factions being more meaningful than Horde vs. Alliance or even Caldari, Gallante,...
1) There will always be a cost to initiate sanctioned PvP. I see why it might make sense and be desirable for allies to be able to muscle in to ongoing conflicts, but they will have to sacrifice their influence to do so. Conflict is costly, both in terms of physical and sociopolitical capital, and just like in real life true allies will pay the price. Fair weather friends may not.
2) I do! This stuff will come out later on since we are still jiggling it now but because you can join multiple factions you can gather up multiple enemies. Faction choice will be rooted in Golarion, so start brushing up on your Knowledge (nobility) now!
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
I'm being simplistic in the example but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for us to come up with a list of ways to goad reputation losses on your enemies as a tactic. While I think there should be some room for that I'd hate to see that as a focal point for organized PvP.... your AoE's are useless and even your single target attacks will struggle to not pick up the attacker flag on the allies.I think that single-target attacks cannot damage an untargeted character. I'm not sure of that, but that's my sense.
Im not sure I'm following your example, to be honest :/
Making unsanctioned attacks will pretty much always make you a target for nearby players, be it as criminal, heinous, etc. When you smack someone its generally true to say that they can smack you back and so can their allies.|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Once you reach rank 4 or above with a particular faction you are automatically flagged as a PvP target for members of opposing factions who are also rank 4 or above.I love that mechanic.
Now, How many companies can declare 'feud' on a single settlement at the same time ?
& how many settlements can declare war on a single settlement at the same time ?
As written, no limit.
But multiple attackers makes wars shorter , easier to afford, and easier to win than intended, as I read it.Let's keep Golarion Zerg-free !
Doubling the 'costs' for each declarer after the first, in each category (Co. and Sett.) , might be sufficient.
I hear ya! There is a mechanic similar to this in Darkfall. I am not sure exactly how we are going to handle this yet (its on my list but I've not got there!) but feuds have their place and so do wars. We dont want the lines to blur too greatly so this is something I'll be watching carefully.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does this mean that Settlements will be defined more so by their Faction, than their alignment?
Factions are optional. A player, settlement, or company can earn rep with multiple factions. This will have to come out in a factions blog (cos heavens, there is a lot of it) but settlements can choose to pledge themselves to a single faction (with benefits and drawbacks) if they wish, but it isnt mandatory.
Mechanically alignment is still very important as described in the past. It determines who can enter your settlement safely, who can use your stuff, what stuff you can have in there, and even what factions you may join/pursue rep with.
From an RP perspective alignment is meta. Alignment is (almost) never grounds for attack in Golarion and neither should it be. Defining your settlement by its alignment is slightly absurd in the game world - sure you may be known as a bastion of 'good' or a den of 'evil', but such distinctions are so broad as to be meaningless from a role play perspective. Factions add a layer of complexity and structure that transcends alignment. An eagle knight settlement is good AND they stand for justice, freedom, wearing ostentatious armour, and so on.
All that said, we very much hope that settlements will be able to define themselves by their membership, their leadership, and their deeds. We want players to get to know settlement names just as well as faction names and to choose their residence and allegiance as much on the deeds and successes of a particular settlement as on the meta mechanics which underpin it.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I just want to hear that the consequences of "alignment and reputation hits" will be significant enough that the decision to engage in unsanctioned PVP is not taken lightly.
You betcha. Again, this is another blog post, and a big one at that, but the alignment/reputation systems are more robust than ever and all these systems (factions, sieges, wars, alignment, rep) are build TOGETHER to compliment one another and to drive meaningful interactions in game.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hitting a couple of these questions. Tork will probably get more in the morning.
There should hopefully be more complexity to our factions than Horde vs Alliance. Importantly, you can mix and match them. So someone who's Pathfinders + Church of Iomedae + Eagle Knights is going to have an interesting confrontation when running into someone who's Pathfinders + Hellknights + Church of Asmodeus and someone who's Aspis Consortium + League of the Wood + Church of Desna.
Elaborate on interesting confrontation. I understand the concept, but how will the game mechanics look?
