Close the land rush with a lightning round


Pathfinder Online

Goblin Squad Member

I think everyone's aware of the possibility that the week 10 draft may have a lot of surprises. Settlements may get bounced to a completely different part of the map with no warning, and no ability to respond.

If this weren't a political game, that wouldn't really matter: your second draft choice is the place you want if you can't have your first choice, so you take the most-preferred spot you can get and you're happy with that. However, that's not really the case on a map where your choice of location depends a lot on who your neighbors are. The spot you like second best now might turn out to be the spot you like least of all when you discover who ended up right next to you.

A surprise ending at week 10 means that settlements will have little or no control over who their neighbors are for most or all of EE. While I don't think this is "unfair", I also don't think it's desirable. We've spent 10 weeks building friendships and enmities, and adjusting our map positioning based on those relationships. I think the good of the game is best served by allowing us some mechanism for preserving that dynamic.

What I think I would like to see is for the land rush to close with a lightning phase, processed as fast as GW can update the map. The phase should end after a random number of rounds (probably somewhere in the 5-10 range), or end immediately if a round closes with no change from the previous round.

This would give players the chance to stay close to allies, far from enemies, or otherwise react to other settlement movements which affect the preferability of different map locations. Finding yourself locked into a map location far from your friends and surrounded by foes is not something that should happen to anyone without at least some chance to do something about it.

Goblin Squad Member

I've not followed part of your idea: rounds of what? There are likely to be a limited number of groups with applied-but-not-yet-approved members that could be added in during lightning rounds, so what would be changing--for the majority of groups--from round to round?

If it's not votes, it'd have to be site-preference, and what would be the incentive to shift away from today's choices, especially in the groups that've hung onto them for so long? Someone knocks you to your number two spot, you'd just keep your number one as your number one, wouldn't you, in hopes of getting it back?

Goblin Squad Member

If week 10 displaces you or bumps you off the list completely, you can always attempt to rectify that after settlements are added or after settlement PvP is added.

If we ended up far from where we wanted to be, we have a plot to sell or exchange. We can then trade again to get where we wanted or use the money from the sale to fund feuds, or wars to capture the settlement location we wanted.

I find there is great excitement around not knowing what will happen by the end of week 10.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes, I'm talking about site preference.

Let's say that KotC, Blackwood, and Brains&Brawn have established friendships and want to stay close to each other. Their current location is each of their first picks.

Then let's speculate that in the week 10 draft 3 new companies show up out of nowhere with 80, 50, and 20 members. KotC gets bumped to their second choice. Blackwood gets bumped to their 3rd choice. Brains gets bumped to their 4th choice. They're now scattered all over the map, had no useful way to plan against this, and have no way to get back together until settlement warfare starts.

Goblin Squad Member

And to answer rounds of what, I believe Guurzak is proposing landrush rounds 11+ take place beginning perhaps an hour after the placements for landrush 10 are announced, and occurring perhaps every hour or two for the rest of that day or until people don't change spots or Goblinworks staff wants to go home.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not really following your plan at all.

I understand your concern, as well as what is Unfair versus Desirable. At this point, I don't know if the Landrush is finished. I think we will see a few more movements, plus who knows where Kabal will plant their flag.

I think the best thing for GW to do, is increase the hunker down bonus in week 9 significantly, so that hidden groups won't disturb the Landrush, and established groups will have a harder time disrupting with a large influx of players.

I still think the top 10 should have been given a bonus. If someone comes in with 96 people, week 10, or even one of the other groups already established adds 20, 30, 50+ for week 10 and knocks Talonguard out of place....The cascade will effect nearly a third, if not more, of the Landrush.

Laying foundation for several months, just for one group to come and destroy all of that leg work is what I would call undesirable.

Goblin Squad Member

At some point there has to be an end, and whenever that happens there will be someone who will cry "foul" or this is "unfair".

I see it like bidding in EBay. You can get outbid in the last second by just one penny.

Remember, if the same rules apply to everyone equally, then there can be no "unfairness".

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:

I am not really following your plan at all.

I understand your concern, as well as what is Unfair versus Desirable. At this point, I don't know if the Landrush is finished. I think we will see a few more movements, plus who knows where Kabal will plant their flag.

