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.

Protected Hexes

Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
Somehow, to me at least, those bolded things do not seem even to be on the same type of radar.

You're the Aristocrat and I'm the dweeb.

You might perfectly reflect the Aristocracy and their concerns.

I have introduced the dweeb viewpoint.

I and hundreds of thousands of dweebs in Eve-Online adapted to unequal territorial defendability. Because there was no beginning aristocracy and because outposts (the closest settlement equivalent) weren't assigned or chosen in advance of the game, the dweeb viewpoint was the only viewpoint on the issue, and in fact it simply never arose to the status of being an "issue".
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Edam
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
Somehow, to me at least, those bolded things do not seem even to be on the same type of radar.

You're the Aristocrat and I'm the dweeb.

You might perfectly reflect the Aristocracy and their concerns.

I have introduced the dweeb viewpoint.

I and hundreds of thousands of dweebs in Eve-Online adapted to unequal territorial defendability. Because there was no beginning aristocracy and because outposts (the closest settlement equivalent) weren't assigned or chosen in advance of the game, the dweeb viewpoint was the only viewpoint on the issue, and in fact it simply never arose to the status of being an "issue".

You seem to have conveniently forgotten Band of Brothers smile
Gross
The settlement does not really matter in the long run, I started at forgeholm, was moved to alderwag when my company was moved, then ozems, was attached to brighthaven for the taking of aural then ozems then carpe noctem - only the last of these moves was me actually moving, from being attached to ozems my worldly goods were all in EL as it was a better place to trade from.
Mercenary monster hunter from Forgeholm
War priest of Angradd… patiently waiting on Goblinworks to deliver him (and greataxes, Dwarves need 2 handed axes).
Midnight
Edam
Midnight
Bringslite of Staalgard
Somehow, to me at least, those bolded things do not seem even to be on the same type of radar.

You're the Aristocrat and I'm the dweeb.

You might perfectly reflect the Aristocracy and their concerns.

I have introduced the dweeb viewpoint.

I and hundreds of thousands of dweebs in Eve-Online adapted to unequal territorial defendability. Because there was no beginning aristocracy and because outposts (the closest settlement equivalent) weren't assigned or chosen in advance of the game, the dweeb viewpoint was the only viewpoint on the issue, and in fact it simply never arose to the status of being an "issue".

You seem to have conveniently forgotten Band of Brothers smile

Outposts were not player owned, nor conquerable, for the first 7 months of the game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansions_of_Eve_Online

So, how does Band of Brothers negate my previous post?
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
@ Midnight

Just replying here rather than quoting and therefor perpetuating labels. I'm trying to cut back on that. smile

Judging from my memories(pre game) of all of the lengthy debates back on the old Paizo forum about SO MANY subjects that turned out to be completely irrelevant, I can honestly say that this could turn out to be the same. Maybe no one will care about this in the slightest beyond a few players here and now. Maybe even they won't by the time it comes to being real time relevant in future warfare.

Besides that, I really don't know enough about EVE outposts or stations or even whether it takes more or less effort to take out any given outpost for some reason. You seem to be suggesting that all things being equal except position? that yes it is easier to take out some outposts/stations than others and EVE players don't care. Is that the case? Or is your position that it doesn't matter if you lose your settlement because you can find another?
Midnight
It's a little of both.

In Eve… inequality in defensibility was simply a given. The map had bottlenecks in some places that made them good for defense, but since no outposts were assigned or given in advance no one got upset that all outposts weren't equally defensible.

The 10,000 new PFO players aren't going to care about it either, since all settlements recruit.

If you name a five minute solution for the dev team, then they might spend 5 minutes catering to a tiny number of players to assure the settlements they own have equality in vulnerability (in a game which is still going to be a builder game).

If the solution is going to take 100 hours, then that's 100 hours the devs will spend catering to that tiny number of players, rather than adding features intended to attract the next 10,000 players.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Fiery
You're making two different points though, Midnight. If the argument is simply that development probably isn't worth it unless there's a simple and elegant solution, then I'm inclined to agree. If the argument is that unfairness inherently doesn't matter because it's an "aristocracy" that's mostly affected, that's something else entirely. If we can agree that the unfairness (note, as bob points out, that inequality does not mean unfair - bob says other factors will help make it more fair, and I have no reason to disbelieve him) is an issue that has merit, but it isn't necessarily worth anything more than insignificant development time fixing, then I think we're more in agreement than it seems.
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
It's a little of both.

