Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is why any trespass/exile system that defaults allowed until manually marked unwelcome is either a nightmare of individual whims or so bogged down in red tape it's rendered unworkable in enabling a secure NRDS settlement policy.I respectfully disagree with the second part. I think it is entirely possible to simply have all of your patrol captains and guard captains (not throwing in numbers, but one person for every group of defenders you have) enabled for flagging people, with specific instructions for who they are allowed to flag (or less specific instructions, and you put the responsibility on them to use the powers appropriately). That would mean that an ordinary citizen who sees a potential bad guy would have to get a patrol to flag the bad guy as trespasser; seems like a non-issue to me with the advent of chat channels, as long as your patrols aren't spread way too thinly.
While that is technically possible, to happen in practice it requires players to reliably show up for likely-scheduled shifts of guard duty 24/7 for as many years as you want to maintain a secure settlement and be locked into the one hex just in case something untoward happens. I don't want to promote mechanics that need certain people to log in even if they don't feel like it or apply pressure to stay in that hex for guard duty if they feel like using their free time in a video game to do something else. It's too close to the "but we need a healer" debacle.
@Prozima[sic], are you suggesting all settlement members should get free reign on kills in their territory, or something else? Because if this is what you had in mind it would seem to act as a deterrent to going into other people's territory, in my opinion.
Not free reign, but even in that extreme case I think it would deter threatening behavior more than going into the presumably-good-willed NRDS territory. If somehow any member of Brighthaven could kill any visitor completely for free (in this extreme case that I'm not promoting) but it was regularly abused, Brighthaven's desired image among players would be shattered. There would be a high amount of self-policing between members to make sure that ability was being used responsibly. In contrast, anyone from EvilTown might kill you for free for wearing a Green Hat on Tuesday, and you expect that might happen when you go into the hex of people with such an unfriendly demeanor they named their settlement EvilTown.
I am suggesting that if we want NRDS to be a functional option that doesn't compromise settlement security, something needs to be added that allows any stakeholders to defend their homes right that moment without suffering detrimental mechanical affects intended for meaningless pvp.
The question can be polled, is defending your home settlement or POI a special case that deserves to be totally free? If people are convinced they'll be harassed from it they can just not go there which is either a desired goal (of NBSI) or undesired player-derived penalty (of NRDS).
Second question, if not totally free then what is a fair cost and what game material is the payment made of?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am suggesting that if we want NRDS to be a functional option that doesn't compromise settlement security, something needs to be added that allows any stakeholders to defend their homes right that moment without suffering detrimental mechanical affects intended for meaningless pvp.
I am curious. When and how do you think that defenders from aggression will be penalized for that defense, anywhere?
@Proxima Sin
If you can freely kill anyone in your hex on suspicion that is so completely abusable it is not even true. In fact I tell you what we would go NRDS, now we can still perform as NBSI but not get any of the downsides.
This is not making NRDS functional it is making your hex a free to gank zone for your members totally consequence free
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am suggesting that if we want NRDS to be a functional option that doesn't compromise settlement security, something needs to be added that allows any stakeholders to defend their homes right that moment without suffering detrimental mechanical affects intended for meaningless pvp.
I think this is what Ryan was alluding to when he said sometimes your soldier is going to just have to suck it up and do what is right for the good of the outfit, even if it means negative numbers on his record.
I am suggesting that if we want NRDS to be a functional option that doesn't compromise settlement security, something needs to be added that allows any stakeholders to defend their homes right that moment without suffering detrimental mechanical affects intended for meaningless pvp.I am curious. When and how do you think that defenders from aggression will be penalized for that defense, anywhere?
I believe proxima is suggesting they shouldn't be penalized for "preemptive defense" or attacking people because you think they may do something as I refer to it
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe proxima is suggesting they shouldn't be penalized for "preemptive defense" or attacking people because you think they may do something as I refer to itI am suggesting that if we want NRDS to be a functional option that doesn't compromise settlement security, something needs to be added that allows any stakeholders to defend their homes right that moment without suffering detrimental mechanical affects intended for meaningless pvp.I am curious. When and how do you think that defenders from aggression will be penalized for that defense, anywhere?
Yeah. I figured that and reject it. That is one of the prices and risks of NRDS and would make it the same as NBSI with a special "whitelist".
Preemptive is completely the definition of taking "the offensive" into your own hands. That could be accomplished with "trespassing" that person or group out. If you believe that settlements will not need someone online and in charge with such powers at all times, you are not planning well for this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am suggesting that if we want NRDS to be a functional option that doesn't compromise settlement security, something needs to be added that allows any stakeholders to defend their homes right that moment without suffering detrimental mechanical affects intended for meaningless pvp.I am curious. When and how do you think that defenders from aggression will be penalized for that defense, anywhere?
WHEN
None of this applies to wars or feuds obviously, or anyone that has already committed a crime. Those individuals are already marked hostile and free kills.
This is only about non-hostiles that are likely up to no good. Bandits casing the joint, jerks that think they can grief easier here because NRDS is for wussies, and especially enemy activity in preparation for a future declared hostility. Vulnerability to situations like those is why player groups go NBSI.
If we want to promote NRDS policies among settlements they're going to have to feel like they can still be safe 24/7 while being that open.
