Is there actually going to be a need for fighting in the "War" of the Towers?


Pathfinder Online

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wall of text ahead...

I've been going over the numbers for the WotT in my head, and they just don't seem to add up. The way it's currently set up, I somewhat doubt that there is going to be any actual fighting over any towers just because there's going to be more than enough for all of us...

Here's what we know (based on today's numbers):
- Total number of (player) settlements in EE: 33
- Total number of towers on map: 320 (approx.?)
- Total EE accounts sold (kickstarter, gw store, etc.): some 6500 (?)
- Total number of players participating in land rush so far: 1507
- Of these, 1279 are currently in a "land rush guild" set for a settlement spot
- Only one PC per player initially
- Each PC can only be in one company
- Each company can only hold one tower

Of the 33 settlements, the bottom 14(!) settlements have less than 18 members (and going all the way down to 7), i.e. even if they divide up into companies evenly, they have less than 3 players holding each of the "primary towers" directly adjacent to their settlement, much less expand their territory outwards. A full half have 30 or less, so just 6 companies of 5 PCs max. And let's not even start with the "expected company size" of 20-50 that was mentioned somewhere.

Even Talonguard and Golgotha as two of the "big shots" currently have less than 100 members, i.e. less than 10 companies of 10 players each. And with 320 towers for 33 settlements, 10 towers would be just above average. And that's for #2 and #3 of the settlements!

Unless we are going to be seeing a huge influx of new players very soon (which we can only hope for with these numbers), I don't expect the WotT to be an actual fighting war. Even if all the settlements grab as many as they reasonably can (and additinal benefits from more towers surely will hit some sort of soft ceiling), there will barely be any need for conflict. There's just enough there for all...

Even if we suddenly double the number of actual players in EE (i.e. say 3000 instead of the current 1500 land rush participants), there'd barely be 10 players per tower over all! And imho even that number would be highly optimistic to expect, at least in WotT/early EE! Quite a few who bought an account through kickstarter will not be interested in playing the game anymore, for any number of reasons...

Am I the only one concerned by this? Am I mistaken somewhere? Have the devs somehow seriously miscalculated the expected number of players? Or are we just expected to split up into *very* small companies for the purpose of the WotT?

What could be done to alleviate this? It's probably to late for changes to the system without a lot of outcry, but I would consider seriously reducing the number of settlement spots and the number of towers at least by the same percentage (preferably more). Force the players to form bigger settlements, with bigger companies competing over fewer towers. Even if these are further apart than originally planed. Or just make only a smaller part of the current land rush map initially available.

It has been repeatedly said that small settlements will be untenable and will also not be able to offer anything better than the starter settlements during EE, i.e. will not easily be able to effectively attract new members. I would actually expect quite a few of the settlements at the bottom of the list to effectivly become abandoned husks, yet indestrucible due to game mechanics of EE. So, why not require a minimum number of players to effectively claim a settlement? Say, 50 or so. Or just cut the number of settlement spots in half? Sure, some small groups will have to give up the dream of their own home. But then again, they could just grow during EE in a community with others and later set out during OE to find their own place with the numbers to support it...

Opinions?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People will fight because we like fighting. The war of towers is just the excuse and the medium for the fighting we'll do anyway, not its reason.

Large settlements will want more towers in order to maximize their DI bonuses going into the post-cataclysm phase. If diminishing returns on tower count is so bad that players are disincented from taking more than their average share of ten, that's a tuning issue that can easily be addressed.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

People will fight because we like fighting. The war of towers is just the excuse and the medium for the fighting we'll do anyway, not its reason.

Large settlements will want more towers in order to maximize their DI bonuses going into the post-cataclysm phase. If diminishing returns on tower count is so bad that players are disincented from taking more than their average share of ten, that's a tuning issue that can easily be addressed.

Possibly, I guess, though I don't think the "we like fighting each other just because" group is really the majority currently. But even if so, a single player(account) can have only a single PC in a single company holding a single tower. Even expansionist Golgotha will have tiny companies of say 5 PCs fighting to win and hold a tower and once they have it, they are basically out of the WotT, unless they give it up for a new one.

I just don't think that this was what the devs envisioned with the WotT...

Goblin Squad Member

Just because only one company can hold each tower, doesn't mean those 5 people are the only ones who can participate in the fight to take or defend it. There might be 5 people in the capture zone and another 50 just outside defending them and killing anyone else.

