NPCs will be taking part in battles, however, NPCs are supposed to be treated identically to players and OPCs. So I don't think we will be able to imprison them as PoWs, or use them for ransom.
NPCs will be taking part in battles, however, NPCs are supposed to be treated identically to players and OPCs. So I don't think we will be able to imprison them as PoWs, or use them for ransom.
The mystery of the universe is like one big jigsaw puzzle, and we are forever discovering new pieces.
Posted By Orikoren at 07:29 AM - Thu Apr 11 2019
NPCs will be taking part in battles, however, NPCs are supposed to be treated identically to players and OPCs. So I don't think we will be able to imprison them as PoWs, or use them for ransom.
Or, if it's possible, it will be possible with Players/OPC, too. No one knows, what the future will bring. SbS still didn't finally decide on prison and stuff like that... and actually, there is nothing stopping you even now with the named mechanics to give someone you fought a contract stating: "I guarantee you your life until you get home, if you give me x ressources within x time. Contract is fulfilled either with the persons death or with the requested ressources being received and the persons healthy homecoming". There'd still be other issues... but I see nothing that makes this way of giving people of the losing side decisions impossible. There is just nothing you can do to force a ransom or being PoW on someone, currently. They can simply die and respawn, if they have enough lifespan left.
Friend Code: 30EF47
What if the winning sides “general” had a high reputation and convinces the loosing sides surviving NPCs to join his ranks?
Posted By Histati at 8:51 PM - Fri Apr 12 2019
What if the winning sides “general” had a high reputation and convinces the loosing sides surviving NPCs to join his ranks?
We have no information on whether this will be possible.
NPCs will definitely take part in battle, but as to being able to take them prisoner? That is still unclear.
I, personally, hope that it is possible.
This seems something you have Toresk diplomates for, to speak to the prisones to have them switch side.
Posted By DanielBlack at 01:48 AM - Sat Apr 13 2019
NPCs will definitely take part in battle, but as to being able to take them prisoner? That is still unclear.
I, personally, hope that it is possible.
If it will be possible it will be possible for everyone. There is no distinction between PC and NPC in the ruleset. Unlike most games NPCs are not here for players to use or conquer they are designed to fill in the world as equals in all senses.
Posted By Kaynadin at 11:33 AM - Sat Apr 13 2019
Posted By DanielBlack at 01:48 AM - Sat Apr 13 2019
NPCs will definitely take part in battle, but as to being able to take them prisoner? That is still unclear.
I, personally, hope that it is possible.
If it will be possible it will be possible for everyone. There is no distinction between PC and NPC in the ruleset. Unlike most games NPCs are not here for players to use or conquer they are designed to fill in the world as equals in all senses.
Exactly, I see no reason that prisoners of war shouldn’t be able to be taken, PC, or NPC.
Posted By DanielBlack at 5:47 PM - Sat Apr 13 2019
Posted By Kaynadin at 11:33 AM - Sat Apr 13 2019
Posted By DanielBlack at 01:48 AM - Sat Apr 13 2019
NPCs will definitely take part in battle, but as to being able to take them prisoner? That is still unclear.
I, personally, hope that it is possible.
If it will be possible it will be possible for everyone. There is no distinction between PC and NPC in the ruleset. Unlike most games NPCs are not here for players to use or conquer they are designed to fill in the world as equals in all senses.
Exactly, I see no reason that prisoners of war shouldn’t be able to be taken, PC, or NPC.
Same reason people get shirty about taking criminals prisoner, loss of player agency.
Coming Soon(tm)
well here is the thing, if we can move knocked out bodies, we can take them prisoner even if there is no actual PVP battle policy. Move them to a location with walls, or build them around the unconscious players. Unlike some games, players cannot die and then respawn- they will just re-inhabit the same captured body. For bandits this won't be easily feasible- the captured person can go on skype and friends or local law can come to the rescue. For battles, it is assumed that the other side is not strong enough to reclaim these people by force, so they are negotiating. Maybe there is no "I will give 200 coins for Eric the Waerd's release" But that doesn't mean a gift cannot be given and suddenly the cage door opens.
