Goblin Squad Member
|
In the existing feud mechanic, companies can spend influence to declare another company as a feud target. Once active, a feud makes all members of the feuding company appear hostile to all members of the feuded party, and vice versa. Pvp with feud enemies carries no reputation or alignment consequences, but this is not considered meaningless pvp because of the influence cost of establishing the feud. Feud targets do not have to consent to the feud.
What if, instead of declaring themselves hostile to all members of a specific feuded company, a company wished to declare themselves hostile to anyone at a specific geographic location, and was willing to spend influence to do so? How is the scenario meaningfully different?
Obviously, the best way to do this is simply claim the hex and build a holding there, then set no-trespassing policies as desired. However, some hexes such as badlands and monster homes cannot be claimed in this manner. For hexes which cannot be fully claimed, there should still be some mechanism for a company to assert a certain level of exclusionary interest- IF they are willing to pay the feud price to do so. (Perhaps multiple companies might plant flags in the same hex- wouldn't that be interesting!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the existing feud mechanic, companies can spend influence to declare another company as a feud target. Once active, a feud makes all members of the feuding company appear hostile to all members of the feuded party, and vice versa. Pvp with feud enemies carries no reputation or alignment consequences, but this is not considered meaningless pvp because of the influence cost of establishing the feud. Feud targets do not have to consent to the feud.
What if, instead of declaring themselves hostile to all members of a specific feuded company, a company wished to declare themselves hostile to anyone at a specific geographic location, and was willing to spend influence to do so? How is the scenario meaningfully different?
Obviously, the best way to do this is simply claim the hex and build a holding there, then set no-trespassing policies as desired. However, some hexes such as badlands and monster homes cannot be claimed in this manner. For hexes which cannot be fully claimed, there should still be some mechanism for a company to assert a certain level of exclusionary interest- IF they are willing to pay the feud price to do so. (Perhaps multiple companies might plant flags in the same hex- wouldn't that be interesting!)
As long as the hex in question isn't one in which everyone has a vested interest, like a starmetal hex, perhaps?
I'm still opposed. The person who declares a feud against anyone in the world who happens to enter an area bigger than a stadium is crazy and deserves to take a reputation hit for doing it.
If a settlement wants to be able to declare open PvP in a hex that the settlement controls, I'm all in favour of that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Claiming an unclaimable hex is exactly that, whether it has a cost or not. If you limited it to hexes that could actually be claimed via PoI/Settlements, then maybe it could have merit, effectively blockading an area as part of a siege or settlement warfare. But not to turn hexes deliberately left out of the territory control into psuedo-ownership.
Yeah, as long as it's way less efficient than a proper claim, this seems like a pretty clever idea. And much safer than the original "general FFA" idea, since this is still costing those declaring the Hex Feud.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Claiming an unclaimable hex is exactly that, whether it has a cost or not. If you limited it to hexes that could actually be claimed via PoI/Settlements, then maybe it could have merit, effectively blockading an area as part of a siege or settlement warfare. But not to turn hexes deliberately left out of the territory control into psuedo-ownership.
I wouldn't call that claiming the hex. Intent to dominate it for a certain amount of time is more like it. If the mechanic were limited to say, an hour, it could be used for very specific purposes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need to be careful about trying to use 'its expensive' as a balancing measure. By nature, the player economy grows over time, making things that used to be prohibitively expensive (the kind of things that people had to pool months of effort to make) into things that a single player can afford in a 6 or so weeks.
Just look at Titans.
If cost would be used to balance a system like this, how the cost is determined must scale, and it must scale well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True, Kadere. GW seems intent on using resource pools like Influence or DI that are more limited than coin/currency. But even then, declaring a star metal hex a feud target might use a significant chunk of Influence. But in the long term, a nation might have a lot of 50-character companies to turn to such a task.
