Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All settlement buildings have the same reputation requirements.
That's probably where the disconnect comes from. A lot of us were probably thinking of the Alignment and Reputation blog. It had this part in it:
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. This means characters that do a lot of PvP outside of wars, feuds, and such will be forced to visit less developed settlements that are wretched hives of scum and villainy.I didn't realize that it had changed, so the two did feel not so much connected but that one compounded on the other quite well.
There hasnt actually been a change, its just that the original quote wasnt quite as clear as it could be...
Each tier of structure has a minimum reputation requirement to build. But a settlement's reputation requirement is set settlement wide.
So if you want to build high tier stuff you have to have a high settlement reputation minimum. That minimum applies to ALL settlement structures, even if they are crappy. There is only ONE reputation minimum per settlement even if you have structures of diverse tiers in that settlement.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Erm... I thought he made that clear.
The reputation system is designed to discourage undesirable behaviour. The settlement limitations are designed to encourage interaction between settlements and players.
Further
Your settlement cannot do everything, just like your character cannot do everything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So its another mechanic to accomplish what a few mechanics are already doing?
What other mechanics address the settlement thing?
This restriction allows for settlements to make choices that further define whom they are instead of being Walmart. The fact that you can support almost everything means that other players can still play with their friends without sacrificing their role. I just don't see the issue after Tork's clarification.|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think it would be better if support for everything (except very opposed class) wasn't a choice to be made at the cost of some other choices.
Maybe a solution would be that you don't need a support building if you are in a nation which has already a settlement with the training facility of said role.
This way, an independent and secluded settlement could support everything at the cost of some other buildings, but a nation could be composed of more specialised settlements, sharing the support with each other.
I think it would be better if support for everything (except very opposed class) wasn't a choice to be made at the cost of some other choices.
Maybe a solution would be that you don't need a support building if you are in a nation which has already a settlement with the training facility of said role.
This way, an independent and secluded settlement could support everything at the cost of some other buildings, but a nation could be composed of more specialised settlements, sharing the support with each other.
Under the current system you can build all support buildings if you want, that is an option, doing so would probably let you cover everything but opposite alignment restricted things with the caveat that training needs to be found elsewhere.
The downside to allowing easy access to full support is that while specialization could be a thing, it doesn't need to be a thing. So instead you would probably have one settlement handle the majority of their needs and only build a new settlement to handle all the special cases, reducing the need of multiple settlement to only 2 or maybe 3, in the case of splitting along alignment restrictions. Every nation would only need 3 settlements to support everything in the game then.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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.
Except that the settlement that they want to train at has a high minimum Reputation, because it needs to in order to have the buildings to train. Also, their home settlement needs a high min rep in order to support those skills.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Under the current system you can build all support buildings if you want, that is an option, doing so would probably let you cover everything but opposite alignment restricted things with the caveat that training needs to be found elsewhere.
The downside to allowing easy access to full support is that while specialization could be a thing, it doesn't need to be a thing. So instead you would probably have one settlement handle the majority of their needs and only build a new settlement to handle all the special cases, reducing the need of multiple settlement to only 2 or maybe 3, in the case of splitting along alignment restrictions. Every nation would only need 3 settlements to support everything in the game then.
I understand your point, but I think that it would be better if they added more diversity, than creating some artificial need for choice.
I am really with the crowd supporting the "friends" argument.
I would find it very very stupid, if I was forced to live in say Brighthaven because I want to be cleric, and my friend in Phaeros, because he wants to be a roguee. These are not opposed roles, and I would consider it very bad design to discourage it.
I sympathize with the friends problem, but it breaks the higher tier game system too much to allow the friends convenience. It comes down to which choice is healthier for the game-state they wish to achieve, the answer appears to be spread it around.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Brighthaven because I want to be cleric, and my friend in Phaeros, because he wants to be a roguee. These are not opposed roles, and I would consider it very bad design to discourage it.
But you don't have to do that. You can have your friend live with you in Brighthaven, as long as it offers support for rogues. He would just need to go to Phaeros to train up his rogue.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Brighthaven because I want to be cleric, and my friend in Phaeros, because he wants to be a roguee. These are not opposed roles, and I would consider it very bad design to discourage it.But you don't have to do that. You can have your friend live with you in Brighthaven, as long as it offers support for rogues. He would just need to go to Phaeros to train up his rogue.
Well yeah, except if phaeros doesn't support cleric, because it needed something else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My prediction is that most/almost all settlements will support all of the basic (starting 4) roles.
