Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Yes I think this is a much better route then just making certain locations FFA all the time. I do agree NPC settlements and patrolled roads should be out of the question.
I also agree cost should be based on multiple factors where the cost builds for each factor occurring. As others noted these factors should include distance from sponsored settlement or nearest held POI, if there is an escalation, type of hex (choke points, star metal, monster homes, etc should be more then open forest, mountains, plains, etc), number of other CC neutral/enemy feuding, double or triple for number of allied CC feuding, maybe even something based on alignment of feuders vs alignments of feudees?
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm actually close to liking this idea. It strikes me first off as reaching to try to control something you cannot legally control - but it would be a useful tool for going into a temporary Kill On Sight policy. Perhaps in the no-man's-land between warring companies - though in that case a more normal feud would make sense. (Unless one of the companies keeps hiring outsiders to raid the enemy's outposts in the hex. Then you get paranoid and need to kill every stranger that comes by.)
I am also inclined to say that there could be a net reputation hit for the company/settlement - I suppose that's reflected by the DI cost, but it should be a last resort for defending an incredibly important location without trashing the Rep of your companies.
If settlements have alignments, can they take alignment 'penalties'? Increased corruption/unrest while their focus is on the foreign territory?
I think claimed hexes costing more makes sense. Unclaimable costing a "prohibitive" amount seems a bit redundant, though—you're already taking a pretty big toll on your settlement by entering a feud at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, of course it is. The difference is this "runaround" is a vastly less optimized option, as it costs a settlement dearly just to maintain for a day. It creates the meaningful choice of, "Is it worth sacrificing Influence/DI to get this starmetal?"
Calling it a "runaround" implies we're trying to sneak something by you. In reality, Guurzak posted a thread, saw responses, and posted a more moderate proposal—one which has clearly made improvements.
|
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 %.
The point of feuding a settlement hex as opposed to a settlement is it allows you to implement a true blockade. You can issue a decree that anyone caught coming into or leaving the hex will be killed and be able to back it up. That can be very important to strangling the economy of a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Scale the cost based on: how close to your own territory the hex is, the type of hex (starmetal would be the top), and then be prepared to adjust the numbers as time goes on. A 50 player company that really does well on influence should be able to manage a Starmetal Hex Feud for maybe 2-3 days a month.
This creates the hard choice: do we burn a *lot* of influence, but potentially gain a lot of very valuable starmetal? Or do we lose some rep and gain some, or do we just claim our own nodes and accept that we won't earn maxed out starmetal gains?
I think this proposal has merit, and can adequately be measured out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to explore the reasons as to why Companies/players would so desperately (at great cost, after all)want to hold a Monster or Badlands hex, so that they can attack all players therein without consequence, no matter alignment, reputation, political, economical or personal feelings against them or their company. So without any rationale as to why they are hostile to anyone that enters. For dibs on the harvesting nodes? Or less noble reasons?
It seems to me, that these companies find the Lore, political and economical reasons for PvP and battle in PFO to be a complicated hassle and just want to create some "Felucca" in their game. Who knows what will wander unwittingly into "their hex".
I have an idea: not single Companies, but only Setlements can do this, and the DI cost will be exactly the amount that will let their settlement drop down a whole tier. Seems fair enough to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not sure if that is what you meant, Marlagram, but the whole idea of "no ties, no responsibilities, no affiliations, no assets that can be lost, just let us kill anyone in this hex without consequence for some DI cost" is exactly what rubs me the wrong way.
Seems to go against what this game is trying to be.
If you want to impose FFA laws on a hex, then you must have something to loose, and more then just a currency like DI. Something that matters in the diplomatic and economical Game of Settlements. Like your PoI, your affiliations, your credability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does "no ties, no responsibilities, no affiliations, no assets that can be lost, just let us kill anyone in this company without consequence for some DI cost" also rub you the wrong way?
If not, what is the argument against one that does not also apply to the other? There's no asset commitment or ongoing responsibility involved in declaring a standard feud.
Interdictors are not issuing rules for the land. They're not staking a unique claim or a property interest, they're just saying "we're here and if you come here you have to deal with us". That's not an assertion of right, it's just a warning and threat.
The fact that it is expensive means that we can assume the choice to interdict is meaningful. We don't have to understand or respect everyone's motivations for the choices we make- people can declare standard feuds for reasons we don't agree with- as long the cost means that they must have reasons which are good enough *for them* to justify them forgoing whatever the next best use of that resource would be.