I think the best thing for GW to do, is increase the hunker down bonus in week 9 significantly, so that hidden groups won't disturb the Landrush, and established groups will have a harder time disrupting with a large influx of players.

I still think the top 10 should have been given a bonus. If someone comes in with 96 people, week 10, or even one of the other groups already established adds 20, 30, 50+ for week 10 and knocks Talonguard out of place....The cascade will effect nearly a third, if not more, of the Landrush.

Laying foundation for several months, just for one group to come and destroy all of that leg work is what I would call undesirable.

Anyone doing this will have made several settlements their enemy, so everyone displaced just banded together as soon as settlement PvP begins and span feuds and war until the usurper gives up.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
... if the same rules apply to everyone equally...

Would that it were so...

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf:

Quote:
While I don't think this is "unfair", I also don't think it's desirable.

@Cheatle: Yeah, there's probably several decent options. Cutting things off by surprise after week 9 would work. Or just disallowing settlement changes. Or other options yet unknown.

Actually, I think that blocking settlement changes after week 9 makes a lot of sense. If you want to be a part of the voting, show your colors. Then at least people know who the players are when they're making their week 10 draft.

Goblin Squad Member

I say no and just end this thing. It's 5am and this party is over. It's like that last guest that...just...won't...leave.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TEO Cheatle wrote:
plus who knows where Kabal will plant their flag.

Someone knows. ;)

Its been stated from the beginning that a 100 person group showing up on sunday night week 10 is a thing, and that nothing would be done about it.
Its one of the reasons we did not do any naming or rp development anywhere. Because until week 10, you might have wasted your time, and become too attached to a place you have NEVER posessed. You have only speculated on the market, and it has yet to close.

That being said, we are also speculating on the potential to end up where we want. A 100 person guild in week 10 can hump us just as much as anyone, but we are not going to loose our minds over it. We will roll with it. Which may or may not involve making friends with said settlement. Depends on how things work out.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After week 10, allow a couple weeks where settlements are allowed to swap spots between each other by mutual agreement.

If being next to your ally is really the most important consideration for both of you, enough negotiation should be able to find people willing to swap.

I think enough settlements have different priorities, that mutually beneficial swaps can occur. For example, you might really like my hex, because it's near a road, while I hate it because it doesn't border any woodlands, and then I can trade the wooded hex I got from you to the person that has the hex near my ally that I really wanted.

Goblin Squad Member

Thats a decent suggestion, and not really even necessary for GW to provide. Just have all your people sign up with the settlement your swapping with, and vice versa.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Unless at least one group put forth preferences that were not their true preference (possibly because they didn't know who their neighbors would be), a trade where both parties get a choice they want more is impossible.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Unless at least one group put forth preferences that were not their true preference (possibly because they didn't know who their neighbors would be), a trade where both parties get a choice they want more is impossible.

The bolded section seems to me to be extremely likely.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Unless at least one group put forth preferences that were not their true preference (possibly because they didn't know who their neighbors would be), a trade where both parties get a choice they want more is impossible.

Group A's top priority is to be close to Group B.

Group C's top priority is to be near swamp hexes.

Group D adds 100 members just before the close of the landrush and bumps everyone around to lower choices, such that group A ends up in a swamp hex far away from group B, and group C ends up in a plains hex close to Group B.

Groups A and C can swap settlements and both be happier for it.

EDIT: Now I'm trying to think if this is actually possible if everyone set their preference list correctly...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Coordinate your lists with your allies', and anticipate the choices of others. That isn't a perfect solution, because of imperfect information.

A system where groups who had their first choice blocked could change based on the choices of groups with more votes than them would be fair, but even if the timeframe for making choices was short, it would take several days to go down the lists.

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Unless at least one group put forth preferences that were not their true preference (possibly because they didn't know who their neighbors would be), a trade where both parties get a choice they want more is impossible.

Group A's top priority is to be close to Group B.

Group C's top priority is to be near swamp hexes.

Group D adds 100 members just before the close of the landrush and bumps everyone around to lower choices, such that group A ends up in a swamp hex far away from group B, and group C ends up in a plains hex close to Group B.

