Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Khron

Building Your Kingdom In The Campaign

Recommended Posts

With the release around EK functionality I’d like to start some discussion around what might translate to the campaign settings.  We also have a quote from Thomas that says “…this is the same core tech we are using for the Campaign worlds.”  So who knows some of the questions we generate here might get answered in a future FAQ.

 

I’m going to focus this post on a couple key areas:

  1. Claiming land
  2. Management and Upkeep
  3. Destruction and lose

 

I will be referencing this picture a couple times

EK_2-ParcelManagement_RC1.jpg

 

Claiming Land

From the bloodstone campaign we see the framework for claiming land will rely on gathering resources to plant a flag.  In the campaign this flag was called a “Bloostone Tree”.  My immediate assumption is that a planted flag would claim the plots above in a sphere around the flag.

Discussion topics:

  • What other methods of claiming land would be viable?
  • Should you have multiple size flags that very in cost and the number of plots they encompass?
  • Can I build without claiming land?
  • Should POI’s require a similar process of claiming?

Management and Upkeep

  • Does the fealty tree from the EKs import to the campaign to establish permissions?
  • No tax free parcels in campaigns so we will have system tax.  Do you also charge people tax to live on your land?
  • If I invest in building and permission is taken away from me or I leave the campaign what happens?

Destruction and loss

  • The bloodstone tree was set up as x time safe, y time vulnerable.  Should all claim flags act like this?
  • What impact should destroying the claim flag have on the buildings that were built on the claim?
  • Should structures have an arrears period?
  • Per the FAQ should structures that don’t pay upkeep eventually go back into the inventory of the builder?

 

My thoughts:

 

Claiming Land

You could expand land calming to a macro level and make it a parcel that is claimed but I feel that’s too large, and it would be better to keep it micro and then require a specific size flag for a given plot.  Taking the picture as an example the plots inside the castle walls should require a flag that would encompass all the plots in the castle.  The plots along the river not inside the castle walls could be claimed with a cheap flag that only reserves a single plot.  This would also indicate that I’m a fan of multiple size clamming flags that start cheap and increase in cost.

 

Building without claiming land should be doable but anything placed without claiming is subject to destruction immediately.

 

POI’s should not be claimed in the same way, if claiming them for resources is required I feel they should always be subject to vulnerability and never receive protection.

 

Management and Upkeep

Importing the fealty tree would be a nice short cut but because it’s not guaranteed to be exactly what you are looking for I feel we need an admin menu to grant permissions as the claimer of the land sees fit.

 

I can see having at least three unique tax requirements one for guild members, one for friendlies that are not members of the guild, and maybe a third for everyone else something like 99999% if I can’t disable it completely.

 

If you leave the campaign I see three options for the stuff you built on the claim

  • You pass the claim to another person
  • Stuff is destroyed either by failure to pay upkeep or someone brings along some siege
  • Some one destroys you claim flag and then claims all the buildings as their own

If you have permission removed from you after building on a plot I’m afraid to say you just donated to the person that owns the plot.

 

Destruction and loss

I feel the bloodstone tree gets a special set up for vulnerability because it’s part of the win condition.  For non objective claim flags I think the aggressor should pay to attack a claim.  Following the SB model the defender then has a window to select vulnerability if they don’t the attacker may choose.  Higher level claim flags should require more outlay from the attacker.  The attacker then has two options in my mind, burn everything to the ground, or destroy the claim flag.  Destroying the claim flag would allow the attacker to then place one of their own and claim all the building under their banner.  The new owner would still be required to repair what they broke but they would have avoided initial startup

 

Buildings that do not have their upkeep maintained should become useless, they should also decay until the building eventually disappears.  Any building lost in an attack or due to upkeep should be gone from the game permanently.

 

Hopefully this is a good jumping off point and you folks enjoy the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give my thoughts for each here...

Claiming Land

From the bloodstone campaign we see the framework for claiming land will rely on gathering resources to plant a flag.  In the campaign this flag was called a “Bloostone Tree”.  My immediate assumption is that a planted flag would claim the plots above in a sphere around the flag.

Discussion topics:

  • What other methods of claiming land would be viable?
  • Should you have multiple size flags that very in cost and the number of plots they encompass?
  • Can I build without claiming land?
  • Should POI’s require a similar process of claiming?