HOW
Reputation and alignment (and corruption?) hits for attacking non-hostiles. Mechanics that move you and your settlement closer to sucking which are intended to be the consequence of meaningless pvp. Defending your home isn't meaningless pvp, but those with bad intentions will hide behind non-hostile characters and the threat of those shifts like a shield.
If like Being said your only option is to bite the bullet and move your dials towards suck to remove a potentially threatening non-hostile from your home hex, how well do you think that will scale over hundreds of members and for all time? 20 shady characters look like they're going to raid your POI, and you're expected to either wait to be attacked when they feel they have the best chance of winning, or eat 20 alignment, reputation, and corruption hits in just moment of the day? What kind of sh!$%y choice is that? What if they respawn and come back?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we want to promote NRDS policies among settlements they're going to have to feel like they can still be safe 24/7 while being that open.
We would be deceiving them if we did. It won't be safe 24/7 for either policy set, or any other for that matter.
For both policies (NBSI and NRDS) there are always risks. The only real question is one of organizational values.
I'd rather settlements remain vigilant than lull them into a false sense of security. Nobody should imagine it will not be dangerous in the River Kingdoms. But within that we may be able to find and make a really good game.
@Proxima you do realize security is one of the trade offs you make for being NRDS.
NBSI you get more security but also more corruption
NRDS you get less security but less corruption and increased tax money.
What you seem to want is all the advantages with none of the downsides. Everything in the game is a trade off. You gain benefits and disadvantages with every choice NRDS is one of those choices just as NBSI is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am suggesting that if we want NRDS to be a functional option that doesn't compromise settlement security, something needs to be added that allows any stakeholders to defend their homes right that moment without suffering detrimental mechanical affects intended for meaningless pvp.I am curious. When and how do you think that defenders from aggression will be penalized for that defense, anywhere?WHEN
None of this applies to wars or feuds obviously, or anyone that has already committed a crime. Those individuals are already marked hostile and free kills.
This is only about non-hostiles that are likely up to no good. Bandits casing the joint, jerks that think they can grief easier here because NRDS is for wussies, and especially enemy activity in preparation for a future declared hostility. Vulnerability to situations like those is why player groups go NBSI.
If we want to promote NRDS policies among settlements they're going to have to feel like they can still be safe 24/7 while being that open.
HOW
Reputation and alignment (and corruption?) hits for attacking non-hostiles. Mechanics that move you and your settlement closer to sucking which are intended to be the consequence of meaningless pvp. Defending your home isn't meaningless pvp, but those with bad intentions will hide behind non-hostile characters and the threat of those shifts like a shield.
If like Being said your only option is to bite the bullet and move your dials towards suck to remove a potentially threatening non-hostile from your home hex, how well do you think that will scale over hundreds of members and for all time? 20 shady characters look like they're going to raid your POI, and you're expected to either wait to be attacked when they feel they have the best chance of winning, or eat 20 alignment, reputation, and corruption hits in just moment of the day? What kind of sh!$%y choice is that? What if they respawn and come back?
It just can't work that way. You can never have NRDS and complete safety. You have to decide if the risks are worth the rewards and do what it takes to ensure that they are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, three posts in a row all construing one specific word into a twisted caricature of it's in-context meaning and suddenly... it's raaaining straw men, HALLELUJAH!
As if I meant complete and total safety. Safer than NBSI. Safer than payroll in a Brinks truck. Safer than your burger in a cow pen.
Safety is a sliding scale. "Wait until your enemy is at full strength and chooses which moment is best for them to attack before you do anything about it, or crash your personal and municipal Reputation score" is not quite far enough towards the safe end of that scale for many groups to try NRDS for very long, in my open pvp experience.
In my opinion you'd get much better implementation and more of the open game culture you want from NRDS by nudging the safety slider just a little bit; attach a cost to stakeholders defending their homes and POIs but not costs that damage the settlement they're trying to defend (reputation, alignment, or corruption).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As current knowledge stands, if there are non-hostile but shady characters you're 98% sure are casing the gates for rich-looking caravans, you CANNOT walk up and tell them to leave the hex or else and have it mean anything. It's either an empty threat or you expose yourself to alignment and reputation shifts meant for those that engage in meaningless pvp that make your character and settlement suck a little more (the defense of your own home/POI is not meaningless). The settlement currently has no effective option to expel that perceived threat and exposure to that level of danger very long will cease their NRDS policy.
Bolded the part to talk about here. Yes you absolutely can do this. You set them to red. They then become trespassers if in your hex. I would argue that they get sufficient warning that they move out of your hex but there is nothing to stop you doing so.You are 98% sure they are up to no good so why wouldnt you.
The concept of black listing someone has been around for ages and has been assumed that it was within a settlements rights to do so and I have not seen anyone objecting to the idea. The only new thing that this "exile" mechanic brings to the table is the concept of removing consequences from the settlement of crimes committed against these blacklisted people. This is the part both myself and Jiminy have tagged as "making these people free kills for absolutely everybody" rather than just those entitled to take actions against them (the settlement members).
As this consequence free part is the only thing that this exile mechanic adds to what people have already widely assumed to be available and have not objected to then I can only conclude it was the whole point of suggesting this "new" mechanic.
