CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan, my impression from the MMORPG.com interview was that all characters would have to join a settlement.
Yes, we've been saying that since the beginning of the project. Characters are always a member of some Settlement.
Did you mean that each player will have to pick an initial settlement at character creation, or simply that it will be incredibly important to playability to join a settlement?
New characters will be automatically assigned to an NPC Settlement based on ... factors.
You can join a different Settlement if you apply and they accept your application for membership. You'll be removed from the previous Settlement when you are accepted by the new one.
If the latter, would not all newly created characters be vulnerable to a NBSI policy?
The NPC Settlements will be surrounded by some hexes that produce basic resources and low level encounters. As a member of an NPC Settlement you'll benefit from some enforced security system - NPCs who will appear and kill opponents who seek to engage you within a certain distance from the NPC Settlement. When you play in that area you will be reasonably safe but your economic value will be marginal.
My assumption - and this is not a game mechanic, it is an emergent social action - is that most Settlements will enforce NBSI in territory they wish to exert control over. They will do this primarily because they don't want outsiders to extract economic value from the territory, secondarily because they don't want outsiders to be able to do reconnaissance in that territory, thirdly because they don't want to allow opposing forces to set up a logistics and staging area from which those forces could launch strikes, and fourthly because they will wish to interdict travel around the area they seek to control to alter the lines of internal communication for their adversaries.
The offsetting value is trade. Settlements are not self-sufficient. In order to sustain themselves they need to import resources from other Settlements. Assuming that a multi-Settlement Kingdom doesn't become self-sufficient, the lack of sufficiency implies that goods need to flow in (and out) of every Settlement and that requires merchants and teamsters.
Determining who to allow in and out of a Settlement without "shooting it" will be another non-mechanical social action of the Settlement and its management.
You will be unlikely to be free to roam across the whole map without consequence. Most of the time you will be in or near territory that someone else has a proprietary interest in protecting. So you'll have to be prepared to fight, negotiate, or flee most of the time. Being a member of an NPC Settlement implies that you are "cloaking" your intentions (because anyone with any agenda could be a member of an NPC Settlement and NPC Settlements don't reflect the consensus of how they should be populated or how their membership should act). Members of NPC Settlements will likely be seen as just a step less dangerous than low Rep chaotic evil characters. The basic assumption for most players will be that NPC Settlement members are always up to no good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ryan: I'd like to challenge your assumption that most settlements will be NBSI, and suggest you have the power to discourage such policies.
In EVE, NBSI only works because all the economic resources required by groups adopting NBSI policy either come from money faucets (rats) or are imported from high-sec, which is NRDS. Effectively, EVE's economy operates solely in high-sec. Isolationist null-sec alliances (which is all of them) can only function because they buy everything they need from Jita and then haul those resources back to their space. Jita wouldn't exist as a market hub if it was NBSI.
It sounds like, in PfO, the current plan is for there to be few NPC settlements (which is great), but for them to be centrally located (which is bad). If the current designs for NPC settlements allow for them to function as market hubs, players aren't going to want to stray far from them, and isolationist strategies will prevail.
As far as methods for settlements to deal with scofflaws, the most obvious solution, to me, is to allow settlements to dedicate a small (exponentially increasing, but with a small exponent) amount of its DI to tag them as kill-on-sight. Like feuds/wars, but for individuals. In the future, there could even be an associated building to lower those costs or even some sort of bounty mechanic.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Market hubs exist because reducing transaction costs is in the interest of people who are earning fractional profits on the margin of maxed out efficiency. They'll exist in Pathfinder Online as well. The location market hubs in EVE were actually engineered to help load balance the server (they've been altered over time by CCP changing certain jump gate pairs) but they came into existence spontaneously as an emergent behavior of the players.
The NPC Settlements aren't centrally located. There's no "center" to the Pathfinder Online map, and it will grow and change over time as new Hexes are added. We may need to keep adding new NPC Settlements too - that's a big unknown right now.
NBSI happens because the most valuable resource in the game is territory. NRDS can exist only if Settlements have little fear of being displaced. Therefore I expect NRDS will be exceptional in the game for a long time because the continuous influx of new players will all be seeking to play the Kingdom Game and the supply of territory will never catch up to the demand for Kings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The offsetting value is trade. Settlements are not self-sufficient. In order to sustain themselves they need to import resources from other Settlements. Assuming that a multi-Settlement Kingdom doesn't become self-sufficient, the lack of sufficiency implies that goods need to flow in (and out) of every Settlement and that requires merchants and teamsters.