I do wonder how much divergence there will be between some roles, like Barbarian and Fighter. If a Barbarian wants to join a settlement that has no support for her role, she may be able to do 90% of the Fighter stuff already, and fully transition to a pure Fighter with only 10-20% of the training time. Likewise a Fighter who finds himself in a Barbarian-pure settlement (although I do doubt such will exist, one never knows) might not need a huge amount of training.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It is not bad design
It is just design you do not agree with.
If it is more important to a settlement, that every individual gets to play whatever they want, they can choose to go that route.
It would be a bad decision most likely, but the option is there.
I -consider- it bad design. it's not a peremptory affirmation.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well yeah, except if phaeros doesn't support cleric, because it needed something else.Brighthaven because I want to be cleric, and my friend in Phaeros, because he wants to be a roguee. These are not opposed roles, and I would consider it very bad design to discourage it.But you don't have to do that. You can have your friend live with you in Brighthaven, as long as it offers support for rogues. He would just need to go to Phaeros to train up his rogue.
Yes. In in the remarkably unlikely situation you describe you would have to find another settlement to join together.
OR, since this is a game about interaction you could lobby for Cleric support. If this really is the settlement full of all your friends you should be able to get some good sway going. Hell, you could even often to take your friends out adventuring to raise both the DI (through trophy capture) and the resources to cover the cost of the Cleric structure yourself. If, however, you are living in a settlement where a) your role is super-niche and contrary to their focus and b) you are being ignored by settlement management, you might want to consider a new home anyway.
So in this example we can hopefully see the opportunity for both social interaction and meaningful choices.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Yes. In in the remarkably unlikely situation you describe you would have to find another settlement to join together.
I am sorry, but I don't really see how this situation is remarkably unlikely ? Because from what I understand, the point of your system is, to discourage multi-support. So it will happen a lot.
I totally understand that niche-roles are more tricky, but I wouldn't consider it a meaningful choice, to see a settlement without support for every classic basic roles. I understand what you say, and I understand what you mean, but I just don't think that it's a good design. You are free to hear it or not, but since crowd-forging is one of the bases of this game, I consider it fair, to express myself on the matter.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could Ryan, Lee, Stephen, Tork, somebody share the rationale for limiting support?
Probably not any clearer than we have already, heres a summary since some of these points are spread out across different threads/posts.
1) Encourage inter-settlement communication and travel- Specifically we want to encourage settlements to keep their gates open, at least while their PvP window is closed.
2) Encourage friction within settlement management - dont like the way your settlement is run or the choices they have made? Go and make your own, get elected to the leadership, or campaign for a leadership role in another settlement. Politic. Backstab. Organise a coup.
3) Encourage diversity in settlement creation - Alignment, faction interest, and reputation are mechanics that affect what a settlement can do. Social pressures within management, settlement location, and alliances are all external, non-mechanical pressures that will push each settlement in a unique direction.
4) Create interesting economic and social implications for Settlement - See a niche in the available training in-game? Fill it in your settlement and reap the rewards. First settlement to reach X% standing with a particular faction? Capitalize on that by being the first and only settlement to offer their specific training. Find yourselves in a relatively safe location and able to maintain some good alliances? Go crafting crazy and corner the trade market!
5) Create dependencies beyond the settlement - your settlement cant do everything and there are going to be gaps to fill... Maybe thats martial so you need to hire some mercenaries now and again. Maybe that crafting, so you need to ship in raw materials. Maybe thats gathering/harvesting, so you need to swap all your excess ore for some corn. Whatever the pressure, a settlement should not become a closed entity.
6) Create interesting mechanical balance and imbalance between settlements - settlements should be like characters. A mage can blast you from a distance but will come apart when you get up close. A cleric can play a long game with healing, buffs, and status effect removal for a long time but will struggle to close a battle...
We want this in settlements too. If your enemy is strong in X, develop Y. Every choice you make in PFO will close off other choices and that WILL make you vulnerable to certain kinds of attack.
Over all the answer is "your settlement should not be able to do everything". That is the driving principal within settlement systems. I hope from the above you can understand why, but I appreciate that there are players who will always say 'but I want to do X AND Y AND Z'. That, a good game does not make :) This is not a single player game and this is not WoW. You will not be the best at everything, even though you are paying to subscribe to this game. I know that for some players that is a frustrating prospect but that is the nature of PFO. That is the game we are setting out to make.
Choices and consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Count me with the people who are no longer as concerned after reading Tork's posts.
