| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ladies and Gentlemen, Goblinoids of all ages and sizes!
The GobboCast Crew is pleased to announce the relaunch of the GobboCast Podcast! With new crew members, new ideas and a wealth of new material from the GoblinWorks team, the time has never been better to re-introduce GobboCast!
And what better way to ring in the new GobboCast than with an interview by the Lead Game Designer, Lee Hammock! Our newest Podcaster, Harad Navar, begins his debut with an excellent discussion focused on the Land Rush, Proto-Settlements and what it all means for the development team.
Listen in and enjoy!
Goblin Squad Member
|
re: existing NPC proto-settlements:
If there were basic schools (fighter, rogue, wizardry, temple) to begin with we could see the plus/delta of each to evaluate which we will prefer once the NPC settlement is destroyed by the 'big event' that wipes most of it out and launches player-settlement management.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Day One of Early Enrollment, the map will have proto-Settlements at (most of?) the locations where Player Settlements will eventually be. These will effectively be very limited NPC Settlements with a few training facilities but much less than Thornkeep. Six months in or so, all of these will be destroyed in the "Great Catastrophe". After that, the Land Rush winners will receive their minimal Settlements with some universally useful facilities and enough resources to build a few other things they might want and to keep everything running for a while.
I'm still wanting to know if everyone else will be able to begin clearing their Settlement sites the same day the Land Rush winners get their Settlements.
2. Lee says "we want to put as many incentives as we can to not have... so players do not kill-on-sight in their territory".
3. You'll be able to build up your supply chain for resources to power your Settlement before you have your Settlement.
4. POIs will "probably" be invulnerable to individual Characters, you'll need Siege Engines. Outposts are more vulnerable to Characters without Siege Engines.
5. POIs first, Settlements next, Siege Engines after that.
6. Keepers Pass is awesome!
7. Settlement Charters will start as Dictatorships and get more complex over time. Sponsoring Companies will be there early on, as will Approving Members.
8. Goal is to have a Temple for each god, and Training at each Temple. Iomedae will teach Glory and Strength. Asmodeus will teach Law and Fire. Each Religion is its own Faction.
9. Lee really likes guns in his fantasy, and crazy sci-fi too.
10. Taverns are top priority in the whole POI/Settlement spectrum.
11. Each building (Outpot, POI, or Settlement structure) has an Effort Rating based on the Skills of the Characters registered to be working there (you can only register at one Building). A Mining Outpost benefits from having lots of Characters with Mining Skill. A group of 20 Miners could go around to different places and offer to work other players' Mines. Aristocrat, Expert, and Commonner should also be useful in Combat. Aristocrats are really useful at leading Formations. Commoners can get the highest Encumbrance of any Character. Carts/Wagons after Settlements. Carts/Wagons are part of the Formation system.
12. Siege Camps are built at POIs that you destroy. You build Siege Engines there to attack the nearby Settlement.
13. Fast Travel and Blinds are still very much being talked about and designed. They're not sure what they're going to do.
14. You'll be able to trade Settlements the first day they're online.
15. About 8 hexes under your control to have 500 in each Development Index. About 16 hexes for 1,000 in each DI.
PS: I'm still wanting to know if everyone else will be able to begin clearing their Settlement sites the same day the Land Rush winners get their Settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
Thanks for the summary. Is there anything specific that you were curious about? :)
Can't think of anything off the top of my head...
Oh, you know what just occurred to me?
Will everyone else be able to begin clearing their Settlement sites the same day the Land Rush winners get their Settlements?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
Thanks for the summary. Is there anything specific that you were curious about? :)
Can't think of anything off the top of my head...
Oh, you know what just occurred to me?
Will everyone else be able to begin clearing their Settlement sites the same day the Land Rush winners get their Settlements?
Lol this made me laugh. I would like to know the answer to this question as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the summary; I can never do the podcast thing, as I always end up reading or something during it and I don't pay attention to the noises. Here's one issue I had:
4. POIs will "probably" be invulnerable to individual Characters, you'll need Siege Engines. Outposts are more vulnerable to Characters without Siege Engines.
