Goblin Squad Member
|
Well one thing to note is that GW isnt looking for the same kind of free for all that EVE is.
There will be only so many things GW can control for. I'm thinking the only viable alternative is to field a demonstration prototype to counter what is to-date the most effective organization style.
In otherwords I think the responsibility is on us to come up with something better in every application of the word.
I hope someone comes up with and sets in motion a truly inspired plan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 :)
So if I'm reading that correctly, a strong settlement can preclude the definitive battle from ever occuring by not allowing it's defenses to be succesfully weakened to the stage that a final assault is feasable?
E.G. Operation SeaLion (the German invasion of England in WW2) can't take place unless the Germans achieve air and naval superiority over Englands air space and the British Channel. The RAF can preclude the possability of that ever happening by simply not allowing the Axis to attain air superiority over England....which required a protracted and systematic reduction of it's air defenses.
If that's the case, then there need not be a reason to exclude players that can contribute to a settlements efforts in those preliminary events as thier schedule allows for it, even if they are unable or unwilling to be on call for a decisive battle, should defenses be attrited to the stage where a decisive battle must be fought?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that the vast majority of people play games and especialy computer games to have FUN. Winning can be fun but it is not a requirement for it.
There is such a thing as prioritization. There are alot of things in life where victory is very, very important. For most people, including the vast majority of gamers computer games are so far down the list as to not register at all. That's not being "touch-feely" or "everyone get's a prize" mentality. Most people would call it having a healthy and balanced perspective on life and a well grounded set of priorties.
It's critical for me to "win" as a parent, a husband, a provider for my family and a freind to others. A computer game really just doesn't matter. It's not something I'm going to invest all that much energy in caring about whether I win or lose. Computer games aren't even my most significant or primary hobby interest and of the computer games that I play, I don't see PFO as becoming the most significant one, nor the one I am likely to devote the most energy to.
What I want to know, catagoricaly, is will PFO be a game where people who just want to enjoy themselves and have FUN playing a GAME for a few hours can have FUN.... as opposed to a place exclusively for those who have turned it into a 2nd (or 1st career). If it's the latter....good luck and thanks for all the fishes!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if I'm reading that correctly, a strong settlement can preclude the definitive battle from ever occuring by not allowing it's defenses to be succesfully weakened to the stage that a final assault is feasable?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 :)
That's exactly what I was asking Ryan to clarify.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that the vast majority of people play games and especialy computer games to have FUN. Winning can be fun but it is not a requirement for it.
I cannot agree with this enough!
What I want to know, catagoricaly, is will PFO be a game where people who just want to enjoy themselves and have FUN playing a GAME for a few hours can have FUN.... as opposed to a place exclusively for those who have turned it into a 2nd (or 1st career). If it's the latter....good luck and thanks for all the fishes!
This is also a concern I have when hearing how hard-core people get into Eve and plan things out here. I've invested more time than anyone being considered a "casual" participant would put in even if the game was already out, but some discussions still make me wonder if I might be getting in over my head as for how much commitment may be expected to progress in the game in a meaningful way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will probably put enough hours per week to rival a job's weekly hours while playing PFO, making me anything but a 'casual' player. But even though I will be playing a lot I will still have a 'casual' mentality. If PFO actually starts feeling like a job to me instead of a game to have fun with, then that is the sign for me to cancel my subscription.
And getting a 3am call to jump online (if I'm not already) will start feeling like a job instead of a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@the casual players
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.
Don't let this statement make you think you can't be invited into a powerful organization. Notice I bold lettered one, and that's because value is what really gets you invited. Value is the eye of the person judging you. You can be valued for the quality of the ore you make, that they use for their tier 3 weapons. You may have missed the entire siege, but your work made a difference. And all you did is play your two hours a day, to gather and make your ore.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is also a concern I have when hearing how hard-core people get into Eve and plan things out here. I've invested more time than anyone being considered a "casual" participant would put in even if the game was already out, but some discussions still make me wonder if I might be getting in over my head as for how much commitment may be expected to progress in the game in a meaningful way.
I think this applies to a lot of us.... I love playing the TT version and really want to be able to play this game... but like a lot of people here feel, if it becomes to hard-core or like a second job, I will have to find a different way of enjoy the few hours I get a day of relaxation. And yes I play games to have fun, not necessarily to win, I play to relax and unwind...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@the casual players
Don't let this statement make you think you can't be invited into a powerful organization. Notice I bold lettered one, and that's because value is what really gets you invited. Value is the eye of the person judging you. You can be valued for the quality of the ore you make, that they use for their tier 3 weapons. You may have missed the entire siege, but your work made a difference. And all you did is play your two hours a day, to gather and make your ore.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.