Myself, I think the task might be bigger than a company could manage. It might need a settlement expending DI to effectively turn the hex into a war zone. The cost might scale with the distance from the settlement, how many hexes the settlement has bordering the 'claimed' hex, whatever.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You need to be careful about trying to use 'its expensive' as a balancing measure. By nature, the player economy grows over time, making things that used to be prohibitively expensive (the kind of things that people had to pool months of effort to make) into things that a single player can afford in a 6 or so weeks.
Just look at Titans.
If cost would be used to balance a system like this, how the cost is determined must scale, and it must scale well.
Influence isn't gold. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Influence isn't gold. ;)
True, but unless influence is received in a fixed or not easily increased manner, the potential for issues in this vein still exist. It could well be that the usage of influence to 'fund' these declarations solves the problem - I just felt the point had to be raised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If something like this was to come about, I like there to be a limit on how far away the hex would be to your Settlement or POI is. Over a certain distance, I would say it should not be possible. A group from the South West should not be able to claim a hex located in the North East.
Maybe even going so far as to raise the Influence Cost the further away the hex is, but still not going over the max distance allowed.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*pops head above parapet*
I am into this. I'll have to have a bit of a think about the implications, but it could work if it were super 'spensives. One of the advantages of the Feud system is that the cost is variable according to the power discrepancy between feuder and feudee. This helps prevent too much 'bullying' by larger companies. Allowing feuds against unclaimed hexes doesnt have this balance factor which might be sticky...
I'll have a think and watch this thread for the inevitable back and forth!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guurzak,
This Influence you speak of, is it equivalent to the DI that settlements produce. If so, how is it produced, through PoIs?
If not, what is this Influence you refer too.
This sounds better than all 450+ posts from the other god-awful thread about FFA...
Thanks for your enlightening,
Feuding against a hex could just be affected by how big the Feuder is. It's not quite as refined as the ordinary Feuding system, but it'd still keep things favoring the little guys.
This would ensure that the choice to attack someone is still meaningful, but might defeat the entire purpose of this idea. Hence my putting it in OOC text.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Influence is described here. A company accumulates influence as its members are awarded Achievements, and then influence is spent to claim holdings, declare feuds, purchase companywide boons, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It doesn't allow you to feud everyone. It allows you to feud everyone in that one hex. The hex is avoidable, and the fact that it's a feud site would presumably be visible in the same map info that warns you about open vulnerability windows, no trespassing territories, etc.
If you can feud another company and attack them wherever you find them unless they successfully evade you, then feuding a hex where nobody has to go in if they don't want to seems less dangerous rather than more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the hex feud idea would get around whatever limits influence would put on feuding. It theoretically lets you feud everyone which is probably considered undesirable, I'm sure some bigger groups could probably come up with a way to abuse such a system.
It could be local to a hex and it could cost enough that it is a serious investment/gamble.
I am kind of intrigued but need to see it "forged" a bit. What ways could it be used in that are not good for the game?
Would it be alright to "blockade" a choke point?
I like this better as long as it would be expensive and "local only" and perhaps the ramifications between "allied" Companies are worked out, so they can't be abused.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is a subtle distinction between the ideas, while yes it doesn't mean they have to go in the hex, it still means you could in theory get around the probable limitations to feuding if people choose to go in anyways. And if the goal is to lock the hex down you mind as well claim it.
I think the general philosophy of the game is to prevent players from generically locking down hexes without making a significant infrastructure commitment or allowing for a reputation quandary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't think so, for the infrastructure to be a commitment you actually need to want to keep it and build it up, it shouldn't 'pay for itself' for a good amount of time after you put it up.
Otherwise it's not an investment, it's buying some free pvp which is still against the philosophy I previously stated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it costs as much Influence to feud the hex as it would to build a holding there, is that a "significant infrastructure commitment"?
Would have to see what that cost is and how it compares to the cost of a standard feud. I haven't seen anything that equates placing a building with feuding.
It should not be so cheap that it could be a perpetual feud in a normally non claimable hex, or switch it around between Companies in the same or cooperating settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we're implying that the feud cost for a hex should be at the least the same as trying to claim that hex as that is more or less the intent.