If you feel I am wrong I would be interested in what you think are the other differences between "exile" and the blacklist/set to red that people have assumed to be possible.
Please cite where GW has described this "setting to red" mechanism that you have described because I have seen nowhere where GW has described the process of marking a non-aligned or neutraliy aligned individual as hostile.
I think you are presuming facts that are not in evidence. Further what specificaly does an exile/tresspasser mechanic do that this "setting to red" mechanic not do which you find objectionable?
@Grumpymel
From the blood on the tracks blog
Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.
This is where they basically are set to red other mechanics include settlement laws which will allow you to bar groups or individuals
What the exile mechanic does in addition and the bit I have been objecting to is to make trespassers free kills or robbery victims to people who would not normally be able to rob or kill them in your hex without consequence to your settlement because there is no corruption hit when committing a crime against these trespassers.
The whole point of laws is setting them gives you the ability to enforce them. The risk is corruption hits if you don't enforce them. Take away the corruption hits for some lawbreaking and you are taking the risk away.
@GrumpyMel if you are suggesting that settlements cannot bar individuals or groups then that means no one can be anything other than NRDS which makes this whole topic even worse frankly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, three posts in a row all construing one specific word into a twisted caricature of it's in-context meaning and suddenly... it's raaaining straw men, HALLELUJAH!
If that is so then apologies. I am having a hard time distinguishing your definition of NRDS from NBSI (and just not attacking anyone in your NBSI hex that you choose not to attack).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The proposed exile system is my take on a system that like it or not, seems to exist already:
Not being a member of a PC Settlement means that there's no good reason for anyone to treat you as anything but hostile if you visit their territory. It would be foolish to have an open door policy for NPC Settlement members, so I expect most PC Settlements will NBSI them. I don't know when or if we'll have systems granular enough to let a Settlement set an individual character to NRDS but even after we do, I suspect you'll have problems negotiating one on one with very many locations. The map, for you, will be a small circle of green safe territory around your NPC Settlement, surrounded by an ocean of red where you'll risk being ganked if you venture forth, without allies, and without any means of meaningful self defense.
As you can see, the implications that a settlement will be able to to turn something such as as the trespasser flag* on and off for certain groups at will is more than strong. It's all but outright stated.
I only came out and addressed 2 unknowns and 1 TBD.
1. It should be granular enough to apply to individuals if desired.
2. It should negate any corruption/unrest generated by exiled players being victimized.
3. You should be able to enable/disable it for all players of a certain standing, such as neutral. (I only specifically addressed as NBSI settlements flagging all neutrals.)
*
Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is why any trespass/exile system that defaults allowed until manually marked unwelcome is either a nightmare of individual whims or so bogged down in red tape it's rendered unworkable in enabling a secure NRDS settlement policy.I respectfully disagree with the second part. I think it is entirely possible to simply have all of your patrol captains and guard captains (not throwing in numbers, but one person for every group of defenders you have) enabled for flagging people, with specific instructions for who they are allowed to flag (or less specific instructions, and you put the responsibility on them to use the powers appropriately). That would mean that an ordinary citizen who sees a potential bad guy would have to get a patrol to flag the bad guy as trespasser; seems like a non-issue to me with the advent of chat channels, as long as your patrols aren't spread way too thinly ([Settlement]Shane: Hey, there's a group of guys near the southern copper hexes, I think they're about to do some ore poaching.).
This is the type of solution I would support. Settlements should be able to delegate this authority to a sufficiently large enough group of people responsible for border control/law enforcement within it's territory to suit it's needs.
Exactly what that number is should be left open to the settlement to determine. Falsely flagging too many people should harm the settlement by reducing the human resources in trade and PvE labor that it can rely on..... and I think that the challenges a settlement of significant size should face should make it difficult for that settlement to be entirely self-sufficient...and those challenges should be tweaked if such is found commonly to not be the case.... conversely not being dilligent enough in flagging people should harm the settlement by allowing too much crime to occur at the time of the criminals choosing (and thus having the greatest chance of success) but settlements absolutely DO need the ability to flag people as tresspassers/exiles or whatever name is chosen down to the individual level....and there do need to be automated controls/mechanisms in place to allow a settlements law enforcement forces a reasonable chance to apprehend or force away wrong doers before they impact it's corruption index...otherwise a criminal can simply sit within 1 foot of a settlements borders spamming SAD's and getting killed only to respawn at a bind point 5 ft outside it's borders and return to get killed again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@GrumpyMel if you are suggesting that settlements cannot bar individuals or groups then that means no one can be anything other than NRDS which makes this whole topic even worse frankly.
Steelwing, as Andius has mentioned, we've been told that Settlements will be able to set rules/filters for the TYPE of character allowed in... example "IF Reputation < 0 then character is not allowed". What we've not be told and has kinda been hinted by Ryan will not be the case is that you as Settlement leader CAN NOT say... "You know, non-aligned character X, you don't technicaly meet any of our filters but I happen to have definite knowledge that you are working as a spy/sabotuer/assasin for Enemy Faction Y....I'm marking you as a tresspasser you have 10 minutes to leave our territory or else". That means that you pretty much have to have a NBSI policy to have ANY border security whatsoever. Your alternative is having to attack that character, suffer alignment and rep hits, become a criminal in your own settlement and thereby increase it's corruption index. Clearly that's onworkable.
