Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all the Brouhaha with the NAP violations, I realized a philosophical flaw in the design of the current settlement system.
In order to advance past Tier 1, players MUST be part of a Company, and that Company MUST be part of a settlement.
If a player chooses to be independent of company and settlement, then they are locked out of advancement. If a settlement rejects a company or player, then the player is locked out of advancement.
To me this is anathema to Sandbox RPG design. My advancement should not be limited to the will and whim of other players. It can be slower and/or more difficult, but not completely removed.
Settlements should NEED Companies, and Companies should NEED Players.
It should not be the other way around.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
<Stuff about training and settlements>.
You are interpreting the current, incomplete state, as though it were the design intent. Things are not as they will always be. The intent is that settlements can train anyone they want, whether a member or not, and no membership in any company will be required. The only ones who will be unable to train are those whom NO settlement is willing to train.
At the moment, they need to encourage players to fight over towers to provide meaning to the game. If anyone could train in any settlement, there would be no incentive for taking any towers, other than a small handful of settlements taking 20-30 each to guarantee they can offer everything.
Early Enrollment is an anomaly to the game's design, and you are incorrect to imagine the training setup is in any way unintentional.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the future, you will able to be member of a setllement without having to be in a company.
If you are thrown out of a Settlement, you will default to an NPC Settlement in the future. This will limit your abilities, but not entirely. I expect some people to accept these limitations and play from cities like Thornkeep, if they want to have nothing to do with the machinations of Companies and Settlements.
Settlements need to be prized assets in the game, that people will want to belong to, and protect. Else the political and economical Game of Thrones will not develop.
Now you could argue, why not leave it to the player to be a vagabond, and just seek shelter, food and training where ever he lays his head? First off, you need to make a lot of friends to live like that. But that is not the hardest part.
At some point, "training" will become a more limited resource(is this still in?). That means that a city will reserve its training for Citizens that contribute to the city by being a part of it, through Influence and increasing the Development Index. Or for Allies that pay other services in kind. But that vagabond has done nothing for the city so no training for you!
But maybe, in a far future, there will be some kind of way to accomodate for players like this, without breaking the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What Pino said, but also: PFO is not a soloable game and is not intended to be one. If you can't find a group of players you get along with, make your own. If you can't do either, yeah, you're gonna have a hard time.
Hard time is fine. Mechanically impossible is not acceptable.
For example, as a individual character, I can not take down a Mob which has a chance of dropping a T2 recipe. However, I could farm bandits and goblins to build up enough coin to buy/trade with someone who does get the T2 recipe. With a properly functioning AH this is an anonymous transaction. Everyone has the ability to buy anything that anyone else puts on the market.
Now if a player needs to build up reputation with Thornkeep to get access to higher level training then that is fine. However being part of a Player settlement will allow for that level of training with less (or no) work.
Being a part of a company and/or settlement should provide benefits but not exclusive advancement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard time is fine. Mechanically impossible is not acceptable.
Making the Settlement effectively a part of the Character Sheet is an integral part of the design. Among other things, it's intended to make Characters accountable for their actions. If independent Characters could maintain their Tier 3 Feats without being tied to a Settlement, there would be no check on their antisocial behavior and PFO would likely become overwhelmed by random, meaningless PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not implying that "building up reputation with Callambea" isn't ok.
If anything I am all for "building up reputation with Callambea," being as easy as just asking someone for the reputation.
I am opposed to the game design that would require the approval of some other player in order to advance your own character.
I have no problem with soloing being hard, difficult, slow, inefficient, grindy, or boring. But it should not be mechanically impossible.
Now I am only talking in context of spending XP to increase character abilities. Not for making an impact or influencing the world. Or even gaining resources or wealth.
In EVE, I don't need to work with any other player to learn/train any skill in the game. It is all a matter of earning enough ISK to afford the skill books. I can earn ISK faster by working with a group and therefor access training faster. But it is not required.
On the other hand, I can not hold territory or build some of the larger outposts without being part of a corp or alliance. Even the production certain resources are the purview of the 0.0 corps.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me this is anathema to Sandbox RPG design.
Remember also we've had extensive discussions here, over the last couple of years, about the meaning of the word "sandbox". The shortest way to sum up: this is PFO, not a generic sandbox, not least because few people seem to agree on a single definition of "sandbox".
Take the game as it is for now, and join in Crowdforging to make it what it will be in future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a part of a company and/or settlement should provide benefits but not exclusive advancement.