You could expand land calming to a macro level and make it a parcel that is claimed but I feel that’s too large, and it would be better to keep it micro and then require a specific size flag for a given plot.  Taking the picture as an example the plots inside the castle walls should require a flag that would encompass all the plots in the castle.  The plots along the river not inside the castle walls could be claimed with a cheap flag that only reserves a single plot.  This would also indicate that I’m a fan of multiple size clamming flags that start cheap and increase in cost.

 

Building without claiming land should be doable but anything placed without claiming is subject to destruction immediately.

 

POI’s should not be claimed in the same way, if claiming them for resources is required I feel they should always be subject to vulnerability and never receive protection.

 

My assumption was that claiming land away from POIs would be a very simple "if it's unowned, it's up for grabs!" sort of deal. But you make a good point with the flags. In that case I think that perhaps the easiest way to claim land (POI or not) would be to camp out on it for X amount of time. If you can defend the land for so much time you'd be able to make a stockpile (and gather resources if possible). With the stockpile you'd be able to build structures. You'd probably get some square cell area around the initial camping area. Size may be best served by an initial start (say 10x10) which gets larger as more structures are placed on it -or- it comes within a certain distance of another owned piece of land.

 

The idea of using a flag every time perplexes me a bit. Where would we get flags? Do we build them? how do we do that without resources? I'll reestablish my ideas once I have some knowledge of that. Perhaps a centerpiece for the land is still in order though, we'll call it a flag for now whether it's a tree, flag, structure or otherwise.

 

 

Management and Upkeep

  • Does the fealty tree from the EKs import to the campaign to establish permissions?
  • No tax free parcels in campaigns so we will have system tax.  Do you also charge people tax to live on your land?
  • If I invest in building and permission is taken away from me or I leave the campaign what happens?

Importing the fealty tree would be a nice short cut but because it’s not guaranteed to be exactly what you are looking for I feel we need an admin menu to grant permissions as the claimer of the land sees fit.

 

I can see having at least three unique tax requirements one for guild members, one for friendlies that are not members of the guild, and maybe a third for everyone else something like 99999% if I can’t disable it completely.

 

If you leave the campaign I see three options for the stuff you built on the claim

  • You pass the claim to another person
  • Stuff is destroyed either by failure to pay upkeep or someone brings along some siege
  • Some one destroys you claim flag and then claims all the buildings as their own

If you have permission removed from you after building on a plot I’m afraid to say you just donated to the person that owns the plot.

 

 

I would say the fealty tree has no effect out in the campaign unless the tree is based on your guild if you're playing GvG. I'd say it may be better for individual campaigns to have individual trees. I'd assume that if you own the land and I use a plot to build a house you'd have the option to tax me, yes. I think tax brackets should be available to any monarch/land owner. What noble doesn't play favorites with his friends? I forget where, but they've answered what happens if you lose permission to use land, it enters your account bank which I assume would be campaign based. If you leave the campaign I assume you lose it. You bailed on the campaign, why would you get anything?

 

 

Destruction and loss

  • The bloodstone tree was set up as x time safe, y time vulnerable.  Should all claim flags act like this?
  • What impact should destroying the claim flag have on the buildings that were built on the claim?
  • Should structures have an arrears period?
  • Per the FAQ should structures that don’t pay upkeep eventually go back into the inventory of the builder?

I feel the bloodstone tree gets a special set up for vulnerability because it’s part of the win condition.  For non objective claim flags I think the aggressor should pay to attack a claim.  Following the SB model the defender then has a window to select vulnerability if they don’t the attacker may choose.  Higher level claim flags should require more outlay from the attacker.  The attacker then has two options in my mind, burn everything to the ground, or destroy the claim flag.  Destroying the claim flag would allow the attacker to then place one of their own and claim all the building under their banner.  The new owner would still be required to repair what they broke but they would have avoided initial start up

 

Buildings that do not have their upkeep maintained should become useless, they should also decay until the building eventually disappears.  Any building lost in an attack or due to upkeep should be gone from the game permanently.

 

Hopefully this is a good jumping off point and you folks enjoy the discussion.

