Goblin Squad Member
|
... limiting settlement class SUPPORT does nothing for this game...It ensures there's a mechanical correlation (through your Settlement) between your Reputation and your Character Abilities.
I've been around long enough to see that correlation cause problems for folks who don't want to be punished for having a Low Reputation. I have absolutely zero sympathy for them.
Already addressed:
Skill support tied to settlement quality is absolutely a necessity in order to keep the reputation model working.
*Role-specific support* with each role requiring specific and separate support is not a necessary attribute of this design.
Allowing each settlement to support all roles at a level based on its quality/rep threshold completely addresses concerns about highly-trained griefers without compelling a choice between the role I want to play and the settlement I want to play in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You should be able to train anywhere that will let you.I haven't understood this one yet. If one only needs to be able to convince a Settlement to let one train for the minute or two it takes to accomplish that, it may've required no more than a few minutes' meaningful human interaction, after which one can walk out the gate, never to contribute to that Settlement's well-being again.
Well from my POV I think part of the meaningful human interaction comes not from the actual act of training itself. It comes from a settlement being 'known' in the lands as offering a type of training. This gives incentive for people to travel perhaps from great distances to reach said destination. Along their travels perhaps they run into other people and have different experiences along the way. For that to work the different feats and options should be varied enough that numerous groups can stand out. That will probably take significant time to happen though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are running a Settlement that has lots of Paladins and some Rogues in it, there's going to be friction when you make the decision of whether or not to provide Assassin training.A little off topic, but:
Is this a valid example? Don't you need to be evil to train assassin skills? Rogues don't need to be evil, do they?
It could easily happen. It would have to be a LN settlement. Some members are paladins, some are rogues, some are other things. Some of the rogues want to branch into assassin skills. Does the town put resources and valuable land slots to that purpose?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It could easily happen. It would have to be a LN settlement. Some members are paladins, some are rogues, some are other things. Some of the rogues want to branch into assassin skills. Does the town put resources and valuable land slots to that purpose?If you are running a Settlement that has lots of Paladins and some Rogues in it, there's going to be friction when you make the decision of whether or not to provide Assassin training.A little off topic, but:
Is this a valid example? Don't you need to be evil to train assassin skills? Rogues don't need to be evil, do they?
I suppose so. Perhaps I have blinders on in considering where paladins should be signed up. ;P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was always under the impression Assassin skills would be under Chaotic alignment. Now as far as evil goes, I've seen people make a case for it being evil and neutral and even good at times. ;)
Assassin skills are definitely on the evil side of the chart. There are lawful evil assassins such as Red Mantis. Chaos is about breaking laws without necessarily being evil, e.g. banditry.
Take a look at this dev blog.
Honestly, my real problem with Support is one mentioned early on.
If I'm a high-level member of Kobopolis, I shouldn't be penalized for breaking away and starting my own settlement. It should be easier for me to do it, compared to a new guy.
Support shouldn't be so inconvenient as to make acquiring support impossible.
Actually, hang on. If Goblinworks does this right, maybe you could get your Support from a third party settlement sponsoring you while building a new settlement. This lets you keep your levels long enough to get set up, and encourages you to have at least one friend from the outset.
Once the settlement reaches a certain point, you're no longer allowed to have the other guys as your Sponsored Settlement, and the village you built becomes your new port of harbor.
This is all the more reason to make the creation of Support Structures quick and easy, of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... limiting settlement class SUPPORT does nothing for this game...It ensures there's a mechanical correlation (through your Settlement) between your Reputation and your Character Abilities.
I've been around long enough to see that correlation cause problems for folks who don't want to be punished for having a Low Reputation. I have absolutely zero sympathy for them.
I'm still irked by this one. Are you implying Golgotha will have a low reputation threshold?
Eh, some murders are good in the long run. Assassinating an evil politician while he sleeps may be ethically dubious, but if it keeps him from sending armies to enslave villages and burn down orphanages, is it evil?
