@Steelwing
I suspect the 15 settlements number is, or was a rough minimum to support the 9362ish people that will be in EE but I am doing rough math and guessing a little.
Yes I know what the kickstarter number is and I know they expect that number to be bigger by OE. I estimated maybe 15000 based on Eve graphs in one of the threads around here.
The question still remains why the shift from 15 to 200+ when those numbers and estimates on their side havent changed. I don't think my assumption is unreasonable and all they have to do is respond that it is not the reason.
I think you may be confusing EE #'s with OE. There won't be 220 Settlement hexes in EE, that's OE.
They split each Hex into 7, so likely, that means there's 7x as many Settlement hexes... which means for EE, we likely went from 15 to about 75. Not 15 to 220.
@Steelwing
I suspect the 15 settlements number is, or was a rough minimum to support the 9362ish people that will be in EE but I am doing rough math and guessing a little.
Yes I know what the kickstarter number is and I know they expect that number to be bigger by OE. I estimated maybe 15000 based on Eve graphs in one of the threads around here.
The question still remains why the shift from 15 to 200+ when those numbers and estimates on their side havent changed. I don't think my assumption is unreasonable and all they have to do is respond that it is not the reason.
I think you may be confusing EE #'s with OE. There won't be 220 Settlement hexes in EE, that's OE.
They split each Hex into 7, so likely, that means there's 7x as many Settlement hexes... which means for EE, we likely went from 15 to about 75. Not 15 to 220.
The fifteen was mooted after the splitting of hexes.
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Those hex estimates are for the whole area of the Crusader Road map in the Thornkeep book. We will expand to fill that as we grow, starting with a smaller subset for EE. By the time we need all that space, each of the settlements in it will, indeed, tend to have hundreds of members on average.
We'll continue to expand past that into territory that is not presently mapped in the Thornkeep book shortly thereafter.
Those hex estimates are for the whole area of the Crusader Road map in the Thornkeep book. We will expand to fill that as we grow, starting with a smaller subset for EE. By the time we need all that space, each of the settlements in it will, indeed, tend to have hundreds of members on average.
We'll continue to expand past that into territory that is not presently mapped in the Thornkeep book shortly thereafter.
Thank you Stephen so what you are saying is 220 wont be in the game from EE or even OE but the space is planned so that you can expand with player numbers?
That makes sense and reassures me a little
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, I did not think anybody was as OCD as me, to do the math that is.
Personally I don't know if would not even bother with OE if they knew that every settlement site would already be dug in before I even created my first whatever. I want to be apart of building something not just one of the new traders stepping in for a piece of what the old traders bleed and die for. Nevermind, that would amount to far to much favoritism for the backers. I understand that the plan is to have some sort of economy established before OE but not one that is completely dominate. I fine line to be sure. Of course I am not coming in with a well established group such as many of the folks on the blogs. Anybody else planing on being a mule driver? I want a niche to myself if ya did not know. 8)
On the point of building something I love that POI will be fluid. Should one be destroyed I expect folks will have to start from scratch clearing the npcs, clearing the land, building influence, and then there POI.
I wonder will it be possible to simple sell a POI? Without giving some long drawn out example would an enterprising Davy Crockett type be able to sell off a POI for no other reason than he (they) want to show a profit, and move on to an unclaimed POI hex? Please no Texas references its just the first name I could think of.
*EDIT* during EE not before sorry. EE early enrollment, OE Open Enrollment. Do I have that wrong?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you can only link a PoI to a settlement that's within one alignment step correct?
When a PoI changes hands and the new owners do not or can not link to a settlement what happens to the previous roads?
Does it cost either party to build roads?
I'm guessing a PoI can only be linked to one settlement? What about two settlements within the same Kingdom?
Which brings up: Why was the Kingdom level not included in your hierarchy? Is this an out-of-game function and not an actual mechanic?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are a good number of things I like about this blog post.
First I like that there are created centers besides the settlement with the goal of allowing smaller organizations (which will be most folks) to take charge without being directly responsible for a larger settlement. This means if I get a group of 20 friends together who play regularly we can still have a home base to call our own.
