Goblin Squad Member
|
Throw in my opinion with the rest...
To put it simply, as long as edge gear is strictly player made, the game will never be P2W.
If GW continues the trend of offering items with equivalent mechanics that also have strings attached, where their player-made counterparts do not, I believe this will be a successful MTX model.
Nicely done team.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Cal & Being,
While you are both likely right I am just pointing out the possibility of such a necessitated conflict could arise, not the inevitability per se. I am just wondering if the GW guys thought about it is all. Given that it does seem unlikely all will sell before they add more space, (kind of unfortunately for GW who would certainly enjoy the needed monetary support) it makes sense if the subject hadn't been given too much thought in regards to "overpopulation", if you will. I was simply wondering the thoughts of GW if such an event did occur.
And so:
Is it fair to have someone buy something that is more for crafting and rest and in turn be forced to enter a war, or at least heavy diplomatic negotiations, if they desired to use it?
An answer to this certainly would set my mind at ease in terms of how GW feels about certain subject matters, and I honestly can see it going both ways and thus won't be upset by the answer, whatever it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is concerning that a lot of people are seeing "putting in the hours" as a way to get ahead in game and are already getting defensive when they see things like shop items that infringe on that dynamic.
In truth neither will get you that far ahead. The core game system is an improvement on EVE and will have the same basic dynamics as EVE. Numbers will be the real force nultiplier and acquiring access to superior numbers either through alts or good social skills and making friends or a canny choice of chartered company and settlement is what will give you the real long term advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, I've been gone hiking for a week so forgive me for not reading EVERY post in this thread (I think I managed to read all Goblinworks posts)
A Few things I want clarification on.
1. No Mechanical Benefit over Player Created Items:
Does this mean similar items will be able to be crafted that do not need to be threaded, are not destroyed on player death and are able to be used an infinite number of times subject to cooldowns?
I consider these to be serious mechanical benefits.
If they had to be "re-charged" with crafting materials I'd be happier about it.
2. Since these items are currently set to be one (of each) per account max, can they be easily traded between characters on the same account?
3. If built in an Unclaimed Hex and later a Settlement claims the hex, what happens?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3. If built in an Unclaimed Hex and later a Settlement claims the hex, what happens?
This is an issue with these types of things, especially for the Smallhold that can only be destroyed by siege engines. An enemy settlement could build (a bunch) of these things in unclaimed hexes adjacent to their enemy settlement's claimed hexes and all of a sudden have a bunch of "airbases" to endlessly drop troops into.
TEO Cheatle had some suggestions (above) on how to limit this, but it is something that I think needs attention from GW. Another thought (in addition to Cheatle's) may include a settlement needing to expend DI to establish and maintain these things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. No Mechanical Benefit over Player Created Items:
Does this mean similar items will be able to be crafted that do not need to be threaded, are not destroyed on player death and are able to be used an infinite number of times subject to cooldowns?I consider these to be serious mechanical benefits.
If they had to be "re-charged" with crafting materials I'd be happier about it.
As far as we can tell right now, player-made campfires will be single-use, but it doesn't sound like there would be a cooldown between the destruction or expiration of one campfire and the deployment of the next one.
I don't know whether it will be possible to thread player-made campfires, but as consumables, I doubt it. I think that campfires will be eligible for destruction or looting on player death. I suspect they'll also be cheaper than cash store base camps. We won't know for sure until exchange rates and prices stabilize.
As far as I can tell, player-made campfires will be one-use consumables, carried by the stack, and base camps will be infinitely-reusable, one-per-account items with cooldown timers.
Aside from being re-useable, it sounds like another advantage of base camps will be the built-in storage space. From what we can tell, it sounds like a second consumable (maybe a buried chest) would need to be deployed along with a campfire to replicate all the functions of a base camp.
I think the benefits of campfires are that they don't cost you real-world dollars, just in-game gold pieces, and that you can drop a second one immediately after the first one de-spawns, instead of waiting out a cooldown.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good point to note is that buying a Base Camp does not exclude you from the need to purchase campfires. With a 5 day duration and a ten day cooldown (from memory), you spend far more time without your base camp than you do with it.