Also, please note that I was pretty concerned before Tork joined the conversation, and I intend to play at very high reputation. Concern about this system was definitely not restricted to people who might be suspected of wanting to kill indiscriminately.
Between duels, SAD, alignment, faction, feuds and warfare, I don't expect to see onerous restrictions on anyone's choice of PvP targets. Can I attack every PC I run across, without losing reputation? No. Will I lack for valid targets? I predict I won't.
Actually, can one of the experts verify that there will be a duel mechanic? By duel, I mean a system where one player challenges another, the recipient accepts the challenge, and neither side loses reputation for the ensuing combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Count me with the people who are no longer as concerned after reading Tork's posts.
Also, please note that I was pretty concerned before Tork joined the conversation, and I intend to play at very high reputation. Concern about this system was definitely not restricted to people who might be suspected of wanting to kill indiscriminately.
Between duels, SAD, alignment, faction, feuds and warfare, I don't expect to see onerous restrictions on anyone's choice of PvP targets. Can I attack every PC I run across, without losing reputation? No. Will I lack for valid targets? I predict I won't.
Actually, can one of the experts verify that there will be a duel mechanic? By duel, I mean a system where one player challenges another, the recipient accepts the challenge, and neither side loses reputation for the ensuing combat.
It's old information, but this is the last I've seen on the subject of dueling:
This was a question asked in several places and I only answered it in the thread about the most recent blog post, and that answer was buried in the middle of several other responses so I'm sure some missed it.
Pathfinder Online is unlikely to have a standard mechanism for non-lethal duels. There is a place in the River Kingdoms that has a gladiatorial arena and I could see some development of that concept in the future (not promising, just saying I can see the potential).
Here's why dueling won't be in the game:
1: It's immersion breaking. How does a mage cast a non-lethal fireball or lightning bolt? Aren't "barbarian rage" and "non-lethal" mutually incompatible? How does one inflict "non-lethal" sneak attacks? What do crafters, harvesters, transporters or diplomats do in a duel that reflects their characters? In short, it's a system that really only appeals to a narrow selection of character types and that's a bad investment of design time & resources.
2: It sucks to be bothered about it. Sir Awesome is world-renowned. As he travels from place to place he's constantly asked to participate in duels. Since his player's idea of this character is "never runs from a fight", poor Sir Awesome is therefore compelled to accept these constant and disrupting challenges, or break his player's character concept.
3: It is a resource-drain with no reward. Combat depletes resources. Combat in PvE and PvP can produce a net positive resource reward. In a duel, all that happens is stuff gets consumed with no offsetting reward. Therefore only super-rich characters who just don't care anymore about money will do it. Don't talk about "honor". If you want honor, go out into the world and earn it the old fashioned way by slaying monsters, building kingdoms, leading armies or any of the other numerous options available in the game.
4: It devalues "real" combat. If people want to fight, take the risks that entails. Riskless combat means that "real" combat is less interesting. If the only way to test yourself against a live human opponent is to mix it up with death on the line, you'll care a lot more about the encounter than if it's just some theatrical performance without consequence.
5: It's likely to be one of those things that "Sounds Cool", but then "Nobody Does". Obviously mis-matched opponents won't do it. Anyone who is worried that others are tying to figure out how to beat them won't do it (why give your potential enemies a free tutorial on how you fight?). Players with character concepts that would otherwise avoid such confrontations won't do it (why are the two paladins fighting again?) Enemies won't do it (just getting into the same space is likely to lead to a "real" fight - that's the whole point of having enemies!)
6: The only people who are likely to really want do it are the same people who you probably find annoying elsewhere in the game system. Giving those kinds of people fewer things to keep them interested in the game may get them to quit sooner and go to some other venue that better caters to their little miserable hearts full of sociopathy.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Yes. In in the remarkably unlikely situation you describe you would have to find another settlement to join together.I am sorry, but I don't really see how this situation is remarkably unlikely ? Because from what I understand, the point of your system is, to discourage multi-support. So it will happen a lot.
I totally understand that niche-roles are more tricky, but I wouldn't consider it a meaningful choice, to see a settlement without support for every classic basic roles. I understand what you say, and I understand what you mean, but I just don't think that it's a good design. You are free to hear it or not, but since crowd-forging is one of the bases of this game, I consider it fair, to express myself on the matter.
I'm not sure what other way I can make it clear, so this'll be my last crack at it.
Even in a settlement which specifically EXCLUDES support, i.e. chooses to support the MINIMUM number of things they can, SEVEN classes are still supported. There are only 4 classes in Alpha. There are only 11 core classes in all of Pathfinder.
