COMMUNITY - FORUMS - GENERAL DISCUSSION
The Impact of Killing NPC's

This topic came up in another thread created by Takeda_Shinukage, and I thought this subset of the discussion could use its own thread, based on the legitimate concerns it brings up. I am going to repost my original response:

@Takeda

I appreciate you taking the time for a detailed response - I always enjoy discussion with you. I may not always agree, but at least I can expect a thought out explanation.

The reason I listed the various "underlying issues" that have been generated in this discussion about "zerg prevention" is that I think, based on how this thread has meandered, is that the core issue at hand is not whether large gaming communities will have too much impact, or that "zerging" will be an issue, but rather that the impact of killing NPCs in a town, and that death is permanent for them, may be too harsh.

I don't believe community size, or "zerging" is the issue is because this (i.e killing all the NPCs in a town) does not necessarily need a large community to accomplish.

If it is a small settlement, this might be done with 10 players that know what they are doing. If it is a larger, or better protected settlement, it might take more.

This entire discussion about "zerging", supply lines, logistics, whether or not people will choose a "scorched earth" style of combat, the "reward for inequalities", etc. are all secondary to the core issue:

Should players be able to destroy a town - NPC's included?

This is a very complex issue (in my opinion), and almost warrants its own thread.

  • On one hand, it plays into the realism of the game. As Caspian has described it, he fully intends this to be a game of risk vs reward, with real consequences, and no guarantees in regards to lands/titles/possessions. In this light, being able to wipe out all the NPCs and burn a town to the ground makes sense.

  • On the flip side, as @Takeda has pointed out, it may be entirely too easy for zergs/suicide squads/trolls/griefers/strategic players/whatever you want to call them to accomplish. What if a dedicated team of 10 assassins simply decided to sneak into a down with the sole purpose of killing all the NPCs? You wouldn't even need to kill all of them. In an NPC heavy town, simply sneaking in and killing all the farmers in their sleep would be enough to cripple a town.

The questions lies in "how much is enough" to fulfill the overall vision of the game, without having the penalties be too harsh for those on the losing side.

Keep in mind, this type of warfare could actually impact the overall game as a whole.

What if all Kingdoms decided to wage this type of war?

Eventually, after a few months of specifically targeting NPCs, there won't be any NPCs left. What if a group specifically targeted women? Can't have kids with no women. Can't have heirs with no kids. Can't have new lives as a PC with no heirs.

This is an extreme example, and I doubt it would ever happen unless is was committed to on a large scale, but it COULD happen. Hell, there may be covert teams forming with the sole purpose of eliminating a town/county/duchy/kingdom's ability to have children.

"If we can't wipe them out, we'll breed them out".

So, despite semantics, @Takeda brings a very relevant issue to light.

How easy/viable/possible should it be to permanently kill NPCs?

  • Should only NPC soldiers have combat flags?

  • Should NPCs have "souls" similar to PCs with a respawn time?

  • Should NPC's only be able to be killed when an "official war" has been declared?

  • Should we just let the world burn and to hell with the fine print?


Imgur

...
8/17/2017 7:13:21 PM #121

Definitely, not having PC equal NPCs = flop. lul. Ya got me bud. Well played.


I don't know anymore.

8/17/2017 7:17:52 PM #122

Discussion has run its course.

Locking thread.

...