Assassination is a game mechanic, not a profession. Whether or not it should be Evil is a matter for another thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eh, some murders are good in the long run. Assassinating an evil politician while he sleeps may be ethically dubious, but if it keeps him from sending armies to enslave villages and burn down orphanages, is it evil?
Assassination is a game mechanic, not a profession. Whether or not it should be Evil is a matter for another thread.
Already had that conversation over two years ago. Killing is evil. Morality is static in Golarion, not dynamic like it is on Earth.
Assassinating an Evil Warlord of 2500 rep would be the same as a benevolent King of 2500 rep.
=)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, it's not like there can't be multiple settlements that are allied in a meta-game way though, right? It seems like it'd be smart to do that, then, and at the top it would seem the mega guild with multiple settlements would be even more powerful.They have stated a few times in the Gobbocasts and in a few dev posts that you may be able to support every class but its not going to be top tier skills. They seem to want to avoid having cities where you can find a level 20 of every class and I am not sure why they want that to happen.Because they don't want powerhouse nations/settlements composed of mega guilds that become unstopabble since none of the smaller companies can support getting every role up to max level. At least that is my understandinf of the limiting mechanics. This is all aside from the meaningful interaction aspect.
Yes, there can be. They're called player nations.
Under the system as proposed, though, the nations will still be divided into settlements that can only support a limited number of roles, and each player can only be affiliated with one settlement. So, if none of your nation's settlements support the oddball combination of roles you want to have active, you're still in a bad way.
Eh, some murders are good in the long run. Assassinating an evil politician while he sleeps may be ethically dubious, but if it keeps him from sending armies to enslave villages and burn down orphanages, is it evil?
Assassination is a game mechanic, not a profession. Whether or not it should be Evil is a matter for another thread.
Already had that conversation over two years ago. Killing is evil. Morality is static in Golarion, not dynamic like it is on Earth.
Assassinating an Evil Warlord of 2500 rep would be the same as a benevolent King of 2500 rep.
=)
Reputation is completely separate from alignment, as you just pointed out. I have no idea what your point is about static vs. dynamic, but killing in Golarion is not inherently evil. If that was true, adventurers would all be Evil—especially paladins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember, it takes 2.5 years to fully train a role, ignoring everything else. It's not like GW doesn't have time to think up better ways to make us interact.
Since i am wholeheartedly against reputation limiting power potential, I can't support that reasoning for keeping role support.
People are already organized into groups, most of them are called guilds. Its already been enough of a headache mapping into company/settlement. We don't need another headache splitting up groups so they don't have to compromise their play style just to stay together.
There are people that want to play together, and they want to play largely different roles. This idea GW has would be great if everyone was coming into the game with no friends.
If I'm not mistaken, the whole point of the reputation system was to punish people who have characters, but aren't playing the same game as the rest of us. The ones whose idea of fun is to make other players miserable, by any means possible.
(Note: I should be able to beat you in a fight and raze your settlement to the ground, without losing a point of reputation. When I exploit a face-to-face trade system bug to rob you, or hang out near the starter town and curb-stomp newbs all day, or attack you without one of the half-dozen reasons built into the game (war, SAD, duel, different faction, etc.), that's when I should lose reputation. If you choose to do things that lower your reputation, then you face consequences that are specifically intended to make the game less fun for you.)
If reputation really works as planned, and doesn't become a popularity contest, then I have no problem with GW inconveniencing low reputation players in this and many other ways.
Regarding playing with friends, don't forget that you don't have to party with people from your settlement, or your guild, or your company. Sure, it's more convenient to play with people who usually log in on the same side of the map you do, but having to meet at the dungeon entrance shouldn't be that bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding playing with friends, don't forget that you don't have to party with people from your settlement, or your guild, or your company. Sure, it's more convenient to play with people who usually log in on the same side of the map you do, but having to meet at the dungeon entrance...
If you have to travel for 20-40 minutes, just to play with friends, there is an issue. That adds about an hour of wasted time.
The settlement you 'live' in should have nothing to do with it's functionality, it should be about the people in it. The functionality of a settlement should just be its source of income.