Seriously asking, why trade when you can raid?
I could see a very powerful LE settlement gathering resources through the use of frequent feuds and wars, and basically stealing whatever they need.
This way they can maintain NBSI, and eliminate the need for open access for traders.
The offsetting value is trade. Settlements are not self-sufficient. In order to sustain themselves they need to import resources from other Settlements. Assuming that a multi-Settlement Kingdom doesn't become self-sufficient, the lack of sufficiency implies that goods need to flow in (and out) of every Settlement and that requires merchants and teamsters.Seriously asking, why trade when you can raid?
I could see a very powerful LE settlement gathering resources through the use of frequent feuds and wars, and basically stealing whatever they need.
This way they can maintain NBSI, and eliminate the need for open access for traders.
Why raid when you can threaten. Simply locate a weaker settlement that has access to the resources you need and tell them ship us X units of Y a week or we come and kick your doors down.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hesitant to wade in here since everything seem to be under control. I wanted to note that to leperkhaun's point:
"1) Allow the settlement to set the rep threshold, HOWEVER said threshold MUST affect everyone, including members of the settlement. That means that members of the settlement are vulnerable unless they maintain the appropriate rep."
This is indeed how settlement minimum reputation works. So settlements cannot maintain members with low rep to do their dirty work unless they are comfortable keeping their settlement in the doldrums. They could HIRE low rep players to get involved, but there are costs involved in this process too - alliances cost Prestige/DI, and we are toying with factoring disparate reputations into these calculations too.
I will say that the lack of a whitelist/redlist is a deliberate feature of the Settlement system. It is important that settlements are able to open their borders to non-members, both for their economy, and for player advancement. I think a factor that may not be playing into these discussions is the extreme difficulty that is involved in actually TAKING a settlement. Settlement warfare will be grand in scale. It will be nigh on impossible for a clutch of players to take a settlement - so a certain threshold of visitors through your gates will not be impactful to your defenses.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
We're keeping up with further suggestions for ways that might happen in this thread, but aren't committing to anything yet ;) .In other words, you can not be placed on a "Red List" that auto flags you as a criminal / trespasser?So, the devs not committing to implementing a Red List is equivalent to the devs committing to not implementing a Red List?It was a question not a statement, which is why I punctuated it with a ? mark
@ Stephen Cheney
For clarification, can any individual, company or settlement set someone to "Red" thus auto flagging that person, company or settlement to Criminal / Trespasser status?
This auto flagging is not the result of low reputation (whatever GW will decide that is) or any action that would have made the person, etc, ect a consequence free target.
Wait, what? Individuals who aren't settlement managers can't do anything even remotely like that.
The suggestion is that the settlement manager or named designee would, in addition to setting a reputation threshold, name individuals or companies that are not permitted by local law to enter their jurisdiction. Characters that enter regardless would be flagged as criminals and subject to whatever consequences apply to criminals.
Low Reputation in unclaimed areas has never been declared to result in any flag.
@Steelwing - this will only work if the weaker Settlement is contiguous with the stronger Settlement's ability to exert force. If it is halfway across the map you'd have to fight your way through every intervening Settlement to get to the victim's doorstep.
While I don't necessarily disagree with that statement I would tend to phrase it more generally in that it will only work if the the settlement believes you have both the will and the ability to carry out your threat.
It may well be for instance that we are on good terms with the settlements in the way or that they are also weak settlements who are willing to allow our armies through because the alternative is we make an intermediate stop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about having a cost for red listing someone? Individual players are minor, but entire kingdoms cost quite a bit? I honestly don't understand why you don't allow it all if you're serious about allowing settlements to defend their borders from known threats.
If there is a rogue bandit in an NPC settlement terrorizing our land, do you really intend us to take rep hits to chase them off if we can't catch her in the act?
@Steelwing - yes, I agree that fits the definition of "ability to exert force".
