# Goblinworks Blog: The Window's a Wound, the Road Is a Knife

### Pathfinder Online

 101 to 150 of 481 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

GrumpyMel wrote:
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?

I'm fairly certain the Influence is not per hex, but the Influence Cost to claim a particular POI is reduced based on how much your Company contributed to clearing the monsters. So, a Company with 2,000 Influence might not even be able to spend the 2,500 it would take to buy a POI they didn't help clear at all, but might be able to easily afford the 500 Influence it takes to buy the POI they cleared almost single-handedly. (All numbers entirely made up)

Nihimon wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
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?
I'm fairly certain the Influence is not per hex, but the Influence Cost to claim a particular POI is reduced based on how much your Company contributed to clearing the monsters. So, a Company with 2,000 Influence might not even be able to spend the 2,500 it would take to buy a POI they didn't help clear at all, but might be able to easily afford the 500 Influence it takes to buy the POI they cleared almost single-handedly. (All numbers entirely made up)

Ok so 2 seperate factors... INFLUENCE which is a general attribute of companies and CONTRIBUTION which is specific to individual hex's. Do I have that correct, now?

GrumpyMel wrote:
... CONTRIBUTION which is specific to individual hex's.

I expect it's probably only specific to a single instance of clearing out the monsters from the Hex. So, you probably wouldn't be able to help clear out a POI in January, decline or fail to purchase the POI, watch the POI get taken out by a subsequent escalation, fail to contribute to the clearing of that particular escalation, and still have a reduced cost to purchase the POI.

Pax Areks wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:
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.

An interesting and realistic idea, but I would be concerned that this whole aspect of the game becomes focused on sabotaging the bell and then the outpost only gets raided if the sabotage was successful. It seems too focused on avoiding any actual combat as part of what is meant to be a PvP exercise. It would be like saying you could try to start a fire at a dungeon entrance to smoke out the inhabitants and if it works, you get the dungeon loot without having to fight the monsters.

An unsuccessful sabotage flags the group as criminals and unless killed, they get away and raise corruption. Still it has to be a mechanic with investment that would prevent a hastey retreat to avoid it being exploited to raise corruption. If the bell is rang, then the commrades would get a slight speed buff to get there even faster. If the sabotage is successful it could put a speed debuff on the reinforcments.

Nothing is going to prevent one person on TS from telling another that they think they are going to get raided so you add mechanics to it to make it more interesting.

For notifications I would like to see options that the players have to pick.

So basically with a very large influence contribution and upkeep you could have a a magical warning bell that would alert the PoI and other outpost and the PoI would raise a flag so people can see that an outpost needs help.

Or for a smaller contribution they can hire runners that when its raided the runners will be sent to the PoI, the downside is that the raiders can set up for the runners and take them out.

The last one is that after the raid has been going a bit random farmers and such run to the PoI and finally alert it, but by then a bunch of damage would have been done.

I do think that alerts should not be sent instantly to the members it should require paying attention so say a bell ringing noise thats only in that hex and only lasts a short while or the invasion flag thats raised over the PoI...etc.

I think there is value in forcing players to pay attention to when things like this happen vs just giving them the knowledge.

Also tony will you be able to answer my questions on the other page?

 Goblinworks Game Designer

Nihimon wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
... CONTRIBUTION which is specific to individual hex's.

I expect it's probably only specific to a single instance of clearing out the monsters from the Hex. So, you probably wouldn't be able to help clear out a POI in January, decline or fail to purchase the POI, watch the POI get taken out by a subsequent escalation, fail to contribute to the clearing of that particular escalation, and still have a reduced cost to purchase the POI.

Affirmative! Influence is the PoI version of Development Index (detailed in a blog post, I forget the date.) Contribution is a score related to a company's input into a particular escalation cycle.

@DEVS

Will the POI/Outpost(s) have the same PVP window as settlements, will it be keyed to the level of development just like the settlements? I know this may seem like a silly question since CC running a POI will be by definition smaller than a settlement population.

