Goblin Squad Member
|
What you are missing here is that in a situation where you have attacker A and defender B control shouldn't pass from A to B.
Control should be lost by B. Then A or any other group strong enough can establish control of that hex.
In short
B owns hex
A attacks hex and removes control from B
hex becomes neutral
A or B or another group manages to establish control of hex
I actually could support a system where much of the defenses and control structures are destroyed in the process of taking a settlement, and they must be rebuilt before any group gains full control.
Problem solved. In fact it's probably best to not reserve attacking rights to one aggressor from the very start.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
B owns hex
A attacks hex and removes control from B
hex becomes neutral
A or B or another group manages to establish control of hex
And part of the reason it has to happen this way is that B's controlling company originally established control by (1) building a control structure and (2) spending/obligating a good amount of Influence.
The control structure might need to be completely rebuilt after a successful battle for a settlement, or it might need to be repaired. Either way, there is likely some period before a company can spend the Influence to become the new owner of the settlement hex.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't think it makes sense for the settlement to become uncontrolled as the result of a siege or assault, even if there is a stage where nobody can use the settlement management tools. There does have to be some method for figuring out which of multiple attackers takes control if that situation exists, and I'm not sure how to do that without setting up for a purgatory that lasts until only one group is willing and able to contest it.
Of course it makes sense. While you have competing armies in the vicinity of a settlement that has had its walls reduced to rubble and most of its building badly damaged no one has control until one army manages to drive the rest out and establish themselves in control enough to start rebuilding.
It works fine for Eve I don't see why you think it won't work for PfO.
What makes less sense is the settlement control flips from Team A to team B because Team B managed to hold the town hall for a few minutes at which point team C and D now have to go through the whole rigmarole of declaring war on B setting up siege camps etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The blog information on taking over a POI hex (after defeating the monster escalation), with Influence cost based on contribution, could be extended for taking over POIs or Settlements from other players. The Influence cost for asserting control could be based on a company's contribution in the battle(s) leading up to the capture of the hex. The capturing alliance would make the final decision, but various claimants might have different Influence costs to take control.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some points....
- If I wanted to play EvE, I would play EvE. I don't want PFO to be EvE with Elf Skins.
- There is a finite audience of people willing to play a game where they are required to put real life concerns aside and wake up at 3:00 AM on any moments notice just in order to play a game. I would suggest that most of those people are probably already playing EvE. I suspect (though I could be wrong) that PFO will need to reach out to an audience that includes people other then that.
- If I am wrong and it is the design goal that to meaningfully participate in PFO in any fasion requires that, I would appreciate that Ryan let us know....so that I can write off my current contributions as a loss and stop wasting my (and everbody elses time)
- Real life sieges usualy lasted MONTHS, sometimes even YEARS. So no points for EvE's model from a "Realism" standpoint....not that such should be an over-riding concern.
- Really what we are talking about here is the difference between an acute event and a protracted event. A protracted event would give more players the opportunity to participate on some level. Nothing about a protracted event neccessitates the imposition of an arbitrary time limit beyond which attackers would have to give up.....I assume simple economics would do that (Full scale wars are very, very expensive affairs). It would simply neccesitate that the attackers would have to wear down the defenders defenses in a gradual, protracted manner (say maybe over the course of a week for an average succesfull siege) and do so more quickly then the defender could replenish them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope our Settlements aren't so fragile that they can be destroyed at 3:00 AM if we're not present to defend them. I would hope it takes a few days to beat down an advanced Settlement, and that the defenders have opportunities to repair and rebuild during that time, as long as they're not stopped by attackers.
I don't have a problem with the Settlement being attacked at 3:00 AM, but I'd like the defenders to have a reasonable chance to respond during their normal playing hours, and I'd like that response to include the possibility of damaging the attacker's siege equipment if it's not defended.
If an advanced Settlement can be destroyed in a single attack in an hour or two at 3:00 AM, then Settlements will be "useless"* to anyone but pre-existing globe-spanning guilds. I hope that's not what we should expect.
* "useless" in the sense that Ryan used here:
I'm defining useless as not being worth the effort to build and operate one due to excessive risk of discovery and loss. If you can find a hideout in a day or two after creating it, it's probably useless.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Of course it makes sense. While you have competing armies in the vicinity of a settlement that has had its walls reduced to rubble and most of its building badly damaged no one has control until one army manages to drive the rest out and establish themselves in control enough to start rebuilding.
