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.

The tyranny of the blob.

HowardWdW
My vote is for this thread…all the quotes from Monty make me laugh.
Bringslite
@ Midnight

Alright. Do you have any ideas on what would be workable and acceptable mechanics that would put limits on "Blobs"? You are concerned about the affect of Blobs on server populations. What kind of limits could be put on large groups that will not seem completely contrived in a territory conquer and control game? If recruiting and good management and retention should be rewarding, how do you limit their power without frustrating them until THEY leave the game?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Midnight
Bringslite
@ Midnight

Alright. Do you have any ideas on what would be workable and acceptable mechanics that would put limits on "Blobs"? You are concerned about the affect of Blobs on server populations. What kind of limits could be put on large groups that will not seem completely contrived in a territory conquer and control game? If recruiting and good management and retention should be rewarding, how do you limit their power without frustrating them until THEY leave the game?

I want to see the players and devs decide whether they want a game that can be WON.

I want to see THEM start the crowdforging against the blob if that's what they want, not just to mollify me.

I have ideas I'll contribute, but I purposely didn't put this thread in the crowdforging forum. A list of my ideas is useless until people decide it is a bad thing for one bloc to have GLOBAL omnipotence. They used to see the blob as protecting them from scary Golgotha. Now they are starting to see the blob I predicted. But I still don't hear their complaints. Maybe they LIKE it.



"Excuse me ma'am, I notice these people pouring tea down your throat but I'm curious if you actually want that tea? I haven't interfered, thus far, because you've seemed to enjoy that tea, from these very same people, in the past."
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
I don't think many here inherently thinks steamrolling the map with a blob is fun, instead I think we're more worried about the ramifications of changes geared towards trying to prevent the blob and how they will impact the rest of the game. So without examples of ideas the general consensus seems to be: 'blobs' are kinda bad, but what ya gonna do about them?
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Ok so we can establish that zerging is bad, dont think anyone is disputing this. We want ways to fight back against the zerg, no one is disputing this (or if one or two people are at this point who cares? Most of the rest of us dont)

So just say your ideas. Others like me have been giving mine so may as well. No need to let which forum this started at stop ya.

Also, what should winning mean in this gsme? I am not convinced anyone can really win or lose anything, so what would winnibg look like?
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I think I'd like the illusion that "the game" can be won, but actually winning should not be possible. It should be possible to be clearly in the lead, to be clearly on top, but never for any one political entity to be the only viable choice. Even if every group on the map somehow comes to an agreement, that agreement should always be on the verge of collapsing, with tensions that are pissing off various members, and incidents happening on a regular basis.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I think I'd like the illusion that "the game" can be won, but actually winning should not be possible. It should be possible to be clearly in the lead, to be clearly on top, but never for any one political entity to be the only viable choice. Even if every group on the map somehow comes to an agreement, that agreement should always be on the verge of collapsing, with tensions that are pissing off various members, and incidents happening on a regular basis.

Huh?

The inability to win or lose anything is the biggest problem this game has.

Its why half the people here (myself included) or either on edge or (like me) in despair. You cant tell a faction who is just being a total fuckhead to stop doing shit or we will take ya out.

Even outside of that, wars for land gain, territory control, or all these other things most of the factions outside of my own seem to care about dont mean jack. You cant gain territory through winning a war, ya cant lose it through losing one and now we are back to territory by fiat. PoI dont matter cause if something happens again, no win or lose means no way to gain or lose control of said PoI.

Without anything you can win or lose you cant bring people to the negotiating table to work a peace treaty to actually end a war either. No one will surrender cause ya aint got no reason to, no one can force a surrender cause they got no way to give them a reason and the whole game is stagnant as a result. No coalitions can or need to be formed, and none of em stay together to defeat a common foe cause defeat dont exist, and thus pragmatic coalitions got no reason to exist.

Now if you think this status quo is acceptable then that is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It will not change the fact that the status quo aint good for a game like this in the long run. If there are political factions that can engage in PvP warfare, ya gotta have ways in game to finish one. That is how wars work.

Sure ya gotta have ways to bounce back but that also dont change the fsct that you gotta have some way to lose to bounce back to begin with.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Bringslite
@ Paddy

Going out on a limb here: Pretty sure Cal means winning in the context of "winning the whole game". That should be impossible if it isn't designed.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Bringslite is exactly correct. All kinds of things should be won and lost on a daily basis. "The game" itself should not be winnable, which is hwy I put it in quotes.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Oh…

Oops

Alroght, withdrawing previous statwmwnt.

Although i waa talking about just winning a war or somw kind of battle in general. Something so that when ya go to war you can have an endgsme goal or something.

I wasnt going for someone beating the whole game so to speak. Sorry bout that.

Anyway, still waiting to hear those ideas.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post