Just remember you'll always be second-class citizens to the PvPers that ascribe to the EvE model.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I want to know, catagoricaly, is will PFO be a game where people who just want to enjoy themselves and have FUN playing a GAME for a few hours can have FUN.... as opposed to a place exclusively for those who have turned it into a 2nd (or 1st career). If it's the latter....good luck and thanks for all the fishes!This is also a concern I have when hearing how hard-core people get into Eve and plan things out here. I've invested more time than anyone being considered a "casual" participant would put in even if the game was already out, but some discussions still make me wonder if I might be getting in over my head as for how much commitment may be expected to progress in the game in a meaningful way.
I've been wrong enough to avoid saying this categorically, but I expect Ryan's recent statements are entirely consistent with this:
... unlike almost every other MMO, your character gets better in EVE even when you're playing another game! That makes it easy to make EVE your "second" MMO, the game you play in addition to something else (like World of Warcraft). It also levels the playing field between people who can only put in a few hours a day (or a few a week), and those who can play continuously.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will probably put enough hours per week to rival a job's weekly hours while playing PFO, making me anything but a 'casual' player. But even though I will be playing a lot I will still have a 'casual' mentality. If PFO actually starts feeling like a job to me instead of a game to have fun with, then that is the sign for me to cancel my subscription.
And getting a 3am call to jump online (if I'm not already) will start feeling like a job instead of a game.
Well, it is a war game so the best plan is a war plan, instead of a how can I avoid war plan. However I am sure you can play how you want and never fight in a war too, depends on what you are going to care about.
Now as far as what to do about the gaming cultists you feel threatened by , wipe them out during regular playing hours, don't wait for them to start the war. Then wipe them out again if they seem a possible threat after awhile, the numbers are on the side of the casual gamers , you just need to take the action required to make the game world what you want. Defense = lose , go after them first.War should boil down to the winner being the side with the needed man-hours invested in battle per week , not just who showed up for one 3am fight.
I've been wrong enough to avoid saying this categorically, but I expect Ryan's recent statements are entirely consistent with this:
... unlike almost every other MMO, your character gets better in EVE even when you're playing another game! That makes it easy to make EVE your "second" MMO, the game you play in addition to something else (like World of Warcraft). It also levels the playing field between people who can only put in a few hours a day (or a few a week), and those who can play continuously.
The trouble with that quote is that it is totally true while at the same time being totally false in another sense.
It is true in as much as you maintain your place in the skill training hierarchy no matter how little or much you play and where you are in relation to others remains constant.
It is false because in a sandbox game revolving around territorial domination skill levels are really totally irrelevant to what you can achieve as a player. A highly skilled player who plays solo will never achieve as much as someone who plays with a group of friends even if the player with the group has a lot lower training level.
The more organised the group the more you can achieve. The less casual you are the player the more likely you are to be accepted as a part of an organised group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
It is likely that the battle to determine if a Settlement lives or dies will take place in a fairly short period of time...
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 am still very curious to know if that "series of other actions" will often be necessary (caveats, yada yada). If they are effectively necessary when the attacker and defender are of roughly comparable force, then the system Ryan describes is perfectly in line with the system I desire.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Steelwing, I think we're all on the same page in that regard. I don't think anyone would expect to play a few hours a week and also play a pivotal role in a big successful Settlement. I thought it was relevant to GrumpyMel's and Lifedragn's question about whether PFO would be fun for relatively casual players.
For being a "small budget" project to create a "minimum viable product", PFO still has significant variety in playstyles. I think sometimes, when the conversation turns to one particular playstyle - in this case, Settlement warfare - it's easy to forget about Ryan & Co's commitment to the others.
I know a number of folks who have had "fun" playing EVE in a very casual way, even as a solo player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is false because in a sandbox game revolving around territorial domination skill levels are really totally irrelevant to what you can achieve as a player. A highly skilled player who plays solo will never achieve as much as someone who plays with a group of friends even if the player with the group has a lot lower training level.
The more organised the group the more you can achieve. The less casual you are the player the more likely you are to be accepted as a part of an organised group.
As far as it goes, IF a player's game revolves around territorial domination. Players who do not feel a need to gain territorial domination will choose their own achievements.
What is also true is that those whose values differ, whose objectives are their own, should enter the game with eyes wide open. Realize there are players whose lives revolve around optimally achieving domination over territory, and may well interfere with your pursuit of your game.
They are efficient and ruthless. Do not underestimate their potential for unwelcome domination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Drakhan
But being second class probably wouldn't be that bothersome to a casual player as they get to play their game.
@Steelwing
I agree that playing more, you are more likely to get into a well organized group, but that doesn't mean that if your not, you won't. A well organized group will recognize the value of the casual player especially if they are consistent.
@Nihimon
I think the series of other actions being necessary will depend on the DI of the settlement you plan on attacking. Even the smallest settlement should take a while to become vulnerable to that last attack. I think it should require destroying or taking all adjacent PoI's and require that you take at least one as a base of operations.