Goblin Squad Member

I have seen this concern as well, not from the standpoint of there being no fighting. Just from monitoring these boards alone I KNOW there will be fighting between the different groups. My concern was the numbers involved and specifically the restriction on 1 tower per company. Maybe this is expanded to 2-3 towers per company. This would allow less of a split for smaller settlements. Or possibly the main 6 towers around your settlement don't count against your company as a secured tower?

The other possibility is that we do see a huge influx of players once the game can be played. I'm sure Goblin Marketing could be employed and we could drive in hoards of players if needed.

Goblin Squad Member

I expect Xeilias to expand en masse, overwhelming frontier forts and leaving core towers unguarded. they will quickly have a 24-hour PvP window, and will be able to intercept scouts in the way in.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
albadeon wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

People will fight because we like fighting. The war of towers is just the excuse and the medium for the fighting we'll do anyway, not its reason.

Large settlements will want more towers in order to maximize their DI bonuses going into the post-cataclysm phase. If diminishing returns on tower count is so bad that players are disincented from taking more than their average share of ten, that's a tuning issue that can easily be addressed.

Possibly, I guess, though I don't think the "we like fighting each other just because" group is really the majority currently. But even if so, a single player(account) can have only a single PC in a single company holding a single tower. Even expansionist Golgotha will have tiny companies of say 5 PCs fighting to win and hold a tower and once they have it, they are basically out of the WotT, unless they give it up for a new one.

I just don't think that this was what the devs envisioned with the WotT...

There are theoretically thousands of players not actually associated with a company yet. If these players are no-shows, then devs may need to tweak the number of towers a single company can hold.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
Just because only one company can hold each tower, doesn't mean those 5 people are the only ones who can participate in the fight to take or defend it. There might be 5 people in the capture zone and another 50 just outside defending them and killing anyone else.

True, but even Golgotha's "fighting 50" could hold 10 towers in groups of 5 PCs per Company - actually without any competition, because that would just be the average number available to each settlement with out any fighting whatsoever.

Yeah, that system could be further tweaked by having single-player-companies just for holding the towers after they have been captured, but still... that doesn't do much to alleviate my concerns.

Goblin Squad Member

I expect that I will be fighting just to learn to PVP with this system while I have such an easy way to do so without rep loss. That will be despite not having to contest towers for my own settlement (if that is the case).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly think only the die-hard fans are following this board, or even the development process, and you will see a huge influx of players who have no idea of what has been happening in the Landrush show up in the first month, looking for guidance, and a Company to be a part of. I know that my wife and children don't follow any of this, but all plan to play once it is released.

How many others have even just one other family member or friend that will be joining in once they can play? That alone could double the number of players. Plus once the announcement goes out to the Kickstarter backers that the game is live, most will show up, even if just occasionally. Sure there are some who won't bother, others who don't have an EE account and so forth. The release may drive them to get one though. We can only wait and see but I am hopeful.

Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:
Wall of text ahead...

Thanks for the warning. I almost missed it :)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
albadeon wrote:

Here's what we know (based on today's numbers):

- Only one PC per player initially

I'm not sure we actually know that. We've been told all along that we'll be able to have as many characters as we're likely to want on a single account, and even log them in simultaneously. That tech is even working in Alpha.

Guurzak wrote:
People will fight because we like fighting. The war of towers is just the excuse and the medium for the fighting we'll do anyway, not its reason.

I was going to make this point, but Guurzak summed it up well. The War of Towers wasn't created to give players a reason to PvP, it was created to give players a place to PvP without turning the whole game into Lord of the Flies Online.

Wexel Daventry, The Veiled, T7V wrote:
I honestly think only the die-hard fans are following this board, or even the development process, and you will see a huge influx of players who have no idea of what has been happening in the Landrush show up in the first month, looking for guidance, and a Company to be a part of.

Another point I was going to make. My totally-unscientific guess has always been roughly 10% of those interested actually pay attention to the forums, and maybe only 10% of those paying attention actually post anything.

This is another reason I'm not all doom-and-gloom about the small Settlements; I expect some of them will grow quite well once the game starts and they're recruiting from the pool of actual players rather than just the folks on the forums.

Goblin Squad Member

Remember that a tower that is denied to the enemy is nearly as valuable as a tower that is possessed by you. Some groups may work to keep the small groups from having any towers, using the "catch-and-release" system in order to keep them that small amount more vulnerable when settlement combat starts, and also making sure those hexes have a wide open PvP window. But then, I'm a cynic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wexel Daventry, The Veiled, T7V wrote:


The other possibility is that we do see a huge influx of players once the game can be played. I'm sure Goblin Marketing could be employed and we could drive in hoards of players if needed.