Yes rereading I realise I misunderstood your statement, the word contiguous threw me and I assumed you meant adjacent to our sphere of influence
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about having a cost for red listing someone? Individual players are minor, but entire kingdoms cost quite a bit? I honestly don't understand why you don't allow it all if you're serious about allowing settlements to defend their borders from known threats.
If there is a rogue bandit in an NPC settlement terrorizing our land, do you really intend us to take rep hits to chase them off if we can't catch her in the act?
Having a cost for red listing someone (or blue listing someone) might be a limiting factor in running NRDS (or NBSI). Some red listing could also occur based on the other party's action. But yeah, after some rogue bandit group has attacked a couple of caravans it makes sense that the wanted posters should go up (not that they need to go up for free).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Steelwing
I feel like, from recent posts, it is clear that exerting your will over other settlements will be a tad more difficult than just talking about it. Even though there are few details as yet, it has been remarked that it will be extremely costly in resources, extremely physically difficult and time consuming, and not just as simple (in any way) as you suggest.
In short, the way that you describe your probable approach looks like you will quickly run out of gas. Far faster than you can make it worth the while to be so aggressive and others could organize and respond. (I acknowledge that you have indicated that you do want a more difficult wargame, so that will be great) I could be wrong, but it seems like what I believe is a good thing so that the map does not quickly turn all one, two, or three colors.
I am fine if it takes 5 years after settlement introduction to see a really large bully Empire. It looks like it might take that long.
I feel like, from recent posts, it is clear that exerting your will over other settlements will be a tad more difficult than just talking about it. Even though there are few details as yet, it has been remarked that it will be extremely costly in resources, extremely physically difficult and time consuming, and not just as simple (in any way) as you suggest.
In short, the way that you describe your probable approach looks like you will quickly run out of gas. Far faster than you can make it worth the while to be so aggressive and others could organize and respond. (I acknowledge that you have indicated that you do want a more difficult wargame, so that will be great) I could be wrong, but it seems like what I believe is a good thing so that the map does not quickly turn all one, two, or three colors.
I am fine if it takes 5 years after settlement introduction to see a really large bully Empire. It looks like it might take that long.
Exerting your will by talking will indeed not be easy and as I indicated in my reply to Ryan depends on the settlement you are targeting to believe you have both the will and the ability. I would not expect any settlement to roll over to anyone who has not demonstrated both.
I do not think however settlement warfare is going to be as uncommon as some believe I fully expect in the first year after settlements and settlement warfare enters the game that at least half will change hands or be destroyed
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf - because you won't be able to raid for crafted goods. You might have a huge stack of wood, stone, ore, gems, etc. but if you can't craft it, it does you no good.
I did not mean to imply that this hypothetical LE settlement didn't need its open crafters, just not necessarily to open its doors to trade ( with perhaps a few exceptions).
I will say that the lack of a whitelist/redlist is a deliberate feature of the Settlement system.I guess we can lay that baby to rest. Thanks for the response.
Looks like most settlements will have a cadre of monsters in the basement then
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Looks like most settlements will have a cadre of monsters in the basement thenI will say that the lack of a whitelist/redlist is a deliberate feature of the Settlement system.I guess we can lay that baby to rest. Thanks for the response.
I had predicted that from nearly the beginning. The major concept behind the UnNamed Company was to be that quasi- Monster in the Basement, for hire of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Settlement warfare will be grand in scale. It will be nigh on impossible for a clutch of players to take a settlement - so a certain threshold of visitors through your gates will not be impactful to your defenses.
I would reply to this that NBSI policies as far as I am concerned are not about worrying people will wander in and take the settlement. They are instead about
a) Providing content for our pvp'ers
b) Preventing people doing pve in our area's because we want those escalations and instances available for our own people
c) Preventing people gathering in our areas as we want those resources for our own people
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Looks like most settlements will have a cadre of monsters in the basement thenI will say that the lack of a whitelist/redlist is a deliberate feature of the Settlement system.I guess we can lay that baby to rest. Thanks for the response.
I'm not so sure.
I expect most Settlements to be NBSI...
Some may operate under NRDS... some Settlement Alignments may dictate NRDS...
Realistically since I expect to be colonized by EVE players right off the bat, I expect that NBSI will reign as the standard policy, at least until some group shows that Pathfinder Online's differences from EVE make that not the always correct choice.