I would argue that the same hex should be interdictable by multiple companies simultaneously. This would make it even more apparent that interdiction is not a property interest. (Should those companies get a free standard feud with each other as part of the deal? A interdicts a hex, B responds by interdicting it as well. A and B are now feuding each other everywhere so the battle for that hex's resources spills out across the map.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to add that there will be thousands of companies in this game, and only a relatively small amount of Monster and badlands hexes.
Each of these companies will earn DI by simply playing the game, we are not talking some unique, hard to get currency here. I expect not a single hex will be left "unfeuded" if this goes through, exept NPC hexes and NPC Roads.
*If* this feature is to be implemented, it should be a Settlement thing, and the choice should have severe consequences for the Settlement.
Settlements have a lot to loose: some random company who is sitting on a pile of unspent DI does not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Company against Company will almost always have some kind of rooting in the game: it will also have consequences. If you are the "victim" company, that has just been randomly targeted by another company for a Feud, then your settlement or other companies my come to your aid, and feud or War against the agressor too. COnsequence in the political game. Diplomacy between settlements, between companies.
What you want is claim a hex not for political or economical reasons, but for some consequence-free FFA PvP to *anyone* that enters the hex. Zero history with your targets, zero Lore involved, no Settlement politics involved, no true economical reason (are you going to camp a node?), nothing to loose but a *currency*.
"Expensive" is when you lose a PoI that you built up over the weeks and tried to hold, not spending some currency that every single Company that is simply playing the game will accumulate.
"Expensive" is losing the affiliation with your settlement because you are behaving badly or in conflict with the interest of your settlement.
Every true "cost" in this game should be connected to something that involves the political and/or economical sphere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd call them 'interdiction hexes'. Among the implications are blockades and sieges.
Also such an interdiction hex carries implications for wanderers, explorers, and refugees.
Do you want to be able to move around? Reach a distant starmetal hex?
This interdiction proposal isn't simple.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This mechanic can be easily avoided by moving members of one company to another
This point argues for interdiction. If Company X is doing a bad thing in a hex near me- draining resource spawns I need, raiding my outposts, whatever- and when I feud Company X they just move their members to Company Y and continue the behavior, then my best response is not to feud the new company but to interdict the hex. That way I can stop the unwanted behavior no matter who is doing it or how they are tagged.
(There should also be mechanisms which prevent that sort of abuse directly. Perhaps when a company is feuded the feud tag is applied to each individual member of the company, and lasts on the individual until it expires even if the individual leaves the company. That has problems too, though.)
For example: we, Eeeevil Dwarves of Forgeholm (TM) want to interdict our nearest hex with elevation change. Without dpending effort to clean this hex from monsters we should only create three companies for our PvPers who will in turn feud this hex (in turn, because we need to replenish influence spent).
If the transition hex is claimable, then your first preference would obviously be to claim it, build a watchtower, and set a no trespassing policy. But, if for some reason you can't do that, I would totally respect your desire to interdict it as a second-best option.
Note that every mountain ridge has at least 3 transition hexes giving access to it.
Your assumption that you can interdict a hex without first beating down its escalation level need not be the case. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to require would-be interdictors to first make sure any local monster activity is suppressed; you can't necessarily say "we're making a stand here" if the goblins made a stand first.
That would also mean that for a group of companies to keep a hex permadicted would mean keeping its escalation status continuously beat down, thus giving up the rewards available from curing a more advanced infection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If only the company that cleared a hex could feud it, that would offer them a bit of security for their post cleanup harvesting.I'd not thought of the nasty scenario of a Company doing all the work, and then having someone else drop a feud on "their" hex.
If interdiction is not exclusive, then this is a non-issue.
If clearing an escalation gives you the option to buy a cheaper interdict as part of the reward mechanic, then you're still coming out ahead. The other guys just spent a lot more influence than they needed to, to basically feud your company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What you want is claim a hex not for political or economical reasons, but for some consequence-free FFA PvP to *anyone* that enters the hex. Zero history with your targets, zero Lore involved, no Settlement politics involved, no true economical reason (are you going to camp a node?), nothing to loose but a *currency*.
