Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nihimon,
I'm using the quote of Ryan that Andius provided as reference. Not sure where he pulled it from, you can ask him
Okay, it came from If I were a Merchant, I would Opt Out.....
Still sounds to me like they'll "probably" have a character-based standings system, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nihimon,
I'm using the quote of Ryan that Andius provided as reference. Not sure where he pulled it from, you can ask him
Okay, it came from If I were a Merchant, I would Opt Out.....
Still sounds to me like they'll "probably" have a character-based standings system, though.
They didn't really seem to have a strong opinion one way or the other to me, but that is what crowdforging is for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I got the distinct impression that Ryan was laying out reasons why it would be better to be a member of a PC Settlement than an NPC Settlement. It's not surprising that, when he tangentially touched on this topic, he did so in a way that bolstered his case.
However, when he directly addressed this topic, he presented it in a much more positive manner.
Of course, Andius's quote was made a few days later, so perhaps it does represent thinking that evolved in that time frame.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what is wrong with having POI's be the social hubs and trading centers for people from different settlements. It's not like having everyone come to your settlement is the only way to play a more friendly game. Each settlement could sponsor a social and trade POI nearby for non-members. Having an open door to your settlement seems like a real bad idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually hope that the trade-off between Trade and Security is balanced well enough that folks lose sleep over it :)
I think that Settlements will be much more attractive as Trade Hubs because they can have Markets. I don't see a lot of likelihood for having a Market at a Tavern, Manor, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I got the distinct impression that Ryan was laying out reasons why it would be better to be a member of a PC Settlement than an NPC Settlement. It's not surprising that, when he tangentially touched on this topic, he did so in a way that bolstered his case.
However, when he directly addressed this topic, he presented it in a much more positive manner.
Of course, Andius's quote was made a few days later, so perhaps it does represent thinking that evolved in that time frame.
I was pointing out to Steelwing that he was presuming something to which we don't have don't have positive evidence since the only definitive statements we have of how it will work either involve something else (filters by reputation, alignment, company membership, etc) or seem to contradict each other.
I don't feel it's safe to presume facts not in evidence.
More saliently in order to make NRDS viable with any semi-reasonable level of security in PFO, I would argue that at least 2 things are neccesary...
1) The ability to flag INDIVIDUALS as tresspassers and I state tresspassers specificaly because I feel it is important for the system to provide reasonable feedback to player as to WHY they have suddenly become a legal PvP target AND I want a mechanism by which a player who has commited no hostile act or crime to be given a minimal amount of time to leave that territory before becoming a legal PvP target. I believe it would be an abuse of the mechanics for a player one second to be safe from consequence free PvP and the next second to be engaged in just such PvP without having taken any action on thier part or been given any warning.
2) The ability for a settlements assets to have some reasonable amount of TIME to take responsive action to respond to a crime or other event which would raise corruption before such corruption is counted against the settlement. E.G. Crime occurs, settlement law enforcment arrives, apprehends(dispatches) criminals = no corruption.... crime occurs = no or ineffective law enforcment response = corruption. It's simply too exploitable otherwise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More saliently in order to make NRDS viable with any semi-reasonable level of security in PFO, I would argue that at least 2 things are neccesary...
1) The ability to flag INDIVIDUALS as tresspassers and I state tresspassers specificaly because I feel it is important for the system to provide reasonable feedback to player as to WHY they have suddenly become a legal PvP target AND I want a mechanism by which a player who has commited no hostile act or crime to be given a minimal amount of time to leave that territory before becoming a legal PvP target. I believe it would be an abuse of the mechanics for a player one second to be safe from consequence free PvP and the next second to be engaged in just such PvP without having taken any action on thier part or been given any warning.
2) The ability for a settlements assets to have some reasonable amount of TIME to take responsive action to respond to a crime or other event which would raise corruption before such corruption is counted against the settlement. E.G. Crime occurs, settlement law enforcment arrives, apprehends(dispatches) criminals = no corruption.... crime occurs = no or ineffective law enforcment response = corruption. It's simply too exploitable otherwise.
I completely agree with those.
I got the distinct impression that Ryan was laying out reasons why it would be better to be a member of a PC Settlement than an NPC Settlement. It's not surprising that, when he tangentially touched on this topic, he did so in a way that bolstered his case.
However, when he directly addressed this topic, he presented it in a much more positive manner.
Of course, Andius's quote was made a few days later, so perhaps it does represent thinking that evolved in that time frame.
I was pointing out to Steelwing that he was presuming something to which we don't have don't have positive evidence since the only definitive statements we have of how it will work either involve something else (filters by reputation, alignment, company membership, etc) or seem to contradict each other.