What I'm saying is that local law enforcement has to have the ability to flag dicey individuals...giving them a tresspasser/exile flag and X amount of minutes to leave the settlement or become a criminal and open to PvP from that settlements law enforcment.
I'm also saying that if crime is going to effect the corruption index of a settlement then law enforcement needs a REASONABLE amount of time to respond before that corruption kicks in....because unlike in the real world where you can put a criminal out of circulation for X number of years...in PFO they can come right back after you kill them, or even log onto another ALT that is completely "innocent" as far as the games systems knows and repeat the behavior 5 minutes later, ad infinitem.
There has to be something which says "If Law Enforcement responds in X amount of time to something that would increase corruption then corruption is NOT increased because Law Enforcment IS actualy doing it's job" . Corruption is when officials ARE NOT doing thier job.
Steelwing, as Andius has mentioned, we've been told that Settlements will be able to set rules/filters for the TYPE of character allowed in... example "IF Reputation < 0 then character is not allowed". What we've not be told and has kinda been hinted by Ryan will not be the case is that you as Settlement leader CAN NOT say... "You know, non-aligned character X, you don't technicaly meet any of our filters but I happen to have definite knowledge that you are working as a spy/sabotuer/assasin for Enemy Faction Y....I'm marking you as a tresspasser you have 10 minutes to leave our territory or else". That means that you pretty much have to have a NBSI policy to have ANY border security whatsoever.
If what you are suggesting there is true then it is not NRDS that becomes difficult to implement it is NBSI.
How do you implement NBSI when individuals cannot meet your filters and you can't set them to trespasser. Simple answer is you can't which as I said made this thread and the suggestions in it even worse because NRDS is not only viable but is the only possiblity to have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel strongly that all dev resources should be put into deeply engrained systems that are used every second of the game (which will keep them busy for years) and a major way players can help is doing everything for ourselves that we're able to... being a sandbox and all. Crime reporting and border security are two of those things.
I think the value of border patrols is being seriously pumped up into something it never has been, and never will be. I'm going to come out and make one of those predictions Nihimon can write down and you all can check to see if I was right later on:
Not a single settlement holding faction in this game will have players regularly patrolling all spots along it's borders.
Why?
1. It's not fun.
2. There are wiser uses for dedicated guards.
3. That is too damn much territory to cover.
The only way it could be rendered feasible is with additional mechanics that help automatically detect people crossing your borders for you, and give you the tools to track them down when it happens.
But in no game that I have ever played, has a major (or minor for that matter) faction had every entrance into their territory routinely locked down. Not in EVE where there were the chokepoints of jumpgates. Not in Freelancer with the choke points of jumpgates and jump holes. Certainly not in Darkfall, Mortal, or Wurm which like PFO which only have what the terrain can offer in the way of chokepoints.
It's due to a simple fact. Any group who has enough power to even begin to patrol their borders 24/7 will expand outward. So no matter how big and powerful they get, their borders will be insecure. Right now I'm sure I could go hop in my stealth bomber and make it into Goon Swarm Federation territory. Sure, they're big. Massive even. But they also have too many jumpgates leading into their territory to ensure each and every one is protected even half of the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Steelwing, as Andius has mentioned, we've been told that Settlements will be able to set rules/filters for the TYPE of character allowed in... example "IF Reputation < 0 then character is not allowed". What we've not be told and has kinda been hinted by Ryan will not be the case is that you as Settlement leader CAN NOT say... "You know, non-aligned character X, you don't technicaly meet any of our filters but I happen to have definite knowledge that you are working as a spy/sabotuer/assasin for Enemy Faction Y....I'm marking you as a tresspasser you have 10 minutes to leave our territory or else". That means that you pretty much have to have a NBSI policy to have ANY border security whatsoever.
If what you are suggesting there is true then it is not NRDS that becomes difficult to implement it is NBSI.
How do you implement NBSI when individuals cannot meet your filters and you can't set them to trespasser. Simple answer is you can't which as I said made this thread and the suggestions in it even worse because NRDS is not only viable but is the only possiblity to have.
Oh that's easy you could make a filter that says "If NOT member of settlements or List of Aligned Groups then character is tresspasser"
It becomes very easy to exclude everyone not in your organization or a list of other aligned organizations. What you can't do is, this INDIVIDUAL is OK, this one is NOT. In order for NRDS to be viable you need to be able to say....yeah, this individual who is neutral to us is welcome but this one who is neutral isn't. Because the 2 individuals will look identical as far as the games automated filters are concerned even though 1 is actualy an assasin and the other is an innocent merchant. That's the problem....and it's the problem Andius is pointing out.... and with things like the corruption mechanic as it exists it becomes just as bad as EvE because allowing someone to be innocent until proven guilty (or even just until you think they might be guilty) means you will be corruption bombed into a failed economy with ZERO recourse to apply any countermeasure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to come out and make one of those predictions Nihimon can write down and you all can check to see if I was right later on:
Not a single settlement holding faction in this game will have players regularly patrolling all spots along it's borders.