 

 

I prefer the idea of full time attack and defend but perhaps that should be an option, not a standard. Resources in many campaigns will be at least mildly plentiful and the bloodstone tree is a win condition. Using options of full atk/def, defender chooses opening, and x time off y time on would all be good choices of play. Taking the POI/settlement from someone forcefully should probably result in the remaining ruins staying to either be rebuilt or destroyed. I like the idea of literally taking over a castle. For the last... Lets say its an option. In some worlds poorly up kept buildings go into storage, in others they become ruins, just marks of the land. 

 

To be honest I can't answer the 3rd bullet, I don't understand the question.
 


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply

 

The idea of using a flag every time perplexes me a bit. Where would we get flags? Do we build them? how do we do that without resources? I'll reestablish my ideas once I have some knowledge of that. Perhaps a centerpiece for the land is still in order though, we'll call it a flag for now whether it's a tree, flag, structure or otherwise.

 

"Flags" could be crafted by players.  The lowest level flag would require the cheapest resources and no workstation to make.  I was working under the assumption that you don't need to claim land in order to find resources or build buildings.  What using a flag does is protect your investment "building" when your not online or at least give you a window where protecting it is required.  Agreed, I'm using flag but it could be tree or building and it its the way you interface with permissions for the area.

 

 

I forget where, but they've answered what happens if you lose permission to use land, it enters your account bank which I assume would be campaign based. If you leave the campaign I assume you lose it. You bailed on the campaign, why would you get anything?

 

This quote comes from the EK FAQ

 

"If you decide to leave a world – or, if you are ejected from a World by the players above you in the fealty chain -- all of your structures (and any relics or thralls placed in them) will be moved into your account bank. Parcels and Buildings can be moved easily from your account bank into a new Kingdom, once you find one."

 

This is specific to EK's, I hope.  My hope is that in campaigns the risk vs reward is that you would loose all these things.

 

 

I prefer the idea of full time attack and defend but perhaps that should be an option, not a standard. Resources in many campaigns will be at least mildly plentiful and the bloodstone tree is a win condition. Using options of full atk/def, defender chooses opening, and x time off y time on would all be good choices of play. Taking the POI/settlement from someone forcefully should probably result in the remaining ruins staying to either be rebuilt or destroyed. I like the idea of literally taking over a castle. For the last... Lets say its an option. In some worlds poorly up kept buildings go into storage, in others they become ruins, just marks of the land. 

 

To be honest I can't answer the 3rd bullet, I don't understand the question.

 

My concern here is what happens to my house if I'm not on 24/7.  I think the typical argument you'll see is that people don't want to log off at night have have all their hard work taken over by folks in a different time zone or play schedule.  So the mechanic I'm looking for is a fair way to take my pixels while still giving me a chance to defend them if I can't be on all the time to defend it.

 

I'll rephrase: If you do not pay the upkeep on the building should you still be able to use the assets in the building? This would include thralls, workstations, and relics.  All of them would still be destroyed if the building was completely neglected.  The inverse would be as soon as the building upkeep wasn't paid you wouldn't have access to the assets even though they are still in the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I'm getting is you believe we need a system to protect assets when we're offline. Let me lay the devil's advocate if nothing else. I have a few issues and a few possible solutions...

My issues:

  1. Why would we encourage that? You honestly want it to be very difficult to hold land. Especially if it creates resources. solo players should find it nigh impossible.
  2. if anyone can just mine resources, and lets say resources aren't terribly hard to find, why would solo players every build it up? It's easier to mine and run.

My Solutions:

  1. Setting up thralls may be an interesting attempt to stave off intruders. Traps could also be employed. You really want multiple people watching the settlement whenever you possibly can. If not, how large could the "no attack" timer really be and still be fair?
  2. I think a player should be able to "Salvage" their buildings, thralls, and the like for either a small percent of their worth or with a chance of gaining or losing it.

mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I really feel like "claiming" land should be done with structures and an area around them. But that would just apply to building. Working or doing whatever should just be available. Siegeing maybe could be timed... maybe.


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Toan21 It feels like we have some miscommunication going on.

 

I'm not suggesting that you be able to claim a mine and then give it a protection window.  In fact I said "POI’s should not be claimed in the same way, if claiming them for resources is required I feel they should always be subject to vulnerability and never receive protection."