Ah, yes, lad. They say the kobold lies within that cavern, sleeping upon a great hoard of ill-gotten players. If even one player is removed, though, the kobold is sure to awaken, and annihilate the ankles of the would-be thief!

Kobold Cleaver has done nothing productive all day! Ooh, a misplaced comma!

Goblin Squad Member

Is there going to be an Alpha version of the Tower Wars?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree with most people here xD

Logically (pure logic and no ambition) no there is no need to fight.

Logically (logic +ambition or humanity or whatever) there will be fighting simply because it can happen. Murphy's Law anyone ;)

You point out there is a significant number of "unplaced" (let us call them) players who have payed but not registered in landrush and such. These are not just going to let a hundy+ go to waste. Thus we are probably going to see huge masses of un-aligned players, or at least a lot of small-aligned players without a home. All eager to find a home. Some might try to find a random hex, some a npc town, some a tavern, some a tower, and some a settlement, or nation. They will use force, diplomacy, ingratiation, bribes, and more to get "their" place in the world realized. I've tried pointing this out many times :I

Someday, you'll understand ;) (song quote anyone?)

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

You point out there is a significant number of "unplaced" (let us call them) players who have payed but not registered in landrush and such. These are not just going to let a hundy+ go to waste. Thus we are probably going to see huge masses of un-aligned players, or at least a lot of small-aligned players without a home. All eager to find a home. Some might try to find a random hex, some a npc town, some a tavern, some a tower, and some a settlement, or nation. They will use force, diplomacy, ingratiation, bribes, and more to get "their" place in the world realized. I've tried pointing this out many times :I

Someday, you'll understand ;) (song quote anyone?)

I certainly hope that those expectations come true, and that all these players suddenly do show up. I'm just not as convinced as most of you apparently are. A lot of people, including me, supported the initial kickstarter because we loved pathfinder tt. At the time we had no concrete idea of what we were buying into, but we hoped for some form of online version of the game we loved. And just in case it didn't work out, the kickstarter came with all sorts of goodies that made the intial investment seem somewhat worthwhile even so.

PFO turned into something I certainly didn't foresee at the time, and so I'm naturally assuming, many others like me didn't, either :-). I (and I bet many others) have little to nil experience with MMOs and wasn't too happy with the entire idea that this game would basically be mainly PvP (certainly not a major focus of the tt game...). Maybe I could've known better from the start, but I didn't.

I for one am willing to give it a shot, anyway, but I still believe many of those initial investors will stay away. That money was paid well over a year ago and has long been forgotten. And if they do come, to do all these things you said above, they won't do it during early EE, aka the WotT. And even if they did, they be sorely disappointed, since those possibilities will not be implemented then.

Nihimon wrote:
The War of Towers wasn't created to give players a reason to PvP, it was created to give players a place to PvP without turning the whole game into Lord of the Flies Online

It seems an excessivly compex thing to come up with this whole WotT just to provide a place for PvP, when you could just have had certain hexes declared "open PVP land". That would've been just "a place to PvP". WotT provides that as well, but tries to add an incentive and a reason to PvP. It's just that this incentive might well just not work out with the current numbers.

The idea that a company should be able to hold multiple towers might alleviate that quite a bit, but runs completely counter to the idea of Towers being sort of proto-POIs. Unless the intent would be to have a company be able to hold multiple POIs as well?!

At this point, I still expect there to be a serious disparity between numbers needed for a meaningful WotT as intended and actual player numbers. I do hope, I'm wrong though :-).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The short answer to the OP is "No", as long as the tower you are trying to capture is not defended or another group is not trying to grab the same tower.

If there is opposition, then there will obviously be PvP, and that is a good thing. PFO is an MMO built on the Four Pillars ... Exploration ... Adventure ... Development ... Domination. Unlike in TT, PvP can be found in all four of these pillars, not just in the last. TT is cooperative play, where as MMOS usually only have cooperation for the purpose of reaching individual goals.

GW is trying to make that next step and take the energies usually focused on reaching individual goals and directing them towards goals that support a greater purpose (settlement).

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:
You point out there is a significant number of "unplaced" (let us call them) players who have payed but not registered in landrush and such. These are not just going to let a hundy+ go to waste.

I suspect you underestimate the number of people who thought the PDFs were worth the hundred.

I, for one, am here through a complete fluke, having intended not to game at all, but got hooked by the landrush. At least one other in my company had not intended to play at all.

CEO, Goblinworks

@albadeon: the problem with PvP hexes in a no-PvP game is that the only people who would ever go there are the best PvP players. Who don't want to fight each other. So nobody would go there. So there would be no PvP. This is a so.ution that has been tried many times and it fails.