I'm not a settlement/company ally of the OP. I don't know his motives. I think your statement that companies would declare "hex feud" simply for FFA PvP is probably off. I think companies would declare hex feud specifically to target and rob the small parties of gatherers who would be difficult or immune to normal feuds, because there's too many little groups, or they don't belong to companies, or whatever. But it's likely for the loot they carry, which would be economic; or it's to keep them out so someone else can harvest, so again economic.
Companies declaring hex feud could serve as a work-around on the SAD mechanics - which frankly had a lot of exploitability. Like a SAD, the company declaring a hex feud has flagged itself for PvP, though in a limited space. I think there's some interesting possibilities. I think the company probably needs to be present in the hex to keep the hex feud running, and if they have members online but outside the hex (immune to the results of declaring the feud) then the cost over time might go up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another poster (Steelwing) talked about the ways his outfit would interdict uncontrolled hexes. I think this will be done regardless, whether there is a company feat built for it or not. If this sort of thing is built to be an expected feat a company can gain then the ways it is expressed in the game can be more guided by the design than if it is left wide open for player organizations.
I am of the opinion that it is better to have a design in place for anything that is inevitable anyway.
I would further extend this functionality to obviate the starmetal hex FFA PvP issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Urman. Being able to kill a random small party of gatherers without consequence, just by having paid DI (again, a simple currency) to "own" the hex is exactly what I mean by FFA PvP. Actually, ganking. With "random" I obviously mean that the attackers have no affiliations of any kind with the victims: no Feud, no War, no Faction-enemies.
Again, there is NO consequence: no political consequence, no economical consequence(Company can not loose their POI) no reputation consequence, they just paid for a FFA-piece of the land.
Saying that the loot of the victims makes it an "economical reason" is nonsense: if that one would fly, then the whole settlement-game is useless, just make PFO entirely FFA then. Always something to loot.
Keeping other people out of a Hex to monopolize the resources is fine, if there are consequences in doing so. There are mechanics in place for that: Holdings/PoIs. COmpanies with holdings truly have something to lose: their PoI, possibly their relation with a Settlement, credability. Companies that own PoI's have to take heed of political and economic ramifications of their actions, how they handle their relations, their diplomacy, their trade.
A Company that paid their DI to be able to FFA PvP in a hex does not.
The whole proposal just lifts a Company and the activities it is planning (FFA PvP) right out of the diplomatic and economic framework of PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If only the company that cleared a hex could feud it, that would offer them a bit of security for their post cleanup harvesting.I'd not thought of the nasty scenario of a Company doing all the work, and then having someone else drop a feud on "their" hex.
That can already be done with the regular feud mechanic. Not sure why people don't want this to work in Starmetal Hexes, that's exactly where it should work. It should be an expensive play on a small window to kill anything in a valuable hex (or half hex).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, Tyncale, your complaint is just as applicable to the existing feud mechanic. "There is NO consequence: no political consequence, no economical consequence(Company can not loose their POI) no reputation consequence, they just paid for a FFA" versus another company.
(Of course, there IS political consequence to interdicting: 1, you're exposing all of your own members to FFA whenever they're in the hex you're interdicting; 2, anyone who doesn't like your interdict can feud you for much less Influence than your interdict cost; 3, if your company is sponsored there are settlement politics in play, and even if it isn't sponsored, the company leader's home settlement should be public information.)
If you want to argue that feuds should not be in the game, this isn't the right place to make that argument. If you want to argue that feuds are OK but interdicts aren't, you need to use arguments that don't apply equally to feuds.
>Keeping other people out of a Hex to monopolize the resources is fine, if there are consequences in doing so. There are mechanics in place for that: Holdings/PoIs.
Some hexes cannot have holdings built on them. Players may still, reasonably and validly, want to exclude others from those hexes, either to monopolize the resources there or for other reasons important to them. What cost or consequence would you think appropriate?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In order to prevent border-dancing, the company that declared a feud on a hex (if possible) should be a legitimate target in the six adjacent hexes, not just the warzone.
No jumping back and forth over the border.
Or any member of the company that issues the Hex Feud and steps into the hex in question, is tagged as an aggressor for the duration of the feud, regardless where they go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Border jumping is bad but there are several ways to mitigate it. I would suggest making hostility flags based on hex location (not just interdiction but any location-based flagging, this is a broader potential problem) persistent for 30 seconds to a minute after you leave the hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I were to generalize (and I am about to), there are two sides debating back and forth and the standpoints are:
(1) - The features of the PvP system as described leave the door open for unhealthy activities (such as gathering adamantite without any real risk), there needs to be a way for players to oppose certain activities of other players without ruining their own reputation. The ability for a company to feud a hex would be one such way.