I like that the people taking over a POI has the option of what kind of PoI they are going to build and that that choice will be meaningful in that the different options provide different benefits. I could see a trading settlement having most of their PoIs being inns, manors, and shrines in order to provide the largest benefit to others. I could see a more martial settlement having mostly watch towers.
I like the idea that outposts are designed to be raided often and to change hands. This makes them a fluid objective and provides constant reason to go raid them. not only that but the fact that they only hold 24-48 hours worth of goods means that you have to move those goods, which means they are liable to be stolen from you. I wonder where bandits will be setting up?
I have a question. How will the decreased cost of setting up outposts (by having a different company) do it mess with being able to be a member of more than one company.
for example.
The Knights of Great control a watchtower PoI. The first outpost is Run by the Order of Turnip Farmers and the second is run by the Most Holy Order of Dirt Plowers. However due to being able to be part of more than one company they are all also members of the Knights of Great. In situations like that will there still be a discount associated with claiming those outposts or do they need to ensure they are not formally part of the Knights of Great?
The second question is this. Lets say im in a LG company that takes over a PoI as part of a LG settlement. For some reason we all take vacation and when we all come back one of our outposts has been taken over by some CE folks. Will there be a mechanic that allows me to take back the outpost without being labeled as a criminal or evil or that wont shift my alignment. Something like If i control the PoI you can take over the outposts as they are "rightfully" yours without issue. That would make controlling the PoI have another benefit, so at that point if we lose the PoI we would need to declare war to get it back.
Over I like this idea. what i like more is the fact that there will be MANY PoIs and outposts. It will allow a lot of folks to play a role, while still limiting settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Stephen Cheney
In order for the criminal flag to be triggered, is it still required for the settlement governing the hex to have made raiding a crime?
As it has already been asked, I'm also interested to hear about the alert system.
I assume that feuds as well as wars or faction conflicts, avoid the criminal flag as well.
Is there any reputation implications of raiding outposts?
@ Stephen Cheney
Is there any reputation implications of raiding outposts?
@ Tork Shaw if Stephen Cheney doesn't answer the above question... Could you also let us know if there are alignment shifts as well? (this question also applies to @Stephen Cheney if @Tork Shaw doesn't get around to answering said question)...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly unrelated, but if a settlement manager wants to oversee multiple companies' POIs, could he/she be able to be a member of each company if said companies are all sponsored by the same settlement.
I remember it being said that you can be in something like 3 companies at once, one being sponsored. However, if another becomes sponsored you need to chose one or the other to stay with. Does that still apply to two companies that you belong to, become sponsored by the same settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Slightly unrelated, but if a settlement manager wants to oversee multiple companies' POIs, could he/she be able to be a member of each company if said companies are all sponsored by the same settlement.
I remember it being said that you can be in something like 3 companies at once, one being sponsored. However, if another becomes sponsored you need to chose one or the other to stay with. Does that still apply to two companies that you belong to, become sponsored by the same settlement?
Yes and while we're on that subject, what keeps a single player from running everything through alts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think on average a settlement can grab ten contiguous PoI hexes before they're taking hexes adjacent to another settlement.I'm no Nightdrifer or DeciusBrutus, but that leads me to conclude that there will be one Settlement Hex for every 6-10 POI Hexes, meaning there will be somewhere between roughly 200 and 350 Settlement Hexes in the current map. That's a lot more than I expected.One extreme: The average settlement has the minimum 6 'natural' PoI hexes and 1 'disputed' hex, which is near a total of 3 settlements. PoI hexes are 19/3 as common as settlement hexes, and 2000 PoI hexes serve 300 settlement hexes.
Other extreme: The average settlement has the maximum of 6 natural plus 5 disputed hexes, and disputed hexes are close to exactly two settlements. PoI hexes are 17/2 times as common as settlement hexes, and 2000 PoI hexes serve 200 settlements.
Numbers are subject to change as we build out the map, but 2000 PoI hexes is slightly rounded up and number of settlement hexes is around 220, such that if every single settlement played nice and tried to distribute them as evenly as possible (hah!), each settlement would sponsor 8-9 PoIs.
Not bad for a rough guesstimate :)
Thanks Decius and Stephen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
220 settlements is certainly a few more than 15...