That said I don't think you can factor in the 'investment' part of that equation which makes it not as comparable. I'm equating the systems by intent of use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The existing feud mechanic is "buying some free PVP". It's not free because you pay for it with Influence.
Given that:
* We already have systems planned for exerting territorial control by spending influence to buy a POI
and
* We already have systems planned for non-consensually Hostiling other players by declaring a feud,
there's nothing really novel about exerting territorial control by declaring a feud. It's a reasonable combination of features which are already part of the design.
If I have a limited amount of influence and feuding a hex is expensive, I can choose to either spend it on owning a claimable hex and building a holding there, or on feuding a hex and gaining no property interest. There's a very large opportunity cost for the feud: I'm giving up a POI. That sounds like a pretty meaningful choice and not at all like "free PVP".
Guurzak, the main difference of note is what Tork brought up: Feuding is balanced between the feuders to cost more or less depending on who's stronger than who. A hex loses that scalability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think your not equating cost the same as I am.
I assume based on some comments I vaguely remember the current feud system is built around targeting a specific company and the cost should scale with a company's size to be somewhat fair. Therefore the feud mechanic itself would put inherent limits on how much feuding you could theoretically do.
Feuding a hex would remove these limitations by letting you fight absolutely anyone that entered the hex and essentially mimic most of reasons and mechanics of claiming a hex without the cost of building it up and defending whatever you placed there until it pays for itself.
I again harp that if you aren't making a long term investment in the hex you should not be able to control the hex via a temporary expenditure.
Feuding on a hex should be no less major an investment than claiming a POI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK, I skipped ahead. THis may have been answered.
When a company controls a hex, they have to defeat/wipe out monsters. SO if a group company/settlement/ nation wants to "feud" everyone in a hex, what level of control must they have initially achieved; just walked into hex, killed 50% of monsters, killed 90% -- they CAN NOT kill all.
This is an abnormal control. WHat are penalty if those asserting power loose to NPC, if they loose to PvP? If those how later win control, lose
Why should it be esker to control and hold sky metal that nay other hex.\\WHy is it though this broken and needs your fix vs other options?
1) the PROBLEM is the debs hav not provided enough PvP hexes.
2) If they do, there may not be in game value to the combat.
3) SOlution, take the most valuable sites as places that openly PvP can play. The design and devs can not do better than we. can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference, Lam, is that the feud doesnot give you control over the hex—just declares effective war on anybody who tries to enter. You aren't getting resources from it, nor is it actually your territory. You just wish it was.
Also, this isn't about starmetal hexes. Those are just one of the most logical places to target. You could also declare a Hex Feud on, say, the Emerald Spire, or a monster base hex you want to get the loot from.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, Guurzak, one thing to keep in mind is that there is significant investment in claiming a hex for a PoI even before the cost in influence. You have to clear out the hex's current occupants, who may be reasonably well entrenched and supported. Not to mention the cost in resources to actually construct an PoI, and the effort required to defend it during that construction, all of which has to happen before it is claimed. So even if the influence cost is similar, the cost of declaring a hex FFA would still be far, far cheaper than claiming it for a PoI.
As far as it being a "hex nobody has to go into", that depends. Can you feud a settlement hex? What about a NPC-patrolled road hex? It's not as simple to dismiss it as "easily avoidable" without considering all of the implications.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guurzak, the main difference of note is what Tork brought up: Feuding is balanced between the feuders to cost more or less depending on who's stronger than who. A hex loses that scalability.
The cost of feuding a hex could vary with factors such as proximity to the feuder's settlement, friendly or unfriendly sovereignty of adjacent hexes, type/value/rarity of the hex terrain, escalation state in the hex/ escalation beatdown credit for the feuders, or any other interesting variables.
