You do realise 20 to 30 is a small gang roam and not unusual in sovereignty null sec in Eve? I think your assumption may need a little workIn EVE you can jump through a gate to find a whole group of people you were completely unaware on just the other side of that gate. On EVE, massive slow moving ships can jump to within firing range of you in the blink of an eye.
If you jump through a gate and find a whole group of people you were completely unaware of then it is your fault. It is why competent groups use scouts. It helps locate targets and warns of danger
I'm going to make to make a few assumptions here. First I don't think a massive formation of players will be able to overtake pretty much any lone player on foot unless that player is overburdened or something. They are trying to move as a unit, so they can only run as fast as the slowest member of the formation.
1) You won't be needing a formation to take a lone player and there will be the equivalent of interceptors in Eve who will move fast and hold the targe in place
2) Why ever do you believe people will move in a formation. Much more likely they travel as a loose group and form up into a formation only when needed.
With no jumpgates, only the deaf, blind, and incredibly crippled should ever be chased down or taken unaware by a group of players in formation. So why would you get 20-30+ guys together and build a formation? To attack stationary targets such as settlements and outposts that can't just move out of your way.
Why are you assuming no jump gates or their equivalent. Lots of avatar based mmo's use geography to limit transition points from one area to another. I don't believe Goblinworks has commented on this unless you have a quote I haven't seen.
While I am certainly not saying it will be definitely the case I think assuming it won't and basing your tactical assumptions on it are unsound. Personally I will until confirmed look at tactical assumptions both from the point of view of no choke points and choke points.
Many people on here seem to assume that what they wish to be true is true. Plan for both cases I say
Goblin Squad Member
|
The trend has been toward 'islands' of new territory as a means of expansion of the River Kingdoms play area. The island concept suggests chokepoints. We've talked about the problems with this and recommended multiple entry points to give the gatecampers more of a logistical challenge. Many prefer we don't go the 'island' route but many seem to like the idea. My inclination is to build contiguously but without adequate information what else the devs have in mind I am not yet well enough informed to be comfortable with decision impulses.
It is why competent groups use scouts.Perhaps he was speaking of the scout.
I am aware of his Eve associations
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) Why ever do you believe people will move in a formation. Much more likely they travel as a loose group and form up into a formation only when needed.
I'm going to make to make a few assumptions here. First I don't think a massive formation of players will be able to overtake pretty much any lone player on foot unless that player is overburdened or something. They are trying to move as a unit, so they can only run as fast as the slowest member of the formation.
That's a valid critique, Andius. Why would people move in formation?
a) There could be different formations. A column (ie, 2-4 abreast) might actually have an increased movement speed, especially on roads. A square or hollow square might be a strong all-around defense but significantly slower.
b) Shifting from one formation to another formation might be easier than going from a cluster mob to any formation.
c) Creating a formation may not be instantaneous. It might depend on distance from the assembly point and drilling skills.
d) Creating a formation while you are under attack could be impossible. So when units break, they lose their formation bonuses and must be rallied back together out of combat. They typically move away from the battle to do so. Or rout.
(Just imagining a first sergeant yelling at people to fall in while half of them are being punched in the face.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would assume that you are correct most groups using formations won't travel long distances in formation. However I would assume you would need to be in formation to get the formation bonuses. The rep penalty should only be removed in a group that has formed ranks and is actively moving in formation.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You do realise 20 to 30 is a small gang roam and not unusual in sovereignty null sec in Eve? I think your assumption may need a little workIn EVE you can jump through a gate to find a whole group of people you were completely unaware on just the other side of that gate. On EVE, massive slow moving ships can jump to within firing range of you in the blink of an eye.If you jump through a gate and find a whole group of people you were completely unaware of then it is your fault. It is why competent groups use scouts. It helps locate targets and warns of danger
So,if you are flying the scout it's your own fault?
I'm going to make to make a few assumptions here. First I don't think a massive formation of players will be able to overtake pretty much any lone player on foot unless that player is overburdened or something. They are trying to move as a unit, so they can only run as fast as the slowest member of the formation.1) You won't be needing a formation to take a lone player and there will be the equivalent of interceptors in Eve who will move fast and hold the targe in place
2) Why ever do you believe people will move in a formation. Much more likely they travel as a loose group and form up into a formation only when needed.