With a mix and match, if one of those factions is at war then your at war no matter if the other two are the same? (meaning between two characters, each has 2 factions as the same, and the third is at war with each other)
My guess is yes play as you will with that
This is true. There is a hostility system that is going to get its own post one day soon and that should clear things up. You will be able to tell which players are sanctioned pvp targets at a glance, and on slightly closer inspection you'll be able to tell why. You will also be able to tell if you have factions in common - so you can decide to which your alliance is strongest ;)
There is a priority system for what determines hostility, so for example if you group with someone you are always friendly to them, regardless of (some) other alliances or allegiances).
Its possible (just like in Pathfinder!) you might end up adventuring with a player who is a member of one or more opposing factions, but you put aside your differences for the duration of your quest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hear ya! There is a mechanic similar to this in Darkfall. I am not sure exactly how we are going to handle this yet (its on my list but I've not got there!) but feuds have their place and so do wars. We dont want the lines to blur too greatly so this is something I'll be watching carefully.Once you reach rank 4 or above with a particular faction you are automatically flagged as a PvP target for members of opposing factions who are also rank 4 or above.I love that mechanic.
Now, How many companies can declare 'feud' on a single settlement at the same time ?
& how many settlements can declare war on a single settlement at the same time ?
As written, no limit.
But multiple attackers makes wars shorter , easier to afford, and easier to win than intended, as I read it.Let's keep Golarion Zerg-free !
Doubling the 'costs' for each declarer after the first, in each category (Co. and Sett.) , might be sufficient.
All the Devs can form a Settlement of 1 Company, then all players declare feud/war , for testing.
:DPS
Re: non evil Assassins :
There's a Lawful Good empyreal Lord, named Damerrich, in 'Chronicle of the Righteous'. He's the lord of judiciousness, executions, and responsibility. There might be a small cult dedicated to Damerrich for 'Judicious Executions'...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hitting a couple of these questions. Tork will probably get more in the morning.
There should hopefully be more complexity to our factions than Horde vs Alliance. Importantly, you can mix and match them. So someone who's Pathfinders + Church of Iomedae + Eagle Knights is going to have an interesting confrontation when running into someone who's Pathfinders + Hellknights + Church of Asmodeus and someone who's Aspis Consortium + League of the Wood + Church of Desna.
Well I may be in the minority here, but the main thing I have a problem with in the general concept of factions, isn't so much the lack of complexity, as the lack of a hypothetically obtainable end goal. IE in horde vs alliance, at least in my view the issue wasn't that there's only 2, but that it delves into "bob is alliance, he is my enemy, he is and will always be my enemy".
Is there any probability of some player controlled drifts or tides changing within factions. Like say members of faction A can vote and change the enemy from X to Y.
I can see some potential cool things that can come out of factions, assuming they are done as more than a "OK you can now freely kill anyone of X", being the extent of it. Like say random events, in which X evil faction gets a faction alert.
Reports of an artifact that can be used to enslave thousands has fallen somewhere in the area to the north, recover it.
Good faction Y: Reports have come in that faction X has learned of a powerful artifact to the north, you must prevent that from falling into their hands at all costs!.
IE meaningful events revolving around the groups having specific goals that come into conflict, with win/lose conditions and rewards/consiquences.
The idea of X and Y, being at permenant conflict, with no possibility of changing, no chance of swing, no logical expectation of a truce or any goals to be worked for, flat out turns me off to the concepts of the game as a whole. Namely because I do want to have heavy meaningful PVP participation, and if the majority of the PVP is just as a X is my enemy because X is my enemy... my interest in the game has just dropped 5 notches.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devs have said that the factional allies and enemies will change from time to time, though some I have no doubt will stay permanently enemies. No matter what goes on in the River Kingdoms, the Hellknights are not going to be best buds with the Church of Cayden Cailean (for example).
+1 for the hope that specific factions have quests directly opposing other factions, preferably not their usual enemies.
Finally, I'd like to say that the factions are a piece of the game, not the sum of it. There's going to be plenty of PvP outside the factions through settlements, kingdoms, and companies who clash with each other, independently of the factions. Remember they're outlining the factions as a strictly "opt in" PvP style, so you can simply opt out of this aspect and focus more on another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... we can take our greedy eyes off of those not looking to partake as much in PVP.An astoundingly welcome statement, sir. I tip my (green) hat to you :)Nihimon,
This is nothing new...