It works fine for Eve I don't see why you think it won't work for PfO.
What makes less sense is the settlement control flips from Team A to team B because Team B managed to hold the town hall for a few minutes at which point team C and D now have to go through the whole rigmarole of declaring war on B setting up siege camps etc.
That would be -destroying- a settlement. I don't expect that most sieges or assaults will have the goal of annihilating the valuable target.
There's a strong precedent for granting control to the first of two armies that aren't hostile to each other to gain force majeur, in Berlin at the end of WW2. Following an overextended metaphor, the Russian army controlled the PoI hexes but the western allies took the city.
Of course it makes sense. While you have competing armies in the vicinity of a settlement that has had its walls reduced to rubble and most of its building badly damaged no one has control until one army manages to drive the rest out and establish themselves in control enough to start rebuilding.
It works fine for Eve I don't see why you think it won't work for PfO.
What makes less sense is the settlement control flips from Team A to team B because Team B managed to hold the town hall for a few minutes at which point team C and D now have to go through the whole rigmarole of declaring war on B setting up siege camps etc.
That would be -destroying- a settlement. I don't expect that most sieges or assaults will have the goal of annihilating the valuable target.
There's a strong precedent for granting control to the first of two armies that aren't hostile to each other to gain force majeur, in Berlin at the end of WW2. Following an overextended metaphor, the Russian army controlled the PoI hexes but the western allies took the city.
Why would you expect settlements not to be destroyed. If we have the strength to take your settlement but not to hold it long term a strategy of coming in and destroying it on a regular basis makes tactical sense.
A case of stamp them down before they get to uppity.
Even without that I imagine it will be often the case that frankly we do not want to be saddled with your choice of building so we will burn it down and restart it in a layout more to our choosing, we will in all likelihood then rent it out to a pet
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the new owner wants to raze it, that's their option of course. If the new owner wants to take as much of the settlement as possible intact, that should be an option as well.
Not wanting to be saddled with the previous owner's location choices for standard buildings like a tavern, a smithy, the marketplace... just seems inefficient.
If the new owner wants to raze it, that's their option of course. If the new owner wants to take as much of the settlement as possible intact, that should be an option as well.
Not wanting to be saddled with the previous owner's location choices for standard buildings like a tavern, a smithy, the marketplace... just seems inefficient.
The settlement becoming neutral does not preclude taking over whats left. It just isn't an automatic flip and the armies in the field can continue to fight over it until one emerges as the winner. It really isn't a big deal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly I hope it takes a while.
PoIs adjacent to the settlement that are controlled by the settlement would need to be destroyed and taken over,it shouldnt be a really long time but it shouldnt be a short amount of time either.
At those PoIs the attackers build siege camps. During the building of those camps they are very vulnerable to being destroyed. So a defending settlement could hold off a siege if they are able to prevent the building of the camps. Not only that but if they keep destroying them it would be possible to cost the attackers so much resources in rebuilding them that they give up.
Once those camps are built the city can be attacked directly. How well the gates and walls are able to withstand attacks would be determined by how much resources devoted to doing so vs other things (like say building merchant space). Small attacks into the city could be done with using mages casting passwall and such to allow strike teams to attack within the walls.
At the siege camps the attackers can make a variety of siege engines, all of which take building time and are open to attack at all times. those can attack the walls and gates directly allowing for larger attacks into the city to raze it.
The effectiveness of the NPC defenders and such should be determined by how many resources are available. So if the settlement food resource gets low their defenders get less dangerous due to starvation.
Once the city is razed the defenders could still push the attackers off and prevent them from establishing their own settlement, however they would have to rebuild their own settlement.
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 hope that a solution is found to remove this descrepancy re: Alignment vis-a-vis Settlements. Un-sponsored Companies with PoI/Outposts are essentially mini-Settlements or Settlements-in-the-making, and the minimal consequence of having the game's universal/sociall-recoginized Alignment system recognize attacks on their property (that is unclaimed by others in a socially/universally sanctioned manner) doesn't seem too much to offer. As for Settlements there would be pros and cons to setting such "Laws", if your Company's PoI/Outposts are routinely raided then that will negatively effect your Company Influence (or other measure) compared to if you just don't set such any such Law/setting.
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.
