Goblin Squad Member
|
Hello all, I am not up to date with any future plans regarding skills and crafting at settlements other than what is currently available, so if what i say has already been addressed, just enlighten me with any quick summaries.
I'm not a big fan of relegating advanced training to settlement members only. I believe training should be available universal, whether a settlement member or not. Now I would still give incentive to settlements by keeping the current xp costs.....non-settlement members can receive the same training but at higher cost, no in xp, but perhaps through silver...maybe something meaningful like 10 to 20 silver per trained feat on top of the xp costs.
Crafting I feel should be minimized at NPC settlements....leaving more finished/specialty crafting to be done in player settlements by their members.
All I had
Thanks for showing any interests :)
Atheory
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not a big fan of relegating advanced training to settlement members only. I believe training should be available universal, whether a settlement member or not. Now I would still give incentive to settlements by keeping the current xp costs.....non-settlement members can receive the same training but at higher cost, no in xp, but perhaps through silver...maybe something meaningful like 10 to 20 silver per trained feat on top of the xp costs.
Crafting I feel should be minimized at NPC settlements....leaving more finished/specialty crafting to be done in player settlements by their members.
I think the reason training is restricted to settlement members is to encourage players to join settlements and play within the social/political framework of settlements. If players could simply train anywhere to advanced levels, then what real incentive is there for said players to (a) put themselves at indirect risk by affiliation with a settlement, (b) behave within the strictures established by said settlement (which are related to the larger inter-settlement politics) for the purposes of staying in good standing therein, and (c) protect the settlement itself when it is threatened?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect that you will not have any luck with your suggestion. It would make significant changes in the way the game is set up and designed.
Settlement training is based on the number of towers that the settlement controls - the more towers, the higher level of feat that you can train.
From what I understand, this is done for several reasons, including but not limited to:
1) Method of getting players involved in the game
2) As the game is a sandbox environment, this creates player generated adventures and interactions
3) Promotes social groups and activities
4) Helps limit the negative impact of murderers
5) Helps to prevent real world money being able to "buy to win" the game
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the first part of Atheory's post jump over here
As for the second part. I think time costs and chance of critical success are the advantages of Player settlements.
This is a big deal for armor crafting where base time could be 10 to 20 hours (and more) in a NPC settlement but half (or even one quarter) that in a dedicated crafting settlement.
Even having a better chance to get +4 and +5 refined components is a significant.
(As I pet my +4 Basic Strap, "my precious, one day you will be a +4 longsword")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If players could simply train anywhere to advanced levels, then what real incentive is there for said players to (a) put themselves at indirect risk by affiliation with a settlement, (b) behave within the strictures established by said settlement (which are related to the larger inter-settlement politics) for the purposes of staying in good standing therein, and (c) protect the settlement itself when it is threatened?
Good question. People do all of those things in EVE, while still being able to train their skills regardless of affiliation.
1. People get ganked in EVE by being in a corp that is at war.
2. People get kicked from corps in EVE for being idiots or jerks.
3. People protect their corp's player-owned stations when they are being sieged.
Yet, if you leave your corp today, non of your training goes away.
Why can PFO not function in a similar manner?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It probably could. The question is, should it?
EvE might be a dystopian future where scamming is legitimate business and a long-term betrayal is the pinnacle of player interaction.
Maybe PFO takes a different path, where building faction with player settlements is important and being a misanthrope is not a good long-term strategy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If players could simply train anywhere to advanced levels, then what real incentive is there for said players to (a) put themselves at indirect risk by affiliation with a settlement, (b) behave within the strictures established by said settlement (which are related to the larger inter-settlement politics) for the purposes of staying in good standing therein, and (c) protect the settlement itself when it is threatened?Good question. People do all of those things in EVE, while still being able to train their skills regardless of affiliation.
1. People get ganked in EVE by being in a corp that is at war.
2. People get kicked from corps in EVE for being idiots or jerks.
3. People protect their corp's player-owned stations when they are being sieged.Yet, if you leave your corp today, non of your training goes away.
Why can PFO not function in a similar manner?
It could. But the developers don't want it to.
When they get to it, training will survive a month or so after leaving the settlement. They aren't there yet.