12. Siege Camps are built at POIs that you destroy. You build Siege Engines there to attack the nearby Settlement.
These points seem to be contradictory. You have to destroy PoI's to make Siege Engines, but you can't destroy PoI's without Siege Engines. Is that something you can clear up (having heard the podcast), or is it a contradiction that we'll need Lee's input on to know what the intention is?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the summary; I can never do the podcast thing, as I always end up reading or something during it and I don't pay attention to the noises. Here's one issue I had:
These points seem to be contradictory. You have to destroy PoI's to make Siege Engines, but you can't destroy PoI's without Siege Engines. Is that something you can clear up (having heard the podcast), or is it a contradiction that we'll need Lee's input on to know what the intention is?4. POIs will "probably" be invulnerable to individual Characters, you'll need Siege Engines. Outposts are more vulnerable to Characters without Siege Engines.
12. Siege Camps are built at POIs that you destroy. You build Siege Engines there to attack the nearby Settlement.
That's a good question. I'm listening to the podcast again to see if I can clear it up.
Lee starts talking about POIs and Siege Engines at 33:50, right after talking about building Formations around Carts. He starts talking about POIs being invulnerable to Characters at 14:50.
I may have made a bad assumption. Lee's actual statement is "POIs will probably be invulnerable to individual Characters" but he does add "they'll need Siege Engines".
[Edit] For what it's worth, I usually have a hard time listening to podcasts, too. For some reason, I find PFO-related stuff extremely interesting :)
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're still nailing down your options for destroying buildings in the gray area between "one pyromaniac" and "a whole team of siege engineers" :) . We don't want it to be so hard that developing the ability to make and field siege engines is the only way to threaten even a weak opponent, but we don't want to make it so easy that a few guys can sneak into town and start quietly burning down buildings.
As implied in the above examples, the non-siege way of destroying buildings is currently flavored as an arson mechanic, but it's still very loosely designed and tentative. So you'll certainly be able to knock down an inn with a catapult, and there will likely be a slightly easier way, but we don't know what that is yet.
Also, I don't know the answer to Nihimon's question, I'm not ignoring it ;) .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing that really struck me, outside of all the great information, is the obvious enthusiasm that seems to burst from Lee as he talks about this stuff.
He is just as excited (probably more so) than we are. It bodes well.
Not hard to understand. Few of us get this close to realizing the dream of making a living doing what you love to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're still nailing down your options for destroying buildings in the gray area between "one pyromaniac" and "a whole team of siege engineers" :) . We don't want it to be so hard that developing the ability to make and field siege engines is the only way to threaten even a weak opponent, but we don't want to make it so easy that a few guys can sneak into town and start quietly burning down buildings.
As implied in the above examples, the non-siege way of destroying buildings is currently flavored as an arson mechanic, but it's still very loosely designed and tentative. So you'll certainly be able to knock down an inn with a catapult, and there will likely be a slightly easier way, but we don't know what that is yet.
Also, I don't know the answer to Nihimon's question, I'm not ignoring it ;) .
I like this, quite a bit.
At the same time, I think it is wrong to make it so that a few guys can't sneak in and burn a building or two down. Obviously it cannot be just anyone, but what about a "saboteur" skill tree? Basically it would be a fighter or rogue with instead of increasing profs and sneak attack, demolition training. I would very much enjoy it, it would make sense, and every group would always want at least one.
Mechanics wise, it would be like anyone sneaking into a settlement. I'd think a way of implementing it would make it so that he can only burn down X amount of buildings a day or whatever, amount based off of settlement level- the lower the DI the less buildings can be burned- which is then adjusted by his sabo level (he can never go over the max allowed by the settlement, but he could lower the number based on his level. Also path the NPC guards to patrol around the settlement (i would like to have varying patrol modes for npcs, but that is for another time) so that they can possibly "catch him in the act" which would auto-resolve the sabo attempt (if it is below a certain % nothing happens, if it is above the % the building is only damaged, not outright destroyed). Finally (for now) you (GW) can make it so such attempts can only be done within the time allotted for attacks on the settlement, if you so desire, or have a time set aside before the attacking time where the sabos can occur, or have an open-door policy for it, or some other method. It is pretty flexible like that. Obviously it requires some mechanics to create and won't be added immediately, but I honestly feel it is worthwhile, not just "wouldn't it be cool if".
