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.

Some Questions to Spark Forum Activity

Duffy Swiftshadow
@Brings

That's definitely one of them, but falls into questions if measured responses. In my opinion hostile Settlement capturing/destruction should be the last conflict resolution implemented. It's too final a solution to conflict to come before all the other tools. When your only option to every conflict is burn it to the ground things get simple and boring very quickly. A siege should be the end result of building hostilities not the second thing after the initial catalyst.
Tigari
I agree that settlement takeover is to final, BUT a victory condition needs to be there. I think the main social structure should be refocused on Companies, and not settlements.

Now, stay with me, this is a new idea. And instead of saying you don't like it, offer some constructive criticism. And no " you didn't stick with the game, so your opinion doesn't count"

What if all player settlements were temporarily removed from the map ( this assuming GW can "save" our settlements and everything in them) and just put Thorn Keep and Fort Indomitable (or however you spell it) in, and have companies just have holdings. Those holdings can still produce bulk goods, and maybe be turned I to one of the settlements for a reward. Maybe that's how you raise TraiNing, but than I can see half the companies doing all the work…. the whole Pont is to try to shift to companies.

Now part of this would be groups consolidating into larger companies. Also make it harder to swap companies. Making join I ng a company a meaningful choice.

I know this idea isn't 100%, but what's your opinion??
Decius
Bringslite
Thx Bob.

@ Anyone

What is the single most important mechanical concept(player created but not player controlled) that everything leads to, meaning everything that an organized group of players works toward in this game?

Please skip having fun and being part of a big long story. Skip getting all of the recipes and/or expendables that my or my group's characters need. Leave out "securing a dominant position on the map". All of those are part of the answer because they are all much more difficult(even impossible) without this one important thing. It is(to me and I'm not alone in this) the very CORE of everything that drives EVERYTHING and it was in the original design.

What is it?
Resource drains. Something that is made out of or eats coin, influence, and gathered materials.
Bringslite
Decius
Bringslite
Thx Bob.

@ Anyone

What is the single most important mechanical concept(player created but not player controlled) that everything leads to, meaning everything that an organized group of players works toward in this game?

Please skip having fun and being part of a big long story. Skip getting all of the recipes and/or expendables that my or my group's characters need. Leave out "securing a dominant position on the map". All of those are part of the answer because they are all much more difficult(even impossible) without this one important thing. It is(to me and I'm not alone in this) the very CORE of everything that drives EVERYTHING and it was in the original design.

What is it?
Resource drains. Something that is made out of or eats coin, influence, and gathered materials.

Kind of. I am thinking that my question is too ambiguous and strangely… perhaps less important than it seemed early(to me) this Sunday morning.

One of the most important concepts that ties much of the game together(or it seems to me should) are two questions: Where can I train(spend my xp?) and Why can't I train(spend my xp) here? Without the ability to set the facilities that we build or "own" to allow or deny training to other groups, there really isn't a NEED to build facilities. There is less reason to depend on politics or war to secure permissions or force acceptance. Less reason to get all grudgy holding against anyone.

Before anyone starts screaming about entitlement and costless control, that isn't anywhere near what I am suggesting. Nor is there a particular group that I feel like I might want to deny training(at Dominion facilities) at this moment, but I somehow can't help feel that having that ability might increase conflict by increasing tension.

If it isn't/wasn't a core design point, why is it already in place at the Holdings? How could it not be important to deny bank access and training to your enemies? Why would there be a need for anymore than one type of every building on the entire server? It would be ridiculously easy for each settlement to erect one building at level 20.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
Another thing that grinds my gears: Standard, circular, extended PVP battles. Auspicious Critical being broken kind of wrecks this idea. It's existence, at all and even working as written, might make it impossible.

What if we rezzed at the shrines with "zero" power?

What if there were an alchemist potion that grants power?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite
Another thing that grinds my gears: Standard, circular, extended PVP battles. Auspicious Critical being broken kind of wrecks this idea. It's existence, at all and even working as written, might make it impossible.

Could you clarify that bit? I think I know what your saying but I may not.

My gripe with the more organized PvP battles is the strategic shallowness and drawn out nature of them right now. I was hoping some of that would eventually go away with new PvP and threading/respawn mechanics.
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite
Another thing that grinds my gears: Standard, circular, extended PVP battles. Auspicious Critical being broken kind of wrecks this idea. It's existence, at all and even working as written, might make it impossible.

Could you clarify that bit? I think I know what your saying but I may not.

My gripe with the more organized PvP battles is the strategic shallowness and drawn out nature of them right now. I was hoping some of that would eventually go away with new PvP and threading/respawn mechanics.

Sure. About the same dissatisfaction that you listed. They are drawn out because we respawn relatively close in most cases. We already have incentives to put stashes of gear nearby but not many try and set it up. There might be incentives to put small holdings in a nearby hex if I had no power after Rezzing. Getting killed would be more serious as it would likely mean more time outside of "effective contribution" to the battle. We would have to be more concerned about dying(thus more realistically cautious). I just think it would add to both the consequences for dying and the tactical preplanning and on the spot tactical decisions "in" the battle. We might be waiting awhile before we see "line of sight" and stuff like that.

Some sort of power regain elixir might give other roles an even footing with the power thing. They wouldn't have to be that strong if AC was working right.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Midnight
Bringslite
Decius
Bringslite
Thx Bob.