This is less true of a Smallholding, but Smallholdings are much less mobile - moving it means going a whole month without.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When constructed within a Settlement perimeter or a Hex controlled by a Settlement, the Smallholding shares the PvP window of that Settlement. When erected in the wilderness the Smallholding will have a 24 hour PvP window
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like you can place them in an Unclaimed Wilderness Hex, what happens if that Wilderness Hex then becomes Claimed?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. No Mechanical Benefit over Player Created Items:
Does this mean similar items will be able to be crafted that do not need to be threaded, are not destroyed on player death and are able to be used an infinite number of times subject to cooldowns?I consider these to be serious mechanical benefits.
It appears that "logistical benefit" is being distinguished from "mechanical benefit". If the tactical effect of the item can be duplicated with crafted items then GW consists this commitment met, even if the ongoing strategic cost of using the crafted items is significantly greater.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consider that a small holding is a mechanical combination of two things which may be crafted. We have heard of different camp site for which there are recipes already in alpha. THere is a concept of of a more secure defense espoused by @Saiph the Fallen (IIRC). There may be specifics of here a small hold may be placed ( not in settlement hex which have no settlement, hmmm). There have been discussions about twice marked making bind points.
OK a small hold has limited capabilities of camp fire and poi with bind pony which twice marked may have. THis is not same as in game. But at $200 it is something that could be created in game for less than 15month character time.
Yes, No, Maybe
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. No Mechanical Benefit over Player Created Items:
Does this mean similar items will be able to be crafted that do not need to be threaded, are not destroyed on player death and are able to be used an infinite number of times subject to cooldowns?I consider these to be serious mechanical benefits.
To me, those are convenience benefits, not mechanical benefits. The fact that you'll be able to use it again in a month doesn't make you more powerful in any mechanical way right now.
If they had to be "re-charged" with crafting materials I'd be happier about it.
At least one of them requires Upkeep, probably in the form of resources and coin. I kinda sorta expect the other requires Upkeep too, but just wasn't mentioned because its Upkeep doesn't scale according to how damaged it is, but I realize that's just speculation on my part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...edge gear...I'm not familiar with the term, and Googling didn't help. Please explain?
I expect "edge gear" is the gear that provides an edge in combat, etc.
Gear that is at the leading edge of advancement, which would in effect provide an edge in combat, crafting, adventuring or whatever other purpose it might be put towards.
...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk about bound ponies...I thought Paizo had a strict no-clop ordinance. :/
Shame? Is that that disease non-kobolds sometimes catch?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Third, we don't want destroying a structure to be a casual act of vandalism. To destroy a Base Camp should take a solo character a very long time, or a group of characters a reasonably long time - certainly enough time for you to receive a notice that the camp is under attack, rally a defense, and engage the hostile forces. Destroying a Smallhold is a significant operation that can't be achieved simply by individual characters. Destroying a Smallhold will require the use of a Siege Engine, and that is a game system that won't be built or deployed until we are close to Open Enrollment, and it will require a lot of materials and highly specialized characters (likely more than one) to operate it. Plus it will need to be moved into place to attack the Smallhold.
Quick question: Do players who are defending a base camp (or small holding) gain a defensive bonus while inside and defending against attackers?
I was thinking about how often in Westerns it takes a full posse to shoot out while a farmer (plus family or friend) defend behind their fortified small holding.
I was looking at a house built during the Anglo-Saxon times (somewhat regenerated in the 15th Century!) and it takes you back about 5 centuries inside it. But the windows are within deep walls and angle towards slits to be able to shoot out of, with a buttress door and flagstones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Meanwhile, on topic and just outside the blast radius of Bony's AE attacks ...
Is there any chance of Destiny's Twin making it into the premium item list, or is it just a case of 'buy 2 accounts if you want 2 characters with exp' at this point ?
Buy 2 accounts. Ryan has been firm that DT will never be offered for sale.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3. If built in an Unclaimed Hex and later a Settlement claims the hex, what happens?This is an issue with these types of things, especially for the Smallhold that can only be destroyed by siege engines. An enemy settlement could build (a bunch) of these things in unclaimed hexes adjacent to their enemy settlement's claimed hexes and all of a sudden have a bunch of "airbases" to endlessly drop troops into.