Edit: to clarify, I'm not saying that Stephen said "individuals can't burn things down", just commenting on my own opinions of the idea of arson, sobotage, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Further: On the saboteur class/skill tree
I'd just like to point out that making a skill tree that all it does is blow up buildings is not a saboteur, it is a siege engineer. The Saboteur, or sapper, was someone trained as a soldier well enough to fight in battles, but instead of learning advanced manuevers learn how to sneak in somewhere and destroy or obtain intelligence (but not to kill, create mass destruction, etc, spread disease, etc.)
In short the saboteur was someone who was a foot-soldier trained in "Search and Destroy" tactics as apposed to "Shock" tactics, "Suppress" tactics, "Infantry" tactics, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a dev could address this point, it'd be much appreciated.
One of the points mentioned in the podcast was that when it comes to the 8-16 hexes a settlement will want to control, it will be strongly encouraged that those hexes be contiguous and that we'll be disadvantaged not to do so.
How does this apply when there's an NPC road in the way? Our hex for example, K, has roads all around and if we're going to control 8+ contiguous hexes we basically have 1 direction to choose from: North/Northeast. Which is virtually all 1 terrain type. This leaves this hex at a significant disadvantage. It makes a lot more sense to me that we'd be able to take hexes across the road and focus on being a "crossroads" settlement, but the mechanics as described suggest that instead, we'd have serious issues doing that.
Is there any leeway for crossing NPC roads when it comes to "contiguous" territory? Would really appreciate an answer. Thanks very much
I like this, quite a bit.
At the same time, I think it is wrong to make it so that a few guys can't sneak in and burn a building or two down. Obviously it cannot be just anyone, but what about a "saboteur" skill tree? Basically it would be a fighter or rogue with instead of increasing profs and sneak attack, demolition training. I would very much enjoy it, it would make sense, and every group would always want at least one.
Mechanics wise, it would be like anyone sneaking into a settlement. I'd think a way of implementing it would make it so that he can only burn down X amount of buildings a day or whatever, amount based off of settlement level- the lower the DI the less buildings can be burned- which is then adjusted by his sabo level (he can never go over the max allowed by the settlement, but he could lower the number based on his level. Also path the NPC guards to patrol around the settlement (i would like to have varying patrol modes for npcs, but that is for another time) so that they can possibly "catch him in the act" which would auto-resolve the sabo attempt (if it is below a certain % nothing happens, if it is above the % the building is only...
Maybe this could be, like, a "Raid" mechanic—the main way for a homeless CC to attack a settlement. It only allows a short attack window* and is much less effective, being unable to immediately destroy any but the weakest buildings. With multiple Raids, the target starts to lose money, and might even lose a structure or two.
*Weird idea: Maybe it has to be launched something like fifteen minutes at most before the settlement's Attack Window closes, making "do the damage and run" a big priority.
Harad: "You expressed a very lot of enthusiasm about, uh, a gunslinger type. Are there any other things you have a lot of enthusiasm of, that you would like to see eventually be optional for us bringing in?"
Lee Hammock: "[Bunch of stuff where he forgets to mention Mammoth Riders.]"
Dammit, Lee.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
KC, I forgot to ask him, if we bring in gunslinger, well we also have siege cannon?
Perhaps mounted on a mammoth's back?
Numeria allies with the Mammoth Lords. Just f&+*ing run.
Also, the new music's a nice touch. Where'd we get it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Further: On the saboteur class/skill tree
I'd just like to point out that making a skill tree that all it does is blow up buildings is not a saboteur, it is a siege engineer. The Saboteur, or sapper, was someone trained as a soldier well enough to fight in battles, but instead of learning advanced manuevers learn how to sneak in somewhere and destroy or obtain intelligence (but not to kill, create mass destruction, etc, spread disease, etc.)
In short the saboteur was someone who was a foot-soldier trained in "Search and Destroy" tactics as apposed to "Shock" tactics, "Suppress" tactics, "Infantry" tactics, etc.
