Mechanics Beta Test 1

So Mr.Lime, what do u think will be the most difficult thing to scale in GW5? My vote goes to Reputation management or resource management. I just have a bad feeling that NPC nations will talk bad about me cuz there trying to get other NPC nations to hate me or something. God forbid that NPCs want resources to join you. Also, do you think there is going to be a thing in the game where you pay a guy to raise your reputation to improve relations? and if so, would the price stop me from spamming it?

All your questions are pretty situational, and I can't give you answers that apply always. However, you can rest assured that npcs MOSTLY interact within their "designated" group. That is, Varrock npcs MOSTLY interact with other Varrock npcs. The scenario where Varrockians badmouth you to Faladorians isn't impossible, however, but the effect shouldn't be too strong unless you've never met Faladorians before.

As for wanting resources to join you, not the way you describe it. You may need to grant sizable piles of gold to certain individuals to retire early, maybe, or commit resources to a project for the benefit of the npc-state to gain control, but nothing like "gibe 10,000 wood and we'll join you" -deals. They don't really make sense.

No, there won't be a magical "pour money into this chute to gain reputationz" deals. All npc interactions are unique.

good, cuz last thing I need is bad mouthing NPCs that make my life in the game more difficult

You'll just have to deal with them.

The only way we're making military as hard as diplomacy is by incorporating the obstacles real armies faced: logistics, climate, training (poorly-trained vs professional), etc. All of which is unnecessary clutter for a forum game. The way we can tip the scales to stop one player from clobbering everyone with sheer military power is by having the potential victims band together. Players can't be forced to do so (though they've shown a tendency to), but NPC States can. Unless there's some kind of personal rivalry between states (or they're both deadset against the idea of working with others), there's no reason they wouldn't step up to stop the aggressor.

The other way is we could have random events (I'm thinking plagues) decimate powerful military forces at the GM's discretion. Not to say this won't happen, but it could be a viable balancing route.

Diplomacy can't be so "weak" that no one bothers to use it, but neither should it be as "easy" as military conquest because 1) It's inherently harder due to social dynamics; reputation and whatnot, and 2) Its scope of potential benefit is much greater than that of military. As long as your Diplomats can make the journey, you can reach any corner of the world and start using your silvered tongue. Trying that with an army is both slow and painfully obvious.

However, I think some focused testing is a good idea - creating scenarios like this is okay, but I don't think we're testing the right thing.

Agreed, not the perfect test but its a start.

Look guys, sorting out mechanics is all well and good. But, time is passing and you're losing all of the momentum that has been built up. Just start a normal playtest in an area that has full lore (or parody, to preserve real lore), and get a move on. If you find kinks, make notes and iron it out from then on.

Its no point having a full-scale amazing forum game if no one plays it.