The smaller the player base the smaller the window would be from what I read. If you would not mind reiterating the specifics of how that system will be put into effect a POI.

Any group wishing to control a POI will likely have to be more dedicated to daily play than a much larger population of people in a settlement.

I expect escalation cycles will be based on a random generator, but there be any sort of out of bounds time frame for them to start?

Tork Shaw wrote:
Influence is the PoI version of Development Index (detailed in a blog post, I forget the date.)

 2 people marked this as a favorite.

So..if raiding is going to be a big thing and the goods being raided are going to be big, heavy, and bulky, does that mean the next blog is on caravans and wagons and beasts of burden???

Great blog, we at the UNC like this blog a lot. SAD and raiding.

Question: are hideouts going to fall into the outpost/POI system or be something completely different? We need a blog on that soon too. <hint, hint, nudge, nudge>

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
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.

For simplicity if we assume 8.5 PoI hexes per settlement, of which 6 are adjacent to a settlement, then it's possible to calculate what portion of hexes are what type.

Hex Density

Tork Shaw wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

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.

I read this response with several possibilities:

1. RAID does not involve PC defenders, so no reputation hit.
2. RAID does include PC defenders, but raiders wait for defenders to attack, so no reputation hit.
3. RAID does include PC defenders, raiders manage to kill defender before defender strikes, reputation hits will apply to raiders.
4. If raid is part of feud, war or faction, no impact on reputation and no criminal flag.

Note: # 3 is not likely because it would be difficult to kill a defender that quickly (before he hits raiders twice).

I found it interesting that in another post it was mentioned that any non affiliated persons (don't own the outpost or are a member of POI or settlement) will be likewise flagged as Criminals if in the area of the outpost at the time of a raid.

It appears these individuals have several options as well:

1. Flee before they are mistaken for criminal raiders
2. Join the raiders and keep their criminal status and loot separately
3. Attack the raiders and become hostile attackers themselves

There may be other possibilities but a few questions need to be answered;

Once engaged in hostile action, is there a system for joining an involved or hostile group?

If the visitor of the outpost takes no action, I'm assuming their criminal flag will disappear as soon as they leave the area and with no ill effects. Is this the planned system?

At what distance could it be discoverable if an outpost has PCs in it or only has a few or no NPC guards?

Does the criminal flag only appear for the owners of the POI or settlement owning the POI?

If not, I could see raiders hitting a POI simply to flag nearby characters as criminals so that they could then be engaged consequence free (maybe by another third party).

Jiminy wrote:

Does the criminal flag only appear for the owners of the POI or settlement owning the POI?

If not, I could see raiders hitting a POI simply to flag nearby characters as criminals so that they could then be engaged consequence free (maybe by another third party).

The criminal flag is only seen by those in which a crime was comitted. This for an outpost includes primarily the outpost owner. If the outpost is sponsored by a POI, then the POI owners would see the criminal flag as well. If the settlement has made raiding illegal, then citizens of the settlement will see the criminal flag.

3rd party individuals are not involved, unless they chose to be. They will have to decide if it is in their interest to attack the raiders, themselves getting the attacker flag and risking alignment and reputation hits. If assault is a crime in that settlement, the 3rd party may also get a criminal flag.

It appears, and the Devs have said as much, raiding outposts is supposed to be very common ("The most common form of PvP), and it is not meant to involve PCs for the most part. If it does, by chance, neither the raiders or the owners will likely suffer reputation loss (based on what has been said in this a previous blogs).

This could potentially be a benefit to both raider (bandit) and harvester / merchant in that raiding of outposts will reduce the opportunity to raid / sad caravans (can't be two places at once). Outposts also have the benefit for the raiders in that it is a fixed location.

This is not to say caravans will be completely safe, but that system has not been described yet, with its own blog.

The Feud System and Influence will also play a big role in all of this.