The suggestion was that formations wouldn't cause rep penalties for a broad number of actions; almost everything about the capabilities of a formation, including how much vulnerability they have while forming, is speculation.
With no jumpgates, only the deaf, blind, and incredibly crippled should ever be chased down or taken unaware by a group of players in formation. So why would you get 20-30+ guys together and build a formation? To attack stationary targets such as settlements and outposts that can't just move out of your way.
Why are you assuming no jump gates or their equivalent. Lots of avatar based mmo's use geography to limit transition points from one area to another. I don't believe Goblinworks has commented on this unless you have a quote I haven't seen.
Check the dev blog in it's entirety.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the outpost is indeed PvE content (typically contains only NPC guards), it shouldn't be part of the reputation system at all. I think that if it ends up being that way, there will be changes intended to fix that failure.
I agree completely. If Rep loss is attached to killing NPCs then the reputation system would fail in epic proportions, and probably PFO along with it.
Alignment may change, that is ok, but not reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not only does the scout need to be concerned but I would hope you don't need to be in a group with a scout to go anywhere and do anything. I do recall hearing something to the effect that transitions between hexes will not be gated but the smooth zone to zone transitions you see in most avatar based MMOs. I don't recall any major keywords that would allow me to find the post.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If the outpost is indeed PvE content (typically contains only NPC guards), it shouldn't be part of the reputation system at all. I think that if it ends up being that way, there will be changes intended to fix that failure.I agree completely. If Rep loss is attached to killing NPCs then the reputation system would fail in epic proportions, and probably PFO along with it.
Alignment may change, that is ok, but not reputation.
Do you also agree that if outposts are typically left without player defenders somewhere close enough to react to a raid then the outpost and raiding system is not working as intended?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would assume that you are correct most groups using formations won't travel long distances in formation.
I don't think this needs to be true. We know that through history armies moved in formation. Why? Did they do it just so life sucked more? I'd think that there are significant benefits to moving in formation; the people who did it often succeeded and they wrote much of history.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you also agree that if outposts are typically left without player defenders somewhere close enough to react to a raid then the outpost and raiding system is not working as intended?If the outpost is indeed PvE content (typically contains only NPC guards), it shouldn't be part of the reputation system at all. I think that if it ends up being that way, there will be changes intended to fix that failure.I agree completely. If Rep loss is attached to killing NPCs then the reputation system would fail in epic proportions, and probably PFO along with it.
Alignment may change, that is ok, but not reputation.
No,,,, if you place an outpost out if the range you can get to easily, then don't put it there. If you want to defend an outpost With PCs, you are welcome to do so. Just understand that according to the Dev Blog killing those defenders won't incur reputation hits. Raiding outposts is planned on being the most common form of PvP.
If you want to pull NPC guards from your more valuable POIs the Devs have said you can do that as well. It will just make your poi more vulnerable.
I kind of look at the raiding of outposts as a bandits version of an escalation. It is PvE that has the potential to become PVP, which is my favorite kind of challenge.
I would assume that you are correct most groups using formations won't travel long distances in formation.I don't think this needs to be true. We know that through history armies moved in formation. Why? Did they do it just so life sucked more? I'd think that there are significant benefits to moving in formation; the people who did it often succeeded and they wrote much of history.
Historical armies are a poor match to game style armies. Many of the reasons they marched in formation had to do with protection of supply lines and also to be in a state of readiness while traversing hostile territory which could take days.
My take is currently too little is known about formations to really converse about them in any meaningful way. Just as an example of what I mean go back to the lone traveller escaping from a formation. Say a formation of 20. For all we know two people breaking away from the formation to chase the traveller down may not seriously compromise the formation and merely leave it as a formation of 18 performing at 90% of the efficency of its 20 man counterpart. Alternatively those two missing people may break the formation entirely.
Basing speculation of other mechanics on speculation of what formations may or may not be is probably therefore not optimal until we get sight of a formation blog and we get some idea of what being in formation means.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Formation Combat is powerful offense / defense and can only be used by Lawful settlements.
Where do you get this stuff? So, it's not just the devs' speculations that you take as gospel, it's any idea that gets floated by a regular poster as well?
Seriously, it's almost like you're deliberately trying to spread misinformation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3. Formation Combat is powerful offense / defense and can only be used by Lawful settlements.Where do you get this stuff? So, it's not just the devs' speculations that you take as gospel, it's any idea that gets floated by a regular poster as well?