EvE might be a dystopian future where scamming is legitimate business and a long-term betrayal is the pinnacle of player interaction.
The stuff I pointed out happens every day in EVE, the stuff you pointed out is typically rare, or at least uncommon.
Why is it so black and white for you?
It could. But the developers don't want it to.
My point was answering an assertion that players would not have any incentive for working with a settlement if they didn't need to be a part of it for training.
I'm quite aware of what the devs do or do not want to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When they get to it, training will survive a month or so after leaving the settlement. They aren't there yet.
As long as XP is never LOST or the feat you purchased is removed (even with refund of XP.)
If you lose the benefit of a T2+ feat, but still have it known and available should you find support again, that is less of an issue.
Part of the problem is that an individual, or company, can not create a new settlement that is of their liking. Or take over an existing settlement.
If those were available then it would allow players to still advance without being dependent on the whims of others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is that an individual, or company, can not create a new settlement that is of their liking. Or take over an existing settlement.
Indeed.
That mechanics or lack-thereof grants an enormous amount of power to settlement owners to shape how people can and cannot play "the game". They hold all the keys, and they cannot be taken away, even if hypothetically there were a larger or significant percentage of people wanting to play in a different manner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If players could simply train anywhere to advanced levels, then what real incentive is there for said players to (a) put themselves at indirect risk by affiliation with a settlement, (b) behave within the strictures established by said settlement (which are related to the larger inter-settlement politics) for the purposes of staying in good standing therein, and (c) protect the settlement itself when it is threatened?Good question. People do all of those things in EVE, while still being able to train their skills regardless of affiliation.
1. People get ganked in EVE by being in a corp that is at war.
2. People get kicked from corps in EVE for being idiots or jerks.
3. People protect their corp's player-owned stations when they are being sieged.Yet, if you leave your corp today, non of your training goes away.
Why can PFO not function in a similar manner?
My understanding is that it's because PFO aims to involve everyone in settlement-level conflicts, not a small minority of "hardcore nullsec" players.
It also makes wars more meaningful, rather than "oh let's just dock up until they get bored and go away". And it also prevents the bank-rolling of unaffiliated (by choice or by consequence) actors since they won't be able to make effective use of good gear without having that training.
Bottom line, it is intended to make settlement membership the most important decision you make for your character.
Bottom line, it is intended to make settlement membership the most important decision you make for your character.
I can get behind that.
But, when when you have few choices and no recourse in the matter, is that acceptable?
Will that promote a healthy player population?
(I'm being rhetorical Cal, so don't bother).
Obviously, that is the main point of contention between some folks, as to the design and growth of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A temporary problem; those mechanisms will exist in the future. We are still very early on in the development of PFO.
Indeed, and yet we can be negatively affected by those circumstances, right. now. is that OK?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A temporary problem; those mechanisms will exist in the future. We are still very early on in the development of PFO.Indeed, and yet we can be negatively affected by those circumstances, right. now. is that OK?
For those of us that expected it, yes. Not necessarily for others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, and yet we can be negatively affected by those circumstances, right. now. is that OK?
It's up to you to decide if it's OK for you. If not, feel free to postpone your participation until the game reaches a more personally-suitable state of readiness.
I note in passing that you had the same opportunity everyone else did to participate in the Land Rush and win a settlement of your own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A temporary problem; those mechanisms will exist in the future. We are still very early on in the development of PFO.Indeed, and yet we can be negatively affected by those circumstances, right. now. is that OK?
Yes, it is. Lots of people are "negatively affected" by stuff not in the game. Some people want to play classes that aren't implemented. Some people want to run dungeons that don't exist yet. Some people want to engage in formation combat, assassination, market manipulation, caravans, and dozens of other features which are not in the game yet.
Yes, it is. Lots of people are "negatively affected" by stuff not in the game. Some people want to play classes that aren't implemented. Some people want to run dungeons that don't exist yet. Some people want to engage in formation combat, assassination, market manipulation, caravans, and dozens of other features which are not in the game yet.