In addition, the choice of which classes to support is made by the settlement, not by Goblin Works. If you want to ensure your class is supported get involved. If you dont want to get involved then you will need to live with the consequences. Pathfinder is a game of agency. Your agency. You, the player. The game extends beyond logging in and killing creatures. If you want to make sure something happens I'm afraid you are going to have to roll up your sleeves and work on it. That is the nature of a sandbox game.
I am completely happy to agree that there may be a situation where you cannot train or even be supported in the same settlement as your friend. That is the way the system is designed. If that is your point then you are correct. That is deliberate and meets the design goal. If what you are saying is that you do not like that design goal I cant possibly argue with that :)
I hope I have managed to convey the way in which you, the player, get to control where and when those issues occur, and I hope that I have been able to indicate that because of the way the system works they will be rare. It doesnt really seem productive to try and convince you that you will LOVE this design since until you see it in action you will probably remain dubious of it. Its useful to have a dissenting voice because in some cases that raises important points and considerations that send us designers into a frenzy of discussion.
Thank you for being part of the crowdforging process. It benefits everyone in the long run.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I am completely happy to agree that there may be a situation where you cannot train or even be supported in the same settlement as your friend. That is the way the system is designed. If that is your point then you are correct. That is deliberate and meets the design goal. If what you are saying is that you do not like that design goal I cant possibly argue with that :)
Indeed, I do not like that specific design, and indeed, I really don't like to hear "you will love it, you'll see". That doesn't mean that I will argue stupidly for hours to try to terrorise you into changing it. :p
Your intentions are clear, and I am totally fine with waiting to see how that goes. Maybe that it won't work in practice, like a lot of things in a lot of games, and that you will change it, and maybe that it will work perfectly, and that we will love it, I am completely open on the outcome, really. I have doubts, but I don't have any problem with giving you my trust, so I will wait and see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There hasnt actually been a change, its just that the original quote wasnt quite as clear as it could be...Each tier of structure has a minimum reputation requirement to build. But a settlement's reputation requirement is set settlement wide.
So if you want to build high tier stuff you have to have a high settlement reputation minimum. That minimum applies to ALL settlement structures, even if they are crappy. There is only ONE reputation minimum per settlement even if you have structures of diverse tiers in that settlement.
That's what I thought all along. So, is there anything wrong with this analysis?
Jason is from murderhoboville. Murderhoboville has such a low minimum reputation set that it can only support Tier 1 buildings.
Jason wants to train Tier 2. To train Tier 2, he has to raise his reputation enough to get into a town with Tier 2 buidlings, such as Goodingsville.
Even if he raises his reputation enough to train in Goodingsville, it does him no good if he's still living in murderhoboville (since murderhoboville only supports tier 1).
Jason relocates to Goodingsville to keep his Tier 2 available, so now he has to keep his reputation at Goodingsville's minimum.
Months later, Jason wants to train Tier 3. Goodingsville still only supports/trains Tier 2, so Jason has to find another city with Tier 3 to train at.
He finds Twoshoesington. He has to raise his reputation again to train at Twoshoesington. Of course once he trains, he has to relocate to a town with Tier 3 support/training (and thus the higher reputation minimum) to keep the Tier 3 active.
It reads like poetry. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I get it. I'm willing to try it. Not sold. I think it really hurts the open leveling system also. Players will be afraid to multi class because it doubles or triples the support headache.
At a minimum, seven classes are going to be supported by any settlement. There is room for a lot of different multi-classing even with just seven supported classes.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
There hasnt actually been a change, its just that the original quote wasnt quite as clear as it could be...Each tier of structure has a minimum reputation requirement to build. But a settlement's reputation requirement is set settlement wide.
So if you want to build high tier stuff you have to have a high settlement reputation minimum. That minimum applies to ALL settlement structures, even if they are crappy. There is only ONE reputation minimum per settlement even if you have structures of diverse tiers in that settlement.
That's what I thought all along. So, is there anything wrong with this analysis?
Jason is from murderhoboville. Murderhoboville has such a low minimum reputation set that it can only support Tier 1 buildings.
Jason wants to train Tier 2. To train Tier 2, he has to raise his reputation enough to get into a town with Tier 2 buidlings, such as Goodingsville.
Even if he raises his reputation enough to train in Goodingsville, it does him no good if he's still living in murderhoboville (since murderhoboville only supports tier 1).
Jason relocates to Goodingsville to keep his Tier 2 available, so now he has to keep his reputation at Goodingsville's minimum.