Also, your "monsters in the basement" will suck; they may have a hard time enforcing your NBSI policy.
Looks like most settlements will have a cadre of monsters in the basement thenI will say that the lack of a whitelist/redlist is a deliberate feature of the Settlement system.I guess we can lay that baby to rest. Thanks for the response.I'm not so sure.
I expect most Settlements to be NBSI...
Some may operate under NRDS... some Settlement Alignments may dictate NRDS...
Realistically since I expect to be colonized by EVE players right off the bat, I expect that NBSI will reign as the standard policy, at least until some group shows that Pathfinder Online's differences from EVE make that not the always correct choice.
Also, your "monsters in the basement" will suck; they may have a hard time enforcing your NBSI policy.
Doesnt matter we can turn out as many monsters as we need to deal with trespassers. As I have pointed out we will find you with our normal patrols then just send out what we need. We will use SAD troops first that will be high rep and then if necessary turn the low reps on you and we will have enough to kill you be sure of that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doesnt matter we can turn out as many monsters as we need to deal with trespassers. As I have pointed out we will find you with our normal patrols then just send out what we need. We will use SAD troops first that will be high rep and then if necessary turn the low reps on you and we will have enough to kill you be sure of that.Looks like most settlements will have a cadre of monsters in the basement thenI'm not so sure.
Are you trying to say that "most settlements" will have enough to kill everyone? Or just you? Because I was responding to the "most settlements" part.
[Edit] I realize you were probably referring to the "your monsters in the basement". Yeah, that was meant in a general sense, too, not really directed at "you" specifically, although it was poorly worded to convey that I admit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Looks like most settlements will have a cadre of monsters in the basement thenI will say that the lack of a whitelist/redlist is a deliberate feature of the Settlement system.I guess we can lay that baby to rest. Thanks for the response.I'm not so sure.
I expect most Settlements to be NBSI...
Some may operate under NRDS... some Settlement Alignments may dictate NRDS...
Realistically since I expect to be colonized by EVE players right off the bat, I expect that NBSI will reign as the standard policy, at least until some group shows that Pathfinder Online's differences from EVE make that not the always correct choice.
Also, your "monsters in the basement" will suck; they may have a hard time enforcing your NBSI policy.
Unfortunately, I considered this and (personally) came to the conclusion that it will be some time before the monsters are much less powerful than the maturing and trainable characters are. Factor in a slow but certain loss of the more mature characters to attrition (of all types), and you have a few (at least) years that "basement monsters" will be pretty useful. :(
Edit: If that is undesirable then hope (with me) that low rep really will suck, and that it sucks almost immediately.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doesnt matter we can turn out as many monsters as we need to deal with trespassers. As I have pointed out we will find you with our normal patrols then just send out what we need. We will use SAD troops first that will be high rep and then if necessary turn the low reps on you and we will have enough to kill you be sure of that.
I think Ryan just turned the knob that reads "Low reps will suck" a little further down. ;)
I have been wondering about these "gimp-squads". Against how many low-reps would a high level players still stand a chance?
@ Steelwing I am wondering though how fast you could get your group of low-reps to where they are needed. Or would you park low-rep alts all over your territory?
If so, then maybe PFO should have characters log out in settlements and Inns, and if they don't, then they get defaulted to the nearest Inn from where they log back in. Would be a nice function of Inns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just wondering - if a settlement maintains a stable of low-rep alt characters, and those characters are not allied with the settlement, will settlement NPC defenses automatically engage the low-rep alts as trespassers? (assuming the low-rep characters have rep below settlement threshold) (Since I think it's been stated that PVP vulnerability window will not be open 24 hours; they may be some time that there are NPC defenses active.)
Doesnt matter we can turn out as many monsters as we need to deal with trespassers. As I have pointed out we will find you with our normal patrols then just send out what we need. We will use SAD troops first that will be high rep and then if necessary turn the low reps on you and we will have enough to kill you be sure of that.Looks like most settlements will have a cadre of monsters in the basement thenI'm not so sure.Are you trying to say that "most settlements" will have enough to kill everyone? Or just you? Because I was responding to the "most settlements" part.
[Edit] I realize you were probably referring to the "your monsters in the basement". Yeah, that was meant in a general sense, too, not really directed at "you" specifically, although it was poorly worded to convey that I admit.