(2) - The PvP system as is is good and we shouldn't deviate from it because introducing new ways to bypass the reputation system will lead to situations where players can grief others or even undermine the whole meaningful PvP thing that PFO has going.
I have been arguing along the lines of (2) in other threads. I would like to state that I am not completely against the idea of FFA PvP zones in some shape or form, for example during certain stages of warfare or so. I am also open to the possibility that I am wrong, that the game would be better off if some of these FFA PvP ideas that have been suggested were to be implemented.
However, an approach going forward that seems reasonable to me would be to stick to approach (2) (unless it's an idea that raises no major warning flags and just seems overall good to a majority of players) until such an eventual time that it becomes obvious things aren't working out and change is needed. I don't think we can conclude at this time that an additional FFA PvP mechanic is definitely needed and that implementation would do more good than bad.
It would be good to keep the idea on the list of possible things to try if it turns out the current system isn't satisfactory. It is a good thing to plan ahead and think of possible fixes to problems that may arise but in cases such as this, when an idea raises so many warning flags I think it would be best to wait and see before implementation.
Never say never but let's see how things turn out before we commit to this idea. Might be it would do more harm than good.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Border jumping is bad but there are several ways to mitigate it. I would suggest making hostility flags based on hex location (not just interdiction but any location-based flagging, this is a broader potential problem) persistent for 30 seconds to a minute after you leave the hex.
Only if there is a significant (like, more than a couple of minutes) delay after entering the hex before one can attack.
Basically, you should never be able to see someone that you could run up to and attack, unless they can already attack you. No scouting out targets without being a target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm open to this as long as:
1) It is incredibly expensive, as in you'll blow 2-3 months worth of influence to do it
2) It must be close to your settlement
3) It is limited to 1-2 hours per influence expenditure
4) declaring it on a starmetal hex, or other hex with significance, incurs an increased cost
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Border jumping is bad but there are several ways to mitigate it. I would suggest making hostility flags based on hex location (not just interdiction but any location-based flagging, this is a broader potential problem) persistent for 30 seconds to a minute after you leave the hex.
I think that with respect to a hex feud, it might be too easy to have no members of the declaring company inside the feud hex; they could be waiting on the border for an easy target and not putting themselves at risk. (Shades of Darkfall UW, where people would wait on the edge of the safe zones to inderdict people moving across the border. They were immune to attack themselves until they actually engaged some weak target.)
To mitigate this for hex feuds, GW might consider making the cost over time be inversely proportional to the fraction of the company in the hex. So if half the company is actually sitting safe across the hex border, the cost of maintaining the feud doubles over the normal cost of all company members in the feud hex. There might also be some minimum, maybe 20% of the company has to be in the hex.
People will die and have to run back, though. So if there's some cooldown timer after death, characters might have some time to get back on station.
And if no member of the hex feuding company is in the hex, then perhaps the feud collapses at that point; they've been driven off or have abandoned the goal.
One thing I don't understand about feuds, or company influence in general, is how it will be obligated and how/if it will recover after something like a feud is ended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, Tyncale, your complaint is just as applicable to the existing feud mechanic. "There is NO consequence: no political consequence, no economical consequence(Company can not loose their POI) no reputation consequence, they just paid for a FFA" versus another company.
Again, Guurzak:
Company against Company will almost always have some kind of rooting in the game: it will also have consequences. If you are the "victim" company, that has just been randomly targeted by another company for a Feud, then your settlement or other companies my come to your aid, and feud or War against the agressor too. COnsequence in the political game. Diplomacy between settlements, between companies.
What you want is claim a hex not for political or economical reasons, but for some consequence-free FFA PvP to *anyone* that enters the hex. Zero history with your targets, zero Lore involved, no Settlement politics involved, no true economical reason (are you going to camp a node?), nothing to loose but a *currency*.
Your argument that your Company *exposes* itself to FFA is laughable: YOU *want* FFA, it is the people that wander into "your" hex that are the ones exposed to it when they may not want to.
Your second point makes no sense: we know you want to PvP without rep-loss, so I am sure you will be happy when Companies start feuding you (at their cost) because they are not happy with you clamping down a Hex. Which should not be possible for a simple currency cost in the first place, see above.