Knowledge: Engineering
Make the the same people responsible (or improving) or constructing your own settlement structures. They then become valuable to have on the front line as well as in your home settlement.
Be cool if 'pyromaniacs' and rogues with 'disable device' skills could also do it, but not be quite as effective as the engineer.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any leeway for crossing NPC roads when it comes to "contiguous" territory? Would really appreciate an answer. Thanks very much
I think we were planning to measure "encouraged to be contiguous" by "increasing maintenance difficulty the further your controlled hexes are from your settlement," but Lee and Tork may have changed their minds on that since we last talked about it. Which is to say, it's optimal to claim the six around your core, then the twelve around those, and so on, with long peninsulas of hexes and lone hexes being suboptimal. NPC hexes in the way just basically bisect your bubble of control.
Which is to say, controlling across a road, as long as you're trying to keep your holdings tight, probably won't be an excessive penalty. And the loss of those NPC hexes is hopefully made up for immediate access to a major trade line. But, to reiterate, I may be mistaken as I haven't been in on any discussions about that lately.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thought about the "solo burner" versus the "large company-siege engine" needed would be give each type of a building both a hardening level and defensive value. Both of these could be hidden or visible possibly as a trade-off for some other benefit.
Some structure fairly easy to build that has little natural defenses, such a granary, could have a hardness value of 1 and 10 defensive points (at base - skills of the construction team or settlement could boost this). The hardening level allows one player to affect it, 10 defensive points might take a certain amount of damage to destroy (say 1000 structural damage). Maybe only certain types of weapons can deal this class of damage... I enjoy the thought of an early "weaken-your-enemy" tactic would be to have small forces hit a few choice targets either as a distraction or to harass a stronger enemy.
A much more fortified object that requires many more resources/refinements, characters working together, and skill levels to develop, like a well developed advanced central keep might have a hardness value of 20 and 2000 defensive points. That would mean 20 "types" of damaging (20 different sources of damage within a time frame - a siege engine could count as multiples like x5) and the structural defensive points would be too daunting for all but a truly massive force.
Every thing else would be in-between: (temples, markets, company halls, taverns, etc etc. Of course the scaling, benefits of skills, and maximum reasonable values would have to be worked out. This type of thinking might also caused settlement leaders to agonize over where to put which susceptible structures within the settlement during construction phases (or changes that need to be made after losses and analysis) ... another fun dimension to the game!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding why we would want to cross the NPC road (time for some poultry levity?), if contiguous-ness can extend across the road, it'll make it less obvious where settlements like Talonguard at K must expand and need to maintain a bubble of control. I'm sure we'll have a fun enough time controlling the badlands monster hex immediately to the north - I hope!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a distant future project is the Gunslinger, love it. It should come before Numeria though. Laser Guns would be kinda silly without Gunslingers to use them first.
Does sound like there will be a lot to consider about settlement building.
I like that Aristocrat with be taking on the role of Military officer, I'm not sure that taking the away from them or weakening them when Cavalier become available is a good idea though unless they let Aristocrats invested in Officer training transfer their skills to appropriate Cavalier trees. Personally, I would rather they keep distinct roles with Aristocrats being leaders of Armies, Cavalier being leaders of Formations, and Bardic music being an area of effect buffer because Bards should be major buffers too.
Basically, the bigger the conflict the more you want your Aristocrats out in force.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I remember correctly Lee mentioned that Ranger and Druid would be among the last classes developed due to the complexity of handling animal companions. As someone interested in playing a Druid I would suggest releasing these classes without their animal companion (AC) first, and then having the AC be something they can acquire later.
I believe these classes are more than their AC and will be distinct enough from the other classes without their ACs.
I think part of the problem is that if they release them before implementing the Animal Companion, then they'd have to balance them around some other feature, and then they'd have to make significant re-balancing changes when they got around to introducing the Animal Companions later. That's a lot of extra work, much of it just getting thrown out the window later.
