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.
|Bob 01.14.2017 10:47|
In theory, establishing/running/taking settlements is supposed to be valuable in its own right, due to the opportunities that settlements offer their rulers (taxation, force projection, support, … ). That said, a lot of those opportunities are dependent on features that aren't in yet or that need a lot of tweaking, so it's definitely interesting to hear everyone talking about whether or not sieging a settlement, or for that matter trying to take it back, would be worthwhile, particularly in the game as it stands now. Keep the comments coming, and we'll be taking them into account as we detail out the implementation and define the final rules.
|Tyncale 01.14.2017 11:11|
Commander Nefarious Robert Haagen-Takasi Grand Lich Ruler of Tre Rotterguard DesertersPaddy Fitzpatrick
The next step for a settlement was to actually have a city of 200-1000 *active* players in a world where there would be tens of thousands of players, all together creating a political landscape with Trade, Transport, Industry, Banditry, Skirmishes and Warfare.
This part never materialized yet. The game never started. It will just convince the onlookers that are waiting this out to completely give up on this game, surrendering the game to the 2 or 3 groups that are left. I guess it will not matter much in the end for the survival chances of this game, since there is no way that any sane developer/investor would keep the current lopsided balance in tact.
NB: are you the original takasi? If so, hi! We had some good fun with those Moloch escalations.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
|Smitty 01.14.2017 12:24|
First off … It sounds as though Lisa is getting some good advice, don’t wait around for a company to take over for an indefinite amount of time. Move forward. Players want games that are vibrant and things showing up all the time, They hate stagnant, and PFO has become the definition of stagnant.
If you are saying you can manage a rudimentary version of taking things over using existing systems and not causing too many issues, go for it. It is what the end game is supposed to be about…
But Hobson is right, there are mule trains on their way to Golgotha and KB right now because they are vacant settlements, and one of the 4 groups left is going to want to take them over because they can…..
So making it impossible for people to store stuff in the bank of the town they are attacking is needed.. without it folks are just going to load up the towns they want to take over right now.. and then feed the sieges form that settlement s bank because they can..
So we need a Bank white list .. alliance cities cant siege each other .. and if you are not in an alliance with that settlement then the bank is closed as long as the siege last…
But in my opinion you also should address that 4 small groups run virtually every settlement on the map…
How about you put a coin sink on running the settlement- except it is not a sink- so much as an escrow account-
If a settlement pays 1g a week - the bulk resource use remains what it is now ( relatively low)-
If they don’t pay the 1g a week - the bulks resource cost increases ten/twenty fold?… ( we have too many places able to subsist for 30 years based on what is in the bank…
To go with what does a victor get for winning and rebuilding a settlement or fighting to retake it..…
Create a Settlement currency that goes up as the 1g a week is paid… ( can come up with other ways to use the currency to create benefits for you members as well , so it is not really just a sink..)
If a settlement is ever taken over - that currency can be spent on adding buildings to the destroyed settlement… Have long build times - so the players who lost the settlement have a chance to retake it before all the escrow is spent….
Something like a new Keep takes 3 weeks to build .. After the Keep goes up .. large buildings take 2 weeks to build using the settlement escrow /currency, medium take 1 week, small take 3 days.. guillotines/ warehouse’s take a day but you can only work on one at a time… And only if your company is paying the 1g per week , and stocking the place with bulk resources..
You could always add buildings the normal way once the Keep is rebuilt…
Anyway just my thoughts..
|WxCougar of KOTC 01.14.2017 13:26|
I wonder if instead of the buildings getting flattened, the buildings get damaged so that they no longer work. Then after the siege, the winners can spend resources to fix the buildings (at a cost that is lower than a new building) or they can tear it down.
There was also talk that eventually settlement buildings would each have their own upkeep, including coin costs. If coin sinks are a concern, maybe they can be added to the overall upkeep until individual buildings have their own upkeep?
Keeper's Pass (NG) - Respecting life, protecting freedom, united against tyranny. We are a Crafting Settlement with friendly people and welcome many play styles including casual and Role playing. For more information check our Traveler's Guide to Keeper's Pass at https://goblinworks.com/forum/topic/109/. If you wish to join with us in Keeper's Pass come visit us at our website at http://www.kotcguild.com/.
|Jumppuppy 01.14.2017 14:20|
Question, how will this affect the universal standing? Will it be removed so the city managers can ban [deny] certain companies or individuals from utilizing their facilities/trainers [make them hostile to the guard force]? Also, you can only train and/or produce products in your home city or those you are friendly to?
|Paddy Fitzpatrick 01.14.2017 14:30|
I think some combo of the above few posts would be good. I would not mind bulk and coin needing to be spent to restore buildings but it should take a decent amount of time based on building size (like a week or maybe less for smaller buildings). Make it so until all buildings are up and running you can't do settlement management, including changing PvP windows. Make the keep take damage too and if that is not repaired (make it take a week or two), the city is still vulnerable.