3rd point does not make sense either, I am pretty convinced that Companies who do this have as few affiliations as possible: else why not just claim a Hex for yourself or for a Settlement where you can actually build and protect a PoI? Answer: because that is not what you are after....you want to claim lands without responsibility, with consequence-free PvP.
Knowing the Leaders settlement, do you call that accountability? You think that this person will be an established member of a settlement? Or a drifter? I think this person does not care a hoot about where he resides. Also, leaders can be rotated. The worst that can happen to these persons is to be booted from their settlement. In a game with hundreds of settlement, with so many animosities, a guy like this will *always* have a place to stay. The game will not punish him either since his rep will undoubtedly be spotless: remember, he kills rep-free.
The whole mechanic sounds like a griefer-tool.
Again, why not hold a Hex with a PoI and go from there?
And again: thousands of Companies, at most hundreds of Monster/Badland hexes. Do the math. Every single hex in the game will be claimed, exept NPC hexes. Many of them will be FFA. Sounds like early UO to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the interdict creates hostility between "anyone in this hex" and "any members of the company", then there's no asymmetry problem. If Average Guy is outside the hex, he and Fred the Feuder are not hostile to each other. If Guy is inside the hex, then Guy and Fred are hostile to each other regardless of where Fred is.
Fred and Guy are both safe from each other if Guy is outside. Fred and Guy are both hostile to each other if Guy is inside. Where Fred is doesn't matter in the least.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Urman. Being able to kill a random small party of gatherers without consequence, just by having paid DI (again, a simple currency) to "own" the hex is exactly what I mean by FFA PvP. Actually, ganking. With "random" I obviously mean that the attackers have no affiliations of any kind with the victims: no Feud, no War, no Faction-enemies.
Again, there is NO consequence: no political consequence, no economical consequence(Company can not loose their POI) no reputation consequence, they just paid for a FFA-piece of the land.
Saying that the loot of the victims makes it an "economical reason" is nonsense: if that one would fly, then the whole settlement-game is useless, just make PFO entirely FFA then. Always something to loot.
If a company pays Influence to declare a feud against a company of gathers, they don't have any consequence except that loss of Influence (and any political ramification of their settlement getting threatened, etc.)
I think the hex feud might be a logical extension of the feud mechanic; the company is declaring a feud related to a place rather than against a specific group.
The existing war and feud mechanics do have gaps. Groups of characters that belong to no company are not feudable. Full stop. There is no existing mechanic that allows a company or individual to engage such characters in PvP except murder/rep-loss killing. (SAD used to be a way, but I think it's on hold, waiting crowd-forging as to whether we need or want its complexity).
I'm not looking for gratuitous FFA PvP, not by any stretch. But there need to be ways to legitimately engage characters that aren't feudable. If there aren't ways, then it is too easy to use such non-feudable characters as spies, cargo haulers, harvesters, and Pharasma knows what else.
And to repeat: some hexes cannot be held as a POI. And holding a POI hex does not allow me to drive off harvesters that are pillaging the nodes on "my" hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the interdict creates hostility between "anyone in this hex" and "any members of the company", then there's no asymmetry problem. If Average Guy is outside the hex, he and Fred the Feuder are not hostile to each other. If Guy is inside the hex, then Guy and Fred are hostile to each other regardless of where Fred is.
Fred and Guy are both safe from each other if Guy is outside. Fred and Guy are both hostile to each other if Guy is inside. Where Fred is doesn't matter in the least.
That only works if Guy knows that Fred, over there harvesting a node just outside the hex (and currently neutral toward him), is part of the group that will immediately become hostile to him when he steps forward. Otherwise, yes, Fred is totally capable of using the hex boundary to ambush.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the interdict creates hostility between "anyone in this hex" and "any members of the company", then there's no asymmetry problem. If Average Guy is outside the hex, he and Fred the Feuder are not hostile to each other. If Guy is inside the hex, then Guy and Fred are hostile to each other regardless of where Fred is.
Fred and Guy are both safe from each other if Guy is outside. Fred and Guy are both hostile to each other if Guy is inside. Where Fred is doesn't matter in the least.