If I'm only just now hearing you clearly, then I apologize.
We will also be willing to take the alignment and reputation hit, from time-to-time...
Oh, I'm sure I will, too. This is the reason I've been saying for over a year and a half that non-consensual PvP is an absolute necessity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now I just want to hear that the consequences of "alignment and reputation hits" will be significant enough that the decision to engage in unsanctioned PVP is not taken lightly.You betcha. Again, this is another blog post, and a big one at that, but the alignment/reputation systems are more robust than ever and all these systems (factions, sieges, wars, alignment, rep) are build TOGETHER to compliment one another and to drive meaningful interactions in game.
I would really like to add a few (thousand) more Favorites to this post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the main thing I have a problem with in the general concept of factions, isn't so much the lack of complexity, as the lack of a hypothetically obtainable end goal.
This is a really good point, and I think it lies at the heart of Andius's concerns as well. If the only result of "winning" is that you change the banners flying in a hex, or change the faces of the gods in a temple, then it's going to feel meaningless.
Based entirely on their track record, I'm comfortable trusting that Goblinworks will get this right, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm being simplistic in the example but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for us to come up with a list of ways to goad reputation losses on your enemies as a tactic. While I think there should be some room for that I'd hate to see that as a focal point for organized PvP.... your AoE's are useless and even your single target attacks will struggle to not pick up the attacker flag on the allies.I think that single-target attacks cannot damage an untargeted character. I'm not sure of that, but that's my sense.Im not sure I'm following your example, to be honest :/
Making unsanctioned attacks will pretty much always make you a target for nearby players, be it as criminal, heinous, etc. When you smack someone its generally true to say that they can smack you back and so can their allies.
I believe Avari is concerned about the ability to trick other characters into inadvertently gaining more enemies in a battle than they intended.
If Herp sees Derp as a Sanctioned PvP Target and decides to kill him, Derp might try to use "Human Shields" so that Herp can't damage Derp without also having that collateral damage. What kind of systems will be in place to ensure that Derp can't effectively do this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) There will always be a cost to initiate sanctioned PvP. I see why it might make sense and be desirable for allies to be able to muscle in to ongoing conflicts, but they will have to sacrifice their influence to do so. Conflict is costly, both in terms of physical and sociopolitical capital, and just like in real life true allies will pay the price. Fair weather friends may not.
I can see a nasty tactic forming around this of large organizations forming into clusters of small companies (instead of a settlement/or single large company) and mutually declaring a feud on a larger target. Not only would it be difficult for that one larger target to declare feuds back on its many attackers, but it will be difficult for allies to step in and help against such a tactic if they can only declare against one or two of the opponent groups. Imagine 5 groups of 15 declaring against one group of 40. The group of 40 is allied with another group of 35. While the number of those involved is the same, it is more expensive (from my understanding) for the 2 larger groups to defend against the 5 smaller groups. How would the victim of this feud ever be able to meaningfully defend itself against such a tactic?
Not sure if this is as much of an issue with Settlements and Wars where being bigger provides benefits beyond simple numbers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah that and Herp has a friend called Merp who is in a 3rd party not associated with Herp and Derp's conflict. Herp and Merp tour about the countryside baiting Derp into inadvertently attacking Merp while Herp kills him. Derp loses fight but more importantly loses rep and alignment.
Or Merp's friends agree to have a couple members in each of Herp's caravans. It is impossible for Derp to attack the caravans without attacking Merp.
Ditto for every attack and defense. A few of Merp's people agree to waddle into the confusion of battle and get attacked by Derp.
I'm nowhere near as good at coming up with these types of things as other people are. But that's the gist. The quick answer is "declare war and feud on Merp". But what if Merp is just an alt for Herp's guild buddy? What if the bait goes under many different names always different?
This type of behavior is aimed at attacking a settlement's most important resource: the characters. Making them unplayable. While I think it's intended for some of that to be there, if too much of it is going on it takes away from the core design of fighting for resources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Avari3 is raising the specter of 'Rep-War' and it is not a pretty sight. I think we all want combat to decide who wins the day, not rules-gaming.