I have a feeling the area that will flag criminal will be tweaked during EE, but will most likely be an area where you could not heal/support the raiders and be outside of, but not being much bigger then that. This would then imply that you would have to be close to the outpost to get flagged. If you are a "innocent" bystander and just passing through, maybe it would be wise to just avoid, or give a wide trek around outposts you are not interacting with as to not get confused with any raiders, should a raid happen while your passing through.

In the case of a tavern or inn, I would hope there is a different way to get flagged then just being in/near it, as that would stop any non-members from stopping by as the risk of being there during a raid. I would suggest maybe something where only party members of the raiders get flagged, or even just flag people who actually attack or assist someone that is attacking. This would stop any form of "flag griefing." After all, if your not attacking, or supporting those who are, are you really raiding the outpost?

I could see the whole party being flagged as a possibility, though I personally favor the "flag by action" method. That way you can't also have a "spy" flag his whole group as a means to betray them or something. If 1 member of the group decides to attack the guards and begin a raid, and no one else from our group helps him, why would all of us take the "blame" and get flagged for his actions?

Bluddwolf wrote:
Jiminy wrote:

Does the criminal flag only appear for the owners of the POI or settlement owning the POI?

If not, I could see raiders hitting a POI simply to flag nearby characters as criminals so that they could then be engaged consequence free (maybe by another third party).

The criminal flag is only seen by those in which a crime was comitted. This for an outpost includes primarily the outpost owner. If the outpost is sponsored by a POI, then the POI owners would see the criminal flag as well. If the settlement has made raiding illegal, then citizens of the settlement will see the criminal flag.

3rd party individuals are not involved, unless they chose to be. They will have to decide if it is in their interest to attack the raiders, themselves getting the attacker flag and risking alignment and reputation hits. If assault is a crime in that settlement, the 3rd party may also get a criminal flag.

Hopefully this is the way it pans out, otherwise I expect to see plenty of POI raiding griefing occurring.

"The Goodfellow" wrote:
I have a feeling the area that will flag criminal will be tweaked during EE, but will most likely be an area where you could not heal/support the raiders and be outside of, but not being much bigger then that. This would then imply that you would have to be close to the outpost to get flagged. If you are a "innocent" bystander and just passing through, maybe it would be wise to just avoid, or give a wide trek around outposts you are not interacting with as to not get confused with any raiders, should a raid happen while your passing through.

I imagine there will be huge amounts of tweaking going on during EE, specifically with areas that will flag PvP and criminals. I would guess that SADs and Raiding will be at the top of the list, with Assassination and disguises following it closely (whenever they arrive). These mechanics, while absolutely necessary and valid, tend to attract griefers and will get tested to their limits against a wide array of characters.

As long as the risk vs reward in their use has enough of a payoff, I'll be happy.

@ Jiminy

I do think it is unlikely that raiders, not in a feud or war state, will raid an outpost with PC (owners or witnesses) standing around.

Raiders under feud or war won't be criminally flagged, and I would guess neither would bistanders.

Jiminy wrote:

Does the criminal flag only appear for the owners of the POI or settlement owning the POI?

If not, I could see raiders hitting a POI simply to flag nearby characters as criminals so that they could then be engaged consequence free (maybe by another third party).

I think the short answer is: outposts serve no function other than gathering bulk resources for the POI and/or settlement. If you aren't an owner or ally of the owner, there is very little reason to be loitering around an outpost; you just risk being labeled a raider or killed by raiders. (No word in the blog post about raiding POIs, so I assumed you meant outpost.)

I am not disagreeing with anything you have said here but really want to put in my two cents worth.

From a RP perspective of course raiders attack when their target was weakest? Yeah I could have skipped that part. However those people would be trying their best to turn a PvP game into a PvE game to avoid reputation hits. It is a PvP game after all.