Now stuff like that could be fun. Constant back and forth warfare and fierce fighting even after losing the city with the new conquerors having to set up shop under adverse conditions. That is the approach to take IMO. That will lead to the kind of warfare you want out of this and if an enemy takes over a settlement and holds it then they earned it .
I would fight out battles like that if you make it a long campaign wrought with lots of back and forth carnage. Make the attackers have to defend their new turf as well and switch the now dislodged defenders to attackers to give em one last chance. That kind of fighting should keep people busy for a while for any given settlement battle. The losers lose fair and square and the winners actually get some real satisfaction and rewards for winning.
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
|Flari-Merchant 01.14.2017 15:11|
Here's the thing. We did ask for ways to resolve conflict. Ways in which we could make a difference in an enemy's ability to war on us. This proposal is one way in which that could be made to happen. Looks like much of it would be manual GM work, so I appreciate that part the most.
-First though, we need controls over who can and can't use facilities(banking training, resting, etc… in our settlements. Fighting off aggressors and wining, losing, getting owned is all part of PVP and can be stomached. I am not sure whether GW appreciates how infuriating and demoralizing and all around annoying(NOT IN A CUTE WAY) it is to watch enemies banking and training and recouping power right there in the city you have built. If GW does realize this, I have to believe it would have been "fixed" long ago.
-Second, you need a way to control when/if we can deposit bulk resources in our Settlement Upkeep Vaults(for siege purposes. As expensive as full sieges look like they will be, it will not be dangerous to move bulk into the besieged vault. Meaning that it isn't as if most attackers could throw up multiple sieges, making lowering any other stockpile not really dangerous.
-Third, motivations for crushing and evicting(completely) any enemy from their settlement is really an uncommon goal. It will be very expensive and time intensive. Sure, if this gets in, there will be a few ASAP just to try things out. Until/without more supporting features, all of your work will wind up being unutilized.<—Speculation
-Fourth, at this stage of the game's development, it looks pretty unrewarding for the overall cost and effort that is implied. Without some kind of loot possible, all it will be is another avenue of PVP without any gain. At least for the foreseeable future.
How will you control us from just throwing more bulk into the vault when we are besieged?
Will evicted players(from their settlement) have ways, other than joining a new settlement or taking a new one away, to get new "digs"?
Will these evicted characters be able to compete to do any of this when they have NO settlement and they fall to lvl 8?
|Stilachio Thrax 01.14.2017 17:10|
The system shouldn't go live until this is resolved. I can't attack an enemy in my settlement with getting attacked by my own guards, and with this system they can build the tools to try to destroy my settlement WITHIN my settlement and mule them in a minuscule period of time to set up a siege.
Virtus et Honor
Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
|Fiery 01.14.2017 17:31|
That's not true, your settlement guards will never attack you unless you attack them.
|Vakiri 01.14.2017 17:43|
One potential solution to the issue of building the siege gear in the settlement you are about to attack is that all siege gear crafted in a settlement goes into that settlement's secure vault, no matter who is crafting it.
The only exception would be crafting siege gear in an NPC settlement like Thornkeep, so that a company that does not currently run a settlement can craft siege gear. Siege gear thus has to be craftable in NPC towns based solely on the crafter's engineering ability, unrestricted by training limits of _NPC_ towns - but I think it should be restricted by training limits in PC towns.
A consequence of this is that bulk goods, since they are needed to conduct a siege, need to be available to characters that do not run a settlement. So holdings and outposts must also be available to characters that are in a company that is not attached to any settlement. That, in turn, gets into issues about how such characters create and defend their holdings and outposts.
Also, siege gear is large - it should be obvious to anyone in a town that siege equipment is being constructed. It is often too large to fit inside any building, if nothing else, and taller than any stockade.
This also means mules should be depicted as pulling it, not carrying it - preparations for a siege are rather obvious. A possible simple implementation would be to make siege equipment a 'follower' of a mule (or of the character leading the mule) rather than a regular item. And that actually has a sensible side-effect: followers have trouble navigating rough terrain and siege equipment is heavy - it should be moved on roads, not over cliffs or hills.
That, in turn, means building siege equipment inside a town is problematic - most (all?) towns do not have a fairly level road leading into them. So perhaps siege equipment should only be built in a new holding or outpost type, akin to existing mining holdings, and thus is always deposited in that vault. What kinds of siege equipment could be built would be based on the plus of the holding or outpost. And perhaps it has to be an outpost associated with a sawmill holding with a mining outpost or something similar.
In short, I think there are a lot of issues related to this new proposal that need to be thought out before it becomes live (except on the test server) and many of them have likely not yet been mentioned in this thread.