That's an interesting concept. I think it's worth exploring -
From what I can tell, effectively, as the game mechanics work right now your ability to train past level 8 is entirely at the leisure of the small group of active settlement owners. Settlements leaders cannot be replaced by force, or voted out, or anything of that nature. They are gods of their settlement.
If they *all* decide in unanimity they don't like you, and deny any company join request that are a part of, you will not be able to use any skill past level 8, whatsoever. Rotter's Hole as a Rep haven is effectively useless in that scope after about 3 weeks.
Keep in mind, while there were originally 33 (?) settlements to choose from, I'd guess only close to half are active right now. Not hard to get a little more than a dozen people to agree on something, especially if some of those people are scared of dissenting.
Just some idle pontificating...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a part of a company and/or settlement should provide benefits but not exclusive advancement.That's an interesting concept. I think it's worth exploring -
From what I can tell, effectively, as the game mechanics work right now your ability to train past level 8 is entirely at the leisure of the small group of active settlement owners. Settlements leaders cannot be replaced by force, or voted out, or anything of that nature. They are gods of their settlement.
If they *all* decide in unanimity they don't like you, and deny any company join request that are a part of, you will not be able to use any skill past level 8, whatsoever. Rotter's Hole as a Rep haven is effectively useless in that scope after about 3 weeks.
Keep in mind, while there were originally 33 (?) settlements to choose from, I'd guess only close to half are active right now. Not hard to get a little more than a dozen people to setgree on something, especially if some of those people are scared of dissenting.
Just some idle pontificating...
From watching the boards and the NAP discussions over the past week I would venture that you would have an easier time herding cats than you would getting all the settlement leaders to agree on anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has a lot in common with EVE, but is not EVE. The owner of the Pathfinder IP has a great deal of money at stake in that part of the business, and I'm going to guess that Lisa is vehemently opposed to powerful characters running around killing anyone they feel like. This game is designed so that people can not function at a high level without cooperating. Membership in a settlement, or at the very least, getting along with one or more settlements, is how they have chosen to implement that. All you need to do is find one out of 33 possible leaders (at the moment, with more to come) that is willing to allow you training.
Some people won't like it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lemkii
This is early days and this is EE. We will have to see how the association with settlements will develop. Right now I agree that there are flaws:
a) you immidiately gain/lose training facilities / ranks depending on your membership (or lack of) and the tower count of the settlement. GW already said they will implement a cooldown
b) training above rank 7 isn't possible without joining a settlement. Unfortunately you need to be a member of a company to achieve that and some players might find the current company/settlement setup restrictive. I don't know what GW wants to do about this longer term or how this is handled.
The good part is - this will likely be a bigger deterrent to griefing as the reputation system. The Emerald Lodge is happy to welcome 'lone players' as long as they are in good standing. But I would not be willing to accept a well known griefer.
I only assume that other settlement leaders thing similar. Accepting a griefer right now costs you more political goodwill as a single player ever can pay you back.
Maybe one day there will be a player run Rotters Hole - but not sure such a place is viable as there are enough settlements looking for 'meaningful' PvP and they would see such a place as an invite to attack in the name of meaningful PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making the Settlement effectively a part of the Character Sheet is an integral part of the design. Among other things, it's intended to make Characters accountable for their actions. If independent Characters could maintain their Tier 3 Feats without being tied to a Settlement, there would be no check on their antisocial behavior and PFO would likely become overwhelmed by random, meaningless PvP.
Then I would be curious see if this is a boon or bane to the game. I think requiring/forcing player interaction and accountability instead of encouraging it is a bad design choice. There should be more carrot and less stick. Or you the game will alienate the player base likes and values it independence. Those people are not necessarily antisocial. They just want to be self sufficient.
It's just barely possible that your preferred play style is not intended to be supported by the developers. At least not during EE.
My play style seems to be fine for now. I have found a few companies that I could work with. And I do enjoy working with others from time to time. But I do not want to depend on a company to provide me something that I could not provide myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being a part of a company and/or settlement should provide benefits but not exclusive advancement.That's an interesting concept. I think it's worth exploring -
From what I can tell, effectively, as the game mechanics work right now your ability to train past level 8 is entirely at the leisure of the small group of active settlement owners. Settlements leaders cannot be replaced by force, or voted out, or anything of that nature. They are gods of their settlement.