I'm not sure that bit about only lawful settlements can use formation combat has ever been floated on the boards. Andius has been the one of the strongest proponents and I think he's only suggested that lawfuls have more formations to choose from.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3. Formation Combat is powerful offense / defense and can only be used by Lawful settlements.
I thought it was just more effective for them, because they could expect folks to, for example, stay in one line and not go haring off issuing challenges to single combat, hoping for personal glory but getting filled with arrows instead.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Do you also agree that if outposts are typically left without player defenders somewhere close enough to react to a raid then the outpost and raiding system is not working as intended?If the outpost is indeed PvE content (typically contains only NPC guards), it shouldn't be part of the reputation system at all. I think that if it ends up being that way, there will be changes intended to fix that failure.I agree completely. If Rep loss is attached to killing NPCs then the reputation system would fail in epic proportions, and probably PFO along with it.
Alignment may change, that is ok, but not reputation.
No,,,, if you place an outpost out if the range you can get to easily, then don't put it there. If you want to defend an outpost With PCs, you are welcome to do so. Just understand that according to the Dev Blog killing those defenders won't incur reputation hits. Raiding outposts is planned on being the most common form of PvP.
If you want to pull NPC guards from your more valuable POIs the Devs have said you can do that as well. It will just make your poi more vulnerable.
I kind of look at the raiding of outposts as a bandits version of an escalation. It is PvE that has the potential to become PVP, which is my favorite kind of challenge.
You said no, but then explicitly agreed to almost my entire line of reasoning- people won't place outposts in areas beyond their control, because they won't gain benefits from doing so. When the PCs that are close enough to the outpost respond to a raid, there will be no reputation or alignment changes beyond any that might have accrued from the raid itself- the defenders will be 'involved with' the raiders at that point.
If the cost of having an outpost raided isn't enough to have anybody close enough to contest the raid, then I think the outpost is of too little value in general. There's no reason to allocate guards unless those guards actually reduce the number of successful raids.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a quick review is in order. Here's the general plan.
Each Settlement has a "PvP window". Let's throw that term away and call it a "Settlement Vulnerability" window because that's more accurate and focuses the mind.
The length the Settlement Vulnerability window is open depends on the Development Index of the Settlement. The higher the DI, the longer the window has to be open. The length, frequency, and other factors regarding the Settlement Vulnerability window are TBD.
During the time the window is open, the Settlement is vulnerable to being destroyed (or possibly taken by force). The exact mechanics of how this is accomplished are TBD.
The Settlement leadership picks when the Window opens and closes. This is to avoid the problem of people being forced to defend their Settlements at prohibitively onerous local times.
Here's the tradeoff: To advance structures to more complex forms the Settlement's DI must be raised. The higher the DI, the more advanced its structures can become. Advanced structures enable characters to access more advanced character abilities and training. They also improve various Settlement facilities like markets and crafting. However, the higher the DI, the longer (and possibly more frequent) the Vulnerability Window must be.
The implications of this are that new Settlements, which will have a low DI, will also have infrequent and short Settlement Vulnerability windows. Settlements with low DI, like those run by Chaotic Evil characters, will also have infrequent and short windows - but they will also have relatively basic structures which means relatively low-powered residents.
When the window is open, rational Settlements will be "on high alert". We don't want a system where one character walks into a Settlement, clicks a button, and "wins". Destroying (or possibly taking) a Settlement requires the application of Siege Warfare during the Settlement Vulnerability window, a formation-based system that involves building huge structures and moving them into position, then firing them over a long period of time, all of which requires many characters acting in concert, plus many more characters to defend the Siege Engines from defending forces, etc. The act of destroying (or possibly taking) a Settlement won't be a surprise.
After some amount of Siege Warfare, there will (likely) be some sort of in-Settlement combat required, where it is likely that some character, or some number of characters, will go somewhere in the Settlement and do something that resolves the siege. The exact mechanics of this system are TBD.
Now let's look at the related game rules that have to go along with this basic system.
First, everyone needs information. All the people who are members of the Settlement need to know when and for how long their Settlement Vulnerability window opens. Likewise this information needs to be generally available to everyone else. (There's no point in making this "secret", secrecy just compels effective Settlements to put moles into target organizations, which they inevitably will if the information is that crucial.)