TEO Cheatle had some suggestions (above) on how to limit this, but it is something that I think needs attention from GW. Another thought (in addition to Cheatle's) may include a settlement needing to expend DI to establish and maintain these things.
Cheatle's suggestion, at least as I read it, is that a group of companies should be able to despawn any existing smallholding upon claiming a hex without further investment on their part without regard to the prior investment of smallholders there.
The argument goes that it is already a big investment for the claiming settlement to claim the hex and they shouldn't have to invest even more to evict smallholders.
I say that isn't fair. The existing smallholder should have prior claim, property rights. It should require more investment to claim a hex on which there is one or more opposing smallholdings than would be required if the smallholdings not there.
Cheatle appears to want the investment cost involved in claiming a hex to include eviction of smallholders without a need to negotiate, interact, and apparently without consequence.
A smallholder has an investment as well. Most assuredly the smallholder has already worked to keep local escalations in check, a fact the claiming settlement has capitalized on by reducing the NPC opposition for them.
I stand for the rights of the individual smallholders and their small band of friends against such heartless corporate giants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quote: "The Smallholding can be erected outside the perimeter of a Settlement but within the boundary created by the ring road, or at special locations in the wilderness."
What is a "Ring Road"?
There might be something to glean from this Milestone update pick:
Or similar to Paris' ring-road aka Périphérique separating it from the suburbs aka "banlieues" perhaps (!).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3. If built in an Unclaimed Hex and later a Settlement claims the hex, what happens?This is an issue with these types of things, especially for the Smallhold that can only be destroyed by siege engines. An enemy settlement could build (a bunch) of these things in unclaimed hexes adjacent to their enemy settlement's claimed hexes and all of a sudden have a bunch of "airbases" to endlessly drop troops into.
TEO Cheatle had some suggestions (above) on how to limit this, but it is something that I think needs attention from GW. Another thought (in addition to Cheatle's) may include a settlement needing to expend DI to establish and maintain these things.
Cheatle's suggestion, at least as I read it, is that a group of companies should be able to despawn any existing smallholding upon claiming a hex without further investment on their part without regard to the prior investment of smallholders there.
The argument goes that it is already a big investment for the claiming settlement to claim the hex and they shouldn't have to invest even more to evict smallholders.
I say that isn't fair. The existing smallholder should have prior claim, property rights. It should require more investment to claim a hex on which there is one or more opposing smallholdings than would be required if the smallholdings not there.
Cheatle appears to want the investment cost involved in claiming a hex to include eviction of smallholders without a need to negotiate, interact, and apparently without consequence.
A smallholder has an investment as well. Most assuredly the smallholder has already worked to keep local escalations in check, a fact the claiming settlement has capitalized on by reducing the NPC opposition for them.
I stand for the rights of the individual smallholders and their small band of friends against such heartless corporate giants.
Going to totally have to disagree with you here.
Also, "Heartless Corporate Giant" is not an apt description, perhaps "Settlement that doesn't want an enemy bind point within 2 hexes" describes it better.
If the people dropping the small holding wanted that particular hex so badly, why didn't they claim the Hex for themselves? If they have enough people to maintain escalation cycles, they can claim the hex, other wise there investment in that hex is little more than putting down a premade house on a plot of land (Note Premade, they didn't actually build it, they bought it knowing that it can be removed/destroyed at any time).
If its none of the above, then they are placing the small holding for strategic reasons, in which case there needs to be more than just one way for them to be removed. Currently, we have only one method of removal, Sieges, which will be implemented in 1 Year+, and we can beat the crap out of it to increase upkeep. Unless we can increase upkeep beyond what they can pay, it does nothing.
Having an ability to remove structures places limitations on exploitation of what is essentially player housing. This is also a game of Civilization, Territory, and Resources, unless a player is specifically part of an organization/company/settlement that accepts certain unalienable rights, certain things like placing small holdings within range of Settlements, without permission will not be tolerated, most likely by any group currently with a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alternatively, I believe 200 is an absurd amount of money for a cash shop item, making it a money grab. And the only people able to buy it for some time will be people who have already put a large chunk of money into this game. Thus the sticking too.Cash shop is fine. Cash shop offering structures in game? That's some crap. Even then I'd be not too bothered by it if not for the absurd price tag.
