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.
|Decius 01.17.2017 11:26|
TiddlepodThey could do that. It would be almost isomorphic to having a public defense agreement between the groups.
|Paddy Fitzpatrick 01.17.2017 11:30|
It just occurred to me…
If there were ways to exist as a player outside of a settlement, like say the Faction system, most of these concerns would be mitigated. You could regroup and eventually build back up elsewhere to get back into the settlement game. In fact siege warfare would be an ideal way for companies to go back and forth between the two systems.
But with this and he inability to keep any of the buildings that are conquered, there will be no way for dislodged players to continue to progress as players at all in the game as is and will be effectively dead players. Even companies who get new settlements will not be able to rebuild if it is much easier to get destroyed before building up is complete. So even if companies find a way to get back there is no settlement worth retaking to regain your training or pick up where you left off. It will never get new players to come in cause new players on the losing side can't progress beyond T1.
The Faction system or something other system that allows progression outside a settlement will of course not happen but I would still strongly suggest a mechanic for buildings of conquered settlements to remain somewhat intact. That back and forth and that ebb and flow of warfare will be crucial to making this successful. When it was just grabbing an empty settlement for land or like us, starting a new home, having an empty settlement used to be enough. When taking player settlements and retaking them, that will no longer be the case.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
|Decius 01.17.2017 11:50|
Go to one intensive weekend-long workshop and the forums blow up with new news.
I see lots of rehashing of the old list of things that need to be implemented or reimplemented, so I'll list the compromise positions that I have heard that I think work best:
Sprinting stops stamina regeneration while sprinting; small total effect for overland travel, tactical implications for combat speed. Grant flat-footed in addition to opportunity while sprinting, re-evaluate the fighter and rogue feats that tackle on opportunity and flat-footed to make chases work.
Heavy armor reduces hustle speed, not sprint speed. Overland travel not affected, meaningful tactically.
Add full suites of maneuvers to match the full suites of spells.
Replace most of the "stationary" effects with "unable to sprint/hustle" while using the ability.
Fix knockback and negative knockback.
Provide visible feedback to everyone about the duration and stack size of all effects on self and on target; it's hard to tell the difference between being immobile and being stunned.
Combat logging to text file.
The above would be sufficient to create a combat engine that can undergo further iteration. The settlement system needs more features to be minimally acceptable:
Interesting choices about which feats to support.
Ability to control which characters use settlement facilities.
Logging of bank transactions for shared banks.
Use of settlement account coin for AH and contract payment.
Useful contract system.
Power as a resource that needs specific attention in order to manage is kinda good, and I'm not convinced that it needs anything except better user feedback.
|Decius 01.17.2017 12:09|
It sounds like your objection is mostly centered about the current implementation where a character without settlement simply has a different level than a character with one. A more nuanced system such that a character might gain support from multiple different places not dependent on their company affiliation, and not gain maximum support from minimal settlement membership such that a 12-level change occurs over a single empty settlement changing control, seems sufficient to resolve the problem that I think you're describing.
Suppose that a company with holdings gained training and support for members and whomever they chose to provide support, using holdings of the similar type and level to the buildings settlements need for that level of support, combined with a default PvP window of "once every 15 hours", provides full possibilities for bootstrapping at least until every hex has a holding held by a company that has too much support to be easily aggressed. There being a high cost and large vulnerability associated with going from zero to attacking an expensive settlement is a design goal; if major accomplishments could be trivially taken down by small groups at low expense, no settlements would be persistent.
|Smitty 01.17.2017 12:17|
I still like the idea of having the settlements pay 1g/ week to keep bulk resource usage where it is. ( if 1g is not paid - the system can take enough resources out of the bank to run at 20 for the week )
( all numbers below are just examples to give people ideas )
When the 1g is paid then that settlement earns Settlement points equal to 200 for the week…
With settlement coins - leaders can do lots of stuff..
You could bank settlement points like influence to give your settlement members abilities.. (have to be member 24 hours to get benefits to keep settlement hoping down)
Build base buildings ( different cost for different sizes)- ( could put a max number of structures built this way, also perhaps increase the amounts to build higher + up to max of 3 buildings at +3 or something..)