If my calculations are correct, then yes, it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Keign, If you haven't yet you should read the section of the blog You've Got Brawn, I've Got Brains, where they talk about stealth. The short of it is, I don't see the current ideas for stealth meshing with someone sneaking past all the guards to loot the bank unnoticed. I also don't think they'll allow one character to raid alone.
I've read it - I always keep up on the blog and generally the forums - and while I admit that the stealth system may not make this an easy endeavor, I see no reason that such a thing shouldn't be possible. Especially if the security is light and the thief especially skilled. If you can't steal from some far-flung outpost, how can you expect to steal in a busy metropolis? (Though of course, I don't recall having seen much on actual pick-pocketing sorts of mechanics anyway.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's a good point; the way I think it will work is this: when you interact with the bank, you break stealth and become hostile to all the guards (if you weren't already, and don't have permissions). Because the guards are right there outside the bank, you have to kill them to access it. So it isn't technically necessary to kill the guards, if you find some way to loot the bank on your own without aggroing them. It would probably have to use some sort of exploit though, as it seems they are not designing specifically for people to stealth in and steal stuff, which means you most likely cannot.
There was a lot of talk of burglary and other such thievery means by the fans much earlier on in development; dunno if it ever got anywhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How many people is a raid approximately? If there are different tiers for outposts, how many people aprox is required to raid a first tier/max tier outpost or are there different features for outposts that can be upgraded like number of guards, different fences etc?
edit. If not taking into account player defenders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think would be thieves should remember that "bank" might be the wrong word. The secure storage area is going to be filled with grain, metal ore, wool, or hides depending on the two outposts production. Raw materials that will need to be some how shipped to a settlement to be made then into something. How stealthy would your above avg thief be carrying any quantity of iron ore? Now there is likely an outpost far off in a very dangerous hex that will be a precious metal mine but it will still need processing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does the training at POIs is limited statement mean that they can only go up so high or that its limited to only 1 or 2 skills?
All Training Facilities have a limited capacity to train. That is, each time someone trains from them, a renewable resource is depleted. Once that resource is depleted, no more training can occur until it renews. I believe this is what they're talking about.
Finally, each feat may have a cost in coin that's set by the settlement that owns the training hall. Like any other fee, such as using their markets, settlements have a lot of control over pricing for these feats and can charge a different rate for guests or members (and likely more fine-tuned control for different types of members).The fee is important, because each hall offers a limited amount of training (there are only so many instructors to go around), and the settlement probably doesn't want guests swooping in to take all the training from a building they made to support their members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would desecration of a shrine to an opposing god be in the game and if so how would alignments shift?
If desecration were in the game, I'd expect that it might be in the faction warfare side of things. So maybe no alignment shift if done by a faction member against an enemy faction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I love the content of this blog! It has completely validated Deepforge's intended playstyle. I am curious though about running outposts with mule characters and if that is intended or not. Also a suggestion on names, maybe change tower to keep. To me a keep seems more likely to be built to stabilize and protect an area than a simple watchtower.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is that an instant notification? Will members of the management company who are on the other side of the game world be automatically informed? Is it worth trying to make a case for that not being what happens? I understand that the system will be balanced for whichever notification method you use, but I honestly think that a growing circle of alert, such that the longer that the outpost is raided the further out the alert goes, would be more interesting.
It is surely worth asking but Ryan did reveal to us a few months ago that we would probably want to maintain a smartphone or similar so we could receive informational updates, I presume from the game itself.
Another concern with the Criminal flag and potential slide towards Chaotic is the inclusion of non-allied but non-guilty parties.
Are we expecting to need to define alliances with every travelling merchant or here today, gone tomorrow adventurer we feel comfortable hanging out in our lands? I imagine the case would be rare, but I can only imagine how upsetting it might be to be a LN merchant moving through a hex with an outpost when some unknown company happens to start raiding, only to have over-eager defenders rush over the hill to slaughter the otherwise innocent man with a criminal flag.
It is certainly a conundrum though, because the opposite situation might be that not all of the raiders get flagged and either wait to jump in until the time is ripe or try to reputation bait the defenders.