Lifedragn's scenario, well, I think we want smaller groups to be able to knock down tryannical empires, but we also don't want a few 2 bit bandit crews taking down our hard-earned citadels any weekend they feel froggy.
Formation combat may be able to handle both scenarios.
If a larger formation is significantly better than a small one, if allies can join a formation for a smaller influence cost than declaring feud, if formation AE can be selective, if the leaders being in a declared feud/war, and the formations costing influence to join combined lets the rule be no negative rep for those 2 formations killing each other .... a lot of issues go away.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Imagine 5 groups of 15 declaring against one group of 40. The group of 40 is allied with another group of 35. While the number of those involved is the same, it is more expensive (from my understanding) for the 2 larger groups to defend against the 5 smaller groups. How would the victim of this feud ever be able to meaningfully defend itself against such a tactic?
Influence is gained over time, based on the accomplishment of members. So a group of 75 might not be able to degroup into 5 groups of 15 to launch such an attack. When they degroup, the core group likely loses a lot of accumulated Influence, because companies have a cap based on membership. The 4 splinter groups start with 0 (or really low) Influence and won't be able to attack until they've built up sufficient brass to declare a feud.
So to start, when Forty sees Group75 fracture, they have the option of declaring feud on any one of the splinters or the remainder in the core. If Group75 reforms, declare the feud at an end; Group75 now has much less Influence than when they started.
Now, if five autonomous groups of 15 declare feuds on Forty, then each is burning Influence as the feuds goes on. Forty can defend, of course, it's theoretically 75:40. One of the five group will likely be stronger than its allies, and ThirtyFive can help the most by attacking that group. So the feuds are now on paper 60:40 and 15:35, but effective power might be more like 55:40 and 20:35.
Note that the five groups of 15 are burning thru Influence, as is ThirtyFive. Everyone is getting wear on gear. When these 6 feuds lift... Forty hasn't burnt any Influence yet and if they have gear, someone will be a target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now,
How many companies can declare 'feud' on a single settlement at the same time ?
& how many settlements can declare war on a single settlement at the same time ?As written, no limit.
But multiple attackers makes wars shorter , easier to afford, and easier to win than intended, as I read it.Let's keep Golarion Zerg-free !
Doubling the 'costs' for each declarer after the first, in each category (Co. and Sett.) , might be sufficient.
I believe the easiest way to handle this would be fairly straightforward - if your group didn't do the deed, they don't get the reward.
Earning your fair share gets more and more difficult as you increase the players and factions involved.
You might be able to get a particularly zealous group to join your cause without demanding rewards, pay, or economic support, but in a game as economically driven as PFO, I'd expect that to be quite rare. People don't want to put their lives (or time and equipment) on the line for nothing - they want to collect the resources from that mine they secured for you. At the least, they want to be repaid for their losses and recognized for their services. (Mercenary factions come to mind, though obviously they seek more than mere reimbursement.)
Well, mercenaries would have contracts specifying pay of some sort. Maybe a resource hex, maybe otherwise. I was thinking about a target several groups just wanted gone, like a bandit supplying town.
I would think after a settlement falls, the surrounding 6 resource hexes should be empty, and claimable by whoever is strong or politically savvy enough to hold them, as they were before there was a settlement. If the settlement 'surrenders' , it would have to be accepted by all who declared war before it was any good, but each acceptant coupld specifiy the release of control on a hex, or gold or w/e they wanted, I ... imagine.ps
You just made me realize there can be a central settlement point kept barren by the settlements surrounding it, each keeping an extra resource hex and working in concert to keep the settlement hex in thier midst empty....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the "smaller groups being unconquerable by bigger group" issue isn't really an issue. If the smaller groups all declare war on a bigger group, that means the big group can attack any of the smaller groups without penalty. A declaration of war isn't needed on both sides for the free PvP to take effect. The biggest issue I see, if this does indeed resolve that problem, would then become: how do you prevent a few smaller groups not at war with you from intermixing into enemy forces in order to drop your reputation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the smaller groups all declare war on a bigger group, that means the big group can attack any of the smaller groups without penalty. A declaration of war isn't needed on both sides for the free PvP to take effect.