I asked the question farther up, and got no response, but settlements will have a PvP window, an aligned POI might have the same window. An unaligned POI may or may not have that option. It would suck for would be POI folks to come home from work to find the Outpost and POI destroyed everyday because they well... have jobs to pay for the cable bill.

I don't expect there will be much of a reward to destroying the outpost, some but little. The "bank" will be in the POI. The reason for destroying the outpost will be to set back your enemy's production. The POI will house the lion's share of the good waiting to be shipped for processing. I don't know but I would not expect the DEVS are going to have NPC literally carrying the raw materials to the POI it will likely just grow in the bank until it fills up, shipping is arranged, or the production is stopped.

Something that I have been thinking about. The logistics of stealing a wagon full of goal ore includes the fact that someone has to be able drive the wagon.

That might sound dumb, but would be bandits will have to learn caravan skills to steal anything more than their (plus a mount?) encumbrance worth of raw materials. This of course will be slower than horse back. I suppose some spells would be useful but no more than they would be for the caravan. Control of the POI will be far more valuable than an raiding will produce.

Bandit A: Heading out for the raid, you got everything?
Bandit B: Yeah yeah I told you the first three times...
Bandit A: If you have everything where is the wagon, you said you would get the wagon. This is not going to be like last time. You do remember last time?
Bandit A: Yes, yes... we had to carry Lemmy, and only got a few pounds of wool. How was I to know their wagon had already left for the Settlement?
Bandit C: Where is the wagon?

This reworked raiding system is tons better than the previous one. Kudos!!

As for the notification system, keep it instant. Raids, at a meta level, are designed to encourage PVP. Any other alert system will only serve to reduce incentive and opportunities for PVP. With so many potential outposts, raiding won't be a significant force of economic warfare unless done on a broad scale (by a warring faction). All a delayed alert system does is change the risk to reward ratio for the raiders, a ratio that is much better managed by the rate at which goods can be stolen.

deisum wrote:

This reworked raiding system is tons better than the previous one. Kudos!!

As for the notification system, keep it instant. Raids, at a meta level, are designed to encourage PVP. Any other alert system will only serve to reduce incentive and opportunities for PVP. With so many potential outposts, raiding won't be a significant force of economic warfare unless done on a broad scale (by a warring faction). All a delayed alert system does is change the risk to reward ratio for the raiders, a ratio that is much better managed by the rate at which goods can be stolen.

I think part of what they are considering is that an instant (global) alert runs counter to everything else that they are trying to localize. But, I am not saying there can not be ways to extend that alert radius beyond the immediate localized area of the outpost or other POI.

If a raiding party attacks an unoccupied (by PCs) lumber camp, and the POI in the area is a Manor, then the alert would be localized and slow to reach the owners.

If however the POI in the area is a Watchtower, that alert radius would be extended and the time of notification could be nearly instant (one round perhaps).

Would this mean that all POIs would be Watchtowers, "No". That would depend on how remote the controlled hex is from the contiguous holdings of the settlement.

In a world with magic couldn't there be some sort of alarm spell? Like a version of Alarm that notifies the membrs of the managing company and/or anyone in a certain area of the PoI/outpost.

Proxima Sin wrote:
In a world with magic couldn't there be some sort of alarm spell? Like a version of Alarm that notifies the membrs of the managing company and/or anyone in a certain area of the PoI/outpost.

There will be some kind of alert, what hasn't been decided is how quickly and far reaching that alert will be.

The "in a world of magic" argument can make any action either possible or prohibited.

In a the magic world of Middle Earth why didn't Gandalf just teleport the Fellowship of the Ring to Mount Doom?

You know, with no fast travel, an instant alarm might be fine. Far away people won't be able to get to the raid quickly, and if they don't bunch up, it will be a succession of all the raiders vs. one.

We're going to need an app for this to prevent those Aussie guilds from taking over while we sleep.

Anyone serious about the territorial domination game should be

a) Aiming to have a spread of people across all time zones

b) Be running phone tree's etc to alert and drag people online at times of crisis.