Other than that, this sounds like good stuff!
i may be a fool this makes the game more interesting in my pov, it makes the merchant to be more mindful about politics and roads, logistics at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would desecration of a shrine to an opposing god be in the game and if so how would alignments shift?If desecration were in the game, I'd expect that it might be in the faction warfare side of things. So maybe no alignment shift if done by a faction member against an enemy faction.
I like the idea of spreading religious influence around the map as a form of soft power and casting down the rival shrines to deprive them of divine manna etc.
@ Tork Shaw if Stephen Cheney doesn't answer the above question... Could you also let us know if there are alignment shifts as well? (this question also applies to @Stephen Cheney if @Tork Shaw doesn't get around to answering said question)...@ Stephen Cheney
Is there any reputation implications of raiding outposts?
@ Any Dev ...Could we get an answer to these All-important questions please:
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another concern with the Criminal flag and potential slide towards Chaotic is the inclusion of non-allied but non-guilty parties.
Are we expecting to need to define alliances with every travelling merchant or here today, gone tomorrow adventurer we feel comfortable hanging out in our lands? I imagine the case would be rare, but I can only imagine how upsetting it might be to be a LN merchant moving through a hex with an outpost when some unknown company happens to start raiding, only to have over-eager defenders rush over the hill to slaughter the otherwise innocent man with a criminal flag.
It is certainly a conundrum though, because the opposite situation might be that not all of the raiders get flagged and either wait to jump in until the time is ripe or try to reputation bait the defenders.
Other than that, this sounds like good stuff!
i may be a fool this makes the game more interesting in my pov, it makes the merchant to be more mindful about politics and roads, logistics at all.
I agree with Kabal here; if the merchant is vigilant he should be able to detect a raid happening very close to his location, so he should be able to get out of there quickly. This is based on a complete assumption on my part, which is that the area of hostility around a raided outpost will not be massive. I was imagining the area to be the clearing around the outpost plus maybe twice that distance in each direction (so 3x total). Far enough so ranged attacks and heals into the outpost are not possible outside the area, but close enough so it's not enveloping a whole bunch of uninvolved characters. You wouldn't want people starting and immediately quitting a raid to get free hostility on all the nearby players who have nothing to do with the raid; that would be the mechanic not working as intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds really good in general. The only concern I have is with the earning of INFLUENCE by clearing monsters from the hex and the spending of INFLUENCE to gain the right to build the POI. I can see the value of this mechanic to prevent companies to swoop in at the last moment and claim a POI that another company has worked to clear. That is a valuable mechanic.
However, it also looks like it would create a side effect whereby a company interested in the POI would try to protect the monsters from being cleared by anyone outside thier group.....even individuals, freindly companies or mercaneries who had absolutely no interest in claiming the POI because doing so would dilute the claiming companies ability to earn interest. I would see that as an undesirable side effect and work against the principle of meaningfull human interaction as companies should be able to work with and contract with outside individuals for assistance with escalation cycles without fear of it harming thier intent to claim if those individuals don't expressly seek to compete with them.
My suggestion would be to allow individuals and outside companies to effectively donate or proxy the influence they earned from thier clearing attempts.
Something like....
1) Company A asserts that it is seeking to earn influence to claim the POI of a particular hex. The game records this.
2) Player outside Company A wishes to engage in PvE in that hex without harm to Company A's claim. The game presents them a mechanism whereby they can PLEDGE that any INFLUENCE they earn from clearning monsters go toward Company A's claim rather then thier own.
As a side note, I'm wondering if a monster escalation cycle can get to a point where it gets so out of control that it defeats/destroys the POI and the hex reverts to unclaimed again. I think that would be an interesting aspect of play that I would favor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Kabal here; if the merchant is vigilant he should be able to detect a raid happening very close to his location, so he should be able to get out of there quickly. This is based on a complete assumption on my part, which is that the area of hostility around a raided outpost will not be massive. I was imagining the area to be the clearing around the outpost plus maybe twice that distance in each direction (so 3x total). Far enough so ranged attacks and heals into the outpost are not possible outside the area, but close enough so it's not enveloping a whole bunch of uninvolved characters. You wouldn't want people starting and immediately quitting a raid to get free hostility on all the nearby players who have nothing to do with the raid; that would be the mechanic not working as intended.Another concern with the Criminal flag and potential slide towards Chaotic is the inclusion of non-allied but non-guilty parties.