(Also, tangent: Perhaps the right to feud a hex for a period could be an award for beating an escalation originating in that hex.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guurzak, the main difference of note is what Tork brought up: Feuding is balanced between the feuders to cost more or less depending on who's stronger than who. A hex loses that scalability.The cost of feuding a hex could vary with factors such as proximity to the feuder's settlement, friendly or unfriendly sovereignty of adjacent hexes, type/value/rarity of the hex terrain, escalation state in the hex/ escalation beatdown credit for the feuders, or any other interesting variables.
(Also, tangent: Perhaps the right to feud a hex for a period could be an award for beating an escalation originating in that hex.)
This is bothering me less as time goes by. I'm still not convinced that it's reasonable to feud anyone in a huge area, let alone automatically
It shouldn't be possible to Feud a hex that has an active escalation in it, or it could be abused to let an escalation infect another settlement's area by working to block them from stopping the escalation.
If only the company that cleared a hex could feud it, that would offer them a bit of security for their post cleanup harvesting.
Maybe a Company that clears a hex could spend influence to mark it as illegal for others to harvest for a period of time, thus bestowing the criminal flag on anyone outside their company that attempts it?
I would say NPC-patrolled areas and settlement hexes should both be immune. NPC areas should be off-limits to most PvP, and settlements already have wars and feuds.
|
I support the idea that a settlement with a healthy Influence and DI's should be able to declare at least 1 hex their member will treat as FFA as they are trying to "contest" the area.
More than 2 for the largest ones, any other CC or players could enter and simply be notified as normal that these PC's in the area are overtly hostile to people there.
How big are hexes? Would it be feasible to require a tower of some sort built on it first? Or some sort of encampment? Assuming the hex has no other controls on it, PC or NPC?
I think I like the idea, but I'm not sure yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm with Tork. Interesting, but I need to think on it.
A company could declare an interdiction on a hex not normally claimable (I'm coining the term for this, because I hate not having words for things [and whatsadozy is still a word when I need one for a thing]). This could be for harvesting a star metal, to protect an escalation cycle so that it grows and inconveniences the local settlements, waylay an army, etc.
The area would need to be contiguous with friendly controlled land to be relatively affordable. Bumping out non-contiguous hexes from there would greatly increase the cost and therefore likely limit the time you can pull it off.
The limited time frame would work well, because you internally organize and get your group ready to hit the hex at a certain time period and then declare an interdiction. Grab resources as best you can from that hex and protecting your harvesters and get out. Other groups might declare feuds of their own against your company after your interdiction of the hex has ended and then attack you all the way home.
Mechanically, it works within the concepts of the system and there are interesting choices to be made in setting it up. Plus, there are costs involved for setting it up both mechanically and socially. It can have a variety of uses as well.
However, I'm undecided about whether I like it. It's much, much, much more interesting than the FFA PvP idea at the very least. Then again, so are my socks. I have very interesting socks.
I'll have to think on it over a few pints.
Cheers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say NPC-patrolled areas and settlement hexes should both be immune. NPC areas should be off-limits to most PvP, and settlements already have wars and feuds.
By NPC patrolled you mean roads and the area outside starter-towns yes?
Anyway I like the idea but agree with this condition.
Would be useful both for running people off your favorite harvesting/farming grounds and for shutting down an enemy settlement or POI hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like interdict. I agree you cannot interdict an NPC road or any claimed hex. Truly unique hexes I.e. emerald spire probably also invalid.
I agree with cost decreasing if your graph has sovereignty in adjacent hexes and if your settlement is nearby. (Maybe correlate with the mechanic for increasing DI cost of farflung holdings)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... for shutting down an enemy settlement or POI hex.
At that point, you just use the planned feud and settlement warfare mechanics.
I see this as pulling off the same thing, but with hexes that are not player claimable. Badlands, broken lands, and monster homes.
Actually, it could even be part of an escalation cycle where there is a plague or something that people need to avoid exposure to in that hex and you're putting an interdiction on it in order to keep "villagers" away from it as a high level type thing to pull off as a company that would greatly eat away at the escalation control %.