The alignment system already limits current groups of friends enough. I'm guessing 10-15% of most gaming group's members are having to change their play style if they want to stay with the group.
The system as described would work great if everyone came into the game with no prior associations, and no friends.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system as described would work great if everyone came into the game with no prior associations, and no friends.
It's true that we might have had a much easier time merging into other groups if we weren't constrained by the alignment choices of our membership. We simply can't function in a settlement that isn't NG, in order to accommodate all of our players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding playing with friends, don't forget that you don't have to party with people from your settlement, or your guild, or your company. Sure, it's more convenient to play with people who usually log in on the same side of the map you do, but having to meet at the dungeon entrance...If you have to travel for 20-40 minutes, just to play with friends, there is an issue. That adds about an hour of wasted time.
The settlement you 'live' in should have nothing to do with it's functionality, it should be about the people in it. The functionality of a settlement should just be its source of income.
The alignment system already limits current groups of friends enough. I'm guessing 10-15% of most gaming group's members are having to change their play style if they want to stay with the group.
The system as described would work great if everyone came into the game with no prior associations, and no friends.
I agree with all that. Especially since guilds don't have to have their settlements close to each other. I think I'd be happier if you might have to travel to train, but your feats would always remain useful once trained. The existence of a town where bards and summoners can be as powerful as they want, but fighters and wizards lose feats for staying in town more than a month, seems very strange to me.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that removing limited support offers a simple way to make settlement non-dependent on each other: Train up, then ditch the others. They don't have to be murderhermits (murderhobos are homeless, silly), but they're still a big, powerful group that doesn't need to have dealings with anybody. They can just focus on holding lots of POIs.
Also, Cleaverton can add members: Other high-level players who see Cleaverton is doing really, really well by not having to invest in training newcomers.
Not everyone will be as extreme as Cleaverton, but this can still happen: Train up to a satisfying level and then stop making deals.
This exactly. It makes the mega guilds have to either have multiple settlements, which means more borders to protect, more economic drain, etc leveling the playing field some, or they have to play nice with at least some of their neighbors so that they can keep there players close together.
Also I'm still not seeing why belonging to a different settlement limits you from playing with friends in some other settlement. All it means is that you had to walk 10 minutes (5 if you meet in the middle) to go out and do stuff together.
Essentially I think the whole point is to help limit self dependent settlements (Yes I know there is still the mater of trade etc but honestly if you were low rep and you didn't care what is to stop you from just killing anyone that has the resources you need?)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exept for the having to get training from a city that has high reputation thing. Which we have been told will be needed for the highest tier of training. If the true intent behind this is to stop low rep people from training then simply don't let them train. Stop trying to force people to be unable to play with who they want to.... limiting settlement class SUPPORT does nothing for this game...It ensures there's a mechanical correlation (through your Settlement) between your Reputation and your Character Abilities.
I've been around long enough to see that correlation cause problems for folks who don't want to be punished for having a Low Reputation. I have absolutely zero sympathy for them.
Except that you only need to train once. How do you make someone accountable after they've trained everything they want?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Already addressed:
Allowing each settlement to support all roles at a level based on its quality/rep threshold completely addresses concerns about highly-trained griefers without compelling a choice between the role I want to play and the settlement I want to play in.Skill support tied to settlement quality is absolutely a necessity in order to keep the reputation model working.
*Role-specific support* with each role requiring specific and separate support is not a necessary attribute of this design.
That would certainly deal with the particular need to hold Low Reputation characters accountable. However, I think you may be discounting the value of forcing meaningful choices about what the Settlement does. Allowing every Settlement to support every Role seems kind of silly. Every Settlement will support every Role and still have great Markets and great Crafting facilities. Where are the trade-offs? There need to be opportunity costs.
Yeah, nobody will want to have training houses if they can use the ones of their neighbors. Every single class will be in every single settlement with no investiture.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, nobody will want to have training houses if they can use the ones of their neighbors. Every single class will be in every single settlement with no investiture.