If they *all* decide in unanimity they don't like you, and deny any company join request that are a part of, you will not be able to use any skill past level 8, whatsoever. Rotter's Hole as a Rep haven is effectively useless in that scope after about 3 weeks.
Keep in mind, while there were originally 33 (?) settlements to choose from, I'd guess only close to half are active right now. Not hard to get a little more than a dozen people to agree on something, especially if some of those people are scared of dissenting.
Just some idle pontificating...
Again. This is a temporary situation as the game ramps up. Presuming the game is successful and worth arguing about, there will eventually be far more than 33 settlements. And you can always start your own. Just not during the first few months when we are working to get the economy up and running.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me this is anathema to Sandbox RPG design.Remember also we've had extensive discussions here, over the last couple of years, about the meaning of the word "sandbox". The shortest way to sum up: this is PFO, not a generic sandbox, not least because few people seem to agree on a single definition of "sandbox".
It was my intention that it was my own opinion and philosophy of "sandbox" :)
Take the game as it is for now, and join in Crowdforging to make it what it will be in future.
That is the point of this topic. To put to discussion the long term pros and cons of limiting advancement through the current design and implementation of Player Settlements.
I am enjoying my time, I also want to express my views on what I think is good and bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Making the Settlement effectively a part of the Character Sheet is an integral part of the design. Among other things, it's intended to make Characters accountable for their actions. If independent Characters could maintain their Tier 3 Feats without being tied to a Settlement, there would be no check on their antisocial behavior and PFO would likely become overwhelmed by random, meaningless PvP.Then I would be curious see if this is a boon or bane to the game. I think requiring/forcing player interaction and accountability instead of encouraging it is a bad design choice. There should be more carrot and less stick. Or you the game will alienate the player base likes and values it independence. Those people are not necessarily antisocial. They just want to be self sufficient.
Losing your Tier 2 or greater Feats isn't an insurmountable loss. Sspitfire and I were able to fairly effectively handle any group of mobs in the game (except the Knight Legends) with just a pair of 1,000 XP Characters. Yes, that's PvE and PvP is fundamentally different, but the kinds of folks who aren't going to be welcome in any Settlement that supports Tier 2 or greater Feats are likely to be the kinds of folks who prefer to band together in groups and take on low-risk, high-reward targets. I expect there will be a significant number of Tier 2 or even Tier 3 resource farmers who have at best Tier 1 Weapon and Armor Feats.
The intent is to ensure that these kinds of folks have to work for their bread, not just hand it to them on a silver platter by giving them all the benefits of a fully Settlement-supported Character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And someday in the future, alignment for the settlements will be set up and player alignment will be activated and this kind of behavior might be considered "evil", placing them outside the starter settlements and many player settlements as well. But when that will happen is unknown.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Losing your Tier 2 or greater Feats isn't an insurmountable loss.
This brings up an interesting point. I have little problem with needing to have settlement support in order to use higher tier feats, but I should be able to learn/train those feats regardless of my association.
Going back to EVE, there is nothing stopping me from learning how to fly and use a capital ship. But it is kind of pointless to fly unless you have a fleet supporting it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those people are not necessarily antisocial. They just want to be self sufficient.... But I do not want to depend on a company to provide me something that I could not provide myself.
Support for self-sufficient philosophies of gaming is not a design goal of this particular game. PFO is specifically and deliberately being designed to make successful human interaction a necessary part of gameplay. You cannot solo PFO and no effort will be made to support you in trying; the design intention is that you must find a group of fellow players you can get along with in order to play the game successfully.
A player who can successfully alienate the leadership of every active settlement is not someone I need to share my gaming space with anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question remains: is the population at, above or below both expectations and viability?
I know Thod has used a "working" number (non scientific, just educated guess) that the number of unique players is about 400.
If that is even close to accurate, I'd say it is certainly below expectations and probably not viable.
As a gamer for many decades I see several flaws in this vision.
First, players do not readily accept that character advancement is dependent on the decisions of other players based on arbitrary rules.
Even a DM will lose players from a TT RPG if he/she artificially limits a player character growth, even if it is to keep that character in rough balance with the group.
This is even more apparent in an MMO, where time expenditure in game is unique to each individual player. Even if I spend 1 hour a day, and another player spends and hour and six minutes per day, that player will expect to have 10% more experience, gold, etc. To create an artificial barrier is tantamount to saying "You might as well stop playing for now."