The way I read it, only Settlements can declare War, and that declaration is necessary in order to attack the target's holdings (POIs, Settlements, etc.)
It's not clear to me that my I can attack your POIs and Settlement as soon as your Settlement declares War on my Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Runs into the blog a little late and spends the morning trying to catch up.
Offers Hobbs a mug of ale or a cup of tea. Sorry Hobbs but you seem to be the name to use when certain situations comes up. I tried to help *Shrug* but …
I like where this is going I love the fact that we stopped spinning our wheels over definitions of words and now all seem on the same page. I just got reaffirmed that what I so hope for this game will come true. Like Hobbs while I as a player fully understand that any meaningful game must have pvp my character should be allowed to interact with it at a level I feel able to deal with.
A lot of times any objection to pvp will earn you a title of care bear or be told just learn it. Sometimes the inability to pvp does not stem from desire but ability.
a little story: When I was in my early 20 I wanted to be an illustrator. In high school I was told I had talent. In my heart I knew there were many folk who had more talent then me. What I had was hard work and determination. But hard work and determination will only take you so far. In the end when face with someone who also has worked hard and is just as determined as you but also has talent you will lose.
The same for pvp no matter how much I learn or how good I get when face with another player who just better then me I lose. I see in this game that no matter what my ability to pvp is that I will be able to log in and succeed at some level in this game I will find enjoyable.
It is nice that from how I read thing every one will be able to enjoy the game with so much we can do that no one will feel they can not advance in their goals at the end of the day.
I think the fraction pvp is a answered to a lot of every ones concerns. I like how I can opt in or out and with different fractions I also have a level of how much I wish to opt in for. With the mixture of fraction I can see that it not an all-in or all out position. I can see the possibility of finding a fraction that would allow a little pvp being a target for a small group or or all out pvp by marking my back will all sort of targets. Like many I have to do some reading on the fractions but I hope there is one were the battle is with words and coins over swords and axes. So many possibilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
how do you prevent a few smaller groups not at war with you from intermixing into enemy forces in order to drop your reputation?
My view has been that once war is declared, the two sides' territory should become war zones and they can attack each other freely in this space and in uncontrolled areas. They can also attack uninvolved characters freely within the war zone - just part of the ugliness of war - but not outside the war zone. Uninvolved characters have no similar permissions; they take the alignment and rep hits if they attack people in a war zone, including the legitimate combatants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
how do you prevent a few smaller groups not at war with you from intermixing into enemy forces in order to drop your reputation?My view has been that once war is declared, the two sides' territory should become war zones and they can attack each other freely in this space and in uncontrolled areas. They can also attack uninvolved characters freely within the war zone - just part of the ugliness of war - but not outside the war zone. Uninvolved characters have no similar permissions; they take the alignment and rep hits if they attack people in a war zone, including the legitimate combatants.
I think I would very much like this as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the main thing I have a problem with in the general concept of factions, isn't so much the lack of complexity, as the lack of a hypothetically obtainable end goal.This is a really good point, and I think it lies at the heart of Andius's concerns as well. If the only result of "winning" is that you change the banners flying in a hex, or change the faces of the gods in a temple, then it's going to feel meaningless.
Based entirely on their track record, I'm comfortable trusting that Goblinworks will get this right, though.
Meaningful rewards for winning are needed, I agree. But, what would they look like without creating the imbalance of incumbency?
Let us entertain the idea that when a faction gains ground, against its principle adversary, the members of that faction will gain faction buffs. This allows for them to become even more powerful and allows then to conquer even more holdings.
This is what I call the "imbalance of incumbency". So perhaps the rewards should not be any kind of a faction buff.
Perhaps there could be a system where a faction that is being beaten, will begin to earn a buff as it gets closer and closer to being wiped out. This resiliency can be explained away through the actions of a Deity, or the natural "last ditch" will to survive.
I sort of like the "under-dog mentality" that goes with this. It could lead to very heroic acts of defiance.
I think the greatest possible reward that could be earned from faction wars, or any war or battle for that matter, would be a recorded recognition of the victory / achievement.