@Drakhan
@Steelwing
I agree that playing more, you are more likely to get into a well organized group, but that doesn't mean that if your not, you won't. A well organized group will recognize the value of the casual player especially if they are consistent.
There is nothing wrong with people playing casually as long as they are realistic about what they can achieve. Groups in Eve certainly tend to look at degree of casualness as a criteria for entry. PfO may well differ however I suspect not.
Casual groups will certainly be able to grow and prosper as long as they set themselves realistic goals. That is the key in my mind to games such as this. How much do I plan to play and with that level of play and the groups I can join what are realistic and obtainable goals. This is the crux to avoiding disappointment.
I should note that I believe that PfO is actually likely to be harsher for the casual player than Eve is. The reason I suggest this might be the case is that Eve has large tracts of hi sec which players can carve out their niches in and play the game quite happily without ever having to go near null at all. PfO from what they have said so far that is not going to be nearly as possible to do as you rely on player settlements for training, high end crafting. In addition it sounds like the area's of npc hi sec will be small isolated pockets rather than a large blob in the middle
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon
I think the series of other actions being necessary will depend on the DI of the settlement you plan on attacking. Even the smallest settlement should take a while to become vulnerable to that last attack. I think it should require destroying or taking all adjacent PoI's and require that you take at least one as a base of operations.
I very much hope it's something similar to that.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still very curious to know if that "series of other actions" will often be necessary (caveats, yada yada). If they are effectively necessary when the attacker and defender are of roughly comparable force, then the system Ryan describes is perfectly in line with the system I desire.
They'll be necessary unless the defense sucks. If you don't play defense, you'll be rolled. Actually the condition where the attacker and defender are of roughly comparable force is probably not going to be the norm. That's a stalemate waiting to happen. What's much more likely is overwhelmingly powerful attacker against smaller, weaker defender, who tries to hold out as long as possible in the hope that something distracts the attacker enough to make them go away (like an attack on the attacker by the next bigger fish in the ocean).
Unless two equals feel they MUST fight, they rarely WILL fight. You'll most often be on one end or the other of an unbalanced contest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still very curious to know if that "series of other actions" will often be necessary (caveats, yada yada). If they are effectively necessary when the attacker and defender are of roughly comparable force, then the system Ryan describes is perfectly in line with the system I desire.They'll be necessary unless the defense sucks.
Perfect!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Steelwing, it depends on what you mean by "harsher". I do think a casual player of PFO will die more often than a casual player of EVE, but the more important (in my eyes) question is, will the casual player enjoy PFO more than EVE?
For my part, I hope PFO is more interesting than EVE for the person not able or willing to dedicate a large part of their life to the game. That's basically the reason I haven't gotten into EVE; from everything I've heard, it's intentionally incredibly boring to do any gathering or PvE in it, and the only real game there is the territory competition. I hope it's at least a little entertaining to do other things in PFO.
One point I'd like to make: the designers have outlined the game as focusing on four actions.
[qupote=Blog]Those four actions—Exploration, Development, Adventure, and Domination—are the key elements of our game design.
I'd like to remind people that this is not a war game, or a territory control game; though these are certainly a large part of the game, they are not the only part.
I'd like to remind people that this is not a war game, or a territory control game; though these are certainly a large part of the game, they are not the only part.@Steelwing, it depends on what you mean by "harsher". I do think a casual player of PFO will die more often than a casual player of EVE, but the more important (in my eyes) question is, will the casual player enjoy PFO more than EVE?
For my part, I hope PFO is more interesting than EVE for the person not able or willing to dedicate a large part of their life to the game. That's basically the reason I haven't gotten into EVE; from everything I've heard, it's intentionally incredibly boring to do any gathering or PvE in it, and the only real game there is the territory competition. I hope it's at least a little entertaining to do other things in PFO.
One point I'd like to make: the designers have outlined the game as focusing on four actions.
[qupote=Blog]Those four actions—Exploration, Development, Adventure, and Domination—are the key elements of our game design.
By harsher I mean I expect there to be less room for the people that would normally hang out in eve high sec. I don't think people are going to be able to avoid being involved in settlements due to training and crafting needs, I don't think people will be able to do all their gathering in npc safe zones, and I don't think there will be enough pve (due to the fact from what we know the npc zones are going to be a lot smaller than eve) to go around all that want to stay in safe zones necessarily.
The casual player in eve is well served by hisec, he can gather, craft, pve and even pvp in relative safety from people interfering. I don't see that being so possible in PfO from what they have said so far. That is what I mean by harsher.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Perfect!I am still very curious to know if that "series of other actions" will often be necessary (caveats, yada yada). If they are effectively necessary when the attacker and defender are of roughly comparable force, then the system Ryan describes is perfectly in line with the system I desire.They'll be necessary unless the defense sucks.
Now I wonder if 'few people show up at 3AM PDT' is a sufficient condition for 'sucks'...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now I wonder if 'few people show up at 3AM PDT' is a sufficient condition for 'sucks'...