Given that I (though I know you disagree :) ) believe that settlements will over time become increasingly less casual then yes I expect most settlements will have enough.
Do not forget here it is unlikely you are going to be going to a settlements hex in force without reason it is mostly going to be small groups of you numbering less than 10 to 20. Bear in mind also that our monsters are not necessarily rock bottom rep as they will be logged on to regain rep most of the time. Their rep therefore will be a function of how often they are called upon. Settlements efficient at detecting and deleting intruders are going to fast get a reputation as places to avoid and there monsters will be called upon even less. Bear in mind also the first line of defense is the high rep characters Sadding you for unreasonable amounts in the hope you refuse
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, your "monsters in the basement" will suck; they may have a hard time enforcing your NBSI policy.
This too has yet to be tested and proven. Just as the contention that numbers alone may not make up for various levels of "suck".
In a game that boasts there is not a steep power curve, it can't at the same time say that numbers don't matter. Numbers matters even more, when the power curve is fairly level.
Beside the whole concept of the "Monster in the Basement" is that you only use it when it is most needed, "Desperate Times, call for Desperate Measures".
If not used too frequently, or the same monsters are used too exclusively, then their effectiveness will be worn down by their low reputation. Rotating the monsters or using them sparingly, will allow them to recover reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, your "monsters in the basement" will suck; they may have a hard time enforcing your NBSI policy.This too has yet to be tested and proven. Just as the contention that numbers alone may not make up for various levels of "suck".
In a game that boasts there is not a steep power curve, it can't at the same time say that numbers don't matter. Numbers matters even more, when the power curve is fairly level.
Beside the whole concept of the "Monster in the Basement" is that you only use it when it is most needed, "Desperate Times, call for Desperate Measures".
If not used too frequently, or the same monsters are used too exclusively, then their effectiveness will be worn down by their low reputation. Rotating the monsters or using them sparingly, will allow them to recover reputation.
It is true that at some point the real world cost of all of these "monsters" will just get to be too much for most. I don't suppose that there has ever been a really good way to deal with s group that wants to spend excessively large amounts of money on a game.
Just wondering - if a settlement maintains a stable of low-rep alt characters, and those characters are not allied with the settlement, will settlement NPC defenses automatically engage the low-rep alts as trespassers? (assuming the low-rep characters have rep below settlement threshold) (Since I think it's been stated that PVP vulnerability window will not be open 24 hours; they may be some time that there are NPC defenses active.)
If Tork remains correct that there is no redlist or whitelist then there can be no flagging of trespassers. The only way then to flag trespassers would be by reputation and all a settlement has to do is not set a minimum rep.
A settlements rep is I believe set purely on the members of the settlement so unaffiliated low rep characters would not affect that
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that the lack of a whitelist/redlist is a deliberate feature of the Settlement system.
I think the lack of a redlist is a mistake. It limits a settlement's ability to actively police its territory from repeated harassment. Without the easy ability to punish harassers (which enables both discouragement beforehand, and retribution after the fact), settlements will resort to higher levels of xenophobia as a protective measure. I don't think that makes for a healthy game.
In fact, I would argue that settlements should be able to allocate DI to redlist individuals, companies and even other settlements, but that status would only matter in territory controlled by the settlement. Similarly, companies should be able to spend influence to redlist other companies and individuals, but only within the confines of the settlement they belong to (and only if those redlisted don't also belong to the settlement).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will say that the lack of a whitelist/redlist is a deliberate feature of the Settlement system.I think the lack of a redlist is a mistake. It limits a settlement's ability to actively police its territory from repeated harassment. Without the easy ability to punish harassers (which enables both discouragement beforehand, and retribution after the fact), settlements will resort to higher levels of xenophobia as a protective measure. I don't think that makes for a healthy game.
In fact, I would argue that settlements should be able to allocate DI to redlist individuals, companies and even other settlements, but that status would only matter in territory controlled by the settlement. Similarly, companies should be able to spend influence to redlist other companies and individuals, but only within the confines of the settlement they belong to (and only if those redlisted don't also belong to the settlement).
