Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Crazy idea

Dazyk of Phaeros
This may seem crazy, not to mention beyond the scope of what is possible now with the game so far along, but I thought I would share it anyway and get some feedback, in the hope that something can be done to make this game more fun.

Much talk in the threads lately has been regarding the lack of significant conflict in the game, and I believe I know what a major contributor to that is:

What we have now are organisations who have all been given settlements. When settlement building comes in to play, and our settlements are wiped, we will - again - be given the kits we need to build the same settlement we had before.

This is a huge mistake, in my opinion. In a game of territorial conflict, if you give everyone everything they need in order to maintain their status quo, there will never be any significant conflict! Let us start from scratch, with nothing (except goods we already have stored in vaults).

If we don't, and conquering a settlement is as big a deal as the Devs have alluded it is, it could very well be years before we see any material conflict or territory conquered.

Also on that point, the fundamental design of the game, with it's focus on settlements, is flawed, in my opinion. I strongly believe that it is backwards, and that the holdings and outposts should be the main content, and the settlements the ultimate goal to strive for.

I think the settlement building system should be amalgamated in to the holdings/outposts system. Make the Keeps in to holdings and the Bank and Tavern in to the two outposts required to 'Settle' a hex. Make any hex that is eligible for holdings be eligible to be settled. If that hex can remain uncontested (per normal feud/overrun mechanics) then other buildings (now outposts) can be built. This is where your trainers and crafters get built as per the already existing rules of number of large/med/small plots etc. Only hexes with Keeps can have more than two 'outposts'. Make the training provided by the current outposts/holdings more robust, so a small group of fighters (for example) could hold one or two hexes and have all the training that they need.

This system makes it easier to build smaller holding/outpost setups that could accommodate decent enough training for very small groups, or even solo players. It also makes it less devastating should your settlement hex be overrun or destroyed. Additionally, it makes that more likely to occur, creating natural conflict, more settlements changing hands, and reasons to ally with neighbours.

Thoughts?
Dazyk Half-Elven, Elder of the Frozen Fingers, the shock- troops of Phaeros. If you are a fighter, cleric, or rogue, and enjoy battle, be it PVP or PVE, we are the company for you! We welcome role-players, casual gamers, and hardcore players alike.

Find your hidden strength, join the Frozen Fingers today!
Dazyk's PFO Resources Folder
Doc
I sort of agree. I think the problem has its roots in people being given settlements, but stemming from that probably has less to do with scarcity and more to do with the play style and goals of the people controlling the settlements they were given.

Some people believe if GW dialed up scarcity it would force player groups in game, that here to this point have done their best to avoid conflict and PvP, to partake. I don't agree with that belief, I contend that they'll work even harder to partition territory and conduct trade so as to avoid any fighting. I'm not saying that isn't valid, it's kind of novel in its own right, but I'm sure it would frustrate Goblin Works to no end. Just my probably badly-perceived prediction, but there you go.

Others put forth that there are not enough meaningful reasons to participate in PvP, so they sit out. Supposedly the holding system will jar that complacency a little bit. I suspect it will be a continuation of the same forever war that has been going on for a while now, with the same people involved, and the same people sitting on the side lines.

And then some groups might not compete because they don't feel like they can do so successfully, or their roleplay choices don't support it. Realistically, none of the smaller settlements could take Xeilias head on, but with EBA help they could, but if EBA hangs them out to dry then they could lose everything. Big risk.

But then, they might not also feel comfortable going to war with their smaller neighbors because they might go against their roleplay choices and make them look like the bad guys. Like it or not, Xeilias is used as a boogey-man that gives all of the "good" aligned groups a convenient target they can attack and never worry about their meta-reputation being tarnished. If they don't have the capacity to fight that boogey-man, then they're effectively left with nobody to fight unless they decide to give up on their roleplay choices.



So, I think the problem ultimately comes down to the results of the landrush and what followed from that, but I also think that it's a variety of personality differences and such coming out of that, that creates the situation you're examining.
Nihimon
Doc
Some people believe if GW dialed up scarcity it would force player groups in game, that here to this point have done their best to avoid conflict and PvP, to partake. I don't agree with that belief, I contend that they'll work even harder to partition territory and conduct trade so as to avoid any fighting.

As one of those "some people", I actually think you're probably right. I've been thinking about it a lot, and I've mostly come to the same conclusion.

I'm also a little doubtful that Holding Warfare will change much, other than the amount of resources that get destroyed as Holdings and Outposts lose Upgrade Pluses, or get torn down completely.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Duffy Swiftshadow
Eh, we have so many resources stockpiled that it's not gonna matter if we had to build it all from scratch, it would just be an annoyance while no one can train for however long it takes. Besides we'll mostly be getting kits that are lower level than our current training needs so you will need to build up higher level kits anyways.

Holdings and Outposts are the main point of conflict for the settlement vs settlement system. They very strongly influence your ability to build up a settlement, they are the territory claiming mechanism, generate all your upkeep resources, and they will be the primary thing you fight over. Settlement sieges will be much rarer events and are more like a final battle after a prolonged war.
Bringslite
Some pretty valid points there, Doc. As you wrote, not all of them apply to everyone but I feel like at least one or more do describe feelings that apply to each individually.