 

 

Also, I really feel like "claiming" land should be done with structures and an area around them. But that would just apply to building. Working or doing whatever should just be available. Siegeing maybe could be timed... maybe.

 

Fair enough, what I was trying to convey is you need to have on your property a seat of power, something that the enemy is trying to take so that they can have your land.  If they aren't trying to take it, this "structure" doesn't matter cause the enemy will just burn it all to the ground and then salt the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Toan21 It feels like we have some miscommunication going on.

 

I'm not suggesting that you be able to claim a mine and then give it a protection window.  In fact I said "POI’s should not be claimed in the same way, if claiming them for resources is required I feel they should always be subject to vulnerability and never receive protection."

 

 

Fair enough, what I was trying to convey is you need to have on your property a seat of power, something that the enemy is trying to take so that they can have your land.  If they aren't trying to take it, this "structure" doesn't matter cause the enemy will just burn it all to the ground and then salt the earth.

 

To introduce a seat of power seems silly to me.  In a kingdom, simply sitting on a throne or changing a flag does not mean you own the place.  Sure it is symbolic, but that is not everything.  If someone takes my castle, they will have to search every room to make sure we don't have a nasty surprise inside waiting.  That to me is more intriguing.  Could they burn it to the ground?  Yes but it's wasteful and not effective.  They won't want to, even if there is no seat of power.  Don't destroy the castle, overtake it.  Having possession means you own it.  That should be advantage enough.  If you don't have full possession, changing the flag shouldn't change anything.  My .02


PmnGhMD.jpg

í blóði er hefnd kvöl er ótta dýrð sorg ríkir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To introduce a seat of power seems silly to me.  In a kingdom, simply sitting on a throne or changing a flag does not mean you own the place.  Sure it is symbolic, but that is not everything.  If someone takes my castle, they will have to search every room to make sure we don't have a nasty surprise inside waiting.  That to me is more intriguing.  Could they burn it to the ground?  Yes but it's wasteful and not effective.  They won't want to, even if there is no seat of power.  Don't destroy the castle, overtake it.  Having possession means you own it.  That should be advantage enough.  If you don't have full possession, changing the flag shouldn't change anything.  My .02

 

My background for siege warfare comes from Shadowbane, Darkfall, and GW2 (clicking the link should take you to a wiki talking about each games siege mechanics).  In each of the games they have an item that represents the territory that you own (tree of life, clanstone, and Lord).  In order for you to buy upgrades or start the foundation of a new building to be built you have to have possession of the area via the tree of life, clanstone, or Lord.

 

Your idea around possession is intrigue though after all it is 9/10 of the law :)

 

So how does it work? I have a couple questions around areas I'd be concerned with.

  • Does standing in an area give me the right to building something?  An example of negative impact would be the ability to build stairs up the outside of a wall.  Counter arguments are typically the defenders shouldn't be so daft as to let this happen.  In the real world you are absolutely correct, in game mechanics a set of stairs could take 4 seconds to place and people are up and over your walls.
  • Every guild will have periods of down time where their assets cannot be protected thus making them vulnerable to trolls that just want to watch the world burn.  How can this be limited or avoided?  Keep in mind I'm not talking about stopping a guild of trolls from burning your things to the ground I'm talking about a single player burring a castle to the ground at 4am
  • I'm all about a skilled player jumping over the castle walls and murdering everyone in the castle.  Does that player now have the ability to turn the tower guards against us? lock the gates so the folks that can't climb walls cant get in?

If I where to summarize, my concerns is that a very skilled minority could cause an inappropriate level of grief to another larger group of players.  The mechanics in games like SB and DF provided a frame work in which to take someones pixels that gave both the attack and defense a chance to prove their worth.  Those found lacking lost their pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most SB players want to have meaningful, risk-driven PvP with asset destruction. EKs are antithesis of this.

 

I hope game design would support campaign-only play style, where you can build anything you want/need for PvP within campaign and not bother with EKs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does it work? I have a couple questions around areas I'd be concerned with.