This echoes my thoughts. The DI costs should be lower than a feud or all out war since it's only in a limited area you control. To remove redlists altogether simply encourages using unaffiliated alts to murder "trespassers" and removes meaningful human interaction. By adding a small cost to redlisting, it makes NBSI a little harder to enforce in a cost-effective manner (but the basement monster alts will still get around it), and encourages the default behaviour to be NRDS.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Tork remains correct that there is no redlist or whitelist then there can be no flagging of trespassers. The only way then to flag trespassers would be by reputation and all a settlement has to do is not set a minimum rep.
A settlements rep is I believe set purely on the members of the settlement so unaffiliated low rep characters would not affect that
While not setting a minimum rep should/could be possible, there's probably some point where it's not worth the trade-off. From the Dec 18, 2013 blog:
Having a negative Reputation will mean that certain settlements will be off limits to you. Having a Reputation below -2500 means you cannot safely enter most NPC or starter settlements. Player settlements can set a minimum Reputation to enter safely; if your Reputation is below this value the guards will attack you and none of the NPCs will talk to you. Higher end structures, like tier 2 and 3 training and crafting facilities, require the settlement have its minimum Reputation set to certain levels to function. So if you want your town to have awesome training and crafting facilities, you have to set a high minimum Reputation to enter the settlement.
On the other hand, you've already stated that your low-rep cadres *won't* be rock-bottom; it remains to be seen what levels of rep we need for tier 2 and 3 training and crafting.
If Tork remains correct that there is no redlist or whitelist then there can be no flagging of trespassers. The only way then to flag trespassers would be by reputation and all a settlement has to do is not set a minimum rep.
A settlements rep is I believe set purely on the members of the settlement so unaffiliated low rep characters would not affect that
While not setting a minimum rep should/could be possible, there's probably some point where it's not worth the trade-off. From the Dec 18, 2013 blog:
Having a negative Reputation will mean that certain settlements will be off limits to you. Having a Reputation below -2500 means you cannot safely enter most NPC or starter settlements. Player settlements can set a minimum Reputation to enter safely; if your Reputation is below this value the guards will attack you and none of the NPCs will talk to you. Higher end structures, like tier 2 and 3 training and crafting facilities, require the settlement have its minimum Reputation set to certain levels to function. So if you want your town to have awesome training and crafting facilities, you have to set a high minimum Reputation to enter the settlement.
On the other hand, you've already stated that your low-rep cadres *won't* be rock-bottom; it remains to be seen what levels of rep we need for tier 2 and 3 training and crafting.
They will be no lower than necessary and as I said once word spreads that we are efficient at intruder deletion then I expect the number of intruders to drop allowing them to be higher rep
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While costing DI for the ability to have these lists is a noble offer and fair trade off, I have my doubts that is the reason that they don't want them as part of the game. Hopefully some crowdforging will encourage them to reconsider the position.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could imagine that having by-individual-name lists might be a lot of overhead in the future.
Having settlement- or company-level lists might be somewhat more manageable. There's already hint of company- and settlement-level alliances, which would put groups on the blue list. Open declarations of war or feud put groups on the red list.
I'd like there to be at least the ability to put groups on an amber list - the not-friendly list - at least at the settlement level. Not-friendlies would be treated as white/neutral outside of the settlement-owned hexes and red/enemy inside. And yes, it should be public, and yes, it should have a cost - but not as high as war, maybe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm hesitant to wade in here since everything seem to be under control. I wanted to note that to leperkhaun's point:
"1) Allow the settlement to set the rep threshold, HOWEVER said threshold MUST affect everyone, including members of the settlement. That means that members of the settlement are vulnerable unless they maintain the appropriate rep."
This is indeed how settlement minimum reputation works. So settlements cannot maintain members with low rep to do their dirty work unless they are comfortable keeping their settlement in the doldrums. They could HIRE low rep players to get involved, but there are costs involved in this process too - alliances cost Prestige/DI, and we are toying with factoring disparate reputations into these calculations too.
I will say that the lack of a whitelist/redlist is a deliberate feature of the Settlement system. It is important that settlements are able to open their borders to non-members, both for their economy, and for player advancement. I think a factor that may not be playing into these discussions is the extreme difficulty that is involved in actually TAKING a settlement. Settlement warfare will be grand in scale. It will be nigh on impossible for a clutch of players to take a settlement - so a certain threshold of visitors through your gates will not be impactful to your defenses.