Second, all players need to understand that defending a Settlement is Priority Number One for its residents, and that it would be silly to put the defenders in a situation where they had to stand aside and watch thousands of hours of hard work be thrown away because of a game mechanic. Ergo, there needs to be a way to ensure that during the period of vulnerability the defenders are free to make their local territory as secure as they possibly can. It's a war zone. If you're not a member of the Settlement, go away. If you remain, you're de facto hostile.
Allowing the defenders to clear the field of hostiles (de facto or not) is simply a requirement of the game design. We can't combine that need with alignment changes or reputation losses or we'll end up with nothing but lower-middle-rep Chaotic Neutral characters and Settlements and that will suck. Ergo there needs to be a relaxation of the normal rules for those things during the Settlement Vulnerability. How that happens? TBD.
That is not a huge problem. The reputation system, in specific, is designed primarily to stop people from engaging in toxic behavior. Getting whacked when you were someplace you shouldn't be isn't toxic. Everyone will know that when a Settlement is vulnerable that it is not an ok place to be unless you have made prior arrangements to ensure your safety. Everyone will know when those windows open, so everyone will know when to be nearby and when to be absent. Not paying attention to this critical information could result in the minimal penalty of a character getting whacked. Learn a lesson.
If you want to reconnoiter a Settlement during it's vulnerable period, you're going to be at risk. If you want to try to blockade one, you'll be at risk. If you want to taunt the inhabitants, you'll be at risk. You choose to be at risk and that's a meaningful choice.
Settlements that want to be known as great markets and the crossroads of trade are going to have to figure out how to maintain that reputation and deal with their periodic vulnerability. I would suggest that the absence of siege engines on the field is a pretty good sign that the Settlement is not in immediate danger, so the Settlement could decide to allow a higher degree of risk and a more free flow of characters in and around it until such time as aforesaid siege engines appear. That's a meaningful choice about risk vs. reward.
Being in such a Settlement when there's a heightened risk you might get whacked by a Settlement member or by a complete stranger is a risk that derives from a meaningful choice.
There are a few obviously degenerate cases of abuse, like bum rushing Settlements that have lax standards for security and ganking everyone in sight "just for the lulz". So we'll evolve some rules or policies against those things. The idea that started this thread, of forcing defenders to take rep hits by killing intentionally gimped newbies is another such case. We'll find them, and we'll deal with them. They're all corner cases.
End of the day, if you want to engage in territorial warfare and destroy (or possibly take) a Settlement, it means armies, siege engines, formations and mass combat. It's not going to have anything to do with ImaGunnaSoKillzYa and his toxic PvP behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a quick review is in order. Here's the general plan.
Each Settlement has a "PvP window". Let's throw that term away and call it a "Settlement Vulnerability" window because that's more accurate and focuses the mind.
The length the Settlement Vulnerability window is open depends on the Development Index of the Settlement. The higher the DI, the longer the window has to be open. The length, frequency, and other factors regarding the Settlement Vulnerability window are TBD.
During the time the window is open, the Settlement is vulnerable to being destroyed (or possibly taken by force). The exact mechanics of how this is accomplished are TBD.
The Settlement leadership picks when the Window opens and closes. This is to avoid the problem of people being forced to defend their Settlements at prohibitively onerous local times.
Here's the tradeoff: To advance structures to more complex forms the Settlement's DI must be raised. The higher the DI, the more advanced its structures can become. Advanced structures enable characters to access more advanced character abilities and training. They also improve various Settlement facilities like markets and crafting. However, the higher the DI, the longer (and possibly more frequent) the Vulnerability Window must be.
The implications of this are that new Settlements, which will have a low DI, will also have infrequent and short Settlement Vulnerability windows. Settlements with low DI, like those run by Chaotic Evil characters, will also have infrequent and short windows - but they will also have relatively basic structures which means relatively low-powered residents.
When the window is open, rational Settlements will be "on high alert". We don't want a system where one character walks into a Settlement, clicks a button, and "wins". Destroying (or possibly taking) a Settlement requires the application of Siege Warfare during the Settlement Vulnerability window, a formation-based system that involves building huge structures and...