I pegged you for a stoic, not a cynic...
I'm joking about that, but in all seriousness I think the "days or weeks" for a "series of other actions" being necessary creates LOTS of room for a strong defense to proactively avoid having to make that 3:00 AM appearance (caveats, yada yada).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stupid bandaid on my fingertip, making me typo every other word... >_>
It's curious that you say casual players are well served in EVE, as that runs counter to the general perception as far as I've seen. Why do you think the general perception is that EVE is not a game for more casual players? (I'd like to respond directly, but I find my lack of EVE knowledge once again serving as a block. Maybe I can riff off of your response to a more open ended question. ;) )
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well the thing is that some players find fun in being hardcore and fun in being the person with the most territory, the best stuff, and the ability to fight anyone they want to. So for those players fun and hardcore are the same thing.
Honestly there will be casual players. There will probably be casual settlements. However those casual settlements/players wont be as good as the hardcore folks. One example is that a lot of the hardcore groups have a very very large supply of ships and such so that players can get back into the fight quickly and so that some of the cost is offset from the player to the organization.
More casual settlements wont have as much of that as others.
Not only that but settlements are inherently valuable to people, they are not something thats "hey look at me i have this cool castle we can live in". Its "hey if you dont have a settlement or are really good friends with someone who has one, you will NOT be able to train your skills." Thats a world of difference. The result is that the large an organization plans on getting the more settlements it is required to have to be able to support the players. training is finite as a resource. The ONLY way to get more of it is to take it away from someone else.
That central theme of limited resources is what will drive the sandbox game. it causes an inherent imbalance between people who have it and people who dont. It is a planned method to ensure that there is ALWAYS conflict between the players and that is what will make this game interesting to play.
Just a FYI it might seem like I plan on being part of some hardcore group and such, thats not true. Iv played MMOs as hardcore and i dont have the time to do so anymore. I am solidly in the casual gamer corner. I do however understand that this means I should not expect to be in a super huge super built up settlement and it may even mean that my company will be running a PoI and not a settlement.
I just think that folks need to get into the proper mindset otherwise people will get rolled because they dont know what to expect.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's curious that you say casual players are well served in EVE, as that runs counter to the general perception as far as I've seen.
EVE is a casual player's dream.
You don't have to play it to get better at it. You have to manage your skill queue, but after a few weeks of training skills that take a day or less to train you will find that the gap between changing skills becomes multiple days, then multiple weeks. If you want to you can just play the "skill training game" and let your character get more powerful and useful without ever leaving a station.
You can get all the in-game money you want for $34.95. That's the cost of a PLEX, and you convert that PLEX on the market to the equivalent of what a moderately skilled player can make in months and months of grinding game play.
You can access almost all the core elements of the game design in areas that are almost totally safe. You can maximize your risk/reward calculation if you're wiling to spend 2x as long getting from place to place by flying around, rather than through, riskier areas of space.
There is an organization called Red vs. Blue that allows anyone to join it, that is designed simply to let people have easy, cheap fights. It's been running for years and works incredibly well.
The only thing you can't do as a "casual player" is get deeply involved in the game of corporations and alliances, which means you can't get involved in the areas of space that you can actually control. You might find some organization willing to take you on as a "casual player" but you'll find rapidly that you can't stay casual and stay in that organization; the tempo of operations is quite high and there are always more people trying to get in than there are places that can take them so competition to remain a member is stiff.
Why do you think the general perception is that EVE is not a game for more casual players?
Because the environment created by the community is toxic. You can't escape being subjected to all manner of racial, ethnic and religious slurs. You can't escape people with offensively named characters and organizations. You can't escape being bombarded by scams not very much more sophisticated than Nigerian email solicitations.
Because the game itself is obtuse. Much of it is poorly documented, and little help is provided by the company to explain how it works. The UI is a mess of contradictory and overlapping design elements. It doesn't play like any other game you'll ever have played so all your learned skills about moving, fighting, etc. are useless. Sometimes it can be maddening trying to figure out how to get the game to do what you want it to do. Sometimes the game does things you would never have wanted it to do, and it's hard to understand why it did what it did. The game is filled with jargon, acronyms, and references to obscure bits of the backstory - it can feel like people are speaking a foreign language when discussing it.
Because there is a tradition of promoting scams and betrayals as the most mind-bogglingly cool things that happen in the game. That draws people who would love to scam and betray, so there are a lot of predators in the waters.
There are a small number of players with a disproportionately large impact on the game who actively seek out opportunities to ruin the game experience for other players. These people face no sanctions or restrictions so long as all they are doing is using in-game tools to harass and block other players from doing what they want to be doing; brushing up against this faction of players is enough to make many casual gamers walk away in disgust.
Let all that marinate in its own juices for a decade, and you get a game with an incredibly distorted reputation from what it actually is - a reputation that reflects less what your personal experience will be as an individual and is instead the combination of the worst experiences had by the community as a group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eve can be as casual or involved as you want it to be.
