A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

301 to 350 of 1,127 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

On a different note:

Quote:

Development Indexes

Legally harvesting resources, killing NPCs, crafting, and completing quests in a hex should raise the development indexes or the organizations who control the hex, even if they do not belong to that organization.

The purpose of this is that it incentivizes less populated player settlements to let outsiders come in and make use of what they aren't using.

Resource Rights

Settlements and POI's should be able to sell the rights to extract resources in their territory in the form of an item. This would allow players to harvest normally restricted resources until they either harvest the max amount the contract allows or the contract expires.

This ties in with the Development Indexes to incentivize settlements to grant access to the resources they aren't using.

1. Escalations, yes I agree, but not harvesting unless they are taking the resources to that settlement's markets.

2. There is no such thing as "resources you aren't using". There is only the potential for resources you don't need at the moment. These will be stockpiled for when they are needed or traded for those resources that you do need but don't have access to.

Bottom line there is no benefit to a settlement to allow outsiders to harvest within their settlement controlled hex. Not unless the outsider is renting the space / buying the access.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Monty Wolf wrote:
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.

When characters enter territory from which they are exiled and not booted out, does the controlling territory take a corruption or unrest hit at some point after the breach for lacking the ability to control its own borders?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
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.

This may be true, until you lose a POI because your defensive forces were diverted to defend an outpost, that was not the real target of the raid. Then you may also realize that the outpost raid was not simple bandits, but the diversion while a larger force is assaulting your POI, and even that is not the true target..... But just the softening up and blinding of your settlement hex, to make way for the army going for your settlement.

Your mistake is that you are thinking that we are thinking small. You see an outpost raid as a simple smash and grab robbery. I see it more like a bank heist, which requires planning, coordination and at least good execution with necessary back ups for the difference between good and perfect execution.

But then again, what do I know about tactics? All those years in the military as a Non Commissioned Officer didn't teach me, The Goodfellow, Talonfox, and about 12 other members of UNC, a damned thing about planning offensive assaults. Those combat doctrines have no relenevce in gaming, except for PvP where we have used them over and over again with great success. In MMOs like Mechwarrior, EvE, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Darkfall, Fallen Earth, and Star Wars Galaxies.

Goblin Squad Member

I know why, I do, but of all these abbr. For everything under the sun that I often have to work out…… shhh! Don't tell anybody that. You spelled out NCO. Those of us (you included) who know what that means do and those who don't know what an NCO is don't period. For myself I will say I was a Sgt. In the USMC for just over Ten years. I will agree that squad tactics and many other thing will transfer in meaningful ways but in any game a group of 12 years olds who have never heard of "A Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation" are going to learn by trial and error. Let's face it this is a game with out a shockboard* under you feet for deaths people will shrug off the losses and keep running.

No I don't think in game losses need to be increased.

Shockboard (tm) pat-pending.

Goblin Squad Member

@Proxima, it would seem that way. Andius isn't saying that he wants to avoid PvP with individuals by exiling them, he's instead saying he wants to be able to set individuals in settlement-owned territory as PvP-able without having to jump through the hoops of feuds, wars, etc.

Goblin Squad Member

Vwoom wrote:

I know why, I do, but of all these abbr. For everything under the sun that I often have to work out…… shhh! Don't tell anybody that. You spelled out NCO. Those of us (you included) who know what that means do and those who don't know what an NCO is don't period. For myself I will say I was a Sgt. In the USMC for just over Ten years. I will agree that squad tactics and many other thing will transfer in meaningful ways but in any game a group of 12 years olds who have never heard of "A Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation" are going to learn by trial and error. Let's face it this is a game with out a shockboard* under you feet for deaths people will shrug off the losses and keep running.

No I don't think in game losses need to be increased.

Shockboard (tm) pat-pending.

Although I don't think I've even grouped up with a 12 year old, I believe the youngest was 16 and the oldest in late 70's, I'm fairly certain they can learn the principles of Shoot, Move, Communicate.

Surprisingly enough, in spite of there not being a real death penalty in most MMOs, I found that those players that look at their PVP as having mission objectives, tend to care quite a bit about completing the mission in one try.

