Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The WoT NAP discussion will take place, again Wed, Spet 10th @ 9PM Est/6PM Pst/1AM GMT, on the CotP/TEO Mumble.
Address: 74.201.57.188
Port: 64738
Anyone who is part of the leadership of their Settlement is welcome to attend. Please use your forum name, as well as an abbreviation or designation to tell which Settlement you represent.
The topic of discussion specifically will include talks to NAP a specific number of towers of those that sign on with the NAP. Further discussion will include the exact number of towers NAP'd, the duration of the nap, and any other specifics that may need to be discussed.
There will NOT be an agreement made Wednesday, this is purely a discussion based talk to weigh pros and cons of the included topics, as well as work out the exact details of said proposal. We will reconvene a week afterwards to make binding agreements, if that is indeed the direction we will be going.
To make this clearer for some:
This is a NAP specifically for a set number of towers, this does not include non-sanctioned or sanctioned PvP, such as killing randomly or feuding, and this does not include all towers on the map. Essentially, you can still PvP to your hearts content, just as long as you keep with the agreement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alas, I cannot make this time (1pm local on a weekday!). I am trying to rouse someone of a more NA bent to attend, but if not can the meeting be recorded? The ability to listen to the discussion and offer my comments afterwards (and potentially be included in the final agreement) would be fantastic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As uninterested in the Tower Wars as I am, There needs to be some fighting to make this work. I think this will work best if everybody has to fight over at least a couple of towers. I don't think anyone should have more than about 6-8 "as-secure-as-this-will-make-them" spots.
By far the easiest would simply be to agree not to attack anybody else's surrounding six. It guarantees everyone can maintain level six training, and groups that are smaller that want to talk to neighbours about tower management for higher training can do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As uninterested in the Tower Wars as I am........By far the easiest would simply be to agree not to attack anybody else's surrounding six. It guarantees everyone can maintain level six training, and groups that are smaller that want to talk to neighbours about tower management for higher training can do so.
As someone as disinterested as you are, you came to the same conclusion as I did. If we agree to just leave the "alpha six" sacrosanct, and any beyond that are "have what you hold" there are many advantages to such an agreement.
Imagine traveling a half-an-hour away to capture a slum tower, only to discover someone in your own alliance or pact has already taken it. Having the "Sacrosanct Six and Everything Else You Can Hold" eliminated unnecessary or, even worse, uneventful travel.
This would also give those smaller settlements at least somewhat of a chance to have at least a settlement on par with an NPC settlement in time for Settlement Warfare / OE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could see this happening, with the new knowledge that 6 = Level 8 training, it essentially means we would all have full T1 training available.
So if every settlement was guaranteed through the NAP 6 towers, capable of level 8 training, they would at a minimum provide twice the training of an NPC settlement.
That does not seem to be an inadequate head start over the NPC settlements, and that is only up until the Great Cataclysm. There will likely be several months more before settlement vs. settlement conquest. Settlements would still have months of additional time to build up their towns even further.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd feel much more comfortable with a "respect the A-ring" pact scope than with some of the more comprehensive proposals I've seen.
Of course, any settlement strong enough to be worth signing a pact with at all can hold their own A-ring without needing a pact to protect it. So a pact on that scale would not change the territorial holdings map which would result organically, it would just lower the stress level of each open window a little.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Freevale is totally down for the 6-tower agreement. It's enough to let all the players get to a reasonable level training-wise, but leaves lots of play for an actual War of Towers in which we can all participate and have fun. It's a PvP game and we've all been having fun with that aspect of it in one way or another over the course of the Alpha so far, let's take it to a legitimate battleground.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As uninterested in the Tower Wars as I am, There needs to be some fighting to make this work. I think this will work best if everybody has to fight over at least a couple of towers. I don't think anyone should have more than about 6-8 "as-secure-as-this-will-make-them" spots.
By far the easiest would simply be to agree not to attack anybody else's surrounding six. It guarantees everyone can maintain level six training, and groups that are smaller that want to talk to neighbours about tower management for higher training can do so.
Good plan. A happy medium between allowing the proto settlements breathing room to create the "game space" without "pouring too much cement". Best of all, it's really simple.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yea, I think it would be a server wide agreement to not attack anyone's inner 6 towers.
If you break said agreement your 6 inner towers are open season for anyone to take.
Now you've lost me again. I have no problem agreeing to a mutual respect pact with other powers whom I can expect to be able to hold their own towers and credibly threaten mine. Those powers do not include everyone on the server, and I don't see any reason why a settlement with 10 landrush votes and zero board presence should be offered the same courtesy.
Realistically, there are landrush winners who won't even be able to claim their whole A-ring, and if they want to be part of any pact they need to speak up and make their case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guurzak,
I think the compromise for those settlements that don';t have the numbers or the influence to support even their alpha six towers, could also be a simple one.
