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.

All posts created by Flari-Merchant

Flari-Merchant
Bob
Both settlements and large territorial claims are built up over time, and we likewise want them to fall over time. The more dynamic back-and-forth battles should be taking place along borders, or in the less settled areas of the map where territorial claims are still being established.
I for one am pretty happy with the idea of taking out a settlement being a super-major undertaking and difficult. It is too hard to build them up to lose them easily. MANY battles and some back and forth sounds pretty good.
If it proves beyond ridiculous to take one out, it can always be adjusted.
Flari-Merchant
The Eternal Balance
Bringslite of Staalgard
In a successful picture of this game(one with a player base), I see the most common type of PVP needing to be the ganking/banditry/resource-interdiction type. With loot. The Holding type stuff is simply not rewarding enough for "Everyday Joe" to find satisfying.
If somehow the Holding capture the flag game can be made immediately rewarding or somehow strongly incentivized by power gain, the above won't matter as much.
Meaningful PVP will still need to be rewarding for victors on all levels.

PVP over gushers?
Good point. That will help.
Flari-Merchant
In a successful picture of this game(one with a player base), I see the most common type of PVP needing to be the ganking/banditry/resource-interdiction type. With loot. The Holding type stuff is simply not rewarding enough for "Everyday Joe" to find satisfying.
If somehow the Holding capture the flag game can be made immediately rewarding or somehow strongly incentivized by power gain, the above won't matter as much.
Meaningful PVP will still need to be rewarding for victors on all levels.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
From another thread:

Smitty
Its probably likely that 3 hexes running at +0 are going outproduce a +4 hex(for the same influence cost)

Having multiple lower-upgrade hexes outproduce individual higher-upgrade hexes provides an incentive to spread out, but at the risk of having to defend lots of hexes with minimal amounts of guards. When looking at things purely in terms of bulk resource output, we want upgrading to be a good choice, but conquering new territory to be a better one.

Smitty
Hoping to get Bob's thoughts on if these numbers are going to be tweaked at all,

Lots of you guys have done holding and outpost stuff more than I have - So Perhaps the +4 outpost production
makes up for the difference- But I am not seeing it, help me do so if I am missing something.
The +4 Holding Option seems like a good thing to have in case of feuds, war time, etc. but to run holdings at that expense full time doesn't look that appealing to me..

I've started taking a look at the numbers and suspect I'll have to make some tweaks. In particular, I want to ensure that every additional upgrade leads to a greater increase in output than in upkeep, assuming reasonably efficient outpost choices. For very inefficient choices, higher upgrades may be counterproductive.
Will bonuses for Holding types, that were never hooked up, be activated? i.e. bonus ore output for beefed up mining holdings?
Flari-Merchant
@ Bob

•Let settlements select a 3-day period for their PvP windows to be open and require 48-hour minimum delay on feuds.
Does that mean a 72 hour window or a 3 day span of the same old window length by settlement level?
Probably a silly question(I hope) but you never know. smile
Flari-Merchant
There is an itch in the back of my mind that still tells me that the potential PVP oriented customers will be wanting some form of loot possible involved in the PVP thing. It adds a bit to the excitement. Though even if gear dropped, it may not be the stuff that the victor wants and it would be a hassle to sell since it comes damaged…
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
I have a question about this quote from the roadmap blog:

Protect hexes that have at least 4 allied neighbors from attack

Was this discussed in the forums previously? What is the intent?

It seems like most hexes of a major power would be exempt from attack if this means Settlement A's hexes count as allied to other hexes of Settlement A.

Is this meant to force invaders to work their way from the outside of a large territorial claim (peeling the onion)?

Unless I'm misinterpreting how this works, that sounds as dynamic and exciting as WW1 trench warfare. smile
I was eager for clarifying details on that as well. It can be read in several ways.
Flari-Merchant
P.S. About a month or so ago, I made the decision to step back. Take a break. Wait and see if the game build could mature a bit to become as engrossing as it was at the start and as it's potential certainly still is. Stay off the forums, I thought. Give it a rest, give it a chance, give it time.
I am already failing to stay off the forums. This is the power of your early concepts and the draw of the game's potential that you have here, GW. There really is nothing quite like it out there or in development. At least nothing close to being finished or ready that does not have some weird annoying "hangnail" planned feature like limited character lifespan, isometric graphics, or less than "sandboxey" configuration.
For the longest time I have believed that the compulsion to "hang in there", I had thought was simply because I had so much heart invested and had a "Big Boy" spot built for myself. That isn't it. It's the strange combination of planned mechanics and META interaction, and strange political intrigue/freedoms AND the over all general concept. It is addictive and pervasive to a gamer's heart. Somehow it just all gels right on paper and in concept, so we hang in there.
A very ambitious approach in a very graphic and content driven market. I am not surprised that more gamer's do not "get it". Those that do are pretty hooked. Now you just need to figure out how to get it from concept to working feature set and we all know that it isn't easy.
Just can't stay away…
Flari-Merchant
In less esoteric terms, I would just say that meaningful conflict boils down to one particular version of capture the flag and that it gets old. MMO PVP is such an abstract form of warfare that I am unsure if much can be done about that.