Goblin Squad Member

Leadership and direction can go a long way toward a feeling of accomplishment and enjoyment for most people. We do know that much of the "content" in this game is going to have to come from players and their goals, whether small or large and over-arching.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
This may be true, until you lose a POI because your defensive forces were diverted to defend an outpost, that was not the real target of the raid. Then you may also realize that the outpost raid was not simple bandits, but the diversion while a larger force is assaulting your POI, and even that is not the true target..... But just the softening up and blinding of your settlement hex, to make way for the army going for your settlement.

Yes. Because obviously POIs and settlements can be ninjad in the time it takes to return from an outpost.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
This may be true, until you lose a POI because your defensive forces were diverted to defend an outpost, that was not the real target of the raid. Then you may also realize that the outpost raid was not simple bandits, but the diversion while a larger force is assaulting your POI, and even that is not the true target..... But just the softening up and blinding of your settlement hex, to make way for the army going for your settlement.
Yes. Because obviously POIs and settlements can be ninjad in the time it takes to return from an outpost.

That is unknown at this time. It depends on force strength of both aggressor and defender. It depends on force movement, and the location of the diversions from the real targets.

I'd be guessing that the settlement rests in the center of the hex. Its POIs in the next "ring" (imaginary) but an equal distance from the settlement. Finally the outposts would be closer to the border of the hex.

There is also the possibility that the attack on the POI is a diversion, so that the raiders can hit multiple outposts.

I don't envy the position of settlement managers. It is going to be a tough and probably nearly thankless job.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
@Proxima, it would seem that way. Andius isn't saying that he wants to avoid PvP with individuals by exiling them, he's instead saying he wants to be able to set individuals in settlement-owned territory as PvP-able without having to jump through the hoops of feuds, wars, etc.

Basically the idea is that if you control territory you have the right to say who can come in legally, and who can't. You shouldn't have to pay anything or suffer penalties for controlling your own territory. Nor should you be responcible for the protection of outlaws within your borders.

However traffic and non-criminal activity in your borders should have positive effects. So when you ban someone from your territory you lose out on those effects.

That makes it meaningful. You have to weigh the positive and negative effects against eachother before expelling people from you borders.

Border control is a separate issue. People crossing your border and occasionally robbing / murdering people is a deal big enough it's worth the expense and boredom required to deal with it in real life.

In a game with a re-spawn feature it is worth neither the expense nor boredom. No faction will do it, therefore making it pointless / tedious to tie up part of the corruption system with border crossings. It should all revolve around actions taken that present meaningful challenges and possible consequences to both parties.

Goblin Squad Member

So you're asking for trespassing to be granular and not carry a corruption hit.

That helps NRDS a little bit.

I'd still feel better about living in my NRDS town if there was some way to boot out anyone that needed to be removed for the general good right at that moment. Without waiting for a granular trespassing patch or the administrative headaches involved with getting them permanently blacklisted. What if you just want them to leave for today but welcome them back next week when they're acting better?

Trespass is good for groups you seem likely to end up at war with in the future but it's not fluid enough for day-to-day decisions about the welfare of the settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

I could see a more temporary thing that auto-expires after 24 hours or so being a good thing. Especially if the permissions are separate so that you can hand those rights out to lower officers but the exiled until further notice rights are reserved for higher officers.

However I don't think there should be anything that kicks in faster than it would take to reach the nearest border from any point within the territory. Otherwise you can get killed without consequence or warning in territory where you were welcome only moments before.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
That is unknown at this time. It depends on force strength of both aggressor and defender.

It probably also depends on timers as the original description of outposts did.

GW Blog wrote:
In addition to simply grabbing what you can from an unguarded node, it is also possible to bleed an outpost dry by rapidly harvesting all its crops, furiously butchering all its livestock, or recklessly mining all its ore. Such a process is extremely harmful to the outpost but allows you to walk away with a much greater bounty. If—after slaying all the guards and gaining access to the outpost bank—you can hold onto that outpost for ten minutes, you can begin strip mining. The resource production intervals for that outpost are reduced from an hour to ten minutes, producing goods based on the highest appropriate cultivation skill of a raider within the outpost area. Although this rapidly produces a large amount of goods, it also deals 10% of the outpost's maximum hit points in damage to that outpost with each interval, eventually destroying the structure.