Whoa, a free blog post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So,if you are flying the scout it's your own fault?You do realise 20 to 30 is a small gang roam and not unusual in sovereignty null sec in Eve? I think your assumption may need a little workIn EVE you can jump through a gate to find a whole group of people you were completely unaware on just the other side of that gate. On EVE, massive slow moving ships can jump to within firing range of you in the blink of an eye.If you jump through a gate and find a whole group of people you were completely unaware of then it is your fault. It is why competent groups use scouts. It helps locate targets and warns of danger
Yeah, its your own fault if you get caught. There are ways for a scout to get out of gate camps.
Yeah, slow moving ships can jump within firing range of you in the blink of an eye... but they cannot get away that fast. Slow moving ships are not used in Eve unless you are in force and have every angle scouted out.
As I have said before, tactics matter.
Recently my alliance had a gang of 20 or so battleships warp right on top of our cruiser gang at optimal range for them. We only had 12 or so and a couple of those were destroyers and frigates. The interdictor (destroyer) dropped a bubble on top of their fleet, we maneuvered to make it difficult for them to hit us... and we burned right on top of them and whipped out the Battleship fleet with only 2 losses.
Guess the slow moving massive ships regretted jumping within firing range of us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading that I think there us a really simple and entirely un-abusable system. The vulnerability window is the time at which a siege can be initiated. At the point they actually roll out a bunch if huge expensive siege engines and declare a siege then the hex is considered a warzone and all rep/alignment consequences are off.
That way a settlement doesn't become a warzone during their most active time slot each day even when there is no threat.
Second, all players need to understand that defending a Settlement is Priority Number One for its residents, and that it would be silly to put the defenders in a situation where they had to stand aside and watch thousands of hours of hard work be thrown away because of a game mechanic. Ergo, there needs to be a way to ensure that during the period of vulnerability the defenders are free to make their local territory as secure as they possibly can. It's a war zone. If you're not a member of the Settlement, go away. If you remain, you're de facto hostile.
If that be the case, then why not just make Settlement hexes FFA PvP zones when the window is Open?
I know people will cry fowl, but, as you said, Settlements will be defended by 1,000's of people, so a few people here and there killing FFA style in that hex uninvited, are likely to get Roflstomped in short order... and, anyone doing this INSIDE the Settlement itself, will get Roflstomped in even shorter order.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Second, all players need to understand that defending a Settlement is Priority Number One for its residents, and that it would be silly to put the defenders in a situation where they had to stand aside and watch thousands of hours of hard work be thrown away because of a game mechanic. Ergo, there needs to be a way to ensure that during the period of vulnerability the defenders are free to make their local territory as secure as they possibly can. It's a war zone. If you're not a member of the Settlement, go away. If you remain, you're de facto hostile.If that be the case, then why not just make Settlement hexes FFA PvP zones when the window is Open?
I know people will cry fowl, but, as you said, Settlements will be defended by 1,000's of people, so a few people here and there killing FFA style in that hex uninvited, are likely to get Roflstomped in short order... and, anyone doing this INSIDE the Settlement itself, will get Roflstomped in even shorter order.
Actually, I took what he said as that. Settlements that are vulnerable will have their hexes open to pvp... which means FFA style.
Actually, I took what he said as that. Settlements that are vulnerable will have their hexes open to pvp... which means FFA style.Second, all players need to understand that defending a Settlement is Priority Number One for its residents, and that it would be silly to put the defenders in a situation where they had to stand aside and watch thousands of hours of hard work be thrown away because of a game mechanic. Ergo, there needs to be a way to ensure that during the period of vulnerability the defenders are free to make their local territory as secure as they possibly can. It's a war zone. If you're not a member of the Settlement, go away. If you remain, you're de facto hostile.If that be the case, then why not just make Settlement hexes FFA PvP zones when the window is Open?
I know people will cry fowl, but, as you said, Settlements will be defended by 1,000's of people, so a few people here and there killing FFA style in that hex uninvited, are likely to get Roflstomped in short order... and, anyone doing this INSIDE the Settlement itself, will get Roflstomped in even shorter order.
Yes, he confirmed that in another post... but I was talking about the entire Hex, not just the area in and around the Settlement. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr. Dancey, how is killing an unarmed and non-hostile character any less evil because the settlement is vulnerable? It might be lawful, but certainly not good. Wouldn't that be another check on the power of Lawful Good settlements, that they cannot just purge those they think are suspicious? That in and of itself provides a meaningful choice. You have a system that forces people to make a hard choice, why let them off the hook so easily?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As giddy as the idea of free kills in an entire zone every day is making people I suggest you review the intent of that post.