In WoW for example, there are Battlegrounds, which are PvP experiences. But to make them viable, Blizzard had to create a separate PvP economy, an "eSport" with rules and objectives, and a lobby system to queue up players into teams and assign them to instances separate from the game world.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Albadeon

Not trying to be contradictory, but some individuals and groups have already made enemies with their Forum antics. Those groups and individuals will find PvP against them and the War of the Towers helps facilitate that response until settlement warfare becomes viable and operational.

We wouldn't want the last 2 years to be consequence free would we?

Goblin Squad Member

@albadeon
In regard to the game always being PvP, in its current state if you kill someone you cannot enter a town, you cannot train you have basically crippled your character. It will take somewhere around 24 hours of game time (you must be logged in) to recover your reputation. That's for 1 kill.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
TT is cooperative play, where as MMOS usually only have cooperation for the purpose of reaching individual goals.

Well, that is a very good explanation of why I feel that many original kickstarter supporters won't be joining us in the end. They expected something more along the lines of PF-TT-online and got something quite different. I'm not saying that it should or even could have been done differently, but imho that is still going to be a major reason for many no-shows of original kickstarter acounts.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
the problem with PvP hexes in a no-PvP game is that the only people who would ever go there are the best PvP players. Who don't want to fight each other. So nobody would go there. So there would be no PvP. This is a so.ution that has been tried many times and it fails.

The only people who would go into PvP-hexes are those looking for PvP, I guess. While I personally don't think that's a problem, and could do without, I understand that as a design choice you want to force (or let's call it "entice") most everyone to participate in it, even those who'd rather avoid it and have therefore created a reason for people to PvP, instead of just offering a place for it. Which is what my answer to Nihimon was trying to express :-).

But my original concern wasn't actually about wether PvP is desirable or wether we need special enticement for it, but really about player numbers in relation to tower numbers.
Do you expect so many more Players to join up shortly, that my numbers above are way off?
Is the WotT deliberately designed in such a way that single-player tower-holding-companies will effectively have to be employed by every expansionist settlement?
Or are there any plans to change the limitation that every company can only hold one tower, or maybe the one that initialy every player can be in only one company?

Maybe just forego the notion of towers being proto-POIs alltogether and just make them "flags" claimable in the name of any settlement (only by those associated with that settlement, obviously), regardless of how many towers any particular company has already conquered or currently holds. That would remove the artificial breaking up of existing companies just to form holding companies and would actually make much more sense, imho.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PvP can be a lot of fun. I really hope PFO attracts enough folks to be successful, and I think to do that they're going to have to really differentiate themselves from most other Open World PvP games. Reputation goes a long way towards doing just that.

My hope - and if I'm being honest, my belief - is that a lot of folks who never thought they'd like a PvP game will love PFO, even the PvP in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree. I think that what GW is doing is going to make PVP much different of an experience than the ones that people have either had or heard about which made it a bad/wrong/fun phrase.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
My hope [...] is that a lot of folks who never thought they'd like a PvP game will love PFO, even the PvP in PFO.

I wholeheartedly agree, I'd hope so as well. Still, I'd probably prefer plentiful non-violent player interaction and cooperation...

Goblin Squad Member

My guess is that if a company does not care to PvP they may be able to get away with holding towers without engaging in player hostilities if they attack no one and are in an undesirable location.

Also if they are known to be very numerous it is less likely that they will be seen as prey.

Your best bet, I would say, would be to negotiate with one of the large powers and arrange with them to exchange some manner of service or goods for their defenses.

If they've earned your care, however, and are hard pressed, then you might still want to pitch in a bit, just for the sake of self-respect.

Goblin Squad Member

I expect that we will be attacked, irregardless of whether our opponents actually need extra towers. As has been mentioned, some folks are looking forward to the PvP.

If we miraculously manage to avoid being targeted, we may invite others to skirmish without fear of retaliation as a way to get some PvP practice in. Just so long as they know we're going to try to be taking our risked tower back in the next window if they manage to win.

Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
TT is cooperative play, where as MMOS usually only have cooperation for the purpose of reaching individual goals.
Well, that is a very good explanation of why I feel that many original kickstarter supporters won't be joining us in the end. They expected something more along the lines of PF-TT-online and got something quite different. I'm not saying that it should or even could have been done differently, but imho that is still going to be a major reason for many no-shows of original kickstarter acounts....

You left this part out if my quote, which was pretty much the "main idea":

Bluddwolf wrote:
GW is trying to make that next step and take the energies usually focused on reaching individual goals and directing them towards goals that support a greater purpose (settlement).