There, that is a more reasonable way of contributing to the conversation. :)
As you can see from the replies after you posted, not a lot of people agree with your viewpoint (not that is wrong, just different).
As to your points above, I disagree because:
A) $200 is a LOT of money for some, a REASONABLE amount for others, and POCKETCHANGE for a few; in addition, depending on where you are standing on the PVP to PVE scale, that amount of cash for what this item can do is: way to expensive or just about right or what a bargain!
What may seem ABUSRD to you for a single person to pay, might be Reasonable for a Company, and Dirt Cheap for a Settlement.
Each player, company and settlement has a different value judgment on the price vs. use scale, and will vote with their wallet as to if its a fair value or not (and GW is asking for this kind of feedback).
In addition, the $50 and $200 cash points is just the start; GW has said FROM THE BEGINING that they will have a wide range of non-pay to win items for sale, ranging from low to high costs.
As for "sticking it"; I disagree that an OPTIONAL resource that is NOT PAY TO WIN is in any way, shape or form FORCING people to pay money in order to play.
For the reasons above, no I don't think its a "money grab" and "the only people able to buy it for some time will be people who have already put a large chunk of money into this game. Thus the sticking too."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pino, they have said DT will never be sold, it was a KS only perk.
HOWEVER, they do NOT want people buying multiple accounts. Instead you can buy multiple "Training Time" or whatever it ends up being called and you can apply them to different characters on the same account, even allowing XP gain at the same time. The DT makes it so you only have to apply training time to one of the two characters for both to gain XP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of a culture of property rights presupposes a social contract which doesn't exist in the wilderness. If you want your homestead to have defenses beyond the brute force which is the only defense in a Hobbesian state of nature, then participate in society and get a settlement to sponsor your hex.
If you choose to build a hermitage outside of the protections of a settlement's sponsorship then you are choosing not to bear the responsibilities of society, and have no right to claim its protections.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks to all the replies, Guurz, Jazz, Drak; I am enlightened.
I may go for a 2nd character, now that I know.
Not that I can figure out how to do it, in the store.
You can't, yet. That will (hopefully) change before we go live in September, but if not, you'd have to have two accounts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alternatively, I believe 200 is an absurd amount of money for a cash shop item, making it a money grab. And the only people able to buy it for some time will be people who have already put a large chunk of money into this game. Thus the sticking too.Cash shop is fine. Cash shop offering structures in game? That's some crap. Even then I'd be not too bothered by it if not for the absurd price tag.
There, that is a more reasonable way of contributing to the conversation. :)
As you can see from the replies after you posted, not a lot of people agree with your viewpoint (not that is wrong, just different).
As to your points above, I disagree because:
A) $200 is a LOT of money for some, a REASONABLE amount for others, and POCKETCHANGE for a few; in addition, depending on where you are standing on the PVP to PVE scale, that amount of cash for what this item can do is: way to expensive or just about right or what a bargain!
What may seem ABUSRD to you for a single person to pay, might be Reasonable for a Company, and Dirt Cheap for a Settlement.
Each player, company and settlement has a different value judgment on the price vs. use scale, and will vote with their wallet as to if its a fair value or not (and GW is asking for this kind of feedback).
In addition, the $50 and $200 cash points is just the start; GW has said FROM THE BEGINING that they will have a wide range of non-pay to win items for sale, ranging from low to high costs.
As for "sticking it"; I disagree that an OPTIONAL resource that is NOT PAY TO WIN is in any way, shape or form FORCING people to pay money in order to play.
For the reasons above, no I don't think its a "money grab" and "the only people able to buy it for some time will be people who have already put a large chunk of money into this game. Thus the sticking too."
Right, well, LAUGHABLE CONDESCENSION and random CAPITALIZATION aside, I'll disagree with a point or two here.
A) It may be "Reasonable for a Company" and "Dirt Cheap for a Settlement", but ultimately these items aren't owned by a company or a settlement. They're owned by a person. Even if said person is using it for the benefit of the company or settlement. And that then also runs the risk of having money pooled to someone for a large purchase, and said person skips away with the item.