In Eve… inequality in defensibility was simply a given. The map had bottlenecks in some places that made them good for defense, but since no outposts were assigned or given in advance no one got upset that all outposts weren't equally defensible.

The 10,000 new PFO players aren't going to care about it either, since all settlements recruit.

If you name a five minute solution for the dev team, then they might spend 5 minutes catering to a tiny number of players to assure the settlements they own have equality in vulnerability (in a game which is still going to be a builder game).

If the solution is going to take 100 hours, then that's 100 hours the devs will spend catering to that tiny number of players, rather than adding features intended to attract the next 10,000 players.

When I ask myself "why do I care about this issue?" it really is from a couple of different angles.

1. Though I understand that there are differences(many) in where settlements are, what resources are around them, who has better home hexes closer, even do I have enough bulk producing hexes to "maintain" I see things that I can overcome. By making war or placing a small hold or trading or even poaching. My sense of basic fairness can balance those problems with action. Nothing that I could do(so far) allows for my settlement hex to have 6 core hexes only vulnerable if the "puzzle" can be broken. It doesn't bother me that other settlements can have even more complex puzzles because of way more available hexes. Just that at the minimum base, some simply can't do anything as simple as 6 protected core hexes.
Then again, I could just decide that "the equal minimum" is 3 or whatever the most short changed settlement really is.

2. The second is even though the future new player base may not give a rats ass about Ozem's Vigil or Golgotha or Highroad or Carpe Noctem, they are unique places with personalities. At least I like to think so. As much history and hard work that has to be put into them(or will soon enuf) added to that, I don't like the idea of their ideals being easier to take away than anyone else's.
Clearly not everyone puts as much importance on these things and that's how the cookie crumbles. Yet if say you did conquer and take away Phaeros, they would indeed have to move in with allies/friends and they would be the same people(abit pissed off maybe) but Phaeros would be gone and so not really the same as it was or they were.
Decius
Some locations can be reinforced to take a very long time to siege. Some cannot. Given that inequality, any method at all of assigning initial distribution might be 'fair'. As it turned out, the method used to assign initial ownership was "Pick one without any significant knowledge of what the mechanics will be in the future, and your choices will be implemented giving preference to those who have recruited the most".

I expect that the main roads will have significant benefit and that something interesting will eventually occupy badlands hexes, so that being close to those hexes will have a significant positive effects as well as limiting holding positions.

As far as being a game for builders and not a game for conquerors, that's the design intent I was sold on. Meaningful PvP, not just destroyers camping a couple of losec until their scouts see someone coming for them.
Midnight
I find little to debate against in those 3 responses from folks. Those are reasonable views.

The only point I'll make towards Decius' post is that most PvP-centric players also want meaningful PvP and if there isn't enough PvP to keep PvP-centric players entertained, they aren't going to show up and stay.

The PvP needn't be about destruction, it could be faction warfare. But Faction warfare isn't on the roadmap, which *might* mean the next 10,000 players are 10,000 more builders, thus locking that playstyle in even further.

However, it is possible that escalation hexes could remain as the source of the best PvP in the game and that might be enough.

But if the game isn't going to entertain PvPers, there's almost no reason to bother having PvP in the game and all the man-hours devoted towards PvP features have been a waste of time.

I've already bet on the future with my wallet. I signed up my gatherer account for a year subscription and the rest of my subscriptions have expired. I think I see the future of PFO and my gatherer choice is a bet on it being a builder's game.

Of course, even in a builder game you might still want a combat character if you think all the goodies are escalation hex drops, like recipes. Us gatherers will have to keep the devs honest on the fairness smile of the rewards between the various PvE roles. Right now T3 mats keep it close to fair but many of the solutions offered to cut the ease of strip mining are solutions that favor combat characters because the feats that enable you to better hunt escalations also allow you to better hunt gatherers.
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