The UI is not nearly as bad as Ryan is describing... Hasnt been since I started playing in '06. Now I have heard that in '03 it was bad. Its easy to learn how to control your ship, and even the tutorial I played through taught me everything I needed to know how to fly.
The scamming is easily avoidable if you are paying attention to what you are doing. The scams are blatantly obvious.
The toxic speak is easily avoidable as well. In fact I rarely ever saw it.
Ill be honest. Im not sure that you have played (or saw) the same game I have Ryan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are a couple of important aspects of play that I am entirely unsure about, and they are a big deal...
- Do organizations that are effective in the territory game actualy NEED to be all that exclusive for the entire membership. Clearly it sounds like they need a core and officership that is exclusive and gets offered benefits in keeping with thier commitment from play. But can an organization maintain a wider ring of players in the general membership that can offer SOME level of benefit that is greater then thier cost to the organization and still offer SOME benefits those members might find appealing?
- Is there sufficient room on the map for less competitive organizations to control some fringe or marginal territory and still get to explore some aspects of the territory control game? It's pretty clear that the most competitive organizations will likely hold the most desirable territory but is the map sufficiently large such that the cost to elimate or conquer marginal/fringe territory exceed the benefits of gaining such territory for organizations that already hold prime territory?
- If the answer to both the questions above indicates that casual player is effectively excluded from membership in a settlement does that also handicap them (in terms of access to training facilities and equipment) from meaningfull participation in other aspects of play outside of the territorial control game.
- If one is excluded from the territorial control game, are the other aspects of play sufficiently interesting and sufficiently well developed compared to other games that feature those aspects of play.
EvE's reputation is not only that it is entirely toxic but that the aspects of play outside of the corporation/alliance thing are entirely boring when compared to what other games have to offer.
I think there are a couple of important aspects of play that I am entirely unsure about, and they are a big deal...
- Do organizations that are effective in the territory game actualy NEED to be all that exclusive for the entire membership. Clearly it sounds like they need a core and officership that is exclusive and gets offered benefits in keeping with thier commitment from play. But can an organization maintain a wider ring of players in the general membership that can offer SOME level of benefit that is greater then thier cost to the organization and still offer SOME benefits those members might find appealing?
- Is there sufficient room on the map for less competitive organizations to control some fringe or marginal territory and still get to explore some aspects of the territory control game? It's pretty clear that the most competitive organizations will likely hold the most desirable territory but is the map sufficiently large such that the cost to elimate or conquer marginal/fringe territory exceed the benefits of gaining such territory for organizations that already hold prime territory?
Answering from the point of view of an organisation such as mine. We will be able to max our settlement population with people who are willing to be non casual (by max I mean attain optimal size based on resources available to a settlement). Therefore we have no need of casual players as we have more committed players willing to take their place. As long as the committed players seeking to join remains then there is no incentive for us to take on casual players.
As to space at the edge of the map...well we will aim to be conquering that as well. Why? Because we can use it to generate the following conditions a) a buffer zone of renters and b) Income from renting out settlements to the less competitive and casual. We will still maintain the control in those settlements but we will allow more casual companies to be members of that settlement in return for a monthly contribution and a military levy. Miss your payment or fail to provide that levy then you will be removed from membership
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to space at the edge of the map...well we will aim to be conquering that as well. Why? Because we can use it to generate the following conditions a) a buffer zone of renters and b) Income from renting out settlements to the less competitive and casual. We will still maintain the control in those settlements but we will allow more casual companies to be members of that settlement in return for a monthly contribution and a military levy. Miss your payment or fail to provide that levy then you will be removed from membership
And this echoes, perhaps indirectly, the GW statement that the settlement-POI-outpost relationship will be somewhat feudal.
A basic/small settlement will probably need 1 (settlement) + 6 (adjacent POIs) + 12 (outpost) = 19 companies, at a minimum, to effectively harvest all of its bulk resources. It makes perfect sense for a strong organization to farm out part of this (like the outposts) if they don't have the membership to cover it themselves. If they can cover it themselves, though, why use contractors? Take care of your own people first.
The point of using contractors is because we need to control that POI to prevent our enemies from doing so. Once we control it we may as well make some profit from it by allowing some group to use it for a fee.
The point though is denying it to the enemy which are the other groups like mine
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting point Steelwing. Looking at it from a historical perspective, in meatspace not cyberspace there was often a huge cost for Empires that tried to project and maintain power far from thier core. In areas of marginal value this cost was so far in excess of anything that could be obtained from the territory itself that it often was simply more harmful to the empire to attempt to do so then to leave it. In many cases (though not always) Empires that attempted to control too many far flung territories ended up bankrupting themselves and exposing themselves to external threat.
I suppose this is far harder to model in cyberspace, if it is even desirable for the Developers to attempt it.