And if somebody doesn't get to train their character past level 8 because a *few* other players don't like them, is that OK?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is. Lots of people are "negatively affected" by stuff not in the game. Some people want to play classes that aren't implemented. Some people want to run dungeons that don't exist yet. Some people want to engage in formation combat, assassination, market manipulation, caravans, and dozens of other features which are not in the game yet.And if somebody doesn't get to train their character past level 8 because a *few* other players don't like them, is that OK?
If the social compact existing within PFO, being critical to the functioning of the whole system, is to have any meaning at all, then yes, that's OK. Maybe that somebody should ask themselves why "a few other players don't like them" and how they managed to get themselves into such a situation for no gain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<sigh>
You don't have to antagonize a large group of people to meet that situation. 99% of the people playing this game have no say or control whatsoever about companies being aligned to settlements.
Just approximately ~ 17 people or less. Many of whom by the way exhibit a tremendous amount of group-think.
If the social compact existing within PFO, being critical to the functioning of the whole system, is to have any meaning at all, then yes, that's OK. Maybe that somebody should ask themselves why "a few other players don't like them" and how they managed to get themselves into such a situation for no gain.
It's pretty incredible that you will admit that. OK.
As to your last assertion, I guess nobody will ever have that problem since humans are always fair minded, and never vindictive or mean-spirited for irrational reasons. <phew>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone actually playing who wants a settlement has one, and if they don't it's either due to lack of trying or hugely antisocial behavior. If you're worried that playing this game like a murder sim might have social consequences which impact your game experience, you're right, and that's by design, so don't do that.
If you can present an actual case of someone being excluded from all settlements solely due to groupthink rather than him actually being a total jerk, we can reopen this conversation then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's group think. I imagine it's 17 players who are very interested in *not* having loose cannons that cause them headaches. Maybe those 17 players would rather tend to *their* game and *their* political machinations than take on trouble that they'll have to spend time, energy, and accumulated faction with other settlements to clean up.
edit to add: I think that most of us have day jobs. We might not like our boss, but it's in our interest to make her life easier, not harder. If we can make him look good, even better. If you aren't a leader, be a good follower.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
<sigh>
You don't have to antagonize a large group of people to meet that situation. 99% of the people playing this game have no say or control whatsoever about companies being aligned to settlements.
Just approximately ~ 17 people or less. Many of whom by the way exhibit a tremendous amount of group-think.
Actually, any company that's allied to a settlement can accept you. The 17 people limit would only be for accepting a company. There are probably closer to 75 people that could accept any number of individuals for membership in a settlement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone actually playing who wants a settlement has one, and if they don't it's either due to lack of trying or hugely antisocial behavior.
Do you not believe that anybody has heard of PFO only after landrush? I got here after landrush, so no settlement. All the more frustrating when watching half the settlements on the map languish empty.
Actually, any company that's allied to a settlement can accept you. The 17 people limit would only be for accepting a company. There are probably closer to 75 people that could accept any number of individuals for membership in a settlement.
Presumably, there is the ability to look at the membership of a company in application, and theoretically deny based on the content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone actually playing who wants a settlement has one, and if they don't it's either due to lack of trying or hugely antisocial behavior.Do you not believe that anybody has heard of PFO only after landrush? I got here after landrush, so no settlement. All the more frustrating when watching half the settlements on the map languish empty.
He was not referring to having [b]control[b] over your own settlement, but to the fact that anyone who wants to be in one has found one, even your team, which are members of Aragon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, any company that's allied to a settlement can accept you. The 17 people limit would only be for accepting a company. There are probably closer to 75 people that could accept any number of individuals for membership in a settlement.Presumably, there is the ability to look at the membership of a company in application, and theoretically deny based on the content.
Sure. If the settlement leader wants to eject the entire company they can do that. But they can't eject one or two members while keeping the rest of the company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally do have a real big problem with what I can do being directly tied to my settlement. I don't care if I still have the skill and just can't use it, I'm still being denied access to something I earned based on where I stash my loot? Silly.
I think the whole thing with Blackfeather Keep and now Allegiant just goes to show that the idea that settlements should have static leadership needs to be remedied FAST. That or allow people to join and advance the NPC towns similar to PC towns (albeit at a significantly lower rate, say 3:1?) until the systems are put into place to allow coups of settlements or you decide to open up the unclaimed settlements for people to take.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Doc
I see here two issues:
a) The original landrush did start over half a year ago. This is a long time amd this gives and advantage to early starters and places at disadvantage people who come late. I avsolutely agree with that.