There are a few obviously degenerate cases of abuse, like bum rushing Settlements that have lax standards for security and ganking everyone in sight "just for the lulz". So we'll evolve some rules or policies against those things.
The intent is to allow military conflicts over settlements to be fought without having to tolerate neutrals getting in the way for fear of rep/alignment conflicts.
If siege engines are required to take a settlement I see no reason to start treating it as a warzone unless siege engines are on the field.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As giddy as the idea of free kills in an entire zone every day is making people I suggest you review the intent of that post.
There are a few obviously degenerate cases of abuse, like bum rushing Settlements that have lax standards for security and ganking everyone in sight "just for the lulz". So we'll evolve some rules or policies against those things.The intent is to allow military conflicts over settlements to be fought without having to tolerate neutrals getting in the way for fear of rep/alignment conflicts.
If siege engines are required to take a settlement I see no reason to start treating it as a warzone unless siege engines are on the field.
Have fun with that. A warzone is a warzone regardless of what weapons are on the field.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alexander, should the good city be able to declare its intentions such that anyone left on the streets was very clearly breaking the law, would you be more willing to see why the Lawful Good city may be capable of enforcing those limits?
Consider, there have been plenty of what I would call 'Good' authorities that have placed limits over their populace at times of conflict. What Dancey is describing is essentially a curfew, only the punishment for breaking the curfew is death, rather than imprisonment. This is the reality of living within a system where a players primary ability to force their will onto another player is to kill them.
We can't imprison players for breaking the curfew. We can't run them off without threat of death (unless the developers are willing to add depth to their mechanical interactions, that is). What other method would you have for good cities of clearing their streets?
If siege engines are required to take a settlement I see no reason to start treating it as a warzone unless siege engines are on the field.
And so settlements should be forced to sit and watch as the enemy forces marshal themselves? If the battle is only initiated once siege engines have been put down, what is to stop the attacking force exploiting that to perfectly position themselves before doing so?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As giddy as the idea of free kills in an entire zone every day is making people I suggest you review the intent of that post.
There are a few obviously degenerate cases of abuse, like bum rushing Settlements that have lax standards for security and ganking everyone in sight "just for the lulz". So we'll evolve some rules or policies against those things.The intent is to allow military conflicts over settlements to be fought without having to tolerate neutrals getting in the way for fear of rep/alignment conflicts.
If siege engines are required to take a settlement I see no reason to start treating it as a warzone unless siege engines are on the field.
Oh, Andius, the PvP-loving carebear. What ever shall we do with you?
And anyways, I was saying that they should have a right to defend their entire hex when the PvP window is Open, and, as I said in that post, anyone who's hostile and going crazy within the hex will likely quickly be destroyed.
People are going to set up seige engines and begin formations further away from the settlement, but within the same hex, it's unreasonable for a settlement to have to sit there, watch, and wait for them to slowly make their way over to their settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You don't have to wait until stones are being hurled at the wall, but if the only siege engines in the entire hex are sitting securely in your armory, and siege engines are an absolute requirement to take a settlement then you are being raided at worse. There is not a siege going on.
Certainly nothing worth forcing the defending faction to lift rep penalties for combat.
Doesn't take a genius to see that wanting the rep penalties removed every time vulnerability pops up isn't as much about allowing groups to effectively siege and defend against sieges as it is to push the anti-meaningful rep agenda. Especially given who's pushing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Alexander_Damocles - I guess I will say "enlightened self defense is never evil".
But then take that theory and keep going with it. That group of travelers on the road might be bandits. I should kill them, just to be sure. Its the same rationale, just taken outside of a settlement.
What if instead of just murdering everyone in the streets, you have the option to "close the gates" for a time, and people are warned that in 10 minutes, the city gates will be closed? After that, you have to be on the approved list to be let through the gates. Anyone starting hostile action takes a massive Rep hit.
Not a fully fleshed out idea, but one significantly better than paladins carving a path of blood through the streets every day.
Especially given who's pushing it.
Just because I have an agenda, doesn't mean I'm not making a valid point.