Months later, Jason wants to train Tier 3. Goodingsville still only supports/trains Tier 2, so Jason has to find another city with Tier 3 to train at.
He finds Twoshoesington. He has to raise his reputation again to train at Twoshoesington. Of course once he trains, he has to relocate to a town with Tier 3 support/training (and thus the higher reputation minimum) to keep the Tier 3 active.
This is correct. I very much hope these become real towns in game :)
One (composite) question though - why does Jason not live in Twoshoesington to start? Or move there at step 2? Or encourage Murderhoboville to raise its rep?
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
I am completely happy to agree that there may be a situation where you cannot train or even be supported in the same settlement as your friend. That is the way the system is designed. If that is your point then you are correct. That is deliberate and meets the design goal. If what you are saying is that you do not like that design goal I cant possibly argue with that :)Indeed, I do not like that specific design, and indeed, I really don't like to hear "you will love it, you'll see". That doesn't mean that I will argue stupidly for hours to try to terrorise you into changing it. :p
Your intentions are clear, and I am totally fine with waiting to see how that goes. Maybe that it won't work in practice, like a lot of things in a lot of games, and that you will change it, and maybe that it will work perfectly, and that we will love it, I am completely open on the outcome, really. I have doubts, but I don't have any problem with giving you my trust, so I will wait and see.
I appreciate your trust. I'm also totally prepared to admit I'm not infallible... I'm designing in the abstract, dont forget (such is the nature of game design!) so who the hell knows... (hopefully me!) But I very much appreciate the trust.
I will say though that I, unfortunately, have more info than we have put out into the world - both deliberately (cos some of its not locked in) and just by osmosis, since I've been working on the game for 18 months. So things that seem much more definite/cut-and-dried to me I totally appreciate are still a bit nebulous to you guys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even in a settlement which specifically EXCLUDES support, i.e. chooses to support the MINIMUM number of things they can, SEVEN classes are still supported. There are only 4 classes in Alpha. There are only 11 core classes in all of Pathfinder.
LOL!
So... this entire ~250 post thread might become relevant in a year or so... after the settlement system, the skill support system, and at least four additional classes are added to the game. IF you happen to live in a settlement that avoids support structures like the plague AND choose one of the 1 to 4 classes OTHER than the seven the settlement would then support anyway.
Mountain meet molehill.
2) Encourage friction within settlement management - dont like the way your settlement is run or the choices they have made? Go and make your own, get elected to the leadership, or campaign for a leadership role in another settlement. Politic. Backstab. Organise a coup.
Tork, thanks for helping to clear up so much.
Can I ask what the plan is to make these splits possible? It seems like there is a severe risk of a level 20 guy splitting off with his buddies to form his own settlement, only to find himself losing his powers too quickly.
I can already see potential solutions: The guy could play nice within his old settlement, while he quietly leads his guys on unprovoked assaults against the place they want to conquer. Once the target settlement is down, they quit the old settlement and build a new one.
But that doesn't seem very easy to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can I ask what the plan is to make these splits possible? It seems like there is a severe risk of a level 20 guy splitting off with his buddies to form his own settlement, only to find himself losing his powers too quickly.
I can already see potential solutions: The guy could play nice within his old settlement, while he quietly leads his guys on unprovoked assaults against the place they want to conquer. Once the target settlement is down, they quit the old settlement and build a new one.
But that doesn't seem very easy to do.
Well, I suspect this is part of the reason why your abilities don't shut off immediately upon loss of support, but rather give you a full month to find an alternative. Worst case scenario, if the build up is going too slowly, you could always bounce back to your old settlement to reset the countdown.
A month? I thought it was 24 hours. That's fine, then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can I ask what the plan is to make these splits possible? It seems like there is a severe risk of a level 20 guy splitting off with his buddies to form his own settlement, only to find himself losing his powers too quickly.
I can already see potential solutions: The guy could play nice within his old settlement, while he quietly leads his guys on unprovoked assaults against the place they want to conquer. Once the target settlement is down, they quit the old settlement and build a new one.
Companies can move en masse. If the level 20 guy can hold his company together, he can leave one settlement and join another that supports their mix of skills to an acceptable level. Or join another settlement with the expressed purpose of being part of a new third settlement.*
Will settlements consider taking in entire mature companies? I think many will be leery - it just isn't done that way in other MMOs. But most MMOs don't have the differentiation between companies and settlements.
* Of course, this sort of depends on the level 20 guy not having built up a reputation of being a major jerk or drama queen on his journey from level 1 to 20.