My current understanding is that we'll eventually have a law system allowing us to establish laws in territory we own via in-game mechanics. Gathering in certain territories is an example of such a possible law. This declaration was, at least from my own perspective, largely about getting people used to the idea of having to know/care about territory and the laws of each territory, considering they will eventually be game mechanics.
I don't understand what remedies would be applied to a group, proportional or not. Since you linked to it, I'm going to assume you read the same thread I did (that started this..) about how doing ustalavians isn't considered an exploit and is, in fact, encouraged. I hardly see why GW would look to see who benefited the most from a non-exploit and "remedy" that group. I also fail to see how the reporting or non-reporting (regardless of timeliness) of a non-exploit would or would not "fool the devs."
As for the point about having brought a GM along before...I've *personally* invited Lisa to every Ustalavian escalation we've ever done when she's been on mumble. The time she finally comes results in ourselves and Lisa herself being slandered as cheats in this thread by a certain group touting their GM-bring-along experience.
I believe Tigari put it best when he said "We can sit here and debate this all day, but its all up to GW to decide." Indeed, I'll let GW have the last words: "...until they're fixed, those of you with a PvE bent might consider hunting them down." "I hesitate to truly call this an exploit, hence the -ish"
FMS Quietus wrote:
That's a different form of security risk, and actually IS inherent to this particular form of centralization. It's a totally valid criticism, but again I'd point out that I'm not proposing everyone use the same system, but rather explaining why my personal priority is the way it is.
That being said, global chat isn't really for the players already in groups and actively playing - it's for contacting new players and recruiting them, to help them realize this game actually has people playing and to more effectively help them. In those regards any form of out-of-game communication utterly fails to produce.
I don't see how you plan to solve the security issue of centralizing resources, whether it's on an account or a settlement bank. A bank *would* have a log (hopefully) that would prevent secret embezzlement, but that wouldn't stop any of the highest ranking officers from taking everything when they leave, should they choose. It's a problem that happens in basically every MMO, and is more an inherent problem with centralization than a problem with the systems used to centralize. Even if only one person, say the settlement leader, had access to the whole bank, that's still a person that won't necessarily be with your group forever.
That being said, it's true it isn't a solution for everyone, and doesn't obviate the need for banks, but for me *personally* (stressed it this time), the fact that we can form a system mechanically similar to a bank makes it a slightly lower priority than something like global chat, which I believe has a direct impact on game health. Quality of life changes are great, but my highest priority for development would be anything that can attract and keep new players.
@Thod the Everbloom Alliance
I believe the point here is not that we (TEO) had a better claim to the tower than EL, or that they had a better claim than us, but rather that two forces clashed for an unclaimed tower. There was no agreement securing that tower for EL, and they won against our roaming force, so they are hardly "victims" of the "expansionist" TEO (for reference, we took 21 towers, none of which were contested - the EL tower and one we fought Golgotha over went to each respectively).
Thod took the tower expecting pvp, and got some. There are no hard feelings on either side, and no complaint has been made by Thod, so it truly is a non-issue.
To be fair, I suspect we got WoT in both because people wanted change in what had become a pretty stagnant alpha, and because having us test it in alpha saves them time having to debug it entirely themselves. We'll likely get a far less buggy WoT patch down the road than we would have had all the bug-fixing been in-house.
That was my impression, but Nihimon mentioned that "inactive" settlements are protected for the first week of WoT, which implies we'll have settlements considered inactive before the week is up. If it's the case that settlements default to inactive after a one week period should they fail to claim their core towers, it should be written as such in the NAP, rather than the current (and confusing) text "Signatories also agree not to attempt to capture any of the Towers adjacent to a Protected Settlement for the first week of the War of Towers." How exactly does that differ from the normal protection afforded to Protected settlements under the NAP? It needs to be clarified with the active/inactive distinction.
OK, that still can be covered in the active/inactive clause though. Instead of making a specific clause dealing with capturing towers after a week, why not say that, among the other ways a settlement can be declared inactive, they are automatically considered as such if they fail to take all 6 towers in the first week, and they must have the signatories vote to make them active again?
" Signatories also agree not to attempt to capture any of the Towers adjacent to a Protected Settlement for the first week of the War of Towers." Is this meant to imply that if protected settlements don't take all 6 of their core towers within one week, that signatories can attempt to capture them? I would assume not, so this needs to be rephrased.
Other than that, I agree that all references to the 6 towers should be changed to refer to them as "core towers."
If the NAP only extends to the 6 adjacent towers from my understanding, which only puts them at the same capability as npc settlements - but with less buildings. If they want to provide some reason to use their settlement over an npc settlement, or if they want to get a reward for having a high number of average towers (it's been said before that the groups with the most average towers will get DI-boosting buildings after the cataclysm - or something very close to that effect), then they still need to fight for those extra towers. Given the number of towers that can be taken, and the incentives for taking more than 6 towers, I don't see a need to take away a settlement's baseline functionality by taking some of its initial 6 towers.
I could be mistaken Metric, but I thought it was the case that materials can randomly be upgraded to one of the two higher levels - so +1s can be 2/3, +2s can be 3/4, and +3s can be 4/5, it's just that +3s are the only way to have a chance at +5s.