As an example when there is an emergency our alliance has phone numbers for all corporation heads and their nominated seconds. They will get called then they each corporation will have a phone tree for their own corporation.

While we as a corporation and the alliance does not punish for individual non attendences we do monitor attendance at alerts and expect our members to make a percentage target. This is know to prospective members before they join however. Failing the target once is no big deal and you get notified, fail it a second time and an alliance and corp officer will sit down with you and discuss it. Fail a third time and it will be suggested you might be happier elsewhere but are welcome to reapply at a time when you feel your real life allows you the level of participation required

@Steelwing, and anyone else for that matter, what level of PvP attack do you personally feel would warrant phone calls? Is an outpost raid serious enough, or is it a PoI attack, or does it have to be a settlement siege? Or of course if you have some other determinant. Just curious as to people's feelings on that.

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
@Steelwing, what level of PvP attack do you personally feel would warrant phone calls? Is an outpost raid serious enough, or is it a PoI attack, or does it have to be a settlement siege? Or of course if you have some other determinant. Just curious as to people's feelings on that.

I would expect it to be a settlement siege being a trigger. A lot of course also depends upon how settlement warfare is implemented as I have implied in questions I have been asking of Dancey elsewhere.

Attacking other settlements we normally know ahead and have scheduled so obviously no alerts for those and we usually know a good percentage of settlement attacks and their timing before they happen

Am I correct in assuming you mean maintaining a leadership phone tree, and not one for every single ally member?

Pax Charlie George wrote:
Am I correct in assuming you mean maintaining a leadership phone tree, and not one for every single ally member?

Corp officers phone corp members

Yes the tree goes down to membership level

Pax Charlie George wrote:
Am I correct in assuming you mean maintaining a leadership phone tree, and not one for every single ally member?

Further to that answer...what would be the point of only contacting officers? It is unlikely the officers alone would be sufficient to turn back an assault

Steelwing wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:
Am I correct in assuming you mean maintaining a leadership phone tree, and not one for every single ally member?
Further to that answer...what would be the point of only contacting officers? It is unlikely the officers alone would be sufficient to turn back an assault

Officers are a smaller pool to track. Once they are identified as not in game or on game outlets (forums or TS) it is relatively painless to ping them.

They then can identify their own logistics and contact people if needed, though I would think if there are major attendance issues on a regular basis without texting then there is a larger problem.

Reminds me of Command Recalls. Fun.

Pax Charlie George wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:
Am I correct in assuming you mean maintaining a leadership phone tree, and not one for every single ally member?
Further to that answer...what would be the point of only contacting officers? It is unlikely the officers alone would be sufficient to turn back an assault
Officers are a smaller pool to track. Once they are identified as not in game or on game outlets (forums or TS) it is relatively painless to ping them.

Which is why there is in effect three tree levels as I described in my first answer

Pax Charlie George wrote:

They then can identify their own logistics and contact people if needed, though I would think if there are major attendance issues on a regular basis without texting then there is a larger problem.

I think you are misunderstanding something here. This is not an organised event whereby we expect a certain amount of attendance this is a surprise attack timed to be in a period where not many of us are on. For example an attack during australian prime time when most of the europeans and americans will not be around.

We expect in that scenario, our record being 9 minutes, that every alliance member will have a phone call within 15 minutes of the attack starting and that we will be aiming for a minimum 65% response rate. I should note we have never dropped that low however.

And, just curious for a ball park, how many people can you convince to get up at ungodly times in the morning? I don't personally plan on letting the game run my life like that, but it seems like quite an interesting study in human psychology and organizational patterns.

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
And, just curious for a ball park, how many people can you convince to get up at ungodly times in the morning? I don't personally plan on letting the game run my life like that, but it seems like quite an interesting study in human psychology and organizational patterns.

