It was a sci-fi western about veterans of a lost war, thieves, government conspiracies, psychics, and huge spears impaling people. :)
Anyways, it's a pretty notion that Proxima suggests, but ultimately just kind of impractical. The towers are supposed to be a way to test out combat by presenting a meaningful venue. If we agree to leave others' towers alone, combat is going to lose a good portion of its meaning.
Signing meta-pacts (which I don't really like on the roleplaying front, either) defeats the purpose of EE and will lead to false expectations.
This game is going to be dangerous for people who can't protect themselves or make friends who can.
If you want to propose a more reasonable compromise, maybe request that the first two weeks of EE be consensual combat only. Towers will be added the second week. This gives people an extra week to get their bearings.
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a scifi TV series with wicked good writing. Only got one season, but it's very good.
I have the DVD but sadly haven't invested the time to watch. Yet. I've seen a few episodes, and I think one of them may have been the one that quote was taken from. I simply didn't recognize it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What's Firefly?
It is a type of flying insect (looks like a small dragonfly) that fly in crowds above water during dusk. They are easy to capture. Just reach out and pluck them from the air. You then can put a fishing hook through their thorax. They make good night fishing bait for white bass.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hamstringing a smaller settlement simply because they have fewer EE members online than you is ...ungentlemanly.
I agree with this statement, but I add that there are those in this game who aim to misbehave. Entirely in character, and entirely appropriately to the game. The agreement being discussed here is a good idea, and I can see those of us who plan to play by "gentlemanly" rules supporting it. But those who don't aren't griefing. I would suggest that taking an alpha tower during WoT doesn't even violate Roseblood.
The correct gentlemanly response is, of course, to respect each others' alpha territory and help our neighbors against the predations of those who are other than good.
What's Firefly?
I'm not sure we can be friends right now. While waiting for EE to start, get yourself caught up on this....
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation of the RA doesn't include a prohibition against taking any, or even all, of the towers held by a non-ally.
I think that the most important factor will probably be that towers near threading points are easier to defend and harder to attack, not whether or not is is deemed "sporting" to attack them. I think that threatening the so-called alpha towers, with the intent of occupying the defense but not the expectation of winning the skirmish, is a perfectly sporting tactic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a scifi TV series with wicked good writing. Only got one season, but it's very good.
Also several comics and graphic novels based on the show.
A non-collectible card game & a board game, both with several expansion.
I believe there is even a TT RPG out for it.
The universe setting would also make a darn good setting for a MMO.
Almost forgot the movie Serenity
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My take on this seams to be the gist that several others have spoken up with: That the WoT is meant as a A)wake up call to those unwilling or uninformed in the ways of diplomacy and alliance/friend making, and B)an outlet for PVPers so we are not just wondering around hoping to happen upon someone to interact with in a pvp manner, and C)step 1 of the settlement v settlement combat system. Towers will be replaced with, or something like that, POI's that provide resources to settlements and (I think) are meant as the first step towards taking down a settlement (Meaning you attack/destroy the POI's first, before the actual siege of the settlement.)
I understand what the OP is attempting to accomplish with this thread, however, I don't think it will be as big of a deal as some people think, between the PVP windows, and the fact that the more towers a settlement has, and the further away they are from the settlement, the harder it is to protect them all. Even if we have all 6k EE people in game and they are evenly split between the 33 settlements, I doubt anyone will be running around with 20 towers, or even 15. I just don't see how anyone could hold that many, for their whole pvp window (which might be 24/7 at that amount of towers) and still go out to harvest and craft gear to replace their losses while acquiring and defending those towers.
I could be wrong, but only EE will tell for sure.
Once people finish the LR2 and are settled into their location on the map, then I can see some agreements and "pacts" being made between neighbors about who can take what towers, but for now, I think it is too early for that, but also a meta agreement isn't going to work as it is counter-productive to the intent of the WoT. That is my opinion on the matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My feelings on this are as follows and it realtes more to individuals then companies or settlements....
1) Can individuals, even those associated with companies allied to a settlement, gain at least some low level training in the NPC towns? I feel this is important as to not push individuals into the PvP aspect of the game before they are ready for it and comfortable with basic gameplay. It also allows companies that are not successfull to continue to play the game at some level. If the answer to this question is "Yes" then it allows the WoT to be an important but not all encompassing aspect of gameplay during EE. If the answer to this is "No" then it will likely drive alot of players who are not interested in having the WoT aspect be thier primary focus. I'm not up on the currently proposed mechanics from GW and they do seem to shift around a bit.
2) Will there be a sufficient number of hex's on the map that are free of towers so that a player can move around a bit and have some interesting things to do without needing to enter a potential conflict hex?
3) Will players have some easly discernable way of indicating to other players that they are not currently interested in conflict?
4) Will players generaly respect the fact that players outside of tower hexes and not clearly engaged in some conflict related activity are not valid PvP targets?
Of course alot of this goes away or changes once other game systems are in place. My feeling is that WoT is a cool and interesting aspect of gameplay but should not be an all encompassing aspect of gameplay where players feel "forced" to engage in it in order to play the game at all. I think that would backfire badly on GW, if it became reality.
I don't neccesarly think the community should regard taking "Alpha" towers as a violation of community standards but I do think it should be considered as an act of aggression and essentialy a "Casus Belli" from one entity to the next. I do think it would be helpfull for the community to come up with some ettiquite to define what would be considered a "non-combatant" in the WoT conflict and what might be considred acceptable behavior toward "non-combatants". For example, killing an active combatant on sight as many times as possible is probably a legitimate excersize of conflict based play. Killing a "non-combatant" once outside of the conflict zone to rob them might be considered a legitimate act of play in the context of banditry. Killing a "non-combatant" repeatedly in a short period of time probably crosses the line of acceptable play to harrassment.
As a community, trying to come to some general consensus about these sort of mores would be helpfull, I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the best short lived series ever made...ever. For all time.
ever.
edit-
Had to look it up to get the quote right, but here's one of my favs.Mal: "If anyone gets nosy, just ...you know ... shoot 'em. "
Zoe: "Shoot 'em?"
Mal: "Politely."
It was mainly a post-Civil War western. Great show. You knew fairly early on that Mal wasn't a Captain Kirk kind of guy when he tried to resolve having a crime boss come after them when he tried to give the money back and the thug threatened him and Mal just knocks him into the engine intake to be ground into pieces, then goes to the next thug who watched what happened and tried to convince him to take the money and go back to his boss with Mal's message.
I was like WHOA! DID HE REALLY DO THAT!? when I first saw that.
Gone way too soon! Movie was also great.