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest, as long as we stay meta-vigilant open pvp won't be as big of a problem as people suspect.

The world is open pvp irl, but we don't see people always going around killing each other. Obviously, with respawns and alternate reality, this isn't going to be the exact case, but a large foundation of PfO is the creation of the world. And money to apples says right now we have as many grafters, gatherers, and merchants as we do PvP/PvE types. And the PvP types that DO exist are people like UNC, Xelias, TEO, and TVC, all with specific RP-related goals that target specific instances. Xelias wants an empirical tyranny, and so you can expect them to target the neighboring empires. UNC are mercenary bandits, so expect them to target merchants and be near warzones. TEO is policemen, so expect them to be between the people who don't want to fight and the people who do. TVC is a natures warriors group, so expect them to hover around humans and orks and the more industrialized nations, just waiting for a slip up.

The point is, you always need to be vigilant in PfO, outside your home town, but that was real life too, back in the medieval period. We might have "gotten over it" by now, but when you think about it no, only super-rich places with large budgets like USA, Germany, Britain, etc. are that way, such is still life in many other places in the world.

All is not rosy and right, but if you want to pretend that, you just need to join the big guys. Just like life. *shrugs*

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:
And money to apples says right now we have as many grafters, gatherers, and merchants as we do PvP/PvE types.

Emphasis added by me.

Goblin Squad Member

Must be the nature subgroup.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Check out my new strawberry tree! It's amazing what you can do with magic grafts.

Goblin Squad Member

they found me out !!!!

QUICK INTO THE TREES

seriously though lam, you spotted that quick enough xD

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

@Albadeon

Not trying to be contradictory, but some individuals and groups have already made enemies with their Forum antics. Those groups and individuals will find PvP against them and the War of the Towers helps facilitate that response until settlement warfare becomes viable and operational.

We wouldn't want the last 2 years to be consequence free would we?

I'm quite sure that certain people will relish the chance to pummel certain other people with swords and spells instead of arguments and debate tactics.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
I'm quite sure that certain people will relish the chance to pummel certain other people with swords and spells instead of arguments and debate tactics.

I know I look forward to some of the bitter arguments in the forums getting taken out back for private counseling.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
Check out my new strawberry tree! It's amazing what you can do with magic grafts.

All the Druids just wet themselves

P.S. will someone PM me a how you turn these things into links, thanks.

Goblin Squad Member

formatting pm set (so he doesn't get deluged).

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
There are theoretically thousands of players not actually associated with a company yet. If these players are no-shows, then devs may need to tweak the number of towers a single company can hold.

I agree with this. I think a good number would be three towers per company. This way a settlement of twelve would at least be able to secure (maybe not hold) their alpha six towers.

If on the other hand these smaller company / settlements can't secure training at least even to that of an NPC settlement, I'd hope those settlement locations would remain under NPC control until the "land rush winner" improves it to at least equal to an NPC settlement.

It's not so much that those are wasted spots, it's more that there may be huge regions of territory with no useful settlements with training or other basic services.

The only positives for such sparsely populated settlements are that they will make easy targets for raiding and conquest.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
There are theoretically thousands of players not actually associated with a company yet. If these players are no-shows, then devs may need to tweak the number of towers a single company can hold.
I agree with this. I think a good number would be three towers per company. This way a settlement of twelve would at least be able to secure (maybe not hold) their alpha six towers.

You might be right, from our (players') point of view, but from Goblinworks point of view, they don't want to make it easy for existing settlements to hold towers. They want us to bring in more players. Looked at from that angle, they've got no incentive at all to make it easier.

Goblin Squad Member

<Flask> Ulf Stonepate wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
I'm quite sure that certain people will relish the chance to pummel certain other people with swords and spells instead of arguments and debate tactics.
I know I look forward to some of the bitter arguments in the forums getting taken out back for private counseling.

WotT is indeed a thoughtful and cathartic gift from GW.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So in other words:

U WotT m8?

Goblin Squad Member

Basicaly GW has to plan for EE to be as successfull in terms of players as they want it to be. There is really no point in doing otherwise. It's probably likely that in the early part of EE Towers won't be a scarce enough resource that there is a real neccesity to fight for them. That's ok, as already mentioned people are likely to fight anyway... and the Towers gives some direction and structure as to where and how that is happening. As EE moves along, I'm sure GW hopes that there will be enough players coming into the game to make the Towers a resource actualy worth fighting over... If not then GW can make adjustments and frankly probably has more fundemental things to worry about then too many Towers... such as why are not enough people attracted to playing the game. YMMV.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Is there actually going to be a need for fighting in the "War" of the Towers? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online