So in short if you do this:
I assume most Settlements will have some characters who are ready, willing and able to kill characters that enter territory they consider "theirs". It may be that this happens so infrequently that there's no meaningful impact on those characters in terms of alignment or reputation - or at least no impact that can't be remedied in a way acceptable to the player.
Or it may require the Settlement to have a small cadre of unaffiliated characters on standby to do the dirty deeds when required. These might be characters of players unaffiliated with the Settlement who serve as a fast-reaction force that the Settlement can call on when necessary in exchange for some in-game benefit like mercenaries, or they might be alt characters of Settlement members that are kept idle to be switched to when needed.
Then I can do this:
Don't celebrate too much Bludd. This system is actually in my favor to a degree that is somewhat broken. Let's first review a few facts:
1. The best settlements will auto-flag low rep characters as trespassers(criminals):
Settlements can set a minimum reputation to enter the city; players who don't meet the requirement are warned, and become trespassers if they continue to enter. Settlements may also be selective about permitting players with low reputations to join, since maintaining a high minimum settlement reputation is key to building several prestigious and useful structures.2. Settlements that accept low rep characters lose out on top tier training so low rep characters cannot become as powerful as high rep ones can.
3. Stephen just announced criminals will be flagged to everyone.
What does that mean? You either take the penalty for not trespassing your low rep enforcers, or I can dispense vigilante justice against them in your own territory free of charge on high rep / full powered characters.
What's more you have to spend influence to feud me if you don't like me dispensing vigilante justice within your borders. I spend... nothing.
I have more rights in YOUR territory than your unaffilated low rep NBSI enforcers. You can bet I'm going to take full advantage of that in hostile settlements if it isn't fixed.
The exile mechanic or the vigilante flag would fix it of course.
PS. Remember how lawful settlements (and likely neutral as well) are required to set a certain amount of laws? Friendly wager SADs and Outpost raids will be some of the most common ones outlawed if it doesn't outright force all non-chaotic settlements to do so.
A question in addition to that. Can NPC settlements be wardecced and with comparable amounts of XP invested fairly wisely how will a -5000 to -7500 rep character compare with a member of an NPC settlement in terms of power?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the concept of a "list" is mis-applied. I believe that there is no "list", only conditions which set a flag. If NB, then flag = criminal. Once someone gets a criminal flag for trespassing, I think it should expire after the character has left the controlled area. I am not necessarily in favor of the criminal trespass flag being on when not physically trespassing, but that is just an opinion.
As to the extent of controlled area where a trespass will generate a criminal flag: I think that by definition a settlement will have "control" of the settlement hex. From the image in Beyond this Hill It Floods Rays of Hope, and from a statement in Ryan's MMORPG.com interview, I think that the physical area of a settlement will occupy most of the settlement hex. If these are true, then there will actually be a very limited area outside the settlement but inside the settlement hex where a trespasser would be labeled criminal. If the settlement can establish PoI in adjacent hexes, then the settlement "controlled" area can be larger. In that case the criminal flag will be in place some distance from the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A question in addition to that. Can NPC settlements be wardecced and with comparable amounts of XP invested fairly wisely how will a -5000 to -7500 rep character compare with a member of an NPC settlement in terms of power?
I'd imagine that NPC settlements *can't* be wardecced, though individual companies could be targets of feuds.
I can imagine some settlement close to Thornkeep getting to the point where they wish they could wardec Thornkeep just to keep out their gutter-sweepings. Which is why I think we should have some animosity levels between Ally and Enemy, to allow for a range of group-to-group stances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the concept of a "list" is mis-applied. I believe that there is no "list", only conditions which set a flag. If NB, then flag = criminal. Once someone gets a criminal flag for trespassing, I think it should expire after the character has left the controlled area. I am not necessarily in favor of the criminal trespass flag being on when not physically trespassing, but that is just an opinion.
'Criminal' isn't the only flag suitable to the task. 'Hostile' would allow for more granularity as to who is permitted to attack whom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A question in addition to that. Can NPC settlements be wardecced and with comparable amounts of XP invested fairly wisely how will a -5000 to -7500 rep character compare with a member of an NPC settlement in terms of power?I'd imagine that NPC settlements *can't* be wardecced, though individual companies could be targets of feuds.