It took an hour an 40 minutes to destroy an outpost. It still may. We can pretty safely assume a POI won't take any less.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
It took an hour an 40 minutes to destroy an outpost. It still may. We can pretty safely assume a POI won't take any less.

Again, the time is dependent on force brought to bear on the location. Yes if he same force attacking an outpost, was also used to attack a poi, that force would take longer to destroy the poi if the could at all.

Destroying an outpost woukd probably involve individual items that destroy structers (ie siege hammers). Destroying a POI will almost definitely require some sort of siege equipment, if not siege engines.

Testing in EE will tell us all we will need to know.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Although I don't think I've even grouped up with a 12 year old, I believe the youngest was 16 and the oldest in late 70's, I'm fairly certain they can learn the principles of Shoot, Move, Communicate.

My experience in the Navy taught me that that Communicate part is stupidly hard to achieve.

Goblin Squad Member

Here is something that I don't like about the OP's system. Correct me if I am mistaken:

You catch a trespasser on your settlement. You could SAD him and get some loot. Next you can kill him, consequence free, and get some more loot. Do I have that right?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

No. I'd have the SAD condition of not being able to kill them for x period of time overrule that. It's silly otherwise.

Goblin Squad Member

There are consequences to the citizens for certain actions then. What where the consequence free activities (for crimes) referring too?

Edit: rereading, I see that Andius categorized it as no penalties to corruption/unrest. He did not write about reputation. If he did not mean to include rep freedom then I am wasting your time. :)

Goblin Squad Member

I think the more clear way to say that would be an "enforcement" version of SAD that did not require a rogue level to train, but a guard subclass. That is based on a judgment call by the patrol. Instead of a blanket "Trespassers will be shot" rule. Yes I just made that up. The enforcement would be leave or else, vs give me gold or else. Rejecting those terms allowing for the free kill. Not that I am a fan of either concept.

But back to this raiding thing....

I suppose a great deal will depend on how many of the POIs are outside the settlement hex as well what they produce. Raiders are going to want the POI that is of most value for their efforts. Settlements as well, but location will be as important as the possibility of denying your neighbor something by taking that POI even if you are already producing that resource yourself.

My first thought is that all the contested POI/Outposts will be outside the hex that the settlement can claim by virtue of building the settlement. Uncontested POIs being inside your hex.

I believe I read 6 to 11 POIs per settlement with at least 3 to 5 of them being contested between neighboring settlements. The question then is do those contested resources become the most well protected or least? Which of course also depends on what they are producing. Just one more lumber stand or something that cannot be produced inside the hex that is easier to defended? Raiders may find the Uncontested POIs easier pickings with the right timing, as such a lower return for lower risk.

Ok, I ran is a big circle there but...

All that said, my point is even a trespassing law might not cover all your POIs as you can only enforce laws in lands you can claim sovereignty over. I for one expect the "contested resources" to be the ones that are of more value to promote PvP. If the Devs choose a more random dispersal pattern it seems like a lost opportunity.

On the other hand perhaps the POI belonging to the settlement will automatically adopt its laws and aforementioned lists. I do love this type of brainstorming.

Goblin Squad Member

Ok one more thought, it would stand to reason that uncontested POI might be better suited to be contracted out to a CC given the right agreement. Defending that POI by the CC, or Settlement or both being part of the conditions of the agreement.

Of course other considerations would come in, but on the raiding line how that agreement was written would best be a closely guarded secret.

[EDIT] Will an unaffiliated CC be able to build on Contested hexes? That has interesting possibilities as well.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Vwoom wrote:
I think the more clear way to say that would be an "enforcement" version of SAD that did not require a rogue level to train, but a guard subclass. That is based on a judgment call by the patrol. Instead of a blanket "Trespassers will be shot" rule. Yes I just made that up. The enforcement would be leave or else, vs give me gold or else. Rejecting those terms allowing for the free kill. Not that I am a fan of either concept.

That's the basic concept of the Cease-And-Desist or Halt mechanics that have been floated (and summarily attacked by certain members of the forum).