I don't feel it's safe to presume facts not in evidence.
More saliently in order to make NRDS viable with any semi-reasonable level of security in PFO, I would argue that at least 2 things are neccesary...
1) The ability to flag INDIVIDUALS as tresspassers and I state tresspassers specificaly because I feel it is important for the system to provide reasonable feedback to player as to WHY they have suddenly become a legal PvP target AND I want a mechanism by which a player who has commited no hostile act or crime to be given a minimal amount of time to leave that territory before becoming a legal PvP target. I believe it would be an abuse of the mechanics for a player one second to be safe from consequence free PvP and the next second to be engaged in just such PvP without having taken any action on thier part or been given any warning.
2) The ability for a settlements assets to have some reasonable amount of TIME to take responsive action to respond to a crime or other event which would raise corruption before such corruption is counted against the settlement. E.G. Crime occurs, settlement law enforcment arrives, apprehends(dispatches) criminals = no corruption.... crime occurs =...
1 is just as necessary for NBSI. I do agree on flagging people giving them sufficient warning.
As for 2) as I understand the little they have said on corruption what happens is you get the hit for the corruption but if you then enforce the law on the transgressor by killing them your corruption lowers again.
As a side note to counter the potential multi sad exploit I would propose this
A character can only cause corruption by committing a crime in a hex once per law in a given time period.(maybe 8 hours)
So you can trespass and cause corruption once per 8 hours
You can sad someone causing corruption once per 8 hours
You can kill an unflagged person causing corruption once per 8 hours etc.
Naturally you can commit these offences many times but only the first time gives the corruption hit
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the effects of the Corruption hit are immediate, then the Corruption hit needs to be delayed for a reasonable period of time. If the effects are not immediate, then it doesn't really matter.
The situation to avoid is one where a coordinated effort can cause enough Corruption to significantly impact a Settlement even if all of that Corruption is quickly reversed.
If the effects of the Corruption hit are immediate, then the Corruption hit needs to be delayed for a reasonable period of time. If the effects are not immediate, then it doesn't really matter.
The situation to avoid is one where a coordinated effort can cause enough Corruption to significantly impact a Settlement even if all of that Corruption is quickly reversed.
As I understand it corruption does not effect DI directly but the DI cap.
So for example your settlement is at a DI of 8000 with a cap of 10000. A spate of lawbreaking lowers your cap to 9000 but you DI remains at 8000. Of course if you are at the cap already it would have some impact but as you have reason to be spending DI on a regular basis I am not sure how often you are likely to be at cap
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Steelwing,
The problem with 2 is it's going to have to be a bit more worked out then that to prevent exploitation. It's pretty simple for Player A & Player B who are both alts working for the same hostile organization to step 1 foot inside your territory, A commits a crime on B who is a willing participant. Then both step 1 ft outside your territory.
A is no longer RED to you since he's not in your territory anymore and you have no relationship or standing to B so he's not a Criminal (he's not in your territory anymore) to you nor a Tresspasser nor is he an Attacker since you have no standing with B. In fact A could actualy logoff at that point. Rinse and repeat and you have a corruption bomb. They are going to have to put in alot more controls around that to make it non-exploitable.
I think it's doable with the right controls but they are going to have to invest alot of time and resources fleshing it out...because it is going to be a prime target for exploitation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the effects of the Corruption hit are immediate, then the Corruption hit needs to be delayed for a reasonable period of time. If the effects are not immediate, then it doesn't really matter.
The situation to avoid is one where a coordinated effort can cause enough Corruption to significantly impact a Settlement even if all of that Corruption is quickly reversed.
As I understand it corruption does not effect DI directly but the DI cap.
So for example your settlement is at a DI of 8000 with a cap of 10000. A spate of lawbreaking lowers your cap to 9000 but you DI remains at 8000. Of course if you are at the cap already it would have some impact but as you have reason to be spending DI on a regular basis I am not sure how often you are likely to be at cap
Actually it doesn't affect your DI at all:
Corruption: Corruption measures how much inefficiency there is in your settlement, decreasing income from taxes and other fees. Corruption starts high for Chaotic settlements and low for Lawful settlements, but as laws are broken in the settlement its Corruption increases. So a Lawful settlement that enforces its laws poorly can end up with more Corruption than a Chaotic settlement (which is required to set fewer laws).
@Steelwing,
The problem with 2 is it's going to have to be a bit more worked out then that to prevent exploitation. It's pretty simple for Player A & Player B who are both alts working for the same hostile organization to step 1 foot inside your territory, A commits a crime on B who is a willing participant. Then both step 1 ft outside your territory.