Listed :)
Also, don't forget the importance of Watch Towers. They're designed to let you keep an eye on your territory without having to actually patrol your borders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius
What about the difference in NPC guards and the PVP window? There is a bit of room to play with there if they turn out to be effective.
Like all these discussions, this dissolves down into a real lack of information and a whole lot of hopes and assumption.
Certainly in Darkfall (a game without ANY choke points or NPC guards) it is really easy to damage enemy holdings and not that hard to completely take them with numbers. I am not sure if it is due to a culture of incompetence in defense, impossible defense(due to game mechanics), or just lack of organization. A dedicated group could actually "Win" Darkfall UW in a matter of months if the game was attractive enough to such a group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan said that NRDS is not wise to extend to NPC settlement newbs, how do we change that perspective?
I would suggest that a settlement receives a DI bonus for positive, unique, daily traffic.
Further bonuses can be granted for using markets, taverns, religious shrines or other services by non citizens.
This would give an adjustable advantage (tweaking if needed) to an NRDS settlement versus an NBSI. However, the advantage is not based on a preset mechanic, it is based on unique, daily traffic and accommodation of visitors.
But wait, I said "Positive".... That's correct..... The bonus is likely to get wiped out if you open your doors to low reputation characters. Not only might their low reputation score affect the bonus, but their actions would probably cancel out any bonuses as well.
"Positive" also does not include anyone entering the settlement hex for purposes of raiding, feuds, wars, assassinations, bounties, etc....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont think that any NPCs should be able to give trespass flags or anything similar.
NPCs should alert the settlement that they saw someone, BUT it would be up to the players to find them and get them to leave, perhaps if they are seen by a watch tower it could be "Trespassers spotted near watchtower 4".
After that I like the idea steelwing had about having a SAD like mechanic for those trespassers.
Steelwing, as Andius has mentioned, we've been told that Settlements will be able to set rules/filters for the TYPE of character allowed in... example "IF Reputation < 0 then character is not allowed". What we've not be told and has kinda been hinted by Ryan will not be the case is that you as Settlement leader CAN NOT say... "You know, non-aligned character X, you don't technicaly meet any of our filters but I happen to have definite knowledge that you are working as a spy/sabotuer/assasin for Enemy Faction Y....I'm marking you as a tresspasser you have 10 minutes to leave our territory or else". That means that you pretty much have to have a NBSI policy to have ANY border security whatsoever.
If what you are suggesting there is true then it is not NRDS that becomes difficult to implement it is NBSI.
How do you implement NBSI when individuals cannot meet your filters and you can't set them to trespasser. Simple answer is you can't which as I said made this thread and the suggestions in it even worse because NRDS is not only viable but is the only possiblity to have.
Oh that's easy you could make a filter that says "If NOT member of settlements or List of Aligned Groups then character is tresspasser"
It becomes very easy to exclude everyone not in your organization or a list of other aligned organizations. What you can't do is, this INDIVIDUAL is OK, this one is NOT. In order for NRDS to be viable you need to be able to say....yeah, this individual who is neutral to us is welcome but this one who is neutral isn't. Because the 2 individuals will look identical as far as the games automated filters are concerned even though 1 is actualy an assasin and the other is an innocent merchant. That's the problem....and it's the problem Andius is pointing out.... and with things like the corruption mechanic as it exists it becomes just as bad as EvE because allowing someone to be innocent until proven guilty (or even just until you think they might...
There will be plenty of unaligned individuals. In addition from the quote it implied the filters would be a case of exclude by group or settlement. This would mean we would have to add every group and every settlement to our filter which is a never ending and impossible task. If such turns out to be the case NBSI would be impratical. The point remains the same however under the system described NRDS is perfectly possible.
Both NRDS and NBSI will have exactly the same problem when it comes to individuals that slip through the cracks.
A Whitelist/blacklist system however seems a bit of an obvious thing to want and I fail to understand why in a settlement warfare game they would overlook such an obvious necessity. It is not even a difficult thing to implement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel strongly that all dev resources should be put into deeply engrained systems that are used every second of the game (which will keep them busy for years) and a major way players can help is doing everything for ourselves that we're able to... being a sandbox and all. Crime reporting and border security are two of those things.I think the value of border patrols is being seriously pumped up into something it never has been, and never will be. I'm going to come out and make one of those predictions Nihimon can write down and you all can check to see if I was right later on:
Not a single settlement holding faction in this game will have players regularly patrolling all spots along it's borders.
Why?
1. It's not fun.
2. There are wiser uses for dedicated guards.
3. That is too damn much territory to cover.The only way it could be rendered feasible is with additional mechanics that help automatically detect people crossing your borders for you, and give you the tools to track them down when it happens.
But in no game that I have ever played, has a major (or minor for that matter) faction had every entrance into their territory routinely locked down. Not in EVE where there were the chokepoints of jumpgates. Not in Freelancer with the choke points of jumpgates and jump holes. Certainly not in Darkfall, Mortal, or Wurm which like PFO which only have what the terrain can offer in the way of chokepoints.