Of course, players can and will have their own out of game notification systems, so mere notification should not be the sole focus of this function... Determining flag-setting and such seems like a mechanic still relevant to groups which may have out-of-game automatic notification mechanisms... Perhaps also extend the utility to the "fast travel" system, whereby if you are "officially notified" (in game), the Outpost appears as a Fast Travel Node, otherwise it does not (and thus you must Fast Travel only to a nearby PoI or Settlement, and normal travel to the Outpost).
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.
The bulk of tradegoods seems like the primary means to make Stealth irrelevant for Outpost Raids/Robbery (or relevant more just as temporary tactical advantage). Perhaps the fluff could be adjusted for the "bank" so that it is less of an actual "bank" just sitting there ready to be stolen, but more so a representation of ongoing production (which requires more of a continuous presense in order to efficiently extract).
Perhaps Stealth/more individual-scale (or single-action) centric Robbery might have more relevance for other game structures, e.g. PoI and Settlements?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of comments.
1: You'll probably need to be prepared to wake up and fight at 3am if you expect to be involved in the defense of a Settlement. There's no way around that in a world that is a globe. It's 3am for someone all the time. Your opponents will try to make the fight for a Settlement as disadvantageous for its defenders as possible.
I don't think it will be common, but it won't be exceptional. Steelwind's 7 wakeups a year seems within reason to me.
2: It is likely that the battle to determine if a Settlement lives or dies will take place in a fairly short period of time. Impossible to say exactly how long such a battle will take but it will be hours not days. When the definitive moment arrives you'll want all hands on deck. (Thus the 3am problem).
HOWEVER that battle will likely be the conclusion of a lengthy (days or weeks) series of other actions that lead up to the definitive conflict. During that prelude you will be dealing with slowly reducing the defenses of the target, creating, attacking and defending logistical chains, building, moving, operating, and attempting to destroy siege engines, reinforcing or attempting to block reinforcement of the defense, etc. You'll probably have to remove defended points of control in the surrounding Hexes (which may or may not be the Points of Interest / Outposts - tbd). Depending on how a group organizes you may have to bash your way through a picket of defensive Settlements to get at an interior group of command & control Settlements, or highly advanced productive Settlements, etc.
Like in EVE there will be a lot of people who never fight in these battles, or who fight in them only when convenient. That's one of the things that separates the people who get invited to participate in the most cohesive, most powerful organizations and those who don't.
These things are not a function of game design. They are a function of the fact that the virtual world is more meaningful than real life for a large number of participants. That's the game working as intended.
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.
Not that it would be concretely developed much in EE, but I wonder what plans are for high end Companies and Influence... How would their scope of actions/focus develop, assuming they at least utilize the same skill chains that have been otherwise developed so far?
I do like the overall hue of developments like Inns and Manor's tie-in with "Social Skills" which may correlate to some tabletop class roles but more so to non-class specific skills and particularly to in-game alliance structure management (and other functions like trading). A "ladder" to focus people into roles and provide a "prooving ground" or those roles seems cool.
I am curious about the "Shrine" aspect... That feels very prone to tie-ins with Religion-specific NPC Factions. If we assume that Chaotic Evil Religions and Factions will have lower representation over-all and in terms of Settlement Alignment in particular, CE Religion-aligned Shrines may very well end up playing a disproportionately signicificant role for that Alignment segment (as they will have less of their own Settlments, and/or even aligned or friendly Settlements may not want to officially be CE). Having a "deep" development tree for Shrines attuned to CE may be a way for them to have continuing relevance in more mature stage of the game, without them necessarily needing to have parity at a Settlement level.
That also makes me curious what the status on Bandit Hideouts is, and how it fits into the picture with Influence, Raiding, NPC Factions...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple of comments.
1: You'll probably need to be prepared to wake up and fight at 3am if you expect to be involved in the defense of a Settlement. There's no way around that in a world that is a globe. It's 3am for someone all the time. Your opponents will try to make the fight for a Settlement as disadvantageous for its defenders as possible.
I don't think it will be common, but it won't be exceptional. Steelwind's 7 wakeups a year seems within reason to me.
I just hope that the game will not be dominated by the settlements that this highly organised, otherwise I could see a lot of people like me turning away. Due to work/family commitments I only have a few hours a day to be able to play and if any settlements I join are easy prey, it would not be worth playing... I do understand that this is a global game, and so timings will not always be on my time zone (esp as I'm the other side of the world...), but consideration should be given to the part time players....
2: It is likely that the battle to determine if a Settlement lives or dies will take place in a fairly short period of time. Impossible to say exactly how long such a battle will take but it will be hours not days. When the definitive moment arrives you'll want all hands on deck. (Thus the 3am problem).