Groups A and C can swap settlements and both be happier for it.

EDIT: Now I'm trying to think if this is actually possible if everyone set their preference list correctly...

It is only impossible if A & B end up on the Leaderboard next to each other. If there's any room for any other group(s) to end up between A & B on the Leaderboard, then it's possible.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gaskon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Unless at least one group put forth preferences that were not their true preference (possibly because they didn't know who their neighbors would be), a trade where both parties get a choice they want more is impossible.

Group A's top priority is to be close to Group B.

Group C's top priority is to be near swamp hexes.

Group D adds 100 members just before the close of the landrush and bumps everyone around to lower choices, such that group A ends up in a swamp hex far away from group B, and group C ends up in a plains hex close to Group B.

Groups A and C can swap settlements and both be happier for it.

EDIT: Now I'm trying to think if this is actually possible if everyone set their preference list correctly...

It is: group a can get their first choice (which happens to be near a swamp), group b can get bumped to a corner, and group c can get a low choice in that corner.

It does require that a guild prefer a site based on which site other guilds get.

Goblin Squad Member

This was the one upside to being at the bottom of the list that first week. "Ooh! Shiny! I wonder why nobody else wanted this hex? It's so cool."

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
It does require that a guild prefer a site based on which site other guilds get.

Unless two large groups show up--or three....

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
It does require that a guild prefer a site based on which site other guilds get.
Unless two large groups show up--or three....

If your preferences are independent of which site another guild gets, then you can do no better than listing those preferences.

Getting to be near (or far from) a specific guild, particularly if they don't coordinate with you or have preferences other than being close to you, is rather more difficult.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love to see Week 10 ended a few days early, without any warning.

Goblin Squad Member

Since the whole point is to keep us busy and talking about the game, they're more likely to want to extend it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's part of the excitement. Yes week 10 will bring surprises, but in this type of game you are always adapting. This is the first major adaption test, and is not a punishment.

Let the Chips Fall where they may and let Pathfinder Online begin with a bang.

I think a better idea for a "lightening round" would to have a 34th settlement open up so that the other guilds that couldn't win one of the 33 settlements can fight over it and have their own mini land rush with each other. Have it run till the day before beta.

This has been a public service announcement.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

1. I'd like the Landrush to be over, and move on.
2. Last minute rule changes strike me as a bad idea in general--they tend to create unfair windfall gains and losses.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:

1. I'd like the Landrush to be over, and move on.

2. Last minute rule changes strike me as a bad idea in general--they tend to create unfair windfall gains and losses.

Couldn't agree more. End this thing. We will sort it out ourselves, as soon as the doors are opened.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
Mbando wrote:

1. I'd like the Landrush to be over, and move on.

2. Last minute rule changes strike me as a bad idea in general--they tend to create unfair windfall gains and losses.
Couldn't agree more. End this thing. We will sort it out ourselves, as soon as the doors are opened.

Although I'm in favor of ending it on time, after next week, I get the impression that you see the land rush as a negative.

I've found the land rush to be great fun and filled with suspense. I know the Devs have stated that they are really enjoying the play-by-play threads.

I will venture a guess that we have exceeded their initial expectations with all of these political maneuvering and the build up to the very suspenseful Week 10 surprises!

Because the land rush has an in-game impact, it is actually game play. This may in fact be an industry first! Settlement vs Settlement PvP with far reaching in game impact, before Alpha.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf

It does have the feel of caravans of people moving down a road toward a destination.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
Mbando wrote:

1. I'd like the Landrush to be over, and move on.

2. Last minute rule changes strike me as a bad idea in general--they tend to create unfair windfall gains and losses.
Couldn't agree more. End this thing. We will sort it out ourselves, as soon as the doors are opened.

Although I'm in favor of ending it on time, after next week, I get the impression that you see the land rush as a negative.

I've found the land rush to be great fun and filled with suspense. I know the Devs have stated that they are really enjoying the play-by-play threads.

I will venture a guess that we have exceeded their initial expectations with all of these political maneuvering and the build up to the very suspenseful Week 10 surprises!

Because the land rush has an in-game impact, it is actually game play. This may in fact be an industry first! Settlement vs Settlement PvP with far reaching in game impact, before Alpha.