I wonder what the response would be if GW decided to limit the number of items you could craft per week? Or the number of recipes you could learn?
GW (and I think it is more Ryan's) vision of a Hybrid of Sandbox - Theme Park and has married the worse of both genres.
We have little freedom and no content other than grinding random encounter pve mobs.
The vision is a combination of excessive player control, static pve content and a souless world setting.... This is alpha or EE or year 2 of 5 doesn't cut it.
I've alpha tested and beta tested dozens of MMOs:
Earth and Beyond, you felt like a space explorer.
Star Wars Galaxies, felt like Star Wars and it felt like a living breathing world.
Pirates of the Burning Sea, you felt like you were sailing the Caribbean Sea, expanding national power or pillaging and plundering the wealth of the empires.
Age of Conan captured the brutality of the Hyborian setting.
No denying you were in Middle Earth in LotRO.
Star Trek Online, felt like Star Trek, including its quirky campiness.
City of Heroes, from character customization to super powers, to random and epic events.... WoW, simply WoW!!
The Secret World has phenomenal atmosphere, can scare you out of your seat with sound quality, and its underlying sinister feel is torn straight from the HP Lovecraft stories that inspired the game.
Fallen Earth with its post apocalyptic setting, factions and crafting system that made total sense, still remains a sandbox that does not get the recognition it deserves.
I could go on, and on... But here is the kicker...
What is Pathfinder supposed to feel like as a setting? The fact that this question has to be asked is a failing of the vision.
If I knew nothing of Pathfinder TT, PFO would not make me feel I should try it.
If most of my experience is with PFRPG TT, PFO is a disappointment.
We have been told that EE is for Crowd Forging, but if that does not extend to the vision as well, that stubborn adherence may result in this project never making it to OE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those people are not necessarily antisocial. They just want to be self sufficient.... But I do not want to depend on a company to provide me something that I could not provide myself.Support for self-sufficient philosophies of gaming is not a design goal of this particular game. PFO is specifically and deliberately being designed to make successful human interaction a necessary part of gameplay. You cannot solo PFO and no effort will be made to support you in trying; the design intention is that you must find a group of fellow players you can get along with in order to play the game successfully.
A player who can successfully alienate the leadership of every active settlement is not someone I need to share my gaming space with anyway.
The OP is not asking for solo play. He is asking for character advancement to be independent of the whims of other players. Just as others have asked for skill advancement to be independent of mandatory, PVE grinds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Support for self-sufficient philosophies of gaming is not a design goal of this particular game. PFO is specifically and deliberately being designed to make successful human interaction a necessary part of gameplay. You cannot solo PFO and no effort will be made to support you in trying; the design intention is that you must find a group of fellow players you can get along with in order to play the game successfully.
If that is truly the case then this game will fail to grow over time. If a new player finds that he must join one of the established companies then you will turn off many players.
However having to work with others in the short term (aka grouping) for a specific task is expected.
Self sufficient does not mean always solo. For example, crafting past tier 1 will require being focused in one skill. However, I can be self sufficient as a Weaponsmith by buying refined materials made by others on the open market and producing final products for sale at a profit.
I could even make specific trade deals with other refiners and bypass the market. We all don't need to be a part of a company to do this.
My concern right now is purely, I should not have to rely on others in order to SPEND my XP to advance my character.
However, I will need to rely on others in order to use those advanced feats to their best effect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf
I also saw a 40% rise in my numbers in week 1. This exponential growth won't last long (it would mean 10K after 10 weeks based on 400 now) but might bring us into a suficient level. I also expect two bumps to this number:
a) when the window to accept membership gets increase (not everyone is as organized as some of the large settlements). I have right now several memberships where I wait for applications, where I don't know if players actually started, where people asked me to join and I haven't seen the official application.
b) when February comes and $50 accounts can join
So we should be fine as long as it grows at steady state. Too early to tell. And I only count players who are members in settlement. These might be hardcore - but there are enough players still frequenting starter towns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is not asking for solo play. He is asking for character advancement to be independent of the whims of other players. Just as others have asked for skill advancement to be independent of mandatory, PVE grinds.
As for Solo play, I think there is enough of that as is. I can hunt groups of whites and some collection of yellows. Or I can go out and resource gather.
I would like some type of mission system. It could even be a player run contract system. (Or even a more detailed market, so I know where I could sell my 100 coal in bulk at a good price)
As long as I have something relatively productive/profitable to do while LFG that is fine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The question remains: is the population at, above or below both expectations and viability?