It's due to a simple fact. Any group who has enough power to even begin to patrol their borders 24/7 will expand outward. So no matter how big and powerful they get, their borders will be insecure. Right now I'm sure I could go hop in my stealth bomber and make it into Goon Swarm Federation territory. Sure, they're big. Massive even. But they also have too many jumpgates leading into their territory to ensure each and every one is protected even half of the time.
Possible mechanisms to help address this....
- NPC Guards hired by the settlement to patrol it's areas. They can engage intruders and provide a report to responsible PC's online in the form of a request for backup assistance.
The criminal/intruder engages in an initial PvE game to avoid/overpower them which can turn into a PvP game if successfull.
- Regular NPC inhabitants of a settlement (farmers, lumberjacks, etc) make it back to the settlement to report criminal activity. responsible PC's online get informed and need to response.
The important aspect is that a Settlement can take counter-measures to beef up it's security in terms of investing in it's NPC Guard Force, security structures.....AND it only starts suffering corruption IF the NPC investment in security is insuffucient AND PC response is also insufficient or non-existent.
That's if it's worthwhile to have such a mechanism as "corruption" in the first place, which I'm not entirely convinced that it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Steelwing, as Andius has mentioned, we've been told that Settlements will be able to set rules/filters for the TYPE of character allowed in... example "IF Reputation < 0 then character is not allowed". What we've not be told and has kinda been hinted by Ryan will not be the case is that you as Settlement leader CAN NOT say... "You know, non-aligned character X, you don't technicaly meet any of our filters but I happen to have definite knowledge that you are working as a spy/sabotuer/assasin for Enemy Faction Y....I'm marking you as a tresspasser you have 10 minutes to leave our territory or else". That means that you pretty much have to have a NBSI policy to have ANY border security whatsoever.
If what you are suggesting there is true then it is not NRDS that becomes difficult to implement it is NBSI.
How do you implement NBSI when individuals cannot meet your filters and you can't set them to trespasser. Simple answer is you can't which as I said made this thread and the suggestions in it even worse because NRDS is not only viable but is the only possiblity to have.
Oh that's easy you could make a filter that says "If NOT member of settlements or List of Aligned Groups then character is tresspasser"
It becomes very easy to exclude everyone not in your organization or a list of other aligned organizations. What you can't do is, this INDIVIDUAL is OK, this one is NOT. In order for NRDS to be viable you need to be able to say....yeah, this individual who is neutral to us is welcome but this one who is neutral isn't. Because the 2 individuals will look identical as far as the games automated filters are concerned even though 1 is actualy an assasin and the other is an innocent merchant. That's the problem....and it's the problem Andius is pointing out.... and with things like the corruption mechanic as it exists it becomes just as bad as EvE because allowing someone to be innocent until proven guilty (or even just
Again to do NBSI you could trivialy make a filter that said "If NOT member of my settlement or Alied Settlement then RED". That's easy to do.... no unaligned characters would pass that filter. What's essentialy impossible to do is an effective NRDS because without the ability to manualy flag an individual as red, you have to let EVERYONE in, including the people that you KNOW are bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
as to NRDS vs NDSI, I think that a community can show that a NRDS policy can be effective in PfO while all of them were pushed out in EVE.
One main reason is that in EVE it is easy to control access to your system, If you are diligent in controlling that area, with a small number of people you can make it very hard for a sizable army to gain a foothold. In PfO that is not a problem, as such that means that even with a NBSI policy the organization cannot prevent a large number of opponents from showing up and not leaving until they are killed, then you run into the fact that travel time will be decently short so the players can get back into the fight rather easily (if they can afford to regear).
Also in EVE you are instantly notified when someone is in a system, in PfO there is no such notification, which means that a large number of people could sneak into the area without the organization knowing it.
The result is that it is much harder to maintain total control of an area.
I think the most important factor is the siege warfare mechanic that GW is setting. According to Ryan a siege will take days or even longer than a week before the final fight to take/destroy the settlement can happen. This means that no matter what time you declare war and start, the defenders have ample time to mount a defense.
Then you take into account that you cannot destroy/take the settlement without doing that first. This means that you cannot just jump in at 3 Am for a couple of hours and take the settlement by surprise.
This means that one of the dangers of letting someone into your system, a surprise attack, is negated. If those people randomly kill you there is shifting alignment/rep, if they declare war, you have ample time for defenses as outline above. Also just letting one person in does not mean that an army will be jump gated in.
For me the issue then becomes more of resources than security. I would like to see the ability for a settlement to be able to flag resources in their settlement and PoI controlled hexes. That way if someone who is not a member of that settlement mines/gathers resources they get the criminal flag and can be dealt with appropriately.
So between inability to chock point access, settlement warfare mechanics, lack of NPC settlements being able to provide as much as PC settlement, i think that NRDS as a policy is much more likely to happen and succeed than in EVE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be plenty of unaligned individuals.Not quite sure what you mean by this, but wanted to point out:
Every character belongs to a Settlement, Not all Settlements are run by player characters.
That's essentialy what I meant by "unaligned", Nihimon....since the NPC settlements essentialy accept anyone as long as they belong to some crude mechanicaly set parameters and are unable to apply human intellegence and judgement to determine the individuals trustworthiness and real charactaristics.