  • Does standing in an area give me the right to building something?  An example of negative impact would be the ability to build stairs up the outside of a wall.  Counter arguments are typically the defenders shouldn't be so daft as to let this happen.  In the real world you are absolutely correct, in game mechanics a set of stairs could take 4 seconds to place and people are up and over your walls.
  • Every guild will have periods of down time where their assets cannot be protected thus making them vulnerable to trolls that just want to watch the world burn.  How can this be limited or avoided?  Keep in mind I'm not talking about stopping a guild of trolls from burning your things to the ground I'm talking about a single player burring a castle to the ground at 4am
  • I'm all about a skilled player jumping over the castle walls and murdering everyone in the castle.  Does that player now have the ability to turn the tower guards against us? lock the gates so the folks that can't climb walls cant get in?

If I where to summarize, my concerns is that a very skilled minority could cause an inappropriate level of grief to another larger group of players.  The mechanics in games like SB and DF provided a frame work in which to take someones pixels that gave both the attack and defense a chance to prove their worth.  Those found lacking lost their pixels.

 

I think control of a piece of land/settlement should be based on your ability to hold it. That was what I was getting at with the whole camp out thing. If you can take my castle and hold it uncontested (meaning you never completely lose the area aka someone in your group is still alive there) for whatever appropriate amount of time and you fight off my entire army, I think you earned it. Maybe taking over a settlement will take much longer than claiming land but I think a system of "I'm here, you're not!" would work. Gates and such should be trigger based, anyone who can get to the lever to lock it should be able to do so. Thralls however are more of an individual player thing as I understand it. They'll fight for you until they die, no turncoats. Maybe they can even hold the fort for you in case of an invasion.

 

for the first bullet specifically, this is why I suggested that ownership of the land is done with an area around the established buildings (or campsite in first settlement) so no one can build stairs to your wall. I feel I answered the third already but sadly I don't think I have a good answer for your second bullet. I'd love to hear some thoughts on the matter.

Btw, thanks for bringing this up. It's my favorite thread at the moment.


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my ideas for a system of conquest that relies on your ability to hold a position

 

I'm going to treat it like a point system

  • For a base line lets say all plots start at 0
    • Standing in a plot rewards points slowly
    • Clearing a plot of brush awards points based on activity i.e "you cleared a shrubby + 1 point"
    • Defeating enemies that are in the plot with you also rewards points (lets say +5)
    • Players are in a race to score enough points for a plot (You dieing to a player doesn't reduce your point total for the plot)
  • After gaining enough points you are able to build on the plot
    • You still get points for being active within your borders
    • Points are based on the outlay of resources (1 lowest tier resources = 1 point)
    • Lets say you can also buy points with resources at a lower rate (5 lowest tier resources = 1 point)
    • Now if an enemy enters your territory they are reducing the number of points you've built up
      • If you want to know when an enemy has entered your territory you should build a "scout" tower which will give you a notification in a radius around the tower
    • For now lets say they can't destroy your buildings until they've deducted enough points.  I'd love to see some ideas on a f(x) where x is the wealth of the area.
    • Both attackers and defenders can score points by killing an enemy
    • Defenders can score points by knocking down doors of buildings (so while they can't burn the building down to the ground immediately they can get inside and loot or kill the folks trying to gear up)
  • I think we should have multiple tiers as you developing an area
    • So while the first tier only allowed you to build things that fit on a single plot once you reach this tier you start to influence the plots around you
      • Essentially doing something that gave you a point on your original plot now gives a % of that point to adjacent plots
      • This allows you to upgrade your current building to encompass multiple plots without needing to build something on the plot next to you
      • This might also add some civil engineering challenges
    • Increasing tiers also opens up options for gating buildings
      • You need x points to build a barracks
      • A racks produces city guards
      • City guards are worth 5 points if killed by an enemy
    • Each plot you've overtaking is keeping track of the points eared for it
    • Upkeep keeps the points at equilibrium (if you default the plot starts to lose points)
    • Lets look at what attackers need to do at this higher level
      • Random people can still jump over your city walls and gank folks in the city however they do not deduct points from the plot if that plot was surrounded by other plots you had claimed that are in good standing
      • Random attackers can still knock down doors to gain access to building but again they don't score points unless the plot has an exposed plot next to it
      • Random attackers can still deduct points from plots by killing guards
      • Now I'm an organized force that wants your pixels
        • First order of business is to reduce the points for a plot that contains the outer wall
        • Essentially I need to put my army on your front door to reduce the points to make the wall vulnerable
        • Then I can destroy the wall to reduce the point value enough to force vulnerability on adjacent plots
        • Lets give the attackers a special item its as expensive as siege equipment, crafted by players and is carried by an individual.  Instead of doing damage to buildings its kinda of like a point bomb that reduces the point value by a significant amount in a vulnerable plot
        • Once inside the walls the attackers now need to systematically progress through the vulnerable plots to score points as they eliminate enemies and damage buildings or use point bombs to make the next plot vulnerable