Will be interesting to see how it works out. I'm still uncertain whether this will end up meaning that PFO has any attraction whatsoever for casual players or not.
Interesting point Steelwing. Looking at it from a historical perspective, in meatspace not cyberspace there was often a huge cost for Empires that tried to project and maintain power far from thier core. In areas of marginal value this cost was so far in excess of anything that could be obtained from the territory itself that it often was simply more harmful to the empire to attempt to do so then to leave it. In many cases (though not always) Empires that attempted to control too many far flung territories ended up bankrupting themselves and exposing themselves to external threat.
I suppose this is far harder to model in cyberspace, if it is even desirable for the Developers to attempt it.
Will be interesting to see how it works out. I'm still uncertain whether this will end up meaning that PFO has any attraction whatsoever for casual players or not.
I think there should be room for casual players Mel. As I said we will certainly be looking for tenants for a start. In addition the big power blocs aren't really concerned on the whole with go after the casual groups. We may tell you that we don't want you gathering or pve'ing in our lands but as long as you don't trespass we have no particular reason to harrass you. Become a threat on the other hand....
As to the cost it will revolve more around the strategic positions than anything. Large power bloc's rarely have a shortage of money. There may well be regions of the River kingdoms that are of no strategic importance to any of the main power groups and that aren't rich enough either to attract their attention.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
- Do organizations that are effective in the territory game actualy NEED to be all that exclusive for the entire membership.
Need is a relative term. The really big alliances are a cadre of super-dedicated people surrounded by a larger group of dedicated but not obsessive players, surrounded by a huge nebulous cloud of loosely engaged players.
When small entities try to mimic that structure they often find that they simply don't have enough super-dedicated and somewhat dedicated players to survive when seriously threatened. This creates what has been called a "failure cascade" as the loose cloud of hangers-on flee for safer pastures just when the dedicated core really needs their help.
The benefits you get for being the cloud are simple:
1: You get to be a member of the "club". Secret chat channels, private forums, drama as far as the eye can see.
2: You get to see stuff you can't see any other way. The very highest end ships in the game are prohibited from entering safe space. If you want to see the highest end stuff, you have to be in the riskiest space and you can't be in that space unless you have permission.
3: So long as you are helpful you will likely be able to make a lot of in-game money harvesting resources, crafting and trading. The most valuable stuff is in the riskiest space. "Helpful" means following top-down instructions on what to do, where to do it and when to do it. Some people are fine with that. Others chafe at "being told what to do" and can't stand it. YMMV.
- Is there sufficient room on the map for less competitive organizations to control some fringe or marginal territory and still get to explore some aspects of the territory control game?
Kinda.
All the normal risky space is claimed and nobody who has it wants to give it up, so you have to try and take it. At this point there are treaties and deals between almost everyone in that space so you don't get to take on just one group you pretty much take on half the map. If you're not a part of the very biggest powers you won't have any control over what gets fought over, when, or how successful the fights are. It's essentially impossible for a small new group of players to go to the territorial control area and take some territory. They'll be squashed (if they even managed to take anything in the first place).
The alternative is Wormhole Space. In 2009, CCP added about 30% more star systems, but they are not connected to the rest of the game space via permanent links. Instead they are connected by wormholes that randomly appear daily in random systems. You find them using an exploration mechanic and then you can travel through them to the systems on the other side. Wormholes have various useful things in them. The most useful wormholes are permanently occupied by powerful forces and you have about as much chance of dislodging one as you do in kicking someone out of their normal-space territory. The less useful ones are often empty or have weak inhabitants that you might be able to displace. What you get for occupying a wormhole system is a daily grind to find and mark exits and entrances, a complex logistical system to keep your base supplied in the wormhole, and the opportunity to extract uncommon resources from the wormhole that have a lot of value to industrial organizations. It can be a lot of fun but you can't build the highest-end stuff in Wormholes and you never actually "get" the territory (in normal space you are officially recognized for "holding sovereignty" but you don't get anything similar in wormhole space.
- If the answer to both the questions above indicates that casual player is effectively excluded from membership in a settlement does that also handicap them (in terms of access to training facilities and equipment) from meaningfull participation in other aspects of play outside of the territorial control game.
I took from your context that you were asking about EVE. We plan to try and have more frontier territory than EVE, and avoid one of the big problems with EVE which is that choke points in certain systems allow a small force to block access to a vast amount of relatively unused space.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
The UI is not nearly as bad as Ryan is describing...It is if you want to run a corporation. That interface is still arcane as hell.
Yeah, he's nuts. The interface for Planetary Interaction is bizarre. The interface for setting up Player Owned Stations is bizarre. The interface for moon goo extraction is bizarre. The overview is bizarre in the extreme - it's like no other UI element you've ever seen in an MMO or even in a single player strategy game.