A is no longer RED to you since he's not in your territory anymore and you have no relationship or standing to B so he's not a Criminal (he's not in your territory anymore) to you nor a Tresspasser nor is he an Attacker since you have no standing with B. In fact A could actualy logoff at that point. Rinse and repeat and you have a corruption bomb. They are going to have to put in alot more controls around that to make it non-exploitable.
I think it's doable with the right controls but they are going to have to invest alot of time and resources fleshing it out...because it is going to be a prime target for exploitation.
I believe the criminal flag lasts for a while it doesnt disappear the moment they step out of your territory
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My preference would be to put a simple timer on the criminal. The timer drops if they get killed, leave the territory or log. If the timer expires with none of those conditions occuring, then you get inflicted with corruption.
Giving you credit when you kill the criminal doesn't work because they could just willingly allow an accomplice to kill them to deny you credit for the kill....or presumably just jump off a cliff. So it would have to be when they die for any reason. Also it couldn't just be when your forces kill a criminal in your territory because then a settlement could just farm thier own criminal alts (that commited crimes in another territory) to lower corruption.
A simple timer takes away alot of the complexity since all it needs to have record of is the remaining time and what settlement it occured under. Also I think putting in the "leaves the territory" condition avoids alot of the border hopping issues....including having your own law enforcement get tagged as criminals for crossing into somebody elses territory to deal with the situation.
There may be other methods that work though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Successful Raids should add corruption regardless of trespassing. Indeed, if they hang around long enough to trigger corruption (like a hour or so skulking around your territory after you've been informed they're there) then raid, you should suffer both hits. The most successful raiders would likely be ones that blitz your outpost or are simply not trespassing (yet).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think we still need to account for successful cross-border raids. Corruption seems like it should increase if someone successfully raids your Outpost, even if they do go back across the border into their own territory.
Successful raids will only impact your settlement's corruption, if your settlement makes raiding illegal. The Dev Blog was pretty clear that making outpost raids illegal was not really a good idea. A settlement would not be expending PC resources to an outpost, and would proabably not expend additional NPC resources to it, because they would have to be drawn from the POI defensive force, leaving the POI more vulnerable.
The system is designed, in my opinion, to deflect PvP towards outposts and away from the settlement. Outposts are cheap to build, cheap to run and cheap to lose. POIs are much more important. The loss of a settlement is the greatest loss to be suffered in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Steel and Mel, you both realize you need individual permissions for either policy to be truly effective?
For NRDS, if you can't red individuals but only their company you may be excluding people you don't want to. For NBSI, if you can't blue individuals but only their company then you may be including people you don't want to. In either case the policy is more effective with granularity; in both cases the policy can still roughly work if it's only on a company-scale instead of an individual scale.
I'm of the opinion that either policy will be a feasible one to use for a given settlement, and mechanical benefits for setting one policy or the other are not needed.
@Andius, I agree it seems infeasible to expect players to patrol with only their standard UI for any settlement; it would be a dull and thankless job, which likely wouldn't accomplish much unless you had a whole lot of people doing it. Guardposts may potentially provide some relief for this problem; perhaps there are guard-skills as well, maybe even guard equipment? An example for this last part: a torch enchanted by Abadaran priests which increases render and targeting range, but only while inside your settlement's lands? Or maybe a costly piece of equipment which gives the guards an alert when someone enters the hex, and indicates on their map the side of the hex which was entered from (but doesn't share any details on the person)? Just a few ideas.
Ironically (given the people arguing for either side) it would seem to me that NRDS is best for a PvP-centric settlement and NBSI is best for a settlement with less focus on PvP. The reasoning, skewed though it may be, is like this: NRDS requires a more active PvP base in the form of a more active police force, whereas NBSI requires the settlement to work more at its economy due to the fact that they don't receive as much income from trade. Any thoughts on this silliness?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that both NBSI and NRDS are unnecessary policies, because neither can be enforced effectively well unless huge resources of manpower are dedicated to them.
Characters entering your settlement hex, with ill intent, will likely end up with a hostility flag or a criminal flag. This will make them a legitimate target for the parties their actions were directed against.
Characters entering your settlement hex, for peaceful purposes, should not be subjected to the scrutiny of being considered a suspect, nor the fear that on a whim they could suddenly find themselves labeled a trespasser.
Once a settlement declares itself as either NBSI or NRDS, the forces that oppose them will know exactly what actions to take to harm their DI or other settlement support systems.
It is better to have an open settlement, but one that won't tolerate any shenanigans within its borders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I should likely just call it a night but maybe I can learn something here. This is what I have so far....