@Diego that's true....there will certainly be some issues with that. TEO had largely circumvented those by having people who want gear donate all the materials/recipes they can't use and they will get gear back in exchange. It has some issues, but has proven to be highly efficient and effective in practice (in alpha at least). Part of the reason why it works is the lack of competition from other groups/AHs. If giving their stuff to us is the most reliable method to get gear back, they'll continue to do so.
<Kabal> Häagen wrote:
From my experience in TEO, the two systems don't compete as much as you'd think. This may be in large part due to our size and crafting ability, but a centralized system where people hand over the resources/recipes they don't need and get gear in return has been monstrously efficient. AHs could stand a better chance with a few improvements. For one, AHs need to be more regularly stocked to provide incentive for people to use them. Another constraining factor is that AHs are annoying to use, and you currently can't view information of other AHs (I know ryan has this planned).
Availability of goods on local AHs certainly affects trade agreements...if group A needs a bunch of coal, and there's a bunch on the local AH, great. The issue with that though, is you never know how much will be on the AH, and a local AH should suffer from the same geographical weaknesses that a nearby settlement suffers from, in this example the nearest coal sources being far away. A trade agreement is generally stable, for as long as political winds don't shift and your partner doesn't find a better source of what you're providing. It's all about procuring the most reliable sources of resources to meet the needs of your settlement, and trade agreements often strengthen ties among partners.
By not using the AH, I mean, if groups A and B have an agreement to meet in city Y on a certain day each week with the resources in hand, you'll just open a trade window and be on your way. There's nothing saying people engaging in trade can't use the AH at all, and a trade agreement may not be bringing in more resources than you can get through the AH, but trade agreements have the aforementioned advantages of stability. Even if you pick up a ton of cheap coal on a local Ah, enough to meet your needs for that week, you'd still continue with the trade like normal, because it's a long-term advantage.
As for choosing one over the other...the sheer efficiency of a centralized system is unmatched, but not all groups will have the size or organization to make it work, and players have to actually be willing to hand over their resources to make it work. That's more a matter of reliably crafting them gear...if they can hand over their resources to someone and receive the gear they need reliably, I find most people are willing to take part.
Popularity of either system means nothing to me, but as an aside it seems to me that a majority have chosen a decentralized system, at least for alpha.
As for players who don't have strong ties to settlement leaders...I assume you mean how do companies without strong ties to a settlement compete? The short answer is they don't. The long answer is it depends on what you mean by "compete." If you mean how can they reach the same level of crafting power or trade influence, then they simply can't, and there's no reason they should be able to. If you mean, how do they get the resources/gear they need, then the answer is they specialize. They become among the best for a certain craft, they become the best fighters, they become the best at *something*, or close to it. They then have a service they can offer to the larger global market. If they want to just do everything, then they won't be competitors...that's a valid play-style, but you can't expect to be small and generalized *and* competitive on a larger market.
I hope that answers some of your questions Haagen, and if you want to discuss further please pm me...I'd like to give Atheory his thread back :)
My point was that, if settlements A and B have a trade agreement, and the terms are, say, for settlement A to trade 1k coal to B for 1k iron, then they won't transport their goods to midpoint market and then put everything onto an AH instead of trading it to each other. They would at that point simply trade directly. The trade partners wouldn't be using the Ah, because both must fulfill the terms of the trade agreement...each settlement getting the resources they want isn't all that matters, because they need to get those resources from each other. That's why it's trading.
That being said, I believe it stands to reason that non-affiliated companies can't begin to compete with the manpower of large settlements, and thus can't take part in such large scale trading. But if they specialize, they can offer a unique service, or at least be good at a non-unique service, and therefore have something to trade for the resources they need.
Also, since I was the one involved in the conversation in general about AHs Haagen referenced, I'd like to defend myself. First, as anyone who saw the conversation should have seen, I never once belittled the AH system. I also never "favored" settlement-level trading (although I actually do, I never mentioned my prefences). What I DID say was that, for settlement-level trading, the AH will be skipped entirely. The AH has many uses...that is just not one of them.
A level 20 with very high quality facilities would have to be meeting a crazy demand to have his queue congested with T1 stuff. That being said, there's likely to be people who level crafting up to just 4-5, to meet those low-level demands.
It could very well be the case that +3 refined goods will flood the market...TEO had well over 2k +3 steel wire leftover from making one +4 armor. That shouldn't mean +3 items will be sold for less than +1/2, though, because as the cost of refined goods drops, so will the cost of producing +1/2 items (you can just substitute +0 or +1 refined goods). That's not to mention the fact that even if the cost of producing specifically +3 items dropped, the price of +1/2 items would drop anyways, because their price would have to be lower than that of +3 items to sell them.
Also, in your example, the +3 varnish requires 60% more resources than the +0, so your 50% figure might need to be much higher if you feel that's still too low.
8 Is the maximum for any role/feat currently, due to limitations on what npc trainers can train. With the next patch, and towers being able to upgrade settlements, we should start seeing lvl 9s. 10 is unlikely unless EE gets delayed and thus alpha extended.
@Urman yea, that's what's been discussed previously, but I'm not sure if the specific numbers are still current.