Evil? More like Chaotic Neutral...ish
Same reason people get shirty about taking criminals prisoner, loss of player agency.
This is true, but at the same time, this would be a great deterrent against raiders or kingdoms trying to invade. Already, it appears developers are making defense easier than invasion based on race pros/penalties vs biomes. The possibility of being captured, even for say 2 real days or some limited max, is going to stink. That might be a great deterrent, just like capture for crimes can be. Otherwise, there isn't any real reason NOT to attempt invasion, besides fear of reprisals. The argument is, players will not like it, so they may be turned off to the game. However, most players complaints with games like this is one big group keeps coming around and killing everyone. That already limits player agency. Deterrents like this, while working both ways, combined with the racial and biome perks, balance this out, at least at a kingdom level.
Evil? More like Chaotic Neutral...ish
Posted By Scourge at 3:13 PM - Sat Apr 13 2019
Same reason people get shirty about taking criminals prisoner, loss of player agency.
This is true, but at the same time, this would be a great deterrent against raiders or kingdoms trying to invade. Already, it appears developers are making defense easier than invasion based on race pros/penalties vs biomes. The possibility of being captured, even for say 2 real days or some limited max, is going to stink. That might be a great deterrent, just like capture for crimes can be. Otherwise, there isn't any real reason NOT to attempt invasion, besides fear of reprisals. The argument is, players will not like it, so they may be turned off to the game. However, most players complaints with games like this is one big group keeps coming around and killing everyone. That already limits player agency. Deterrents like this, while working both ways, combined with the racial and biome perks, balance this out, at least at a kingdom level.
In game and even reality, defense of a stronghold is/should be easier than invasion and attacking a stronghold. When in town food and water are not as critical as if you set up a siege camp, or are in an army on the march to a siege location. Logistics for the siege army are way more complex than the defense army. How much food is needed for the siege army. How many wagons needed, horses needed, food for said horses, cooks, weapon smiths, hunter, foragers? How many attackers for how many days/weeks/months? days until success? Housing for siege soldiers needed?
These logistics must be worked out long in advance of any wars. Army generals will need a lot of time to prepare for war. Even small raiding forces will need these mechanics worked out in advance or two days on the offense and no water/food begets failure. I would assume that invading forces could or will raid settlements for sustenance, but a settlement that fights back is a deterrent.
Would you raid a settlement that can muster an equal number of defenders as your raid force? Be assured that when the initial attack comet there will be defense forces mustered from all local settlements and garrisons.
Would you raid a settlement not knowing if it has more trained personnel than your forces?
Teeal Friend Code: 2322B8
One work around here could be the contract system. People disabled in combat would remain on the field. Then the winner of the field would have temporary control over the people disabled on it. They could make the following offer -- "sign this change of allegiance/indenture contract or die." PCs would probably choose to die. NPCs would probably choose to sign. At lease, the Maslow's hierarchy programming could be such that they probably choose to sign.
Something similar could be worked out with the opposing side -- a ransom contract for incapacitated combatants left on the field of battle. However, I'm not sure that the ransom value is that high given resparking.
That could also define the "hold the field" result as a battle victory -- as it was historically.
Count of Frostale, in the Duchy of Fioralba, in the Kingdom of Ashland, by the Grace of Haven. The above opinions are mine alone and do not reflect those of my Kingdom or Duchy.
https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/17117/naw-the-duchy-of-fioralba https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/14124/naw-kingdom-of-ashland https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/30605/of-contracts-and-commerce-a-tldnr-post https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/31835/on-taxes-rents-and-ancestral-lands
We could agree to come with someone so they don't kill us. If npcs could make that choice they wouldn't have to be "forced" into a space. This like that could let people do things that players wouldn't like. Make this a gameplay mechanical where citizens lose happiness or repel if their family doesn't come back from war.