NBSI, Black (Red) list until proved otherwise...
NRDS, White (Blue) list until proved otherwise...
We know that adding people to either is not possible for individuals YET. Settlements are mostly likely a yes at present, smaller organizations are unknown. Based on Ryan's Granularity statement
The bonus to NRDS is that people who want to trade be that sell what they have gathered, or buy what your crafters have made can freely come in and do so. This will generate taxes and promote further trade as it puts materials and gold into the system. Major down side is people with shenanigans cannot be barred especially if they are connected to an NPC town as to block them means blocking everybody not already in a PC settlement. Settlements you can blue or red easy as pie.
The bonus to NBSI is anybody sets foot on your hex you can kills at will greatly improving security, and likely getting PvP experience for your folks to include merit badge type achievements. Those folks looking to start their shenanigans learn to stay away or find sneakier ways to do so. Down side you will have to harvest locally, or buy else ware and transport yourself. Trade will be essential for all settlements so that is a bit inconvenient only to the point that you a) hire a CC that specializes in transport, and you blue list them or b) do it all yourself.
I choose not to talk about corruption, we don't know numbers and I cannot reference it but I read a blog or message where Ryan said the type of border hopping exploit mentioned was something they planed to prevent.
This is really just as much brain storming form me as much as making sure I am working from the right information.
All that put together I think a settlement might find in the long run that NBSI is the best policy for NPC settlements, and NRDS for established PC settlements. The logic I am following is based on just shy of 10k EE folks will mean as many as 20-30k names. If you are in a CC, or Settlement then a judgement based on your collective actions could be made. PvE folks would need to form a company to get on a blue list?
I guess anyway you look at it someone is going to have to keep a list with changing alliances, settlements destroyed, and reformed, new CC forming as others collapse.
Perhaps the devs could start by establishing a short list for a limited number of players at first? Say 50 most wanted, vs a blanket no trespassing. That would get to be to short be to long i guess?
Thanks for reading it all......
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For NRDS, if you can't red individuals but only their company you may be excluding people you don't want to. For NBSI, if you can't blue individuals but only their company then you may be including people you don't want to.
Not saying this is the case, but it might be that Ryan would want it to be that way so that there is a stronger incentive for Companies to feel the consequences of having a bad actor in them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For NRDS, if you can't red individuals but only their company you may be excluding people you don't want to. For NBSI, if you can't blue individuals but only their company then you may be including people you don't want to.Not saying this is the case, but it might be that Ryan would want it to be that way so that there is a stronger incentive for Companies to feel the consequences of having a bad actor in them.
That is somewhat along a line that I am thinking. It may be best to be incumbent on an Org. to earn blue status with a foreign settlement and bad actors within your CC (if it is limited to that lowest indicator) are your responsibility. It may also be too self punishing to "Red" an entire settlement because of one person or CC.
Much will depend on how trivial it is to "hop out" of an Org, cause mischief, hop back in and whether numbers get so large that it is difficult to keep track of individuals and their past actions.
The ability to classify bad actors at an individual level sure would be handy, but I could see holding an entire CC responsible for it's members, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Dev Blog was pretty clear that making outpost raids illegal was not really a good idea.You do so love to read things your own way, don't you?
You do love avoiding Dev statements that don't support yours.
Please read the Blog sections "Going - a - Viking" and "Hostility" and then read the posts suggesting that it is not really wise to pull NPC guards from your POI, to defend your outpost. That will just make your POI vulnerable, which might be the real ploy of the raiders.
You could of course expend PC assets to protect your outposts, but if outposts raids are part of a coordinated attack, again you will be peeling off your defenses from higher value targets.
Now if your settlement chooses to make raiding illegal, you will open yourself up to that scenario of raiders coming in, hitting fast and then escaping back over the border. This will reduce your settlements DI (adding corruption), and again, if part of a coordinated effort the raiders will not just hit one outpost but many if not all of them at once (Tet Offensive).
No one is saying that your settlement can't make raiding illegal. It is just that there will be a potential cost for doing so. That cost might outweigh the benefit that you are getting from making it a crime.
It does not change the conditions for the raiders all that much. Raiding an outpost flags the raiders Hostile to the owners of the Outpost. If that outpost is supported by a POI, it will also flag the raiders to the owners of the POI. If it is a crime, it will flag the raiders as hostile to the settlement.
I would assume that the owners of the POIs are also members of the settlement, and the outposts are sponsored by the POIs.
So how many players are you really adding that would see the raiders as hostile, by making raiding a crime?
How many of those additional players will be PVP combat focused, not already attached to the POI?