And if Fred is sitting outside the hex he is immune to attack from Bill, Arnold, Mike and Joe when they show up to free the hex. If Fred wants to claim the hex, Fred needs to be at risk. Those 4 shouldn't need to spend their influence to feud Fred and squash his claim on the hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That only works if Guy knows that Fred, over there harvesting a node just outside the hex (and currently neutral toward him), is part of the group that will immediately become hostile to him when he steps forward. Otherwise, yes, Fred is totally capable of using the hex boundary to ambush.If the interdict creates hostility between "anyone in this hex" and "any members of the company", then there's no asymmetry problem. If Average Guy is outside the hex, he and Fred the Feuder are not hostile to each other. If Guy is inside the hex, then Guy and Fred are hostile to each other regardless of where Fred is.
Fred and Guy are both safe from each other if Guy is outside. Fred and Guy are both hostile to each other if Guy is inside. Where Fred is doesn't matter in the least.
I think we have to come into this conversation with an assumption that someone's company affiliations are immediately visible and that info about hostility zones is readily available via both map and proximity alerting. The hostility system in general can't be allowed to be surprising unless someone is being culpably oblivious.
With that said, if Guy is still outside the hex, then Fred is neutral to him even if Fred is inside, so it still doesn't matter where Fred is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And if Fred is sitting outside the hex he is immune to attack from Bill, Arnold, Mike and Joe when they show up to free the hex. If Fred wants to claim the hex, Fred needs to be at risk. Those 4 shouldn't need to spend their influence to feud Fred and squash his claim on the hex.
All BAM&J need to do is step over the line to gain hostility with Fred. He's at just as much risk near the hex boundary as he is inside it; he's a valid target for anyone inside the hex no matter where he is himself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think we have to come into this conversation with an assumption that someone's company affiliations are immediately visible and that info about hostility zones is readily available via both map and proximity alerting. The hostility system in general can't be allowed to be surprising unless someone is being culpably oblivious.
There is no reason to assume that someone's total company affiliations are public knowledge. I have seen nothing to suggest that will be the case. So no, we do not have to assume that. Would it solve this particular problem? Yes. But what other ramifications does that produce?
All BAM&J need to do is step over the line to gain hostility with Fred. He's at just as much risk near the hex boundary as he is inside it; he's a valid target for anyone inside the hex no matter where he is himself.
Only if that hostile status persists when they then have to walk back out of the hex to attack him. Otherwise, he is, in fact, totally safe standing outside the hex boundary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How fast can a character move across a hex? 2 minutes? How far is our sight distance? And missile engagement is something like 50 meters?
Fred needs to really be at risk, not stealthed outside the hex poised to run at the first sign of real danger. With the rest of his company half a hex further back.
All BAM&J need to do is step over the line to gain hostility with Fred. He's at just as much risk near the hex boundary as he is inside it; he's a valid target for anyone inside the hex no matter where he is himself.
This confirms my sense that cost should be inversely proportional on the fraction of company members in the hex, and the feud should end when no company members remain in the hex.
I think the hex feuds as a concept are reasonable, for claiming lands (especially harvesting rights) for some duration when those doing the hex feud truly can dominate the hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It might help to think of it in the light that the hex feuding Company's members are kind of tied to that hex for their fun/business. Yes they can sit outside and watch the border (ala other games) but it is just that one hex's border.
The reasons that I am more inclined to favor this idea (over others) are that there is a cost implied (so there could be limits), there are many more ways that it can be used than just the one before, it is more of a risk/reward in all directions, and back to costs: these could/should limit the "time" that it would be sustainable.
The fine details need to be ironed out and I would be just as happy trying the system as described by the developers first. We have little detail to judge that Influence will be really hard to accumulate or that Feuds will be really expensive. Nor do we know if Factions might solve many of these issues.
They may not really BE issues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think we have to come into this conversation with an assumption that someone's company affiliations are immediately visible and that info about hostility zones is readily available via both map and proximity alerting. The hostility system in general can't be allowed to be surprising unless someone is being culpably oblivious.There is no reason to assume that someone's total company affiliations are public knowledge. I have seen nothing to suggest that will be the case. So no, we do not have to assume that. Would it solve this particular problem? Yes. But what other ramifications does that produce?
I've been assuming that someone's settlement and sponsored company crests would be right there on your screen when you see them, or at least when you target them. If that's not the case it needs to be; generally way too much distance from social consequences otherwise.
In this screenshot from Shadowbane, you can see city and guild crests over each character's head, as well as in the target window in the top of the screen.
I probably would not allow a non-sponsored company to declare an interdict unless all 3 of a character's memberships are clearly visible on first sight, and maybe not then.