Are we expecting to need to define alliances with every travelling merchant or here today, gone tomorrow adventurer we feel comfortable hanging out in our lands? I imagine the case would be rare, but I can only imagine how upsetting it might be to be a LN merchant moving through a hex with an outpost when some unknown company happens to start raiding, only to have over-eager defenders rush over the hill to slaughter the otherwise innocent man with a criminal flag.
It is certainly a conundrum though, because the opposite situation might be that not all of the raiders get flagged and either wait to jump in until the time is ripe or try to reputation bait the defenders.
Other than that, this sounds like good stuff!
i may be a fool this makes the game more interesting in my pov, it makes the merchant to be more mindful about politics and roads, logistics at all.
Good points. My assumption was hex-wide. If the constraints are more narrowly defined around the PoI and not the entire hex or half of the hex, then it would work much more nicely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a side note, I'm wondering if a monster escalation cycle can get to a point where it gets so out of control that it defeats/destroys the POI and the hex reverts to unclaimed again. I think that would be an interesting aspect of play that I would favor.
Same for me. Seems to be the natural progression for the monster escalation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note, I'm wondering if a monster escalation cycle can get to a point where it gets so out of control that it defeats/destroys the POI and the hex reverts to unclaimed again. I think that would be an interesting aspect of play that I would favor.Same for me. Seems to be the natural progression for the monster escalation.
It'd be terrible design if it couldn't get this far as destroying a POI. Your settlement could simply ignore escalations indefinitely.
How much of a threat can escalations pose if they get out of control? Unless I missed something escalations can still expand from one hex to another if left untouched. Is there:
a) Some upper limit to the threat posed by escalations that eventually powerful settlements will be able to easily handle? The devs could keep upping this limit as the game matures. Or they could keep it fixed and keep the focus on PVP while making the PVE less and less meaningful over time.
b) No upper limit? Unstopped escalations could theoretically wipe out every settlement on the map if ignored long enough. This would lead to the player base needing to work together to fight back against the threat. It also has the added bonus of upsetting older powers in game, ie allowing new players to get into the settlement creation aspect of PFO. Such uncontrolled escalations would likely be in the less populous areas of the map, kind of like a 'wild' area of the map - with the bonus organic feel that comes from the wild area showing up based on where players are rather than being artificially static like many MMOs.
Personally I prefer (b) as something that's not a real threat eventually becomes a meaningless aspect of the game. The potential for a world event (in this case an out of control escalation) could be a lot of fun. The example I always come back to is the Corrupted Blood incident in WoW. It got out of control and from what I read of it was pure awesome. (I admit a bias here though: the one thing I want to see for PVE content more than anything is a plague escalation.)
Any devs want to clarify what their thoughts on the maximum threat an escalation can pose is?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would expect exactly that... Escalation Cycles should and would effect a POI just the same as a settlement. It may not be scaled as large if the POI is not aligned with a settlement or that could have no bearing on the cycle and it could continue to be completely random as stated last summer.
The EC should / would cause all production to stop if not addressed in any case. From that point if the CC or it proxy does not confront the EC they should expect to lose their claim to the POI and its outpost(s). The basis for there claim is predicated on the fact that they can control the hex.
A smart enemy would time its attacks to an EC so a smarter CC would nip the EC in the very early bud. I don't see any problem with EC being able to overrun your settlement if you choose to ignore it.
I'd like to add there is no lose of faction or reputation related to an EC before anybody asks. This is in the first paragraph of the previous update.
*EDIT* I'm with you "B" all the way.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would expect the Reputation and Alignment hits to function normally unless specifically stated otherwise.
Generally, if you attack someone who isn't flagged for you, then you rake Reputation and Alignment hits if they die as a result.
Correct. If you have a peek back at the hostility system (I think 2 blogs ago) you can see what it is that causes alignment and reputation losses. The short answer is 'effectively' - raiding an outpost when you are not at war with someone will not affect your reputation right away but if (by some miracle) you kill any PC defenders before they make an attack on you it will affect your reputation.