I'm going to stop here because by now I'm probably rambling.

Edited by Khron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually really like your ideas. I'm going to comment more when I have extra time but for now I have one additive,

 

What if you could enter an area just outside the settlement and it's zone of ownership and claim a siege? essentially you'd spend your time building forces and siege weapons and such and decrease the point value rapidly. This would give the defenders a change to break the siege before it even begins.

 

I say this because if the main value of the points is to prevent enemies from smashing your walls/buildings, I feel a siege should decrease them faster in a sort of "this is how much supplies we have to stave off starvation" way. say if your point value drops below the used value of your points you can then commence the attack.

 

For example, I have a fortress (worth 100pts), thirty houses/hovels (each worth 5 points), 10 barracks/temples/storehouses (each worth 10pts), one hundred segments of wall (worth 1pts each), two gates (each worth 5pts), and two towers (each worth 20pts). My whole settlement is worth 500pts. If I've been on the plot long enough to accumulate 800pts, they would have to besiege me long enough to make my current value less than or equal to 499pts. At that point they may siege me for some amount of time.

 

 

A very important point to make is this would be a campaign option. I much prefer open unadulterated warfare.


mael4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very important point to make is this would be a campaign option. I much prefer open unadulterated warfare.

 

I wasn't designing this to be a campaign option.  I'm trying to figure out how kingdoms should be built in every campaign Dregs to God's reach.  My thought process was; What steps do you need to accomplish to create a stronghold to then start meeting the victory condition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think control of a piece of land/settlement should be based on your ability to hold it. 

 

This sort of thing would work in a game that had pre-built structures that you fought over.. like GW2's WvWvW.  But in a game where you have to spend a bunch of time farming up the resources and building the castles / bases / cities yourself.. it's actually a horrible mechanic.  Nobody wants to spend a ton of time building up their base simply to loose it in the middle of the night.  A system like that in Crowfall would essentially cause this game to fail.  The only people I can see arguing for a system like this are those that want to take other players cities as opposed to making their own.  The devs have basically already said that they're working on making a system where the owners always have a chance to respond so there will never be any middle of the night stealth sieges.

 

Shadowbane used to allow those, siege anytime the attacker wanted, sieges and it was horrible and they had to change it.  So I wouldn't expect anything like that.

 

 

I don't believe there are any real specifics yet because they have to test things out and see how things work and there's always adjustments to be made.  So devs trying to give specifics now don't make a lot of sense. (in case anyone is wanting specific answers from the devs).  I very much like the bloodstone example they gave and if they can make more mechanics like that I think we'll be pretty good in the siege department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread. It really puts a lot of the micro level systems issues into stark focus. I've written on a similar topic, but coming from a more macro perspective: http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/4963-campaign-permanence-%E2%80%93-a-framework/

 

After reading your OP, I was going to start off with saying something about possession being 9/10ths of the law... looks like you got there first.  That is kind of where this all starts, so it is the thing that needs to be down pat (although with an eye to the development of pretty much everything else in the game).

 

The way I have thought it... starting with a freshly minted campaign world... 90-100% of the total land area land is going to be unclaimed (this is really going to depend on rule set). We know there are POI in the game before the players, so most of those I see being "claimed" by NPCs. They could be MOBs or racial character NPCs. Some/most of them can be taken over. Because there are buildings there already, you don't have to do much more than vanquish the MOBs to get them out. These pre-built POI, whether claimed by NPCs or not, will come with their own pre-determined area of influence (AOI), and if you take them over, then you are the "owner" of the land within the AOI.

 

POI and AOI differ in that the POI may be the castle, where as the AOI is all the land around (and under) the castle, extended out to some point that makes sense based on the nature of the structure in question.  