Players will play for the "server firsts" or other form of recorded recognition. Their actions could become a part of the fabric that will be our community's story of the River Kingdoms of Pathfinder Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Meaningful rewards for winning are needed, I agree.
That's not at all what I meant. I don't know about Onishi.
To me, the key difference is the difference between "meaningful effects" and "meaningful rewards".
The scenario I envision is not so much Faction Alpha defeating Faction Beta, but rather Faction Alpha gaining supremacy within a Hex, regardless of who previously had supremacy there.
That was my original stance, but I was told by Ryan that assassination will always be evil. I'd like some clarification on this.It's evil in Pathfinder and I would bet my first copper it will be evil in PFO.
It seems like it would be too problematic to restrain assassination to Evil alignment.
I don't see what is inherently evil about assassination. Sneaking through an enemy city is not evil. Killing someone is not inherently evil (hear me out on this one). If it was, then a Good character/settlement/faction/company would be unable to defend itself or attack an Evil one. In reality and in fantasy there are multiple reasons why a Good character would hunt down an evil one.
The Assassin pathfinder character is Evil, but the methods he uses are not necessarily evil.
If an Evil settlement/faction/company can utilize members with assassination abilities against a Good one, it is completely unfair if the Good one can't do the same. Why can't a CG Rogue disguise himself and infiltrate a Lawful Evil settlement and assassinate one of their leaders?
My point being, you need to be Evil to be an Assassin as a class because the class is more than killing people sneakily, otherwise a Rogue would be required to have an Evil alignment as well. Restricting STEALTH abilities to EVIL alignment is not a good game design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Alarox - their pov is that the act of assassination is more insideous than simple murder and is therefore inherently evil. Again, keep in mind we are speaking in terms of static ideals of good and evil, not dynamic with interpretation based on context. I think a happy medium can be found and believe GW is working towards that goal in some areas while trying to stick to their guns as best they can.
@Alarox - their pov is that the act of assassination is more insideous than simple murder and is therefore inherently evil. Again, keep in mind we are speaking in terms of static ideals of good and evil, not dynamic with interpretation based on context. I think a happy medium can be found and believe GW is working towards that goal in some areas while trying to stick to their guns as best they can.
I can understand that since alignment is an objective concept in pathfinder. I just hope they find a way to keep the tools equivalent since Assassination can play such a large role in larger PvP conflicts. Kind of like saying only Good settlements get to use balistae and catapults while Evil can only throw rocks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Assassin pathfinder character is Evil, but the methods he uses are not necessarily evil.
....
My point being, you need to be Evil to be an Assassin as a class because the class is more than killing people sneakily, otherwise a Rogue would be required to have an Evil alignment as well. Restricting STEALTH abilities to EVIL alignment is not a good game design.
That's where the argument falls. The Pathfinder assassin is an expert in poison, that where many of the feats lie. Poison is like the fantasy medieval version of chemical weapons, or at least that's how the lore treats it. The Red Mantis assassin which we can safely assume will be the faction for it, uses ties to dark powers to sever resurrection abilities.
It's not just a thief that goes for the kill, like the Paladin they have special powers tied to an alignment.
The Assassin pathfinder character is Evil, but the methods he uses are not necessarily evil.
....
My point being, you need to be Evil to be an Assassin as a class because the class is more than killing people sneakily, otherwise a Rogue would be required to have an Evil alignment as well. Restricting STEALTH abilities to EVIL alignment is not a good game design.
That's where the argument falls. The Pathfinder assassin is an expert in poison, that where many of the feats lie. Poison is like the fantasy medieval version of chemical weapons, or at least that's how the lore treats it. The Red Mantis assassin which we can safely assume will be the faction for it, uses ties to dark powers to sever resurrection abilities.
It's not just a thief that goes for the kill, like the Paladin they have special powers tied to an alignment.
I'm talking specifically about the ability to use disguises and the mechanics behind stalking your target in a city. Not the actual combat styles or abilities.
I don't see why Good or Evil must be restricted by a mechanic that DOESN'T have anything to do with alignment. Me putting on a disguise and stalking you through a city isn't an evil act. It's a stealthy act.