We average about 70% to 80% depending on timing. It should be remembered though alliance expectations are heavily spelled out before you join. The sample therefore is self selecting and not applicable as a sample for the whole of humanity.

The most often cited reason for not being able to turn up is being at work not being asleep.

 Goblinworks Executive Founder

Steelwing wrote:
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
And, just curious for a ball park, how many people can you convince to get up at ungodly times in the morning? I don't personally plan on letting the game run my life like that, but it seems like quite an interesting study in human psychology and organizational patterns.

We average about 70% to 80% depending on timing. It should be remembered though alliance expectations are heavily spelled out before you join. The sample therefore is self selecting and not applicable as a sample for the whole of humanity.

The most often cited reason for not being able to turn up is being at work not being asleep.

Meaning that your membership spends about 20-30% of their time working where they can't drop everything; 40 hours a week is standard for full-time work, and is about 25% of the week.

Personally, I hope to have massive recruitment over people less willing to give up every other aspect of their lives on demand; I figure that for every person willing to respond immediately, I can have about 9 more casual, who will range from "I won't interrupt a major holiday" to "I won't interrupt dinner".

The 10% of highly involved players will still have the 70-80% arrival rate, while the other 90% will probably range roughly evenly from 10%-55%. Those assumptions give a final average rate of 40%, for a total expected response of over five times the number of players expected from limiting membership and notification to hardcore players willing to commit to responding.

The best guilds will not have high expectations for every member, even if they have voluntary groups within them that do commit to a high level of participation.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
And, just curious for a ball park, how many people can you convince to get up at ungodly times in the morning? I don't personally plan on letting the game run my life like that, but it seems like quite an interesting study in human psychology and organizational patterns.

We average about 70% to 80% depending on timing. It should be remembered though alliance expectations are heavily spelled out before you join. The sample therefore is self selecting and not applicable as a sample for the whole of humanity.

The most often cited reason for not being able to turn up is being at work not being asleep.

Meaning that your membership spends about 20-30% of their time working where they can't drop everything; 40 hours a week is standard for full-time work, and is about 25% of the week.

Personally, I hope to have massive recruitment over people less willing to give up every other aspect of their lives on demand; I figure that for every person willing to respond immediately, I can have about 9 more casual, who will range from "I won't interrupt a major holiday" to "I won't interrupt dinner".

The 10% of highly involved players will still have the 70-80% arrival rate, while the other 90% will probably range roughly evenly from 10%-55%. Those assumptions give a final average rate of 40%, for a total expected response of over five times the number of players expected from limiting membership and notification to hardcore players willing to commit to responding.

The best guilds will not have high expectations for every member, even if they have voluntary groups within them that do commit to a high level of participation.

And you are welcome to do so. While it is true we are still awaiting the details of how settlement warfare works I think it is fair to say that those more committed to the settlement and territorial domination game will be those who come out ahead.

The organisation you describe is one not committed to territorial domination and will not be a major player in that part of the game unless Goblinworks decides to stack the deck for you by doing something such as deciding that a 6 hour long PVP window is sufficient to give you maximum DI and that outside that window your settlement is inviolate.

I do not know what your definition of best guild is however it certainly by your description include one that excels at territorial domination.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.

The lessons learnt by the successful EvE Online organisations must, in turn, be learnt by those hoping to be successful in Pathfinder Online. While the differences between the games may be wide enough that phone trees aren't required, I really don't see that being the case. Every competitive game ever made is one of trivial advantages building to something greater. Enforcing a relatively strict response rate from your members is far from a trivial advantage. Those that make use of it will tend to push out those that don't; EvE has shown us that the recruitment benefits that you gain by not having these policies are not as beneficial as those earned by utilizing them.

The EvE Online alliances didn't just randomly decide one day to start up a phone tree because it might be fun. They encountered regular issues with their command structures that not going through all the work of putting a phone tree in place was exasperating. Those issues will likely appear here as well. Chances are that successful leaders will use the same methods for fixing them as they have in the past.