I don't mind not every single class being train-able in every single settlement, but it strikes me as very odd that settlements will be segregated into "the town of bards and sorcerers" versus "the town of fighters and druids". I guess it's going to make inter-settlement warfare very interesting. "Company! Present wands! Ready, aim, fireball!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I think you may be discounting the value of forcing meaningful choices about what the Settlement does. Allowing every Settlement to support every Role seems kind of silly. Every Settlement will support every Role and still have great Markets and great Crafting facilities. Where are the trade-offs? There need to be opportunity costs.
Yes. What a settlement does will determine what a settlement is.
Some towns will be major trade hubs. Not all towns, because there are trade-offs. Some towns will be major trainers for a few skills, but not every town. Some towns will support 4 or 5 or 6 roles. Some towns will support almost every role, but they will sacrifice other things to be so inclusive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah. Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. What would really be a step in the right direction (IMO) would be to allow us to fully support the roles that we choose to have the support structures for, if we choose to build them and keep them upgraded. This at the same possible level as the one's that we choose to have training structures or DI and rep for.
There are hoops enough in alignment restrictions, rep restrictions, limited choice/space, friendly dealings with outside costs, and forced travel to train.
Just as an example: What is the use (beyond personal) of Ozem's Vigil in growing into a nation, having maximum rep and DI and offering tip top Paladin training, if no one else can even support it at those levels? Or anyone else with a similar goal for one of their preferred roles?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens a year down the road when a new patch comes out introducing a new role or two?
Settlements aren't going to be saving space, that's a waste of DI. They aren't going to be advertising that "rogue support is dead when monks come out" because that either creates community members with no real stake, or simply drives people away.
---
Here is the main problem:
Guild Land Rush
Guild.
Go find 200 guilds that are all interested in this game, and have a community that is only planning to cover 1/4th of the roles.
GW explicitly set to target guilds from the start, now they are expecting those guilds to lower their total fun-factor, even more than alignment does, by limiting what classes the guild can play. I'm guessing that most guilds are/were planning to dip into every role, so they could cover all the bases.
---
I'm going to say this again:
If every settlement cannot support every role, then every role needs to be perfectly PvP balanced at all times
Having a Rogue/Wizard settlement needs to be just as viable in PvP as a Fighter/Cleric settlement. A settlement needs to be able to fight for itself.
Now you have created a system for cookie-cutter nations, everyone will use the most optimized setup to cover the entire spectrum in as few settlements as possible.
I do not think there is a group of developers out there that can create a 24/7/365.25 balanced system. The best option is to give each side the exact same toolset, so they can both be OP in the same way.
---
The only reason I see for limiting what roles can live in a settlement, is to force high reputation for high rank skill usage. A much better alternative is to require high reputation to slot high rank skills. Blame it on Phrasma.
Training, and Markets are all the forced interaction you need to create. And alignment restrictions limit what a guild can do more that most people would like.
Role support is a great idea, don't get me wrong, but something like that needs to be one of the listed features in the game's first press release.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With what looks like possibly 21 small lots in a settlement, I am not sure which roles (that you qualify for) that you couldn't cover. You might have to sacrifice other things, but "It's just business, nothing personal." ;)
Edit: Certainly a settlement of 12 guys with 9 different role choices should have a really tough time though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Large structures can train three roles
Medium structures can train one role
Small structures can support one role, but not train it"How many Large Structures can a settlement have?
Can one Large, and one Medium structure not support all four main character roles (Fighter, Rogue, Magic User and Cleric)?
There is not a (1) cleric role, but nine(9), one for each alignment ( or 8 if GW has an issue with CE).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is not a (1) cleric role, but nine(9), one for each alignment ( or 8 if GW has an issue with CE)."Large structures can train three roles
Medium structures can train one role
Small structures can support one role, but not train it"How many Large Structures can a settlement have?