The "Alpha Six" towers are covered by the agreement, as long as they are not vacant. If they are vacant (no control) or controlled by another settlement, they are fair game. If the settlement owners gain control of the tower, it becomes sacrosanct and can not be touched as per the agreement.
This way there will be no towers left on the table due to anyone's inactivity.
These are in fact the River Kingdoms, and you can only have what you hold.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I don't see any reason why a settlement with 10 landrush votes and zero board presence should be offered the same courtesy.
I wouldn't mind extending the courtesy to all, if for no other reason than the word "Slums" might stop being used over in Andius's thread.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think that justice requires that anyone who is treated as an equal brings an equal amount to the table. If a settlement does not credibly threaten other members of the NAP, they are not bringing anything to the table.
I think that generally not attacking groups that are not large enough to be a threat is good for the game, and therefore good policy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that justice requires that anyone who is treated as an equal brings an equal amount to the table. If a settlement does not credibly threaten other members of the NAP, they are not bringing anything to the table.
I think that generally not attacking groups that are not large enough to be a threat is good for the game, and therefore good policy.
This is not how these kinds of games work. In a struggle with limited resources, and settlement locations are limited, the path of least resistance is a good policy for those who seek to get their piece of the pie.
What the suggestion of a NAP for the Alpha Six towers does do is give the smaller settlements at least a chance to be viable. But, if they don't take advantage of that, they will fall prey having squandered the limited resource that they did hold.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Yes, taking from the weakest probably has the highest immediate return on investment. However, it is also likely to reduce the customer base and in the intermediate term result in a worse game.
If the manner in which that expresses itself is a multilateral treaty wherein several powerful groups mutually threaten each other to prevent any of them from picking on the weaker groups, that can work. But the Treaty of Rovagug (which was the same idea with a much smaller scope) failed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guurzak,
I think the compromise for those settlements that don';t have the numbers or the influence to support even their alpha six towers, could also be a simple one.
The "Alpha Six" towers are covered by the agreement, as long as they are not vacant. If they are vacant (no control) or controlled by another settlement, they are fair game. If the settlement owners gain control of the tower, it becomes sacrosanct and can not be touched as per the agreement.
This way there will be no towers left on the table due to anyone's inactivity.
These are in fact the River Kingdoms, and you can only have what you hold.
This seems like a very fair compromise to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know if I will be able to make this as it is 1 am UK time and I don't have a leadership member yet who is in the US.
I have seen a map circulating that I never got nor was asked to give input to. I includs one of the inner six hexes of the Emerald Lodge north of the green boundary.
I would like to know how this happened without any input from the Emerald Lodge. Unfortunately this kind of maps sometimes get a live on their own and it becomes difficult to correct them at a later stage.
Where do I need to send info to for claiming land ahead of the meeting?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyone who is part of the leadership of their Settlement is welcome to attend. Please use your forum name, as well as an abbreviation or designation to tell which Settlement you represent.
Forgeholm will be represented in this meeting, we look forward to the discussions.
Elder Durin Steelforge; Chief Engineer & Quartermaster; Leader of the Lightbringer Company
(Forum Name: Giorgo)
The Aeonian League will be sending a representative to the summit.
The Guardians will be in attendance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sunholm will be informally represented by the Aeonian League representative (because we aren't formally part of the league!). But I may as well state that Sunholm doesn't have a position on the matter yet - we'll likely form one based on the report of the discussion today (or is it tomorrow? Timezone nonsense).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Emerald Lodge Status
We won't attend due to 1am GMT and me working the next day
I have send the 'land claims' to Cheatle. The only border we have is Golgotha - and this will be a good test if the 'Switzerland status' of the River Kingdoms will work in any way.
As in principle the whole meeting should be a non-event for us - nobody truly wants to attack us anyhow (or ?) and we aren't interested to go for a land grab.
I'm not sure that the whole NAP across the whole map is necessarily a good idea. Short term it might be useful to ensure the early game doesn't chase off people.
Longer term there needs to be a certain freedom to act. But if everyone participating tonight wants to gain 'Switzerland status' so be it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is my hope that we can go into the discussion tonight with some focus (probably because I sit through too many meandering meetings at work...). To that end, I've considered some salient points for discussion. I believe by drilling down to the important questions as sort of an agenda, we can best utilize everyone's time. In addition, I have compiled a Position Statement summarizing much of the discussion I've seen on this topic, along with internal KotC feedback. The statement certainly needs refining, and is not "official" as the position of the KotC as we have not voted on it, but I believe it can serve as a starting point for conversation from our perspective.
So then, for consideration by all...