Your alignment will only be affected if it is illegal to raid in that hex - this means it will need to belong to a settlement. That said, we are still toying with what affects alignment and its very possible that attacking NPC guards with whom you are not at war will have alignment implications.
Pfft.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Good points. My assumption was hex-wide. If the constraints are more narrowly defined around the PoI and not the...I agree with Kabal here; if the merchant is vigilant he should be able to detect a raid happening very close to his location, so he should be able to get out of there quickly. This is based on a complete assumption on my part, which is that the area of hostility around a raided outpost will not be massive. I was imagining the area to be the clearing around the outpost plus maybe twice that distance in each direction (so 3x total). Far enough so ranged attacks and heals into the outpost are not possible outside the area, but close enough so it's not enveloping a whole bunch of uninvolved characters. You wouldn't want people starting and immediately quitting a raid to get free hostility on all the nearby players who have nothing to do with the raid; that would be the mechanic not working as intended.Another concern with the Criminal flag and potential slide towards Chaotic is the inclusion of non-allied but non-guilty parties.
Are we expecting to need to define alliances with every travelling merchant or here today, gone tomorrow adventurer we feel comfortable hanging out in our lands? I imagine the case would be rare, but I can only imagine how upsetting it might be to be a LN merchant moving through a hex with an outpost when some unknown company happens to start raiding, only to have over-eager defenders rush over the hill to slaughter the otherwise innocent man with a criminal flag.
It is certainly a conundrum though, because the opposite situation might be that not all of the raiders get flagged and either wait to jump in until the time is ripe or try to reputation bait the defenders.
Other than that, this sounds like good stuff!
i may be a fool this makes the game more interesting in my pov, it makes the merchant to be more mindful about politics and roads, logistics at all.
Yupyup - the constraints are narrower than the whole hex. Dont forget the hex contains 2 outposts and a single PoI. We only want to bring in the outpost under attack. It will likely be a fairly small area, although Lifedragn you make a very valuable point about attack/buffing/healing range and preventing people easily skirting the area.
As for when and how notifications are delivered - this is still under consideration. It may have to be a process that evolves a little with the early systems being pretty binary (instant notifications to involved parties) and later when we have more time and tech becoming more location based. If you remember there are some intended advantages to having 'visibility' in an area with watchtowers etc. The same system (or something similar) could be co-opted for notifications, but both of these dreams are likely beta at the earliest and certainly post EE.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
That's a good point; the way I think it will work is this: when you interact with the bank, you break stealth and become hostile to all the guards (if you weren't already, and don't have permissions). Because the guards are right there outside the bank, you have to kill them to access it. So it isn't technically necessary to kill the guards, if you find some way to loot the bank on your own without aggroing them. It would probably have to use some sort of exploit though, as it seems they are not designing specifically for people to stealth in and steal stuff, which means you most likely cannot.
There was a lot of talk of burglary and other such thievery means by the fans much earlier on in development; dunno if it ever got anywhere.
Yeh stealth and raiding is a tough one. With the way the system is currently designed it would be functionally impossible to successfully use stealth to raid an outpost and that is pretty intentional. Even if you could somehow manage to sneak past the guards (more on that in a moment) you would certainly break stealth when accessing the bank. Since stealth does not make you invisible at close range any friends you had brought with you would also likely end up getting caught when the guards got near. Raiding on your own is pretty pointless since you will get away with so few goods (trade goods are heavy!).
Raiding is meant to encourage PvP among multiple players. Single player raids are not really its purpose. Sabotage, on the other hand, is something that a single player may engage in on an outpost or PoI, but that is not so much about personal profit - but rather about warfare. Bear in mind that although we want to give every player as many options to play their character any way they wish we are inclined to prioritize systems that will involve multiple players, particularly for EE and beta.
Now in terms of guard behavior - this will most likely start of simple at EE and become more complex over time. AI is tricky to get right and in the short term the guards are a pretty ham-fisted device for us. In terms of stuff like raiding and illegal actions they will most likely have simple triggers which they will respond to, rather than complex, distance based or line-of-sight based reactions. Complex, natural guard behaviours are certainly something we are interested in developing but in the short term they are going to be pretty alarm-y.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would expect the Reputation and Alignment hits to function normally unless specifically stated otherwise.