Can one Large, and one Medium structure not support all four main character roles (Fighter, Rogue, Magic User and Cleric)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Read this.There is not a (1) cleric role, but nine(9), one for each alignment ( or 8 if GW has an issue with CE)."Large structures can train three roles
Medium structures can train one role
Small structures can support one role, but not train it"How many Large Structures can a settlement have?
Can one Large, and one Medium structure not support all four main character roles (Fighter, Rogue, Magic User and Cleric)?
This only says that supporting cleric requires a cathedral and then domains (important to clerics) may not be supported. Support a fighter with a small. Support clerics with a large AND MOST domains will not be supported!
That sounds equal! I have had to leave a settlement already. My second choice will not support my domains. This is more restrictions than the other three core, but not as bad as Paladin, Bard, or Barb; but what special twist will happen then. It has been suggested that Paladins can only train in LG, even for shared skills. Barb May have to be chaotically trained or supportive?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting after all this discussion that I still haven't got a single neighbour asking - what do you specialise in - could we try to align what we do and what you do?
Well - still a few weeks to go. But these will be mportant discussions between settlement neighbours ahead of the game.
|
Interesting after all this discussion that I still haven't got a single neighbour asking - what do you specialise in - could we try to align what we do and what you do?
Well - still a few weeks to go. But these will be mportant discussions between settlement neighbours ahead of the game.
Most of these discussions are going on privately, if you'd like more information please PM me for further details, and I'll see what light I can help shed on what the neighborhood looks like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember back in the day when the Kickstarter said this was going to be a classless game? Golgothan Farms remembers.Right now it does seem like more of a class-based system that supports multiclass characters than a truly classless system.
I'm not really clear on what you lose after a month away from a well-developed settlement...
KarlBob's question is good:
* what fraction of our abilities will be "role-specific abilities"?* do we need support for "general" abilities (skirmisher/dreadnaught feats and spells)?
If I keep use of 95% of my abilities it is very different from keeping 60% of them.
example:
For my rogue role I train light armor, stealth, light weapons, power, hitpoints, swashbuckler, cutt-throat and rogue kit proficiency.
If I lose rogue support, do I lose ability to use *any* of these?
Do I lose ability to slot Rogue kits (big deal)?
Do I lose access to all abilities that have "Rogue N" as prerequisite?
Do I lose access to all feats trained at the rogue trainer, but not those trained at the skirmisher?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... allow us to fully support the roles that we choose to have the support structures for, if we choose to build them and keep them upgraded.
Isn't this already the case?
I think people might be conflating the scaling support during the War of Towers with the Support Facilities we'll eventually build in our real Settlements.
Interesting after all this discussion that I still haven't got a single neighbour asking - what do you specialise in - could we try to align what we do and what you do?
I think that would make me a little nervous about my neighbors. If they're not planning on working with you...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have heard multiple times:
supporting all roles at max level should be able to be done by most larger than average settlements.
The question if I agree or disagree really boils down to what 'all' means.
Every larger settlement should be able to support some form of fighting, magic and crafting at the highest level.
But not every settlement should be able to support every specialization.
Example:
The Emerald Lodge won't suppprt an assasins guild and I would regard it as wrong if assasins need to be supported in every single settlement. To me it seems too specific.
So if you are an assasin and your settlement is distroyed - then ideed you might have to look further to get support.
If you are an 'ordinary' fighter I would expect that most settlement can support you and it would be wrong if not.
So to me it depends on ganularity if this is a problem that needs to be addressed or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So this mechanic seems to be in teh game to prevent low rep people from having access to high tier training.
You guys do realise that it fails at that pretty hard.
1. You can train at a city that isnt yours if the people in it will let you.
2. Low rep can still have a city of their own.
3. support structures are way cheaper then training structures.
4. All the low rep people have to do is form a bond with a high rep city. to get their training and then go back to living in murderhobovill that is just chalk full of support buildings.
I imagine the negotiations will go like this. "hey we don't care about about being low rep we will go murder all the people that have mildly annoyed you over the years and pay you for training. Deal? Deal.