There will be plenty of unaligned individuals.Not quite sure what you mean by this, but wanted to point out:
Every character belongs to a Settlement, Not all Settlements are run by player characters.
By that I mean in terms of filters people want to use for NBSI or NRDS. For example if we are doing NBSI we may want to set a few merchants blue but not the rest of their group. They in terms of our filters then are the unaligned players referenced. Individuals we want to set differently but cant.
Without that level of control down to individuals it is easy to still run an NRDS settlement but a lot harder to run an effective NBSI one.
...
Steelwing, as Andius has mentioned, we've been told that Settlements will be able to set rules/filters for the TYPE of character allowed in... example "IF Reputation < 0 then character is not allowed". What we've not be told and has kinda been hinted by Ryan will not be the case is that you as Settlement leader CAN NOT say... "You know, non-aligned character X, you don't technicaly meet any of our filters but I happen to have definite knowledge that you are working as a spy/sabotuer/assasin for Enemy Faction Y....I'm marking you as a tresspasser you have 10 minutes to leave our territory or else". That means that you pretty much have to have a NBSI policy to have ANY border security whatsoever.
If what you are suggesting there is true then it is not NRDS that becomes difficult to implement it is NBSI.
How do you implement NBSI when individuals cannot meet your filters and you can't set them to trespasser. Simple answer is you can't which as I said made this thread and the suggestions in it even worse because NRDS is not only viable but is the only possiblity to have.
Oh that's easy you could make a filter that says "If NOT member of settlements or List of Aligned Groups then character is tresspasser"
It becomes very easy to exclude everyone not in your organization or a list of other aligned organizations. What you can't do is, this INDIVIDUAL is OK, this one is NOT. In order for NRDS to be viable you need to be able to say....yeah, this individual who is neutral to us is welcome but this one who is neutral isn't. Because the 2 individuals will look identical as far as the games automated filters are concerned even though 1 is actualy an assasin and the other is an innocent merchant. That's the problem....and it's the problem Andius is pointing out.... and with things like the corruption mechanic as it exists it becomes just as bad as EvE because allowing someone to be innocent until
As I explained there will be no simple list there will be parts of organisations that are blue and the rest red. This is the situation in Eve and it will be the situation here. Both NRDS and NBSI suffer from the same problem.
The solution is to tell GW we want character level control of who is allowed and who isnt. This would benefit both NRDS and NBSI. It is also should be fairly simple to implement
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be plenty of unaligned individuals.Not quite sure what you mean by this, but wanted to point out:
Every character belongs to a Settlement, Not all Settlements are run by player characters.By that I mean in terms of filters people want to use for NBSI or NRDS. For example if we are doing NBSI we may want to set a few merchants blue but not the rest of their group. They in terms of our filters then are the unaligned players referenced. Individuals we want to set differently but cant.
Without that level of control down to individuals it is easy to still run an NRDS settlement but a lot harder to run an effective NBSI one.
NRDS has the same problem, probably worse. You can't set the individuals you KNOW are troublemakers or spies or actualy hostile as RED because to the systems filters they look just like everybody else who isn't a troublemaker and you want to let in. Once those individuals commit an action that the system is capable of interpreting as hostile, THEN they might turn red and get marked as criminal but by that point it becomes too late under the current corruption mechanic because the mere act of them commiting the crime bombs your economy due to corruption.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Whitelist/blacklist system however seems a bit of an obvious thing to want and I fail to understand why in a settlement warfare game they would overlook such an obvious necessity. It is not even a difficult thing to implement.
I think it can be safely assumed that it isn't because it hasn't been considered. That leads me to think that they are still debating implementation, which suggests that they find the idea of debatable value. This in turn implies a few things about the design philosophy that should give hope to some and dismay to others.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between NRDS and NBSI does not hinge on how easy it is to change a character out of gray, and it puzzles me to see so many people assume that the consequences of killing someone in your territory would be different based on your settlement's policy.
A Whitelist/blacklist system however seems a bit of an obvious thing to want and I fail to understand why in a settlement warfare game they would overlook such an obvious necessity. It is not even a difficult thing to implement.I think it can be safely assumed that it isn't because it hasn't been considered. That leads me to think that they are still debating implementation, which suggests that they find the idea of debatable value. This in turn implies a few things about the design philosophy that should give hope to some and dismay to others.
If you are implying its because they want everyone to be NRDS I think that Dancey saying on multiple occasions that he expects most to be NBSI seem to run contrary to that.
As to dismay people I doubt it. As I pointed out NBSI as far as we are concerned is of no great mechanical advantage and for us it is more about providing content to our patrols than anything. We can easily make NRDS work it just means instead of our pvp'ers finding content at home they will go raiding, feuding or warring more often.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Individuals we want to set differently but cant.
I'll be surprised if we can't set individual Characters Blue or Red. Is there something that's leading you to believe this won't be available?
Forgive me if this has already been covered up-thread.
... it puzzles me to see so many people assume that the consequences of killing someone in your territory would be different based on your settlement's policy.
If your Settlement has the ability to declare Trespassers, then killing those Trespassers in your territory should probably carry the same consequences as killing other Criminals. If your Settlement's Policy is to flag all non-allies as Trespassers, then it seems natural that your Settlement's Policy will have an impact on the consequences of killing strangers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are implying its because they want everyone to be NRDS I think that Dancey saying on multiple occasions that he expects most to be NBSI seem to run contrary to that.