HOWEVER that battle will likely be the conclusion of a lengthy (days or weeks) series of other actions that lead up to the definitive conflict. During that prelude you will be dealing with slowly reducing the defenses of the target, creating, attacking and defending logistical chains, building, moving, operating, and attempting to destroy siege engines, reinforcing or attempting to block reinforcement of the defense, etc. You'll probably have to remove defended points of control in the surrounding Hexes (which may or may not be the Points of Interest / Outposts - tbd). Depending on how a group organizes you may have to bash your way through a picket of defensive Settlements to get at an interior group of command & control Settlements, or highly advanced productive Settlements, etc.
I think this latter part is what makes it palatable.
There will be plenty of warning that something is "going down" soon (although this being said, there may be plenty of "false alarms" to manipulate the defenders' player base), and the defenders should have a much larger amount of time to decide how to deal with what looks like an imminent escalation to critical levels. If they aren't confident in their own player base having enough "hardcore PVPers" ready for 3AM calls, then they should put out feelers to cooperative/allied Settlements, friendly NPC Factions, and mercenaries who ARE ready for those (or who happen to primarily play in other timezones).
Having your own group be ready for PVP 24/7, 365/year is of course ideal, but having good relations with other groups (or a deep bank account to hire mercenaries) should make it so groups that don't reach that 100% ideal are actually quite sufficient in-game. That said, having SOME actual own-group players show up to fight and manage ongoing Settlement operations (such as re-allocating DI during an ongoing battle during which some Settlement buildings or PoI are destroyed) is probably highly recommended.
1: You'll probably need to be prepared to wake up and fight at 3am if you expect to be involved in the defense of a Settlement. There's no way around that in a world that is a globe. It's 3am for someone all the time. Your opponents will try to make the fight for a Settlement as disadvantageous for its defenders as possible.I just hope that the game will not be dominated by the settlements that this highly organised, otherwise I could see a lot of people like me turning away. Due to work/family commitments I only have a few hours a day to be able to play and if any settlements I join are easy prey, it would not be worth playing...
I think Ryan's comment might go a bit overboard, in terms of expectations on an individual player.
I don't see any fundamental need for any one individual player to PVP at all hours of day, 24/7, even just seven times per year. If your availability covers a weak spot for a Settlement you may be MORE valuable to them, if you can only play in a timeslot they are already strong in you may have LESS *PVP* value to them, but you can still find a niche in the game, either way...
+I expect some characters will find a niche that doesn't require them to be involved in any PVP at all, even though an extra body is always useful... Or perhaps just specialize in Offensive PVP only, perhaps with a Stealth build that may be less useful in Defensive PVP? In that case your prime value to a Settlement isn't for your Defensive PVP, so your availability for that is of less relevance. Conversely, if you want your character build to center around Defensive PVP then being ready for Defensive PVP at a broad range of hours is probably a good idea.
Settlements WILL probably have accute need for people able to "direct battle" and "make Settlement decisions" during off-peak PVP hours (since allied Settlments/Factions and Mercenaries can't do those things that are important to a Settlement functioning most efficiently during Warfare which is damaging Settlement features), and so "signing up" for positions of responsibility in Settlements may involve certain dedication.
That said, at any point you could become less dedicated (more time restrictions) yet still able to play some role in the Settlement, likely one that still makes use of your particulary build. If you CAN offer PVP reliability in off-peak hours which are less easily filled, you could expect higher than normal perks or opportunities, but not fulfilling the prime timezone demand =/= having no role in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just hope that the game will not be dominated by the settlements that this highly organised, otherwise I could see a lot of people like me turning away. Due to work/family commitments I only have a few hours a day to be able to play and if any settlements I join are easy prey, it would not be worth playing... I do understand that this is a global game, and so timings will not always be on my time zone (esp as I'm the other side of the world...), but consideration should be given to the part time players....
It will be dominated by settlements that are highly organized. There is no way around that. Thats not saying that people who are not in such organizations wont be able to play, its just that the big players wont be casual.
no matter what they do there is no way around that. They make the pvp window at only a set time each week, then the largest guilds will show up with 100% membership at those times and steam roll others. if they make it random then those organizations will attack whenever its allowed with as many people.
If those organizations get attacked they will have things like phone recalls to ensure they beat down whoever attacked them, and if you attack one of them you better 100% be ready to get beat down because they are not going to let you get away with that. They wont go...ohhh we defended so thats that. no they will go "we were attacked, time to teach them a lesson."