I can up with this work around to your restriction after thinking about it for all of 5 minuets. There are a bunch of people on the internet way smarter then I am they will find a way to make it work. So if the point of this mechanic was to inhibit the low rep population it will failed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting after all this discussion that I still haven't got a single neighbour asking - what do you specialise in - could we try to align what we do and what you do?
Well - still a few weeks to go. But these will be mportant discussions between settlement neighbours ahead of the game.
I'd be scared if my neighbors weren't talking to me...just sayin'!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... allow us to fully support the roles that we choose to have the support structures for, if we choose to build them and keep them upgraded.
Isn't this already the case?
If it is, I am happy enough with the system. They have said it will be likely with the "kit" or WotT settlements. I am unsure about "regular" business after... :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the system is so weak, why are some arguing against it so vehemently?
Because its pointless. If the only reason that its in the game is to prevent low rep people from using top tier abilities just write it into the code and be done with it.
You need to maintain a reputation level of x to use tier three stuff. Problem solved. And now you can play the class you want with your friends.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If any settlement has to put energy and expense toward maintaining the ability to train skills, it does make some kind of sense that other settlements should have to put some energy and expense to maintaining them (at the least). Until the likely 21 small lots are refuted to be a much smaller number per settlement, everyone has the potential to support any role they like, and some.
If we are all homogenous, it takes away a bit of the magic of diversity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You cannot play with your friends in the general purpose of the game (settlement warfare) if you are in different settlements. Sure you can do a dungeon (*very unexcited cheer*) but my overall feeling of the game is that the PvE is going to be weak. Until nations are put in even being members of different settlements will be an impediment in warfare without declaring war/feuds or taking reputation hits.
It seems to me that the game systems are working against one another. Groups of people became interested in the game and the land rush was designed around these groups of people. They were divided by alignment. Now, depending on the eventual mechanic they are going to be further divided by support. Maybe there's a method to the madness but GW has no political capital with me.
I can see why a settlement cannot provide master training at all skill sets from a realism standpoint unless they are the largest of cities. Support is a different matter. I stop being able to use skills I use day in and day out (maintaining proficiency) because my settlement doesn't support it? From a realism standpoint it hurts. It isn't causing conflict. I'm not mad that Aeternum went crafting or LN. There's no conflict, just divided goals/styles of play. The only reason I ever looked twice at this game (open PvP, low budget) is because I'd be playing with Paxians, and now the systems have effectively put a stop to that without me sacrificing my preferred play style (don't enjoy neutral or evil play). Depending on the systems I may have to make the decision to diverge from Fidelis as well, but if it comes to that I'll just go play games that I can enjoy with Pax. I could also take playing evil as a challenge and join up with Golgotha.
If someone doesn't enjoy a melee class in heavy armor but has to endure such to play with their friends in a settlement warfare game at the highest levels of ability of their settlement what options do they have? Play in a weaker state or find a new settlement. Those options aren't really that palatable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind I fully understand that POIs could very well provide me full support in part of my aims but it'll likely take even more than one POI for a settlement specialized in paladins and priests. I find it a bit much to ask the settlement to give up two or more POIs/structure slots so I can indulge in my play style goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see why a settlement cannot provide master training at all skill sets from a realism standpoint unless they are the largest of cities. Support is a different matter.
Completely agree. I feel like it would all be better if there was support ability available (as a choice and expense) and that it be at the level the city "could" train it at (as a choice and expense).
If your settlement can't/won't do that for you, then you should make some choices for yourself.
edit: Keep in mind that the best settlements will do that for you if there is enough demand for it or even if it is strategically wise. We all want to support our members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind I fully understand that POIs could very well provide me full support in part of my aims but it'll likely take even more than one POI for a settlement specialized in paladins and priests. I find it a bit much to ask the settlement to give up two or more POIs/structure slots so I can indulge in my play style goal.
POIs are not a solution and will not serve as substitutions for support structures, as they are currently described. POIs will support a very limited selection of skills and really don't impact the discussion very much.