Goblin Squad Member

I am against the Halt idea for reasons previously whined about. I would love for there to be a way for people to help people being robbed, attacked, or whatever. I just think that it would be terribly annoying if it was as easy to stop someone's movement progress as that. SAD has the ability to force you to stop if they can issue it, or you face the consequences of refusal, but not the ability to impede movement.

Stopping or demanding that someone HALT, seems to pretty well fit the definition of a "hostile" act to me. There is no law in the wilderness that is enjoyed by players except game mechanics consequences. No one should assume the power to impede players in "the wilds" unless they intend hostility.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Vwoom wrote:
I think the more clear way to say that would be an "enforcement" version of SAD that did not require a rogue level to train, but a guard subclass. That is based on a judgment call by the patrol. Instead of a blanket "Trespassers will be shot" rule. Yes I just made that up. The enforcement would be leave or else, vs give me gold or else. Rejecting those terms allowing for the free kill. Not that I am a fan of either concept.
That's the basic concept of the Cease-And-Desist or Halt mechanics that have been floated (and summarily attacked by certain members of the forum).

They were not attacked, they were mirroring the SAD mechanic and the argument was made,"Why not just SAD?"

That and, not once have any of these ideas had an attached cost, as the SAD does.

Would you have to train a skill that allows you to use the exile, Cease and Desist or Halt mechanics?

Would that training then grant you an ability that must be slotted.

What is the result of failure when attempting to exile, COD or Halt?

Would you gain the hostile flag for any of these being refused?

If you used the mechanic again or attacked the same target, in a certain time frame, would you lose double reputation?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I did I break the seal on SAD for this thread? If I did it was not intentional I swear it. Nor was that tiny part of my post meant to be the main focus. Oh well, what are you going to do???

Goblin Squad Member

Vwoom wrote:
I did I break the seal on SAD for this thread? If I did it was not intentional I swear it. Nor was that tiny part of my post meant to be the main focus. Oh well, what are you going to do???

The horse is supposed to be dead (for now), but obviously we still want to beat the poor carcass. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:
It took an hour an 40 minutes to destroy an outpost. It still may. We can pretty safely assume a POI won't take any less.

Again, the time is dependent on force brought to bear on the location. Yes if he same force attacking an outpost, was also used to attack a poi, that force would take longer to destroy the poi if the could at all.

Destroying an outpost woukd probably involve individual items that destroy structers (ie siege hammers). Destroying a POI will almost definitely require some sort of siege equipment, if not siege engines.

Testing in EE will tell us all we will need to know.

The description of outpost destruction puts forth a system where it takes 1 and 40 minutes minimum to destroy an outpost regardless of if you have a force of 10 or 10 million. You still have to hold it for 10 intervals of 10 minutes.

I think assuming POIs and Settlements will work any differently is a fairly massive / baseless assumption.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:
It took an hour an 40 minutes to destroy an outpost. It still may. We can pretty safely assume a POI won't take any less.

Again, the time is dependent on force brought to bear on the location. Yes if he same force attacking an outpost, was also used to attack a poi, that force would take longer to destroy the poi if the could at all.

Destroying an outpost woukd probably involve individual items that destroy structers (ie siege hammers). Destroying a POI will almost definitely require some sort of siege equipment, if not siege engines.

Testing in EE will tell us all we will need to know.

The description of outpost destruction puts forth a system where it takes 1 and 40 minutes minimum to destroy an outpost regardless of if you have a force of 10 or 10 million. You still have to hold it for 10 intervals of 10 minutes.

I think assuming POIs and Settlements will work any differently is a fairly massive / baseless assumption.

I find it unlikely that numbers of participants will not make a difference in the time it takes to destroy an object. Five sledge hammers do the work of one, five times faster.

As I said, testing in EE will tell us what we need to know. Everything discussed on these forums are assumptions, even when it comes from the Devs.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:
You still have to hold it for 10 intervals of 10 minutes.
I find it unlikely that numbers of participants will not make a difference in the time it takes to destroy an object. Five sledge hammers do the work of one, five times faster.