Folks who dont want to play like that will be able to play, dont expect to be a top dog or anywhere near it.
I can't see how big successful organizations would NOT accept less PVP hardcore players.
Players who are hardcore PVP and reliable for 24/7 PVP bring one MORE thing to the table, and should have extra desirability, everything else being equal.
But any organization that is turning away players just because they are only useful within a certain scope is losing out vs.
organiations who take care of their PVP situation 24/7 AND have a large pool of members
who they can leverage whenever they are available to play, for Offense, Defense that coincides with availability, +non PVP purposes.
That you personally are not hardcore PVP focused and available 24/7 doesn't really matter.
That your Settlement has such members (or those in other time zones), or access to them thru alliances or mercenary deals, is what matters.
The game will make it so that hardcore players will have results for their dedication that distinguish them or less hardcore players.
That doesn't make less hardcore players irrelevant or excluded from the game.
If does make unviable (outside of low levels with a narrow Hostility Window)
the concept of an all-non-hardcore Settlement that refuses to ally with other-timezone Settlements or buy Mercenaries,
but if you accept the reality of the game, and associate yourself with other players and groups that are strong in areas you are "weak" (in in-game presence, in this case, although the concept applies more broadly), you should do fine and be able to find a viable niche.
Obviously, expecting that you will have equal defensive value (or value in running settlement operations during an off-hour PVP attack on your settlement) just isn't going to hold... But not every Settlement member needs to fulfill those roles, so you can focus on fulfilling the multitude of other roles well. Perhaps there will be a bit more competition for those, and a fully time flexible PVPer will get a certain advantage and thus better opportunities, but should still be a niche for everybody.
In the end, groups taking advantage of off-peak hours to make attacks will tend to attract more enemies who band together against their attacks, tending to neutralize the timezone advantage if those de facto enemies can even partially act in solidarity to resist their advanaces/turn the tide. So even Settlements that aren't 100% equivalent at martialling defensive power at "off peak hours" may still find a relevant role in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
HOWEVER that battle will likely be the conclusion of a lengthy (days or weeks) series of other actions that lead up to the definitive conflict. During that prelude you will be dealing with slowly reducing the defenses of the target, creating, attacking and defending logistical chains, building, moving, operating, and attempting to destroy siege engines, reinforcing or attempting to block reinforcement of the defense, etc. You'll probably have to remove defended points of control in the surrounding Hexes (which may or may not be the Points of Interest / Outposts - tbd). Depending on how a group organizes you may have to bash your way through a picket of defensive Settlements to get at an interior group of command & control Settlements, or highly advanced productive Settlements, etc.
This example of the destruction of a kingdom of maybe 6-10 settlements raises a question I have about GW's plans for the map size. Is it the plan to keep the map expansion far enough ahead of the player base so this kingdom that loses its land can go and build a new kingdom in empty spaces. Or are they done for? I wonder how many empty spots for settlements there will be or is the plan to keep it all filled up however big the player base gets?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
We'll have to balance the rate of expansion with the population density. Ideally there should always be a frontier where there are new or badly run Settlements that are ripe for being picked off by a cohesive group that gets evicted from the more advanced core. But there's no good way to ensure that such territory is available exactly when you need it. You might have to wait some number of months for an enlargement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
HOWEVER that battle will likely be the conclusion of a lengthy (days or weeks) series of other actions that lead up to the definitive conflict.I can live with that :)
As long as it means we can all have meaningful contributions no matter how much or little we play, I'm happy too :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or perhaps just specialize in Offensive PVP only, perhaps with a Stealth build that may be less useful in Defensive PVP?
IF a settlement's walls and gates are most easily reduced by siege engines, as is likely, then a large number of stealthy characters who can work in coordination will be of tremendous value in settlement defense.
Smaller numbers of stealthy individuals would be useful as scouts in offensive Ops, but the usefulness of stealth in settlement defense, especially if originating in a neighboring settlement, should not be overlooked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, I like the middle ground best. There will be points where a 3 AM call is needed to save the settlement, but a diligent group may never actually get to that point as long as they have very active members in the days and possibly weeks before that. In this way both the dedicated but schedule constrained player, and the dedicated player with a greater degree of flexibility, can both contribute with their individual playstyles to their settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't see how big successful organizations would NOT accept less PVP hardcore players.