How many of those settlement citizens, that are non combat, wish to engage hostile raiders?
Those are the questions as a settlement leader you have to ponder. I on the other hand have to "discover" the various connections that outposts have to POIs, who owns them and what is the likelihood of a large military response.
The Devs have also said, there will be benefits for raiders to observe their targets before just jumping in an trying to sack them.
The UNC isn't about running around the woods, randomly hitting targets. If you choose to believe that, you're in for an unpleasant surprise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For NRDS, if you can't red individuals but only their company you may be excluding people you don't want to. For NBSI, if you can't blue individuals but only their company then you may be including people you don't want to.Not saying this is the case, but it might be that Ryan would want it to be that way so that there is a stronger incentive for Companies to feel the consequences of having a bad actor in them.
Though that could be a strong case, see above @Bringslite; if as an NRDS settlement you can't set individuals to red then they can leave their CC but stay in their settlement. Unless of course you set the whole settlement to red, but if you're doing that on a regular basis you aren't looking very inclusive.
Same principle with NBSI, although not as big a case here, because you can coordinate with the people you are setting blue (and tell them not to leave the CC, or switch permissions to another CC if they do leave it). With NRDS you can't coordinate with people you set red because they are hostile and will try to get around the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For NRDS, if you can't red individuals but only their company you may be excluding people you don't want to. For NBSI, if you can't blue individuals but only their company then you may be including people you don't want to.Not saying this is the case, but it might be that Ryan would want it to be that way so that there is a stronger incentive for Companies to feel the consequences of having a bad actor in them.
Except that you don't have to be a member of a company, just an NPC settlement. We don't even know the limitations on joining/leaving companies for the express purpose of doing ill....but even assuming those in place, that work can be shifted to Alts for that express purpose.
Sometimes in game design mechanisms intended to promote one thing end up having the opposite effect in practice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not saying this is the case, but it might be that Ryan would want it to be that way so that there is a stronger incentive for Companies to feel the consequences of having a bad actor in them.Except that you don't have to be a member of a company...
Please read my quote to say "Companies or other Social Organizations". There is a reciprocal pressure on the Characters to be in Companies (or other Social Organizations) that grant them access to desirable Settlements.
And again, I'm not saying this is or should be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Dev Blog was pretty clear that making outpost raids illegal was not really a good idea.You do so love to read things your own way, don't you?
You do love avoiding Dev statements that don't support yours.
Please read the Blog sections "Going - a - Viking" and "Hostility" and then read the posts suggesting that it is not really wise to pull NPC guards from your POI, to defend your outpost. That will just make your POI vulnerable, which might be the real ploy of the raiders.
You could of course expend PC assets to protect your outposts, but if outposts raids are part of a coordinated attack, again you will be peeling off your defenses from higher value targets.
Now if your settlement chooses to make raiding illegal, you will open yourself up to that scenario of raiders coming in, hitting fast and then escaping back over the border. This will reduce your settlements DI (adding corruption), and again, if part of a coordinated effort the raiders will not just hit one outpost but many if not all of them at once (Tet Offensive).
No one is saying that your settlement can't make raiding illegal. It is just that there will be a potential cost for doing so. That cost might outweigh the benefit that you are getting from making it a crime.
It does not change the conditions for the raiders all that much. Raiding an outpost flags the raiders Hostile to the owners of the Outpost. If that outpost is supported by a POI, it will also flag the raiders to the owners of the POI. If it is a crime, it will flag the raiders as hostile to the settlement.
I would assume that the owners of the POIs are also members of the settlement, and the outposts are sponsored by the POIs.
So how many players are you really adding that would see the raiders as hostile, by making raiding a crime?
How many of those additional players will be PVP combat focused, not already attached to the POI?
How many of those settlement citizens, that are non...
Alot would depend on how large the settlement is and how it is set up. I would think that detering casual raiding of it's outposts would be a rather high priority for most settlements since they are (I would assume in most cases) a significant source of economic activity. Preventing your economy from being weakened will be an important consideration for most settlements. If you can open up a significantly larger PC response (e.g. you have alot more settlement members then POI owners) then there is a good arguement for it. The other thing you do by making it a crime is force the opposition to use CHAOTIC characters for it....since engaging in criminal activity entails chaotic shifts.