Not a negative at all, so you got the wrong impression. I do feel that 10 weeks, with the rules that have been laid out. is just fine. We have almost 1 & 1/2 weeks to make changes, surprise finishes have been on the table since week 1, and I am not in favor of screwing with what we have started in the last moments. Not unless there is some underhanded (against the rules) stuff discovered.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I've found the land rush to be great fun and filled with suspense. I know the Devs have stated that they are really enjoying the play-by-play threads.

Yup, yup! Even at it's most frustrating it never fails to give value.

Goblin Squad Member

Can't wait for week 10 to end and then hear all the cheers and wailing and gnashing of teeth. :-)

Also remember, instead of ending it at week 9, this gives them an extra week of Alpha before they start the Tower Wars.

I'm rather hoping the Tower Wars start a week or two after week 10 ends. Would hate to have to wait until September!

Goblin Squad Member

<kabal> Bunibuni wrote:

Can't wait for week 10 to end and then hear all the cheers and wailing and gnashing of teeth. :-)

Also remember, instead of ending it at week 9, this gives them an extra week of Alpha before they start the Tower Wars.

I'm rather hoping the Tower Wars start a week or two after week 10 ends. Would hate to have to wait until September!

Alpha hasn't even hit the first hardware expansion, and only covers a small portion of the EE starting map. Don't expect anything that soon.

Goblin Squad Member

I was thinking October.

Goblin Squad Member

If you look at the GW store, you can currently buy Month 2 EE access scheduled for October, so EE in September seems like the current plan.

Goblin Squad Member

They did say it would start the third quarter of this year, which is July, August, September. I'm hoping it is August. :-)

Goblin Squad Member

September 30 is still third quarter.


Yeah, sadly, there's a good chance I won't be playing in the first three months at all. I was rooting for an earlier release—I'm heading to Chile in early September, and I don't believe I got into Month One. At best (and this is very optimistic), I might get a week or two before shipping out.

Assuming they ever get my case out of the FUBAR box! ;D

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah from the streaming of Bonny's, it sounds like they are shooting for late September for the Tower Wars.

Goblin Squad Member

The River Kingdoms shall be a very dull place without you, Kobold Cleaver!

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Q3 = Q4 in game development announcements. If something comes out on time, that usually means it was rushed, and this isn't a release game, so no reason to try and hit the holiday shopping season.

When I thought they would start in September, I was expecting them to have already given out the first two rounds of invites to the alpha backers by now, and have at least half the EE map open. Unless there is some mega-update next week, I'm hoping for late October, and expecting November.

After watching every other MMO I've played from beta crash and burn due to rushed development, I want this one to take its time. I've already been waiting 2 and a half years, whats another six months?

---

Back to the matter at hand,

I still think the Landrush should end at an undisclosed time. Force people to put up all the votes they can accumulate, and put in their real pick-lists.

At very least, I think they should lock the top 10 spots early.

Goblin Squad Member

No code released before its time. Still I need to build a system that is adequate for this technology!

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with Valkenr. I don't want them to rush development. Better for EE to be a few months late then open the floodgates of EE before the game is truly ready.

Plus, considering the time frame, GW has performed remarkably in getting this much done in such a short time with the small group they have.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:

Back to the matter at hand,

I still think the Landrush should end at an undisclosed time. Force people to put up all the votes they can accumulate, and put in their real pick-lists.

At very least, I think they should lock the top 10 spots early.

Changing the rules in the final week is never a good thing. Ending the LR at an undisclosed time will give rise to cries of favoritism, if there is an major change and then without notice the LR ends.

There was no requirement that you participate in any number of weeks of the LR. There is no violation of any rule to step in one the last day with 100 members and bumping any of the 1 - 30 settlements.

I'm not sure what you mean by "put in your real picks". Lee had stated recently that the top 15 or so are in their first choice. The bottom half are likely in their 2nd or 3rd choices. Some of these may have votes waiting in the wings, that is true.

Even if my own settlement would be effected, I would see the net positive of major upheavals at the end of week 10. The suspense is well worth it, and any major changes will have to be dealt with.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Close the land rush with a lightning round All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online