Sometimes you can get so close to something you don't realize how bizarre it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The UI is not nearly as bad as Ryan is describing...It is if you want to run a corporation. That interface is still arcane as hell.Yeah, he's nuts. The interface for Planetary Interaction is bizarre. The interface for setting up Player Owned Stations is bizarre. The interface for moon goo extraction is bizarre. The overview is bizarre in the extreme - it's like no other UI element you've ever seen in an MMO or even in a single player strategy game.
Sometimes you can get so close to something you don't realize how bizarre it is.
I totally forgot about PI. Mainly because I couldn't figure it out without going through some long wiki article that kinda made my head hurt. I did some research into POSs, but never got that off the ground. Overview filters still baffle me. Sometimes things disappear that I didn't intend to make disappear and I can't figure out how to bring them back.
|
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?
If the preliminary weakening attempts of the settlement haven't been successful, I doubt you'd see a presumably smart and cost-benefit analyzing major player attempt the bull rush siege into a strong defense.
That's what several other posts have mentioned: that more casual players will be able to contribute to defensive attacks against the weakening attempts so the aggressor can never get into an advantageous enough position to siege the walls in the first place.
+1 to the model of removing control of a Settlement and then an additional time window where the aggressor needs to reestablish defense and control of the area before they can claim ownership. That gives the defenders another chance to regroup and reclaim their city, or a third party (ally of the defenders? or out for themselves) the chance to swoop in and demolish the tired, more disorganized forces after they did the hard work. It's a buffet of meaningful choices all around.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this game needs to intentionally design it so there are almost never battles so pivotal that people are getting calls at 3 am to come fight them.If you can flatten the world, let me know - we'll get rich together.
One possible solution to the time zone issue (striking the balance between the right of the defenders to choose when the pivotal fight is to take place by means of letting them control the vulnerability window and allowing the attackers a chance to attack at a moment that is convenient to them) could be e.g.
- instead of forcing the top tier settlements to have 24/7 vulnerability allow them to set the maximum vulnerability around 30 % of every 24 hour cycle , which could result in around 8-9 hours of vulnerability every 24 hour cycle
- instead of having one large vulnerability window, force the settlement to split that vulnerability time equally between e.g. 3 segments of 8 hours each (creating e.g. 3 separate vulnerability windows of 3 hours each within each 24 hour cycle)
Coupled with mechanics requiring e.g. setting up a siege camp and battering the settlement walls for a certain minimum amount of time to reduce their integrity to zero (for top tier siege versus low tier walls e.g. a little over 24 hours, longer for more advanced defense structures or lower tier siege engines) before an attempt to capture the capital building could be made with a chance for the defenders to interrupt the siege (e.g. during the same settlement vulnerability times) everyone should have a possibility to contribute at reasonably convenient hours without the 3 AM calls.
I think this game needs to intentionally design it so there are almost never battles so pivotal that people are getting calls at 3 am to come fight them.If you can flatten the world, let me know - we'll get rich together.One possible solution to the time zone issue (striking the balance between the right of the defenders to choose when the pivotal fight is to take place by means of letting them control the vulnerability window and allowing the attackers a chance to attack at a moment that is convenient to them) could be e.g.
- instead of forcing the top tier settlements to have 24/7 vulnerability allow them to set the maximum vulnerability around 30 % of every 24 hour cycle , which could result in around 8-9 hours of vulnerability every 24 hour cycle
- instead of having one large vulnerability window, force the settlement to split that vulnerability time equally between e.g. 3 segments of 8 hours each (creating e.g. 3 separate vulnerability windows of 3 hours each within each 24 hour cycle)
Coupled with mechanics requiring e.g. setting up a siege camp and battering the settlement walls for a certain minimum amount of time to reduce their integrity to zero (for top tier siege versus low tier walls e.g. a little over 24 hours, longer for more advanced defense structures or lower tier siege engines) before an attempt to capture the capital building could be made with a chance for the defenders to interrupt the siege (e.g. during the same settlement vulnerability times) everyone should have a possibility to contribute at reasonably convenient hours without the 3 AM calls.
You do realise this favours the top tier settlements while not helping the little mom and pop settlements one whit?
The issue of 3AM callups doesn't seem of primary importance to me...
You might as well put a cap on 3AM callups/gameplay if they aren't meant to matter at all.
Left unstated so far is that alliances between players in more and less populous timezones (independent of 'hardcore-ness')
is equally incentivized, which is probably a good thing compared to if they were not, IMHO.
It fundamentally seems reasonable and acceptable for people who put more into the game and are more 'hardcore' to have more success for that,
3AM callups being just one aspect of hardcore, but ultimately are AN aspect of hardcore dedication, other aspects could be equally important.
If hardcore dedication didn't matter, then it would feel a joke to those willing to play in that style,
or those who want to play in a game where it matters where one is a hardcore player or not.
The issue here is more just about the issue of limits/scarcity of training,
and how that impacts the contribution/reward relationship when joining Settlements.