B) Well, you never really put a "B" point anywhere. Yes, I know 50 and 200 is just the start. I've heard the spiel that they've put out regarding cash shop items. But that really has no bearing on the points I made.
This is going to be a case of agree to disagree, I think. But in the future, you don't need to MAKE YOUR POST in SUCH A WAY to come off as being PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE just to make your point. As fun as it may be. =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Moonbird - that's a really big and complex system. The tradeoffs with other design priorities would be enormous. Would need to have a huge wave of community support get behind something like that to make it happen in the 2-3 year timeframe (couldn't be done any earlier regardless of interest...)
Thanks a lot for your answer, Ryan, I understand your concern.
From my outsider's point of view, I feel you're not far from having the basic building blocks to offer such a system, since you already have player deployable structures like the basecamp and smallhold, and they have hit points and can be destroyed by players with or without siege engines.
What would be missing for a minimal player built forteress ? I would say 2 things: a wall that could be oriented north/south or east/west, that would connect to another wall if one would be there, and that would have hit points . The other thing would be a lockable door and that's about it I think.
And finally the ability for the defenders to climb on the wall so they could shoot the attackers.
Is this possible on a shorter time than 2 or 3 years ?
Seeya,
Moonbird
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quote: "The Smallholding can be erected outside the perimeter of a Settlement but within the boundary created by the ring road, or at special locations in the wilderness."
What is a "Ring Road"?
There is a road that encircles every settlement location, it is outside of where I believe the walls will be, though there are no walls in alpha. I'll get a screenshot this weekend from a nearby hill looking over a town for you so you can get an idea of scale as well.
A) $200 is a LOT of money for some, a REASONABLE amount for others, and POCKETCHANGE for a few; in addition, depending on where you are standing on the PVP to PVE scale, that amount of cash for what this item can do is: way to expensive or just about right or what a bargain!What may seem ABUSRD to you for a single person to pay, might be Reasonable for a Company, and Dirt Cheap for a Settlement.
Each player, company and settlement has a different value judgment on the price vs. use scale, and will vote with their wallet as to if its a fair value or not (and GW is asking for this kind of feedback).
In addition, the $50 and $200 cash points is just the start; GW has said FROM THE BEGINING that they will have a wide range of non-pay to win items for sale, ranging from low to high costs.
As for "sticking it"; I disagree that an OPTIONAL resource that is NOT PAY TO WIN is in any way, shape or form FORCING people to pay money in order to play.
What is this, an MSPA Fanventure?
Your name is CALDEATHE. As was previously mentioned it is your BIRTHDAY. A number of JARS OF XYLEM SAP and HOCKEY MASKS are scattered about your room. You have a variety of INTERESTS. You have a passion for writing SHORT STORIES about your VIDEO GAME CHARACTERS. You like to argue with people on the internet but it DOES NOT OFTEN END WELL. You have a fondness for LARGE NORTH AMERICAN CERVIDAE.
What will you do?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say that isn't fair. The existing smallholder should have prior claim, property rights. It should require more investment to claim a hex on which there is one or more opposing smallholdings than would be required if the smallholdings not there.
Seems like any claim goes out the window if you do not show up to defend said claim.
On the topic of ownership for these goods, it would be a great thing to allow companies/settlements ownership of store-bought in-game items like the smallhold and basecamp. Eligible members could check them out, and if they left the company or settlement they no longer have access to them. (Could make them disappear for cooldown period before reappearing in settlement / company vault.) If the company or settlement is instead disbanded/destroyed, whoever had the item would likely retain ownership at that point, possession and all that.
Point being, a group could donate towards the smallhold, and not feel like a single member can screw them over.
If company/settlement store pseudo-accounts were feasible, that would be kinda nice. Just add money to the joint account and authorized users can spend it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players pooling resources towards group assets that are individually held is not a new thing (Titans), and while it very occasionally ends in tears such things are exactly the kind of Great Story that emerges from sandbox games.
I don't believe any mechanical system to allow safety for this sort of asset would be a good use of development time, at the very least. It might even close the door on what I see as a rather valuable source of emergent gameplay.