If you have to hold something for 10 minutes, you have to hold it for 10 minutes.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:
You still have to hold it for 10 intervals of 10 minutes.
I find it unlikely that numbers of participants will not make a difference in the time it takes to destroy an object. Five sledge hammers do the work of one, five times faster.
If you have to hold something for 10 minutes, you have to hold it for 10 minutes.

That is now on paper, but what will it be after testing?

I think that there should be a minimum amount of time and manpower needed to perform a task, but adding additional manpower to that task should reduce the time it takes to complete it.

Granted it would not have to be a 100% increase for each additional manpower unit added, you can factor in a certain amount of inefficiency, but 5 x will always do the same job in less time than 1 x.

Are structures any different than monsters? Or will one sword take 10 minutes to kill the monster, and adding 4 more swords will make no difference in the time it takes to kill that same monster?

I think some of you would argue an ice cube is warmer than the Sun, if I claimed the Sun is warmer.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have to have a limit on how little time it takes to get something done. Even with diminishing returns, you can simply add more muppet accounts to raiding to destroy things at a crazy rate.

For someone who claims to love PvP, I would think you would want the challenge of holding a facility for a period of time. You might actually have to fight people that way...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

You have to have a limit on how little time it takes to get something done. Even with diminishing returns, you can simply add more muppet accounts to raiding to destroy things at a crazy rate.

For someone who claims to love PvP, I would think you would want the challenge of holding a facility for a period of time. You might actually have to fight people that way...

I agree, there has to be a minimum time and also acknowledged diminishing returns. But at the same time, there should be an advantage to having numbers.

Bluddwolf wrote:

I think that there should be a minimum amount of time and manpower needed to perform a task, but adding additional manpower to that task should reduce the time it takes to complete it.

Granted it would not have to be a 100% increase for each additional manpower unit added, you can factor in a certain amount of inefficiency, but 5 x will always do the same job in less time than 1 x.

Goblin Squad Member

I can see both sides of this. Definitely want things done more quickly with more people, especially those with the right skills, but there needs to be some minimum time that allows for player reaction.

While not the best example, GW2 has a few minutes as the minimum when taking down a structural door/gate. Attackers get better skills and gear, but defenders get better reinforcements and in the end it give defenders a few minutes to react. A large chunk of the time this is not enough time to allow defenders to get from one side of the map to the other, but this brings into play the spotter/surveillance role where someone can keep eyes on the larger opposition forces (as zerglike as they are in GW2). When they're on one side of the map doing something, your spotter calls this out and your forces attack a structure clear on the other side. This of course also makes good use of guerrilla forces and feints.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
For someone who claims to...

Every time someone on these boards uses this phrase, the board descends just a little bit further towards the domain of Rovagug.

Goblin Squad Member

The advantage you are missing I think is that one person is tied to the task of holding down the El destructor button* so long as he is doing that then the timer is running. Everybody else is maintaining control of the hex that is the structure so he can keep his finger on the button. If someone gets close enough to attack him he will have to take his finger off the button to defend and the timer stops (resets?), as that would show a lose of control. There is only one button and one finger.

There could be several control points (buttons) that increase based on the level of development, and / or size of the structure.

The destruction of someones hard work should take some % of time related to what it took to build it in order to destroy it. I know you could throw some gas, a match, and run in real life but this blah blah blah.

I guess this could be connected to the swarm prevention line of thought. If a swarm has to stop, and stand still to destroy something it will lose momentum.

*I don't think you have to push a button, just making the metaphor. It could be standing on the button. I joke, I joke...

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Rovagug

A name that is often whispered and yet it calls to me as if the bells of a church are in my head!!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiminy wrote:
I can see both sides of this. Definitely want things done more quickly with more people, especially those with the right skills, but there needs to be some minimum time that allows for player reaction.

I think this already exists to some degree. 1 hour and 40 minutes is the minimum time required if you have uninterrupted control of the outpost. If the owner can re-establish control or possibly manage to make some repairs during this process then it gets drug out even further.

I think the same should be the case with POI's and settlements. There should be a minimum amount of time it takes to destroy or take control of them, and if you aren't completely dominating that process the whole time it gets drug out longer.

If your enemies can ever come zerg down a structure in 5 minutes, people will stop building structures, or be driven to quit when they can't maintain them.