Part of the issue is that 'hardcore players' do not end up superior in every aspect... XP is the same for everybody by GW's design,
meaning everybody has a similar potential demand for training (mechanically), unlike a system where that is tied to advancement which 'hardcore' are faster at.
Any scarcity means higher tier 'not hardcore' players will tend to get pushed to using the lower tier training,
their increased power/wealth in turn pushing out actual lower tier players. (who aren't hardcore enough to compensate)
I could imagine that the same tendency would also push less hardcore players into spreading their training around,
training in broader areas of skill (at lower tiers) rather than pursuing the heights of one or two skill chains.
Depending on scaling of power between different tiers of skills, and synergies between them, that itself could 'alleviate' the issue.
I think that some posts here seem to imagine it is totally unviable if non-hardcore players of a certain XP level can't train in things they otherwise might be able to per the mechanical rules-based limits of the game server (if hardcore players weren't monopolizing that training). I just don't agree with that premise.
What is available to any character is arbitrarily set by GW anyways, having the form of hierarchy set by GW /and/ emergent behavior of competition is still just another form of hierarchy... That other players of the same XP (but higher other achievements/dedication) effectively end up higher tier (via high end training access) than you doesn't really matter, that's just how the game works... Same XP hardcore players are not the "peers" of less dedicated same-XP characters, LOWER XP characters of "hardcore players" are. Instead of taking offense at that, that's just kind of how it works. Instead of "competitive pressure" helping foster the exact form of heiarchical progression, GW themself could always simply institute a HARD MECHANIC (akin to XP/Merit Badges/etc) which achieved the same thing. Not being officially "hard coded in" doesn't make it any more illegitimate or unbearable: the heiarchical progression is a heiarchical progression.
That said, I think details of training availability, and lower-tier skill synergy, are important for a good game,
because I think it is important for less-hardcore and not-hardcore players to feel fully engaged in the game they are playing.
Hopefully GW is taking that into ,
so that every type of player has a viable "ladder" or power progression, mechanically and politically.
BTW, re: different time zones, I saw Ryan mention once about Russian players and that PFO has good prospects there.
Is this due to anything specific, or just a general assessment of the Russian market?
Is GW planning Russian (or other language) localizations for game itself and/or explanatory websites, or specific marketing campaigns there yet?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
One possible solution to the time zone issue (striking the balance between the right of the defenders to choose when the pivotal fight is to take place by means of letting them control the vulnerability window
Yes, that's the plan.
instead of forcing the top tier settlements to have 24/7
It won't be 24x7.
Note: Nonflat world means that it may still require someone to get up at 3am localtime to defend the Settlement regardless of when and how long the window is open.
RyanD
honestly the real issue isnt the 3am calls.
It doesnt matter when a settlement attack happens. the larger more hardcore organizations will have more and better quality members on during the times that it matters no matter when that is.
There is no way to balance that.
Tweaking balance between different tier of training (and gear as related to that) can balance differences between low and higher trained characters, to the extent that correlates to low/hardcore players.
Even with zero difference in that aspect, hardcore player will still simply be more useful/effective. Due to the latter, I think keeping things so that training/gear is not a large discrepancy itself is a good idea (especially for shorter periods of comparision re: gear, since less hardcore players don't need to worry as much about gearing for long periods of persistent combat, i.e. replacing unthreaded gear). And that has been stated to be GW's general plan AFAIK, to not have a steep power curve, so that lower tier characters are still relevant.
On that topic, I'd be curious about Threading... Would that be something that is neutral to "hardcore" vs "not" play? If so, it should probably correlate more or less directly to XP? I think having Threading be neutral to "hardcoreness" is honestly a good and reasonable way to accomodate both playstyles, not flattening the curve too much but not leaving less hardcore players at too much of a disadvantage, especially in terms of replacing gear which is somewhat disproportionately a chore for less hardcore players.
One possible solution to the time zone issue (striking the balance between the right of the defenders to choose when the pivotal fight is to take place by means of letting them control the vulnerability windowYes, that's the plan.
instead of forcing the top tier settlements to have 24/7 It won't be 24x7.
Note: Nonflat world means that it may still require someone to get up at 3am localtime to defend the Settlement regardless of when and how long the window is open.
RyanD
It should be 24/7 but tell us your views on what it will be not what it is not.
If you are going to turn around and say it will be something like a maximum of 8 hours per day will get you full DI then players like me can go laugh about it and completely ignore the game as not being worth playing.
If on the other hand you are going to make it 20/7 that while still short of being what it should be is at least more reasonable.
For the casual players who are about to proclaim that 8 hours a day is plenty because you feel it suits you first of all consider this. You will effectively limit the game to only being able to be attacked by or attack settlements in your own time zone. So in effect there will be almost 3 different river kingdoms whereby the euros can attack each other, later on the east coasters get home from work and attack each other because by now the euro window has closed. And so it goes on as the sun moves round the globe