I'm all for the differentiation between Assassins and non-Assassins, but I don't think such a mechanic as targeting enemy settlement leaders should be an alignment restricted thing. It's simply part of war. I don't see why an agent of a good settlement would be unable to disguise himself because he isn't evil enough.
I can understand why a Paladin has to be good to use divine anti-evil abilities, or why a Cleric has to be of their deity's alignment, or why a Barbarian can't be lawful. It's part of what the class is.
But I don't think disguising yourself and killing an enemy is an Assassin only ability, hence why I don't think it should require you being Evil. If I can do that in the tabletop with a Rogue, why can I only do it in Pathfinder Online with an Assassin?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm talking specifically about the ability to use disguises and the mechanics behind stalking your target in a city. Not the actual combat styles or abilities.
I don't see why Good or Evil must be restricted by a mechanic that DOESN'T have anything to do with alignment. Me putting on a disguise and stalking you through a city isn't an evil act. It's a stealthy act.
I'm all for the differentiation between Assassins and non-Assassins, but I don't think such a mechanic as targeting enemy settlement leaders should be an alignment restricted thing. It's simply part of war. I don't see why an agent of a good settlement would be unable to disguise himself because he isn't evil enough.
You know what? I totally agree with that.
I hope that somewhere down the line GW's repents on the concept of assassin as a pure game mechanic. It should be treated as an offshoot prestige class of Rogue that makes you BETTER at the assassination game mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking this in a slightly different direction, could an assassin act as an anti-assassin. Knowing the way of the school, would an assassin have an effect of reducing the effectiveness of attacks on the patron or protected person. Recognize the nuance of a poison or see through a disguise. This is not acting as a body guard per se, but rather 'managing' the protective aura; or identifying presence of an assassin or assassin attack. Not sure of the game mechanic for this.. It would be hard to do directly as most of the players have limited knowledge that the characters would have. Might be psuedo magic by implementation, needing renewal or possibly the assassin is made visible and flag if the anti-assassin is present.
The range of observation or prevention is based upon skill of the anti-assassin. If she knows noting about poison, then will not provide much help. For knowledge of sharp shooting, then maneuvers patron so there is always more effective cover without actually moving the patron.
...
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All that said, we very much hope that settlements will be able to define themselves by their membership, their leadership, and their deeds. We want players to get to know settlement names just as well as faction names and to choose their residence and allegiance as much on the deeds and successes of a particular settlement as on the meta mechanics which underpin it.
I believe that factions are more about ideology than territory. A good example would be the Aspis Consortium (and I quote from the Faction Guide):
"Goal: Profit Over All - Morals, laws, loyalties, and national boundaries fall by the wayside in the name of wealth. The Aspis Consortium acts superficially like many other merchant and trade cabals, but unlike them, it actively manipulates the market and its patrons to achieve its vast wealth. From the lowest dock worker who cares for nothing save for earning his promised pay, to the soldier of fortune willing to spill blood for coin, the Consortium’s masters rely on the supreme power of human greed to further even darker aims."For a faction winning is not (necessarily) about the accusation and control of territory. Factions win by achieving their goal, whatever that happens to be. The Aspis Consortium may want war as a vehicle for greater profit, but in declaring war they risk loosing more profit than they could gain by winning the war. There is less risk (and more profit) in supplying the opponents than being a opponent.
Factions can become a powerful expression of the character's back story and can be central to the reason they are in the River Kingdoms. It could even be the story behind why they are Marked or Twice-Marked by Pharasma.
Why be a leader of a settlement or nation when you can control all trade from the shadows.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I don't think disguising yourself and killing an enemy is an Assassin only ability, hence why I don't think it should require you being Evil. If I can do that in the tabletop with a Rogue, why can I only do it in...
A good aligned rogue can disguise himself, sneak up, backstab and kill you.
An evil aligned assassin will be able to do things to you that are worse than death.
Decius Brutus mentioned earlier that they can damage your connection to Pharasma, restricting your bind point usage.
I don't remember what other specifics were mentioned in the blog post about assassination, but there are options available to a true assassin that go beyond simply "sneak up and kill someone", and those options are sufficiently "magical" that it is easy to rationalize why it takes a dedication to evil to attain those skills.