5000 points banked mean refining critical get 1% boost-
5000 points bank mean crafting time reduces 5%
3000 points all settlement members get 100 HP..
2000 points members get 2% speed increase
Until they figure out taxation.. leaders have to pay it.. but you gain cool things with your coin.. figure in a year if 1g is worth 200 settlement points a week you gain 10400 to distribute or spend, which only goes up.. ( and even after taxation 1g a week for a 200 person settlement , would be 50c a member …
What this will do for a victor of a siege is give them the ability to spend the settlement points to rebuild the town after it is taken over.. The 1g a week also means if you take over a desolate settlement that hasn’t been paying its upkeep ( basically you siege a phantom opponent), then what you win is exactly what you expect to win.. a ghost town with all sorts of infrastructure issues that has to be rebuilt..
It also may give some people pause knowing that in order to maintain 8-10 settlements, they will have to pay 8g-10g a week… which over the course of time is not going to be trivial expense like bulk resources alone are…
|Flari-Merchant 01.17.2017 14:25|
The Ravings of the Insane: TDLR(or whatever): Fix the feuding system and the influence system. Don't just continue to bury them.
The original beef was that there was no way to stop aggressors, cause them to have to break up constant feud chains, defeat them so that they could not feud you for some time period. No way to get a break. This caused PVP fatigue. This caused some loss of interest in the game.
Then it became clear that there was no tangible realistic benefit either materially or strategically to taking Holdings from your enemy. In fact there was no tangible benefit involved in defending your holdings. People stopped showing up to defend and the whole operation became a clock watching festival. Now you have further loss of interest and more dropped accounts.
These two problems together, 1. no way to mitigate implacable, unending, nightly chained PVP aggression with 2. no way to utterly crush your enemy and win, leave us where we are right now. For #1 there is possibly capitulation and/or politics but they only become worthy of consideration if there is something at stake that is worth saving by gaining peace. No one feels like Holdings alone are worth losing face by basically surrendering(call it Gamer Hubris). For #2, no solution until GW's proposal now. Let's look at it and see if it really solves issue #2.
Theoretical: By besieging your enemy's settlement until his Bulk resources are depleted and further until all of his buildings are ground to powder you take away his power base. He is wrecked for some time.
But is this true?
I would venture that it is NOT TRUE. I and my mates still have our skills. We still have our companies and all of their influence. As soon as we find a new home(temporary or permanent) we are back in the game. We have been inconvenienced, to be sure, but we can't die and we have universal support. That is a fact of MMO's and they would be far less fun if most of this were not true.
If GW is going to push this mechanic forward simply to put another piece into the puzzle of it's major promised features, that is understandable. The features do need to be put into place eventually. They need to be looked at, working together, to see what needs tweaking and how they all fit together to make a great game. If they are doing it to make PVP more palatable, fun, satisfying in the short run… this will not do that, IMHO. It leaves large gaps in the essential problems of the Feud System, The Influence System, The unrewarding PVP System in general totally buried and festering.
I urge GW to not make the mistakes of so many other Developers. Do not pile new features on top of features that cause frustration and even apathy(about using them) just to say you have Done Something. I do not speak for all, but I would prefer a focus on what is bad cake. Despite it taking longer, fixing the cake is better than more layers of frosting.
|Duffy Swiftshadow 01.17.2017 15:23|
After talking to a few others and reading through the thread I stand by my knee jerk reaction, this is a horrible idea…at this time. Is it needed in the long run? Yes. But it's a capstone PvP feature, it's the finale at the end of a long road of conflict build up and bleeding each other. This is the sort of feature that can exist when you can measure the cost of rebuilding a settlement in gold and can work through the economy to do so. It's a feature for when we have more than the paltry sub 100 active players we have today. To make it really shine we need settlement ownership and access to really mean something. We need a feuding system that isn't a matter of gaming the numbers and winning via scheduling attrition. It really requires an existing framework of features just to fit properly in the game and we don't have that framework.
I'll be completely honest: we're bored as all hell. We're looking for any excuse to keep playing the game and logging in day after day. We're dying for some variety. This is not that variety, this is an addition to a loathed and broken system that if used successfully forces you to start grinding through those mechanics we're already burned out on just to start recovering. If that happened I guarantee a not insignificant number of folks would just be done for now, myself among them (I'll still be back if investor magic or the game picks up, but for now, not worth playing).