Under the current Alignment paradigm we know that Chaotic settlements will tend to be weaker then Lawfull ones....which means that an opponent might be forced into using Alts to do it. Training and equiping 2 characters will be more expensive then one (both in real world $$$ and in game resources) thuse your forcing your opponent to spend more himself in order to inflict economic harm on you. His alternative is to hire mercs to have him do it for him...but that comes with it's own set of expenses and risks.This assumes that the raiding is part of a campaign of economic warfare not just some criminals out for a quick score.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah basically it said there is upsides and downsides to each choice. And those downsides arent so big if you can protect your outposts fairly consistently. Something which will be much more realistic than putting a 24/7 wall of players along your borders. By no mean was it "pretty clear that making outpost raids illegal was not really a good idea." That's what you read into it because that's what you wanted to hear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not saying this is the case, but it might be that Ryan would want it to be that way so that there is a stronger incentive for Companies to feel the consequences of having a bad actor in them.Except that you don't have to be a member of a company...Please read my quote to say "Companies or other Social Organizations". There is a reciprocal pressure on the Characters to be in Companies (or other Social Organizations) that grant them access to desirable Settlements.
And again, I'm not saying this is or should be.
Got it, I'm assuming that companies/organizations/individuals who want to avoid the consequences of being seen as openly hostile to a target settlement(s) will simply use Alts to do so. I think we've had a number of players organizations already anounce thier intent to do just that.
Frankly the pressure on Meta-Game organizations already exists without any mechanical pressures as an identified member behaving such way is already likely to sour relations with the target organization and/or indicate imminent hostility. So I pretty much assume people are going to use Alts/Cut-outs for that stuff unless thier Organizations simply don't care inj the first place. I could be wrong but I suspect that's how it would go down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder if there are some things that are so very difficult to mechanically suppress that it is incumbent on the players to just find a way to mitigate them in-game. Everything that they program in, complicates things more and more. I am not trying to be a defeatist for creativity, only trying to keep things somewhat in the realm of realistic expectations.
Andius words about 24/7 player border guards is pretty spot on, in some ways. It is boring to patrol "home base" adequately and have little or no activity. It is unrealistic to expect the human to put that much effort into the game and have it remain fun to play. The game is not supposed to be a job. You can have "jobs" in the game that fit your chosen "role", but they need to be fun and fulfilling.
Currently, the major issue seems to be "corruption" and the ways that it can be abused. I am starting to feel that we could do without it at all, or have it dumbed down from what we are assuming it will be.
I would love to see you "Great Brains" over here more: Rep and consequential PVP in EE (my name for it :P) as that seems to be more of an immediate concern. How can we get EE to establish "consequential PVP with teeth" as early as possible and send the right message to the public, at that time, about PfO?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius words about 24/7 player border guards is pretty spot on, in some ways. It is boring to patrol "home base" adequately and have little or no activity. It is unrealistic to expect the human to put that much effort into the game and have it remain fun to play. The game is not supposed to be a job. You can have "jobs" in the game that fit your chosen "role", but they need to be fun and fulfilling.
Exactly. People are only going to want to fill guard roles if there is a reasonably high expectation that they'll be needed. Out on a particular spot on a border they won't be needed 95-99.99% of the time. Therefore it's a role that nobody is going to fill.
Bluddwolf demonstrates again and again that he has no knowledge of how to effectively deploy manpower in either aggressive or defensive situations. I do, because I've spent extensive time playing as a defender, raider, trader, and smuggler.
It's a calculation based off two factors:
- How important is the role they are filling in terms of the assets being generated / protected / destroyed vs. their time that they are unable to take part in other tasks.
- How much are they going to enjoy that role vs. how fast will they burn out due to boredom?
Border patrols and guards for individual merchants in reasonably safe areas fail hard on both of those criteria. They are not an effective use of manpower. Outpost defense comes out alright because you can have your defenders engaged in other tasks that they divert from if the outposts come under threat. Beyond that it's reasonable to assume the assets generated will be valuable enough to be worth defending.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You could of course expend PC assets to protect your outposts, but if outposts raids are part of a coordinated attack, again you will be peeling off your defenses from higher value targets.
There's lots of assumptions in that.
1) The attacking force will be larger than the defending force.
2) The defending force needs to be of a significant size to deter raiders.
3) The defending force cannot reinforce itself.
4) Coordinated attacks will be common.
1 will sometimes occur. Frequently you'll have small forces hitting targets of opportunity, such as the undefended Outpost that you're encouraging people to have.
2 is not certain. Perhaps it will be easy enough for a sufficiently experienced character to prevent raiders from completing the raid action. You may need a 2:1 ratio of attackers to defenders to be able to pull it off in a timely fashion.
3 is certainly true if you're fast enough. If a squad of 5 raids an outpost with 2 PC defenders, will you be able to complete your raid before more PCs arrive? It depends on the Settlement, certainly.