I can imagine some settlement close to Thornkeep getting to the point where they wish they could wardec Thornkeep just to keep out their gutter-sweepings. Which is why I think we should have some animosity levels between Ally and Enemy, to allow for a range of group-to-group stances.
That causes a severe problem. If the policy is meant to be NBSI against NPC Settlement PCs, then you either have Settlements failing due to Rep level drops, or you are effectively requiring basement monster alts that circumvent the rep/alignment systems.
That causes a severe problem. If the policy is meant to be NBSI against NPC Settlement PCs, then you either have Settlements failing due to Rep level drops, or you are effectively requiring basement monster alts that circumvent the rep/alignment systems.
I'd imagine that NPC settlements *can't* be wardecced, though individual companies could be targets of feuds.
I can imagine some settlement close to Thornkeep getting to the point where they wish they could wardec Thornkeep just to keep out their gutter-sweepings. Which is why I think we should have some animosity levels between Ally and Enemy, to allow for a range of group-to-group stances.
given that Dancey seems to expect settlements to run those monsters as seen here
Or it may require the Settlement to have a small cadre of unaffiliated characters on standby to do the dirty deeds when required. These might be characters of players unaffiliated with the Settlement who serve as a fast-reaction force that the Settlement can call on when necessary in exchange for some in-game benefit like mercenaries, or they might be alt characters of Settlement members that are kept idle to be switched to when needed.
it seems to me that its working as intended
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the things we should try to keep in mind is that Ryan is almost certainly not trying to make it impossible for "bad guys" (even Chaotic Evil Low Rep bad guys) to become powerful.
I think it's going to be a case a lot like trying to balance PvE encounters appropriately. It's easy to make AI that can always kill the players; the challenge is in making it just hard enough to be challenging.
Likewise, the goal is probably not to make it so that "bad guys" can't occasionally rise up and swarm the map, but rather to make the challenge of doing so significant enough that this isn't the only thing that ever happens.
If the "good guys" have tools that are really, really effective at making it almost impossible to ever raid their lands, etc., then the game won't "thrive".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That causes a severe problem. If the policy is meant to be NBSI against NPC Settlement PCs, then you either have Settlements failing due to Rep level drops, or you are effectively requiring basement monster alts that circumvent the rep/alignment systems.
This is just another meaingful choice. You can't have the best of both worlds. You can be an open society and NBSI at the same time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one of the things we should try to keep in mind is that Ryan is almost certainly not trying to make it impossible for "bad guys" (even Chaotic Evil Low Rep bad guys) to become powerful.
I think it's going to be a case a lot like trying to balance PvE encounters appropriately. It's easy to make AI that can always kill the players; the challenge is in making it just hard enough to be challenging.
Likewise, the goal is probably not to make it so that "bad guys" can't occasionally rise up and swarm the map, but rather to make the challenge of doing so significant enough that this isn't the only thing that ever happens.
If the "good guys" have tools that are really, really effective at making it almost impossible to ever raid their lands, etc., then the game won't "thrive".
Finally..... I post I can fully agree with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That causes a severe problem. If the policy is meant to be NBSI against NPC Settlement PCs, then you either have Settlements failing due to Rep level drops, or you are effectively requiring basement monster alts that circumvent the rep/alignment systems.This is just another meaingful choice. You can't have the best of both worlds. You can be an open society and NBSI at the same time.
I disagree very strongly. I see it as removing meaning from the system. Of course you see it as meaningful; you're the one advocating the removal of the alignment system. For your agenda you need everyone to be punished for trying to play "good guys."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disagree very strongly. I see it as removing meaning from the system. Of course you see it as meaningful; you're the one advocating the removal of the alignment system. For your agenda you need everyone to be punished for trying to play "good guys."That causes a severe problem. If the policy is meant to be NBSI against NPC Settlement PCs, then you either have Settlements failing due to Rep level drops, or you are effectively requiring basement monster alts that circumvent the rep/alignment systems.This is just another meaingful choice. You can't have the best of both worlds. You can be an open society and NBSI at the same time.
NBSI has nothing to do with alignment, it has to do with having either an open society or a closed society.