I know Thod has used a "working" number (non scientific, just educated guess) that the number of unique players is about 400.
If that is even close to accurate, I'd say it is certainly below expectations and probably not viable.
As a gamer for many decades I see several flaws in this vision.
First, players do not readily accept that character advancement is dependent on the decisions of other players based on arbitrary rules.
Even a DM will lose players from a TT RPG if he/she artificially limits a player character growth, even if it is to keep that character in rough balance with the group.
This is even more apparent in an MMO, where time expenditure in game is unique to each individual player. Even if I spend 1 hour a day, and another player spends and hour and six minutes per day, that player will expect to have 10% more experience, gold, etc. To create an artificial barrier is tantamount to saying "You might as well stop playing for now."
I wonder what the response would be if GW decided to limit the number of items you could craft per week? Or the number of recipes you could learn?
GW (and I think it is more Ryan's) vision of a Hybrid of Sandbox - Theme Park and has married the worse of both genres.
We have little freedom and no content other than grinding random encounter pve mobs.
The vision is a combination of excessive player control, static pve content and a souless world setting.... This is alpha or EE or year 2 of 5 doesn't cut it.
I've alpha tested and beta tested dozens of MMOs:
Earth and Beyond, you felt like a space explorer.
Star Wars Galaxies, felt like Star Wars and it felt like a living breathing world.
Pirates of the Burning Sea, you felt like you were sailing the Caribbean Sea, expanding national power or pillaging and plundering the wealth of the empires.
Age of Conan captured the brutality of the Hyborian setting.
No denying you...
I see your point, but did you play all those games in their late second, early third year of development too?
Just yesterday I was thinking about Factions and Alignments and how important that will be to give the game more background and color.
For now we have to do with some names taken out of PF lore and the lore snippets that are so abundant as loot. Honest question: do you trash those, or read them? Some of them are quit interesting and they certainly refer to Pathfinder Lore.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's an interesting experimental mechanic that allows the community to somewhat police itself. While settlements essentially become the guarantor of the behaviour of the people they train, I believe there will be a wide spectrum of settlement philosophies. The ultimate success or failure of this mechanic to achieve GWs goal of open PvP with consequences remains to be seen. Given that social pressure is one of the main pillars of "consequences", it is unlikely to change as a mechanism. As long as a players behaviour is not anathema to the entire population, there will be ways to train without being a member of a settlement. It does come down to a philosophical objection rather than a gameplay limitation.
As long as a players behavior is not anathema to the entire population, there will be ways to train without being a member of a settlement.
There currently is not, so it is an issue, IMHO.
You don't need to become an anathema to the entire population to risk your ability to train.
And you realistically only have to piss off a couple people (leaders of large settlements) out of a little more than a dozen in the currently political state of the game, with the rest of them bowing to fear or pressure, in order to reach a place where your ability to train is threatened.
It's an interesting experimental mechanic that allows the community to somewhat police itself.
When you have a system like that you're basically relying on a small group of people to do what is best for all players, rather than themselves. I can imagine that would be difficult often people play these games in a guild leader capacity in order to subconsciously aggrandize themselves and their ego.
Either way, it should be a rather interesting experiment indeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet such people exist, as hard as that might be for you to believe.
Maybe I do believe that, not like it is pertinent to the discussion, I just happen to also believe that core game functions shouldn't be limited or subject to the whims of players unless the recipients of said whims have a reasonable alternative to continue playing said game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In most ways, the River Kingdoms conform to "traditional" RPG/MMO European medieval-esque high fantasy aesthetics and social structures. In this regard PFO is quite faithful to TT Pathfinder, because between religious hierarchies, feudal administrations, trade guilds and military orders, medieval Europe was nothing if not "high school-cliquish".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are precious few whims involved. It is not a whim to ask that your citizens play by the rules you've set. Most nations on Earth behave exactly the same way.
It's quite telling that you think we are your citizens.
There is a difference in "playing" by the rules, and being "subject" to the rules.
I didn't get to vote on anything. I had no say or influence.
Most nations on Earth have representatives they can vote for, and kick out of office when they don't represent them in a way that they desire.
Settlement leaders cannot be removed, they cannot be bargained with, and they will absolutely never stop until every last one of us is dead.
Oh wait, wrong movie sorry. lol :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I probably will never play this game seriously.