I very strongly empathize, though; my wife will want to play a Ranger and I expect she'll be frustrated to some degree about that not being possible for quite some time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH animal companion is not a big part of ranger in the tabletop, and I don't think the class needs that to be developed before its release. I never even took animal companion on any ranger I played, choosing instead the party buff option because ranger animal companions are so weak (basically can't be used at all in combat). I think if rangers were to get unique tracking skills, favored enemy, combat style, and other minor elements, it would be enough to give the class a unique niche without requiring the development of animal companions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I remember correctly Lee mentioned that Ranger and Druid would be among the last classes developed due to the complexity of handling animal companions. As someone interested in playing a Druid I would suggest releasing these classes without their animal companion (AC) first, and then having the AC be something they can acquire later.
I believe these classes are more than their AC and will be distinct enough from the other classes without their ACs.
I think part of the problem is that if they release them before implementing the Animal Companion, then they'd have to balance them around some other feature, and then they'd have to make significant re-balancing changes when they got around to introducing the Animal Companions later. That's a lot of extra work, much of it just getting thrown out the window later.
I very strongly empathize, though; my wife will want to play a Ranger and I expect she'll be frustrated to some degree about that not being possible for quite some time.
Not necessarily. Surely the animal companion is simply a special kind of multi-slot "item." (Maybe one you have to declare?) Balanced with the appropriate slots for a caster, then the would-be-Druid is simply another caster, who can fill those with spells and when companions are available they make the choice of keeping what they have, or giving up a group of slots in order to fit animal companion in.
I think the real issue that delays them would be the behaviour of the companions, not the ability to slot it into the characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed, Caldeathe. I think the big plus and minus of AC (animal companions) is that they have a limited AI response to widely varying situations. How do you target the AC? Will you have to actively (manually) switch AC targets? Can you train an AC to do things like guard, flank, follow, etc.? Can you make the AC heal (break off combat or other actions)? How does the AC respond to damage? Will there be a change that opponents can disrupt, or even take over, your control of an AC?
Also, does there exist a good programmatic mechanic to cover ranger favored enemy? Is the ranger weapon style choice sufficiently different from fighter programmatic mechanics to require separate programming? Do they have to be built from scratch and then integrated (with the inevitable bugs)?
[EDIT: and I don't even want to get started on monks.]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think part of the problem is that if they release them before implementing the Animal Companion, then they'd have to balance them around some other feature, and then they'd have to make significant re-balancing changes when they got around to introducing the Animal Companions later. That's a lot of extra work, much of it just getting thrown out the window later.
I had assumed that they would just follow the TT game. After all, animal companion is an optional class feature. Rather than forming a "Hunter's Bond" with an animal, Rangers can choose to do so with their humanoid companions... which actually works better for an MMO than it does in TT. The Ranger character spends an action to designate a target and all members of their party then get half the Ranger's favored enemy bonus against that target.
Note that 'animal companion' is optional for all of the base classes. Druids can choose to get a Cleric domain instead and Paladins can have a bonded weapon instead of a mount. Thus, if we ignore familiars for the moment, all of the base classes could be implemented without 'pets' and just make the pet options available later without having to 'throw out' the original options.
Edit: As to the cause of delay on 'pets'. AI is part of it, but I suspect that animation is the biggest issue. Each animal will need completely new art and making them move in a remotely reasonable manner will be a significant undertaking, that differs for each creature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to the cause of delay on 'pets'. AI is part of it, but I suspect that animation is the biggest issue. Each animal will need completely new art and making them move in a remotely reasonable manner will be a significant undertaking, that differs for each creature.
Exactly. AI aside, it essentially injects an entire other (very large) group of races into the game, each of which needs to be a hybrid PC/NPC. A much more difficult problem than balancing Druids until they are available.
thanks for the show folks, was an interesting listen
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nice discussion!
I like the theory of future expansions! I vote for expansion to the east and south to encompass the entirety of the River Kingdoms, eventually reaching Daggermark, Loric Fells, Lambeth, and maybe portals into a significant area of each race's capitol, or whatever passes for a capitol (Five Kings Mountains, Kyonin, etc...). Maybe in the long run the different settlements may have to come together to enter the World wound as a large army and fight demons...something we are ostensibly all here to do anyway, or were thinking about it before we set up camp in the River Kingdoms.
After a few months out, I just wanted to share with you guys that I just purchased the Early Acces. So I'm offically in