Part of PfO's problem has to be that too few players are trying to manage too large areas to control effectively. Many have multiple accounts and so can project force fairly well, responding to multi-pronged attacks but that has turned out to be a bit more hectic than fun for some reason. We are set up in a competitive game, in a larger than is feasible to defend required spread of holdings(must have Bulk and must have high level settlements for convenience, at the least), with a low population. This really is an unfortunate condition and not an optimal one for the mechanics that are available. Not that it is anyone's direct fault. It just is what it is. You can't realistically design a for profit MMO for 100 active players and you can't blame players for taking over everything that they can which is easily within realistic reach. It's what humans do.

I may have a delusional memory, but it tells me that conflict in PfO was supposed to be much more diverse than strictly about Holding attack and defense. Some of what I see in the current Roadmap will, I believe, help with some of this. At least it could possibly. Nothing is going to work right until the population is grown significantly. Six active players does not a Kingdom make. Twelve active players does not a Grand Alliance make.

As strange and as abstract(not the same as Duffy means) as MMO PVP and warfare is by nature, such large amounts of territory and so few players to control it only leads to this even more strange situation that the game is in right now. There needs(besides players) to be more reasons to fight than Holdings control. There are SUPPOSED TO BE MORE COMPELLING REASONS for conflict.

I think that GW's plan to look at resource distribution will help a great deal with the lack of "reasons" for conflict. At least it will be their chance to add a few compelling reasons for meaningful conflict. There are enough varieties of materials to spread out and concentrate a bit. Concentrate scarcity to promote trade, transportation, political maneuvers, banditry, privateering, area defense(besides just Holding conflict), also-known-as CONTENT.

Certainly the Influence and Company systems were meant for much more than simply a vehicle for Holding warfare. The reason that they do not work as well as intended is because they are not being used (or the opportunity/incentive/compelling reasons are not there) as they were conceived and the foundation principles were designed for…

This roadmap and more players will help with that, but it is not a short road.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
A question(with a lil bit of a parameter set :p) for GW:
When you look at the last year or so of participating player base(hangers-on) and how they play and what they say they want, do you see PVP enthusiasts or PVE/Crafting/Gathering/Merchant type PVP enthusiasts?

It's hard to really gauge percentages, but certainly it's clear that a fair amount of our current players (as well as our potential players) have a limited appetite for PvP combat. That's why a lot of the tasks on our roadmap which at first appear to be primarily about PvP or settlement-level issues are really about making it easier for players to manage their own PvP risk. For example, letting settlements choose a 3-day window for PvP means knowing that there's no need to defend your holdings/outposts for 4 days each week. Letting companies set the level of PvP allowed in their hexes lets players control the amount of PvP allowed throughout their territory, while protecting hexes that are neighbored by allies on at least 4 sides makes reducing that territory a much slower process.

That's also why we're moving toward a more opt-in feel to PvP. Our goal is to let players know when the actions they're taking open them up to PvP, and to what degree, then let them decide whether or not to take that risk.

Thanks Bob. I am looking forward to reading how exactly these ideas are put into mechanical operation. Pretty sure I grasp how some are meant to work, while others are unclear. At least in the devilish details. smile

As far as the specifics of the features and the order of implementation, that is very much a matter of WHAT you feel you can do and What Order you think is most likely to be feasible for GW to undertake. I get that. I am a bit puzzled at why it seems so difficult (or unnecessary?) to examine and fiddle with the Influence/Feud system, but I am on the outside looking in. Not the best vantage point.

Edit to add: It seems to me that a mix of playstyles will be needed to get a sufficient slice of the niche market share to make the game a success. Both PVP and PVE ers of some degree. What you have now as a system to foster meaningful PVP is generally disliked by BOTH ends of that spectrum. That seems like a bad apple that needs removal from the barrel. It is going to wreck the other apples no matter what until removed.