@ Anyone

What is the single most important mechanical concept(player created but not player controlled) that everything leads to, meaning everything that an organized group of players works toward in this game?

Please skip having fun and being part of a big long story. Skip getting all of the recipes and/or expendables that my or my group's characters need. Leave out "securing a dominant position on the map". All of those are part of the answer because they are all much more difficult(even impossible) without this one important thing. It is(to me and I'm not alone in this) the very CORE of everything that drives EVERYTHING and it was in the original design.

What is it?
Resource drains. Something that is made out of or eats coin, influence, and gathered materials.

Kind of. I am thinking that my question is too ambiguous and strangely… perhaps less important than it seemed early(to me) this Sunday morning.

One of the most important concepts that ties much of the game together(or it seems to me should) are two questions: Where can I train(spend my xp?) and Why can't I train(spend my xp) here? Without the ability to set the facilities that we build or "own" to allow or deny training to other groups, there really isn't a NEED to build facilities. There is less reason to depend on politics or war to secure permissions or force acceptance. Less reason to get all grudgy holding against anyone.

Before anyone starts screaming about entitlement and costless control, that isn't anywhere near what I am suggesting. Nor is there a particular group that I feel like I might want to deny training(at Dominion facilities) at this moment, but I somehow can't help feel that having that ability might increase conflict by increasing tension.

If it isn't/wasn't a core design point, why is it already in place at the Holdings? How could it not be important to deny bank access and training to your enemies? Why would there be a need for anymore than one type of every building on the entire server? It would be ridiculously easy for each settlement to erect one building at level 20.

Those were basic concepts and meant to penalize outcasts when it was assumed that griefers would be outcasts and assumes (without evidence) that Ryan was correct about griefers' egos regarding having the most powerful character.

So far, we really haven't seen the population that even makes that a concern, probably because of the combination of TableTop fans and a PvP-centric guild with origins of an honor guild.

While I hate to argue that the concept is wrong (it sounding so sensible), I also can't see any evidence that the concept is correct or has served the game.

I also worry that the social structure it built can become a cool kids club that can coerce new players in ways completely unrelated to holding the line on griefers, because new players will feel they "have to train somewhere" and thus have to submit to someone else's rule.

Since the average MMO player isn't a leader, their only choice is to submit, or find one of the myriad of games where they can play without surrendering their independence.

As with any of the issues that concern me, I could argue that *THIS* (normal MMO players not wanting to submit to governance) is the reason our population is so small. I honestly suspect it plays a part, but how big a part no one can prove, considering the myriad of perfectly good reasons for players to pass this game by (or at least wait for it to become "playable" in their eyes).

I'm tempted to agree with Tig that tossing the idea of settlements could improve the game. But if you fix the other 80 things that are wrong with this game, then my concerns about the possibility of "player oppression" by settlements might not even be a big deal.

It might turn out that players PREFER more hierarchy, and it is all the other issues repelling players.

I don't mean to sound overly negative. I want the game to attract players so that it truly is an MMO. Trying to decide which issues are repelling players and how important they may or may not be has become a vexing puzzle for me.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Bringslite
@ Midnight

What would be the motivation for a settlement to build and maintain training facilities if there is another place nearby to go train the exact same skills?

That bolded part up there… it is not a small effort and it is NEVER finished.

Edit to add: This is supposed to evolve partly into a territorial conquest and control game. It is designed from the bottom up in a way that it takes a Village to get significant things done. It isn't designed(but is somewhat possible) to play as a lone wolf and preserve 100% freedom of self.

I am all for and understand that some may not like the idea of having to work with a group, but honestly I have not seen one player that could not fit in somewhere and still be pretty much a loner. There will ALWAYS be groups that accept such players and ask nothing more of them after that "approve" button is pushed.

The game that you are voicing your concerns over, it isn't PfO.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Midnight
@Bringslite

I'm questioning the actual NEED to have settlements build and maintain training facilities.

I can't think of a single game, besides this one, that mixes training with social cohesiveness. I'm wondering if it isn't actually a drawback keeping people away.

There are games, today, where you don't even have to go back to town to train.

While I would hope you're right about the average player's ability to find a settlement they can deal with, how do we know how many people self-deported after not liking the recruitment dance or the settlement experience? I've heard of an entire alliance demanding their members log in and fight one particular weeknight. There were players who felt like they had been drafted. Are all settlements like that? No, but who knows how many other forms of authoritarian behavior might have chased away players?

We're a self selected group of people who either like hierarchy or (like me) at least find it an interesting/compelling idea for a game.

There is no way that I would want to see ALL games have this kind of hierarchical approval of other players to advance your character, though. The fact that I was willing to give it a go as my main game, even surprises me.

I totally get what the game was designed as. I'm willing to try an MMO with that game design (as my credit card company can attest). But you'll also notice there aren't millions of players beating down the door to be a part of this radical game design. So far, I'm still waiting for the first M in MMO.

Whether settlement=training is the issue repelling players (and the extent of that) is very debatable. But I can state with certainty that this game design hasn't caused millions of players to subscribe and stay despite the game's other flaws.

I really get the sense that there are people who would happily play PFO as a 150 population game. I can't explain why, but I can't easily justify to myself paying a subscription for a sandbox that small. In sandboxes, players are the sand. I need more than 150 grains of sand in my sandbox.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post