Generally, if you attack someone who isn't flagged for you, then you rake Reputation and Alignment hits if they die as a result.
Correct. If you have a peek back at the hostility system (I think 2 blogs ago) you can see what it is that causes alignment and reputation losses. The short answer is 'effectively' - raiding an outpost when you are not at war with someone will not affect your reputation right away but if (by some miracle) you kill any PC defenders before they make an attack on you it will affect your reputation.
Your alignment will only be affected if it is illegal to raid in that hex - this means it will need to belong to a settlement. That said, we are still toying with what affects alignment and its very possible that attacking NPC guards with whom you are not at war will have alignment implications.
Hmmmm. I'd far rather see this done as a thing where when you start raiding there is issues a warning to the surrounding area and starts a timer that gives everyone a moment to vacate the area. Once that happens it should be a warzone until the raid is over. When your archers see that sword and board defender coming to stop you they shouldn't have to wait until he closes to melee range to open fire.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
How many people is a raid approximately? If there are different tiers for outposts, how many people aprox is required to raid a first tier/max tier outpost or are there different features for outposts that can be upgraded like number of guards, different fences etc?
edit. If not taking into account player defenders.
This will vary HUGELY according to PoI vigilance and defensive capabilities. Equally geared players are usually a match for each other, so it depends on who is around at the time. It will be a group expedition, however.
Outposts have no fences or walls. They MAY have one or more guards according to the outpost type, but generally guards will have to be pushed to an outpost by either the PoI or an associated settlement from their own supply. Outposts are meant to be the least guarded structures in game.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds really good in general. The only concern I have is with the earning of INFLUENCE by clearing monsters from the hex and the spending of INFLUENCE to gain the right to build the POI. I can see the value of this mechanic to prevent companies to swoop in at the last moment and claim a POI that another company has worked to clear. That is a valuable mechanic.
However, it also looks like it would create a side effect whereby a company interested in the POI would try to protect the monsters from being cleared by anyone outside thier group.....even individuals, freindly companies or mercaneries who had absolutely no interest in claiming the POI because doing so would dilute the claiming companies ability to earn interest. I would see that as an undesirable side effect and work against the principle of meaningfull human interaction as companies should be able to work with and contract with outside individuals for assistance with escalation cycles without fear of it harming thier intent to claim if those individuals don't expressly seek to compete with them.
My suggestion would be to allow individuals and outside companies to effectively donate or proxy the influence they earned from thier clearing attempts.
Something like....
1) Company A asserts that it is seeking to earn influence to claim the POI of a particular hex. The game records this.
2) Player outside Company A wishes to engage in PvE in that hex without harm to Company A's claim. The game presents them a mechanism whereby they can PLEDGE that any INFLUENCE they earn from clearning monsters go toward Company A's claim rather then thier own.
As a side note, I'm wondering if a monster escalation cycle can get to a point where it gets so out of control that it defeats/destroys the POI and the hex reverts to unclaimed again. I think that would be an interesting aspect of play that I would favor.
Just to clarify - companies to not directly earn Ifluence from participation in clearing a hex. They MAY do through member's completion of achievements as part of that process, but their 'contribution' to the clearance is different from Influence.
You make a very good point, but I am not sure I believe it to be a problem per se. It is possible that a company will wish to complete as much of a cycle as they can without interference/assistance, in order to lower the Influence cost of purchasing the hex. This will be a struggle in itself - fighting off an escalation cycle AND a bunch of PCs will not be easy. We kind of want this kind of conflict to occur - fighting for territory even before the territory is claimed! In terms of including allys in the process- that is the price you pay. If you need assistance completing the escalation you have to pay the price in influence.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Hmmmm. I'd far rather see this done as a thing where when you start raiding there is issues a warning to the surrounding area and starts a timer that gives everyone a moment to vacate the area. Once that happens it should be a warzone until the raid is over. When your archers see that sword and board defender coming to stop you they shouldn't have to wait until he closes to melee range to open fire.I would expect the Reputation and Alignment hits to function normally unless specifically stated otherwise.