Goblin Squad Member

Who is going to spend an hour and forty minutes destroying a shed?

Outposts are designed to be cheap to build and not too costly to lose. If they are to withstand a sustained attack, no matter what the numbers, for 1 hour and 40 minutes, no one will bother even trying to destroy one. Outposts don't even have walls, so imagine how impossible it would be to take down a Watch Tower. Settlements may not ever fall if there will be any exponential increase in structural durability.

I will wait to see what EE will do in tweaking that number, although I have no intentions of destroying outposts. Why burn down the bank I intend to rob from time-to-time?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Bottom line there is no benefit to a settlement to allow outsiders to harvest within their settlement controlled hex. Not unless the outsider is renting the space / buying the access.

I see some pretty obvious community-building benefits... I see similar benefits for killing bandits that harass those "outsiders".

Goblin Squad Member

I have not seen a response to this. If some have, I apologize for the repeat.

Bringslite wrote:

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.

Have you been listening to Steelwing. There are some who play this as their "job". It is more important that meat space. Many are under 30, and have family supplementing their life style. The players want to be part of the winning team. If that means dull patrols as they are assigned, they will do it. An immersive reality may have more meaning that meat space.

I have been an adjunct to such a group but was accepted because I provided a resource which no one else did. I was the scouting expert. There is a difference between these games that build resources to battle with and build character that provides value. I am not sure if that is important or how to best exploit.

I was a member in combat community. It did get rather involved and only fell out when money spent in store seemed to be main factor in "winning". That was F2P and I went into that feeling F2P was the noble way. This is different.

Listen to Steelwing and how his friends play. On the other hand I no longer believe his particular team will get what they want from GW. He is more adamant that Bluddwolf regarding needing to have his concerns met or his team will go away.

That is a GW decision, yes. But I have not seen argument that that style will bring in millions per year (and only after EE is tailored to his preferences). Even is his group does not come, others with siliar game style will come and will have a GW "job".

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:
There are some who play this as their "job". It is more important that meat space. Many are under 30, and have family supplementing their life style. The players want to be part of the winning team. If that means dull patrols as they are assigned, they will do it.

Not effectively. It's not a meaningful use of their human resources.

I can guarantee you that that if Steelwing's Phantom Menace actually exists and he were to name them, if I took the time to check all the gates in / out of their territory the vast majority of them would be undefended.

Now if I went in there trying to pick off their miners and ratters they might be alert enough to prevent that, but that's an entirely separate issue.

That's in EVE where there are gates to camp. How much easier will it be in Pathfinder Online where you can cross into hexes surrounded by borders on every side without even breaking stealth?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Bottom line there is no benefit to a settlement to allow outsiders to harvest within their settlement controlled hex. Not unless the outsider is renting the space / buying the access.
I see some pretty obvious community-building benefits... I see similar benefits for killing bandits that harass those "outsiders".

Beyond that if you aren't making full use of the resources in your hex players coming there may need food, a place to recharge their power, temporary storage facilities, protection if they find a motherlode etc.

It's like when they put the pipeline in up here in Alaska. It didn't just boost the economy for those working for the oil industry. It caused a boom in every industry providing services those workers needed. I really doubt there will be many resources to spare right within the settlement hex of Brighthaven but within all the POIs Brighthaven or TEO control, I can almost guarantee there will be. I'd rather bring we bring in anyone willing to make use of them then just let them sit.

Until rate of extraction > rate of renewal it really does us no harm and we stand to benefit greatly.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
The sad fact is though that roleplayers will make up a small percentage of players.

Ah ... what're you basing that assumption on, Steel? Given the nature of these boards, I'd be inclined to believe that it'll be all RPers, just with people going for PvP content at the same time.


HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
The sad fact is though that roleplayers will make up a small percentage of players.
Ah ... what're you basing that assumption on, Steel? Given the nature of these boards, I'd be inclined to believe that it'll be all RPers, just with people going for PvP content at the same time.