Maybe you have some reason for aiming for this now that we're all unaware of, I don't know. But what I can tell you is there is no way it's going to attract new players (who would be at a huge disadvantage anyways) with such limited game-play to even get to the point they could use this feature. It's not needed by the current players to expand their reach - we already have way too many settlements active for our less than 100 active players. As a PvP deterrent it's useless - once my settlement is gone what do I have to lose? Why not become a murder hobo? It will either break communities or cause a slash and burn strategy. Finally, it's not going to improve the day to day game-play which is hands down the biggest problem we have with keeping folks engaged. So who exactly is this feature for at this point in time?
Even if this system is released and not used, just that it was thought this would be some sort of boon to the game today is disheartening. Literally everyone (not exaggerating, all 9 people I directly made read it including 2 people that don't play anymore) I showed the announcement to had the same reaction: "Why are they doing that now?" I think that's a good portion of the reason for our dislike, it just seems so unnecessary compared to almost anything else.
Now obviously GW has very limited resources and any new features that can get done in a realistic timeline need to heavily piggyback on something pre-existing and not need any new gameworld content or assets. Maybe this is the only thing that fits that bill, if it is so be it. But at least consider some speculative alternatives:
I'm sure others can come up with a few more new systems that might be interesting if they were plausible given the resources.
|LoneWolf 01.17.2017 15:53|
|Flari-Merchant 01.17.2017 16:43|
LoneWolfIMO, dungeons could be accomplished with a Hex in "space". That is a hex not part of the regular map that is accessed via some of the teleport mechanics that we have for /stuck and other GM commands.
The largest obstacle that I see to it is LoS and "solid" objects are lacking. Pretty weird to kill NPCs or players while they are separated by solid walls or sides of ravines.
|Smitty 01.17.2017 19:01|
hasnt finished with posting random thoughts for the day,,
this combines gushers and dungeons …
Redo the Crafting, gathering and refining game..
Few steps in this process… small things to work on which lead to bigger things down the road..
Give items gathered a rarity ingredient based on the hex.. This meteor/mountain hex produces metals that have a secondary stat of fire ( ice acid, keed, etc)..
( mountain iron is good for __, while forest scavenging iron is good for __, silk from the plains ___ while, silk grown in a dense thicket is better for ___ ) ( sanguine gotten in the forest gives you speed, while sanguine obtain in a mountain is better for striking, just as examples) basically make geography mean something for the mats that are gathered..
Give our nodes a rare find rate .. something like 1 in 40 ores a person finds may have ___ as a rarity bonus ..
Tweek the recipes so they can work with rarity ingredients— if we use iron ore with fire to make ingots - and then use those ingots to make a weapon, that weapon should get the fire key word.
Can do the same with plants, and gems, essences etc ..
with plants the special extracts produced can make your cure potion also give you energy resistance, or speed, or striking, etc …
That would be Step One…
Step two ..
Instead of making dungeons .. build small contained hexes1-3 like TK or large areas like 6 of them.. For inspiration on what hexes to build.. open up all those adventure paths pazio has published .. make them match tiers … (lick toad swamps.. sound like fun for a T1 area..) there can be easily 20 places you could pick and create hexes for just looking through those adventure paths .. Put more Pathfinder into the game..
How do players get to those areas?
1. Give us portals to them- When we kill a T1 goblin escalation and the hex is fallowed for 24-48 hours.. put a portal where the boss was that stays up the entire time… Make it port people in the area to lick toad swamp every 5 minutes… sorry no mules allowed ..
2. You can also give everyone that gathers a chance to open up these portals, based on their skill and hex the hit a node in. shield hexes open T1 areas. monster hexes open T3 .. normal hexes open T2 or something like that.. so 1 in 500 chance you open up a portal …. they stay open for an amount of time based on your skill..
What do you put in these special areas,, what makes them fun?
Instead of gathering 1 in 50 chance of a special ingredient.. make it 4 out of 5 things you pick up have a special quality depending on tier and type of zone it is…
You can also add a boss for the hex’s .. one that shows up every 24, 48 or 72 hours..( depending on the tier).