Players who are hardcore PVP and reliable for 24/7 PVP bring one MORE thing to the table, and should have extra desirability, everything else being equal.
But any organization that is turning away players just because they are only useful within a certain scope is losing out vs.
organiations who take care of their PVP situation 24/7 AND have a large pool of members
who they can leverage whenever they are available to play, for Offense, Defense that coincides with availability, +non PVP purposes.That you personally are not hardcore PVP focused and available 24/7 doesn't really matter.
That your Settlement has such members (or those in other time zones), or access to them thru alliances or mercenary deals, is what matters.
The game will make it so that hardcore players will have results for their dedication that distinguish them or less hardcore players.That doesn't make less hardcore players irrelevant or excluded from the game.
If does make unviable (outside of low levels with a narrow Hostility Window)
the concept of an all-non-hardcore Settlement that refuses to ally with other-timezone Settlements or buy Mercenaries,
but if you accept the reality of the game, and associate yourself with other players and groups that are strong in areas you are "weak" (in in-game presence, in this case, although the concept applies more broadly), you should do fine and be able to find a viable niche.Obviously, expecting that you will have equal defensive value (or value in running settlement operations during an off-hour PVP attack on your settlement) just isn't going to hold... But not every Settlement member needs to fulfill those roles, so you can focus on fulfilling the multitude of other roles well. Perhaps there will be a bit more competition for those, and a fully time flexible PVPer will get a certain advantage and thus better opportunities, but should still be a niche for everybody.
In the end,...
Well there are a couple of reasons.
1) training and resources are limited. This means that there is a finite amount to go around. The result is that these kinds of organizations will not support players who do not contribute to the level that they demand.
2) With the above casual players cannot be counted on. if you cannot count of them then why have them? Having to have 100 extra players just to have 10 randomly show up when its important is a waste. Instead recruit 10 players who will play at the level desired and who you know will be there when needed.
3) spys, spys, spys ohhhh my. Players in these types of organizations will be vetted. The will be researched to ensure to the best of an organizations ability that they are not spys and they are who they say they are. In games like EVE its not uncommon for you to provide links to all your social media as well as government issued ID in order to prove who you are. Thats a lot of effort. If you allow a bunch of casuals you increase the chance one of them slips through. They will join the casuals spend the next year going from casual to hardcore and try to use that year of goodwill to have their entrance into the larger organization be more relaxed. it happens.
4) Most casuals make their characters how they want to. Meaning while yes some do optimize the majority will go...ohhh i have this concept i want to use, or they will go..hmmm ill be a gatherer/fighter. Larger organizations often dont want that. They recruit people for specific roles and they expect that you are 100% optimized for that role. that means not wasting xp on random things and that means that if they tell you to spend xp on something, you spend xp on it.
I have no doubt that these organizations will have cannon fodder, the thing is that those folks wont really be a part of the organization. cannon fodder will be used and thrown away, however it will be done in such a way that the cannon fodder doesnt know this.
Im not saying that all settlements will be hardcore. Im not saying that there is not a place for people who dont go hardcore.
what I am saying is that the most successful organizations will treat playing this game like a job. They will interview people, they will except people to prove they have the skills to join, they will expect x number of hours played a week, they will expect you to work overtime, they will expect you to be on call....etc.
Thats just how that is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
HOWEVER that battle will likely be the conclusion of a lengthy (days or weeks) series of other actions that lead up to the definitive conflict.
There will be points where a 3 AM call is needed to save the settlement, but a diligent group may never actually get to that point as long as they have very active members in the days and possibly weeks before that.
Ryan, can you comment on whether Shane's assessment is correct?
Specifically, will a 3:00 AM attack be unlikely to succeed if the preliminary attacks in the days/weeks before have not been successful?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's just how it is.
*Hyperbole warning* The Surgeon General has determined that reading may produce consequences.
Obedient codependents of a militaristic totalitarian state. That is the defining characteristic of a particular mindset. Unless you are devoted to that profile you are weak, and will be taught forcefully that it is the only way to enjoy your game. You will obey, and you will like it.
Does anything seem just a little bit 'off'? A bit 'whack'? Is this the desired vision and is it inescapable?
Are these games culturally significant? Psychologically significant?
If children learn through play, do adults? What are we learning in this scenario?
How do we prefer our civilization to evolve?