What they "want" and what they "expect" can be quite different. Personally, I think they probably do want a significant number of NRDS Settlements, and only expect lots of NBSI because the folks building Settlements will import that policy from other games.
TEO and T7V are pretty firmly committed to trying to make NRDS viable. Ideally, we'll be successful enough to be imitated in that regard.
Individuals we want to set differently but cant.I'll be surprised if we can't set individual Characters Blue or Red. Is there something that's leading you to believe this won't be available?
Grumpymel dug out a quote up thread implying you would not be able to set individuals differently to their settlement or company
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thinking on it more, the solution actually seems really obvious.
I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with the EVE standings system. For those not, here is a brief overview.
Every player, corporation, and alliance can set a standing with any player, corporation, or alliance between +10 and -10. The default being 0.
Were a similar system implemented in PFO then all that would be required is that a the settlements / companies with POIs could set a policy where anyone at or below X value with their organization auto gains the trespasser flag when they cross into their territory.
A NBSI would set it at 0 or maybe even a slightly higher value. A NRDS might use -5 or -10. Then there is no need for any additional systems. You simply set people / groups / settlements you don't want in your territory below the value that has access. Add a 15 minute protection form the trespasser flag for people who's standing you've from above to below that value within the last 15 minutes by adjusting either their standing or the minimum required standing to not get flagged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan expects his players to play intelligently, and recognizes that attempting to implement some systems effectively would be, even if possible, prohibitively complicated.
I'm thinking the nine-estate alignment system, faction system, and reputation system might well play havoc with any whitelist/blacklist system they would consider except as something players will use. It is boolean in a multidimensional domain, or what Ryan seems fond of calling 'fractal space'.
It may not map well on the game's side of things for what the game is to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grumpymel dug out a quote up thread implying you would not be able to set individuals differently to their settlement or companyIndividuals we want to set differently but cant.I'll be surprised if we can't set individual Characters Blue or Red. Is there something that's leading you to believe this won't be available?
A "quote"? All I see is him suggesting that Ryan has "hinted at" something he then paraphrases.
Here's a quote...
We will probably have some kind of "standings" setting with at least three options - hostile, neutral & friendly - that you will set for each character.
Grumpymel dug out a quote up thread implying you would not be able to set individuals differently to their settlement or companyIndividuals we want to set differently but cant.I'll be surprised if we can't set individual Characters Blue or Red. Is there something that's leading you to believe this won't be available?A "quote"? All I see is him suggesting that Ryan has "hinted at" something he then paraphrases.
Here's a quote...
We will probably have some kind of "standings" setting with at least three options - hostile, neutral & friendly - that you will set for each character.
In which case there are no problems that way for either NRDS or NBSI. I had assumed that there would be such a system as I think had many but couldn't point to much specifically saying it so when Mel came out with the quote I assumed it to be the case that it had been disavowed
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are implying its because they want everyone to be NRDS I think that Dancey saying on multiple occasions that he expects most to be NBSI seem to run contrary to that.What they "want" and what they "expect" can be quite different. Personally, I think they probably do want a significant number of NRDS Settlements, and only expect lots of NBSI because the folks building Settlements will import that policy from other games.
TEO and T7V are pretty firmly committed to trying to make NRDS viable. Ideally, we'll be successful enough to be imitated in that regard.
This is my interpretation as well. NBSI is the expected behavior, but they have always seemed fairly positive about the idea of people actually going NRDS.
I submit that when most incoming players understand the consequences of NRDS vs. NBSI there is going to be a huge demand for more NRDS settlements from the potential playerbase, and a lot of them will leave should that demand not be met.
EVE has proven a model where the downsides of NRDS are too great and the upsides not strong enough to meet such a demand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Grumpymel dug out a quote up thread implying you would not be able to set individuals differently to their settlement or companyIndividuals we want to set differently but cant.I'll be surprised if we can't set individual Characters Blue or Red. Is there something that's leading you to believe this won't be available?A "quote"? All I see is him suggesting that Ryan has "hinted at" something he then paraphrases.
Here's a quote...
We will probably have some kind of "standings" setting with at least three options - hostile, neutral & friendly - that you will set for each character.
Nihimon,
I'm using the quote of Ryan that Andius provided as reference. Not sure where he pulled it from, you can ask him
Ryan - "Not being a member of a PC Settlement means that there's no good reason for anyone to treat you as anything but hostile if you visit their territory. It would be foolish to have an open door policy for NPC Settlement members, so I expect most PC Settlements will NBSI them. I don't know when or if we'll have systems granular enough to let a Settlement set an individual character to NRDS but even after we do, I suspect you'll have problems negotiating one on one with very many locations. The map, for you, will be a small circle of green safe territory around your NPC Settlement, surrounded by an ocean of red where you'll risk being ganked if you venture forth, without allies, and without any means of meaningful self defense."
Note the "I'm not sure when or IF we'll have systems granular enough..."
part. This also jives with what I've read elsewhere about how one sets settlement filters accroding to reputation, alignment or company/settlement membership.