Generally, if you attack someone who isn't flagged for you, then you rake Reputation and Alignment hits if they die as a result.
Correct. If you have a peek back at the hostility system (I think 2 blogs ago) you can see what it is that causes alignment and reputation losses. The short answer is 'effectively' - raiding an outpost when you are not at war with someone will not affect your reputation right away but if (by some miracle) you kill any PC defenders before they make an attack on you it will affect your reputation.
Your alignment will only be affected if it is illegal to raid in that hex - this means it will need to belong to a settlement. That said, we are still toying with what affects alignment and its very possible that attacking NPC guards with whom you are not at war will have alignment implications.
Point taken, but this was a deliberate choice. Raiding isnt something you are doing until you actually do it. Now there was in an early version of the system a 'raiding area', and entering this area for more than X seconds initiated the raid/made you hostile. The problem there is that distinguishing between people with whom you wish to trade and raiders entering your outpost is pretty tricky unless you ONLY permit mechanical allies to trade with you.
Yes, there is a possibility that a raider can get all the way up to your outpost whistling a nonchalant tune, you are correct. Since we do not want a 'shoot anyone but allies' situation happening anywhere in game this is situation I would prefer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks a ton for your comments, Tork.
Since we do not want a 'shoot anyone but allies' situation happening anywhere in game this is situation I would prefer.
Could you elaborate on that a bit? It sounds like you're saying you don't really want NBSI to be a common policy, even if you might expect it will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to clarify - companies to not directly earn Ifluence from participation in clearing a hex. They MAY do...Sounds really good in general. The only concern I have is with the earning of INFLUENCE by clearing monsters from the hex and the spending of INFLUENCE to gain the right to build the POI. I can see the value of this mechanic to prevent companies to swoop in at the last moment and claim a POI that another company has worked to clear. That is a valuable mechanic.
However, it also looks like it would create a side effect whereby a company interested in the POI would try to protect the monsters from being cleared by anyone outside thier group.....even individuals, freindly companies or mercaneries who had absolutely no interest in claiming the POI because doing so would dilute the claiming companies ability to earn interest. I would see that as an undesirable side effect and work against the principle of meaningfull human interaction as companies should be able to work with and contract with outside individuals for assistance with escalation cycles without fear of it harming thier intent to claim if those individuals don't expressly seek to compete with them.
My suggestion would be to allow individuals and outside companies to effectively donate or proxy the influence they earned from thier clearing attempts.
Something like....
1) Company A asserts that it is seeking to earn influence to claim the POI of a particular hex. The game records this.
2) Player outside Company A wishes to engage in PvE in that hex without harm to Company A's claim. The game presents them a mechanism whereby they can PLEDGE that any INFLUENCE they earn from clearning monsters go toward Company A's claim rather then thier own.
As a side note, I'm wondering if a monster escalation cycle can get to a point where it gets so out of control that it defeats/destroys the POI and the hex reverts to unclaimed again. I think that would be an interesting aspect of play that I would favor.
Tork,
Just as a clarification does this imply that INFLUENCE is a general attribute and not specific to any given POI. Example Company A's INFLUENCE rating is 87 as opposed to Company A has an INFLUENCE rating of 44 in hex 2323 and an INFLUENCE rating of 22 in hex 2149?
If that's the case, then I'm not sure it will effectively achieve it's stated goal of preventing a company from swooping in at the last moment and claiming a hex that another company did all the work clearing.
Perhaps I'm simply not understanding how INFLUENCE works?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for when and how notifications are delivered - this is still under consideration. It may have to be a process that evolves a little with the early systems being pretty binary (instant notifications to involved parties) and later when we have more time and tech becoming more location based. If you remember there are some intended advantages to having 'visibility' in an area with watchtowers etc. The same system (or something similar) could be co-opted for notifications, but both of these dreams are likely beta at the earliest and certainly post EE.
An alarm bell tower, it has to be activate after a raid has been declared but not necessarily having to wait until after the raid has phsyically began. The tower is a targetable structure for sabotage. If it works, no warning to the settlement or POI.
Just an idea.