That's just how it is.Total psychobabble
People play that way because they are competitive nothing more and nothing less and all the psychobabble in the world ain't going to change it. It is a game....people play games to win not take part....that is the attitude that has contributed more to the self entitled civillisation we have now where its always someone else's fault.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If that becomes "too widespread" (a term I cannot yet define for myself), I will have to sadly walk away from PFO as I did EVE. Enjoying the mechanics and enjoying the game turned out not to be the same thing.
Well one thing to note is that GW isnt looking for the same kind of free for all that EVE is. The result is that I doubt we will see folks like the goons just going around with a couple hundred people just killing everyone in their path all the time.
I was just saying that the most successful settlements/kingdoms who have the most resources and all the coolest stuff will be a certain kind of organization.
@being
Not really. Look at pve games like the wow raids. Who are the most successful raiders? People who are required to spend many hours on a day, people are required to spec as told to fill the role they are in, and people are expected to show up on time or they get dropped from the guild.
Those guilds will have people run different alts so that they can do things like show up with 1 tank 1 healer and the rest mages because thats the fastest way to down a boss. Their roster of players who are required to be there and on is larger than the players who are raiding...why? Because they will switch out characters as needed to optimize for each specific fight. ohhh a death knight and all ranged are whats optimal for this fight, guess what happens. they change their tank to death knight and they change out all their melee for ranged if thats what it takes to be the first person to down a boss. They will switch people in and out every boss fight if thats what they need to do. no if ands or buts.
This game will be the same thing. Some people (like me) will play to have fun, others will play to win. And winning means you control more, you have more resources, and others cannot take away from you. Who will win the people willing to be on recall and treat it like a job or people who dont?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem to me is far worse than griefing. The totalitarian militaristic state is arguably industrial strength 'corporate' griefing. It is taking the very problem GW is attempting to manage and amplifying the problem exponentially.
And I am fully aware that the leadership of these organizations do it just as pleasantly as it can be done. Nothing personal.
Putting aside the fact that such a game can indeed be engrossing, especially if you like me are a great fan of spreadsheets, aside, and also putting aside the flattery that being successful in such an organization can be quite gratifying, nevertheless the application of business logic and military discipline to the study of virtual war is a questionable objective in entertainment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People play that way because they are competitive nothing more and nothing less and all the psychobabble in the world ain't going to change it. It is a game....people play games to win not take part....that is the attitude that has contributed more to the self entitled civillisation we have now where its always someone else's fault.That's just how it is.Total psychobabble
Ad Hominem. Minimizing a thing does not alter that thing. Calling a consideration 'psychobabble' is a rhetorical ploy to avoid having to confront the means to control and the interpersonal ethics entailed. Unless you simply failed to understand what was said it is irresponsible of you, personally, to shove the question under the rug without honestly dealing with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly i dont see the issue with it. I wont be in a group like that as i dont have the time to, but i know for a fact that there will be groups like that and that groups like that are not who GW is attempting to manage.
GW is attempting to manage griefing and the free for alls that some games like EVE are, not getting rid of large, well managed, and dedicated groups. Heck they expect to have groups like this in the game. they warned us about these groups and ryan even laid out some of the things he KNOWS they will do.
Ad Hominem. Minimizing a thing does not alter that thing. Calling a consideration 'psychobabble' is a rhetorical ploy to avoid having to confront the means to control and the interpersonal ethics entailed. Unless you simply failed to understand what was said it is irresponsible of you, personally, to shove the question under the rug without honestly dealing with it.People play that way because they are competitive nothing more and nothing less and all the psychobabble in the world ain't going to change it. It is a game....people play games to win not take part....that is the attitude that has contributed more to the self entitled civillisation we have now where its always someone else's fault.That's just how it is.Total psychobabble
And wrapping it in long words and psychological jargon doesnt make it true either (nor does it make you look intelligent it just makes you look like the author of a new age self help book). People have played competitive games for centuries it is only since the prizes for all and everyone's a winner mentality promoted by idiots with letters after their name have been thrust into mainstream thought that we have people becoming self obsessed, entitled little whiny idiots. I only have to look at the state of the world to know the what the theories you spout lead to
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@being
Not really. Look at pve games like the wow raids. Who are the most successful raiders? People who are required to spend many hours on a day, people are required to spec as told to fill the role they are in, and people are expected to show up on time or they get dropped from the guild.Those guilds will have people run different alts so that they can do things like show up with 1 tank 1 healer and the rest mages because thats the fastest way to down a boss. Their roster of players who are required to be there and on is larger than the players who are raiding...why? Because they will switch out characters as needed to optimize for each specific fight. ohhh a death knight and all ranged are whats optimal for this fight, guess what happens. they change their tank to death knight and they change out all their melee for ranged if thats what it takes to be the first person to down a boss. They will switch people in and out every boss fight if thats what they need to do. no if ands or buts.