4 really depends on the raiders. The Target of Opportunity types likely won't. The types that would coordinate will likely do so with a great deal of forethought and planning. They will likely be feuded after a couple occasions of coordinated raids.
I do commend your dogged persistence in promoting your preferred activities to be made legal, though. What if in order to claim a Lawful alignment for a settlement, SADs and raiding are required to be illegal?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do commend your dogged persistence in promoting your preferred activities to be made legal, though. What if in order to claim a Lawful alignment for a settlement, SADs and raiding are required to be illegal?
Interesting point. Who knows how laws will pan out but that seems like a reasonable expectation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) The defending force cannot reinforce itself.
This is the main one and almost certainly false.
To raid an Outpost, a player, group, or company must hold onto a specific location within the Outpost for a certain amount of time...
...When an Outpost is raided, the management company and associated PoI owners are notified.
So when an outpost is raided a call to arms can be issued by either the company who owns it or the owners of the POI. At that point you can try to bring in defenders before the raid action is completed.
Those defenders could have been out PVEing, sparring / doing training exersizes, crafting/gathering, running quests, whatever. With the exception of POIs and settlements outposts should be one of the easiest objectives to defend.
They are designed to be raided. Not for the raids to be effortless. Raiding is meant to generate PvP, not PvE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3) The defending force cannot reinforce itself.This is the main one and almost certainly false.
To raid an Outpost, a player, group, or company must hold onto a specific location within the Outpost for a certain amount of time...
...When an Outpost is raided, the management company and associated PoI owners are notified.
So when an outpost is raided a call to arms can be issued by either the company who owns it or the owners of the POI. At that point you can try to bring in defenders before the raid action is completed.
Those defenders could have been out PVEing, sparring / doing training exersizes, crafting/gathering, running quests, whatever. With the exception of POIs and settlements outposts should be one of the easiest objectives to defend.
They are designed to be raided. Not for the raids to be effortless. Raiding is meant to generate PvP, not PvE.
This is almost completely correct, with one modification and perhaps it's just semantics.
I see outpost raiding as PvE, with the potential for PvP. That is actually one of my favorite situations, and something I engaged often in EvE. Scanning down mission runners, warping to their multi-gate missions, and ninja looting / salvaging the wrecks they left behind. Although it could be argued as technically PvP in its inception, but unattended wrecks are hard for me not to think of as PvE. On rare occasions they will actually lock on, but I've learned to call their bluff and keep on loot/salvage. They usually don't engage because they assume I'm fit for PvP, they are fit for PvE, and I'm a 2006 toon. When I used my 2012 toon, I was more likely to actually be attacked but still only lost one ship after over 50 million isk worth of ninja looting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see outpost raiding as PvE, with the potential for PvP.I cannot see it as PvE when resources that settlements need to function and profit are on the line.
The initial guards of outposts and POIs are NPCs, with only a potential for there to be PCs on hand for response.
The resources are stacking over time and only potential resources for the owning company. It's not PvP until the owners make it PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The initial guards of outposts and POIs are NPCs, with only a potential for there to be PCs on hand for response.
Or, more accurately, the NPC guards are there to reduce the potential for uncontested raiding. They're there to slow down the raiders long enough for the PC defenders to show up and not make the raid warning useless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The initial guards of outposts and POIs are NPCs, with only a potential for there to be PCs on hand for response.Or, more accurately, the NPC guards are there to reduce the potential for uncontested raiding. They're there to slow down the raiders long enough for the PC defenders to show up and not make the raid warning useless.
Well without that there would be no risk and no fun.
Andius words about 24/7 player border guards is pretty spot on, in some ways. It is boring to patrol "home base" adequately and have little or no activity. It is unrealistic to expect the human to put that much effort into the game and have it remain fun to play. The game is not supposed to be a job. You can have "jobs" in the game that fit your chosen "role", but they need to be fun and fulfilling.
Exactly. People are only going to want to fill guard roles if there is a reasonably high expectation that they'll be needed. Out on a particular spot on a border they won't be needed 95-99.99% of the time. Therefore it's a role that nobody is going to fill.
Bluddwolf demonstrates again and again that he has no knowledge of how to effectively deploy manpower in either aggressive or defensive situations. I do, because I've spent extensive time playing as a defender, raider, trader, and smuggler.
It's a calculation based off two factors:
- How important is the role they are filling in terms of the assets being generated / protected / destroyed vs. their time that they are unable to take part in other tasks.
- How much are they going to enjoy that role vs. how fast will they burn out due to boredom?