 

For unclaimed land, you have to build on it first. This is how you possess the land. So if you built a cabin out in the middle of nowhere, you would get all the land the the cabin sits on, and a small area of land surrounding the cabin.  If you had built a barracks, the AOI surrounding the building would have been much larger.

 

In the bloodstone ruleset, for example, if you built outside of the bloodstone's protection radius, then your building can be sieged at any time. So you have a high incentive to build within the protection area, but you do not have to. This could be problematic, if you had to have an expensive bloodstone for your city, and then also one for a few farm buildings and another for each of your mines out in the country... But I think that is somewhat solvable by having less expensive bloodstones that just have a smaller protection radius (akin to the different levels of flag).

Edited by virt

The Shipwrecked Pirates

yarrr....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good thread! I've had it open in a tab for a few days as I wanted time to digest the ideas here and think about them for myself. 

 

World Creation

 

My assumption is that the world will be created with a set number of cells. It will then use a procedural generation engine to place parcels to cover the entire world (or perhaps only in certain areas, with the remaining cells being "wild".) Each of these parcels would include a number of features;

 

1. Mob Spawns

2. Points of Interest (mines, mills, embargo circles etc)

3. Building Plots

 

Plus of course terrain features like hills, mountains, forests, etc. 

 

So how does construction of villages, towns and cities work?

 

Settlements

 

As you saw, my point 3. was building plots. Some parcels come with what are essentially open, buildable land. You can then lay down structures depending on these plots. Some parcels will have many plots, some will have far fewer. 

 

Now the question becomes - how do we claim these buildable plots? Well, my answer is... we don't. We just build on them, they are open for all. However, in this state, those structures are always vulnerable and can be destroyed by anyone. Once land is open, anyone can build on it again. 

 

No-one wants to fight 4am sieges though, so there should be a means of protecting those structures. Enter the bloodstone tree, sacred keep or Player-keep. I'm just differentiating here to show that different campaigns can have different protection rules. 

 

Bloodstone Tree - The tree is basically a Point of Interest parcel in the game, but when claimed the tree protects all structures owned by that group on that parcel. The tree can be set to generate bloodstones which turns the structures and tree vulnerable for a set period.

 

Sacred Keep - Taken from the example picture. Certain parts of the world begin with ruined walls. Once restored, these sacred walls protect all plots in that parcel. These parcels and keeps could come in different sizes, so a Large Sacred Castle would have the potential to become a far larger settlement than, say, a Sacred Manor House. 

 

Player Owned-Keep - This is a buildable structure which comes in a number of different sizes much like the Sacred version. The difference here is that their location is not pre-set, and Players can instead choose precisely where they wish to build. The Keep then protects a number of plots around it, in a specific radius. The interesting thing about this, is that these protected plots could cross over to other parcels resulting in far larger settlements than otherwise possible. It could also result in far more Players getting involved in the territorial game as space would be far less limited.

 

Challenge!

 

Ok, so I've talked about establishing the settlements... how do we knock them down? 

 

Hunger Stone - This is a thing which is placed on the parcel to be challenged. Once placed, terms for the conflict (ie, the times) are set and the victor (re)takes the keep. 

 

Points of Interest

 

Similar to the buildable plots in other parcels, some points of interest have them also. These are designed to give the owner a little choice in how they manage their assets. This would only be a thing for Mines, Mills, Farms, etc. Not for summoning circles or towns.

 

Flag Post - Claim this to gain ownership of the Point of Interest. Ownership allows construction of other facilities, it does not stop Player-gatherers from getting resources from this location. To stop others using it, build a barracks!

Outpost - This automatically spawns caravans which ships goods back to the linked settlement. 

Barracks - This structure spawns guards who defend the area.

Worker's Hut - This structure spawns more NPC labourers that increase it's output.

Shrine - This makes the Flag Post invulnerable. Shrines could leave the location vulnerable for an hour a day, or require its own resources to upkeep, or be challenged like settlements. Depends on the ruleset.

 

The interesting thing with these assets, is that space may mean that you could only build 1-3 of these... or that you have to choose to reduce the number of worker's huts you place to make space for barracks and an outpost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...