All BAM&J need to do is step over the line to gain hostility with Fred. He's at just as much risk near the hex boundary as he is inside it; he's a valid target for anyone inside the hex no matter where he is himself.Only if that hostile status persists when they then have to walk back out of the hex to attack him. Otherwise, he is, in fact, totally safe standing outside the hex boundary.
Border jumping is bad but there are several ways to mitigate it. I would suggest making hostility flags based on hex location (not just interdiction but any location-based flagging, this is a broader potential problem) persistent for 30 seconds to a minute after you leave the hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All BAM&J need to do is step over the line to gain hostility with Fred. He's at just as much risk near the hex boundary as he is inside it; he's a valid target for anyone inside the hex no matter where he is himself.
I did a glance at the map, just looking at star metal craters. There are a number of star metal hexes adjacent to NPC road hexes. So Fred could sit in the NPC hex and watch for targets. There's also at least one star metal hex bordering a cliff hex side, where Fred can sit up cliff and be a no risk from being engaged by people in the feuded hex, but can leap down the cliff when he chooses to engages.
Such map geometry problems might also encourage GW to require the feuding company to be in the hex they are feuding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's also at least one star metal hex bordering a cliff hex side, where Fred can sit up cliff and be a no risk from being engaged by people in the feuded hex, but can leap down the cliff when he chooses to engages.
Mildly off topic, but I sincerely expect falling damage to be introduced to prevent shenanigans like this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even on a road hex, NPCs should not respond when combat takes place under the auspices of a feud or other legitimate hostility.
Fred can't control what's happening inside the hex if he doesn't go inside, so I really don't see this whole line of conversation as a major issue. With that said, I don't have any major opposition to the idea of requiring Fred to be in the hex for the interdict to take effect; I just don't believe it buys us anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even on a road hex, NPCs should not respond when combat takes place under the auspices of a feud or other legitimate hostility.
Fred can't control what's happening inside the hex if he doesn't go inside, so I really don't see this whole line of conversation as a major issue. With that said, I don't have any major opposition to the idea of requiring Fred to be in the hex for the interdict to take effect; I just don't believe it buys us anything.
I disagree with this. Just because you recognize your hostilities as legitimate, and just because you spent your influence declaring the feud, does not mean that third parties view your hostilities as legitimate.
Poland and France declare war. Germany isn't going to just let their armies fight it out on German soil, at least not willingly. I do not see how the roads, which the NPCs have vested interest in keeping free of trouble is any different.
"Oh, those bandits offered those merchants a stand-and-deliver option, we don't need to get involved." Is not something I would expect to hear from Hellknight patrols.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have not been convinced of the reason for this other than some players want FFA on anyone they can G@#$%. Until we see how the badlands and monster home hexes behave in completed game, this decision should not be made. However, these (@Crash_00 and below) may start to give balance if hex-feud happens.
@Crash_00 Additions to your A. and B.
A.1. Add: Make the length of the feud less than medium time a player is active (active == logged in and responding to UI, not robotic clicks).
Median, is better choice than mode, which may be too low due to players with quick short sessions, and better than mean, which may be high because of players logged on for long times. Median catches the mid-point, half are on longer and half are on shorter. This is distributed over players logging in and not over logons. I am not ready to specify whether player time is based on mean or median of her/s login times.
B. agree.
C. Require a long cool down (require > 24 hours definite, possibly > 72 hours, per GW tuning) between feuds on same hex.
C.1. Not sure on cool down on company/settlement declaring hex feud.
D. Adjacent hexes can not be feuded at same time.
E. 5 minute notice to all in or adjacent to feud hex will be provided before it takes affect (with 4,3,2,1, and 0.5 minute reminders).
(Do Wars and Feuds provide this notice or is there higher cost for surprise war or feud?)
F. Warnings that feud is happening as hex is approached will be provided.
(this should be present for hexes at war or company feud also).
|
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!)
It's possible that GW's rationale for not wanting certain hex's to be claimable includes not wanting anyone to be able to fully exclude everyone else in the game from them through use of force. I think we'd have to understand GW's rationale for making certain hex's unclaimable before we could have an intelligent consideration of this proposal.
Obviously there are influnce cost implications to being able to Feud EVERY company in the game in one hex vs being able to Feud 1 specific company in the game in every hex. These need to be explored as well.