@Alexander - Roleplaying scenarios rarely make a good basis for game mechanics decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Have fun with that. A warzone is a warzone regardless of what weapons are on the field. the truthAs giddy as the idea of free kills in an entire zone every day is making people I suggest you review the intent of that post.
There are a few obviously degenerate cases of abuse, like bum rushing Settlements that have lax standards for security and ganking everyone in sight "just for the lulz". So we'll evolve some rules or policies against those things.The intent is to allow military conflicts over settlements to be fought without having to tolerate neutrals getting in the way for fear of rep/alignment conflicts.
If siege engines are required to take a settlement I see no reason to start treating it as a warzone unless siege engines are on the field.
Oh, now neutrals have to be tolerated... Nonsense, neutrals will be involved in every conflict one way or another. Neutrals will be there harassing both sides, jumping in on one side or the other, or just to keep you on your toes the whole time. Get used to it.
And bum rushing a settlement is a good tactic to use prior to an all out invasion. Cause chaos in the streets, lower the DI, and run off any merchants and etc. So evolving rules and policies against it is going to be a massive undertaking. I doubt its done in the foreseeable future if ever. If it is done then it will be breaking a legitimate warfare tactic.
Thinking GW can micromanage every aspect of the game is a stretch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Alexander - Roleplaying scenarios rarely make a good basis for game mechanics decisions.
Paladins are required to be good. Massacring innocents daily is evil. Massacring innocents at specific times has been declared a non-action. This causes a problem. Either good players have to find a different way to police their towns, or they have to suck it up and admit they might be more vulnerable, thus having a good reason to have those higher Development Indexes. This promotes meaningful choice and meaningful interaction. Scrapping the rep and alignment system when it runs into a problem does not promote meaningful choices, and indicates to me that further work on it needs to be done.
Yes. It's just that in this case it's not.Especially given who's pushing it.Just because I have an agenda, doesn't mean I'm not making a valid point.
If Brighthaven's PvP window opens up, and you see people gathering within your own settlement hex... people from companies who you know may attack you, but, you aren't formally at war with, alongside mercenaries of various guilds who they've hired, would you want to be punished for gathering a group together and squashing them into the ground before they had a chance to formally lay siege to your Settlement??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want Brighthaven or any of TEO's hexes to automatically just allow anyone to kill anyone else without consequence every day even if there isn't a single enemy in our hex.
I don't want our hex breaking out into anarchy just because a group of feud targets comes into our hex during that time frame.
I think if our opponents want to force our lands into a state where killing is consequence free they need to put up or shut up. If they want to gamble with their siege weaponry I'll be happy to torch them so we can resume business as usual.
If we feel we are under a grave enough threat to declare martial law before then, that should be an action Brighthaven's leadership can decide to take. Not something forced on us automatically because of what time of day it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone will be able to use formation combat. That's how you take Settlements.
Maybe I have another misconception. Is Stand-and-Deliver still tied to a Chaotic alignment? Are general Stealth abilities and Ambushing tied to Chaotic alignment? Are there any skills or feats related to raiding outposts, POIs, caravans also Chaotic based skills or feats?
In short, if I want to be a Raider / Bandit, do I have to be Chaotic?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Everyone will be able to use formation combat. That's how you take Settlements.Maybe I have another misconception. Is Stand-and-Deliver still tied to a Chaotic alignment? Are general Stealth abilities and Ambushing tied to Chaotic alignment? Are there any skills or feats related to raiding outposts, POIs, caravans also Chaotic based skills or feats?
In short, if I want to be a Raider / Bandit, do I have to be Chaotic?
It's the act of being a bandit that makes you chaotic, not the other way around.
With regard to settlements having the right of self-defense, can that be limited to characters designated by the settlement leadership without losing the intended benefits?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone will be able to use formation combat. That's how you take Settlements.Maybe I have another misconception. Is Stand-and-Deliver still tied to a Chaotic alignment? Are general Stealth abilities and Ambushing tied to Chaotic alignment? Are there any skills or feats related to raiding outposts, POIs, caravans also Chaotic based skills or feats?
In short, if I want to be a Raider / Bandit, do I have to be Chaotic?
It's the act of being a bandit that makes you chaotic, not the other way around.
With regard to settlements having the right of self-defense, can that be limited to characters designated by the settlement leadership without losing the intended benefits?
I understand be act may be chaotic, but I would like to know from the Devs if in order to get the skills to reform the act, you must be chaotic?