I am basing that on every other mmo known to man. Most people who play MMO's are not role players simple as that. Go to one of the most rp friendly mmo's lotro. Go an visit laurelin and landroval. There are a fair number of role players. They are however still a small percentage of those on the server. This forum is a tiny tiny number of people compared to the 50000 Dancey needs to make the game earn money

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
The sad fact is though that roleplayers will make up a small percentage of players.
Ah ... what're you basing that assumption on, Steel? Given the nature of these boards, I'd be inclined to believe that it'll be all RPers, just with people going for PvP content at the same time.
I am basing that on every other mmo known to man. Most people who play MMO's are not role players simple as that. Go to one of the most rp friendly mmo's lotro. Go an visit laurelin and landroval. There are a fair number of role players. They are however still a small percentage of those on the server. This forum is a tiny tiny number of people compared to the 50000 Dancey needs to make the game earn money

I think two things can safely be said:

1. RPers do make up a minority segment of an MMO population.

2. Dungeons & Dragons based games attract more RPers than most MMOs.

I'd have to say the only MMO I have played over the years that had a very strong RP element to it has been Star Trek Online.

Goblin Squad Member

I havent seen a graphical MMO where any significant portion of the player base RP'd most of the time or regularly. I have seen some where you go to specific spots, channels, guilds where it happens but most of the players do not.

The only games iv seen where RP between players is expected, happens, and enforced have been MUDs.

Anyway to the main topic i think that NRDS will be a very viable option for people. I think that the design of various systems in PfO will make NBSI harder than expected to enforce and will mitigate much of the danger of NRDS policies.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm going to rp my Destiny's Twins but I don't talk funny to do it so no one may ever notice. When did this morph into Being's rp thread?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Who is going to spend an hour and forty minutes destroying a shed?

Would you change your mind if during that 1:40 you were looting the contents of the shed, and had a wagon(s) big enough to take the contents?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:
You still have to hold it for 10 intervals of 10 minutes.
I find it unlikely that numbers of participants will not make a difference in the time it takes to destroy an object. Five sledge hammers do the work of one, five times faster.
If you have to hold something for 10 minutes, you have to hold it for 10 minutes.

That is now on paper, but what will it be after testing?

I think that there should be a minimum amount of time and manpower needed to perform a task, but adding additional manpower to that task should reduce the time it takes to complete it.

Granted it would not have to be a 100% increase for each additional manpower unit added, you can factor in a certain amount of inefficiency, but 5 x will always do the same job in less time than 1 x.

Are structures any different than monsters? Or will one sword take 10 minutes to kill the monster, and adding 4 more swords will make no difference in the time it takes to kill that same monster?

I think some of you would argue an ice cube is warmer than the Sun, if I claimed the Sun is warmer.

Except in meatspace, there are just so many swords (melee weapons) that you can reach a single monster with. Same with most formation combat, the front rank or 2 are doing the fighting, the rear ranks are waiting to fill in for casualties or rotate out those who are exhausted.

Goblin Squad Member

Vwoom wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Who is going to spend an hour and forty minutes destroying a shed?
Would you change your mind if during that 1:40 you were looting the contents of the shed, and had a wagon(s) big enough to take the contents?

No I would not change my mind. If the "shed" were actually a bank and that was not common place, than perhaps.

That is the thing here. Raiding outposts was described by Ryan (Dev Blog) as being "the most common form of PVP" [that plays a part in the settlement vs. settlement conflict.] I'm inferring the part in [].

Something that is common place should not take that much time. Maybe if you are alone, or in a pair. The more you bring, the faster the shed should fall, inefficiency being factored in of course. There should be a set minimum time of about 30 minutes in my opinion.

If you have ever taken down a structure and it took 30 minutes, you know what an eternity that feels like. (ie. Station / structure popping in EVE mission runs).

Which is why I can't imagine the 1 hour 40 minutes will remain after testing in EE.

Goblin Squad Member

I have to agree. That seems excessive for outposts as described. Much depends on how much they want to make it a chore vs. how much you can get out of the deal. Balance that with how often an effective defense can realistically be mounted (how often that really occurs) and in what time frame that is really possible.

@ Bluddwolf

Would you raiders be more willing to spend the time if the stakes were high reward? Would you prefer quick results for less reward?

We know that Tork is involved and how village theft/takeovers work in DFUW. I wonder if it will be a similar (fixed "village" hps), but mixed system.

301 to 350 of 1,127 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.