Is all this experience why you want the exile function? Turns defense into the push of the button rather than actually having to put in effort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is all this experience why you want the exile function? Turns defense into
So let's review this real quick. The exile mechanic is pretty much my spin on the trespass mechanic. We can say with near certainty the real meat of it already exists. That is, the ability to remove the consequences for killing groups you ban from territory where you hold sovereignty. Otherwise I couldn't see Ryan stating it would be foolish to not "NBSI" certain groups in your territory.
Anyway so what does my proposed system allow for:
1. Consequence fee kills agains players and individuals you ban from your territory.
2. No corruption / unrest increases due to actions committed to exiled individuals. Actions committed by them still count normally.
Given the corruption / unrest mechanics are unique, 2 is true in every other game in existence. 1 is true in the following titles due to lack of an alignment system or it's suspension when defending your territory:
EVE Online
Darkfall
Darkfall Unholy Wars
Wurm
Xsyon
Freelancer
Would you also describe all of those games as games where defense requires "the push of the button rather than actually having to put in effort."
Because if not you're just spouting more of the typical UNC nonsensical trash. Just like in many of those games you still have to:
- Defend your members and allies. Particularly those engaged in gathering and PVE.
- Defend your structures and assets. Particularly outposts.
In addition by the systems confirmed by GW you need to:
- Defend high value targets from assassinations.
- Suffer corruption hits when illegal kills, SADs, and outpost raids are not prevented.
If you add in mechanics I've advocated you additionally need to worry about:
-Smugglers sabotaging your corruption/unrest and DI's with various sorts or contraband.
If you can't see how that requires vigilance on the defenders part then you need to pull your head out of the sand.
I am quite confident in my ability to launch effective offensive campaigns with the exile mechanics I've outlined in place. UNC seems to be the only group concerned they won't be able to generate enough corruption if they actually have to do something after crossing the border. Well them and The Phantom Menace Steelwing claims to be part of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andius has an avatar caked in blood and gore of battle, and yet hates PvP. Weird ;p
I love PvP. Meaningful conflict is the reason I'm here. I just hate the a%#$#+*s who give these kinds of games a bad name by attacking everyone they see even when they have no meaningful reason to do so.
While it won't be a big problem for me given I'll be in during the first month of EE, and I enjoy a good fight, it kills the kind of diversity I think this community should aspire to. I want to see less violent players able to find a place for themselves within this game. I want to see the kind of interaction that can bring to this community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius has an avatar caked in blood and gore of battle, and yet hates PvP. Weird ;pI love PvP. Meaningful conflict is the reason I'm here. I just hate the a$@**$+s who give these kinds of games a bad name by attacking everyone they see even when they have no meaningful reason to do so.
So, raiding outposts, POIs and caravans is now categorized as being targets with "no meaningful reason"?
Your exile suggestion also differs from the trespass mechanic in that where the trespasser mechanic requires some firm of wrongdoing on the part of the individual to be marked a trespasser, apparently the exile does not.
I also see a hidden danger for a settlement of setting an individual character to exile, but I may wish to exploit that if your exile mechanic ever sees the light of day in PFO. I'm fairly certain it won't so it's pointless to argue it.
* note that the use of the term Exploit is used in its meaning "to use every advantage" and not in breaking a rule. If a mechanic leaves open a way to use it for a different purpose, that is not necessarily a breaking of the EULA or other rule, it is just a tactic.
Stealth is an example of this. So is using a Trojan Horse tactic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, raiding outposts, POIs and caravans is now categorized as being targets with "no meaningful reason"?Andius has an avatar caked in blood and gore of battle, and yet hates PvP. Weird ;pI love PvP. Meaningful conflict is the reason I'm here. I just hate the a$@**$+s who give these kinds of games a bad name by attacking everyone they see even when they have no meaningful reason to do so.
No. That statement is irrelevant to the rest of the topic as was the post it was in response to.
Your exile suggestion also differs from the trespass mechanic in that where the trespasser mechanic requires some firm of wrongdoing on the part of the individual to be marked a trespasser, apparently the exile does not.
Nothing in the post I quoted even hints at that. Ryan is clearly referencing a mechanic used to allow settlements to expell undesired groups from their territory, not low rep players. It's probably one of the other mechanics that the trespasser flag mentions.
I also see a hidden danger for a settlement of setting an individual character to exile, but I may wish to exploit that if your exile mechanic ever sees the light of day in PFO. I'm fairly certain it won't so it's pointless to argue it.
Most of what I want from it seems to already be in. Along with reputation, alignment, factors to balance out chaos and evil, lesser evil slides for kills on evil players, lesser rep slides for killing low rep players and just a lot of mechanics that are good for the game but beyond your understanding.