Pax Morbis wrote:

The lessons learnt by the successful EvE Online organisations must, in turn, be learnt by those hoping to be successful in Pathfinder Online. While the differences between the games may be wide enough that phone trees aren't required, I really don't see that being the case. Every competitive game ever made is one of trivial advantages building to something greater. Enforcing a relatively strict response rate from your members is far from a trivial advantage. Those that make use of it will tend to push out those that don't; EvE has shown us that the recruitment benefits that you gain by not having these policies are not as beneficial as those earned by utilizing them.

The EvE Online alliances didn't just randomly decide one day to start up a phone tree because it might be fun. They encountered regular issues with their command structures that not going through all the work of putting a phone tree in place was exasperating. Those issues will likely appear here as well. Chances are that successful leaders will use the same methods for fixing them as they have in the past.

This man understands. Games like this are a game where you stack up small edges and you stack up enough and they count.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in running the sort of organisation that Decius describes and I for one won't be telling him they shouldn't or labelling them with some perjorative description. People should play a game in a way that is fun for them is my view.

However people also have to accept that the way you decide to play the game may make some parts of the game a damn sight harder to participate in. That is the trade off.

Unfortunately for the territorial game then it is very much the case that those willing to do what is necessary will be those that win

 Goblinworks Executive Founder

Meh. I pulled a few assumptions out of thin air and figured that the total response to a 'all hands on deck' callout would be several times larger if it went out to people with a low expected response rate instead of only to people with a high expected response rate. Unless there's some carrying cost associated with having lots of members, or some members have expected negative net contribution, then it's pretty easy to prove that having more members is strictly better.

I'm not going to say that groups that don't accept members unless they are 'good enough' are doing something wrong- if it is more fun for them to be a member of an elite group that requires consistent attendance, that's what they should do. They might even find a niche in a group that has generally lower expectations, but understands the value of having people who will reliably show up when needed.

In some cases it can be a detriment to morale if only a small portion is required to show up. That's fairly easy to remedy with recognition for participation, however.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:

Meh. I pulled a few assumptions out of thin air and figured that the total response to a 'all hands on deck' callout would be several times larger if it went out to people with a low expected response rate instead of only to people with a high expected response rate. Unless there's some carrying cost associated with having lots of members, or some members have expected negative net contribution, then it's pretty easy to prove that having more members is strictly better.

I'm not going to say that groups that don't accept members unless they are 'good enough' are doing something wrong- if it is more fun for them to be a member of an elite group that requires consistent attendance, that's what they should do. They might even find a niche in a group that has generally lower expectations, but understands the value of having people who will reliably show up when needed.

There is a definite downside to having people that don't show up.

One is the morale issue and you will find that the small percentage that do turn up will soon start questioning why they are working their butts off to protect the can't be bothered.

However the main one is the mechanical downside. A settlement will be able to provide a certain amount of training. Can't remember which blog mentioned it but it was one of them. We also know a settlement is designed by GW to cater to about 500 to 1000 players. I would therefore assume that the closer you get to that upper limit the more likely you are to be stretching that training budget.

We would be aiming to have a settlement with numbers within that range. To match us therefore a settlement which is expecting only a 10% hardcore turnout is going to have to have 6 to 7 times our numbers (your 10% against our 70%). This means your settlement will have to have 3500 to 6000 members. Good luck with the training.

In addition training is not the only thing that settlements provide they also provide within their lands safe gathering either via nodes or outposts and safe pve. (If you don't believe settlements aren't going to guard their pve and reserve it for their own members then think again because that is exactly what happens in eve)

So to match our military might you are going to have to take the resources and split that pie mighty thin. You think people are going to stick around and tolerate that because you don't ask them to turn out?

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those who think that phone recalls are too much or dont understand why having them....serious settlements will make it a point to attack when the know another settlement has as low number of members on. This will include known alts who have nothing to do with said settlements.