But please keep in mind that the Kickstarter itself was 2 years ago. During the Kickstarter you had to spend $500 to allow you a guild pack. Not 100% sure when the landrush came up - but I know the first one was crowdforger guild or alpha backers only which could put their hat into the ring.
This whole game moves in the direction that will allow - eventually - anyone new to form a group, claim his stake and build a new settlement. The advantage of long term backers will diminish over time.
But that is part of a Kickstarter - being in early for benefits.
b) The blacklisting issue. Look at it through the eyes of a settlement leader. You will find a place if you add something to a settlement. The door will be closed in front of you if you endanger a settlement.
This is like game of thrones - there are many people here with ambitions. Play towards their ambitions and you will be courted - endanger them in front of their peers and you are thrown out.
There are players just waiting for someone to slip up and pounce on him. This is a PvP game and there is a lack of 'justified victims'. So painting a bulleye on the back of your settlement is likely the surest way to be thrown out / become unwelcome.
This is the game as it is right now. This is exaberated at the moment by the fact of a lot of players really looking hard to do 'meaningful PvP' aka please give me a reason to attack you - however flimsy.
There are several options
Bide your time until the game is ready
Prepare for a backup plan
Come up with something else that is inside the game mechanic
What happens in Aragon is interesting. Popcorn bag ready. You usurped them more or less if I look at the numbers of members in your company compared to the whole settlement are now around 50%.
Add a settlement leader who is pretty inactive right now (yes RL does happen) and you feel entitled to more.
But the game mechanic doesn't allow you yet to throw out the old guard or have them do what you think is right.
Maybe I'm wrong and you and the settlement members not in your company are best friends. But some postings seem to indicate you feel you can't get what should be yours by actions in the game and you only now realize fully the implications.
Yes - someone trying to ursurp a settlement will be backlisted naturally from all other settlements apart from the most desperate ones.
To say it again
Bide your time until the game is ready
Prepare for a backup plan
This is like game of thrones - there are many people here with ambitions.
Thod, with respect, if you feel you needed to explain all of those things to me then you apparently underestimate some people around here.
Of course it is a game of thrones, and the people without "thrones" presently are likely just as ambitious and driven as the folks who won theirs already with cash and a forum popularity contest.
Popcorn bag ready. You usurped them more or less if I look at the numbers of members in your company compared to the whole settlement are now around 50%. ...Yes - someone trying to ursurp a settlement will be backlisted naturally from all other settlements apart from the most desperate ones.
You've mischaracterized a lot of things that have gone on and by suggesting we were trying to usurp the settlement is kind of annoying, because that would indicate you think we're idiots.
I know just as well that anyone in the know that Settlement leaders are the gods of their settlements. They cannot be removed, and they can do whatever they like regarding their membership. That fact that a council of 17 of them can decide to prevent any player from effectively playing the game is just a further example of their influence and power over the game.
some postings seem to indicate you feel you can't get what should be yours by actions in the game and you only now realize fully the implications.
Respectfully, it will probably be safer for you in this political simulator to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not dummies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, it is. Lots of people are "negatively affected" by stuff not in the game. Some people want to play classes that aren't implemented. Some people want to run dungeons that don't exist yet. Some people want to engage in formation combat, assassination, market manipulation, caravans, and dozens of other features which are not in the game yet.And if somebody doesn't get to train their character past level 8 because a *few* other players don't like them, is that OK?
If by *few*, you mean everyone who controls a proto-settlement, then that somebody has made themselves an uncomfortable bed to lie in until the founding of new settlements is implemented. And yes that is more than OK, it is the exact intent of a player controlled world.
Settlements control training and trade, players control settlements. Settlements interact via player company action. There was never any intent for viable end game performance by groups or individuals outside of player settlements in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You've mischaracterized a lot of things that have gone on and by suggesting we were trying to usurp the settlement is kind of annoying, because that would indicate you think we're idiots.
The opposite. I think AGC are ambitious, driven and likely the most dangerous group to keep an eye on that has developed since the landrush was finished.
