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.

Bringslite
Well, let's see…
Taking a look at what we have going on in The Dominion, it is clear to me that one main limit on "spreading" out is the Characters to Influence to Holdings cap. If holdings were required for support or training/crafting level or were too important to let be captured for some reason, that would slow the blob. Unless they were crazy superior at recruiting and retention. It would also make winning fights over them have some meaning.

The real question(Midnight's I think) was how do you design so that a blob can't always and easily project power anywhere on the map. Honestly, the blob shouldn't be punished just because it's officers have their shit together. With that in mind, there would need to be an element in the conflict mechanics that was both allowing of projection AND allowing of thwarting it. What comes to mind is Res Shrines. Blobs would need a shrine close to the area that they are "Far Trashing" and that could be maybe offered by nearby allies or settlements for pay, whatever sparse shrines may be nearby, or perhaps shrines that players can build but can be destroyed. Need a lot fewer shrines around the server, though.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Ravenlute
Paddy already kind of said it though, and we all know it, in order to fight a blob there must be ramifications for actions and ways to retaliate. They need to have something to lose. Until Settlements can be destroyed there will not be a reason or way for other groups to band against the "blob" and take them out.

Again, the problem is no one has anything to lose and it'll be up to the devs to change that.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Duffy Swiftshadow
Alterations to the resurrection rules will do wonders for thwarting power projection. Insuring the blob can't just hover a few feet from their respawn as the objectives are far enough away they need to protect their respawn point AND attack their target. Balance it out a bit by perhaps letting them setup their respawn point so it needs to be found before it can be taken out to offset the advantage of defenders.

As for holding expansion…yea I firmly believe Influence is a broken mechanic as it's an infinitely growing resource as long as you can keep recruiting bodies and organize them half efficiently. It would probably be smarter to simplify the holding system to the settlement level (with limited options for an unaffiliated company or just different types of structures for companies to use in their name that don't impact holdings) and tie the # of holdings to some form of settlement progression. That way your growth is cyclical and self dependent with an upper cap. That encourages spreading out to other settlements and diversifying instead of piling more and more companies and holdings into one settlement (which can easily circumvent potential DI issues under the original proposed design). I would even argue to change bulk resources around a bit to be less of a direct commodity and more of an abstract, but that an get complex and I'm not sure if it would resolve the complaints there. This way numbers still matter because they make life way easier in terms of management, resource gathering, and defense, but they aren't the end all be all to progression.

Formations may be a way to limit blob strength, if they are required for some of the bigger actions their could be limits on the size of formations that inhibits bringing the whole blob to bear. But that depends on how they end up working, mostly just a guess.
Bringslite
Ravenlute
Paddy already kind of said it though, and we all know it, in order to fight a blob there must be ramifications for actions and ways to retaliate. They need to have something to lose. Until Settlements can be destroyed there will not be a reason or way for other groups to band against the "blob" and take them out.

Again, the problem is no one has anything to lose and it'll be up to the devs to change that.
I think that everyone knows that fighting is fairly futile from a regular conquerer standpoint right now.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Midnight
Under EE1 through EE11 the South has always been able to go anywhere on the map to farm or kill off desirable escalations while also exerting highly credible (though not perfect) control of escalations near their home.

So, I'm curious about how folks feel as far as whether such solutions are immediately important.

Are we already at a point where this needs to be a priority or is the current situation not that alarming and thus you can still wait a year for solutions to be developed?
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Stilachio Thrax
Midnight
Under EE1 through EE11 the South has always been able to go anywhere on the map to farm or kill off desirable escalations while also exerting highly credible (though not perfect) control of escalations near their home.

So, I'm curious about how folks feel as far as whether such solutions are immediately important.

Are we already at a point where this needs to be a priority or is the current situation not that alarming and thus you can still wait a year for solutions to be developed?

They (and others) can do that because they almost never respawn more than a hex away from where they died. They can bank/train at the nearest settlement, and recharge power at any nearby inn or settlement. Other than the time it takes to run somewhere, there is no disincentive to doing that. I'd being willing to bet people would be less inclined to run 20 hexes to kill an escalation if dying meant another 20 hex run, and they didn't have anywhere to bank locally because they are blacklisted from all nearby settlements.

I'd personally like to see settlement management- including whitelists, blacklists, and settlement training taxes- and the rez system be pushed into something much closer to what was originally envisioned sooner rather than later.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Duffy Swiftshadow
Point out that in the past few weeks we're talking about 6-8 people, occasionally around 12. Ultimately the blob part is a tangential 'worse' case scenario.

What is really being asked is should you be able to range far from 'home' and accomplish things. I would say in most scenarios yes, it should be trivial as it's trivial to stop you. But in other cases as outlined in my last post some sort of limitation or at least a counter action should exist.

Whether they do it now or later heavily depends on what exactly 'it' is and the impact it would have on day to day gameplay, much less a direct attack across the map. So without examples there is nothing to discuss.

It's one thing to setup a staging spawn point for an across the map attack and if you lose it you go all the way to your home point. It's another to be out gathering casually or traveling across the map casually and die only to be sent 20 hexes home. While it's an option, it creates an isolationist mentality and reduces the amount of risk folks will be willing to casually take on which in turn limits a bunch of other game-play.
Midnight
Idea 1: Take out all shrines besides the settlement keep shrines and the shrines at Thornkeep's newbie trainers.

If you die to monsters you teleport to the nearest shrine (and pray that settlement isn't hostile).

If you die with damage from a player on you, you go to the shrine that belongs to your settlement.

Default home for indies should be Thornkeep, and indie players ought to have a way to designate Rotter's Hole as their settlement (that requires traveling to Rotter's Hole, to do it).

The downside, though, is that undetected/unopposed distant PvE is still very viable even if it is over-reachingly aggressive. Intruders will retreat more often, but you still face the "eternal vigilance" issue to keep them from just logging out and making a sandwich and returning.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Stilachio Thrax
Midnight
Idea 1: Take out all shrines besides the settlement keep shrines and the shrines at Thornkeep's newbie trainers.

If you die to monsters you teleport to the nearest shrine (and pray that settlement isn't hostile).

If you die with damage from a player on you, you go to the shrine that belongs to your settlement.

Default home for indies should be Thornkeep, and indie players ought to have a way to designate Rotter's Hole as their settlement (that requires traveling to Rotter's Hole, to do it).

The downside, though, is that undetected/unopposed distant PvE is still very viable even if it is over-reachingly aggressive. Intruders will retreat more often, but you still face the "eternal vigilance" issue to keep them from just logging out and making a sandwich and returning.

I have no problem with those suggestions. As for the bolded, logout timers could mitigate that problem- logging outside of combat leaves you in game and targetable for 10 secs; in combat the timer goes to 30 secs, more than enough time to make logging to avoid death in combat a guarantee you will die.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Duffy Swiftshadow
Logout timers will definitely help.

I think perhaps a temporary deployable shrine (like a campfire consumable) you can bind to could be a workable solution to offset working at something far from home, but risking PvP deaths. That way if they stick around you know they have a spawn point you need to go find, but at the same time it's not overly punishing to the person wanting to actually engage in a little head to head competition from trying to do so. Such shrines of course need to be destructible. Nice thing is it would be a logically similar behavior for those potential siege camps that would basically be an up-scaled version used for wars, perhaps with some different perks or uses.

Could also breath some life into those base camps if they could act as these spawn points (but still have their cooldowns if destroyed or taken down).
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post