What this means is that if you dont have a procedure in place to get your army out into the fight when the fight is happening you are going to get destroyed. They wont wait until you have all your ducks organized before going in. You will be attacked at your weakest and when the risk is the least for the attacker.

Also remember that organizations like steelwing's dont recruit random casual people. They have a list of commitments that you must agree to follow to join. I would be that they extensively research their members before accepting them and that they have a very restrictive probationary period.

Not only that but such organizations make it clear that when you join you fill a role and you better be optimized for said role.

I suspect EE will have a bunch of casual companies and organizations who end up sitting on settlements for the entirety of EE. Once OE hits and the game is matured to the point to attract larger organizations most of the settlements that were around in EE will change hands, as a lot of folks will not dedicate the amount of time the more serious organization.

For anyone who is curious I do think that those people who are planning on running successful companies needs to be playing EVE if they have not already.

There is a huge difference between serious hardcore organizations and casual ones, and the difference isnt like mostly pve games where one set raids top content and the other doesnt. It will be that the serious organizations control vast areas of the world and impose their will on others who cannot survive.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

With 200 settlements, I think there will be room for everybody.

This is how I think it will probably end up:

At the top of the food chain will be 2-4 big nasty kingdoms (the Steelwings.) They will have the best settlements planned down to the color of the flowers in the gardens, and will be able to take out just about anyone with minimal effort. However, they will not be able to do much to another kingdom without leaving themselves wide open to the other Steelwings. So they are stuck with raiding.

Beneath them will be the let-everybody-ins, who will not be able to challenge a Steelwing themselves, but are big enough that them + a Steelwing can easily to nasty things to another Steelwing. So they survive, not because of what they can do, but what other people will do to people who do stuff to them.

Then it's the casuals, who probably won't be bigger than a single settlement, and will only have the pvp window open during times when most of them are on (eg, 6pm to 12pm.) Again, not big enough to harm a Steelwing, but still more trouble than they are worth.

At the bottom of the chain will be the lol-ers, so survive solely because what they got isn't worth anything.

Golnor wrote:

With 200 settlements, I think there will be room for everybody.

This is how I think it will probably end up:

At the top of the food chain will be 2-4 big nasty kingdoms (the Steelwings.) They will have the best settlements planned down to the color of the flowers in the gardens, and will be able to take out just about anyone with minimal effort. However, they will not be able to do much to another kingdom without leaving themselves wide open to the other Steelwings. So they are stuck with raiding.

Beneath them will be the let-everybody-ins, who will not be able to challenge a Steelwing themselves, but are big enough that them + a Steelwing can easily to nasty things to another Steelwing. So they survive, not because of what they can do, but what other people will do to people who do stuff to them.

Then it's the casuals, who probably won't be bigger than a single settlement, and will only have the pvp window open during times when most of them are on (eg, 6pm to 12pm.) Again, not big enough to harm a Steelwing, but still more trouble than they are worth.

At the bottom of the chain will be the lol-ers, so survive solely because what they got isn't worth anything.

1) Did you not read stephen Cheneys response to me querying the 200 number where he made it plain the 200 is on the map they have which is where the river kingdoms will expand to eventually not from day one of EE or OE.

2) The "Steelwings" as you put it won't turn on each other until they have gobbled everyone else up. If you really think we are going to sit there and just raiding you are sadly mistaken

Stephen Cheney wrote:

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.

The quote I mentioned above

note the bolded part even taking the lowest value possible for hundreds
that still makes around 45k settlement dwellers so probably 60k players over all. That will by my estimate be about 2 years after OE

 CEO, Goblinworks

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

One objective we have is to allow Settlements some latitude on when their "PvP window" opens. The width of that window correlates to the development index of the Settlement so less advanced Settlements have a smaller window than more advanced Settlements. Smaller windows, combined with discretion on when they open, means that new Settlements or those that choose to remain in a lower level of development, will be harder to attack at inconvenient times.