Idiots I tend to ignore on these boards. They are not worth my time to comment on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lets not poke the "Doc" until he has had his morning coffee at least.
I will chime in with regards to the usurping notion, Thod, we love you, but that's not whats happening, nor has it ever crossed our mind for such a power play when the games mechanics presently do not support such an endeavor.
However, you are right in that we are ambitious, driven and just perhaps unpredictable enough to be dangerous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements control training and trade, players control settlements. Settlements interact via player company action. There was never any intent for viable end game performance by groups or individuals outside of player settlements in PFO.
It is also not the long term intention that Settlement ownership to be static and unchanging. However right now non-settlement owners (all but 17 players) must work to appease one (or more) of the existing landholders in order to receive advance training.
Although this is a "short term" issue, it brings up two questions
- Should all players be granted access to advance training until new players can affect change of settlement leadership?
- What should be the level of effort required to either found a new settlement or take over an existing settlement?
I am all for consequence of social actions but right now that is only one way. Settlements can punish players, but players can not punish settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know, if a company of players leave a settlement, that could have an impact, such enough that it could be considered punishment.
There could be some impact at this point. If the company held a critical number of towers required by the Settlement in question. Still I don't see this as a equitable arrangement.
It is my belief that Settlements should need Companies and Players more than Players need Companies and Settlements. That isn't to say players should not need companies and settlements at all, but the balance of power be towards the individual.
This is very much in line with idea of the River Kingdoms. Farmers and other resource producers are highly coveted since they have the right and ability to beat feet and move to other Kingdoms that are more to their liking.
Kingdoms need the farmers for food. Farmers need the Kingdom for security. However, it is much easier for a Farmer to find a new kingdom for security then it is for a kingdom to encourage farmers to supply food.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am all for consequence of social actions but right now that is only one way. Settlements can punish players, but players can not punish settlements.
Oh there are multiple ways to punish a settlement:
If you are a key crafter then leaving at the moment creates a big hole and can severly hamper your economy.
Undermining your own economy by supporting the opponent instead.
Hand out information of the settlement to the opponent.
Ruin the reputation of your settlement to make it more difficult for them to recruit replacement.
Don't leave on your own - take others with you.
Drag your settlement into a war by provoking an opponent who only waits for a reason to attack.
A few above are not even theoretical. I have witnessed them in the short span of this game already. And I'm sure a clever player can come up with more options.
The one and only thing that you can't do yet is to take away the ownership of a settlement from the current leader.
Scrap that - look and Andius raving how his settlement was taken away from him. So even this can be done albeit in an out of game way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At this point, There is some impact with Economic retribution, but considering that the economy as a whole is very weak, the retribution is still a most a short term annoyance. Now this impact will improve as Settlement Development is introduced and other individual/company economic functions (AH improvements, caravans, et al)
Political retribution is the closest to equitable since an individual player can easily broadcast grievances through the forums. And settlement representatives can call out individuals.
Military retribution is at the same level with economic. WoT is severely limited and after a handful of towers, people will have access to all the training they could use though February.
I do have faith that with in the year there will be a lot more impact that players and companies could impose on settlements.
My issue is that as we stand right now is that settlements could gate player advancement. Players can not halt Settlement advancement, mainly because there isn't much advancement available to a settlement. It is only temporary and there are workarounds.
The devs have literally put the popular kids in charge of all the Vocational Schools.
I predict it will turn out to be a phenomenal decision in the gaming industry.
Note: The word "phenomenal" isn't always equated with success.
Time will tell.
I'm a philosophical anarchist, yet I signed up for this experiment.
I'll also add that I'm aware of only ONE character who would have difficulty getting into a settlement, and that's Atheory because he has both disobeyed *and* publicly taunted the popular kids.
It will, however, be interesting to see whether the rest of AGC players will allow their loyalty to that company to outweigh being in the good graces of the popular kids.
...those that wield the current power (and abuse it) will be judged, tried, and punished.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.We will be refreshing that tree of liberty when the time is right.
Ronyel/Leynor, AGC
I knew I liked you for more than just your ability to repeatedly own me in consensual PvP.