That having been said:
This game has the potential to be one of the best visions realized in an MMO ever.
Unfortunately, it also has the potential to be one of the biggest "high school-cliquish" MMOs ever.
The Cliquish attitude right now is mostly do the small size of the world and fixed settlements. Once the world map is expanded and Settlements can be created and destroyed (or at least taken over) then new groups can rise and fall in power.
Because the game is in a weird state between Beta and Release there is a small number of players and most of them are very passionate about this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The potential to be cliquish is coded into the game.
It's not a just for the time being. When a group of players can decide other players can no longer progress for reasons legitimate or otherwise, it's a popularity contest.
I've seen enough shenanigans in other MMOs with guild leaders who have made up their mind about how things should go and the grief it caused, I can't imagine those same kinds of people possibly having control over whether I could gain new levels or not as well.
I'm not saying that's how it will be, I'm saying the potential is there for it to become such.
It won't affect me personally at all if it does, other than the fact that the game has the Pathfinder brand, and I want the brand to (continue to) succeed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't get to vote on anything. I had no say or influence.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps it is a problem with your current settlement's structure?
I voted in the landrush, I am very happy with my settlement, and I am content with the amount of influence I currently have over my settlement's policies.
In a year or so, there will be an opportunity for dissatisfied players to create new settlements of their own, or attempt to burn down the ones that rejected them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are precious few whims involved. It is not a whim to ask that your citizens play by the rules you've set. Most nations on Earth behave exactly the same way.It's quite telling that you think we are your citizens.
There is a difference in "playing" by the rules, and being "subject" to the rules.
I didn't get to vote on anything. I had no say or influence.
Most nations on Earth have representatives they can vote for, and kick out of office when they don't represent them in a way that they desire.
Settlement leaders cannot be removed, they cannot be bargained with, and they will absolutely never stop until every last one of us is dead.
Oh wait, wrong movie sorry. lol :D
I don't think you are my citizens, I think you are Aragon's, by dint of having accepted membership in their settlement for your own reasons. I'm pretty sure no one made you do that except your own desire for better training, in much the same way that many people request citizenry in many terrestrial nations for access to a better life.
The poor options for settlement management are a serious flaw and have been a problem for many. The intent is that settlements are formed by a charter which specifies a type of government and a method for removing/replacing the leadership. Unfortunately, as with so many things PFO, that is not at the top of Goblinworks' list of things to do. Ozem's Vigil is fortunate that when our settlement manager had no time to devote, he voluntarily turned management over to another person who was active. Those flaws are absolutely at Goblinworks' feet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a year or so, there will be an opportunity for dissatisfied players to create new settlements of their own, or attempt to burn down the ones that rejected them.
This must be in before OE. I can accept the way things are now since we are in EE phase. But if by OE new players do not have the ability or opportunity to create/control settlements then that would be bad. And put more fuel to the fire of "not being able to compete with the established players."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a lot of references to EVE still being thrown around. This is not EVE. Sure there is some inspiration, just as there is inspiration from many other games. This game is not meant to be "all about the isk", this game is meant to be "all about player interaction". Having a very limited solo game is indeed going to limit the audience. However, making random murder-hobo a difficult career path adds significant value to the game that a lot of other sandboxes are lacking in and offers a chance to expand the audience by finding a new niche. Competing for the exact same audiences without trying to find a way to draw new players that tend to be less comfortable with the traditional sandbox gankfest is a difficult proposition considering the amount of games already filling that role.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to be a random murder-hobo to risk this stuff. Please stop with the strawmen.
With the drama going on with the NAP violation, *nobody* was killed. Not one. And yet, threats of blacklisting were floated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the drama going on with the NAP violation, *nobody* was killed. Not one. And yet, threats of blacklisting were floated.
There's an inherent assumption in this statement that a character kill is of greater objective significance than a tower claim.
I don't think that's a safe assumption about everyone's priorities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just basing it off the context of Lifedragn's entire post, which seems to be suggesting the reasoning for the in-game and Meta player interaction restrictions as to ward off rampant murder-hobos.
Personally, I think player kills are not very important in the grand scheme of things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the plan is that Settlements can install all sorts of Government, a democratic vote being one of them. So I think it will certainly be possible for members of a Settlement to vote a leader out.
I guess this would mean that a Settlement has to "lock" itself in for a certain type of Government, effectuated by GW, so that the person or persons who control the Settlement-UI can not change the Government type on a whim.