Salient Points (certainly not comprehensive)
- Number and location of towers covered by the NAP
- Settlements covered by the NAP
- Timeframe for claiming NAP-protected towers
- Timeframe for the NAP
- Action(s) that results in losing NAP protection
- Repercussions of losing NAP protection
- Process (if any) for regaining NAP protection
Position Statement
We view the War of Towers (WoT) Non-Aggression Pact (NAP) as beneficial to all settlements, as well as Pathfinder Online, as it provides for a stable start for all settlements, thereby granting the best chance at utilizing a wide range of PFO mechanics. Ultimately, we believe this process benefits PFO by dividing power/resources among broader groups rather than concentrating it in fewer more powerful groups. Whether the latter occurs as the end result can then be a matter of "meaningful" interaction, including PvP, feuds, settlement/nation warfare, and diplomacy rather than "we got to your towers first and had better land rush understanding."
We believe the most equitable and simple implementation is to declare the six towers surrounding each settlement as open only to that settlement to claim for a period of time. This period of time shall be agreed upon by a majority of settlements participating in the NAP prior to start of the WoT. This declaration will extend to all settlements, not just those formally signing the NAP.
No settlement signing the NAP will make claim to any of the specified towers until the agreed upon period of time has passed. If, after that time, the settlement is unable to maintain control of any surrounding towers due to a lack of influence, the tower(s) shall become open for claim by other settlements. Such settlements may recapture towers if they gain enough influence to hold them as a "have what you hold" approach to fulfilling the spirit of the NAP. Towers fully claimed by a settlement are not open to attack from NAP signatories during the WoT. A Settlement may negotiate a swap of towers with another settlement at its own discretion.
A settlement, whether signatory to the NAP or not, that violates the NAP by claiming another settlement's towers outside of the above allowances becomes unprotected by the NAP and all of its towers become subject to attack for the duration of the WoT.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most of it sounds great - but there are likely some detail questions. Life never is easy
A) what about towers that are inside the inner ring but not accessible from the settlement.
For example T (Iron Gauntlet) will have to move 9 hexes to get to the tower 2 hexes away from Golgotha. Technically it is inside the inner ring. Practically the landscape makes a mockery of that.
Mystical awakening has a similar issue with Aragon.
The only other one having this issue as far as I can see is Freevale - but they are still closest to reach the two towers on top of the hill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keeper's Pass actually has the same issue, with one hex not "adjacent" due to terrain change. We did discuss this, and my position remained that going with the circling six is simply the easiest route. We can set the "claim all your towers" timeframe wide enough to allow groups to traverse to these towers and claim them before the "unclaimed towers are open" clause comes into play. I added in the part regarding settlements trading towers to accommodate this situation as well. We could, for instance, work out some sort of trade with T7V if such made more sense. Ultimately I think we're best served allowing settlements in this particular situation to work out their own approach. I wouldn't want to open the door to "settlement X got to trade out a hex and got a better deal, I want to trade out a hex too!"
EDIT: And I wanted to note I'm a fan of capturing the conversations and posting relevant bits back here, so we don't end up with the situation that our compatriots on the other side of the planet are locked out of the conversation. Talking is great, but we need a broad media approach in order to ensure the proper representation for such an important issue to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd say if the ring towers are covered by the agreement, individual settlements can always talk about trading them off. At the start, Iron Gauntlet can not generate enough influence to control six towers anyway, so any deal they can reach with their neighbours will be to their benefit vs. simply abandoning the tower because they can't control it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I wanted to note I'm a fan of capturing the conversations and posting relevant bits back here, so we don't end up with the situation that our compatriots on the other side of the planet are locked out of the conversation. Talking is great, but we need a broad media approach in order to ensure the proper representation for such an important issue to the game.
For something with such a universal impact, we should probably record it and make it available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually have something written up that is a bit Role Play in nature, but is basically what Erian, has up there.
His points are good, I essentially was going to hand out what I wrote, talk about that for awhile, and then hit a couple points Erian has listed here.
Might change that up a bit.
If anyone wants to record the session, feel free to do so.
in roughly 2 and a half hours we will be convening for the meeting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is a good start Erian, but I would add a few other "Salient Points"
* How limiting will the NAP be on PVP overall?
* How long before other forms of Rep Neutral PVP will be made available, if the NAP is found to be somewhat limiting?
* How do we avoid creating the equivalent of Arena Style PVP (limited in location, consensual, and limited risks and rewards)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Certainly all good things to consider as well and I'm sure we'll be able to cover.
And a general note for all--I'm not a TS/Mumble user in general. If I sound like a freak, feel free to throw me some pointers on setings/config. Well, unless I sound like a freak just because of my accent. Can't do anything about my Southern roots...