This game will be the same thing. Some people (like me) will play to have fun, others will play to win. And winning means you control more, you have more resources, and others cannot take away from you. Who will win the people willing to be on recall and treat it like a job or people who dont?
I recognize all that you say. I have indeed noticed long ago how the Raid game is played everywhere it is played and it has worried me before. There are some few whose lives in meatspace have been seriously damaged, to where their spouse thinks they might be nuts.
What I am seeing is possibly a social evolution toward a learned behavior that contributes to some serious social and political problems in money markets, for example, the LIBOR issue, and Bernie Madhoff's scam machine. There are problems implicit, regardless of Steelwings's attempt to throw a rug over it and pretend it's all just for fun.
People do learn from play, and the lesson this one is teaching is that megalomania and manipulative social control masquerading as liberty is okay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly i dont see the issue with it. I wont be in a group like that as i dont have the time to, but i know for a fact that there will be groups like that and that groups like that are not who GW is attempting to manage.
My remaining concern in this arena is what portion of the game overall will be gated by my not being a member of one of those organisations. It's as-yet an open question, but one I hope GW comes up with a satisfactory answer for; I know they have the incentive to find a "good" answer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly i dont see the issue with it. I wont be in a group like that as i dont have the time to, but i know for a fact that there will be groups like that and that groups like that are not who GW is attempting to manage.My remaining concern in this arena is what portion of the game overall will be gated by my not being a member of one of those organisations. It's as-yet an open question, but one I hope GW comes up with a satisfactory answer for; I know they have the incentive to find a "good" answer.
It is their design. All we can do is recommend consideration.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly i dont see the issue with it. I wont be in a group like that as i dont have the time to, but i know for a fact that there will be groups like that and that groups like that are not who GW is attempting to manage.
GW is attempting to manage griefing and the free for alls that some games like EVE are, not getting rid of large, well managed, and dedicated groups. Heck they expect to have groups like this in the game. they warned us about these groups and ryan even laid out some of the things he KNOWS they will do.
Understood and I recognize your points, Leperkhaun. Honestly, I hope you have the right of it and there is nothing to be concerned about. But.
Everything is connected: no part is fully separate. Our culture, internationally so make that plural, will be influenced to greater or lesser degrees by our shared gaming culture, more now than ever before.
Even if it seems no more than a sneeze from a butterfly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And wrapping it in long words and psychological jargon doesnt make it true either (nor does it make you look intelligent it just makes you look like the author of a new age self help book). People have played competitive games for centuries it is only since the prizes for all and everyone's a winner mentality promoted by idiots with letters after their name have been thrust into mainstream thought that we have people becoming self obsessed, entitled little whiny idiots. I only have to look at the state of the world to know the what the theories you spout lead toAd Hominem. Minimizing a thing does not alter that thing. Calling a consideration 'psychobabble' is a rhetorical ploy to avoid having to confront the means to control and the interpersonal ethics entailed. Unless you simply failed to understand what was said it is irresponsible of you, personally, to shove the question under the rug without honestly dealing with it.People play that way because they are competitive nothing more and nothing less and all the psychobabble in the world ain't going to change it. It is a game....people play games to win not take part....that is the attitude that has contributed more to the self entitled civillisation we have now where its always someone else's fault.That's just how it is.Total psychobabble
Apparently some have turned a blind eye towards history and fail to see that the traits that are supposedly caused by some "newfangled idea that people do things for reasons other than competition pushed by the intellectual elite" have long existed and are in fact, frequently worse under highly-competitive winner/loser focused dichotomies. But I digress, this is a game and a certain level of competitiveness is thus implied.
Overall, this would be a philosophical debate I would love to follow. Though the hatred and insults spewed against the counterpoint lends me to feel that the opinions being expressed are not very well thought out and thus do not really add more to the discussion than would a "nuh-uh!".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some folks take pleasure in killing another player because doing so means they've accomplished a meaningful goal: securing a harvesting node; protecting their friends; defending their Settlement, etc.
Some folks take pleasure in killing another player because they enjoy thinking that other player suffered emotionally.