This can (likely will) continue for some time. Because things and reasons….

1) Until GW lets us set white and black lists on our settlement's facilities, anyone can train/craft/bank anywhere at will, and they do.
2) Universal support to 20 will compound the lack of reasons to war.
3) Increased durability hits will encourage building or discourage willingness to have feuds and wars. Take your pick balanced with RP and willingness to be Builders vs. willingness to suffer or submit to Destroyers/Conquerers.
4) Bulk resources will not be a problem until level 17 or so and by that time, stockpiles will carry settlements for a good while.

There are some pretty good alternate mechanical ideas out there, but as with anything else humans do, we have to go for the cheapest and easiest solutions to problems/issues until we see that it isn't enough. Until we suffer because we ignore "pre hindsight" or are on the brink of disaster.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
All war all the time is just as bad as no war all the time.

I was under the impression the idea was not for constant conflict between any and all parties.
Dazyk of Phaeros
Duffy Swiftshadow
All war all the time is just as bad as no war all the time.

Why?

I'm not sure I agree. If war IS something that rarely happens, it just exacerbates the meta drama and the hurt when you lose EVERYTHING you've worked for months, maybe years, to create.

If war and small-sided conflicts are commonplace, holdings and training are easier to set up, people don't get so attached (and subsequently hurt) when they lose it all.

I can see where we are headed right now; when the first big war hits and one of the medium to large groups gets annihilated, there is gonna be whole world's of rage thrown around the meta.

Teach us, the players, to embrace the wars by making settlements less of a big deal.
Dazyk Half-Elven, Elder of the Frozen Fingers, the shock- troops of Phaeros. If you are a fighter, cleric, or rogue, and enjoy battle, be it PVP or PVE, we are the company for you! We welcome role-players, casual gamers, and hardcore players alike.

Find your hidden strength, join the Frozen Fingers today!
Dazyk's PFO Resources Folder
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
All war all the time is just as bad as no war all the time.

I was under the impression the idea was not for constant conflict between any and all parties.

I agree. I have come to enjoy PVP, but not so often that I have no time for my other loves.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
The tenants of this game are based around meaningful interaction. When you make constant conflict of which the results are only meaningful for the next 30secs or just on a personal level you reduce the game to RPG death match, king of the hill, and capture the flag. I play those games already don't need to make another killbox mmo trying to copy that.
vyal
Duffy Swiftshadow
The tenants of this game are based around meaningful interaction. When you make constant conflict of which the results are only meaningful for the next 30secs or just on a personal level you reduce the game to RPG death match, king of the hill, and capture the flag. I play those games already don't need to make another killbox mmo trying to copy that.
Agreed. Especially with the last bit.
(What is below is not directed to you, solely, Duffy, but to all the thread participants)

In my experience, reducing someones hit points to zero, or reducing a structures hit points to zero is the crudest form of meaningful interaction. And doing it for years on end? Constantly? The definition of meaningLESS.

There are so many other better ways to interact meaningfully, none of which have been explored in PFO, and all of which appear in tabletop games. Why do people play those, when killing your group mates or burning down the town is honestly the last thing you want to do? Because everything else, aside from that, is far more fun, challenging, immersive, and innovative.

Simple case in point. Here's an innovative mechanic that PFO could try, and no other game (that I know of) has tried in the north-american-developed persistent multiplayer fantasy-themed online role playing game genre:

Instead of attacking the structures directly, your enemies create an event in the hex whereby NPCs are attacking your structures. And if you wanted to make it really cool? You let your enemies control the attacks individual NPCs are using while fighting PC's. (I'm talking like EQ1 Bind Sight level of interaction, with access to the 1-6 keys for that NPC)
Oh, and if you want resource consumption so high it would make a game designer weep with joy? You make both the attacking event scripts and possible defending response scripts consume massive quantities of resources, on demand, from the settlement that is attacking or defending that structure, respectively.

There. That's one thing in 30 seconds that would make PFO stand out as distinct, attractive, and unique in the genre, has no impact to lore, and could have everyone participating, regardless of play style.

Maybe you don't like that idea? Fair enough. Here's another one, that I've already flogged, but which no-one liked.. smile

In the event of a PvP death in a wilderness hex, there is no victimization of the loser. None. Zero. There is no item loss. There is no item damage. There is no husk, because you don't lose anything. There are zero negative consequences of any kind except one: At the moment of death, you are instantly teleported out of the hex, to the nearest out-of-hex shrine, with full hit points, and you cannot re-enter the hex you died in for many hours. (up to 24 hours, if you want hardcore)
Optionally, only permit such interactions in certain hexes which contain harvesting or loot bonuses only if you're in a feud, or based on settlement sphere of influence/geography.
It's victimization-free for all play styles, entirely full of consequences, and is so meaningful, it hurts. Again, such a thing would make PFO stand out as distinct, attractive, unique in the genre, has no impact to lore, and could have everyone participating, regardless of play style.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post